Bryan Caplan argues that economists mostly agree with one another, compared to the general public, and reports results from the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy (SAEE):
If you understand the economy as well as economists but don't have their political power, you can predict that they will get their way and be as accurate as they are. Lack of power is not an excuse for lack of accuracy.
I would like to point out that in 1996 (most) republicans still acknowledged scientific principles and didn't refer to the democratic president as "that radical Muslim Marxist", with an emphasis on his middle name. A study in 2013 would likely show quite different results.
Perhaps funding for such a project could be raised from overconfident ideologues of rival factions each hoping, ex ante, to prove their ideologies’ superiority.
Unlikely. Ideologues appeal to emotions, not to reasoned analysis of empirical data.
This result requires that you trust several different data sources. I personally distrust the CPI. My view of the world is that Shadow Government Statistics [http://www.shadowstats.com/] is closer to my experience. Williams claims that true inflation is close to 3 points higher than the CPI. Adding 300 basis points to the inflation adjustment results in the General Public being closer to right than the economists.
"[I]f someone collected a substantial time series of such predictions it could be very helpful in assessing the degree to which different ideologies’ empirical elements are reality-based. "This runs into the problem that economists not only make predictions but also influence policy which helps change those predictions. It's pretty hard to tell whether a side got their predictions right or simply won more political power in the ensuing timeframe.
For example the Club of Rome predicts that economic growth will be highly negative over the coming century. If the Club of Rome managed to gain complete control over economic policy, I too am sure that we'll have negative economic growth.
Households are not people. Household size is shrinking over time. The comparison is different enough that using the same numbers from your source and doing a personal income calc: average inflation adjusted personal income has risen from 19067 to 19457 since 1996.
Not so much to prove the rise, but that when choosing to make a point about predictions, it's good to ensure that you're calculating from the same basis.
I'd say it's even more important than just them making accurate predictions.
As well, if economists really can deliver the results they ideologically want to happen - that's really important to know!
Assuming some reasonable width for stay the same, both were as accurate.
If you understand the economy as well as economists but don't have their political power, you can predict that they will get their way and be as accurate as they are. Lack of power is not an excuse for lack of accuracy.
I would like to point out that in 1996 (most) republicans still acknowledged scientific principles and didn't refer to the democratic president as "that radical Muslim Marxist", with an emphasis on his middle name. A study in 2013 would likely show quite different results.
Perhaps funding for such a project could be raised from overconfident ideologues of rival factions each hoping, ex ante, to prove their ideologies’ superiority.
Unlikely. Ideologues appeal to emotions, not to reasoned analysis of empirical data.
This result requires that you trust several different data sources. I personally distrust the CPI. My view of the world is that Shadow Government Statistics [http://www.shadowstats.com/] is closer to my experience. Williams claims that true inflation is close to 3 points higher than the CPI. Adding 300 basis points to the inflation adjustment results in the General Public being closer to right than the economists.
"[I]f someone collected a substantial time series of such predictions it could be very helpful in assessing the degree to which different ideologies’ empirical elements are reality-based. "This runs into the problem that economists not only make predictions but also influence policy which helps change those predictions. It's pretty hard to tell whether a side got their predictions right or simply won more political power in the ensuing timeframe.
For example the Club of Rome predicts that economic growth will be highly negative over the coming century. If the Club of Rome managed to gain complete control over economic policy, I too am sure that we'll have negative economic growth.
Households are not people. Household size is shrinking over time. The comparison is different enough that using the same numbers from your source and doing a personal income calc: average inflation adjusted personal income has risen from 19067 to 19457 since 1996.
Not so much to prove the rise, but that when choosing to make a point about predictions, it's good to ensure that you're calculating from the same basis.