Skyhunter said:
It is the same rationale that the ID advocates use. IE life is so complex that it cannot be understood except by the existence of an omnipotent being.
To suggest that taxes do not effect the economy, or that it is impossible to predict or measure the results is a lot like saying that since there are holes in the theory of evolution it is proof of an intelligent creator.
I will grant you that economics is terribly complex and so many factors and variables are involved that it is difficult to assess the impact of various policies. However, for purposes of a political discussion, if the economic conditions are favorable when certain policies and personnel are in charge, and unfavorable with another, then I would suggest there is a general pattern that favors the more successful policy/theory/personnel.
Individual statistics can be interpreted many different ways using many different criteria. but the bottom line is the bottom line. Give credit where credit is due, Clinton had an economic philosophy that worked, on the whole much better than the Reagan/Bush trickle down theory.
There is no doubt that the modelers are simple, and there is no doubt that the models are simpler. I'm just not convinced that the reality is simpler.
Let's objectively look at one such model; the LTCM fiasco. What did these Nobel Prize winners do with all those even 'mildly' complicated terms in their simple model, the ones for which they had no possible way of modeling, or obtaining calibration data for, or even, measuring?
They simply threw them out of the model.
The result? A model that said, essentially, "The weather in San Diego is going to be sunny and warm tomorrow."
Hey, how can you knock that? Right up until the wheels fell off, and there was a cold, nasty day in San Diego.
Well, the model didn't reflect the conditions that led to that, that's all.
Oh.
A jet engine hardly has any moving parts at all, though the ones that do move a hellin. So, I guess designing jet engines is a trivial thing, and yet the models are complex, and nobody is throwing out significant terms, or else nobody is flying.
And yet, when it comes to modeling 'the' economy, the voodoo witch doctor/pygmies have no compunction at all showing up with their mind numbingly simplified models and their acres of ignored terms and hand wavingly claiming that 'the' economy is a trivial thing to model, to calibrate, and to confirm.
The truth is, state of the art economists can't get together and explain or agree upon what just happened, much less, what is going to happen, and why.
Take weather modeling. It makes detailed predictions, and those predictions are 'simple' variables that can be forecast, and after the event, recorded as actual observations, in space and time, at some ridiculously crude resolution. So, people can--and do--go back after the fact, and compare their models with actual outcome, and they can roll these models/observations forward in time over years and years and years, and still, state of the art is maybe a week or two for the models.
As well, their observations are a lot more sparse then their model data, which can pretty much be continuous. However, their observational data is finite, both in space and time, even with imperfect satellite data which, after all, does not measure surface temperature but rather scene radiance, from which surface temperature can only be inferred via correlation, a model of the atmosphere, and assumptions about the distributions of unmeasured aerosols in the atmosphere, like gunk from Mt St Helens or Pinatubo. As well, atmospheric models can fall back on simulations and controlled experiments of smaller models.
And yet, with all of that...they are still light years ahead of poor economists, who actually never get complete simultaneous snapshot observations, but only well after the fact anecdotal and incomplete measurements of aggregate things which occurred and were measured over time, and all of which was the crass financial rafterglow le3ft over by those emotional molecules that mere geophysicists do not have to contend with.
Given a stimulus, what is the response, how long does the response take, and what is its magnitude and sign? Haven't a clue, can't agree, can't prove a thing, might as well be sputtering away with a 5 hp Evinrude in a hurricane.
I would have to defer to Dr. Laura D'Andrea Tyson on the efficacy of the 1993 tax increase. Seems to me likely that she was a lot closer to the action. November, 1997, UCal/Berkeley. She spelled it out quite clearly for a roomfull of incredulous Berkeloids. I ordered the tape from C-Span. It's a sad image, I agree, but on cold, hoary Winter nights I sit up with a little snifter of fine Yukon Jack, put on my slippers and robe, throw another log on the fire, and play that tape to hear her say those three words to explain the Miracle Clinton Economy;
But, your post hoc ergo propter hoc argument is quite compelling, apparently. Just not with her, and thus, not with me, either. You see, she actually ran the numbers. Turns out, we know how many folks actually earn more than $250K/yr, and we know how much additional income over $250K/yr they make, and we can multiply that by an extra 3.9% and come up with a piddling little number in a sea of of several trillion dollars. That, and there is no model to explain why taking marginal money out of the broad private economies and addiing additional marginal money to be handed out to a select few at the Cronyfest on the Potomac instead would cause the private economies to flourish.
Plus, I think she long ago figured out that the economies are not single variable systems.
