I have a new essay about this phenomenon.
Unfortunately, the political process tends to focus on only one error at a time. This causes policymakers to overreact to the most recent error, leading to an even larger error of the opposite sort.
I have a new essay about this phenomenon.
Unfortunately, the political process tends to focus on only one error at a time. This causes policymakers to overreact to the most recent error, leading to an even larger error of the opposite sort.
> However, there is a way to reduce both types of errors, by obtaining and using
> information. For example, rather than provide universal aid for community
> college, policymakers could try to identify the characteristics of students who are > likely to benefit from such aid.
To that I can only say:
1. Sometimes it’s this way, and sometimes it’s that way.
2. The data are insufficient.
3. The methodology is flawed.
…and, on top of that, depending on the agenda of the policymaker, engaging in the kind of study you suggest carries the risk that they won’t like what they find.
Fortunately(?), the three rules above make it all but certain that for every study there can be an equal but opposite study. So, no, I don’t think more research is necessarily all that helpful.
Indeed, I think that “vacillating between extreme errors” is a pretty good summary of the history of human civilization. Perhaps to be more charitable, you could add “very occasionally punctuated by brief and location-specific episodes of moderate grace.”
Student loans I thought were supposed to be analogous to monetary policy. Those students (firms) who see education (ivestment) opportunities will borrow and be rewarded or punished based on how well they assessed the profitability of the opportunity. So is there any way to make loans feel less like a subsidy further upstream to reduce distortions?