You have the data. You are rational and factual. It amazes me that so much of the world runs on bravado and hype, when they could just base their decisions on facts instead. (Okay, I’m no longer naive enough to be amazed; it’s more of a sadness at human frailties and flaws.)
Last year, I was reading Roger Simon’s book, “American Refugees”, about Americans relocating because of Woke government policies. I was preemptively searching for a non-Woke place to move to, once I’m widowed. I was about fifty pages into the book when I consciously realized what was bothering me about the book: there was no supporting data. The author was just telling stories. Where were the charts and graphs, the numbers, the rates of change, the hard data on which I could make a decision? I realized that Peter Nayland Kust, with his scrupulous adherence to facts, evidence, and data had ruined other authors for me. Having been trained to be an engineer, I’ve always had a preference for hard data,but because of your rigorousness, Peter, I’m no longer content with reading mere stories.
There's nothing wrong with stories. There's quite a bit right with them. Stories are the essential means by which we exchange wisdom.
But if we're going to be talking about the real world, about empirical reality, we have to ground our stories in empirical reality. The stories have to be connected to verifiable facts, evidence, and data, or they are meaningless. Worse, they can present a view of the world distinctly at odds with that reality, which people use at their peril.
If we are discussing the state of the overal US economy, or the overall global economy, or anything similar, we have to use the actual economic data. We can't ignore the inconvenient data points simply because they disrupt our preferred narrative.
Stories grounded in facts are always going to be the best stories, bar none.
Was Trump 1.0 intentionally purusing the balanced trade framework advanced by Jesse Richman on the topic?
I don't know that there was any indication Trump's trade policies during his first term were specifically informed by Richman's thesis on balanced trade, and I don't know there's any indication Richman's thesis plays a role in the current Trump Administration's trade poliices.
However, there's no denying that Donald Trump's trade priorities have always been making deals which were of ecnomic advantage to the United States. It is not hard to see parallels to Richman in Trump's trade policies then and now.
Trump may not be consciously following Richman's playbook, but it wouldn't surprise me if he lands on a page here or there by accident!
You have the data. You are rational and factual. It amazes me that so much of the world runs on bravado and hype, when they could just base their decisions on facts instead. (Okay, I’m no longer naive enough to be amazed; it’s more of a sadness at human frailties and flaws.)
Last year, I was reading Roger Simon’s book, “American Refugees”, about Americans relocating because of Woke government policies. I was preemptively searching for a non-Woke place to move to, once I’m widowed. I was about fifty pages into the book when I consciously realized what was bothering me about the book: there was no supporting data. The author was just telling stories. Where were the charts and graphs, the numbers, the rates of change, the hard data on which I could make a decision? I realized that Peter Nayland Kust, with his scrupulous adherence to facts, evidence, and data had ruined other authors for me. Having been trained to be an engineer, I’ve always had a preference for hard data,but because of your rigorousness, Peter, I’m no longer content with reading mere stories.
That’s not a bad thing.
There's nothing wrong with stories. There's quite a bit right with them. Stories are the essential means by which we exchange wisdom.
But if we're going to be talking about the real world, about empirical reality, we have to ground our stories in empirical reality. The stories have to be connected to verifiable facts, evidence, and data, or they are meaningless. Worse, they can present a view of the world distinctly at odds with that reality, which people use at their peril.
If we are discussing the state of the overal US economy, or the overall global economy, or anything similar, we have to use the actual economic data. We can't ignore the inconvenient data points simply because they disrupt our preferred narrative.
Stories grounded in facts are always going to be the best stories, bar none.
Really well said!
As always, thanks for the high praise! I am truly honored.
Was Trump 1.0 intentionally purusing the balanced trade framework advanced by Jesse Richman on the topic?
I don't know that there was any indication Trump's trade policies during his first term were specifically informed by Richman's thesis on balanced trade, and I don't know there's any indication Richman's thesis plays a role in the current Trump Administration's trade poliices.
However, there's no denying that Donald Trump's trade priorities have always been making deals which were of ecnomic advantage to the United States. It is not hard to see parallels to Richman in Trump's trade policies then and now.
Trump may not be consciously following Richman's playbook, but it wouldn't surprise me if he lands on a page here or there by accident!