I object to the title of this article; there is plenty of room for discussion of these ideas without denigrating them from the start. I speak as an American who got a free education and virtually free healthcare in an industrialized European nation in the 70's, and have imagined ever since that the U.S. could also afford to offer these benefits to our people. We have seen the so-called "trickle-down" policies in place since the 1980's, rather than trickling down, have sponged wealth up to the top. To revitalize our economy, there must be stimulus since so many Americans now have very little disposable income.
4
Every one of Sanders' major proposals cited here involves a shift of national income from the pockets of the rich to the pockets of the not-so-rich. That is exactly what's needed to restore a sense of national prosperity. Tax cuts for the rich are a scam---trickle-down is a false idea, demonstrated a number of times to be a failure as a means of generating general prosperity. Progressive tax hikes and spending to create jobs, provide better education and healthcare for all, and infrastructure spending all create jobs for middle-income and poor people, boost consumer demand that's good for all businesses, and puts smiles on people's faces. We don't want the budget-busting tax cuts that make billionaires smile and makes most others curse the days Reagan and Bush43 were born. We don't want privatization that hands profits to the rich and connected, and screws everyone else. We want the opposite. We'd like to smile again.
8
Well put, Garlic Toast. I see you are from Kansas. You are currently experiencing conservative economic policy on steroids there from what I read. You can certainly speak from experience and the wisdom it brings to point out that progressive economic policy works for the 99%.
2
That depends on how you define the rich, doesn't it? If you take the top 10%, that's 13 million households with incomes greater than $120K. Since they control a lot of important institutions, such as the government and the financial system, the chance of getting a significant amount of their money is small.
If, on the other hand, you just pick on the billionaires, you will discover it is impossible to raise significant sums of money. There are just too few of them for it to be worthwhile.
If, on the other hand, you just pick on the billionaires, you will discover it is impossible to raise significant sums of money. There are just too few of them for it to be worthwhile.
1
Why do people, like Davidson, continue to call Robert Reich an economist. He is a policy professor with a law degree, not a doctorate in economics. In the 90s Paul Krugman was famous calling him a "policy entrepreneur"-- one who, despite being a nice guy, was typically "wrong about everything" when he tried to describe the nuts and bolts of economic processes.
6
Bernie's vision sounds like the flip side of trickle down, which is not to say it is as wrong. Good for him even if he only gets the center to shift.
5
Oh good grief!! It is only "the far-left flank" that believes that strengthening Social Security is a good thing?! It is only the "far-left flank" that believes that imposing a financial-transactions tax" is a good idea? Is Adam Davidson so oblivious that he is unaware that such a transactions tax is already in place in Europe?
Mr Davidson believes that free health care and college to everybody are proposals toward which "the economics profession can't follow Senator Sanders." Is Mr. Davidson really so uninformed that he is unaware that universal single-payer health care (which is what Senator Sanders is advocating) has led to first-rate health care for all residents at a fraction of the cost in almost every advanced country in the world? Is Mr. Davidson really completely unaware that many wealthy European countries already offer free tuition to all? That free tuition was the norm in California and the university system in New York until the Reagan era?
No, Mr. Davidson, savvy economists around the world know that Senator Sanders' proposals are rational, doable, and hardly the stuff of some "far-left wing."
Mr Davidson believes that free health care and college to everybody are proposals toward which "the economics profession can't follow Senator Sanders." Is Mr. Davidson really so uninformed that he is unaware that universal single-payer health care (which is what Senator Sanders is advocating) has led to first-rate health care for all residents at a fraction of the cost in almost every advanced country in the world? Is Mr. Davidson really completely unaware that many wealthy European countries already offer free tuition to all? That free tuition was the norm in California and the university system in New York until the Reagan era?
No, Mr. Davidson, savvy economists around the world know that Senator Sanders' proposals are rational, doable, and hardly the stuff of some "far-left wing."
11
These European countries offer free tuition for a small number of highly-educated students, who mostly come from the upper third of society. Everyone else gets an apprenticeship at the hi-tech factory.
This is actually a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be what Sanders is offering.
This is actually a good idea, but it doesn't appear to be what Sanders is offering.
2
In fact, those European countries send a higher percentage of their young people to college, and graduate a higher percentage of their young people than does the United States. So it is simply not true that free tuition in Germany or France or Ireland is for a tiny elite. They do it there; we can do it here.
3
Oh krikey Sanders believes in the Confidence Fairy. He honestly believes that free college and a $15 minimum wage will inspire such enthusiasm and determination that more people will work?
Nancy, do you think that people other than retirees CHOOSE not to work? Do you think they choose instead to live on welfare or enjoy being homelessness, partaking of the amenities of the Blue Room (the sky above, the mud below)?
A great many people limp through life with little or no hope so the rich can have the world at their feet. That's gotta change.
A great many people limp through life with little or no hope so the rich can have the world at their feet. That's gotta change.
7
There are a large variety of people who don't work for various reasons, but could work. You can hardly say that all 100 million people between 16 and 64 who don't have jobs are sleeping under bridges. Many of them live quite comfortably.
Sanders' proposed programs would probably add to their number to some degree. However, the chance of any of these programs being enacted is nugatory.
Sanders' proposed programs would probably add to their number to some degree. However, the chance of any of these programs being enacted is nugatory.
Standard NYT anti Bernie headline. Good story. How about a headline like:
Exploring the feasible: Bernienomics sparks useful debate.
Most people only read headlines. The one NYT ran is too dismissive when it should be curious.
Exploring the feasible: Bernienomics sparks useful debate.
Most people only read headlines. The one NYT ran is too dismissive when it should be curious.
10
All the economists who have been screaming about the deficit since the 2008 crash are keynesians? I don't think so.
As for Sanders:
The US spends much more on healthcare for much less in goods delivered. Yes, this expensive and inefficient system drains resources from other sectors where they could be used more productively. So, Mr Davidson, your argument about the economic impossibility of a better system is what, exactly?
One more point. Neat trick to tie this all to Veblen and only to Veblen. What about Henry Ford and FDR? There have been real world tests of most of Sanders's proposed policies. Why talk about Theory of the Leisure Class instead of looking at real world experience?
As for Sanders:
The US spends much more on healthcare for much less in goods delivered. Yes, this expensive and inefficient system drains resources from other sectors where they could be used more productively. So, Mr Davidson, your argument about the economic impossibility of a better system is what, exactly?
One more point. Neat trick to tie this all to Veblen and only to Veblen. What about Henry Ford and FDR? There have been real world tests of most of Sanders's proposed policies. Why talk about Theory of the Leisure Class instead of looking at real world experience?
8
If Veblen were alive today, he would pen "The Theory of the Bureaucratic Class".
In contemporary America, society is dominated by legalistic rules written and interpreted by the professional class. The top 10%, the lawyers, doctors, financial professionals, business executives, and government officials all benefit by having a monopoly on interpreting and enforcing these rules. This monopoly allows them to divert the bulk of the income to themselves and their children.
They themselves don't see it this way. In fact, it is from the affluent white professionals that the core of Bernie Sanders support comes. They believe evil billionaires and large corporations are the source of all evils, but they take their own privileged position for granted. Once it becomes clear that in order to society to change dramatically, their monopoly would have to be reduced, they will reconsider their stance.
It is not easy to see how real change could come about. In an advanced society, knowledge is power. The professionals know how to manipulate complex financial and legal structures, and make a lot of money by running the system. This seems to be true to some extent in every advanced country.
In contemporary America, society is dominated by legalistic rules written and interpreted by the professional class. The top 10%, the lawyers, doctors, financial professionals, business executives, and government officials all benefit by having a monopoly on interpreting and enforcing these rules. This monopoly allows them to divert the bulk of the income to themselves and their children.
They themselves don't see it this way. In fact, it is from the affluent white professionals that the core of Bernie Sanders support comes. They believe evil billionaires and large corporations are the source of all evils, but they take their own privileged position for granted. Once it becomes clear that in order to society to change dramatically, their monopoly would have to be reduced, they will reconsider their stance.
It is not easy to see how real change could come about. In an advanced society, knowledge is power. The professionals know how to manipulate complex financial and legal structures, and make a lot of money by running the system. This seems to be true to some extent in every advanced country.
10
What Bernie Sanders does not support is greed: corporate greed or individual greed. It is clear that the economic policies followed in the last three decades have greatly increased the wealth gap between the average worker and his or her boss, while the gap between the average boss and the head of the corporation has exploded.
Sanders' plans are good for the poor who may or may not be employed; good for the average worker who finds him or herself falling short of the prosperity expected but not realized since the 1960's, and good for the very wealthy (such as the Clintons and Romneys) who have more money than they will ever need in their lifetimes and need the average worker to produce the luxurious lifestyle they will have the rest of their lives.
The Sanders plan provides for relief in healthcare and education expenses, repair and upgrades of infrastructure, and a general improvement in the sense of well-being and happiness that increases worker productivity.
The NYT tries to characterize the Sanders plan as unrealistic or unachievable but in fact it is quite achievable and the BEST plan any candidate has put forth in decades.
The only people threatened by the Sanders plan are the greedy individuals and corporations who don't really care if a rising tide lifts all boats because they are traveling by private jet.
Sanders' plans are good for the poor who may or may not be employed; good for the average worker who finds him or herself falling short of the prosperity expected but not realized since the 1960's, and good for the very wealthy (such as the Clintons and Romneys) who have more money than they will ever need in their lifetimes and need the average worker to produce the luxurious lifestyle they will have the rest of their lives.
The Sanders plan provides for relief in healthcare and education expenses, repair and upgrades of infrastructure, and a general improvement in the sense of well-being and happiness that increases worker productivity.
