On the ball.

Another Graham - Graham Greene, saw this sort of thing gaining traction decades ago.

This is a classic case of retrofitting Trump's erratic and directionless actions into a coherent strategy, in order to avoid facing what is, for some, a very uncomfortable and inconvenient reality:

Trump has no idea what he's doing, and is likely just stuck at a pre-reflective moral stage where power feels self-justifying and restraint feels arbitrary - a stage most of us had progressed passed by the time we were adults.

I now call it "the 4D-Chess myth".

The article repeatedly infers doctrine from rhetoric. Trump's rambling press conferences are treated as strategic signals, while contradictions and improvisation are reinterpreted as deliberate design. That's narrative smoothing, not evidence of planning.

The "broken windows" analogy is the clearest flaw. Policing metaphors don't scale to sovereign states. Venezuela is not a squatter camp; it is a complex political system with regional spillovers, alliances, and escalation risks. Treating regime change as tidy law-enforcement trivialises those dynamics.

The legal framing is similarly thin. Calling a military seizure of a foreign head of state "law enforcement" does not resolve the international law problem, it simply dismisses it. US law does not substitute for sovereignty by assertion alone.

Oil is also treated as a universal lever: stabiliser, bribe, deterrent, revenue stream, and electoral tool. This ignores infrastructure collapse, corruption, sanctions, long lead times, and the historical record of resource-driven instability.

Finally, the piece claims Trump rejects exporting democracy while repeatedly relying on democratic legitimacy when convenient. Democracy is dismissed rhetorically but smuggled back in narratively.

As MAGA storytelling, the article is internally consistent. As strategic analysis, it is speculative, metaphor-driven, and overconfident.

Poor old Chat Bot Johnny…he just ain’t got the understanding! (Maybe he’s the wrong colour, or gender).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/01/withdrawing-the-united-states-from-international-organizations-conventions-and-treaties-that-are-contrary-to-the-interests-of-the-united-states/

Trump is in fact, very focused, fail to see how, (unless your a free love and open borders Democrat), you dispute that!

Clearly my post irritated you, Muff Diver Dan.

Splendid.

That link doesn’t address my point at all, sorry. Withdrawing from international institutions shows hostility to multilateral constraints, not evidence of a coherent, pre-planned Venezuela strategy. I never claimed Trump was confused about his dislikes.

The issue is whether Graham is inferring doctrine from rhetoric after the fact, and smoothing over contradictions by treating improvisation as design. Posting an EO doesn’t answer that.

Also, reducing disagreement to “free love and open borders Democrats” is just a way of avoiding the argument. You can oppose international institutions and stil

Why not check out this reference
http://chrishedges.substack.com/p/the-narco-traficcking-elite-set-to

Two books
Black Pill by Elle Reeve
American Reich A New Age of Hate by Eric Lichtblau

I think that Trump thinks in terms of vassal states like AC, except in this case Venezuela is a vassal state.

Trump is far from stupid as he realises how little assistance Russia can offer, especially with the naval blockade. The occupation is limited to the oil producing area, and the US will be in almost complete control over what goes in and out of the country. Trump isn't dealing with psychotic fanatics controlling a brainwashed population, rather a gangster elite with a large excluded population that would be glad to see the back of them, much as you find in any socialist nation.

Seeing the revolting commies kicked out of central America would be prelude to increased stability and economic advance in the region, and a great achievement for Trump.

Such a contrast from the divisive cult leader Albo making a hash of the economy here with his team of ageing political activists.

Hopefully the Iranians can overthrow their theocratic oppressors.

Johnny CB.

#…Trump has no idea what he's doing, and is likely just stuck at a pre-reflective moral stage where power feels self-justifying and restraint feels arbitrary - a stage most of us had progressed passed by the time we were adult
I now call it "the 4D-Chess myth…#

Well, really.
"Society has a right to insure its own survival” . Stage five (a more accurate assessment I would judge), of the six stages of moral development in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which you seem to be alluding to as your guide to pillory Trump.

Anybody that cannot observe a definite planned direction to which Trump moves the two dimensional chess pieces, across a three dimensional world chess board, is ideologically blind and probably very stupid.

