Support NeoGAF

[noshten]

Sanders’s economic agenda certainly represents a dramatic departure from what has come out of mainstream Democratic Party circles for a generation, to say nothing, of course, of the Republicans. The key elements of Sanders’s program include a “Medicare-for-all” single-payer healthcare system; an increase in the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour; free tuition at public colleges and universities, to be financed by taxing Wall Street transactions; opposition to trade agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that have weakened the wage-bargaining power of US workers; large-scale public investments to build a clean-energy economy and rebuild the crumbling US infrastructure; and strong Wall Street regulations to promote productive investments and job creation over casino capitalism.

MEDICARE FOR ALL

Sanders’s critics regularly ridicule his proposal for universal healthcare coverage under a single-payer Medicare-for-all system. For example, two leading liberal healthcare analysts, Paul Starr at Princeton and Kenneth Thorpe at Emory University, have harshly criticized the specific proposal developed by my University of Massachusetts Amherst colleague Gerald Friedman on which the Sanders campaign has drawn. Starr, Thorpe, and other critics may well have some legitimate concerns with respect to the specific proposal drafted by Friedman. This is normal whenever specialists debate the specifics of large, complex policy measures.

But the critics are missing the big picture, which is simple: The United States economy currently spends 17.1 percent of GDP on healthcare, while the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, and France spend between 9.1 and 11.7 percent, respectively. All of these countries perform better than the United States, according to standard public-health measures such as average life expectancy. Within the context of the current US economy, the difference between spending 10 versus 17 percent of GDP on healthcare amounts to $1.3 trillion. That $1.3 trillion mark-up in US healthcare spending flows mainly into the coffers of big insurance and pharmaceutical companies. Do Sanders’s critics truly believe that it is impossible to devise a system whose administrative features roughly approximate those in Germany, Japan, the UK, France, Australia, or Canada? They have not advanced any serious arguments to support such a claim. Indeed, many of Sanders’s critics themselves have been proponents of single-payer prior to Sanders’s having incorporated it into his platform.

$15 MINIMUM WAGE

The Sanders proposal to more than double the current federal minimum wage from $7.25 to $15 an hour by 2020 comes directly out of the grassroots Fight for $15 movement that has spread throughout the country in recent years, especially among fast-food workers. These workers know first hand that depending on jobs that pay $7.25 an hour or anything close to that means a life of hardship. My co-worker at the Political Economy Research Institute, Jeannette Wicks-Lim, recently estimated that raising the federal minimum to $15 an hour would deliver raises for about 65 million workers, roughly 44 percent of the US workforce. The largest beneficiaries would include African Americans, Latinos, and workers from lower-income families.

A recent study by Wicks-Lim and myself found that, even fast-food restaurants, which employ a disproportionate share of minimum wage workers, are likely to see their overall business costs rise by only about 3.4 percent per year during a four-year phase-in for a $15 minimum wage. This means, for example, that McDonalds could cover fully half of the cost increase by raising the price of a Big Mac, on average, by about 15 cents per year for four years—from $4.90 to $5.50.

TAXING WALL STREET TRADING

In a recent study that I co-authored with James Heintz and Thomas Herndon, we estimated that the Inclusive Prosperity Act could generate around $300 billion per year in new federal tax revenues (amounting to 1.7 percent of US GDP). This is after allowing that Wall Street trading would decline by an implausibly large 50 percent due to the tax. The Sanders campaign has estimated the cost of his free-college-tuition program at $75 billion per year. The $300 billion per year from the Wall Street tax could therefore cover this college-tuition program in full four times over. The Wall Street tax revenues could then provide something like another $225 billion to finance, for example, public investments in clean energy and infrastructure. Channeling this amount of money out of Wall Street and into education, clean energy, and infrastructure investments would, in turn, generate millions of middle-class jobs for educators as well as manufacturing and construction workers, as well as related support industries, rather than a relatively small number of high-paying Wall Street jobs.

Contrary to our findings, a recent study by Leonard Burman and co-authors at the Tax Policy Center (a collaboration between the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute) asserts that a Sanders-type financial transaction tax could provide, as a maximum, no more than about $60 billion in annual revenues as of 2017. But their conclusion depends on the assumption that financial market trading would fall by between 80 to 90 percent after the tax is enacted, a claim which is not supported by the weight of evidence, including the evidence they themselves cite. Rather, as my co-authors and I show, our revenue estimate at $300 billion per year corresponds with the experiences of other countries that currently operate with this type of tax, including the UK, France, Italy, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

In short, if something like a Sanders program is enacted in the United States, the critical point will not be whether GDP grows, on average, at 3 percent, 4 percent or 5.3 percent. A Sanders economy will be fully capable of growing at healthy rates. But more than just growing, a Sanders economy will also deliver standards of well-being for the overwhelming majority of Americans, as well as the environment, in ways that we have not experienced for generations

http://www.thenation.com/article/bernie-sanders-will-make-the-economy-great-again/

Granted the plan isn't perfect but the biggest obstacle isn't the plan itself it's elected officials not acting in the best interests for a large portion of the population.