The NYT tries to characterize the Sanders plan as unrealistic or unachievable but in fact it is quite achievable and the BEST plan any candidate has put forth in decades.
The only people threatened by the Sanders plan are the greedy individuals and corporations who don't really care if a rising tide lifts all boats because they are traveling by private jet.
10
Inequality is more of an effect than a cause of America's economic stagnation. Of the 94 readers' comments so far posted, only a handful acknowledge the underlying reasons for the country's economic malaise and inequality: inescapable global competition.
There are some government investments and polices which might marginally improve U.S. competitiveness and boost the fortunes of those energized by the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. However, as one reader quoted former Secretary of Labor (and Sanders supporter) Robert Reich as saying, "Anybody who thinks the answer is found in policy has not been paying attention.... How in the world do you get good policies enacted ...?"
To refer back to the title of Davidson's essay, the most "useful" approach is also a politically and economically "feasible" one.
There are some government investments and polices which might marginally improve U.S. competitiveness and boost the fortunes of those energized by the rhetoric of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. However, as one reader quoted former Secretary of Labor (and Sanders supporter) Robert Reich as saying, "Anybody who thinks the answer is found in policy has not been paying attention.... How in the world do you get good policies enacted ...?"
To refer back to the title of Davidson's essay, the most "useful" approach is also a politically and economically "feasible" one.
3
The market system is portrayed as the interaction of buyers and sellers but the role and influence of: institutions and rule makers; rule influencers; and rule enforcers on ‘the free market’ is often underplayed within a national and international context. If the political ideological spectrum of intervention to non-intervention in social and economic spheres is added to the mix we now have an interrelated and interdependent myriad of players and stakeholders seeking to maximize their satisfactions.
Perhaps the focus of intervention should be on satisfying the needs of the targeted group (unemployed, those with ill health, educationally disadvantaged). This could begin by ascertaining what these groups want / need rather than proffering and implementing blanket solutions as perceived by the institutions. The resulting social return on the investments over time may offer a more enlightened and comprehensive perspective on the value of the expenditure by the institutions. Rather than adhere to doctrines, institutional actions should address context specific needs which may necessitate what appears to be fragmented actions but they address the needs of the target population. For example, educational disadvantage may begin when you are born not when you are five, eleven or sixteen but is lack of education the cause or the effect or both?
Perhaps the focus of intervention should be on satisfying the needs of the targeted group (unemployed, those with ill health, educationally disadvantaged). This could begin by ascertaining what these groups want / need rather than proffering and implementing blanket solutions as perceived by the institutions. The resulting social return on the investments over time may offer a more enlightened and comprehensive perspective on the value of the expenditure by the institutions. Rather than adhere to doctrines, institutional actions should address context specific needs which may necessitate what appears to be fragmented actions but they address the needs of the target population. For example, educational disadvantage may begin when you are born not when you are five, eleven or sixteen but is lack of education the cause or the effect or both?
5
The vast majority of economists--and Bernie, too--never started a company, never paid salaries, never risked their own money on their own ideas, and are almost always wrong when they predict the future (yet no one calls them on their failures at prescience). They have no skin in the game--it's only those who do who really make the economy work. So, they're all talk and no action. Believe me, there's a tipping point where the minimum wage is too high, the taxes too burdensome, and Government bureaucracy too oppressive (and, big companies are just as oppressive as big Government). That's when the golden goose dies. Academics and politicians with no real experience in the real economy should shut up and and get out of the way of those who put themselves on the line and produce real things of value.
5
What you say is true but misses the point. Look at what has worked. During the 50's to 70s: taxes were higher, minimum wage was higher, unions were more powerful, college much more affordable and yet growth was much higher, income inequality at historic low levels and standard of living increasing quickly.
Also, bear in mind that running a company is very different from running an government. To maximize profits you may layoff employees. A government can't do that. When things go poorly a company will pull back in spending and investments. A government typically does the opposite in order to keep a mild recession from turning into a big recession.
Also, bear in mind that running a company is very different from running an government. To maximize profits you may layoff employees. A government can't do that. When things go poorly a company will pull back in spending and investments. A government typically does the opposite in order to keep a mild recession from turning into a big recession.
8
Sanders plan could only be implemented by catastrophic taxes. The man is a Socialist and goes against our foundation of principles.
7
All due respect to Sanders but -
1. Current models are outdated and out of step with reality. If I were looking for answers, I'd be reading Adam Smith, rather than Marx/not Marx/Friedman/Keynes.
2. Distribution of wealth is becoming downright medieval, again, and the mechanisms for its in-market distribution have changed a lot since the mid 20th century.
3. Any modern version of the New Deal will have to apply to a totally different environment, mental and cultural as well as physical. The degree of disconnection between capital and Main Street is now so severe it's a matter of opinion if they have any common interests.
4. Government revenue and taxation policies, and related economics, haven't gone far from the Pharaohs. The result is obvious - Massive dodging and massive deficits, endless expensive bean counting, and reduction in both performance and the applied value of revenue.
5. Upping the skills base, increasing opportunities, and therefore improving productivity is a great idea, and could recharge the dino-economics of Main Street very effectively - The question is how many cash cows are expected to cooperate to make it work, and whether America's financial and academic graziers are willing to do that.
6. Infrastructure needs doing anyway, see Flint, Detroit, etc. That's not optimism, it's realism. Paying for it, however, at local, state and national levels?
Anyway, at least someone's not talking about nothing but "market forces", for a change.
1. Current models are outdated and out of step with reality. If I were looking for answers, I'd be reading Adam Smith, rather than Marx/not Marx/Friedman/Keynes.
2. Distribution of wealth is becoming downright medieval, again, and the mechanisms for its in-market distribution have changed a lot since the mid 20th century.
3. Any modern version of the New Deal will have to apply to a totally different environment, mental and cultural as well as physical. The degree of disconnection between capital and Main Street is now so severe it's a matter of opinion if they have any common interests.
4. Government revenue and taxation policies, and related economics, haven't gone far from the Pharaohs. The result is obvious - Massive dodging and massive deficits, endless expensive bean counting, and reduction in both performance and the applied value of revenue.
5. Upping the skills base, increasing opportunities, and therefore improving productivity is a great idea, and could recharge the dino-economics of Main Street very effectively - The question is how many cash cows are expected to cooperate to make it work, and whether America's financial and academic graziers are willing to do that.
6. Infrastructure needs doing anyway, see Flint, Detroit, etc. That's not optimism, it's realism. Paying for it, however, at local, state and national levels?
Anyway, at least someone's not talking about nothing but "market forces", for a change.
4
Yes institutions are important, but Bernie OneNote does even get that right. Because the real problem we have is an issue he doesn't (can't? care to?) address: racism...in particular the twin American original sins of slavery and Native American genocide. If we don't really come to grips with those, it will be the fire next time.
2
Bernienomics,
useful for figuring out the people in society who through subterfuge are trying to kill everyone and make world were everyone's life is awful except those who enforce the equailty. Look at China
useful for figuring out the people in society who through subterfuge are trying to kill everyone and make world were everyone's life is awful except those who enforce the equailty. Look at China
2
After receiving free ride, they will work harder! Wow, did I read it right? The concept is against human nature and I am seeing human nature in play everyday. Most people want to make more and work less. Sure, you can blame Chinese or others but the reality is that many Americans will not want to work on assembly line of making iPhone. As long as opportunities are equal, income inequality can be a good thing. Why nobody even mention work ethic, meritocracy, personal responsibility, etc? American Dream is alive but you will need to work hard to realize it. Free college is a bad idea because many young people will be much better off learning real skills instead of going to college. I am against Mr. Sanders for a simple reason - I want my tax dollars spent on the right kind of things such as protecting endangered species.
2
In many European countries, free universities are working splendidly and there is no shortage of innovative and hard-working people. The idea that it cannot be done in the USA is simply a tired falsehood.
1
The American middle and working classes are endangered species right now.
3
MMT in very brief.
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED or from outside the country via a favorable trade balance.
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so. Surpluses suck money out of the private sector.
8. When enough money has been leeched out of the private sector either by surpluses or by an unfavorable trade balance, people & businesses turn to banks to get money to conduct domestic commerce. Private debt explodes.
9. Since banks lend out much more money than they have in reserves, this put the banking system under stress. When the banks can no longer shuffle the debt around, we have a financial crisis.
10. The moral of the story is that unless we have a large trade surplus, we need federal deficits to supply money for a growing economy.
11. We have recently seen an example of this. From about 1997 to 2008 the deficits were not large enough to make up for the trade deficit. Banks became over leveraged, and we would have had a real depression if the FED had not poured TRILLIONS into the banks, but it still wasn't pretty.
1. We need money to conduct commerce.
2. As the economy grows it needs more and more money.
3. Money comes from the federal government via the FED or from outside the country via a favorable trade balance.
4. The way money gets from the federal government to us is by federal spending.
5. The deficit measure the net flow of money from the federal government to people, businesses, and state & local governments.
6. The debt is the net accumulation of this money over time.
7. Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so. Surpluses suck money out of the private sector.
8. When enough money has been leeched out of the private sector either by surpluses or by an unfavorable trade balance, people & businesses turn to banks to get money to conduct domestic commerce. Private debt explodes.
9. Since banks lend out much more money than they have in reserves, this put the banking system under stress. When the banks can no longer shuffle the debt around, we have a financial crisis.
10. The moral of the story is that unless we have a large trade surplus, we need federal deficits to supply money for a growing economy.
11. We have recently seen an example of this. From about 1997 to 2008 the deficits were not large enough to make up for the trade deficit. Banks became over leveraged, and we would have had a real depression if the FED had not poured TRILLIONS into the banks, but it still wasn't pretty.