That’s enough for the moment, except to offer Daffy Ducks phone number if I had it; you pair would have a lovely night together on the porch under the glow of the red dragon.

Thanks, Muff Diver Dan.

You just handed me a gift with that last response of yours. You see, invoking Kohlberg doesn’t rescue your point, it undermines it.

Stage 5 reasoning is explicitly about social contracts, procedural legitimacy, and constraints on authority. Power is justified because it is constrained, accountable, and rule-bound.

What you’re describing instead is power asserting its own necessity. That mode of justification appears at multiple stages, including much earlier ones. Quoting “society has a right to ensure its survival” doesn’t locate the reasoning at Stage 5; it just supplies a slogan.

More importantly, none of this addresses my actual claim. I’m not arguing Trump lacks motives or reasons. I’m arguing that Graham’s article retrofits coherence by treating rhetoric as doctrine and improvisation as design.

If this is “strategy,” point to the constraints, sequencing, and trade-offs identified before the action. Strategy without constraints isn’t strategy; it’s narrative pattern-matching.

As for the insults, they don’t strengthen your case. They just signal how uncomfortable you are with the argument.

Johnny CB.

What stands out in your original post, is not an objection to the obvious meanings behind the article, but your Trump bitch-out, assembled with fake intelligence, and plied as fact but implicitly wrong, with its only achievement a demonstration of ideological bias, which frankly is childish, unoriginal and boring: I’ve pulled it apart at the first paragraph, and laid it bare for what it is …crap.

You can argue till the cows come home, but tell it to Daffy Duck, he’ll likely believe you, whereas…

Muff Diver,

I'm quite happy to defend what I said about Trump. I see nothing to suggest that Trump has any concept of what he is doing. Nor do I see anything to suggest that he has the ability to engage in any form of long-term planning.

Trump's actions have been a series of uncoordinated impulses driven primarily by emotion and dangerously disorganised thinking. And again, his mode of justification treats power as self-validating and restraint as optional.

These aren't insults, they're observable patterns (or the lack thereof).

If you think I'm wrong, point to a case where Trump accepted binding constraints, respected process over outcome, or refrained from action because legitimacy mattered. Not rhetoric after the fact - actual restraint before action.

Simply asserting "society has a right to ensure its survival" doesn't locate Trump at a higher moral stage. That slogan can justify anything, at any stage, including very early ones.

Until you can show reflective constraint rather than post-hoc narrative, calling this "strategy" is just retrofitting intention onto power.

Thanks for the article GY.

Johnny CB

#…Trump's actions have been a series of uncoordinated impulses driven primarily by emotion and dangerously disorganised thinking. And again, his mode of justification treats power as self-validating and restraint as optional…#

Give some examples.

#…These aren't insults, they're observable patterns (or the lack thereof).…#

You try to escape censure with a preceding apology, but you can’t hide the fact that your Trump bigotry gets in the way of logical analysis; and that is simply true, since you offer no evidence to back up your bigoted analysis of Trump.
I can only argue against your bigotry, which isn’t worth the effort.

It was truly said of Trump by the inestimable Salena Zito that ""When he makes claims like this, his enemies take him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally."

If you see Trump as a fool, then everything he does is seen as foolish. The problem there is you're constantly trying to find ways to rationalise his many successes, but the left is very practiced at rationalising away unwanted facts.

What an ode and all hail to the emperor DJT. So much forelock tugging and boot licking I’ve got a sore tongue just reading it.

Where to start? GY mentions: Trump’s “…occasionally rambling press conference…” Trump ‘occasionally rambling’? Seriously, that’s what he is known for, love it or loathe it. He is unable to string a coherent sentence together unless it is a personal attack on an individual he doesn’t like, or singing his own self praises.

A little further along we get this gem - “… Treasure will be spent judiciously…” That would be nice, but there has been no sign of that yet. Rather we have had the treasure distributed to the man himself, his family, his cronies, or his donors. Judicious spending of treasure? I don’t think so.

