BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) Learn about Public Choice.
This is interesting stuff, but I think that by now most of us are at least somewhat aware of the fact that the vast majority of politicians are in it to serve their own bottom line. The fact remains that the policies they enact while questing for the almighty dollar can have huge ramifications on us lowly plebes.
It's entirely possible that I foolishly missed the point you were trying to make here. Public choice theory seems to claim that citizens should stay ignorant of politics, so maybe you're suggesting that as Rational Actors we should just tank the thread?
BigBallinStalin wrote:(2) Correction: The CBO is good enough for Congress, but it isn't good enough for assessing the effects of public policy over 330+ million people.
(3) Advice: take neoclassical economic predictions for an entire country or State with a grain of salt. The future is uncertain, and there are no constants in the social sciences/for human behavior; however, the methods of neoclassical economists neglect that, and then run into trouble when it's applied at the State/national level.
These are good points, but seem to exist solely to stymie discussion. If the future is so uncertain and the populace so large that economic predictions are doomed from the start, then what facts
can we look at when discussing these issues? You mention "neoclassical" economics twice: is there an alternative form of prediction that can produce more accurate results, which the government/media does not utilize for some reason?
BigBallinStalin wrote:(4) Just remember that when you put economics (any kind) into the hands of the government, then those politicians and bureaucrats tend to have a strong incentive to confirm their own bias, as in manipulate it for their own goals--regardless of the extravagance of the assumptions used in the economic analysis. It's like having the cigarette industry pay for experiments on whether or not tobacco leads to cancer.
(5) More honest analysis? ... What exactly are you looking for?
Absolutely, data can and will be skewed the moment it gets into a politician's hands. This was what led me to the CBO report in the first place-- it seemed like the best way to avoid these biases. I've since learned that, particularly in the wake of Ryan's VP nod, some Republicans consider the CBO untrustworthy. "Honest" was a poor word choice, I was more interested in finding out if there's an analysis that is even more non-partisan than the CBO.
Night Strike wrote:The CBO can only score the literature in front of them. They can't analyze how the law will actually apply to revenues and costs once it's actually applied to the real world. Furthermore, legislators can pack it with gimmicks to make it appear balanced (or even gaining revenue), which happened all over the Obamacare law.
Not to pull the "NO U" defense, but it seems like the more people look at the Ryan Plan, the more they're realizing that it is
also packed with gimmicks, revenue-gaining and otherwise. If any budget submitted to the CBO can game the system so easily, how does a layman gain any understanding? Should we just flip a coin when we hit the ballot in November, hoping it lands "jobs" side up?