I don't think you can trust a one of them to know what end of the lightbulb to screw in. They produce what they are paid to produce, and they confirm the beliefs they already have.
We can't even dynamically score a simple tax rate decrease holding all other factors constant, yet we are supposed to believe they can simulate the thoughts of billions of individual economic decisions made subconsiously every day. They called it the "invisible hand" for a reason.
"I don't think you can trust a one of them to know what end of the lightbulb to screw in. They produce what they are paid to produce, and they confirm the beliefs they already have."
"These options should:
(a) simplify Federal tax laws to reduce the costs and administrative burdens of compliance with such laws; (b) share the burdens and benefits of the Federal tax structure in an appropriately progressive manner while recognizing the importance of homeownership and charity in American society; and (c) promote long-run economic growth and job creation, and better encourage work effort, saving, and investment, so as to strengthen the competitiveness of the United States in the global marketplace."
From the Executive Order of the President of the United States setting up a Commission on Tax Reform in January, 05.
Sounds like you have a fundamental disagreement with the President on the goals and objectives of tax reform. After all, if economists can't be trusted to estimate the economic impact of tax system changes, how will we know which proposals will "create long-term economic growth and job creation"?
I don't think you can trust a one of them to know what end of the lightbulb to screw in. They produce what they are paid to produce, and they confirm the beliefs they already have.
One can always take solace in their argument by ascribing incompetence perfiday to professionals.
I believe I would accept more from an econometrician well grounded in a broad range of empirical data than the average joe just guessing on the basis of personal anecdote.
We can't even dynamically score a simple tax rate decrease holding all other factors constant
Hmm, that my friend is not a dynamic score. Holding factors constant is not consistent with a dynamic economy.
Consumer, business, and government change behaviors in response to a change such as a tax decrease of even a narrow specified kind. That is the problem with current methodologies that rely on static assumptions as opposed to a dynamic equilibrium solution that takes such factor into account.
yet we are supposed to believe they can simulate the thoughts of billions of individual economic decisions made subconsiously every day.
The more individual involved, the easier it is to emulate the mass action many as an average response. It is the action of single independant persons that is unpredictable.
Acting in mass, people as a whole tend to be much more predictable. The key is isolating the modes in which groups interact and modify behaviour as it acts on a macro level, not on a micro simulation level.
They called it the "invisible hand" for a reason.
The "invisible hand" is quite subject to analysis of the consequence of a change and adapting simulations based on the observable effects of the "invisible hand" in mass.