22. Entice, or fail.

It's political. It satisfies some perverse urge to read (or say) something that makes your opponent look like a fool. But it's not productive.

If you're trying to convince people that your economic point-of-view (or, whatever) is the right one, making your opponent look like a fool will be cheered by those who already support your position. But it won't win you any converts from among your opponents. It's not productive.

That's what I think.

//

First use.

21. Introduce the Idea First

My "Federal Debt is NOT the Problem" post is finally starting to work for me. The writing is coming along now. I'm at the "Timing is Everything" part, and interrupt myself to make this note.

Here's how that section starts right now:

Okay, so government debt is low, compared to private debt. You can still say paying down the federal debt will fix the economy. But I don't think that's true. I think it is private debt that is holding the economy down.

Gently, I hope, I introduce the idea that I want to talk about.

I have a tendency not to do that. Usually I want to throw the facts at you so they hit you like they hit me. And at the end of that session, I expect you to reach the same conclusion I reach. For me, I don't reach a conclusion until the thing is inescapable. There is no other option. I reach a conclusion only because I must.

But writing it that way doesn't work very well. People don't know where you're going. You need to tell'em where you're going, first. I think so.

Sometimes, "or" complicates things

I'm writing a post right now on my "test" blog, that when it is ready will move to my "Arthurian economics" blog. I'm interrupting that to do this.

Here's what I'm writing:

Rickards' conclusion is that there is no way out of the problem. As he puts it, "there is no exit."

Here's how it was before I fixed it:

Rickards' conclusion is that there is no way out of the problem. Or, as he puts it, "there is no exit."

With the "or" in there, the reader is forced to make a comparison. This slows things down and tears my own argument apart.

When I take the "or" out, the second sentence builds upon the first one, and strengthens the idea I want to convey.

Or so it seems to me.