They don't? Then why did you?
View attachment 69013
Read my post again:
They're the actual numbers. They don't use inflation-adjusted numbers to state the debt.
If they did, they'd be saying the debt in 1980 was $3.6 Billion, and not the $900 Million they state it as, and so on.
They might use inflation adjustments to make valid comparisons of data (like when they compare the cost of a car today versus 20 years ago), but you can see the actual figures and do the comparison math to verify.
Look closer so you can understand the difference between reporting nominal values, and values adjusted for differences in time.
Try it this way:
Use auto gas as an example.
The 1985 average price of gas was $1.20 a gallon
The 2024 average gas price was $3.30
A quick look at those numbers says
"in 2024, gas was more expensive than 1985". Of course it was, the number in 2024 was BIGGER. Right?
But that evaluation would be wrong. It's comparing apples to oranges
Adjusted for inflation, the 1985 price of gas was $3.69/gallon.
That means gas in 2024 was actually cheaper than it was in 1985.
Comparing a debt change in 1950 to a debt change in 2020 by dollar figures would be silly, just like comparing the wages of a fast food worker in 1970 to one in 2025 would be silly. There is no context for the numbers to be compared, or make sense.
Adjusting for inflation gives the necessary common denominator to show what really happened, as opposed to what nominally happened.
"But ours go to eleven" is a great comedic representation of a lack of context in comparing things.
news.gallup.com