And on it goes, 3 pages of it. So much effort spent defending the indefensible. A bit like the Zionists expanding all that energy defending genocide. It just can’t be excused

Muff Diver Daniel,

You want an example? Is there even a counter-example?

I'll make it easier for you. Name what you think was Trump's best policy. Not a slogan. Not an intention. An actual policy choice.

I'll then describe, step by step, how it unfolded in practice: the impulsive execution, the absence of planning, the disregard for constraints, and the damage that followed.

No retrofitting motives. No speculation about psychology. Just his actions, in sequence.

If Trump "knew what he was doing," this should be easy. A coherent policy should survive simple description without collapsing into chaos, grievance, or retribution-driven impulse.

Pick your strongest example.
______

mhaze,

That Salena Zito line is catchy, but it doesn't do what you think it does.

Saying that supporters take Trump "seriously but not literally" is not a defence of competence, it's an admission that meaning is being supplied by the audience rather than constrained by the speaker. That's precisely the problem under discussion.

Serious leadership requires literal commitments at some point. Policy, law, deterrence, and strategy all depend on actors knowing what statements bind action and what statements don't. If Trump's words are never meant literally, then they cannot function as strategy, red lines, or doctrine.

This isn't about "seeing Trump as a fool." It's about observing a consistent pattern: action first, justification later; maximalist rhetoric followed by selective reinterpretation; and supporters retrofitting coherence after outcomes are known.

Calling the results "successes" doesn't resolve that. Outcomes alone don't demonstrate strategy unless they were pursued through articulated plans, accepted constraints, and identifiable trade-offs before the fact.

If you think Trump's record reflects strategic competence rather than improvisation smoothed by narrative, point to a case where he publicly bound himself to limits, accepted restraint, or abandoned a preferred outcome because legitimacy or process mattered.

Without that, "serious but not literal" isn't insight. It's a licence for unfalsifiable interpretation.

CB Johnny.

#…I'll make it easier for you. Name what you think was Trump's best policy. Not a slogan. Not an intention. An actual policy choice…#

It already is easy without your help. No..I won’t name anything. I’m not here on these opinion pages defending Trump, I’m criticising your hate session on Trump, which is so boringly familiar, and you dishing up the usual rhetoric of hand-me-downs which have appeared wherever they can be pushed, as original and meaningful; they are not, and they are no more meaningful or truthful from your contributions, simply repeats attempting to sharpen your repeated boring vector of spin.

Let’s move away from that line of thinking for a moment though, to discuss Trump as a comparison to Biden. To do that, one would need to compare the US now, as opposed to then, and the direction Trump has managed to redirect its future, and to actually give it a future with hope, as opposed to the direction Biden, under his erratic leadership, dragged it downwards on many levels, positioning it for a hopeless and ruinous future.

Go to town on that one CB Johnny, the Democrats handy-man.

Thanks, Muffin Man.

You've just answered the question - not with a policy, but with a refusal. I really expected you to list something, but this is even better!

I ask you to name Trump's best policy so it could be examined on its own merits. You decline. And not because the question is unfair, but because you know where it leads: once a concrete policy is named, the analysis can no longer be evaded with slogans, attitude, or grievance.

So now, you've switched to motive-policing ("hate session") and a Biden comparison. That pivot is doing all the work here. I'm not obliged to defend Biden in order to critique Trump, and the fact that you can't defend Trump without changing the subject demonstrates the very point I've been making from the start.

This was never about personalities or teams. It was about whether Trump's actions exhibit planning, constraint, and strategic coherence, or whether coherence is supplied afterwards by supporters.

You've now made that visible.

When asked for examples, you declined. When asked for a policy, you refused. When pressed on substance, you pivoted.

Again, thanks.

Johnny CB.

#… When asked for examples, you declined. When asked for a policy, you refused. When pressed on substance, you pivoted…#

A lot of words from CB, but very little substance.
Repeat: you’re the one attempting to make a case against Trump, not me. This conversation is a compass with a north pointing needle.
I’ve obliged you repeatedly with an invitation to state your case in detail; you either can’t or won’t.
I’ve made a very real suggestion to you, extending the invitation into an area all can relate to, and that is to compare Biden tenure to Trumps tenure as US President but you dodge and weave your way out.
As the leftist you unashamedly project yourself as, the use of “equivalence “ should be familiar ground to you.

