When the numbers aren't on your side, argue values.
When you value science, quantitative analysis, reasoning, and empirical testing above being "right" in one's conclusions, papers like this one arise. Dry, essentially emotionless, not strident or powerful reading, but founded in hard analysis of hard numbers that can be reproduced, manipulated with mathematics and variable re-examination. Papers with assumptions laid out, examined, and reviewed pre- and post-publishing.
When you value being morally correct over any other result, papers like this one result. Passionate reading, well-suited to an emotional audience, never reviewed, with assumptions both stated and unstated never examined in any format.
The big problem here is, both papers come from economics and political science, the dismal sciences of analyzing human behavior in economic terms. And when the numbers "always" lie, in political science terms, that means they don't lead to the correct conclusions. The numbers lie about your values, values that are out of step with economic or political reality and that lead one to the conclusion that economic or political reality must be changed. Mind, using hard numbers to come to dispassionate, boring conclusions may also lead one to conclude that economic or political reality should change, too, but such a conclusion is not an unexamined assumption. In the latter paper, it is exactly an unexamined assumption that if economic and political reality does not match one's conclusions, which are themselves unexamined assumptions, then reality must change to match one's assumptions.
When the numbers don't match up to your ideals, argue that the numbers are culturally and morally wrong.
When the numbers speak for themselves, you have to draw conclusions based on a lot more work, and face the possibility that you may conclude that there is a lot more work to be done. In that respect, both "liberal" and "conservative" elites are equal. In every other respect, there is no resemblance.
When you value being morally correct over any other result, papers like this one result. Passionate reading, well-suited to an emotional audience, never reviewed, with assumptions both stated and unstated never examined in any format.
The big problem here is, both papers come from economics and political science, the dismal sciences of analyzing human behavior in economic terms. And when the numbers "always" lie, in political science terms, that means they don't lead to the correct conclusions. The numbers lie about your values, values that are out of step with economic or political reality and that lead one to the conclusion that economic or political reality must be changed. Mind, using hard numbers to come to dispassionate, boring conclusions may also lead one to conclude that economic or political reality should change, too, but such a conclusion is not an unexamined assumption. In the latter paper, it is exactly an unexamined assumption that if economic and political reality does not match one's conclusions, which are themselves unexamined assumptions, then reality must change to match one's assumptions.
When the numbers don't match up to your ideals, argue that the numbers are culturally and morally wrong.
When the numbers speak for themselves, you have to draw conclusions based on a lot more work, and face the possibility that you may conclude that there is a lot more work to be done. In that respect, both "liberal" and "conservative" elites are equal. In every other respect, there is no resemblance.