The economist who vouched for Bernie Sanders’ big liberal plans is voting for Hillary Clinton

[MADem]

The economist who vouched for Bernie Sanders’ big liberal plans is voting for Hillary Clinton



https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

The first thing you should know about Gerald Friedman, the economist suddenly at the center of a wonk-storm over Bernie Sanders’ policy proposals, is that he does not actually support Bernie Sanders for president.

He likes Sanders. And he has written, in consultation with the Sanders campaign, an analysis that projects Sanders’ ambitious domestic agenda would raise economic growth to as high as 5.3 percent per year, yielding sustained income gains for the middle class.

But Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says he’ll vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary.

“I support Clinton,” he said in an interview on Thursday. “I donate $10 a month to Clinton. I remember the woman who said, women’s rights are human rights. I think she did a great job as secretary of state. I agree with Bernie on economic issues, but there are other issues.”

Friedman came under attack this week by a group of liberal economists, including Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger and other former top economic advisers to Democratic presidents. They called his analysis of Sanders’ agenda – including free college for all, massive infrastructure spending and single-payer health care, all funded through sweeping tax increases – “extreme claims” that “cannot be supported by economic evidence.” ... Some liberal economists this week endorsed the idea, at least in the abstract, that another big fiscal stimulus could boost growth. They include J.W. Mason, an economist at the progressive Roosevelt Institute.
....

Something for everyone in this article.

[1StrongBlackMan]

1. Oh, my. Traitor!!!! ...

I agree with Bernie on economic issues, but there are other issues.

Well ... Maybe not. Perhaps, it is a matter of priorities?

[Armstead]

9. Perhaps it means he's objective about the subject at hand?

Pretty good recommendation I'd say.

[MADem]

12. Well, he prepared the plan. Others jumped on it and objected to this thing, or that.

But the bottom line is this--he's not voting for the guy for whom he prepared the material.

Something for everyone, as I said.

[noretreatnosurrender]

2. lol

That's the one they trashed the other day. They trashed their own supporter?

[MADem]

16. See post 14. nt

[Alfresco]

3. ...

[noretreatnosurrender]

4. Read the whole article

You couldn't ask for more. Bernie hired an economist to critique his economic plan. After reviewing the plan the economist supported it. The Hillary campaign comes out and trashes the man for supporting Sanders economic plan. Later it comes out that the man is voting for Hillary but still says the Sanders plan is good. I love it. You just can't make this stuff up any better than reality. lol

[MADem]

14. Not "the campaign" trashed it--read the article carefully.

Friedman came under attack this week by a group of liberal economists, including Austan Goolsbee, Alan Krueger and other former top economic advisers to Democratic presidents.

But Goolsbee isn’t swayed by Friedman’s arguments, which he has said risk pushing Democrats into the fantastical high-growth projections that conservative economists – such as Arthur Laffer, who famously sketched a version of this idea on a cocktail napkin – say will follow large cuts in top income tax rates.

In an email, Goolsbee said growth projections aren’t the only problem with Friedman’s analysis. It’s also his projections for income growth, for large effects from equalizing pay between men and women, for outsized savings on drug costs from the Sanders health plan, and more.

Krueger said in an email that Friedman had, among other issues, dramatically overestimated productivity growth in the future, ignored ways in which Sanders' programs would discourage some Americans from working and failed to account for the likelihood that the Federal Reserve would intervene to slow growth in a time of low unemployment in order to head off inflation.

“To be clear, our letter wasn't a critique of his study,” Goolsbee wrote. “It was a plea that we not invent a Vermont version of voodoo economics. If he wants to start using real economic data to analyze Sanders' policies, that's great.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/02/18/the-economist-who-validated-bernie-sanders-big-liberal-plans-is-voting-for-hillary-clinton/

[noretreatnosurrender]

28. Who believe in unicorns now?

Sanders' Economic Plan Torn Apart By Former Clinton, Obama Economists
They say a new analysis of the plan makes “claims that cannot be supported by the economic evidence."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sanders-plan-economists_us_56c48e74e4b0b40245c886a5

This is what I saw the other day. Do you seriously believe that the Clinton campaign had nothing to do with this? Who believes in unicorns now?

[MADem]

33. So you're suggesting what? That the economist is in a big, convoluted plot with the Clinton

campaign to support Sanders' plan, then he calls up his economist buddies to vet it rigorously, causing him to say he'll make adjustments....and it's ALL the fault of Clinton and UNICORNS?

This is probably the most unintentionally amusing assertion I have read all day.

[noretreatnosurrender]

39. ?

It's your assertion, not mine.

