Paul, you were in DC for a long time (perhaps still there). This data is clear and incontrovertible, really. As is most of what you post. Why is it ignored by virtually everyone? Has it become true that shouting lies loudly enough to get elected now routinely overrules the truth? And what about those who should be ahead of the curve just be saying what is true?
I have some personal sensitivity on this being similar to the whole covid thing (when covid began I was Chief Scientific Officer of a very large health care organization). I routinely noted that everything people said or did was likely wrong and that we should be thinking differently. (And I was generally completely correct.) But no one was interested in facts, the truth, or anything close. It still causes my head to spin Exorcist style.
But one can posit the covid mess to a time-limited toxic mix of power seeking on behalf of a few and fear on behalf of many. The economic issues you discuss have long trajectories over which to view the facts. If I were a Republican, for instance, I would be dragging your work out daily to show what ACTUALLY is going on.
But you were there. Just interested in any thoughts you might have. My head is going back to Exorcist mode, the more of this I actually see as clearly as you present it.
Great question, as always, Dr. K. I don't work for the House of Representatives at the moment (I'm "semi-retired," as they say) but when I did work for Congress I produced the same sort of written materials I write about here on Substack. But put yourself in the position of a Member of the House of Representatives, who has to run for reelection every two years. I write about the "Big Picture," which has to do with long-term trends for the most part, whereas people running for reelection every two years tend to focus on the near-term picture and focus on the perceived popular positions of the moment. For a Member of the House of Representatives, it's a tough position to be in, because the more truthful you are about the long-term picture, the less likely you may be to win a short-term election, which tend to be influenced by the extent to which constituents see their Members as "bringing home the bacon." A principled yet pragmatic Member of the House of Representatives has to walk a fine line: namely, do what you can to make incremental progress on long-term problems while also not rocking the boat so much that you upset short-term reelection prospects. I would not want that job.
Paul, you were in DC for a long time (perhaps still there). This data is clear and incontrovertible, really. As is most of what you post. Why is it ignored by virtually everyone? Has it become true that shouting lies loudly enough to get elected now routinely overrules the truth? And what about those who should be ahead of the curve just be saying what is true?
I have some personal sensitivity on this being similar to the whole covid thing (when covid began I was Chief Scientific Officer of a very large health care organization). I routinely noted that everything people said or did was likely wrong and that we should be thinking differently. (And I was generally completely correct.) But no one was interested in facts, the truth, or anything close. It still causes my head to spin Exorcist style.
But one can posit the covid mess to a time-limited toxic mix of power seeking on behalf of a few and fear on behalf of many. The economic issues you discuss have long trajectories over which to view the facts. If I were a Republican, for instance, I would be dragging your work out daily to show what ACTUALLY is going on.
But you were there. Just interested in any thoughts you might have. My head is going back to Exorcist mode, the more of this I actually see as clearly as you present it.
Thanks
Great question, as always, Dr. K. I don't work for the House of Representatives at the moment (I'm "semi-retired," as they say) but when I did work for Congress I produced the same sort of written materials I write about here on Substack. But put yourself in the position of a Member of the House of Representatives, who has to run for reelection every two years. I write about the "Big Picture," which has to do with long-term trends for the most part, whereas people running for reelection every two years tend to focus on the near-term picture and focus on the perceived popular positions of the moment. For a Member of the House of Representatives, it's a tough position to be in, because the more truthful you are about the long-term picture, the less likely you may be to win a short-term election, which tend to be influenced by the extent to which constituents see their Members as "bringing home the bacon." A principled yet pragmatic Member of the House of Representatives has to walk a fine line: namely, do what you can to make incremental progress on long-term problems while also not rocking the boat so much that you upset short-term reelection prospects. I would not want that job.