Can we improve the system? Sure. But fake videos don't change the way it works significantly.

Hard to argue with that. I mean, the *inspiring* justification for the whole thing was doing it "not because it is easy, but because it is hard".

Yes! And appropriately enough, central planning built an insanely expensive project that was largely to impress other nations.

Po, já conseguiram fazer o comando funcionar, não pede pra explicar como foi nem como repetir que ninguém consegue...

Now we have "mandatory amendments" but they are still restricted to a small share of the budget. Still, we see even in American publications concerns about too powerful legislatures americasquarterly.org/article/latin-americas-parliamentarism-problem/ search.app/QgW498ZiyNZs...

Well, it has to be my own country. The constitution establishes that budget proposals *must* come from the executive (i.e., presidency). Congress can amend, but in limited ways. And until very recently, the executive could just not implement those amendments.

What we almost never realize is how many of the presidential countries we think have a system very similar to the US actually function just like the most extreme presidentialists in the US propose, and in a way most Americans believe would imply the crippling of Congress.

Glad you liked it, you will have noticed it was in large part inspired by our conversations

yes im cursed BY HAVING TO SHARE A WORLD WITH MOLD AND FREQUENTISM

I once wrote about how I felt "How Democracies Die" should have dealt with it, particularly given it relies so heavily on Linz www.whynotparliamentarism.com/p/juan-linz-...

Thanks, and congratulations again. One thing I also have worried about before is how neglected the area of studying *how* to better conduct these assessments is. Really good to see people addressing it

My hypothesis was that they could not be both implemented at the same time. I do think that NPV should be the standard, but as I said I could have made the point in a different form.

But I think I was too blunt, I know this is serious work about extremely important stuff. I skipped the part where I recognized this and went straight to the specific point I often think about. Congratulations on the paper!

Suppose there was an alternative policy to the one you are proposing but that had ten times as much benefits but a real cost of a dollar above the current approach. MVPF or BCR would suggest to take your policy instead of the other with much greater benefits.

I know, cost benefit ratios (or benefit-cost, to be rigorous) do the same as well. I agree it is infinite, but I think that's a reason why "bang for your buck" measures are sometimes misleading in a way that NPV isn't.