Again, it’s not for me to defend Trump, it’s for you to make the argument against Trump policy; your proving an abismal failure on that score Johnny CB.

Correct, Muff Dive Man.

//Repeat: you're the one attempting to make a case against Trump, not me.//

And I've made that case clearly with the help of your inability to list even one policy without impulsive execution, absence of constraint, and post-hoc justification.

But since you're apparently happy to make things worse for yourself, here's an example from me...

Trade policy: tariffs were announced, escalated, paused, reversed, selectively waived, then re-announced, with justifications shifting between jobs, punishment, leverage, patriotism, and grievance depending on the news cycle. No stable framework, no stated limits, no trade-offs acknowledged in advance.

Would you like more?

Everything he's done is an example, so we can on forever if you'd like.

//This conversation is a compass with a north pointing needle.//

Metaphors don't substitute for engagement. If the direction is so obvious, it should be easy to point to a single Trump policy that demonstrates planning, constraint, and restraint.

//I've obliged you repeatedly with an invitation to state your case in detail; you either can't or won't.//

I've stated it repeatedly and in detail. What's missing is not explanation from me, but engagement from you. Declining to quote or rebut any specific point doesn't make the case disappear.

//I've made a very real suggestion… to compare Biden tenure to Trump's tenure…//

That's a pivot. Critiquing Trump does not require defending Biden. Switching comparisons is a way to avoid examining Trump's actions on their own terms.

//As the leftist you unashamedly project yourself as, the use of "equivalence " should be familiar ground…//

As the rightist, you fail to realise that equivalence cuts both ways: if Trump's conduct can't stand on its own without comparison, that's already informative.

//Again, it's not for me to defend Trump…//

Then there's nothing left to argue. You can't simultaneously refuse to defend Trump while insisting my critique fails. One of us has put claims on the table, the other has avoided them.

//…you're proving an abysmal failure on that score.//

Repeating that doesn't make it true. The case has been made. It simply hasn't been answered.

JD evades..."You want an example? Is there even a counter-example?"

Standard JD here. Makes a series of assertions which he purports to support with a series of other assertions, and when challenged for actual data, bolts. But he's happy to demand evidence from others which he'll then spend 10 posts trying to disparage and at the end of it, when shown to be wrong, deny that he tried to disparage it.

From Aries... "“… Treasure will be spent judiciously…” That would be nice, but there has been no sign of that yet. "

US Federal Budget deficit fell in 2025 and is projected to fall even more in 2026.
US trade deficit in October 2025, lowest since 2009.
The US real GDP grew by an annualized rate of 4.3% in Q3 2025. This is projected to increase to 5.1% in Q4.
Inflation is down to 2.6% for the year to October 2025. (Remember when all the 'experts' said tariffs would cause inflation to rise? Well forget it - they have as has JD).
Real wages for lower and middle income earners rose 1.1% in the year. What wouldn't Chalmers give for that type of result.

The US economy is going gangbusters thanks to Trump.

No, he doesn't, mhaze.

//JD evades...//

He explicitly asked for either a counter-example to make it even easier for diver dan, then later supplied a policy example himself when it was clear DD couldn't..

//Makes a series of assertions… and when challenged for actual data, bolts.//

Bolts? I'm still here and have provided diver dan with everything he's asked for.

//US Federal Budget deficit fell in 2025…//

A falling deficit can occur for many reasons: cyclical recovery, monetary tightening, lagged fiscal effects, or inherited policy settings. You haven’t shown a causal link to a specific Trump policy, nor that the outcome resulted from disciplined planning rather than circumstance.

//US trade deficit… lowest since 2009.//

Trade balances fluctuate with exchange rates, global demand, and energy prices. If tariffs were the strategy, you still haven’t articulated the framework, limits, or trade-offs in advance. Pointing to a number after the fact isn’t strategy, it’s correlation.

