[em500]

Serious answer: you can't properly test anything in macro-economics. Just think about it, we can't implement rigorous (randomized controlled) experiments and we can never observe the counterfactuals. The only thing we have are observational data with tons of endogeneity problems (fiscal/monetary policy makers react to movements in the economy as much as that the economy reacts to policy). So all validation comes from comparisons with other countries (or states within the US) and/or prior historical episodes, but there is an endless and unresolvable debate on how comparable other countries or history actually are.

So I identify when people who question if (macro-)economics should be considered a science or even has anything useful to say at all. Especially when the commenter shows that they've done some grad level econ courses / understands published academic journal papers, rather than regurgitating pop-sci articles / blogs. But I also sympathize with academic and central bank/ministry of finance macro-economists, who are faced with questions of huge social impact, that are probably unresolvable at a fundemental level.

[throw0101c]

> Serious answer: you can't properly test anything in macro-economics. Just think about it, we can't implement rigorous (randomized controlled) experiments and we can never observe the counterfactuals.

Some places can raise taxes and others can lower them, and we can see what happens:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment