I think a bit more scientific method would be great in economics, and I think we’ve seen that with the CPC, e.g. in having local experiments before rolling out broader changes, and in accepting when something doesn’t work.
Contrast with trickle down economics with tons of experiments and evidence that it doesn’t work (Kentucky), and economists still push for it. Obviously in the US the goal isn’t that things work better, so naturally the conclusion will be that we need more concentration of wealth.
But approaching government policies scientifically, based on gathering data, hypothesis, experiment design, peer review, etc all sounds pretty reasonable.
Where things gets yucky is when STEM brains decide that they know better than other folks, and hopefully that’s kept in check.
I think a bit more scientific method would be great in economics, and I think we’ve seen that with the CPC, e.g. in having local experiments before rolling out broader changes, and in accepting when something doesn’t work.
Contrast with trickle down economics with tons of experiments and evidence that it doesn’t work (Kentucky), and economists still push for it. Obviously in the US the goal isn’t that things work better, so naturally the conclusion will be that we need more concentration of wealth.
But approaching government policies scientifically, based on gathering data, hypothesis, experiment design, peer review, etc all sounds pretty reasonable.
Where things gets yucky is when STEM brains decide that they know better than other folks, and hopefully that’s kept in check.