The firemen on the ground are clearly having a hard time putting out the forest fire. The fire department sends a helicopter to help with the fire-fighting efforts. In just three attempts the helicopter has reduced the fire by two-thirds but the fire is still slowly spreading. Some are calling for more helicopter trips to put out the fire completely, others believe there is no longer the need for the helicopter and point out the dangers of potential floods if the fire department overdoes it. They prefer to continue fighting the fire on the ground.
I am not saying that the fire cannot be stopped on the ground, what I’m saying is: the danger of trying to control the fire, without the use of the helicopter, is that if the ground attempts are not successful there is a potential for the fire to spread again, faster than before!
To me, it is illogical to assume that the fire is now contained just because we got one good employment number or perhaps an OK GDP number.
The one sure thing is that the majority of analysts/economists now agree that the correlation of the helicopter use and reduced spread of the fire clearly implies causation!
The fallacy in their thinking is that we don’t need more helicopter attempts simply because we have already seen improvement. But the fire department’s goal is to put out the fire completely it’s not to listen to those who actually opposed the use of the helicopter from the start. Those “experts” were wrong, the fire department was right! So why listen to them now?
Although the majority of my posts are rich in secondary and tertiary layers of meaning, most verging on the mystical, however, the above is coldly pragmatic…