Sardonicky: The Other War Against Women

The war against women is nothing new, and it isn't limited to the GOP misogynists who don't want us to have access to birth control. The war against women is really an economic one, waged by the .01 percent against the rest of us. The real war is the class war being waged against the women, men and children of the 99%. The birth control battle, while odious, is just a part of the larger oppression of poor women, working women, and minority women. Wealthy white women get treated with dignity and respect, regardless of the medical circumstances. Paris Hilton will never be forced to undergo an ulstrasound if she doesn't want one. 

You don't get the big picture by reading or watching the mainstream media accounts. The debate that rages is whether it's false equivalence to compare Rush Limbough's vitriol with Bill Maher's potty mouth. Liberals are torn between championing the hate machine's right to free speech and calling for its silencing. Reactionary politicians are trying to out-do each other in creative medievalism, turning routine ob-gyn visits into torture. There is not a little pornography in the current political discourse. 

And meanwhile, American women are still only earning about 82 cents to the man's dollar -- an apparent increase from just a few years ago, when we got 75 cents to the dollar compared to men. However, that increase is mainly due to the fact that men lost more jobs during the meltdown; the hard truth is that everyone's wages have shrunk. Men's pay decreased by two percent, while women lost an average of .09 percent. Moreover, black women still earn only 70% of what white men get, and Latinas, just 60%. 

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, much vaunted by the Obama Administration as one of his signature legislative accomplishments, really has had nothing much to do with the very slight improvement in the pay scales of working women. 

 As a matter of fact, Lilly Ledbetter herself is having trouble making ends meet on her meager retirement benefits. In an interview with WNYC this week, she said her income has fallen by over 50% since her husband died in 2008. Despite her fame and her seat of honor at the State of the Union address, she is "just scraping by." You can listen to the interview here. Instead of contributing to politicians who are co-opting this brave woman for their own ends, you might want to purchase Mrs. Ledbetter's new book. It's called "Grace and Grit." As she says in the audio, income discrimination is not just a woman's problem -- it's a family problem. I highly recommend listening to the whole thing. It will open your eyes and make you mad as hell. You'll find out how she did all the work herself to get the law changed, and that she didn't earn a single extra penny as a result of her efforts. 

 Jenny Brown of Labor Notes writes that over her lifetime, the typical working woman loses $379,000 because of the continuing income gap. And as Lilly Ledbetter has experienced, this loss carries over into retirement. Social Security benefits are predicated on the amount of lifetime earnings. And then too, wage discrimination is usually built right into jobs that are traditionally held by women. 

 Hospitality and retail jobs are a big part in the "improving" employment statistics, because the increasing wealth of the one percent has given them scads more money to burn in hotels and restaurants and stores. So of course thousands more servants and lackeys are needed to meet the needs of the very rich. And service industries are dominated by low-paid female workers. The average wage for a restaurant server is only $2.13 an hour -- well below the legal minimum wage, but exempt from the law because tips theoretically compensate. Only they often don't, because employers don't make up the difference as they are required to do. Some bosses force the wait staff to pool their tips among the cleanup crews and even pocket their own cut. 

 Then there's the hotel business. The Hyatt Chain, owned by the wealthy Pritzker family, is notoriously anti-union and anti-woman. Management ordered heat lamps turned on striking workers outside the Chicago hotel during a heat wave last summer. At the Hyatt hotel in Santa Clara, California, bosses celebrated “housekeepers appreciation week” last September by grafting photographs of housekeepers’ faces onto bikini-clad bodies on surfboards. If Hyatt employees want health insurance, a $400 monthly premium is deducted from their checks. Yet Hyatt heiress, Forbes billionaire and Obama bundler Penny Pritzker has a seat of honor at the White House Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. That should immediately suggest that this hilariously named in-house lobby of CEOs and a few token, co-opted big labor leaders has absolutely nothing to do with jobs. 

