Senate Reverses Course and Advances TPP Fast Track Bill

I'll apologize ahead of time for being verbose, but there's a lot to cover.

To answer your first question, I've discovered numerous prominent experts who are compromised by a conflict of interest after examining their studies/reports/published work in depth, fact-checking the statistics and assumptions used and by debating/questioning them in depth. One of the telltale signs of the untrustworthy is that they often can't back up their claims or substantiate their theories with credible evidence, they often use unfounded anecdotes/wild assumptions instead of evidence and base the credibility of their position on those who agree with them alone. The golden rule here is...when in doubt, fact check.

When one has studied and worked with economics as long as I have (several decades), it doesn't take long to identify the reliability of any economic expert based upon the economic theories and principles they use to tackle most economic issues. Most of what we see today isn't "new", it's just rebranded and slightly tweaked economic theories and practices that have been around for a LONG time. The big fights we are witnessing in this country at the moment are between largely centrist/Progressive Keynesians who favor a balance between supply and demand and far right wing Conservatives/Libertarians who favor laissez faire/supply side-centric policies founded on classical liberalism. Contrary to what the right wing crowd claims, their opponents aren't far left wing because that would amount to pure socialism/Communism. Progressives don't favor that in the least. I know this because I have also examined their economic positions in depth.

To identify experts with conflicts of interest, Deepthroat was right...follow the money trail and think tank ties ito expose unreliable sources. The absence of that same money trail and ties to ideologically biased organizations is usually indicative of more reliable experts.

Having said that, it's always wise to independently confirm what any expert claims and not take anything on face value. While reliable economic experts reside within the academic world, some of the most prestigious institutions have become far too compromised since the 1970's. That's why it is always wise to use caution these days.

What should one do in a worst case scenario where reliably independent economic experts aren't available? Compare ideologically left and right economic positions, pay particular attention to the positions and criticisms involved, independently verify the facts they have given (watch out for half-truths and chgerry-picked facts), then decide for yourself who has made the most compelling case that is substantiated by facts. While this particular process is labor intensive, I've learned a lot from this vetting process over the years.

TLDR: Progressive/Centrist economic philosophy revolves around the sensible balance between the public/private sector and businesscommunity/society. Conservative/Libertarian economic philosphy revolves around marginalizing the public sector to the point it plays no meaningful role in society/economy and granting the business community virtually all control over society and the economy (aka a plutocracy/oligarchy). This nation's economic history over the past 100 years tells us that the Progressive approach is the most effective. It was proven by FDR. The Conservative/Libertarian economic approach, best exemplified by both Herbert Hoover and Ronald Reagan, ended in economic disaster (i.e., the Great Depression and Financial Crisis).

/r/politics Thread Parent Link - eff.org