Cooked: Thom Tillis Is Not Running for Re-Election
Whatever This Is, It's Being Called a Nazi Rally. Here's Why.
Scott Jennings Couldn't Let This Fake News Go Unchallenged During this CNN Panel
Trump Body Slammed Thom Tillis Yesterday
LATEST: Senate Clears Key Procedural Vote on Trump Reconciliation Bill Outright
How Could Anyone Support These People?
America Wins, Cry Harder
The Dog That Never Barked
A Quick Bible Study Vol. 274: ‘Psalm Summer 2025’ Begins with Three of...
An Avalanche of Congressional Investigations Need to be Initiated or Intensified
DeSantis Issues Warning to 'Alligator Alcatraz' Protesters: Block Traffic, Get Hit—That’s...
Jeffries Slams Trump for Abandoning Obama's Iran Strategy, That Included Sending Tehran Pa...
Radical Socialist Mamdani Could Trigger NYC’s Financial Collapse and Skyrocket Living Cost...
IDF Kills Key Hamas and Hezbollah Operatives
Trump Scores Win as BBB Clears Procedural Vote Hurdle After 82-Hour Showdown
OPINION

Accuracy of Macroeconomic Forecasts

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.

One of my first professional jobs 25 years ago was with the economic forecasting firm DRI/McGraw-Hill. It was fun work, but I noticed that the firm’s gross domestic product forecasts with models hundreds of equations long were no better than simple forecasts based on the interest rate yield curve.

I’m sure that macroeconomic models have grown more sophisticated today, but they still can’t predict very well. Former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Edward Lazear, has a terrific piece today describing the inaccuracy of government forecasting models:

My analysis of 1999–2013 reveals that the [Congressional Budget Office]’s real GDP growth forecasts for the next year were off, on average, by 1.7 percentage points, either too high or low. Administration forecasts were similarly off by a slightly larger 1.8 percentage points on average, also too high or too low. Given that the average growth rate during this period was only 2.1%, errors of this magnitude are substantial.

Perhaps most damning: History is a better predictor of annual growth than government forecasts. Simply assuming that GDP growth will be 3.1% in each year—the average annual rate for the 30 years that precede the study period—results in an average forecast error of 1.5 percentage points.

Lazear’s article should be posted above the desk of every reporter and pundit writing about the macroeconomy. And it should be kept in mind by politicians, who often claim that such-and-such policy will create such-and-such number of jobs based on such models.

The lesson for federal budget policy should be one of prudence. We don’t know where the economy is headed, so policymakers should cut spending, zero out deficits, and start paying down debt now while we’re enjoying a run of sustained growth.

Advertisement

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement