One factor here is that say there is a tradeoff between tax rate and how good the roads are. Higher taxes = better roads and the inverse. It may be impossible for 2 people who each value the roads vs tax percentage differently to agree on what the exact tax rate should be. However, it should be possible for them to analyze the data, find a formula that relates tax rate to road quality, and then to determine at least what a given proposed policy will even do.
Right now in politics, people are making decisions on critical issues in knee jerk, tribal ways without any reliable way to agree on what the consequences of each decision will even do. For example, tax rates vs economic activity. “trickle down economics” and the “laffer curve” are empirically testable predictions. Therefore any decision as to the optimal tax rate or economic policy’s consequence should at least be analyzed by the rational predicted outcome, not by tribal identity.
Again it may be impossible for the 2 people to agree on tradeoffs, for example some policies may increase total wealth while others may increase median wealth. One makes the nation as a whole more influential and powerful, while the other makes the 50th percentile citizen better off.
But at a minimum it should be honest and clear what the outcome will likely be, rather than right now, where it is possible that both policies being considered by votes are terribly suboptimal, decreasing both median and total wealth vs other possible choices.
In theory 2 rational agents could compare data and eventually arrive on an algorithm to produce a consensus view on what the past outcomes even where, and then what the probable outcomes are for proposals.
One factor here is that say there is a tradeoff between tax rate and how good the roads are. Higher taxes = better roads and the inverse. It may be impossible for 2 people who each value the roads vs tax percentage differently to agree on what the exact tax rate should be. However, it should be possible for them to analyze the data, find a formula that relates tax rate to road quality, and then to determine at least what a given proposed policy will even do.
Right now in politics, people are making decisions on critical issues in knee jerk, tribal ways without any reliable way to agree on what the consequences of each decision will even do. For example, tax rates vs economic activity. “trickle down economics” and the “laffer curve” are empirically testable predictions. Therefore any decision as to the optimal tax rate or economic policy’s consequence should at least be analyzed by the rational predicted outcome, not by tribal identity.
Again it may be impossible for the 2 people to agree on tradeoffs, for example some policies may increase total wealth while others may increase median wealth. One makes the nation as a whole more influential and powerful, while the other makes the 50th percentile citizen better off.
But at a minimum it should be honest and clear what the outcome will likely be, rather than right now, where it is possible that both policies being considered by votes are terribly suboptimal, decreasing both median and total wealth vs other possible choices.
In theory 2 rational agents could compare data and eventually arrive on an algorithm to produce a consensus view on what the past outcomes even where, and then what the probable outcomes are for proposals.