3 ms·

> If that school of “science” was more than retconning and trying to see ideologically aligned patterns in the irrational noise and result of complex interwoven

> If that school of “science” was more than retconning and trying to see ideologically aligned patterns in the irrational noise and result of complex interwoven incentive systems There was a physicist (Feynman?) who once joked that his job would have been much harder if particles had free will. But there are regular experiments that are run in the realm of economics and various models make different predictions. It turns out that tax cuts don't pay for themselves, as some say: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_Cuts_and_Jobs_Act Turns out QE wouldn't devalue the currency and cause hyperinflation (as some said it would): > We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment. * https://manhattan.institute/article/an-open-letter-to-ben-bernanke https://manhattan.institute/article/an-open-letter-to-ben-be... Turns out that austerity is not expansionary (i.e., cutting government demand/spending does not grow the economy; see Chart 2): * https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr... * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Dangerous_Idea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity:_The_History_of_a_Da... There are certainly areas where things can get complicated and there's room for debate, but in other areas the mechanisms are understood. Just because some folks choose to go with ideology over accurate models does not mean we don't have accurate models: is it the fault of medicine that some people say vaccines and masks don't work for ideological reasons?

Retric 3y ago
It’s also common for economic ideas to be taken out of context. In an environment with 99% tax rate it’s beloved that lowering taxes will increase revenue. This is directly applicable when the sudden loss of government subsidies creates an effective 90+% tax rate within an income band resulting in people working less. Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. Austerity to the point of being able to pay down government debt is painful, that’s well known. Unchecked spending and unlimited growth in debt is however unsustainable.
- carlmr 3y ago
  >Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. Also this usually works short-term because companies and people still have the infrastructure from previous government spending. When that infrastructure inevitably crumbles because the taxes don't suffice to support it 10 years down the road, it's too late, the infrastructure needed to create new businesses will be missing, leading to a downward spiral for the economy.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. It's not so much that the idea was simplified to push a political agenda: Arthur Laffer himself, when popularizing the concept (with the eponymous Laffer Curve[1]), used it as an argument against tax raise in the US. So the big problem with economics is not so much that its results are being hijacked by politicians to push their agenda, it's that most of them (at least most of the prominent ones) are in fact pushing their ideologies through their publications. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
  - Retric 3y ago
    Popular/Prominent economists are generally tied to politics. “The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself notes antecedents in the writings of the 14th-century social philosopher Ibn Khaldun and others.” IMO, it’s says less about economics than it does democracy. You can find many “think tanks” which are paid to create papers in support various ideologies. This doesn’t guarantee what they are saying is incorrect, but it does many they gloss over any inconvenient caveats.
    - littlestymaar 3y ago
      I don't disagree with you here, but the problem isn't just think tanks at this point, academics have been doing it as well, with university departments having their ideologies of choice for decades, and it's a self-reproducing situation since they select they students/researchers based on their views.

Retric 3y ago

It’s also common for economic ideas to be taken out of context. In an environment with 99% tax rate it’s beloved that lowering taxes will increase revenue. This is directly applicable when the sudden loss of government subsidies creates an effective 90+% tax rate within an income band resulting in people working less. Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. Austerity to the point of being able to pay down government debt is painful, that’s well known. Unchecked spending and unlimited growth in debt is however unsustainable.

carlmr 3y ago
>Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. Also this usually works short-term because companies and people still have the infrastructure from previous government spending. When that infrastructure inevitably crumbles because the taxes don't suffice to support it 10 years down the road, it's too late, the infrastructure needed to create new businesses will be missing, leading to a downward spiral for the economy.
littlestymaar 3y ago
> Yet, politically the idea gets simplified to lowering taxes will always increase revenue which is false. It's not so much that the idea was simplified to push a political agenda: Arthur Laffer himself, when popularizing the concept (with the eponymous Laffer Curve[1]), used it as an argument against tax raise in the US. So the big problem with economics is not so much that its results are being hijacked by politicians to push their agenda, it's that most of them (at least most of the prominent ones) are in fact pushing their ideologies through their publications. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve
- Retric 3y ago
  Popular/Prominent economists are generally tied to politics. “The basic concept was not new; Laffer himself notes antecedents in the writings of the 14th-century social philosopher Ibn Khaldun and others.” IMO, it’s says less about economics than it does democracy. You can find many “think tanks” which are paid to create papers in support various ideologies. This doesn’t guarantee what they are saying is incorrect, but it does many they gloss over any inconvenient caveats.
  - littlestymaar 3y ago
    I don't disagree with you here, but the problem isn't just think tanks at this point, academics have been doing it as well, with university departments having their ideologies of choice for decades, and it's a self-reproducing situation since they select they students/researchers based on their views.