5
"Too high debt or deficits have never hurt our economy while surpluses for a while have always done so. Surpluses suck money out of the private sector."
Nonsense. Debt always makes people, companies, and nations fragile. It's just so obvious! The billions and billions paid on the debt is money unavailable for fixing the infrastructure and its a yoke around the neck of the future. People who deny this are fragilistas.
Nonsense. Debt always makes people, companies, and nations fragile. It's just so obvious! The billions and billions paid on the debt is money unavailable for fixing the infrastructure and its a yoke around the neck of the future. People who deny this are fragilistas.
1
Dalgliesh - I notice that you give no examples so I'll give one. The highest the federal public debt ratio ever was in 1946. From then to 1973 we increased the debt in dollars by 75%. Oh, and BTW, we build the interstate highways which, I believe, was the largest construction project ever.
And what happened to that huge debt? Was it a yoke around the neck of the future? On the contrary, since we invested the money in America, the economy grew and the debt became insignificant.
On the other hand after WWI we paid down the debt so by 1929 we had paid off almost 40% of it. And then what happened?
And you also might consider that after accounting for the interest returned by the FED, our debt service is less than 1% of GDP.
Just because it is obvious to you does not make it true.
And what happened to that huge debt? Was it a yoke around the neck of the future? On the contrary, since we invested the money in America, the economy grew and the debt became insignificant.
On the other hand after WWI we paid down the debt so by 1929 we had paid off almost 40% of it. And then what happened?
And you also might consider that after accounting for the interest returned by the FED, our debt service is less than 1% of GDP.
Just because it is obvious to you does not make it true.
3
The thirty years post-WWII were a fluke that will never happen again. With Europe and Japan in ruins, we had all the economic advantages. They don't exist anymore. Bad example.
1
The trouble with this column is that it views the finances of the federal government as though they were the same as one's personal finances. Mr. Davidson does not seem to understand or, indeed, make any attempt to understand what money is used for. The people who appear to have really made an attempt to understand money are the economists of the Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). The interesting thing is that the results of the past strongly support them while at least half of Keynesian Theory is contradicted by historical results.
Keynes wrote, "the Boom, not the Slump, is the time for austerity at the Treasury." This is usually taken to mean that the federal government should have deficits & run up the debt when the economy is bad, but when times are good, it should not have deficits and should pay the debt down.
History has shown that this works when in the Slump, but fails in the Boom. US economic history has shown it has never been a good time for austerity. There have been 6 periods of longer than 3 years when the economy was strong & the gov eliminated deficits and significantly paid down the debt. Each of those periods ended with a real gut wrenching depression.
On the other hand, when we did the opposite of what Keynes advised, we had Great Prosperity. In fact, the period from 1946 to 1973 has been called the Great Prosperity. Far from practising austerity, we had deficits for 21 of those 27 years and actually INCREASED the debt by 75%.
See another comment for MMT.
Keynes wrote, "the Boom, not the Slump, is the time for austerity at the Treasury." This is usually taken to mean that the federal government should have deficits & run up the debt when the economy is bad, but when times are good, it should not have deficits and should pay the debt down.
History has shown that this works when in the Slump, but fails in the Boom. US economic history has shown it has never been a good time for austerity. There have been 6 periods of longer than 3 years when the economy was strong & the gov eliminated deficits and significantly paid down the debt. Each of those periods ended with a real gut wrenching depression.
On the other hand, when we did the opposite of what Keynes advised, we had Great Prosperity. In fact, the period from 1946 to 1973 has been called the Great Prosperity. Far from practising austerity, we had deficits for 21 of those 27 years and actually INCREASED the debt by 75%.
See another comment for MMT.
5
The most important implication of what Bernie Sanders has to say is that American youth no longer has access to the opportunities that it used to--and that youth does in some other countries--and that part of that is due to policy decisions, or the lack of them. A portion of the problem is due to technological factors, to be sure, but we can influence the policy part, and that's what he's up to. He may not have hit the nail on the head in all cases with his solutions, but he's right on the mark when it comes to what's wrong--it's the lack of access to opportunity, and that's why this unlikely figure is getting such a response, particularly from the youth of the country.
4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4035755/
Studies have shown older people are more optimistic than younger people, called an optimistic "update bias."
This study concludes,"we provide a timely demonstration of an age-related enhancement of the update bias that has important implications for healthy ageing. Optimism has been related to better physical health (Scheier et al. 1999; Diener & Chan, 2011; Kim et al. 2011), indicating that an enhanced optimistic update bias may convey adaptive benefits in older age.For example, an optimistic processing bias may allow older adults to maintain the same level of happiness and well-being when faced with the many health and personal challenges that older age entails, such as death of loved ones and financial difficulties."
But it goes on to say,"a broad implication of our findings is that the presence of such a bias may skew economic, personal and health-related decisions.For example, older adults may make inappropriate insurance purchases based on a false optimism in relation to their future.Indeed, an age-related increase in risky financial decision making has been described (Samanez-Larkin et al. 2010, 2011), which could be linked to less updating after losses (i.e. after worse than expected outcomes) but more equivalent updating after gains (i.e. after better than expected outcomes)."
Sanders' optimism,a fine quality,may partially reflect his stage in life. Still,his numbers deserve scrutiny,not just be taken on faith.
Studies have shown older people are more optimistic than younger people, called an optimistic "update bias."
This study concludes,"we provide a timely demonstration of an age-related enhancement of the update bias that has important implications for healthy ageing. Optimism has been related to better physical health (Scheier et al. 1999; Diener & Chan, 2011; Kim et al. 2011), indicating that an enhanced optimistic update bias may convey adaptive benefits in older age.For example, an optimistic processing bias may allow older adults to maintain the same level of happiness and well-being when faced with the many health and personal challenges that older age entails, such as death of loved ones and financial difficulties."
But it goes on to say,"a broad implication of our findings is that the presence of such a bias may skew economic, personal and health-related decisions.For example, older adults may make inappropriate insurance purchases based on a false optimism in relation to their future.Indeed, an age-related increase in risky financial decision making has been described (Samanez-Larkin et al. 2010, 2011), which could be linked to less updating after losses (i.e. after worse than expected outcomes) but more equivalent updating after gains (i.e. after better than expected outcomes)."
Sanders' optimism,a fine quality,may partially reflect his stage in life. Still,his numbers deserve scrutiny,not just be taken on faith.
2
Bernienomics Might Not Be Feasible — But It’s Useful
'Might' not?
'Might' not?
4
I am no economist but wan't the golden age of American economic growth i.e. 1945 to 1975 , roughly, also the era when unions were strong, corporations weaker and government regulation of business accepted? Was not that the period when income inequality was lowest?
From an amateur perspective it appears the institutionalists were right.
From an amateur perspective it appears the institutionalists were right.
23
Maybe this supports your observation, but employees were empowered in that post-war reconstruction era for the simple reason that the competitive labor pool was smaller. The US owned most of the world's means of production, which helped the ownership class, but it also gave unions more negotiating leverage than today, when unskilled labor has to compete with third-world workers who can produce the same widgets for lower wages. Even skilled labor and management (not the investor class) were more empowered because social convention kept women out of the workforce, reducing competition for jobs and therefore (arguably) promoting wage growth. So there it is, simple supply and demand. You could add to that golden era the absence of many regulations on business (EPA, for example, wasn't around before 1970). These regulations are important to us today, but they certainly consume revenues that during that golden era might have been distributed to workers (in the form of jobs and higher wages), taxes, and yes, profits.
I think this is a great idea!! Continue to dismantle the most prosperous economy the world has ever seen and transform ourselves into Europe...it's worked so well for them. If we are lucky and try really hard, we can end up looking like Greece, Italy, Spain and Portugal.
The central redistribution model doesn't work. End of story.
The fact that this is even a real world discussion is alarming. How about everyone puts their big boy pants on and does the following: Get an education, get a job and work hard. Let me guess, "the deck is stacked against you."
The central redistribution model doesn't work. End of story.
The fact that this is even a real world discussion is alarming. How about everyone puts their big boy pants on and does the following: Get an education, get a job and work hard. Let me guess, "the deck is stacked against you."
10
MPC,
Well the trickle down pablum the GOP has been selling to their blue-collar supporters just isn't working anymore.
That is why so many of them are now supporting Donald Trump, or Bernie.
If The Donald wins the Republican Primary, the GOP ruling class will have their heads explode, because Trump isn't a true "conservative" in line with their conservative values, ie lower taxes for the wealthy, shutdown PP, end the ACA.
Which is why much of the Republican base have rejected the so-called mainstream GOP Presidential candidates.
I can't wait for November.
Well the trickle down pablum the GOP has been selling to their blue-collar supporters just isn't working anymore.
That is why so many of them are now supporting Donald Trump, or Bernie.
If The Donald wins the Republican Primary, the GOP ruling class will have their heads explode, because Trump isn't a true "conservative" in line with their conservative values, ie lower taxes for the wealthy, shutdown PP, end the ACA.
Which is why much of the Republican base have rejected the so-called mainstream GOP Presidential candidates.
I can't wait for November.
3
Most Americans given the choice would not vote for an economic system that assures that only a small handful of people would benefit yet they do since that choice comes disguised in a package that appeals to racial, social, religious and moral bigotry and that Republican fraud works. No discussion of economic models and their empirically evaluated efficacy can be divorced from those social and moral frames of reference.
8
Far more than a handful benefit. The entire affluent professional class, 13 million households, is living very well. Huge tracts of expensive and elegant houses are spread out across the northeast seaboard and coastal California. In places like Manhattan and San Francisco, nearly everyone is quite wealthy.
