I think my perspective is quite close to yours. Definitely agree that the idea of facts as "unknowable" is hurtful. Thanks for your reasoned response! In term

I think my perspective is quite close to yours. Definitely agree that the idea of facts as "unknowable" is hurtful. Thanks for your reasoned response! In terms of trusting "offical" unemployment figures I actually think they're not too bad. At least compared to say, money supply and accessible economic metrics :) For unemployment we can talk about things like "Oh, you mean U6 or U3?": http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-way-unemployment-is-measured-changed-in-the-last-8-years http://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/12309/has-the-wa... - and then be prepared to understand changes in how they are measured, which are a little contentious but IMHO not too bad in U.S. over last 20 years. In the end, questions like "how many jobs are there?" or "how much money is there?" are not really that simple to answer. From this perspective, the "current environment" is not really any different to how it's always been, but I think people are much more sensitive to difficulties in measurement and definition right now. It looks a lot like an environment where you get to make up facts. Political candidates shouldn't get to make up facts. For example, if they rely on narrow definitions of employment increasing or decreasing in making arguments, the exact definition in use should be made clear and if an unusual or non-standard metric is used that should be highlighted. Unfortunately this looks increasingly like an unattainable level of political discourse.