-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Former Democrat CEA Chairs come out against Sanders' economic plan
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Those four economists are pretty well respected.
Pragmatism is bad for your morality.
I'm pro Bernie and Bernie's plan, but voting Hillary because the risk/reward of one of those ClownBus Rosa Parks' getting elected is too dangerous.
And because Bernie's plan has zero chance of happening with a republican house and a very low chance with a Democratic house.
I'm pro Bernie and Bernie's plan, but voting Hillary because the risk/reward of one of those ClownBus Rosa Parks' getting elected is too dangerous.
And because Bernie's plan has zero chance of happening with a republican house and a very low chance with a Democratic house.
They're calling out that one economics professors that made some insane calculations about how Sander's plan will totally change the US economy and shaming the Sanders campaign for promoting the results.
What are you implying?
Orbis Tabula
Member
It's not that I doubt that Wall Street has done a lot to capture the field of economics, but if we can't gain knowledge about the field from experts, how else can we possibly understand it?
bangbang i'm a timpani
Banned
criticize sanders=you work for wall st?
The Albatross
Member
It's legitimate criticism even if someone were in 'the pocket of the Clinton campaign,' but there is no evidence that they are. Mostly, they're refuting the grandiose appraisal of Sanders' economic and tax proposals that was flaunted by the campaign a couple weeks ago; a review that was from a not-credible source at the time.
That said, I'd like to see the actual findings by these economists and not just their conclusion.
Three of these economists served under Pres. Obama, and their economic advisory has made the case for Obama's economic platform, and has made the case against Republican platforms to change the tax code. Assuming that you're implying that these economists are lying because their "captured by Wall Street," are you also suggesting that the data and conclusions they've provided in defense of Obama's economic proposals and against Republican economic proposals are also lies?
Additionally, if Bernie Sanders were elected president he would also have advisers on the Council of Economic Advisers (it's an Executive Agency under the president), many of whom would probably be sitting members. If they approved of Sanders' economic proposals, would you have to dismiss them because "the academic field of economics is captured by Wall Street?" If so, do you have a list of economists who are legitimate or not captured by Wall Street, or is it only your favorite documentary film maker who, incidentally, isn't an economist at all?
I'm saying listen to what they have to say but take it with a greater pinch of salt than you might with some finding from a respected leader in another field such as the life sciences.
SlimySnake
Flashless at the Golden Globes
lol Bernie is promising free college education for all. This guy will say anything to get elected and people will believe him.
5% Economic growth is a ludicrous position to assume and base your policy on, which is what Bernie is doing for his economic plans. That is why he is being called out, not because the economists are in the pocket of the "Establishment". It has never happened, not even during the biggest boom we experienced during the Post WW2 years was the economic growth ever that high.
Now we accusing some of the most respected economists in the US as being shills?
But it's okay to trust that dude from rando university with a Ph.D. in econ.
Until you can find some evidence to link these economists to favor Wall Street, your accusations are baseless. The first paragraph even mentions how they have always been critical of trickle down economics.
Is there any proof that this is them?
I'm fine with believing it, but a random wordpress titled "Letter to Sanders" with a single blogpost isn't very compelling. Hell, their "About" page is still the default text. The post doesn't really go into much economic detail either, and could be written by anyone.
I'd be more interested in a detailed statement where they reference specific policies and why they wouldn't work.
You'd think such established economists would submit an editorial to an established news site, not make a wordpress...
Edit - there is proof. https://twitter.com/Austan_Goolsbee/status/699953461803118592
I'm fine with believing it, but a random wordpress titled "Letter to Sanders" with a single blogpost isn't very compelling. Hell, their "About" page is still the default text. The post doesn't really go into much economic detail either, and could be written by anyone.
I'd be more interested in a detailed statement where they reference specific policies and why they wouldn't work.
You'd think such established economists would submit an editorial to an established news site, not make a wordpress...
Edit - there is proof. https://twitter.com/Austan_Goolsbee/status/699953461803118592
Karsticles
Member
Why do you think the USA cannot accomplish this, but so many other nations already have?
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Oh the US can accomplish it
But the US can't accomplish it in 4 years using the plan Sanders has laid out
lol Bernie is promising free college education for all. This guy will say anything to get elected and people will believe him.
When GAF becomes right-wing Facebook.
They aren't saying the free college education is impossible. Their letter says the study that he uses to talk about the economic benefits of his policies doesn't give realistic expectations.
Lilalaunebaer
Member
lol Bernie is promising free college education for all. This guy will say anything to get elected and people will believe him.
We have free college. Austria.
Why can murica, the greatest country in the world not do it? Don´t say because america is big. Please don´t.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Seriously though, the actual implementation stuff from Sanders' plan has always been fantasy numbers. Not "optimistic" numbers, fantasy numbers.
Thank you, should be in the OP
Lights and Waves
Member
Is this seriously the first fucking thing you think of? Literally anyone against Bernie is on Wall Street's payroll?
The letter isn't claiming anything about Sanders plans not working, they're just debunking Gerald Friedman's specific claims.