1
Sanders is no Veblen. He doesn't have a clue how the real world works and is so rigid that hasn't changed his mind about anything substantive in 50 years. The 21st century is about flexibility and Sanders is locked into the shibboleths of the 1930s. The huge expansion of government he is proposing will ossify the economy bringing misery to all.
8
I think you're condescending tone, and dismissal of Sanders ideas is exasperating.
There are many successful European countries that have free college, health care and socialist policies. He has no "miracle plan", where he lowers taxes and increases spending like many of his opponents. Sanders is suggesting raising spending and RAISING taxes. It's not rocket science. You suggesting that this is a radical idea that no sane economists would ever accept is pure rubbish. I suggest that the New York Times, along with most mainstream media dismisses Sanders completely, while they tacitly accept status-quo policies.
There are many successful European countries that have free college, health care and socialist policies. He has no "miracle plan", where he lowers taxes and increases spending like many of his opponents. Sanders is suggesting raising spending and RAISING taxes. It's not rocket science. You suggesting that this is a radical idea that no sane economists would ever accept is pure rubbish. I suggest that the New York Times, along with most mainstream media dismisses Sanders completely, while they tacitly accept status-quo policies.
23
These European countries are not that successful. They offer free college to a small number of highly-educated young people, and provide basic-level health care to everyone. In return, the taxes are so high that few people can afford to have children, and young people can't find jobs. These countries are heading for a lot of trouble as the population starts to decline.
2
With interest rates so low, the time is now for the US government to invest money into it's roads, bridges, solar and wind industries, and water systems.
It makes perfect sense to reign in Wall Street with a 21st century Glass Steagal that breaks up the Big Banks, and a speculative tax on Wall Street transactions. With those revenues we could pay for free tuition at public colleges and universities almost 4 times over. The GI Bill proved every $1 invested in higher education increases government tax revenues by $7.
The time is now to end corporate inversions, repatriate offshore corporate profits, reform the corporate tax code so that the rate is less than 35%, but more than what they pay now, and make sure the companies actually pay that new figure.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 is supported by over 200 economists. They don't agree on everything, but it looks like they agree on that.
Medicare for All provides healthcare for all Americans in a more cost-effective way than the private sector. It radically reduces the rate of rising healthcare costs, and provides savings for businesses and the vast majority of Americans. And everyone gets healthcare, which I believe should be a human right.
Impose a carbon tax and ban fracking. Provide tax credits for the poorest Americans to cope with higher energy costs. Invest money in carbon capture and renewables. Cleaner air.
Treat each issue as a system, define variables, and solve. How is any of this radical? Feel the Bern!
It makes perfect sense to reign in Wall Street with a 21st century Glass Steagal that breaks up the Big Banks, and a speculative tax on Wall Street transactions. With those revenues we could pay for free tuition at public colleges and universities almost 4 times over. The GI Bill proved every $1 invested in higher education increases government tax revenues by $7.
The time is now to end corporate inversions, repatriate offshore corporate profits, reform the corporate tax code so that the rate is less than 35%, but more than what they pay now, and make sure the companies actually pay that new figure.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 is supported by over 200 economists. They don't agree on everything, but it looks like they agree on that.
Medicare for All provides healthcare for all Americans in a more cost-effective way than the private sector. It radically reduces the rate of rising healthcare costs, and provides savings for businesses and the vast majority of Americans. And everyone gets healthcare, which I believe should be a human right.
Impose a carbon tax and ban fracking. Provide tax credits for the poorest Americans to cope with higher energy costs. Invest money in carbon capture and renewables. Cleaner air.
Treat each issue as a system, define variables, and solve. How is any of this radical? Feel the Bern!
14
In other words, destroy the economy
2
In other words, turn away from the system that has propelled this country to success in order to embrace the failure that is socialism. The only human rights are related to freedom from government. There is no human right to anything you cannot afford to pay for, including healthcare, food, water, shelter, education or a certain wage. The three postwar decades that liberals so fondly recall were an aberration in human history. That they're over is not surprising. We should be grateful that they lasted as long as they did and move on.
When the voters go and vote for Liberals in congress ,we will be able to get this done a lot sooner... Obama has moved us in the right direction, and had the voters come out in 2010 and voted for a democratic congress the economy and the middle class would be much better off today.. More would have been done to help the poor also.
5
There is nothing pure in a real world economy. Everything causes a distortion, including doing nothing (free market). In our current situation, the economic policies that have led to huge redistribution of wealth and income to the ultra rich have created enormous distortions and inefficiencies in the economy. With concentrations of wealth and income, there is a distortion in the relative value of labor and capital. With suppressed wages, supply and demand might suggest the labor supply would decrease with the price; but this is not what happens. When wages are suppressed, more family members enter the workforce to earn a subsistence income for the household; further suppressing wages with an excess supply of labor. As labor gets cheaper it is substituted for capital driving down the return on capital. This downward spiral in the oversupply of labor results in under utilization of labor as laborers take jobs beneath their productive capacities. The economy suffers from lost productivity and foregone income.
The current situation of low interest rates shows just how under utilized our resources are. There is virtually no return on capital which simultaneously pushes the value of labor to a very low level. Huge amounts of slack in the economy are created by excess capital and labor supplies. Only by increasing income to the middle class can we stimulate the economy and improve the return on both labor and capital.
The current situation of low interest rates shows just how under utilized our resources are. There is virtually no return on capital which simultaneously pushes the value of labor to a very low level. Huge amounts of slack in the economy are created by excess capital and labor supplies. Only by increasing income to the middle class can we stimulate the economy and improve the return on both labor and capital.
4
We've had 30 years of Trickle Down Economics. Why not try Trickle Up Economics a try.
4
And Reagan created the greatest economic expansion in history, while Obama has created the worst. the science is settled!
Reagan greatly increased deficit spending. Obama has greatly reduced the deficit. Why don't you check your facts.
8
" Sanders believes that raising the minimum wage, spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure and offering free college will fundamentally shift the structure of our economy toward the poor and middle class."
Lets have him try first with his personal finances.
Have him spend all his assets and 150% of his income on stuff he doesn't need with no significant asset value after it's purchased.
Once he does this, if he ends up a billionaire; it works.
IF he ends up broke; at least we didn't tank the country with the idea that wasting money is the path to success and affluence.
Lets have him try first with his personal finances.
Have him spend all his assets and 150% of his income on stuff he doesn't need with no significant asset value after it's purchased.
Once he does this, if he ends up a billionaire; it works.
IF he ends up broke; at least we didn't tank the country with the idea that wasting money is the path to success and affluence.
4
But safe infrastructure, an educated citizenry, and a working class that can participate in the economy do have significant value.
Household finances aren't a good analogy for how a world power should model its economy. Investments in the future are obviously vital.
Household finances aren't a good analogy for how a world power should model its economy. Investments in the future are obviously vital.
7
Rob, Sanders is not a huge long lived country that can print the money its debt are in and which much supply money to the economy so we can conduct commerce. Or hadn't you noticed?
5
Aren't politicians' 'Pie in the Sky' promises how we got into this mess in the first place?
3
Mr. Adam Davidson and Readers: In order to retain the efficiency of the US economy, "creative destruction" of old economic entities must accompany the creation of innovative new ones. Joseph Schumpeter's theory about "creative destruction" may be pertinent in a US economy with wealth increasingly concentrated in a very elite, wealthy segment. For example, as of 2012, the top 0.5% of households held in excess of 21% of total US economic wealth; very similar to the wealth distribution among the very rich in 1928, which led to the Great Depression. Contributing to this wealth concentration among the wealthy has been the decline of labor unions, currently at their lowest membership levels since the Great Depression. Due to this relative lack of union "countervailing power," Galbraith's expression, real wages earned by labor have been stagnant for decades. Yet, corporate dividends, rents for machinery and equipment, interest paid for financial capital, and other returns for sources of physical and financial capital, as a percentage of national income, have increased significantly. Thus, helping to explain the causes of the increasing proportion of annual US national income claimed by the very wealthy. And, with the accumulation of political power via, for example, the Supreme Court's United decision, enabling an economic playing field tilted toward the rich, the inequity in this national income distribution continues to increase.
[04/14/2016 Th 12:14 p Greenville, NC]
[04/14/2016 Th 12:14 p Greenville, NC]
6
You note that they hold 21% of the wealth yet conveniently ignore the fact that they pay over 40% of federal taxes. That is obscene.
“Anybody who thinks that the answer is found in policy has not been paying attention. Good policies are a dime a dozen. The real issue now is a matter of power. How in the world do you get good policies enacted and enforced?” - Robert Reich
Oh right, the 'Revolution'.
Oh right, the 'Revolution'.
2
What these theories tend to ignore is the predatory nature of institutions, big and small. So as with natural environments, like Yellowstone, or a tropical reef, the role of the apex predator, whether it be wolves or sharks, has a great beneficial influence on the overall balance of the system and the welfare of its inhabitants. So using the Yellowstone analogy, th small government philosophy, (which is really a scam) seeks to transfer power away from the apex predator (the wolves) to local government (the coyotes). This is good for the coyotes but bad for every else. Same as for the role of the shark in the reef system, get rid of them and eventually the system suffers and scum takes over.
1
The only predator in the economy is Big Government. Greedy Big Government is taking in record high revenues on record high taxes, and their insatiable unprecedented greed demands even more! In contrast, every penny businesses has was given voluntarily when free people engage in voluntary transactions
2
I appreciate the background history of these Institutionalists, and Veblen in particular, especially as to how his thinking influenced the New Deal structures. I agree with his take on the importance of government regulation and stronger unions of workers.
Great article.
Thanks.
Great article.
Thanks.
5
It is but a truism to say that the institutional structure of the economy will determine its fundamental functioning.
