MR. MITT AND NUMBERS

It's becoming clear that Mr. Mitt thinks in numbers. Consequently, matters involving subtlety, ambiguity, murkiness, nuance−in other words, most things involving flesh and blood people−aren't his forte.

The number of Navy ships is one example. Mr. Mitt has made a big deal about the number of Navy ships in 1916 or '17 versus the smaller number today. But as Barack pointed out in the third Presidential debate, and as many others have similarly noted, comparing ships then and now is comparing apples and oranges. Capabilities are vastly, exponentially different. For one thing, how many of those WWI era ships had an electronic computer on board?

But to Mr. Mitt, the number of ships is apparently a compelling statistics.

Mr. Mitt's infatuation with pegging China as a currency manipulator is another example. Currency exchange rates are just numbers. Many free marketers believe exchange rates should not be set by government but should fluctuate according to the laws of supply and demand. But in actuality, many governments attempt to control exchange rates in one fashion or another. For large industrial countries, the control is often through the Central Bank activities of buying and selling currencies and government and other securities.

China has longed tried to keep the value of its currency low−in comparison to other currencies−to promote exports. Free marketers object, contending that China's government-set rate results in the artificial promotion of exports and the artificial curtailment of imports. Mr. Mitt has several beefs with Chinese economic policies. He accuses China of theft of intellectual property−patents and copyrighted material. He's likely right to at least some degree. He accuses China of unfair trade practices. Again, he's probably right to some degree.

But Mr. Mitt is not alone in his criticisms of China: most of Barack's policies regarding the country are not that much different than those Mr. Mitt would attempt to implement. But Mr. Mitt would go farther and officially label China a currency manipulator, never mind that the moment for that might have been 2007−five years ago−and today, in part because of changed economic conditions both there and here, the action would be somewhat irrelevant except for the overall negative impact on U.S.-China relations. (See Matthew O'Brien, "Romney's China-Bashing Is 100% Correct ... but 5 Years Late," The Atlantic, October 24, 2012, for a fuller discussion).

The point is that labeling China a currency manipulator would be easy, would involve at a basic level not much more than numbers, and would thus fit Mr. Mitt's apparent view of the world: I can solve any problem I can put a number on.