I'm for Sanders because free college and universal healthcare are super useful even if you don't have a job. They are super useful to society even beyond GDP growth, it's raising the bottom, not the top. And I don't actually expect them to pass because they will be met with hot resistance but it's still healthy to have someone at the top champion them, because it's more room for future "democratic socialists" to move in and create a voting base. Everyone else will just worry about who "deserves" what (hint, it's not minorities) rather than realizing how fast we're going to be shedding jobs to other countries where people will work for less (and they have every right to claim that labor from the US we shouldn't be trying to "get it back") or simply remove them with automation.
It's not impossible, but the plan Sanders has proposed won't get it done, not in 4 years.
That's also assuming that he could get it past Congress, which it won't. Democrats have a shot at regaining the Senate, but theres no way they retake the House of Representatives this year.
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Bernie's plan is bad because the numbers don't add up and they're dangerous policies. A speculation tax will never pay for the college legislation he's proposing, breaking up the banks is a bad idea and vengeful politics, $15 minimum wage would do serious damage to employment, his healthcare plan can't generate the savings he's assuming it will, etc.
Anything he's for that actually makes sense numerically is something Hillary Clinton has already adopted, like raising the payroll cap for social security taxes.
AuthenticM
Member
What? Voting for Hillary is not dangerous: it's the safe thing to do.
You misunderstood his post.
Macho Madness
Member
He said the opposite. He thinks electing any of the GOP is dangerous.
Anoregon
The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
He's saying he is voting for Hillary because the risk if a republican president is too dangerous.
Debunking would require some kind of deep dive analysis. This is simply a disagreement.
It would hold as much gravitas if they uploaded it to Tumblr.
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
Do we really need an academic paper to say that an analysis predicated on 5.3% growth is a bad one?
It's legit.
While the plan isn't bad, the claims made by sanders' economist are things that even the worst republican stans would be ashamed to go through.
It's complete unsubstantiated claims based on cherry-picked third-order consequences. It's ridicolous.
Come on, man. They put as much effort into writing this letter as that Friedman guy did his analysis.
Some info about the CEA
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2016/02/11-council-economic-advisers-70-year-anniversary/
http://www.brookings.edu/events/2016/02/11-council-economic-advisers-70-year-anniversary/
legacyzero
Banned
Which of my family or friends are you on my Facebook??
lol Bernie is promising free college education for all. This guy will say anything to get elected and people will believe him.
Edit: Beaten lol
reggieandTFE
Member
Austan Goolsbee said some shitty things in 2008 about free trade agreements. Wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw him.
I find it hilarious that critics of Bernie's economic proposals viewed Friedman's analysis as gospel when churning out the 18 trillion dollar shock figure, but once they were called out for being deceitful by Friedman himself, now they're after his nuts.
Just understand that anybody who criticizes any aspect of Bernie even a little bit is a shill for the establishment by the standards of his supporters. There's plenty of room under the bus for everyone!
Plenty of economists have looked at his plans (what parts of them there are, at least) and are critical for a reason - the assumptions that his campaign makes about growth rates are completely unreasonable, there's no proof that the enormous costs ($1.5T+ per year, not even including his college proposals) will be fully offset by the elimination of the private insurance industry, and his most important platform ('break up the banks') isn't fully developed beyond 'make a committee and have them figure out what to do about breaking up the banks'.
Bernie proposes ideas that we really need to be looking at, but he hasn't demonstrated that he knows how to implement them beyond stumping for them on the campaign trail. His plans for revolutionary change are dead in the water in an environment where incremental change is the only thing that gets the job done. His need for Congressional support is hampered by the lack of interest in supporting down-ticket candidates by either himself or his followers. I'll vote for him if he wins, but I seriously question both his readiness for the job and his ability to beat whichever Republican gets the nomination.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
This has been..established.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Yeah, Christina Romer, one of the main supporters of government spending, is sure in the pocket of Wall Street, what the fuck is with you guys.
Alan Krueger is one of the main academics that discovered evidence supporting higher minimum wages.
Alan Krueger is one of the main academics that discovered evidence supporting higher minimum wages.
Orbis Tabula
Member
I know plenty of people, even here on GAF, who thought the 18 trillion figure was bullshit, and also think that his recent analysis is bullshit. Not every person who has criticized aspects of Bernie's plans or Friedman are necessarily the same person.
Pretty sure that was an allegation that was denied by both him and the Obama campaign.
LegendofJoe
Member
Thank you, I am beyond tired of that excuse. Technically being bigger is an advantage from a cost point of view. There are more people to spread the cost across, making it cheaper.
The Albatross
Member
For what it's worth, the US has free college as well and a large percentage of American college students do not pay college tuition. Over 40% of college students in the US attend community college, and of those, about 40% do not pay any tuition or fees. The remaining 60% of community college students have very low tuition.
There is a social stigma, though, borrowed from previous generations when tuition was cheaper about going to community college and instead there is a social pressure to go to expensive private colleges, which is where you see the largest debt accumulations. This stigma has finally started to break down, and private colleges are now seeing relatively fewer applications, while public and community colleges are seeing a boom in applications.
That said, I would like to see more options for free higher education in the U.S. but often times our interest in celebrating the incredibly high student debt numbers each year ignores that free college does exist and many students choose not to pursue it. Also, admittedly, if more students did pursue free or low-cost college and passed on expensive private college, the US' investment in public colleges would have go increase (and this has decreased decade over decade).
- Status