When you hear the word "job creator" in Washington, it refers to an oligarch who not only wants to keep more of his/her hoarded wealth, but wants to make sure what little the rest of us have left is taken away through "shared sacrifice." President Obama was happy to pose with Lilly Ledbetter at a few photo-ops, and never hesitates to use her name as a campaign talking point. But he also never dreamed of appointing her to his phony jobs council. She might have spoken too many inconvenient truths. She might have made Penny Pritzker uncomfortable. The war on women is bipartisan. The Republicans just have an uglier and more vocal way of expressing it. 

 

 

Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control \

Who Runs the World ? – Network Analysis Reveals ‘Super Entity’ of Global Corporate Control

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

In the first such analysis ever conducted, Swiss economic researchers have conducted a global network analysis of the most powerful transnational corporations (TNCs). Their results have revealed a core of 787 firms with control of 80% of this network, and a “super entity” comprised of 147 corporations that have a controlling interest in 40% of the network’s TNCs.

Strongly Connected Component (SCC); layout of the SCC (1318 nodes and 12191 links). Node size scales logarithmically with operation revenue, node color with network control (from yellow to red). Link color scales with weight.

[Note to the reader: see the very end of this article for a ranking of the top 50 'control holders']

When we hear conspiracy theorist talk about this or that powerful group (or alliance of said groups) “pulling strings” behind the scenes, we tend to dismiss or minimize such claims, even though, deep down, we may suspect that there’s some degree of truth to it, however distorted by the theorists’ slightly paranoid perception of the world. But perhaps our tendency to dismiss such claims as exaggerations (at best) comes from our inability to get even a slight grip on the complexity of global corporate ownership; it’s all too vast and complicated to get any clear sense of the reality.

But now we have the results of a global network analysis (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) that, for the first time, lays bare the “architecture” of the global ownership network. In the paper abstract, the authors state:

“We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure* and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.” [emphasis added]

* This “bow tie” structure is similar to the structure of the WWW (analyzing for most    influential/most trafficked websites); see diagram below.

A bow-tie consists of in-section (IN), out-section (OUT), strongly connected component or core (SCC), and tubes and tendrils (T&T).

Data from previous studies neither fully supported nor completely disproved the idea that a small handful of powerful corporations dominate much or most of the world’s commerce. The researchers acknowledge previous attempts to analyze such networks, but note that these were limited in scope to national networks which “neglected the structure of control at a global level.”

What was needed, assert the researchers, was a complex network analysis.

“A quantitative investigation is not a trivial task because firms may exert control over other firms via a web of direct and indirect ownership relations which extends over many countries. Therefore, a complex network analysis is needed in order to uncover the structure of control and its implications. “

To start their analysis, the researchers began with a list of 43,060 TNCs which were taken from a sample of 30 million “economic actors” contained in the Orbis 2007 database [see end note]. TNCs were identified according to the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) definition of a transnational corporation [see end note]. They next applied a recursive search algorithm which singled out the “network of all the ownership pathways originating from and pointing to these TNCs.”

The resulting TNC network includes 600,508 nodes and 1,006,987 ownership ties.

Bow-tie structure of the largest connected component (LCC) and other connected components (OCC). Each section volume scales logarithmically with the share of its TNCs operating revenue. In parenthesis, percentage of operating revenue and number of TNCs

In terms of the connectivity of the network, the researchers found that it consists of many small connected components, but the largest one (encompassing 3/4 of all nodes) “contains all the top TNCs by economic value, accounting for 94.2% of the total TNC operating revenue.”

Two generalized characteristics were identified:

1] A strongly connected component (SCC), that is, a set of firms in which every member owns directly and/or indirectly shares in every other member. The emergence of such a structure can be explained as a means of preventing take-overs, reducing transaction costs, risk sharing and increasing trust between “groups of interest.”

and

2] The largest connect[ed] component contains only one dominant, strongly connected component (comprised of 1347 nodes). This network, like the WWW, has a bow tie structure. What’s more, they found that this component, or core, is also very densely connected; on average, members of this core have ties to 20 other members. “Top actors” occupy the center of the bow tie. In fact, a randomly chosen TNC in the core has about 50% chance of also being among the top holders, as compared to, e.g., 6% for the in-section. [emphasis added]

“As a result, about 3/4 of the ownership of firms in the core remains in the hands of firms of the core itself. In other words, this is a tightly-knit group of corporations that cumulatively hold the majority share of each other.”

