It is certainly true that tracking changes in stock prices and other pertinent figures help investors make decisions. That said, Nikhil’s main point stands – the fixation on changes, rather than levels, often obscures the bigger picture. For example, when a company's stock price is reported with only the change indicated, it is difficult to assess whether the new price is actually good or bad relative to the previous level. As Nikhil pointed out, it would be much more informative to the reader if the market cap was stated instead.
Also, focusing on the level of performance can be more meaningful than simply tracking percentage changes over time. It is easy to overlook the actual level of economic vitality or unemployment rate when conveying only the difference in values. For example, if the unemployment rate decreased 8% from 12% to 4%, this might not sound too drastic compared to a decrease from 2% to 0%. However, focusing on the levels of unemployment (12% versus 2%) paints a much clearer picture of how different economic climates can impact society.
It is true that delta is an important metric to consider, but for investors and news readers alike, it is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. Nikhil’s essay was spot on that changes and levels should be considered together in order to gain a deeper understanding of any given topic. Without considering levels alongside changes, one could be forgiven for missing the point entirely. Urrong?