[MADem]

40. No, it's not. I posted an article for discussion. nt

[frylock]

5. Hillary supporter confirms that Sanders economic plans are sound.

[MADem]

15. If that's your take-away, enjoy! nt

[frylock]

19. What's your take-away?

[MADem]

20. Mine is that he's not as confident in his figures now as he was when he first put them out.

And, as I said elsewhere, that he prioritizes the ability to achieve stated goals, and puts his bets on HRC for that reason.

Put the popcorn down. No need to act all uncivil.

[frylock]

21. Has he expressed a lack of confidence in his initial figures?

If so, where?

[MADem]

22. I believe this paragraph addressed that.

Friedman said he is revising his estimates now with more pessimistic assumptions about that response, but that he still expects the new numbers to show broad growth and income gains as a result of Sanders’ plans.

[frylock]

24. So the numbers still pan out.

[MADem]

25. He hopes so. But there will likely be a "Round 2" on this matter.

Those guys enjoy a bit of give-and-take.

[ananda]

6. It's his right to support whoever he wants.

But it's also his responsibility to tell the truth, which he seems
to take seriously.

I respect that.

[TCJ70]

7. Yeah, this is probably...

...the best endorsement of Bernie's platform you could ask for.

[MADem]

10. Not really, but if that makes you feel good, enjoy!

[Armstead]

8. An economist who prefers Clinton for social issues, but...

Prefers Bernie's economic agenda.

Pretty good recommendation for the objectivity of his analysis, I'd say

[MADem]

11. He's obviously factoring in the "Get it done" aspect.

He has more faith in HRC.

As do I.

[Armstead]

17. He has more faith for reasons not in his realm of expertise

That's fine. We all have out priorities. But it proves the area in which his expertise is involved with is impartial and he prefers Bernie's positions to her on that.

[libtodeath]

13. I hope she endorses Bernies plan then.

[Nanjeanne]

18. So - that means what?

Either he is a lousy economist for supporting Sanders economic proposals and then why are you proud he is supporting Hillary. Or he is a good economist who supports Bernie's economic proposals and you are glad he is supporting Clinton.

In any case, it's not a ding against Bernie's economic policies. Unless logic doesn't matter.

[MADem]

23. Who are you, and why are you trying to make this about ME? It's not about me.

You can either discuss the ARTICLE, or you can have a nice day.

[Nanjeanne]

26. WTF? I have no idea what you are talking about. I could care less about you so believe me

I have no interest in making anything about YOU.

My point on the article - I'll repeat in very simple sentences. So what? It's fine that he is voting for Clinton. That doesn't negate his support of Sanders economic policies. If it's good that he is voting for Clinton - then he's a good economist and his opinion of Sanders economic policies matter. If he's not a good economist and his valuation of Sanders policies are bull - then why does anyone care if he supports Hillary.

Is that simple enough?

[MADem]

29. Why are you bringing ME into this discussion?

Your original post:

Original version with no edits.
18. So - that meeans what?
Either he is a lousy economist for supporting Sanders economic proposals and then why are you proud he is supporting Hillary. Or he is a good economist who supports Bernie's economic proposals and you are glad he is supporting Clinton.

In any case, it's not a ding against Bernie's economic policies. Unless logic doesn't matter.

I posted an article for discussion. Your response is to come after ME with "proud" and "glad" verbiage and then a little "logic" slam, to ice the cake.

Is that simple enough? to quote YOU. You have to live with yourself.

[Nanjeanne]

31. I was using the Royal "You". It's not all about you, I'm afraid. Such overreaction. Take a breath.

[MADem]

41. You're still doing it--one after the other; nothing but put-downs.

Maybe you should quit while you're behind if you can't have a conversation without getting personal and then blaming the person you're talking to for reacting to your rude words. All you're doing is flinging insults and snark.

"Take a breath."

"Such overreaction."

"It's not all about you."

smh!

[Nanjeanne]

42. Ok you win. You are offended and can't recognize your own rudeness . So I apologize.

[MADem]

43. Good grief--you """apologize""" while calling me RUDE?

Rude, how? For pointing out what you were doing?

SMH!!!! Keep your """apology"""--thanks anyway.

[beam me up scottie]

27. If he's so concerned about women's rights what does he think about putting abortion on the table?

Maybe that's why his wife supports Bernie.

[MADem]

32. None of those unrelated assertions are found or addressed even tangentially in the article. nt

[beam me up scottie]

34. From your op: "I remember the woman who said, women’s rights are human rights."

Her willingness to negotiate with anti-choice Republicans is very relevant.

[MADem]

35. Why don't you write him a letter, then? nt

[beam me up scottie]

36. I'm good just asking the question here but thanks!

[MADem]

38. Mmm hmmm. nt

[Skwmom]

30. Makes you wonder what the game was from the beginning.....

[cyberswede]

37. I support many of Hillary's positions, but I support Sanders. Democracy, baby. nt