In examining the details of this core, the analysis also showed that only 737 top holders accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all TNCs (in the analyzed network). Further,

“despite its small size, the core holds collectively a large fraction of the total network control. In detail, nearly 4/10 of the control over the economic value of TNCs in the world is held, via a complicated web of ownership relations, by a group of 147 TNCs in the core, which has almost full control over itself. The top holders within the core can thus be thought of as an economic “super-entity” in the global network of corporations.” [emphasis added]

Concerning the implications of this super entity, the researchers asked two fundamental questions: First, what are the implications for market competition, and, second, what are the implications for economic stability?

Regarding the first question, the authors  assert that no matter the origin of the SCC, due to its high degree of TNC network control, “it weakens market competition”.

It is clear just from the history of anti-trust laws in this country that concentrated ownership stifles “free market” competition and innovation, reduces over-all employment, and leads to excessive pricing.

Zoom on some major TNCs in the financial sector. Some cycles are highlighted. Note: data for this analysis comes from the 2007 Orbis database -- prior to the 2008 financial crisis, thus, firms such as Bear Stearns and Lehman Bros. are included.

In regards to the second question, the researchers note that “the existence of such a core in the global market was never documented before and thus, so far, no scientific study demonstrates or excludes that this international ‘super-entity’ has ever acted as a bloc.“

However, there is historical data — such as within the airline, auto and steel industries — supporting this possibility.

“…top holders are at least in the position to exert considerable control, either formally (e.g., voting in shareholder and board meetings) or via informal negotiations.”

Additionally, recent studies (Stiglitz J.E., 2010, Battiston S. et al, 2009) have shown that densely connected financial networks are highly susceptible to systemic risk. Despite the fact that such networks may seem robust in good economic times, in times of crisis however, member firms tend to enter “distress mode” simultaneously. This was seen recently in the 2008 (“near”) financial collapse (note: 3/4 of the network core in this analysis are financial intermediaries).

Calling their findings “remarkable”, they suggest that because “international data sets as well as methods to handle large networks became available only very recently, [this] may explain how this finding could go unnoticed for so long.”

While the researchers acknowledge that verifying whether the implications of their findings “hold true for the global economy” is beyond the scope of their current research, they assert that their unprecedented attempt to uncover the structure of corporate control is “a necessary precondition for future investigations.”

The paper, The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) was published July 26, 2011, on arXiv.org

End Notes:

The Orbis 2007 marketing database comprises about 37 million economic actors, both phys
ical persons and firms located in 194 countries, and roughly 13 million directed and weighted ownership links (equity relations).  This data set is intended to track control relationships rather than patrimonial relationships. Whenever available, the percentage of ownership refers to shares associated with voting rights. Accordingly, we select those companies which hold at least 10% of shares in companies located in more than one country. Overall we obtain a list of 43060 TNCs located in 116 different countries, with 5675 TNCs quoted in stock markets.

The definition of TNCs given by the OECD states that they “…comprise companies and other entities established in more than one country and so linked that they may coordinate their operations in various ways…”

Diagrams: (source) The network of global corporate control (Vitali, Glattfelder, Battiston) 

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Top 50 Control-Holders Ranking:

{source: the following is quoted directly from the research paper]

This is the first time a ranking of economic actors by global control is presented. Notice that
many actors belong to the financial sector (NACE codes starting with 65,66,67) and many of
the names are well-known global players.

The interest of this ranking is not that it exposes unsuspected powerful players. Instead, it shows that many of the top actors belong to the core. This means that they do not carry out their business in isolation but, on the contrary, they are tied together in an extremely entangled web of control. This finding is extremely important since there was no prior economic theory or empirical evidence regarding whether and how top players are connected.

Shareholders are ranked by network control (according to the threshold model, TM). Columns indicate country, NACE industrial sector code, actor’s position in the bow-tie sections, cumulative network control. Notice that NACE codes starting with 65,66, or 67 belong to the financial sector.

