Re:The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich ...
by mushufasa on Monday July 26, 2021 @01:36PM
(#27962403)
This has been the consensus within academic econometrics for ~15-20 years, FYI, going back to the Laffer Curve argument. Econometrics != economics; you will still find economics people, especially at think tanks, who will hawk the 'tax cuts solve all problems' theory (typically associated with think tanks funded by wealth people).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich ...
by mumblemumble on Monday July 26, 2021 @01:43PM
(#27962503)
“In statistics it’s enough for our results to be cool. In psychology they’re supposed to be correct. In economics they’re supposed to be correct and consistent with your ideology.”
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/book/gelman_quotes.pdf
Possibly the most fundamental distinction between economics and other fields is that, in economics, it seems to still be permissible to start with your conclusions and then work back from there.
Re:The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich ...
by nickff on Monday July 26, 2021 @02:21PM
(#27963123)
>"Possibly the most fundamental distinction between economics and other fields is that, in economics, it seems to still be permissible to start with your conclusions and then work back from there. "
This is only really true in the most contentious subjects studied in economics, and even then, I don't think economics is unique or even unusual in this respect. Unpalatable results go unpublished in many of the social sciences.
Re:The Economic Consequences of Major Tax Cuts for the Rich ...
by rory on Monday July 26, 2021 @02:23PM
(#27963148)
> start with your conclusions and then work back from there
Sadly this doesn't make it distinct from other fields at all, at least within the social sciences. Much of sociology is built on explicit anti-positivism and anti-empiricism.