On the other hand, poverty is a matter of income vs. the cost of living, not how much money other people make. To look at poverty through the lens of "income inequality" is to look through the wrong end of the telescope.
The link between income inequality and poverty is, as Lester Thurow discussed decades ago, the degree to which income is a zero-sum entity. The way to eliminate poverty is to obviate the zero-sum problem entirely. That could be achieved by having a sufficient income that would be available to an unlimited number of people at no cost to anyone, without redistributing anything.
That would obviously require changing the institutional structure of the economy. It turns out, however, that the only thing that has to be changed is the monetary system. The "sufficient income available to an unlimited number of people" would form the supply of money for the economy.
The details of such an institutional structure and its fundamental functioning are in my book, A Just Solution. A Web site of the same name makes the book all but superfluous.
On the other hand, poverty is a matter of income vs. the cost of living, not how much money other people make. To look at poverty through the lens of "income inequality" is to look through the wrong end of the telescope.
The link between income inequality and poverty is, as Lester Thurow discussed decades ago, the degree to which income is a zero-sum entity. The way to eliminate poverty is to obviate the zero-sum problem entirely. That could be achieved by having a sufficient income that would be available to an unlimited number of people at no cost to anyone, without redistributing anything.
That would obviously require changing the institutional structure of the economy. It turns out, however, that the only thing that has to be changed is the monetary system. The "sufficient income available to an unlimited number of people" would form the supply of money for the economy.
The details of such an institutional structure and its fundamental functioning are in my book, A Just Solution. A Web site of the same name makes the book all but superfluous.
All I know is you get what you pay for, and that's true for societies, too. If you want crumbling infrastructure, more poverty, less education and poorer health, then just pay less in taxes.
4
I believe that all Americans would be willing to pay for those things if they knew their hard-earned money wouldn't be used to pay $50,000 pothole fillers, $100,000 teachers, $150,000 cops and $400,000 community organizers. Reinstate the draft, pay conscripts the same $25 a month my grandfather received in WWII and once military staffing is filled, place the remainder in civil service jobs. Services would be better and taxes could be slashed, perhaps to the point where they're unnoticeable.
Bernie yells swim this way and we might get to land eventually.
Hillary yells tread water like this and you won't drown nor get eaten by sharks too quickly.
I'll take active intelligent optimism over incremental pragmatic pessimism today.
Economists are like philosophers in their utilitarian phase.
Somehow they're always busy fussing over their models while mocking the invention of their others, throwing some razzle-dazzle at the onlookers, and just being comfortable.
Hillary yells tread water like this and you won't drown nor get eaten by sharks too quickly.
I'll take active intelligent optimism over incremental pragmatic pessimism today.
Economists are like philosophers in their utilitarian phase.
Somehow they're always busy fussing over their models while mocking the invention of their others, throwing some razzle-dazzle at the onlookers, and just being comfortable.
6
Interesting how little empirical studies seem to occur looking at these critical economic issues. Could it be the wealthy are doing just fine and don't want any meaningful change? Economics seems to be the "science " of opinions full of argument and sells pitch.
2
"The senator doesn't believe their is a trade-off to be made. Sanders believes that raising the minimum wage, spending a trillion dollars on infrastructure and offering free college will fundamentally shift the structure of our economy towards the poor and middle class." That pretty much says it all right there.
In DC there are always trade-offs that have to be made in order to get anything accomplished. Could Sanders determination not to compromise be why he has accomplished so little in DC over more than 25 years, first as a Representative then Senator? I'm not saying he is wrong about the way things are, but it is a lot easier to identify problems than to solve them.
The min wage has never gone up by so much as a dollar at one time, but he is going to double it in 2 years. And how about expanding the public university system instead of offering free tuition, where they are already overcrowded and underfunded? That way they can serve more students and not less.
And saying that you are going to MAKE or ASK the wealthy to pay more taxes is silly. Sanders asked Obama to use executive action to raise more taxes by closing loopholes for big corps without the approval of Congress. But in order to avoid another shutdown, the budget passed in December included over $600 billion in tax breaks, including extending corporate tax cuts to 2019.
In DC there are always trade-offs that have to be made in order to get anything accomplished. Could Sanders determination not to compromise be why he has accomplished so little in DC over more than 25 years, first as a Representative then Senator? I'm not saying he is wrong about the way things are, but it is a lot easier to identify problems than to solve them.
The min wage has never gone up by so much as a dollar at one time, but he is going to double it in 2 years. And how about expanding the public university system instead of offering free tuition, where they are already overcrowded and underfunded? That way they can serve more students and not less.
And saying that you are going to MAKE or ASK the wealthy to pay more taxes is silly. Sanders asked Obama to use executive action to raise more taxes by closing loopholes for big corps without the approval of Congress. But in order to avoid another shutdown, the budget passed in December included over $600 billion in tax breaks, including extending corporate tax cuts to 2019.
12
Sanders, a career politician elected to Congress in 1990, has had 26 years to convince his colleagues to pass something, anything, to get his 'revolution' started, yet out of 781 bills he has sponsored, he was able to get only three bills passed.
Three.
And two of them were about renaming post offices in his home state of Vermont. The other one was about a cost of living adjustment for veterans, hardly controversial with the GOP.
So how again would he be more effective from the Oval Office than he has been in Congress in 26 years?
And why does his past history of ineffectiveness mean so little to his supporters?
Three.
And two of them were about renaming post offices in his home state of Vermont. The other one was about a cost of living adjustment for veterans, hardly controversial with the GOP.
So how again would he be more effective from the Oval Office than he has been in Congress in 26 years?
And why does his past history of ineffectiveness mean so little to his supporters?
3
In addition to voting for Bernie Sanders, voters need to vote against the obstructionist Republicans in the House and Senate.
The shutdowns are a threat to destroy the country. Let's stop the extortion.
The shutdowns are a threat to destroy the country. Let's stop the extortion.
4
Very cool article. One funny thing:
Reagan: Lower taxes and the economy will blossom.
Sanders: Raise taxes and the economy will blossom.
Maybe voodoo in both cases? Sounds so similar.
Reagan: Lower taxes and the economy will blossom.
Sanders: Raise taxes and the economy will blossom.
Maybe voodoo in both cases? Sounds so similar.
9
How about the Times do a story that Sanders visited FDR Library/ memorial today in Hyde Prrk, NY? Not dramtic enough for you guys?
6
FDR was the architect of most of the social welfare agenda we suffer under today. And before anyone spouts off about minimum wage or time and a half or Social Security let me just say that as a 1099 contractor they have never benefited me.
You and the Times editiorial board say they are not feasible, but in today's Times Editoiral Boards piece, they are advocating for "Summer jobs for all high school students" Say what? Not so different than free college for all high school students. Using yours and others' reasoning, how are you going to pay for Summer Jobs For All high school students? Same way Bernie would pay for free college for all. You people really amaze me. Calling Sanders programs unworkable then truning around and advocating an unworkable "Socialist" program, along with supporting that dragonlady/Wall St. hugger- Clinton. Better look in the mirror and repeat this phrase, "I know that I'm a hypocrite, but what the hell, it's only politics".
32
The cost of summer jobs or internships is no where near the cost of free college
In many ways, America's "best days" were the decades after world war II. Taxes where highly progressive and estate taxes were high. Higher education was widely available (to veterans, who came from across the economic spectrum, albeit mostly male) and the government invested in infrastructure (the Interstate system, academic and corporate R&D). Meanwhile, most of the value created in companies was paid out to workers (as wages), and less to capital owners (as profits), and workers were able to save (by building up equity in their homes) and spend (to continue to drive the economy). The financial sector was small and well regulated. Much of the Sanders economic plan is aimed at returning to these economic parameters.
75
And 90% of the world didn't have a functional economy to compete.
So all we need in order for the plan you and Bernie put forth is a world war that devastates every other major economic country on the planet.
So... are yo thinking we Nuke Europe and China? Or do we try a land war?
Or do you ignore the obvious lack of competition in the time and then wonder why your plan fails miserably?
When you ignore the single greatest contributor to our economic advances in that timeframe; how do you expect to replicate it?
Hope and Change and wishcasting aren't an economic policy.
And deliberately damaging efficiency and increasing waste only "works" when you don't have any real competition.
So all we need in order for the plan you and Bernie put forth is a world war that devastates every other major economic country on the planet.
So... are yo thinking we Nuke Europe and China? Or do we try a land war?
Or do you ignore the obvious lack of competition in the time and then wonder why your plan fails miserably?
When you ignore the single greatest contributor to our economic advances in that timeframe; how do you expect to replicate it?
Hope and Change and wishcasting aren't an economic policy.
And deliberately damaging efficiency and increasing waste only "works" when you don't have any real competition.
1
At least two problems with your rosy view of those "best days" in the 1950's and 60's. First, most consumer goods cost much more compared to equivalent items today. And beyond similar items, most American families have happily adjusted to larger homes, more than one car, flying for vacation, etc.
And in those days manufacturers needed more workers to make the goods sold in the U.S. Sanders might recover some jobs through protectionist tariffs (but also increase consumer costs), but undoing automation will require either legal sabotage or massive make-work programs.
And in those days manufacturers needed more workers to make the goods sold in the U.S. Sanders might recover some jobs through protectionist tariffs (but also increase consumer costs), but undoing automation will require either legal sabotage or massive make-work programs.
3
In those halcyon years, the government spent very little on social programs. In 2016, about 3/4 of the Federal budget was taken up by Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. That spending hardly existed in the 50s. So the Federal government could devote enormous resources to education, infrastructure, and research.
2
Senator Sanders has recently been circulating a grossly inaccurate image of Israel as a country uncaring about its responsibility for protecting the lives of innocent Palestinians caught up in the terror campaigns and wars that their own leaders and fellow countrymen have conducted against Israel.
