The problem is inherent in the method. By using long term fiscal interventions or making confidential guarantees we have a situation where neither President Obama nor his critics can show whether or not things are being ‘solved’. This limitation is built into a condition where linear solutions applied over years (as in the stimulus package) are applied to a dynamic, complex system which is reacting on a much shorter time scale. David Brooks is reduced to ‘hoping’ BHO succeeds. And hope all you have, because there is no feedback information available to show whether or not the actions taken so far are helping or hindering; that is, except for economic indicators like the stock market, interest rates, jobless numbers.

So we are left to assume that despite appearances (i.e. tanking stock market), the Cavalry will come riding over the horizon at the appropriate moment, even though our information horizons don’t allow us to determine exactly where the Cavalry is. Hope aside, this inevitably means uncertainty because we are betting the farm on the eventuation of something whose position we can’t track. No feedback loop, ergo no way of knowing.

That uncertainty will contribute to perceived risk. I think President Obama should have backed off on the grandiose, multiyear plans and focused on doing stuff which we could quickly check for efficacy and adjust fall of shot as necessary. That’s why this idea of “focus groups” and czars makes me even more nervous, because it resembles the knots of people who mill around in a crisis, some unfocused and some too focused. We’re all waiting for information to arrive because it isn’t here yet. When it comes the probability distributions will collapse to a point. And then it will be interesting.