If we’re gonna throw mountains of taxpayer dough at the recession, in a desperate attempt to do something, it would at least be nice to learn from it. We’re wasting a ton of money, and smart people know it. But some stimulus ideas are better than others. We just don’t know with much certainty which ones those are. That’s why I like Len Burman’s unrealistic idea of running experiments:
The ideal “experiment” would assign different “treatments” to different states. States that begin with A-E: tax credits, F-K: infrastructure, and so on. We could even have a control group that would get nothing. Sorry, Wyoming.
OK, that’s not going to happen.
Burman goes on to suggest giving grants to the states, letting them do whatever they want with it, but then very carefully gathering data about what happens when they do whatever they decide to do. The reason this is a relatively great idea is that it assumes that a lot of fiscal stimulus will fail, and that we don’t know what we’re doing. But policy that is remarkable for the honesty of its assumptions doesn’t tend to be extremely popular.
“but then very carefully gathering data about what happens when they do whatever they decide to do.” I like when people suggest program review as a solution, without considering just how much money it costs for the government to hire research firms and conduct this type of analysis. Usually the post program review is the first thing to get cut, if the program is attacked by limited government types.
Lee Kuan Yew, where art thou?
We're about to have the largest government intervention in the history of the world. You don't think the academic economists will be ALL OVER this data set? Sure it may not be completely randomized, but simple things (staggered or randomized phase-in, phase-out dates) can be done to facilitate experimental analysis. I agree that we should do these things, and with a bit of pressure, we may get it to happen.
I would like a very detailed post about what you would like done instead of “wasting a ton of money”. I assume you are one of the “smart people” you refer to. And I would like to learn from “smart people”. So enlighten me.
Yeah, because that wouldn't be gamed to hell and back.
Since it has proven to be ineffective for Washington to throw money at problems for the last 80 years or so, why not let the states spend the money as they please? It is always possible that a 'local' idea will be a good one. We desperately need new thinking.
Since it has proven to be ineffective for Washington to throw money at problems for the last 80 years or so, why not let the states spend the money as they please? It is always possible that a 'local' idea will be a good one. We desperately need new thinking.
You seem to assume that the stated goals and the actual goals of a “rational technocracy” are the same.
What if the main goal of greatly increasing the size and scope of government is, well, just that? If the technocrats not only try, but actually succeed, in convincing people that it's not – well, that sounds like a decently rational technocracy to me.
Paul, are you talking about the wasted billions that Bush sent to Iraq? I agree, that has been ineffective.
You seem to assume that the stated goals and the actual goals of a “rational technocracy” are the same.
What if the main goal of greatly increasing the size and scope of government is, well, just that? If the technocrats not only try, but actually succeed, in convincing people that it's not – well, that sounds like a decently rational technocracy to me.
Paul, are you talking about the wasted billions that Bush sent to Iraq? I agree, that has been ineffective.