Fact-checkers: Talking crap in Holland v America

So it's a strong cultural thing. There are no mainstream politicians here who hold scientifically untenable positions about evolution, global warming, vaccinations/autism, abortion, and so on. They'd get ridiculed, and rightly so.

This does not mean that rationality prevails in the Netherlands, unfortunately. Austerity measures are seen as the obviously responsible thing to do, even though economists don't agree. As a result we're looking at an economic recovery significantly worse than the one in the US. The GDP growth is projected at a meager 1.5% per year until 2017.

" Some question the usefulness of the economic models the CPB uses, which (like all economic models) have never successfully predicted what the economy will do several years down the road."

The problem with any sort of fact checking agency in regards to economics, while useful, is far from a magic crystal ball. Economics is a pretty vague sort of thing that straddles the line between between the humanities and hard science. As a former economics student, I can tell you I've met very brilliant people who have adamantly disagree with one another, yet both have excellent insights. It's tough to definitely say that x plan is better than y plan, because there are so many what if scenarios and assumptions to rely on. That being said, I find it's generally better to trust whoever has articulated their plan better. Simply the act of extrapolating out their assumptions means that while they may be wrong, we can look and see if they've taken into account the metrics that matter.

> there are currently ten parties represented in parliament, four to six of which are major contenders.

makes me insane with jealousy. What is it that enables this number of parties to remain viable? My first guess would be that the voting system is not first-past-the-post, but I can't find that info after a cursory Wikipedia search.

So this "fact-check" seems to invert the truth--the Democrats have given no details about their plans, while the Republicans have been very specific about theirs, whether or not you agree with them.

>> In the Dutch electoral system, this can't happen. Two months before the elections, every political party is expected to submit a detailed budget plan to a non-partisan agency called the Central Plan Bureau (CPB), which plays a role similar to the Congressional Budget Office in America. The CPB produces an analysis of the economic consequences of those budget plans. The effects are assessed in detail for 2013-2017, and there's also a prognosis for 2040 to discourage parties from larding up their budgets with short-term candy that leads to negative long-term consequences.

So, what happens instead, is that all parties write up their budget plan in a way that they expect will yield the most favorable CPB calculations for their intended audience. Contrary to most voters, they realize full well that most of their plans will never be realized, because the Dutch political systems is built around political coalitions, where multiple parties (typically 2, 3 or 4) have to make compromises. Almost inevitably, this means the sharp edges are taken off, and typically it's exactly the sharp edges that influence the CPB calculations the most.

>> The CPB's report came out Monday, and most parties had their strong and weak points. Of the two parties most likely to win the elections, the Liberals did well on deficit-cutting and long-term job creation but hiked income inequality and hurt household purchasing power; the Socialists did well on purchasing power and jobs in the short run but had low employment growth in the long run.

In the mean time, we had our elections, and the resulting coalition comprises the liberal party (VVD) and the socalist party (PvdA). Together, they negotiated their plans for the coming 4 years. And guess what: the net effect of these plans is almost the exact opposite of what the 2 parties have been advertising during election time.

The liberal party agreed to health care reforms that will actually decrease income inequality, and will have a huge impact on upper middle class incomes, up to 10% net income loss. They also agreed to cut tax benefits for home owners, which again mostly hurts upper middle class incomes. In exchange, the socialists agreed on labor market reforms that will cut unemployment benefits, and on housing market reforms that will increase the cost of living for people who rent, usually people with lower incomes.

The last few weeks there has been a raging debate here, because voters on both sides feel cheated. People who voted the liberal party feel particularly cheated, because the current plans hurt them disproportionally, while at the same time they will destroy jobs, reduce consumer spending, and hence are very bad for economic growth. The only rationale for these measurements is redistribution of wealth, which the socialists traded for reducing social security. All iof this goes against everything the liberal party stands for, never ever have the liberals even hinted that they would agree with such measures.

So tl;dr: Even though the unbiased analysis of the plans the different parties have reduces fact-free policies, it's far from a guarantee that after the elections, the winning parties will simply make a 180 degree turn and screw you over anyway.

It's impossible for a neutral arbiter to preserve its public legitimacy when ruling on subjects of partisan dispute in an election if there are only two disputing parties. Neither side will accept the referee's judgments.

So it works in sports, but doesn't work in politics for some reason?

Understatement of the century.