Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (66002)	4/10/2018 5:17:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 359556

You can't run controlled studies in astronomy either. OTOH I'd agree that astronomy, even though observational rather than experimental for the most part, is a harder science than economics. Economics is a "social science" like psychology and sociology. You can run experiments in the later two but there are limits and problems, and for some areas of economics you can also run experiments (again with limits and problems). one with the cut, and a control without. That, or at least multiple large, well designed double blind studies, with randomly selected experimental subjects, could get us a much more solid answer as to how far off static projections of the impact of tax cuts are away from the real world projections (at least for the economies in the situation of the study, different situations would likely produce at least somewhat different results). But we can take a good static projection as the approximate limit of the revenue cost of a tax cut. Its unlikely to be as much as a static projection would suggest, but it could be a good high/conservative estimate of the impact.