In Krugman’s recent post in the New York Times he brings up a challenge to the economic thought of both Sanders and Professor Gerald Friedman, who makes the claim that the Vermont Senator’s economic plan would make jobs and income soar. Friedman states that real economic growth under Sanders would grow to 5.3% per year. That’s as opposed to where we are now, which is at around 2%.
“OK, progressives have, rightly, mocked Jeb Bush for claiming that he could double growth to 4 percent. Now people close to Sanders say 5.3??? Even those of us who believe that there’s still significant slack in the US labor market are aware that much, probably most, of the decline in labor force participation since 1999 reflects an aging population — prime-working-age LFPR has reclaimed most of the lost ground since the Great Recession, and there’s probably a long-term downward trend even there. It’s possible that we can get unemployment down under 4 percent, but that’s way below any estimates I’ve seen of the level of unemployment consistent with moderate inflation.”
Krugman goes so far as to even say that if this sort of line was being perpetuated by a Republican, it would be described as “deep voodoo.” He continued, saying:
“Sanders needs to disassociate himself from this kind of fantasy economics right now.”
And he concluded by stating that if his campaign disagrees with this assessment, which is backed up by fellow leading economic advisers, we’ll be looking at a Trump presidency for sure.
In a letter to Sanders and Friedman from “former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisers for Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton” Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, and Laura D’Andrea Tyson, they state that they “have worked to make the Democratic Party the party of evidence-based economic policy.” Continuing, they wrote:
“We are concerned to see the Sanders campaign citing extreme claims by Gerald Friedman about the effect of Senator Sanders’s economic plan—claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence. Friedman asserts that your plan will have huge beneficial impacts on growth rates, income and employment that exceed even the most grandiose predictions by Republicans about the impact of their tax cut proposals.
As much as we wish it were so, no credible economic research supports economic impacts of these magnitudes. Making such promises runs against our party’s best traditions of evidence-based policy making and undermines our reputation as the party of responsible arithmetic. These claims undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates.”Bernie vehemently denies the premise of his plans faults but this is not only the republicans but his party.
there needs to be some serious study to make it clear to voters right or wrong these policies by both sides have very devastating affects on our future making claims without documentation is and should not be acceptable.
5 or 6 years down the road we don't want to see critics right about this as well as those made by Hillary and definitely by republicans. i really don't think enough realize the magnitude of the ramifications of a wrong pick we need to not settle but give everyone a chance to make their claim but i still say contingent on qualfying documentation.