Falsifiability and replicability are key cornerstones of any academic research. If you're running an empirical study, and your results aren't replicable, your study is largely worthless.

But it turns out that nearly all empirical research is worthless on this criterion, according to a devatating new paper by B. D. McCullough and Ross McKitrick. In economics especially, if you try to replicate an empirical result, you'll probably find that you can't get the data -- and if you can get the data, you'll still be a long way from true replication [...]

Fairly devastating for economists who purport to know better.

"...There is nothing in this deal that will save one job."

Well then given the amount of tax cutting in the plan I guess you would agree that the GOP all tax cut plan is the same waste of spending as was every other tax cut ever proposed if the goal was to "save or create jobs"?

Steve,

I agree with the over all tenor of this post. We have seen the same kind of logic in action. Remember the house republicans swearing up and down that Clinton's tax increases would tank the economy, when they didn't we heard "... yeah but the economy would have been a thousand billion times better if Clinton had not raised taxes" argument from all quarters. So while I agree with the basic logic of this post and largely the conclusions I can hardly be outraged about something that is SOP among ideologues on both sides.

That's the econ split which is uncomfortably along party lines. Yes, politicians can quote from those, drawing on their sets of economists. The 'enablers.'

Steve, how did you possibly miss that I don't believe any of the numbers? If you are telling me that I should instead "choose yours" and "ignore his" then you are back into the dueling false-numeracy.

Exactly what number have I put forward? I think you are attributing to me a position I haven't put forward.

That being said I think you are right not to believe Obama's numbers he is a politician and hence a liar.

You have just met an economist.

I'll quote Paul Kedrosky again: "More fuel for my take that skepticism-verging-on-nihilism is the right answer when faced by economists splitting along party lines."

Then kindly explain how you would measure jobs saved. Using historical data only.

Raoul,

I was going to reply, but tom p. said it best.

Look, I hope this all works out fantastically. Really. But my fear is that it wont. In fact, I think it could make things worse, hopefully I can write something up along those lines soonish.

Always look at and ask for the fr*cking counter-factual, that is policy analysis 102.

Second, one is asking for a certain answer on a definitionally speculative endeavor.

Rauol, you make Steve's point when you say the above. As Steve asked, how does one measure "jobs saved"? I voted (and volunteered) for Obama, but I know B*llSh*t when I hear it.

And this one stinks. Whatever positive attributes he brings to the equation, he is still a politician.

"At what cost?" is a reasonable question, but the immediate outcome is fairly certain.

It gets into handwaving when economists try to predict how many of those gardeners/insulators will get pulled from other jobs and how many will come off the unemployment rolls. It's further handwaving when they try to guess how many jobs the gardeners/insulators own spending will "create or save."

... we can answer the first question after the fact, with a survey of the hires, but the second question will be forever unknown. Though of course economists will argue it back and forth for entire careers.

(I mean, Megan McArdle is arguing The Great Depression again today. Nothing like 80 years to (not) lock down economic questions, eh?)

40 million saved jobs by Bush last year

Well, he didn't "save" mine...

These “saved jobs” never show up in any of the official statistics. As such It is a measure of performance that simply cannot be measured.

The measure of a good politician: The ability to feed people BS while they reply, "Tastes great! Less filling!"

As to whether his plan is going to work, I have read too much on both sides to ever figure it out. I suspect I am like most people: In the "wait and see camp". If I am working in a year, I will probably give him the benefit of the doubt, if not, I won't.

Besides, what's the old saw? "Economics is not a predictive science, it is a descriptive science"?

Uhhmmm no. Economics does not provide this flexibility.

I'll quote Paul Kedrosky again: "More fuel for my take that skepticism-verging-on-nihilism is the right answer when faced by economists splitting along party lines."