“Accumulation through waste”
You must log in or register to comment.
Aside from the obvious, it’s also interesting to see the stagnation under Brezhnev. Maybe if he had been more “authoritarian” instead of being a revisionist, one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century could have been avoided.
A large problem was that people who lived through WW2 had a lot of health problems as a result, and the best the healthcare system could do at the time was barely compensating for them.
Geez, even the dip from the war doesn’t bring them below the “democracy” gap.
The dip is from COVID.
Oh duh. I can’t read an x axis. Didn’t even notice it ended in 2023.
completely unrelated to the substance of this chart, but “y-axis should always start at zero” is one of those trueisms that needs to die. not all visual representation needs to be proportional, a 10 year drop in life expectancy isn’t a 14% event, it’s a 50% event, it’s war zone levels of life expectancy drop. the graph should start at somewhere around 40 years.
I very much disagree. There are extremely few cases where a y-axis shouldn’t start at zero. Anything that reasonably can be shown that way, should be, because the alternative just fucks with the monkey brain too much.
starting from zero is also fucking with your monkey brain, in this context downplaying the severity of the drop people actually experienced. all data representation is subjective. scale and origin point of charts are constantly manipulated in different scientific and statistical contexts to convey different information. obviously you have to be careful in order not to misrepresent your data, but always choosing zero can also lead to misrepresentation.
in this context downplaying the severity of the drop people actually experienced
Well… no, it isn’t downplaying it. It’s representing it perfectly. That’s quite literally the point.
When graphs aren’t zero-based, you immediately make a bad intellectual assumption as well as an ‘emotional’ reaction to the size of the graph. That immediate bad assumption poisons the way you think. We can’t eliminate that ‘emotional’ reaction, but we can (and do) standardise it and we consequently learn to gauge appropriately… only so long as people keep to that standard.
The only time you shouldn’t zero-base a graph is when the change is too small to reasonably decipher without enlarging the scale. I’ll die on that hill. If you do it for any other reason, you are just engaging in misleading emotional manipulation. There’s a place for emotional appeal, but by means of making you misunderstand reality isn’t it.
I think this would work better if some comparison countries were included. Then you could drop the white space after that.
idk, i feel like casting Soviet leadership in the same “authoritarian” light as Putin’s leadership isn’t really a good look
It is objective fact that since Vladimir Putin became president, the country has achieved more sovereignty, economic growth, and quality of living for its people as compared to the 10 years preceding him.
Whatever you think about the man, this is a major part of his legacy and also why he is legitimately very popular leader in Russia.
What’s the actual The Lancet source?
Oh man I typed 8.6 instead of 8.4 when I made this 🫠
Thanks for asking for source comrade.
It’s a preprint but fair enough, the methodology seems legit and it’s just a moderate increase over linear models. Thanks for the source, comrade.
Quite telling that on the abstract they omit Ukraine:
Per-capita excess mortality burden was highest in Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan
When their own graphs point otherwise:
The authors are likely aware that you can’t get an article published in 2026 Europe if you point to the dismantling of socialism as the cause for 3mn excess Ukrainian deaths.
It wasn’t the great leap of the Soviet Union, it was more like a… what’s a good word?
Fall?
