[SantalBlush]

There is some evidence that spending habits during high inflation do vary across incomes and between durables and nondurables. Believe it or not, people actually study this sort of thing.

As your post highlights, it gets more complicated the more factors one considers, like disposable income, stock ownership, etc. What you're describing here is rudimentary, not some groundbreaking, econ-slaying assertion.

[Ericson2314]

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/feds/why-do-we-think-...

I would say it is pretty damning.

[SantalBlush]

That is a working paper written in casual form that isn't vetted. I could probably cherry pick a better paper to support your case myself.

Moreover, even if we had a good paper that corroborated what you have here, I'm sure you probably realize that it takes more than a single paper, or even a handful of papers, to declare some truth finalized. "Pretty damning." Come on, dude.

[Ericson2314]

I picked it because it is someone who wasn't taught this sort of thinking, and who took a job where they didn't until recently do this sort of thinking on the main.

Yes, the paper itself isn't a turning point, but the claims of the paper, if one chooses to accept them, are damning. A science should never confuse theoretical prediction and empiric evidence.

Indeed, other agencies like the FDA make the opposite mistake e.g. insisting on endless RCTs for e.g. JJ + mRNA booster vaccine when the theory-based extrapolation from other evidence is simple, and the opportunity cost of waiting non-negligible.

It is bad and quite odd given the overall trend of science towards "mindless empiricism" that Econ has the opposite problem!