[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

I agree with your first statement, and your second may be right. My point was that the chart doesn't prove anything; because the data presented was clearly cherry-picked. Whenever you see cherry-picked data being used to bolster an argument, alarm bells should be ringing in your head. The chart made me dubious about the whole article.

[nkycincinnatikid]

To call that chart incredible due to “cherry picked data” is sort of whistling past the grave yard.
Had another year in the late 70’s or early 80’s been used in place of 1981 the difference would likely have lowered the column only a few percent at best.
Had data for 2010 even been available in place of the column for 2009 the difference would probably not have been a percentage point.
You may well find the chart unimportant, but it is entirely credible.

[hinckley buzzard]

Each of the years depicted represented a recession/depression, including 2009. I think the author was making a point by comparing years of similar economic ill health. This would seem to be far more useful than an arbtirary " twenty year interval" or the like.