The article addresses the difference between truth and incomplete truth in economic decision-making. The author argues that, although we live in an era of abundant information available, we continue to make decisions with insufficient information, not because of a lack of data, but because we rarely question whether the information we have adequately represents the reality we seek to understand.
The author warns about the concept of "illusion of knowledge": when we have a correct number, we tend to believe we know reality, when in fact we only know part of it. Using the example of a company with positive results that may nonetheless present hidden risks, such as dependence on a single client or significant litigation, they demonstrate that the truth of a part is not necessarily the truth of the whole.
The article cites the recent discussion around Social Security accounts in Portugal, where the working group coordinated by Jorge Bravo argued that isolated analysis of Social Security balances may convey an incomplete picture of the overall financial situation, estimating a negative balance of approximately 1,944 million euros in 2025 when the General Retirement Fund is considered together. The author compares this situation to the consolidation of financial statements in corporate groups, arguing that consolidation is more than an accounting technique.
The author distinguishes four fundamental concepts: true information (which corresponds to facts), relevant information (which can influence a decision), sufficient information (which contains the necessary elements), and integrated information (which allows understanding of relationships that disappear when data is analyzed in isolation). They conclude that the economy does not need more information, but better information, and that one of the most responsible ways to participate in public debate is to start by asking rigorous questions before presenting answers.