//GDP grew… Inflation is down… wages rose…//

Again, you’re listing favourable indicators and treating them as proof of intentional design. That’s precisely the retrofitting problem under discussion. Strong numbers do not retroactively supply coherence, constraints, or planning discipline.

//Remember when all the ‘experts’ said tariffs would cause inflation?//

Some did, some didn’t, and outcomes depend on timing, monetary policy, global supply conditions, and demand destruction. Even if tariffs didn’t raise inflation, that doesn’t establish they were part of a coherent, restrained strategy rather than a blunt instrument that happened not to bite in that way.

//The US economy is going gangbusters thanks to Trump.//

That’s a conclusion, not an argument. If you think Trump’s actions reflect strategic competence, the test is simple:

identify a policy where limits were acknowledged in advance, trade-offs were articulated, and restraint was exercised because legitimacy or process mattered.

Until then, citing outcomes is just post-hoc justification, not evidence of knowing what one is doing.

...Identify a situation where U.S. restraint was exercised because international law mattered.
The U.S. has shown the world it doesn't care, pirates at sea and on land too.
Now everyone will play by those rules.

"Remember when all the ‘experts’ said tariffs would cause inflation?"
- Depreciation in the U.S. dollar means it buys less every day...

"That’s a conclusion, not an argument. "

Yes, I gathered all the data (some of which I showed you here) and reached a conclusion. You should try it some time.

mhaze,

I'm not objecting to drawing conclusions from data. I'm objecting to skipping the argument that links specific policy design and constraints to those outcomes.

Without that step, you haven't shown strategy - only correlation.

But let's be honest, you haven't misunderstood me in good faith, you're flattening the distinction between evidence and explanation because keeping that distinction would collapse your defence.

Defence of what?

You're setting up a strawman and then demanding that I defend it. Same old JD. Trump has a set of policies aimed at making the US strong again and revitalising the US economy.

The US is strong again and the US economy is being revitalised (see above).

QED.

That's not a strawman, mhaze, it's your argument written out.

You've asserted intent ("policies aimed at revitalisation"), cited favourable outcomes, and declared causation. The missing step is the argument that links specific policies to those outcomes rather than to cycles, monetary policy, inherited settings, or external conditions.

Outcomes alone don't demonstrate strategy. They only demonstrate coincidence unless you can show mechanism, constraints, and alternatives ruled out.

Repeating "the numbers are good" and adding "QED" doesn't supply that step - it just skips it.

Try again.

Not a strawman? If you say so!

Standard TDS.

Trump says he wants to revitalise the US economy => the US economy is revitalised but nothing to do with Trump.

Trump says he wants to reduce the deficit => deficit reduced but nothing to do with Trump.

Trump says he wants to use tariffs to reduce the trade deficit => the trade deficit is reduced but nothing to do with Trump.

The world is passing them by and look around askant.

No, it's not, mhaze - and not because I say so, either.

//Not a strawman? If you say so!//

But thanks for the show of confidence.

It's not a strawman because it's your argument written plainly - and because you're unable to show otherwise.

You're asserting intent, citing favourable outcomes, and declaring causation. What's missing is the argument that links specific Trump policies to those outcomes rather than to cycles, monetary policy, lagged effects, or external conditions.

Asking for mechanism, timing, and counterfactuals isn't "TDS". It's how causal claims are evaluated in every serious field.

Repeating "Trump wanted X and X happened" does not demonstrate competence or strategy unless you can show how X followed from policy rather than coincidence.

Until that step is supplied, this remains post-hoc attribution, not analysis.

Back to you...

Yep any one of of those things could have been a coincidence and you'll assert that 'til the cows come home. But when taken as a group, coincidence becomes untenable. One favourable outcome is perhaps chance or timing. But a whole group of favourable outcomes becomes a trend, although the usual crowd will refuse to see it.

Oh, BTW, remember when Trump's tariffs were going to cause inflation? Well good inflation numbers is one of those things supporting a trend. Perhaps all those who fell for the line that tariffs would cause inflation would be advised to rethink their views.... but I know one who won't be doing that.

