<prompt> Human: Im not sure whether this is really stupid. If so, please tell me in kind words and I will learn something new today. But I think more people can learn from this, hence why Im posting it.So: generally when you see historical prices of a stock, or of an index, the axis showing the prices is on a linear scale: the distance from 2 to 4 is as big as the distance from 200 to 202. However: I think that this is a bit unfair for stocks and indices. They generally grow by percentages of their previous value, and if that percentage is 10 and the price was 2, the new price is 2.20. However, if its the same percentage but the price was 200, the new price is 220. I think the 2 2.20 growth should look roughly the same as the 200 220 growth, but it doesnt do that on a linear scale.So... lets choose a logarithmic scale instead... I chose the 2 log , maybe somebody can tell me whether thats the best choice, or that I should have gotten with 10 log, or that it doesnt matter anyway? Whats easy about the 2log: if it goes up by 1, the price doubled - thats easy to remember, right?. Heres the original graph of the SP500 since 1950:SP 500 with linear scaleAnd heres the 2 log of the historical prices of the SP500 since 1950: SP 500 graph with logarithmic scalePersonally, Im amazed... I knew that the last couple of swings in 2004 and 2008 wouldnt be that bad if you would look at it logarithmically, but they actually almost seem to disappear in the general and normal movements of the markets...  <response>: This is not an uncommon approach. For example, here is a graph from the Wikipedia page about the SP 500: It shows the same information as your graph, just with a higher sample rate. 