Not at all. I keep insisting that irrelevant data is a bad idea. I also ask what the IMF's actual record tells us about its relevance. I also point out that the US folk involved are largely IMF folk....

I note that you haven't taken me up on my offer of the phone numbers of the US. If you actually believe that "more data" is a good idea, you'd leap on that offer as helpful for each and every problem, but you haven't.

Why don't you want my data? Does your refusal suggest that you actually believe that irrelevant data is harmful? Is it the source, that data from a mean person is harmful? What?

> I can't resist quoting Google here, that "more data" is the way to go, as Norvig argues (slightly out of context; field is machine-learning):

You might try actually reading it. Norvig is a stickler for good and relevant data.

> I'm more or less arguing for that the IMF, or any other org. in those waters, has a lot of rich data in their possession.

And I never wrote otherwise. There's rich data everywhere. The problem is getting the right data and doing something useful with it.

> Regarding "abuse through power aggregation in developing nations" I don't have an example right now, on how that directly applies to the U.S. situation.

Fair enough.