All it would take is one good argument at the level of mechanism: what is good—nay, better—about a ruler that shrinks by a factor of 6 in 50 years? Mechanism—not faith that someone else must know about mechanism. An actual grounded reason.
Also—what is better about reducing borrowing power by a third? Check out my 75-year graph. Simple concept: borrowing power with and without indexing. Generate your own graph, if you doubt mine; it’s not very hard. Mechanism, not hearsay. Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
So you’re saying my observation of facts is insufficient, I need an abstract argument to convince you? Fortunately, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to convince the audience.
Did you read “Thumbs up from 3 Nobelists” in the mortgage post?
Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
All it would take is one good argument at the level of mechanism: what is good—nay, better—about a ruler that shrinks by a factor of 6 in 50 years? Mechanism—not faith that someone else must know about mechanism. An actual grounded reason.
Also—what is better about reducing borrowing power by a third? Check out my 75-year graph. Simple concept: borrowing power with and without indexing. Generate your own graph, if you doubt mine; it’s not very hard. Mechanism, not hearsay. Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
So you’re saying my observation of facts is insufficient, I need an abstract argument to convince you? Fortunately, I’m not trying to convince you. I’m trying to convince the audience.
Argument from reputation is the opposite of science.
But an appropriate response to someone who relies on it.