I have a copy of Armstrong's opus - it's quite lengthy, but the type size is about 12 pt., so it's very readable. He has each year as a chapter in a .pdf file - the last few years don't get an entire chapter, they have to share chapters. My HP LaserJet 4000 printer puts out 17 pages per minute, so I printed it out. Took me an entire evening. It's very good and it has a lot of good insights, but he took a completely different approach than the one I plan to use. I need to get a couple of ring binders and three hole punch it to make it easier to flip back and forth.
I think my approach should be easy to grasp from the title, "Where Did The Money Go?" I'm a lawyer, not an economist, and I am also an amateur historian. For years I worked full time and went to school at night, and studied history and political science. My favorite area of study at the time was 19th century Louisiana history - I have a very nice collection of 19th century Louisiana literature. As a senior at Tulane I was able to take graduate level courses and did quite well in them, all A's. So I understand the historical method somewhat.
When I was contemplating what to do next my choices were graduate school in history or law - everyone that knew me urged me to go into law, telling me that I would not enjoy dealing with the academic bureaucracy. I wish I'd gone into history, but law has been good for me.
I used to specialize in writing appeals, probably written maybe 50. I've learned how to put arguments together like a plumber puts together a series of pipes, or an electrician wires a house. Each piece has to fit together in an orderly progression, but more than that, if the water doesn't flow, or the electricity doesn't flow, then it doesn't matter how nice it looks, it's not right.
The evidence has to be there. It can't be assumed. Each piece of evidence must be verifiable. In an appeal, every time you assert a fact, you have to put a page number where it can be found in the record. Every time you make a legal argument, you have to put a case citation to a valid, authoritative case. The judges have law clerks who check every reference. If you screw up, you're in trouble. If you make things up, you're dead.
Of course, frequently many different arguments can be made using the exact same set of facts - sometimes the conclusion is inescapable, but not always. Inferences can be drawn different ways. That's the place for theory.
My complaint against economists is that they substitute theory for fact - they don't bother digging out the facts, they just assume them. |
