3 ms·

The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. And we know what works and doesn't work. 1 dollar spent on increasing food stamps increases GDP b

The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. And we know what works and doesn't work. 1 dollar spent on increasing food stamps increases GDP by something like $1.75. For something like an expanded child tax credit, it's more like $1.25. And for tax cuts for top earners, it's around $0.30. Even just looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, one policy is drastically better than the other. But more importantly, the first two policies also have enormous positive and direct benefits - they drastically decrease things like child poverty. These are some of the most obvious public policy choices for any wealthy country, and for whatever reason we just refuse to take action until there's a massive recession or a global pandemic, and even then it's for like 6 months or a year.

throwaway98211 5y ago
>The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. And we know what works and doesn't work. Can you cite the 'actual data' -- has it held up to broad peer review? Can you provide examples of critique of these policies, and explain why detractors have concerns, and how we could address them? This isn't global warming (science is clear) -- social policy is inherently messy, with lots of tradeoffs, and is hard to prove empirically. There are lots of reasons why expanding the welfare state might be beneficial for society, but please stop with the moral grandstanding -- it does nothing to further real dialogue.
rsj_hn 5y ago
> The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. I am very skeptical of this - not that we have data, but that the data suggests such a clear and simple relationship that is open to exploitation via policy. There is a long history of people trying to exploit correlations and realizing that the correlation breaks down whenever they try to turn this into a policy lever. There is also the issue that foodstamps might be beneficial up to a point, but when you flood the system with foodstamps they are no longer beneficial and can be harmful -- there are regimes of effectiveness.

throwaway98211 5y ago

>The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. And we know what works and doesn't work. Can you cite the 'actual data' -- has it held up to broad peer review? Can you provide examples of critique of these policies, and explain why detractors have concerns, and how we could address them? This isn't global warming (science is clear) -- social policy is inherently messy, with lots of tradeoffs, and is hard to prove empirically. There are lots of reasons why expanding the welfare state might be beneficial for society, but please stop with the moral grandstanding -- it does nothing to further real dialogue.

rsj_hn 5y ago

> The thing is, we have actual data on a lot of these policies. I am very skeptical of this - not that we have data, but that the data suggests such a clear and simple relationship that is open to exploitation via policy. There is a long history of people trying to exploit correlations and realizing that the correlation breaks down whenever they try to turn this into a policy lever. There is also the issue that foodstamps might be beneficial up to a point, but when you flood the system with foodstamps they are no longer beneficial and can be harmful -- there are regimes of effectiveness.