 

[uncelestial]

Nice, but making things great again has really lost its luster for me.

 

[Miles X]

He won't because he isn't getting the nom!

 

[egruntz]

But this is just too radical for America, right?

 

[uncelestial]

(Seriously though, I would love Bernie to get the nom and am super pro wealth redistribution)

 

[echoshifting]

But this is just too radical for America, right?

Yes. Pipe dream material

 

[nhlducks35]

But congress

 

[Tertullian]

Robert Pollin | Department of Economics | UMass Amherst

Why am I not surprised.

 

[Valhelm]

He won't because he isn't getting the nom!

And that's really a tragedy. 8 more years of neoliberalism won't be good for the tens of millions of Americans who need help.

 

[Boney]

Yes. Pipe dream material

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

 

[Piecake]

And that's really a tragedy. 8 more years of neoliberalism won't be good for the tens of millions of Americans who need help.

Why do you think it would be any different if Bernie became president?

 

[Frozenprince]

That's nice.

Call me when it has a snowballs chance in hell of happening.

Bernie and his blind idealism is getting old.

 

[Aaronrules380]

So because one guy says it will work as planned, we ignore countless others who continuously say that it's incredibly overoptimistic and ignores the facts? You can find at least one "expert" on any subject who will support pretty much any view on said topic.

 

[G.ZZZ]

Read that as the onion. Don't hate me, Bernie's the first actually somewhat leftist candidate president of the US that i can think of. But the negative press around leftist policies is immense, you're literally fighting ALL of the powers. Dozens and dozens of years of propaganda , corrupted officials saying that we can't have any better, that this is the best world we can think of, like Voltaire, but without the irony. He wasn't meant to be. We need to fall further down in the abyss before realizing. Sadly the price the next generation will have to pay will be immense, with the climate change making large swats of the planet literally unahabitable and reducing crop output significantly.

 

[Reverend Funk]

at this point I'm willing to settle for good

 

[noshten]

Why am I not surprised.

Of course Robert is just defending his colleagues and himself from people who labelled the economic plans as rainbows and puppies. After all Pollin worked on the Tax on WallSt

The Sanders program includes the Inclusive Prosperity Act, a bill that was originally introduced into Congress in 2012 by Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota, a leading figure in the Congressional Progressive Caucus (disclosure: I worked with Ellison’s staff in drafting this bill). This bill is, effectively, a sales tax on all financial market trades in the United States—that is, all stock, bond, and derivative (including options, futures, and swap) trades. It would be the equivalent of sales taxes that Americans have long paid every time they buy an automobile, shirt, baseball glove, airline ticket, or pack of chewing gum, eat at a restaurant, or have their hair cut.

So because one guy says it will work as planned, we ignore countless others who continuously say that it's incredibly overoptimistic and ignores the facts? You can find at least one "expert" on any subject who will support pretty much any view on said topic.

He hasn't worked with Bernie on any of the plans in question, he worked on the Tax on Wall St which Bernie integrated into his platform.

Kelton and Black are part of a team of economic advisers, including former labor secretary Robert Reich and James Galbraith at the University of Texas in Austin, who help the Sanders campaign develop policies.

 

[Valhelm]

Why do you think it would be any different if Bernie became president?

He'd try in ways that Hillary likely will not. Even if some of his more ambitious legislation probably can't be passed, getting somebody in the White House who actually seeks to change our wealth distribution is huge. Executive orders, supreme court appointments, and international agreements can also go a long way.

 

[BeatnikGunsoo]

iirc california is getting close to or already has passed the $15 minimum wage bill

 

[Frozenprince]

He'd try in ways that Hillary likely will not. Even if some of his more ambitious legislation probably can't be passed, getting somebody in the White House who actually seeks to change our wealth distribution is huge. Executive orders, supreme court appointments, and international agreements can also go a long way.

No he won't.

 

[echoshifting]

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

The biggest problems are congress and the American public, the nomination and election are speed bumps compared to those mountains

 

[richiek]

I'm betting this article is at the top of reddit's front page right now.

 

[TheFatOne]

Pie in the sky bullshit that will never ever get passed. Bernies plans will do exactly nothing because he will not get anything passed given the current political landscape.