Rank , Economic actor name, Country, NACE code, Network Cumul. Network position, control (TM, %)

1 BARCLAYS PLC  GB 6512  SCC 4.05

2 CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES INC, THE  US  6713  IN  6.66

3 FMR CORP  US  6713  IN  8.94

4 AXA  FR  6712  SCC  11.21

5 STATE STREET CORPORATION US 6713 SCC 13.02

6 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO. US 6512 SCC 14.55

7 LEGAL & GENERAL GROUP PLC GB 6603  SCC 16.02

8 VANGUARD GROUP, INC., THE  US 7415 IN 17.25

9 UBS AG  CH 6512  SCC 18.46

10 MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. US 6712  SCC 19.45

11 WELLINGTON MANAGEMENT CO. L.L.P. US 6713  IN 20.33

12 DEUTSCHE BANK AG DE 6512  SCC 21.17

13 FRANKLIN RESOURCES, INC. US 6512  SCC 21.99

14 CREDIT SUISSE GROUP  CH 6512 SCC 22.81

15 WALTON ENTERPRISES LLC US 2923 T&T 23.56

16 BANK OF NEWYORKMELLON CORP. US 6512 IN 24.28

17 NATIXIS   FR 6512 SCC 24.98

18  GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, INC., THE US 6712 SCC 25.64

19 T. ROWEPRICE GROUP, INC. US 6713 SCC 26.29

20 LEGG MASON, INC. US 6712 SCC 26.92

21 MORGAN STANLEY US 6712 SCC 27.56

22 MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. JP 6512 SCC 28.16

23 NORTHERN TRUST CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 28.72

24 SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE FR 6512 SCC 29.26

25 BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION US 6512 SCC 29.79

26 LLOYDS TSB GROUPPLCGB 6512 SCC 30.30

27 INVESCOPLCGB 6523 SCC 30.82

28 ALLIANZSE DE 7415 SCC 31.32

29 TIAA US 6601 IN 32.24

30 OLD MUTUAL PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY GB 6601 SCC 32.69

31 AVIVAPLC GB 6601 SCC 33.14

32 SCHRODERSPLC GB 6712 SCC 33.57

33 DODGE & COX US 7415 IN 34.00

34 LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC. US 6712 SCC 34.43

35 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL, INC. CA 6601 SCC 34.82

36 STANDARDLIFEPLCGB 6601 SCC 35.2

37 CNCE FR 6512 SCC 35.57

38 NOMURA HOLDINGS, INC. JP 6512 SCC 35.92

39 THE DEPOSITORY TRUST COMPANY US 6512 IN 36.28

40 MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSUR. US 6601 IN 36.63

41 INGGROEP N.V.  NL 6603  SCC 36.96

42 BRANDES INVESTMENT PARTNERS, L.P. US 6713 IN 37.29

43 UNICREDITO ITALIANO SPA IT 6512 SCC 37.61

44 DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION OF JP JP 6511 IN 37.93

45 VERENIGING AEGON  NL 6512 IN 38.25

46 BNPPARIBAS  FR 6512 SCC 38.56

47 AFFILIATED MANAGERS GROUP, INC. US 6713  SCC 38.88

48 RESONA HOLDINGS, INC.  JP 6512  SCC 39.18

49 CAPITAL GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.  US 7414 IN 39.48

50 CHINA PETROCHEMICAL GROUP CO.  CN 6511 T&T 39.78

Source: Planetsave (http://s.tt/138oe)

Define Rich, Part III. What the tax tables of yore say.

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/09/define-rich-part-iii-what-tax-tables-of.html

Posted by Divorced one like Bush | 9/01/2011 02:03:00 PM

12 comments

By Daniel Becker

Randolph Duke: Money isn't everything, Mortimer.

Mortimer Duke: Oh, grow up.

Randolph Duke: Mother always said you were greedy.

Mortimer Duke: She meant it as a compliment.