Never once have I heard him say that the current round of Palestinian terror attacks that has already resulted in the loss of more than 20 innocent Israelis has been “disproportionate” and is fully deserving of whatever responses Israel needs to employ to counter them. Or heard him suggest concrete steps that Palestinians need to take to advance peace. He heaps primary responsibility for the unresolved crisis on Israel.
The first order of business of our next President must be making it plain to the Palestinians that further resistance on their part to peace talks resulting in a demilitarized state of Palestine alongside a permanent Jewish State of Israel with borders mutually agreed to by both parties will be interpreted by the U.S. as a final refusal on their part to negotiate; following which the U.S. will abandon all further efforts to mediate the situation.
President Obama’s great mistake all along in dealing with the Israel-Palestine problem has been the persistent vision he has had of Palestinians as blameless victims and underdogs.
Senator Sanders is bringing a similar mindset to the problem that bodes nothing good for Israel or Palestinians hoping for peace.
Never once have I heard him say that the current round of Palestinian terror attacks that has already resulted in the loss of more than 20 innocent Israelis has been “disproportionate” and is fully deserving of whatever responses Israel needs to employ to counter them. Or heard him suggest concrete steps that Palestinians need to take to advance peace. He heaps primary responsibility for the unresolved crisis on Israel.
The first order of business of our next President must be making it plain to the Palestinians that further resistance on their part to peace talks resulting in a demilitarized state of Palestine alongside a permanent Jewish State of Israel with borders mutually agreed to by both parties will be interpreted by the U.S. as a final refusal on their part to negotiate; following which the U.S. will abandon all further efforts to mediate the situation.
President Obama’s great mistake all along in dealing with the Israel-Palestine problem has been the persistent vision he has had of Palestinians as blameless victims and underdogs.
Senator Sanders is bringing a similar mindset to the problem that bodes nothing good for Israel or Palestinians hoping for peace.
7
Which editorial did you read!!?
2
If Sanders or Clinton are elected, expect to see much much more of this. The Democratic party itself is becoming anti-Israeli (yes, despite many Jews being members -- many liberal Jews are "self-hating" these days, yearning more for their approval of their lefty friends & colleagues than their own homeland or people).
1
The U.S. should cut the billions that go to Bibi and let Israel fight its own battles. Enough already.
2
Seems like a big fuss over the calculated number for economic impact of the Sanders agenda. Prof. Friedman put it at 5.3% annual growth. True, that sounds a bit rosy, but not unprecedented. Interesting to me that the good professor comes up with his number even though his political preference is Clinton. My guess is the number is an honest best calculation by an economics professional. Preference is a different matter.
In the bigger picture, this is minutia, a detail barely visible near the bottom. The big issue is an American economy and government that is too controlled by large financial interests, and that isn’t serving very well the bulk of the country’s citizens. Trump and to some extent even Cruz are capitalizing on middle class anger and angst caused by this dis-function.
Sanders has seen and warned of the problem clearly for much longer than mainstream leaders. He proposes remedy, aggressive remedy but not radical either by modern world standards, or relative to our country’s history.
Aggressive remedy is scary to interests who are benefiting most from the status quo. Aggressive defense is no surprise.
In the bigger picture, this is minutia, a detail barely visible near the bottom. The big issue is an American economy and government that is too controlled by large financial interests, and that isn’t serving very well the bulk of the country’s citizens. Trump and to some extent even Cruz are capitalizing on middle class anger and angst caused by this dis-function.
Sanders has seen and warned of the problem clearly for much longer than mainstream leaders. He proposes remedy, aggressive remedy but not radical either by modern world standards, or relative to our country’s history.
Aggressive remedy is scary to interests who are benefiting most from the status quo. Aggressive defense is no surprise.
29
This is a very interesting essay. Davidson is correct that Keynesian analysis is intrinsic to modern economics, left or right. Right wing economics persists in the fantasy of 19th century "perfect competition." Institutional economics focuses on the market failures of political and economic concentrations of power. One of the insights of Keynesian analysis is that under conditions of inadequate demand (recession/depression), there is NOT a one for one trade off cost of government investment. The excess resources could be used to rebuild our infrastructure to maintain employment now and spur faster growth in the future. The excess focus on austerity in this time represents permanent losses in growth. The window is closing, but we should take advantage of the resultant low interest rates now to productively invest for the future. That doesn't excuse wasteful spending, of course.
13
Is Senator Sanders right that 60,000 manufacturing plants have been lost in the United States because of trade agreements that permitted those plants and those jobs to be transferred by American corporations to locations outside United States?
And, those middle income jobs that supported entire families were replaced by what kind of jobs?
Sanders voted against NAFTA and is against TPP (Hillary Clinton has changed her campaign position on TPP from being the "gold standard" of trade agreements to being slightly against the agreement).
The author of this piece ends his narrative with this statement: "[F]or many people who support Sanders, the fact that his ideas run counter to decades of established economics is exactly the point."
When Sanders voted against these trade agreements, he warned of millions of good-paying jobs being lost by American workers. That is exactly what happpened.
And, those middle income jobs that supported entire families were replaced by what kind of jobs?
Sanders voted against NAFTA and is against TPP (Hillary Clinton has changed her campaign position on TPP from being the "gold standard" of trade agreements to being slightly against the agreement).
The author of this piece ends his narrative with this statement: "[F]or many people who support Sanders, the fact that his ideas run counter to decades of established economics is exactly the point."
When Sanders voted against these trade agreements, he warned of millions of good-paying jobs being lost by American workers. That is exactly what happpened.
79
Ross Perot, in 1992, warned us of the "giant sucking sound" that would occur as a result of NAFTA -- the sound of jobs siphoned off the Mexico. And that is what happened.
5
Didn't Ross Perot warn about the same thing 20 years ago when he talked about "that giant sucking sound" of U.S. jobs going down the drain due to international trade agreements? Who knew Bernie and Perot had so much in common?
1
There seems to be some real evidence that rising income inequality has suppressed overall productivity. I find that supportive of the 'structuralist' argument, if only in reverse. Politically speaking, calculating Sanders' suggested reforms as a zero-sum-only outcome arguably biases the assessment in favor of making no change. Is no middle outcome conceivable?
Given the way mega-wealth impacts politics, I don't see how we can expect our remnant democratic processes to survive unless we take some steps, however costly, to reduce inequality.
Given the way mega-wealth impacts politics, I don't see how we can expect our remnant democratic processes to survive unless we take some steps, however costly, to reduce inequality.
41
The problem with Bernie's and the Soviet's economics policies is that humans are not robots. If you put people in a setting where how hard they work will not make any difference in their economic status, they do less and less.
It's the same with a government's handling of your tax money. When we never reward people for taking the best care of funds nor punish them for wasting it, the efficiency of government takes a fatal dive.
It's the same with a government's handling of your tax money. When we never reward people for taking the best care of funds nor punish them for wasting it, the efficiency of government takes a fatal dive.
11
Sanders is not arguing for a system that disconnects work from income. I don't think there is anyone in US politics who is.
26
I guess that explains why the overthrow of the Soviet system led to a huge increase in productivity and prosperity for average Russians, Ukrainians, et al, while the Chinese government's maintenance of a control system has only led to continued starvation and torpor throughout that country.
I should probably point out that I'm being sarcastic. And also that I don't favor either a Soviet or Chinese system for the U.S. I favor an American Socialist system, as envisioned by Veblen, Debs, Keynes and all the great American Socialists of the Reform era, before the American Socialist movement was taken over by foolish Soviets who thought the future would come from Moscow. In 1916, the future was coming from American workers. It still is.
I should probably point out that I'm being sarcastic. And also that I don't favor either a Soviet or Chinese system for the U.S. I favor an American Socialist system, as envisioned by Veblen, Debs, Keynes and all the great American Socialists of the Reform era, before the American Socialist movement was taken over by foolish Soviets who thought the future would come from Moscow. In 1916, the future was coming from American workers. It still is.
22
I get it so now the polemical trick is to sweep all thinkers you like into the socialist camp to support your views. Keynes most definitely was not a socialist.
Keynes as a very successful investor, for what it's worth.
Keynes as a very successful investor, for what it's worth.
1
What disturbs me about all the candidates---both Republican and Democrat---is that they all seem to be unaware of Modern Money Theory, which simply takes Keynesian economics to its next logical step.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
Neither of the Democratic candidates has described a path to true full employment. Neither of the Democratic candidates has categorically stated that full employment---a living wage job for anyone who wants to work---would be THE central economic objective their administration would pursue.
Australian economist Bill Mitchell has pointed out that the US foregoes some $9.7 billion in income everyday because it's too ". . too stupid to implement sensible direct job creation strategies.”
It appears that both Clinton and Sanders would continue the trend.
http://neweconomicperspectives.org/modern-monetary-theory-primer.html
Neither of the Democratic candidates has described a path to true full employment. Neither of the Democratic candidates has categorically stated that full employment---a living wage job for anyone who wants to work---would be THE central economic objective their administration would pursue.
Australian economist Bill Mitchell has pointed out that the US foregoes some $9.7 billion in income everyday because it's too ". . too stupid to implement sensible direct job creation strategies.”
It appears that both Clinton and Sanders would continue the trend.
6
I guess I missed the Sanders speech where he said he wouldn't push for a trillion-dollar increase in public-works spending.
6
Could always be $2 or $3 trillion instead of $1 trillion!
Except for the fact that Obama already inflicted a trillion dollar porkulus on America and it was a total failure
For a ONE $Trillion, employing 1,000,000, we could cure most forms of cancer.
Unless you put the government in charge of it.
5
I know. The devil and federal government always causing mischief.