You're still multiplying outcomes to avoid explaining them, mhaze.

A group of favourable indicators doesn't make causation "untenable" unless you can show a common mechanism linking them to specific policy choices rather than to shared macro drivers. Correlation doesn't become causation by repetition.

Calling something a "trend" describes what happened, not why it happened. Strategy is demonstrated by ex-ante design, constraints, and trade-offs, not by scoreboard aggregation after the fact.

Regarding tariffs, saying they "didn't cause inflation" is not the same as "was a coherent, well-designed policy." Inflation outcomes are mediated by monetary policy, demand effects, and timing. Avoiding one predicted effect doesn't establish strategic competence.

You're asserting attribution with increasing confidence, not supplying the missing causal step.

Back you go...

Interesting pivot, mhaze.

//According to preliminary data, the world death rate from natural disasters in 2025 was the lowest ever recorded…//

Long-run declines in disaster mortality overwhelmingly reflect improved forecasting, infrastructure, emergency response, and wealth. They are not a proxy for hazard intensity or future risk. This distinction has been standard in the literature for decades.

//The climate hysterics are constantly talking about climate tipping points…//

Tipping-point discussions concern physical system thresholds, not short-term disaster death rates. Declining mortality does not speak to the existence or absence of such thresholds.

//A paper from 2024 was released… Nature has just withdrawn the paper…//

Retractions are a normal part of scientific self-correction. A single withdrawn paper does not invalidate a field supported by multiple independent lines of evidence. Treating retraction as narrative collapse misunderstands how science works.

//It now seems that the oceans are cooler now than at any time in the past 4.5 million years…//

Claims about deep-time trends over millions of years do not meaningfully address rapid forcing on century timescales. It is a category error to conflate paleoclimate baselines with modern anthropogenic change.

//Scientists are now saying they're not seeing any climate tipping points on the horizon.//

Vague appeals to what "scientists are saying" aren’t evidence. If there’s a substantive shift, it needs to be specified, cited, and shown to overturn existing constraints and attribution studies.

I’m not sure what this has to do with Venezuela, though.

JD,

You are fundamentally (not to mention monumentally) misunderstanding modern, (or ancient for that matter) economics. The idea that you expect that we can go from a particular policy decision to a particular policy outcome is ludicrous.

Things like Trump's Big Beautiful Bill were extraordinarily complex. But the myriad changes were aimed at one thing - revitalising the US economy. And stop me if I mentioned it before, but it is being revitalised as the figures that you're trying very hard to ignore, show.

The notion that someone could demonstrate the link between input and outcome in 350 words is childish. 350 books perhaps.

All one can do is look at the overall outcome and conclude that the original policies worked or are working.

Its a bit like when you tried to show that Trump's tariffs would cause inflation by looking at the policies and the likely outcomes. Oh wait....bad example because you were very wrong on that weren't you? OK its like when I looked at the policies on Australian meat tariffs and drew conclusion about the likely outcome. When that outcome came to pass, it showed that the policies were working.

This doesn't rescue your position, mhaze, it abandons it.

You've just said that it's "ludicrous" to expect policy decisions to be linked to policy outcomes in any demonstrable way, that systems are too complex, and that all one can do is look at aggregate results and declare success.

That's not economics. It's outcome attribution after the fact.

Complexity doesn't eliminate causation; it raises the evidentiary bar. If policies are too complex to be analysed, then claims that they "worked" are too complex to justify. You can't appeal to complexity to dismiss scrutiny and then immediately draw confident conclusions from the same system.

Saying "the economy improved, therefore the policies worked" is precisely the post-hoc reasoning I've been criticising. It's not that links must be shown in 350 words - it's that without any articulated mechanisms, constraints, or counterfactuals, the claim collapses into assertion.

And no, pointing to predictions that didn't materialise doesn't fix that. Avoiding one anticipated effect doesn't establish coherence, restraint, or strategic competence.

If your position is that policy evaluation can only ever be retrospective and aggregate, then say that plainly. But don't pretend that's the same thing as demonstrating strategy.

