Source: EconLog
by Jon Murphy
“While science can be used to influence policy outcomes in a potentially helpful way (eg, a carbon tax can be used to reduce CO2 emissions and fight global warming), the tail can come to wag the dog, too. Policies can be asserted and scientific justifications sought after the fact. Consequently, this can lead to a game of ‘whack-a-mole’ where a rotating list of (often contradictory) justifications are floated and discarded as situations warrant. In turn, actual policy discussions go nowhere because goal posts are constantly shifting. In short, expert opinion becomes about justifying a preferred policy rather than policy attempting to solve a given problem and seeing expert opinion to help.” (11/20/24)