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//A paper from 2024 was released… Nature has just withdrawn the paper…//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 A single withdrawn paper does not invalidate a field supported by multiple independent lines of evidence.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.