Trading Places 1983

A while ago (an understatement) I posted on the question of what is rich. The first dealt with what issues to consider in defining rich. The second was looking at the issue of getting rich if that is even what one wants to do. The “rat race”. I don't believe most people really want to be rich. I believe most people when thinking about being rich are thinking about what it would take to remove the fears of events that would make one's life either very difficult in a world that requires money to remove risk or drastically different from what one's life was. I'm thinking things like losing a job, debilitating injury or illness possibly resulting in physical disability or Louis Winthorpe III.

This all ties into “The American Dream”. The “Dream” is not just an ideology of governance and social philosophy. It is also a life style and thus requires a specific level of income. I have posted on this issue also and noted just how high in income we have driven this “Dream” such that two people with bachelor’s degrees just starting life together may not be able to have it.

Now that we have entered a period where taxes are on everyone's minds such that there is serious consensus to raising taxes, maybe we need to see what we had in the past to know what we need now. I am sure most readers are aware of Mike's work defining what rates appear to effect economic growth the best. If I recall correctly the number for the top 1% was around 65%. I have also suggested that there is a range as to how large a share of the income the top 1% should have. That number for the top 1% is not to be above 15% and not to much below 10%.

I should also mention my postings on taxation’s purpose. Specifically I looked at taxing from the perspective of the legal profession as oppose to the economic profession. The conclusion was that there was one main reason for taxing. It is to fulfill the directive of our constitution: equality of power. It is to assure the concept of one voice one vote. If there was ever a time in our history to raise taxes in order to assure this directive it is now in the age of the Citizens United ruling. President FDR referred to the issue and those with the one voice multiple votes do to their monied power as “economic royalty”. I like that phrase and I wonder why it is not used as are retort to those who use “class warfare” as a guilt trip.

Let's get started.

I have constructed 4 sets of data using the tax rates of 1936/37, 1945/46, 1965/67 and 2010. I chose 1936 because it is a tax rate increase after the economy had turned north based on Mikes posting. I chose 1945/46 because it is another adjustment that happens right after after WWII. I chose 1965/67 because it is the decrease often spoken of fondly. Of course 2010 is because that is where we are at.

This posting would be hugely long if I post on all 4 periods at once, so I have broken it up. Let me first and I think most importantly note that we people today have no idea just how much we were willing to tax ourselves to have the society that we now refer to as “the good old days”. Not only did we have the tax tables of 1936, that table eventually had a 10% surcharge added to pay for the war. Yes, another reason to consider the generation that fought the 1^st and 2^nd world wars the greatest generation. There was a 7% surcharge for the Vietnam war, though that number became less as time passed. Still, we knew that if we wanted to do exceptional things, we had to tax ourselves exceptionally. Also, the early taxation made no distinction for single or married, never mind filing joint or separate. Everyone paid the same rate. Most interestingly, with the current table, the people who comparatively get screwed are those who are married and file separately. All the rates kick in at a lower income than even those who are single. The other thing we don't seem to understand is that all the tax rhetoric we have been hearing since Reagan we've heard before virtually to the word.

Andrew Mellon, Treasury Secretary 1921 to 1932 :

Generally speaking, Mellon argued that tax burdens were too high. Steep rates, he insisted, served only to stifle incentive and foster tax evasion. “Any man of energy and initiative in this country can get what he wants out of life,” he wrote. “But when initiative is crippled by legislation or by a tax system which denies him the right to receive a reasonable share of his earnings, then he will no longer exert himself and the country will be deprived of the energy on which its continued greatness depends.”

Worse yet, Mellon argued, high rates didn’t even raise money. By encouraging both legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion, they eroded the tax base and reduced overall revenue. Lower rates, he said, would actually raise money by spurring economic growth and reducing the incentive for tax avoidance. “It seems difficult for some to understand,” he complained, “that high rates of taxation do not necessarily mean large revenue to the government, and that more revenue may actually be obtained by lower rates.” In particular, Mellon insisted that high rates distorted investment decisions, boosting the popularity of tax-free state and local government bonds. Indeed, Mellon made these tax-free bonds a regular target of his reform attempts, but Congress resisted his plans to eliminate them.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't even written then!  What we don't hear much of are the original concerns and reasoning for progressive taxation. Teddy Roosevelt:

1906...We should discriminate in the sharpest way between fortunes well-won and fortunes ill-won; between those gained as an incident to performing great services to the community as a whole, and those gained in evil fashion by keeping just within the limits of mere law-honesty.