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

lol There's a chance right now that I could be hit by lightning. Bernie is done. Also, super delegates have nothing to do with the predicament Bernie finds himself in now. His horrendous campaign managers are directly responsible for where he is now. Had he not had horrible campaign managers who basically gave up on southern democrats he would have had a legitimate shot to win. Instead they decided it would be a great idea to let Hillary trounce them in all the southern states, and with minorities. Great plan there guys.

 

[DeathoftheEndless]

Sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows / Everything that's wonderful is what I feel under President Sanders

 

[Pedrito]

What's the deal with UMass Amherst? Seems like all the economists who have come out in favor of Sanders come from there.

 

[Valhelm]

No he won't.

The man is a self-identified socialist who has brought the issue of wealth inequality, something the Democratic party has been largely ignoring since Johnson, to the forefront of American politics.

 

[kadotsu]

4 years of no new laws will fix the US economy how?

 

[Frozenprince]

The man is a self-identified socialist who has brought the issue of wealth inequality, something the Democratic party has been largely ignoring since Johnson, to the forefront of American politics.

And he'll be fed through the grinder that is the executive office just like everybody else.

 

[Armaros]

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

He is still down over 200+ pledged delegates.

A deficit no one in election history has beat.

He is not losing to super delegates.

He is losing to voters.

over 2 million voters in fact.

 

[Africanus]

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

There is no chance realistically, and a small non-probable chance statistically. He is down by thrice the total of Clinton in 2008, New York looms, and the rest of the states he will not win by the margins he needs to.
Super delegates simply reinforce, not create, his lack of a chance. I say this as a person who voted for the man on March 15th in the hopes that some semblance of a race could continue. It cannot.

 

[Maxim726X]

Why do you think it would be any different if Bernie became president?

Have yet to hear a salient response to this... It's as if people believe that Sanders could unilaterally pass all of the things he's proposing, with resistance from both the Republicans and his own fucking party.

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

Have you even looked at the math necessary to pull this off?

 

[Miles X]

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

No, there isn't. Anyone who believes so is drinking the kool aid.

 

[Chuck Norris]

So because one guy says it will work as planned, we ignore countless others who continuously say that it's incredibly overoptimistic and ignores the facts? You can find at least one "expert" on any subject who will support pretty much any view on said topic.

Well in Australia we have a single payer healthcare system and $15 minimum wage as well as a progressive party that, for the the most part, keeps big business in check. I don't see why it's a pipe dream to remodel an economy based on other successful, real world examples.

 

[Frozenprince]

He is still down over 200+ pledged delegates.

A deficit no one in election history has beat.

He is not losing to super delegates.

He is losing to voters.

over 2 million voters in fact.

His plan is to win the west, I guess.

Cause he's got no shot in New York, Penn, or Florida. If he loses California (this just in, he's gonna get DESTROYED), I don't understand why he keeps going.

 

[davepoobond]

After the crushing win he had on the weekend there's still a chance. But the biggest problem will always be winning the super delegates because democracy lol

He is losing on pledged delegates. You're putting the cart before the horse complaining about super delegates. How about he actually best Hillary in overall votes?

Also, its rich that "democracy lol" is exactly Bernie's new strategy for winning in trying to sway those super delegates.

Also, guess what? Primaries are inherently undemocratic because they are not open elections. Uh oh democracy lol

 

[Piecake]

He'd try in ways that Hillary likely will not. Even if some of his more ambitious legislation probably can't be passed, getting somebody in the White House who actually seeks to change our wealth distribution is huge. Executive orders, supreme court appointments, and international agreements can also go a long way.

Supreme Court Appoints and international agreements require Congress approval. Executive orders that change the wealth distribution is impossible and unconstitutional because Congress controls the purse. He won't be able to do any more 'progressive' action than Clinton because both will be limited by a Republican house and possibly a Republican Senate.

Personally, I have more faith that Clinton will pass good executive orders than Bernie because Clinton has actually worked the details and has plans for ones that she wants to implement. Not to mention I have a very hard time seeing Bernie having the flexibility to work with Congress considering he is much more of an idealogue. Unless you have massive majorities meaning that you can pass basically anything, you are likely to get more done with a pragmatic politician than a person who sticks to his principles.

I really don't see how getting a president who wants to change the wealth distribution is huge when he can't do a damn thing. Obama and basically every democrat certainly want to change how wealth is distributed as well in this nation, but that certainly hasn't changed a damn thing. I really don't see why Bernie is so magical that his mere presence can change America.

 

[JesseEwiak]

Well in Australia we have a single payer healthcare system and $15 minimum wage as well as a progressive party that, for the the most part, keeps big business in check. I don't see why it's a pipe dream to remodel an economy based on other successful, real world examples.