Which is why Bernie has sponsored a bill that would have the government buy the patent rights of any private company that cures cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, etc. More efficient and the disease is eliminated.
Mainstream economics, like the "mainstream" of many other fields, is distorted by its practitioners' monetary incentives. Economists want to win lucrative jobs and contracts with corporations; they want to win grants from foundations controlled by rich donors or from government agencies controlled by politicians beholden to rich donors; they want to win acceptance from peers driven by these incentives. As a result, a strong consensus has developed within the field in support of positions that favor the interests of corporations and the very wealthy. These incentives strongly inhibit discussion of issues such as inequality and its harmful impact on the national economy or support for policies that would reduce inequality.
There are a few outliers. It is no coincidence that one of the centers of critical economics in the United States is the University of Massachusetts at Amherst—a publicly supported institution in a state with a left-leaning political establishment—or that one of the strongest critiques of the economic mainstream in recent years has come from Thomas Picketty, likewise at a state-supported institution in France, whose educational system is relatively insulated from the agenda of the very wealthy.
There are a few outliers. It is no coincidence that one of the centers of critical economics in the United States is the University of Massachusetts at Amherst—a publicly supported institution in a state with a left-leaning political establishment—or that one of the strongest critiques of the economic mainstream in recent years has come from Thomas Picketty, likewise at a state-supported institution in France, whose educational system is relatively insulated from the agenda of the very wealthy.
19
As other people who have actually read Friedman's paper pointed out, his rosy projection is an artifact of, among many other things, a second-grade math mistake: if Bernie's public spending can (through the multiplier effect) generate 5.3% more GDP each year, it means that in comparison with the base line scenario, we are 5.3% richer on yearly basis, not that we can grow our GDP by 5.3% (on average) year after year.
If you ask how President Sanders can avoid making hard economic choices that every president has to, his policy director points you to that paper for explanation, then Bernienomics is not useful, it is doomed. And as someone has already said, this reflects the character of the candidate and his campaign....
If you ask how President Sanders can avoid making hard economic choices that every president has to, his policy director points you to that paper for explanation, then Bernienomics is not useful, it is doomed. And as someone has already said, this reflects the character of the candidate and his campaign....
7
“…free health care and college to everybody will cost money that needs to be raised in other parts of the economy. Some might embrace those trade-¬offs… but economists agree that there are trade-¬offs…”
Obvious, but framing that leaves out a very important piece, investment. A preventive visit to the dentist reduces what you have for vacation or a new pair of shoes. For business, research expense reduces the bottom line for the quarter. Wise to neglect the teeth, or pump up the annual report but sacrifice future viability of the corporation?
Sanders is advocating investment in the stuff that pays big future dividends, a better educated, healthier workforce and infrastructure necessary for a competitive economy. Maybe that investment could be made by the private sector. That’s what free-market true believers have preached for decades. Evidence says this is wishful thinking, because, as Sanders clearly recognizes, there really isn’t a free market.
Yes there are trade-offs, and choices. The country has chosen to under-invest in public goods, consuming its “seed corn” for quite some time, thanks to an orthodoxy that says government is bad and can never do anything right. Regardless who’s responsible for past decisions, the trade-off has favored consumption today —fat take-home pay for some—at the expense of future health of the country.
Political feasibility and pace for changing direction are open for discussion, but on which direction to take Sanders is absolutely correct.
Obvious, but framing that leaves out a very important piece, investment. A preventive visit to the dentist reduces what you have for vacation or a new pair of shoes. For business, research expense reduces the bottom line for the quarter. Wise to neglect the teeth, or pump up the annual report but sacrifice future viability of the corporation?
Sanders is advocating investment in the stuff that pays big future dividends, a better educated, healthier workforce and infrastructure necessary for a competitive economy. Maybe that investment could be made by the private sector. That’s what free-market true believers have preached for decades. Evidence says this is wishful thinking, because, as Sanders clearly recognizes, there really isn’t a free market.
Yes there are trade-offs, and choices. The country has chosen to under-invest in public goods, consuming its “seed corn” for quite some time, thanks to an orthodoxy that says government is bad and can never do anything right. Regardless who’s responsible for past decisions, the trade-off has favored consumption today —fat take-home pay for some—at the expense of future health of the country.
Political feasibility and pace for changing direction are open for discussion, but on which direction to take Sanders is absolutely correct.
58
Your comment is both more nuanced and more intelligent than any arguments by Sanders' supporters in general, as well the rhetoric from Sanders himself.
You state that it is obvious that social programs involve trade-offs, but it is not obvious at all. Most Sanders supporters I speak with merely become angry when you make a statement about the costs of his programs. For myself, I thoroughly support most of Sanders' ideas, because I see it as an investment. However, I'm realistic about the initial costs.
The average "bernie bro," unfortunately, doesn't want to be realistic, and just gets angry (usually insulting you in the process, calling you a corporate sellout, or a tool of the political machine).
You state that it is obvious that social programs involve trade-offs, but it is not obvious at all. Most Sanders supporters I speak with merely become angry when you make a statement about the costs of his programs. For myself, I thoroughly support most of Sanders' ideas, because I see it as an investment. However, I'm realistic about the initial costs.
The average "bernie bro," unfortunately, doesn't want to be realistic, and just gets angry (usually insulting you in the process, calling you a corporate sellout, or a tool of the political machine).
7
Yes, investment.
Like Oregon... they had a Govt program that couldn't afford to cover everyone.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/oregon_study_finds_...
After the program was going; the "covered" people had costs HIGHER than the control group.
So if we invest a lot of money, we'll then get higher costs so we have to spend even more money.
Look at how our investment paid off. not only do we pay more now; we ALSO pay more later.
Huge dividends to be had!
Assuming the goal is to lose money of course.
And it's the Government we're talking about; so that's always the goal.
Like Oregon... they had a Govt program that couldn't afford to cover everyone.
http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2014/01/oregon_study_finds_...
After the program was going; the "covered" people had costs HIGHER than the control group.
So if we invest a lot of money, we'll then get higher costs so we have to spend even more money.
Look at how our investment paid off. not only do we pay more now; we ALSO pay more later.
Huge dividends to be had!
Assuming the goal is to lose money of course.
And it's the Government we're talking about; so that's always the goal.
There is always a trade-off. The real question is how many people are prepared to do that. Denying that there are trade-offs is just burying one head in the sand.
I would like to know how many of Bernie's supporters would be willing to make that sacrifice. Everyone is on board as long as he is talking about the "free stuff". Once the true cost is known I've found that it's usually a "not in my backyard" response.
No wonder the Bernie campaign does not address the true costs.
I would like to know how many of Bernie's supporters would be willing to make that sacrifice. Everyone is on board as long as he is talking about the "free stuff". Once the true cost is known I've found that it's usually a "not in my backyard" response.
No wonder the Bernie campaign does not address the true costs.
The notion that economic magical thinking is ever a good thing for government policy is refuted by an earlier example -- the "supply side" theory that emerged in the late 1970s within the right and has since become an article of faith among Republicans. There the idea was that massive tax cuts would so stimulate economic growth that net tax revenues would increase. Never happened, not even under Reagan. Unfortunately, despite its utter policy failure and continued lack of empirical evidence, "supply side" thinking still dominates what passes for economic analysis on the right and has fostered among Republicans intellectual stasis and stunningly ineffective policies.
Mr. Sanders' version of magical thinking is no less absurd. He embraces without evidence the fantastical notion that there are no economic trade offs, that we can have our cake (worthy goals such as: economic and employment growth, income equality, full employment, etc.) and eat it too (i.e. achieve all these goals simultaneously.) Would that it were so. Unfortunately, if there is one thing economists have proven, it is the fact of trade offs, the costs and benefits of competing goals, the notion that there is no free lunch. Not even Mr. Sanders can surmount this fact. When considering Mr. Sanders' economic narrative, Democrats might want to keep in mind the disastrous consequences for the Republicans and economic policy-making in general of their "supply-side" fantasy.
Mr. Sanders' version of magical thinking is no less absurd. He embraces without evidence the fantastical notion that there are no economic trade offs, that we can have our cake (worthy goals such as: economic and employment growth, income equality, full employment, etc.) and eat it too (i.e. achieve all these goals simultaneously.) Would that it were so. Unfortunately, if there is one thing economists have proven, it is the fact of trade offs, the costs and benefits of competing goals, the notion that there is no free lunch. Not even Mr. Sanders can surmount this fact. When considering Mr. Sanders' economic narrative, Democrats might want to keep in mind the disastrous consequences for the Republicans and economic policy-making in general of their "supply-side" fantasy.
15
My feeling is all the presidential candidates are pedaling fantasy. I just prefer Bernie's. If he can't pull it all off, at least he's pulling us in the right direction.
Well, how do you account for the Great Prosperity of 1946 - 1973? We spent like drunken sailors and increased the debt by 75%. We had the interstate highways, the Great Society, the startup costs of Medicare, and we even fought a couple of wars.
So what happened to the debt? Well, since we invested the money in America, the economy grew so the debt became insignificant.
Does that seem like free lunch to you?
So what happened to the debt? Well, since we invested the money in America, the economy grew so the debt became insignificant.
Does that seem like free lunch to you?
5
The main why the US prospered during that unique time was that it was the only industrialized country whose manufacturing infrastructure had not been significantly damaged by WWII. This gave the US a one-time advantage, which slowly disappeared as other countries rebuilt.
Since when are notions like strengthening Social Security, supporting labor unions and higher minimum wages, and higher taxation of inherited wealth indications of "far-left" attitudes? As someone who grew up as a moderate Republican in the 1950s, I see this designation as an indication of just how "far right" political discourse in this country has become.
103
They were far left the moment FDR proposed them.
Since Reagan.