1907 regarding an income tax:...while in addition it is a difficult tax to administer in its practical working, and great care would have to be exercised to see that it was not evaded by the very men whom it was most desirable to have taxed, for if so evaded it would, of course, be worse than no tax at all; as the least desirable of all taxes is the tax which bears heavily upon the honest as compared with the dishonest man.

No advantage comes either to the country as a whole or to the individuals inheriting the money by permitting the transmission in their entirety of the enormous fortunes which would be affected by such a tax; and as an incident to its function of revenue raising, such a tax would help to preserve a measurable equality of opportunity for the people of the generations growing to manhood. We have not the slightest sympathy with that socialistic idea which would try to put laziness, thriftlessness and inefficiency on a par with industry, thrift and efficiency; which would strive to break up not merely private property, but what is far more important, the home, the chief prop upon which our whole civilization stands. Such a theory, if ever adopted, would mean the ruin of the entire country--a ruin  which would bear heaviest upon the weakest, upon those least able to shift for themselves.

At this moment, I want to mention corporate taxes. There are lessons to be learned from it's history. I think it is a factor in understand more completely the issue Mike is focusing on: taxation and GDP growth. Wrap your minds around the fact that from 1936 to 1943 there were 6 years that corporate tax collections were greater than personal income tax collections. 1943 was the best year for this as personal income tax collections were 68.1% of the corporate tax collections. Just one year later it flips to corporate tax collections being 75.3% of personal income tax collections. In 1944 $34,543 million in total for the two taxes was collected vs 1943 $16,062 million in total.  In fact, personal income taxes remain in the mid to high 40 percent of total revenue collections from 1944 to present. The corporate share of total revenue peaks in 1943 at 39.8% and declines to hover around the 10% level with a few ventures into the single digits. Most notably 1983 the corporate share was 6.2% and 2009 it was 6.6%.

First up is our current tax table. I used the “married filling jointly” as that would be consistent with the other tables. One big rule of this series of postings: DO NOT concern yourself or me about the deductions that exist. They do not matter for this presentation and for all intent and purposes we can consider the income to have already gone through the deduction calculator and is now ready to have the tax table applied. This is because, these tables only apply to adjusted gross income.

You will notice that the table is calculated out to $,1,000,000 of income. I did this in order to keep all the tables going to the same income level. The 1936 table actually has rates for incomes up to $8 million. That is $8 million in 1936. (Using my favorite money converter that would be $301,000,000 in unskilled labor or $573,000,000 in GDP/capita.) Going to $1,000,000 in income also allows one to see what happens at the top when the rate no longer rises.

A very important concept to understand is that not every dollar is taxed at the single percentage rate as you go up the income ladder. Thus, there are two columns in my charts. The “Marginal Tax” is the additional money paid at the top of the bracket for the corresponding rate. The “Total tax” is the actual money paid up to that level. It is the “effective rate”. In simple terms, if you are at the 35% level, you 

are not paying 35% on all that you earn. Instead you are paying the amount based on your income being divided up into the number of brackets that exist. For 2010, there are 6 brackets, thus you have six different incomes so to speak.

This is what it looks like as a graph.

When the rate maxed out, I divided the range to $1 million into even parts so that the tax paid for each additional income level is the same. For the 1945/46 and 1965/67 data sets I converted the net income to 2010 dollars. I used the “unskilled labor” and GDP/cap as those are the 2 factors suggested as being the best for knowing what income equivalents are over time. The 1936 data set is converted to 1967 dollar because the numbers just get crazy. For example, a net income of $3840 is $145,000 in unskilled labor and $275,000 in GDP/cap. Though it is only $60,400 via the CPI. Which doesn't say much for today's median family income. It also gives us a clue as to just how much money is considered “rich”.

Next posting, I will start presenting the historical data sets. I'm still thinking about the best way to do it as what is important is the comparison among the data sets.  Maybe post just the data charts and later the graphs or maybe one data set and it's graphs at a time.