Not in even the vaguest terms. As I attempted to get ancient_geezer to admit earlier, the AFFT rebuttals do NOT directly address ANY contentious issues regarding the makeup of the tax base. Their rebuttals consist of simply restating the aggregate size of their base (as a % of GDP), the size of the tax revenue needed (as a % of GDP), and dividing.
They use the "because I said so" rebuttal.
There is NO discussion (rigorous or otherwise) of factors that Gale and others claim will impact the base and reduce it. ancient-geezer may babble on about how Gale is wrong, but NONE of what he says comes from the AFFT rebuttals, tutorials, or any other AFFT explanatory material that I've seen.
Gale's discussion of the size of the base relative to the real size of government was quite rigorous and demonstrated an algorithmic error in the AFFT calculation of the size of the tax base. There has been no rigorous response to Gale's analysis; just the "because I said so" rebuttal.
There is NO discussion (rigorous or otherwise) of factors that Gale and others claim will impact the base and reduce it. ancient-geezer may babble on about how Gale is wrong, but NONE of what he says comes from the AFFT rebuttals, tutorials, or any other AFFT explanatory material that I've seen.I'm getting a strong feeling that most these people have never actually read an AFT "rebuttal." I guess they see the AFT has posted something called a "rebuttal" and assume it actually rebutted what they say it did. To call the AFT's response to Gale a "rebuttal" is just another AFT lie.