Fair enough - my comment complaining about the quality of content on Twitter was admittedly pretty low quality.
When I said "Twitter is terrible when it comes to cherry picking stats out of context", I was referring to the fact that the Tweet doesn't link to its source, and that it only shows 2 years (instead of a line chart which would show all the years in between). It also doesn't make any attempt to interpret the data (e.g. why or what it means).
I view the parent comment as adding context. They linked to the source of their data and also included their interpretation - which other people can then agree or disagree with instead of having to guess what they meant. So yes I think this is a much more constructive post than the original tweet.
Note: I now see that they linked to the source WSJ article beneath the original tweet, but that was not clear to me when I made my earlier comment (and I see other people on Twitter asking about the source so it's not just me who missed it). I still think that twitter in an inferior platform for discussing nuanced topics like economics than, say, HN.
