The disagreement was just that you seemed to say (by the phrasing “some day”) that there had not been any good work on the subject.
The only such paper I remember reading is Gieringer. That link is to a whole bibliography, compiled by people with a definite slant, so I can’t guarantee that there aren’t contradictory papers with equally good methodology.
I genuinely do just mean that I haven’t seen them, because laymen (including the parent posters in this subthread, at least so far) don’t mention them when they argue about the issue.
I’m reminded of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, who gives the impression of having fabricated the papers assessing him, but they’re real.
Fair enough. Thanks for the Gieringer 1985 cite; it’s 25 pages long so I haven’t read it yet, but skimming through it I see a couple of quantitative tables, which is a good sign, and that it was published in the Cato Journal, which is not such a good sign. But it’s something!
I had noticed that you said that. I was originally not going to draw attention to the paper’s source, but it occurred to me that someone might then have asked me whether I was aware of the paper’s source, referring to my earlier claim that I wanted to discourage people from offering me overtly partisan analyses. So I decided to pre-empt that possible confusion/accusation by acknowledging the paper’s origin from a libertarian-leaning journal.
The disagreement was just that you seemed to say (by the phrasing “some day”) that there had not been any good work on the subject.
The only such paper I remember reading is Gieringer. That link is to a whole bibliography, compiled by people with a definite slant, so I can’t guarantee that there aren’t contradictory papers with equally good methodology.
I’m reminded of Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, who gives the impression of having fabricated the papers assessing him, but they’re real.
Fair enough. Thanks for the Gieringer 1985 cite; it’s 25 pages long so I haven’t read it yet, but skimming through it I see a couple of quantitative tables, which is a good sign, and that it was published in the Cato Journal, which is not such a good sign. But it’s something!
I said my standards were lower. My point was that your original comment could be taken for having read this and dismissed it.
I had noticed that you said that. I was originally not going to draw attention to the paper’s source, but it occurred to me that someone might then have asked me whether I was aware of the paper’s source, referring to my earlier claim that I wanted to discourage people from offering me overtly partisan analyses. So I decided to pre-empt that possible confusion/accusation by acknowledging the paper’s origin from a libertarian-leaning journal.