"This doesn't rescue your position,"

It doesn't need rescuing. You haven't even addressed it yet.

"You've just said that it's "ludicrous" to expect policy decisions to be linked to policy outcomes in any demonstrable way,"

No. And no again. Its ludicrous to think that all the intricacies from policy implementation to policy outcome can be minutely mapped. But going from policy implementation to outcome, which is what I originally said, is standard economics.

You set these impossible standards and then when its pointed out they are impossible declare victory. Standard JD.

I note that you haven't even bothered to try to deny that the US economy is revitalised. Its just that your TDS can't bring yourself to credit Trump and MAGA policies so you go with the idiotic assertion that its all just coincidence.

Wow!

mhaze,

Let's slow this down, because you're again arguing against a position I'm not holding - and doing so by oscillating between incompatible standards, no less.

//You haven't even addressed it yet.//

I have addressed it repeatedly. The disagreement is not about whether outcomes occurred. It's about what those outcomes justify us concluding.

//It's ludicrous to think that all the intricacies … can be minutely mapped.//

Agreed.

I've never asked for minutiae to be mapped. What I've asked for is some articulated causal story beyond intent → outcome. That's not an "impossible standard", it's the ordinary distinction between correlation and attribution.

//Going from policy implementation to outcome … is standard economics.//

Only when accompanied by mechanisms, constraints, and counterfactuals. Otherwise it isn't economics, it's retrospective inference. Complexity doesn't remove the need for explanation; it limits how confident we should be in attributing success.

//You set impossible standards and then declare victory.//

No. The standard is simple and consistent: if you claim policies //worked//, you need to say how they worked rather than pointing to aggregates and stopping there. If the system is too complex for that, then it's also too complex for confident claims of policy competence.

//You haven't denied that the US economy is revitalised.//

Correct - because I'm not disputing the numbers. I'm disputing the inference you're drawing from them. Accepting outcomes does not entail accepting exclusive causation.

//You go with the assertion that it's all coincidence.//

That's not my claim either.

My claim is that multiple plausible drivers exist, and without specifying why Trump's policies dominate those drivers, attribution remains asserted rather than demonstrated.

This isn't about TDS, MAGA, denial of outcomes, or even TBS (Trump Bootlicker Syndrome). It's about epistemic discipline.

If your position is that macro outcomes are sufficient proof of policy competence, then say that plainly. Just don't characterise a request for causal explanation as impossibly high when it's the very thing that distinguishes analysis from applause.

Take a deep breath, calm down, then get back to me - preferably without reframing my arguments this time.

You are right JD. The US economy under Trump is going gangbusters just as the MAGA policies as implemented promised and were designed to achieve. But improvement in the economy could have been caused by all sorts of things other than those MAGA policies.

Who knows maybe the numbers are fudged. Or it could have been aliens. Or the illuminati. Or the free-masons. Or the deity.

There are all sorts of scenarios where Trump's policies actually achieving what they promised had nothing to do with those policies.

So you keep believing that JD and looking around askant every time you fall for the next excuse for Trump's successes. BTW inflation figures were released for December overnight. They remain low. It seems the tariffs don't cause inflation after all. Who'da thunk it.

mhaze,

You've acknowledged that economic outcomes can arise from multiple drivers and aren't automatically attributable to a single policy set. That's the only point I've been making.

The question is what follows from that acknowledgment - whether favourable aggregates alone are sufficient proof of strategic competence, or whether attribution still needs to be argued rather than assumed.

I've never denied that the US economy improved, nor claimed Trump had zero influence. What I've disputed is the move from noting favourable outcomes to treating them as proof of strategic competence and coherence without any articulated causal account beyond intent -> outcome.

Pointing to low inflation or tariff outcomes after the fact doesn't resolve that. Avoiding one predicted effect does not, by itself, establish planning discipline, restraint, or foresight. It shows an outcome - not how, why, or under what constraints it arose.

If your position is that favourable aggregate results are sufficient proof of policy success regardless of mechanism or alternative drivers, then we're no longer disagreeing about Trump. We're disagreeing about standards of inference.

On that, I think the disagreement is now very clear.