Historical View of Variable Change

The Paul Truesdell Podcast

When it comes to forecasting, the principle of variable change emphasizes that projections must account for shifting factors. Instead of relying on absolutes, it’s essential to focus on percentages, which offer a more adaptable view of future trends. For example, an industry might grow by 5%, but the absolute numbers will vary depending on the base.

Historically, we've seen significant variable changes, such as the industrial revolution's impact on productivity or the technological boom reshaping economies. These shifts are not only crucial on a macroeconomic scale but also affect individuals. For instance, changes in inflation or employment rates have direct consequences for personal financial planning. Understanding how variables change over time helps in making more accurate and dynamic forecasts. This approach is invaluable in both economic theory and personal decision-making.
The 1700s were rife with significant instances of variable change, particularly during the American Revolution. When the American colonists decided they had enough of British rule, it wasn’t just about a rejection of monarchy—it was about a fundamental shift in political, economic, and social structures. The colonies had grown tired of taxation without representation, and this frustration, paired with other injustices, set off a chain of events that culminated in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. The revolution was driven by variable changes, from economic constraints imposed by Britain to shifts in public sentiment about self-governance and personal freedoms. By focusing on the percentage of growing dissatisfaction rather than individual grievances, the colonies were able to unite in their quest for independence.

Around the same time, Europe was seeing its own waves of change. The French Revolution (1789-1799) is another prime example of how variable change influences history. The French people were fed up with the absolute power of the monarchy, widespread economic hardship, and rampant inequality. The shift here was less about specific policies and more about a broader rejection of the existing system—something that would resonate throughout Europe. The rise of Napoleon soon followed, promising reform but also shifting the power balance from monarchy to military dictatorship. The variable changes in France—ranging from economic crises to social upheaval—allowed Napoleon to seize control. Again, the revolution didn’t hinge on absolutes but rather on dynamic shifts in how people viewed leadership and governance.

Cromwell’s time in England offers yet another example of variable change. In the mid-1600s, Oliver Cromwell led the charge against the monarchy and was instrumental in the execution of King Charles I in 1649. Afterward, Cromwell declared England a republic, but his subsequent rule proved divisive. Though he had risen as a revolutionary figure, his authoritarian governance quickly alienated much of the public. People grew weary of his shenanigans, particularly his heavy-handedness and disregard for democratic principles. After his death, the monarchy was restored, and his regime was largely discredited—a testament to how quickly variable change can swing in a different direction when public sentiment shifts.

In all these instances, variable change—be it economic, social, or political—played a pivotal role in reshaping history. These historical examples show how dissatisfaction grows in percentages rather than through individual events, leading to significant shifts in power dynamics and governance.

World War II provides numerous examples of daring strategies and pivotal moments shaped by variable changes in wartime tactics. The attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 was a game-changer, propelling the United States into the war. It wasn’t just about the damage inflicted but how it shifted American strategy and mobilization, forcing the country to respond aggressively in both the Pacific and European theaters.

In the Pacific, the strategy of island hopping became crucial. Under the leadership of Admiral Chester Nimitz, the U.S. Navy played an indispensable role in this approach. Instead of engaging every fortified Japanese position, Nimitz focused on key islands, allowing U.S. forces to leapfrog towards Japan. This strategy saved time, resources, and countless lives while gradually weakening Japanese control over the Pacific.

In Europe, bold maneuvers from leaders like General George Patton were equally impactful. During the Battle of the Bulge, Patton’s ability to rapidly redirect his forces was instrumental in halting the German offensive. His aggressive tactics and ability to adapt on the fly helped turn the tide in Europe, demonstrating the power of decisive leadership in wartime.

These moments highlight how variable change—in tactics, leadership, and strategy—can alter the course of history. Bold decisions made by figures like Nimitz and Patton were crucial in securing Allied victory.