Adam Davidson is kind of a right winger. Check out his contemptuous interview with Elizabeth Warren from 2009.
https://archive.org/details/AdamDavidsonsInterviewWithElizabethWarren
https://archive.org/details/AdamDavidsonsInterviewWithElizabethWarren
1
Buried in this article is something that gives me pause about Sanders. It sounds alarmingly like the message we have heard for years from Republicans: the economy will be so great that we will have ample revenues indefinitely, based on continued robust growth. For Republicans, this means no need to raise taxes. For Sanders, it means we will have the money to pay for any large-scale redistribution scheme we can dream up. Either way, it seems like a re-run of concepts that, so far, have been disproved in the real world.
7
So on target, same concept. Either spend, spend, spend or cut taxes and then that magic wand will produce a wonderful economy.
So, Bernienomics will lead us to a Star Trek economy? Will investing in our infrastructure -- not just bridges and roads, but the health, welfare, education of our people -- actually save us money in the long run?
Fascinating!
I wonder how such a hypothesis could be measured? Is it better for the economy to adopt the Republican health plan (get sick and die quickly) or to devote the resources to keeping people alive?
If we all become responsible for each others' health and well-being, will we put more energy into educating people and enabling better health choices? (Seems to be working for tobacco addiction.)
If we realize that our society depends on well-educated, responsible individuals capable of thinking of the larger good? (Seems to be working in that the Mussolini-esque buffoon currently running will get only so far and no further.)
How well has this way of thinking worked in European countries?
Fascinating!
I wonder how such a hypothesis could be measured? Is it better for the economy to adopt the Republican health plan (get sick and die quickly) or to devote the resources to keeping people alive?
If we all become responsible for each others' health and well-being, will we put more energy into educating people and enabling better health choices? (Seems to be working for tobacco addiction.)
If we realize that our society depends on well-educated, responsible individuals capable of thinking of the larger good? (Seems to be working in that the Mussolini-esque buffoon currently running will get only so far and no further.)
How well has this way of thinking worked in European countries?
2
Pie in the sky.
1
Sanders' vision of the economy is the opposite of Reagan's; both require a little magical thinking to to work. Reagan counted on the invisible hand of the free market to trickle wealth down from job creators. He never counted on the Cayman Islands or zero sum hedge fund investing playing such a big part.
Sanders sees the economy becoming robust by spreading wealth, kind of like fertilizer, across the base and letting things grow. He isn't counting on the need for domestic investment in long term industry or private sector jobs to make it work.
This is one of the areas in which solutions likely do lie in between the extremes. We need an investment class, and we need institutions, laws, policies which encourage investment, and don't penalize companies for providing domestic jobs. We need money circulating around the base in the form of jobs that pay decent wages. We cannot continue to push incomes down until they compete with a family in Malaysia.
Bernie Sanders has provided counterpoint to the prevailing economics of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand. We need Sanders voice, to pull us back from the brink, and allow us to work towards policies that will work to help Americans economically. But Sanders' total package of ideas are as unworkable as Reagan's, in their own way.
Sanders sees the economy becoming robust by spreading wealth, kind of like fertilizer, across the base and letting things grow. He isn't counting on the need for domestic investment in long term industry or private sector jobs to make it work.
This is one of the areas in which solutions likely do lie in between the extremes. We need an investment class, and we need institutions, laws, policies which encourage investment, and don't penalize companies for providing domestic jobs. We need money circulating around the base in the form of jobs that pay decent wages. We cannot continue to push incomes down until they compete with a family in Malaysia.
Bernie Sanders has provided counterpoint to the prevailing economics of Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand. We need Sanders voice, to pull us back from the brink, and allow us to work towards policies that will work to help Americans economically. But Sanders' total package of ideas are as unworkable as Reagan's, in their own way.
10
It would be nice if Prof. Friedman was right that Sen. Sanders's proposals will ignite rapid economic growth. But whether they will or not is beside the point.
The point is that Manhattan and San Francisco shouldn't be allowed to continue siphoning off the wealth of Detroit and Cincinnati. The point is that Wall St. shouldn't be allowed to give away our working class's jobs in return for access to other countries' financial markets. The point is that whatever level of growth we have, the gains shouldn't all flow to a small minority.
Now, will a healthy economy in our small towns and midlands cities be better for us overall than a booming one in the financial centers and a dying one everywhere else?
We don't really know.
But it certainly worked for us before.
The point is that Manhattan and San Francisco shouldn't be allowed to continue siphoning off the wealth of Detroit and Cincinnati. The point is that Wall St. shouldn't be allowed to give away our working class's jobs in return for access to other countries' financial markets. The point is that whatever level of growth we have, the gains shouldn't all flow to a small minority.
Now, will a healthy economy in our small towns and midlands cities be better for us overall than a booming one in the financial centers and a dying one everywhere else?
We don't really know.
But it certainly worked for us before.
17
It would be nice if Prof. Friedman was right that Sen. Sanders's proposals will ignite rapid economic growth. But whether they will or not is beside the point, because even if Sanders gets the nomination, he will lose to Trump, and even if he did not, Congress is still very Red and no amount of yelling about the 'revolution' will change that.
A Sanders presidency would be a waste of four years (he won't get another four) where nothing is accomplished (just as nothing has been accomplished in his 26 years in Congress) leading to a backlash, which will lead to the GOP taking the presidency for eight years.
Basically, Carter/Reagan all over again. Is that really what people want?
A Sanders presidency would be a waste of four years (he won't get another four) where nothing is accomplished (just as nothing has been accomplished in his 26 years in Congress) leading to a backlash, which will lead to the GOP taking the presidency for eight years.
Basically, Carter/Reagan all over again. Is that really what people want?
1
"Economics is not a natural science like physics, where questions can be definitively settled... (a)nd one common assumption of models built around the same sets of empirical data...(a)nd one common assumption of those models is that government intervention in the market tends to come at some cost."
How can “empirical data” be derived from a “science” incapable of answering questions definitively? The data derived is based on a single model. No alternatives exist (in the U.S.) to provide a base of comparison or levels of effectiveness. This one model provides the only “proof” that government intervention comes at some cost. Sanders’ argument that there will be no cost is as “true” as the Republican argument for trickle-down economics. Neither is, in reality, true.
All government intervention has costs as does completely unrestrained free market capitalism. Government policy leaving the market completely unfettered has costs. Government policy that completely regulates the market has costs. The trick is not only to figure out an effective balance. The trick also requires determining what will be sacrificed to cover the cost of a policy. Do the rich pay? Do the poor pay? Is military spending curtailed? Is Social Security eliminated?
Sanders proposes a different formula. That’s it. The current U.S. model is a failure and has been for decades. How about economists look at alternative possibilities rather than standing with the mob and taking pot shots?
How can “empirical data” be derived from a “science” incapable of answering questions definitively? The data derived is based on a single model. No alternatives exist (in the U.S.) to provide a base of comparison or levels of effectiveness. This one model provides the only “proof” that government intervention comes at some cost. Sanders’ argument that there will be no cost is as “true” as the Republican argument for trickle-down economics. Neither is, in reality, true.
All government intervention has costs as does completely unrestrained free market capitalism. Government policy leaving the market completely unfettered has costs. Government policy that completely regulates the market has costs. The trick is not only to figure out an effective balance. The trick also requires determining what will be sacrificed to cover the cost of a policy. Do the rich pay? Do the poor pay? Is military spending curtailed? Is Social Security eliminated?
Sanders proposes a different formula. That’s it. The current U.S. model is a failure and has been for decades. How about economists look at alternative possibilities rather than standing with the mob and taking pot shots?
8
Harry Truman asked to be sent a one-armed economist, having tired of exponents of the dismal science proclaiming "On the one hand, this" and "On the other hand, that". I have only seen two-armed economists critiquing Sanders' plan.
"Raising the minimum wage, setting higher taxes on wealthy estates, supporting unions, strengthening social security"....which, according to polls, most Americans favor, are "far left" among Keynsians?
17
Bernie Sanders is drawing desperately needed attention to the plague of income inequality. With declining life expectancies among the poor in the U.S., it is time to reverse decades of government policies that favor the wealthy and consign the poor to low wages, unemployment, lack of social mobility, and early deaths.
48
Mr. Sanders' ideas are useful as a point of departure.
In other words, look at some of his goals, consider the trade-offs involved (reality), and proceed from there.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sanders seems to have been born without the reality gene.
In other words, look at some of his goals, consider the trade-offs involved (reality), and proceed from there.
Unfortunately, Mr. Sanders seems to have been born without the reality gene.
2
Davidson's claim that Sander's idea are not consistent with prevailing liberal economics is false. Sanders recommends more government spending, higher taxes on corporations and higher-income people and single-payer health care, among other things. Most of the things that Sanders advocates have not only been advocated also by liberal economists but have either existed in the US previously, like more progressive taxation, or exist now in other countries, like single-payer. The objections to Sander from self-described liberal economists have been on the grounds that they are impracticable because of political opposition, or would be too disruptive if actually carried out. Oddly, those economist themselves by supporting the establishment candidate Clinton are providing part of the political opposition.
53
Not quite... Many economists also argue that his programs would be more costly than he admits, and Sanders himself tends to become angry (some might say petulant) when you point this out.
5
The central issue is not that economists are “taking too long to develop answers to the problems of inequality and the corrosive effects of concentrated wealth,” it is the politicians. The policy tools already exist, but unless and until Republican lawmakers at the local, state, and national level are voted out of office and replaced with non-Blue Dog Democrats, very little can be accomplished. Sanders and his supporters believe if they simply point out what is wrong, everyone will immediately recognize the correctness of Bernie’s ideas and act accordingly. History and current events do not support this belief.