Honest Answer - Because until 40 years ago, you only had white people there and a few natives in reservations. It's a lot easier to have redistribution when a lot of the redistribution is going to people who look like you. There are other things, but most of the reasons America is fucked up comes back to race.

Also, people forget the President isn't in charge of what passes. Who's actually in charge is who the 218th vote in the House and the 51st vote in the Senate is.

 

[kirblar]

Honest Answer - Because until 40 years ago, you only had white people there and a few natives in reservations. It's a lot easier to have redistribution when a lot of the redistribution is going to people who look like you. There are other things, but most of the reasons America is fucked up comes back to race.

Also, people forget the President isn't in charge of what passes. Who's actually in charge is who the 218th vote in the House and the 51st vote in the Senate is.

It's also easier with condensed urban populations. America being so huge makes a lot of things harder politically.

 

[Frozenprince]

Well in Australia we have a single payer healthcare system and $15 minimum wage as well as a progressive party that, for the the most part, keeps big business in check. I don't see why it's a pipe dream to remodel an economy based on other successful, real world examples.

Population, demographics, income, total GDP, government systems, I mean just look up the myriad of differences between the US and Australia and you have your answer.

 

[Primethius]

Bernie will also bring world peace while he's at it.

God, Im getting so tired of idealistic talk at this point.

 

[God Dayumm]

Granted the plan isn't perfect but the biggest obstacle isn't the plan itself it's elected officials not acting in the best interests for a large portion of the population.

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

 

[Frozenprince]

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

She's admitting that there is no perfect solution and that she can, probably, actually accomplish some shit (that won't mean much but still something) rather than hope her dreams can come true.

 

[echoshifting]

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

How is she admitting incompetence? She's invoking the quote, "make the perfect the enemy of the good."

 

[Maxim726X]

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

Interesting interpretation. Please tell us how you came to that conclusion.

 

[davepoobond]

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

Incompetence = u can't dream!??

 

[RustyNails]

But will he make anime great again?

 

[God Dayumm]

How is she admitting incompetence? She's invoking the quote, "make the perfect the enemy of the good."

That makes sense. I thought she was referring to Bernie

 

[Chuck Norris]

Honest Answer - Because until 40 years ago, you only had white people there and a few natives in reservations. It's a lot easier to have redistribution when a lot of the redistribution is going to people who look like you. There are other things, but most of the reasons America is fucked up comes back to race.

Also, people forget the President isn't in charge of what passes. Who's actually in charge is who the 218th vote in the House and the 51st vote in the Senate is.

It was never about a redistribution of wealth, it's about making things fairer and easier at the bottom.

 

[Piecake]

Is this a real Hillary quote? Is she admitting to incompetence?

I am assuming that 'the perfect' was to indicate perspective. Other people might think another candidate is 'perfect', but not voting or voting for someone else will hurt a lot of people who are really suffering and would be hurt by a Republican candidacy.

She seems to be invoking privilege and voting argument that has been used against Sanders supporters who don't want to vote for Clinton in the general.

At least that was my interpretation because it is pretty silly to assume that she would diss herself

 

[Chuck Norris]

Population, demographics, income, total GDP, government systems, I mean just look up the myriad of differences between the US and Australia and you have your answer.

Economies are scalable. And I don't see why demographics have anything to do with what is being proposed.

 

[bounchfx]

4 years of no new laws will fix the US economy how?

this might not have occurred to you, so I'm going to do my best to explain as I understand it

I don't think bernie winning will change things the way people seem to be assuming when he proposes this stuff. people seem to think he's promising that things will magically improve. they won't. our congress is still made out of piles of shit, and corporations still have a foothold on their own interests over the publics best interest.

here's where it matters, and even if he doesn't win, still makes a difference: the long term effect of bringing these big issues to light. talking about solutions. showing people there are other (viable) ways of doing things. giving people hope. So no, it's not going to fix the economy overnight, but putting honest systems in place that have good intentions and punishing those that cheat the system, giving people proper healthcare and education, focusing on PEOPLE, will 100% in the long term 'fix' the economy.

right now we don't really have anything but a crooked system being gamed and manipulated by the ones already benefiting from it (at the expense of others, no less). we don't have capitalism, we have it's twisted cousin, where the deck is stacked in a specific way. We have loads of taxes and funds that should be used for public good, slipping through loopholes or being sucked up by middlemen.

so no, he won't fix the economy, not in the way you've set your comment up to project, but shining light on the issues we need to fix, the steps we need to take, to get there, is the most important thing he can do, and he's doing it as best as he can. We all need to pitch in.