2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT Invents Left-Leaning Economists to Attack Bernie Sanders
2/16/2016
A NYT piece headlined left-leaning economists question cost of Bernie Sanders plans may have misled readers about the extent of skepticism among economists who consider themselves left-leaning. I can say this as a card-carrying left-leaning economist who often talks to other card-carrying left-leaning economists.
While there are undoubtedly many left of center economists who have serious objections to the proposals Sanders has put forward, there are also many who have publicly indicated support for them. Remarkably, none of those economists were referenced in this article. In fact, to make its case on left of center economists views, the NYT even presented the comments of Ezra Klein, who is neither an economist nor a liberal, by his own identification.
It also misrepresented the comments of Jared Bernstein (a personal friend), implying that they were criticisms of Sanders program. In fact his comments were addressed to the analysis of Sanders proposals by Gerald Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts who is not affiliated with the Sanders campaign.
It also presented the comments of Brookings economist Henry Aaron about the views expressed by other economists in a lefty chat group he joins online. This would seem to violate the NYTs usual policy on anonymous sources.
Sanders has a very ambitious agenda covering everything from universal Medicare, reforming the financial sector, paid sick days and vacation, free college, and universal childcare. If an economist, left-leaning or otherwise, cant find some grounds for skepticism on any of these proposals they should probably be in a different line of work.
These are all big ideas, each of which will face enormous political opposition even if Bernie Sanders were in the White House. Sanders has not given a fully worked out proposal in any of these areas, nor is it reasonable to expect a fully worked out proposal from a candidate for the presidency. His campaign platform outlines general approaches. In the event Sanders got to the White House, it would be necessary to draft fully worked out legislative language which would almost certainly amount to hundreds of pages, and quite possibly thousands of pages, in each area. In addition, whatever he initially put on the table would have to be haggled over with Congress, even assuming that he had a much more sympathetic group than the current crew.
While it is nice that the NYT is subjecting Sanders views to serious scrutiny, it would be good if it also subjected the views of other candidates to the same scrutiny. For example, Secretary Clinton has indicated a desire to give more opportunity to African Americans and Hispanics, yet she has not commented on the decision by the Federal Reserve Board to raise interest rates at the end of last year. This rate hike was intended to be the first of a sequence of rate hikes.
The purpose of raising interest rates is to slow the economy and the rate of job creation, ostensibly to prevent inflation. The people who will be disproportionately hurt by slower job growth and high unemployment are African American and Hispanic. NYT readers would likely be interested in knowing how Secretary Clinton can reconcile her commitment to helping African Americans and Hispanics with her apparent lack of concern over the Feds decision to raise interest rates and deny them jobs.
Whatever standard of scrutiny the NYT chooses to apply to presidential candidates it should apply them equally. It is not good reporting to apply one standard to Senator Sanders, and even inventing credentials to press its points, and then apply lesser standards to the other candidates.
http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/nyt-invents-left-leaning-economists-to-attack-bernie-sanders
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)so that Americans accept the idea that real progress is impossible because the rich are not in favor of real progress toward social justice. This also requires ignoring US history that shows that high marginal tax rates, massive public investment and strong tariffs lead to real wealth gains for all and a more robust economy.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)AzDar
(14,023 posts)Jenny_92808
(1,342 posts)DrSteveA "Article is absurdly unbalanced. Thorpe is a Clinton operative. Goolsbee works for Podesta, inc connected to Clinton campaign. But even more so, plenty of other actual left leaning economists have openly endorse Sanders, and to not mention that endorsement list is what make this a hit piece and not a newspiece."
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)Sanders policy aspirations mirror many of those I write about here: deep infrastructure investments, efficiency improvements in health care, college affordability, and so on. FTR, Clintons do too, though she dials back the extent of her proposed interventions. Shes admittedly more of an incrementalist as her theory of change is much more path dependent than Bernies. (Path dependency: your options in terms of where you end up depends on where youre starting from.) I return to this important difference below.
If you roughly sum up the costs of what Sanders is proposing, you will find that federal government spending under his agenda grows to something like 30% of GDP instead of the historical average of around 20%. Thats not at all unheard of in European and Scandinavian social democracies, as the candidate himself often notes. It is, however, as I suggested in the piece, unheard of in our own history. Again, thats one way to interpret his call for a political revolution. And its more evidence of his path-non-dependency.
The rest of the post is worth reading as well. He makes the point that while he disagrees with Friedman's analysis:
Not the false equivalencies ("This is just what Republicans do!" that some other people have been pushing.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)remember the NAFTA fracas in 2008?
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)here too: Corporate Media Endorses Clinton to Defend Their Own Interests
Norman Solomon wrote the nationally syndicated "Media Beat" weekly column from 1992 to 2009. He is the executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy, a consortium of policy researchers and analysts. Solomon is co-founder of the national group RootsAction.org, which now has more than 650,000 active members.
snip*SOLOMON: Well, there's certainly been a progression in terms of the coverage of Bernie Sanders. As you note, early last year, and later on even, as he announced and then began to gain momentum for his candidacy for president, he got very little coverage in the New York Times. The announcement was on the back page. He was sort of pooh-poohed, and by omission discounted. And it was only because of the grassroots momentum of the campaign that the New York Times has been compelled now to routinely put him on the front page here in February of 2016.
This is a pattern where it's not until and unless grassroots candidates are able to raise a lot of money and show that they can, perhaps, get a whole lot of votes, that the news media, including the so-called quality legacy outlets like the New York Times, are willing to even take them seriously. But now we're in a different phase, where after being almost ignored, discounted, pooh-poohed, put in terms of a fringe candidacy, the Bernie Sanders campaign is now being deluged with attacks and mischaracterizations by a wide range of media, where Hillary Clinton, even though she'd gotten some rough treatment from the New York Times in the past, because she is the corporate standard-bearer against the insurgent insurrections of the Sanders campaign, Hillary Clinton is getting a lot of very favorable coverage. Not only in the New York Times, but across a lot of news media. Of course, Fox is already gearing up to try to defeat her, they hope, in the fall.
But you've seen a lot of just for Hillary Clinton. Not only on the cable news such as MSNBC, but also in the editorials you mentioned. A few days ago when the New York Times editorially endorsed Hillary Clinton for president with a flourish, there was so much smoke that I couldn't recognize her. The New York Times editorial board was just depicting and describing a candidate for president, Hillary Clinton, who I absolutely could not recognize. She was this paragon of idealism, she was willing to challenge corporate and undemocratic interests. It was just this fantasy that, because the New York Times is eager not only to get her elected but to get Bernie Sanders defeated, she's got a halo over her head and she's some sort of great advocate for equality and the rights of people, no matter their economic station.
PERIES: You in fact, Norman, charged the New York Times editorial board editorial on Sunday as having perhaps been written by the Clinton campaign itself, that it was so flowery.
SOLOMON: Well, it may as well have been. And it's a problem that, frankly, afflicts people across a lot of the political spectrum, but certainly was very egregious in that case of the editorial. When people decide they're going to support a candidate, all of a sudden the candidate is an absolute saint, and there can't be an acknowledgement of some of their flaws.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016143732
amborin
(16,631 posts)the night of Bernie's huge NH win, the headline story was about HRC.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)it's the school that defined Milton Friedman's radical economic theory of free trade
The basis of the IMF
The basis of The Shock Doctrine
Such deceptive journalism
what krugman used to call a "fresh water" school
(though he might as well be from one now, too)