One of my pet peeves is false dichotamies. You know, when we make complex problems into simple either/or solutions. Like politics. That’s why Robert Reich’s recent column struck me this morning as I read it. He was talking about what the U.S. could learn from the European economic crisis, which is a telling case of what not to do. But he wrote these significant words:

In truth, the choice isn’t simply between budget-cutting austerity, on the one hand, and growth and jobs on the other.

It’s really a question of timing. And it’s the same issue on this side of the pond. If government slices spending too early, when unemployment is high and growth is slowing, it makes the debt situation far worse.

What supply-siders like to suggest is it really is entirely about the dichotomy. That the economics boils down to the simple equation of supply vs. demand. The same goes for an economic crisis: you either cut or increase spending, as if these are the only metrics. In this case, cutting almost always sounds better than increasing, so their side sounds good. But as Reich points out, one unaccounted for variable is timing. As in when things happen.

If we pretend timing has nothing to do with it or perhaps the actual pain caused by austerity measures on actual people has nothing to do with it, we can make seemingly easy decisions. Many times in my own life have I or my wife had to look at the timing of our bills and the timing of our paydays, so don’t dare tell me timing doesn’t matter.

Or if any student of economics argued in class that cutting is cutting without regard to the economic conditions, s/he would be laughed out of the program. So why should we make our arguments so devoid of context?

Question:
What other areas might we benefit from breaking open a dichotomous stalemate?