Steve Randy Waldman sends us to David Dayen and the push back against the push back against some optimistic projections (from Gerald Friedman) cited by the Sanders campaign (that I already made fun of here). Dayen asserts that economic forecasts are basically all garbage (and I agree), and so it is a bit disingenuous to selectively call out any particular one.Information Transfer Economics
And I would agree -- if we were strictly talking about forecasting error. And if we were talking about forecasting error, everyone should kneel before Zod check out the IT model. However I am more interested in the implied model behind Friedman's forecast of Sanders policy.
The problem is that the substrate smacks of "neoliberalism". Making human progress and well-being all about economics is probably the best operational definition of "neoliberalism" (see here). The thinking seems to be that Bernie Sanders's policies are good therefore they should lead to good results (i.e. economic growth) ... and since they are so much better than other policies, they should lead to massive economic growth.
But growth is not always good; it depends on where it comes from….
The forecast's substrate: is Sanders condoning neoliberalism?
Jason Smith
5 comments:
"Making human progress and well-being all about economics is probably the best operational definition of "neoliberalism"
Oh good god here we go again with even more arguing about the meaning of figures of speech...
Jason has it essentially right.
Neoliberalism in essence is the equation of political theory and economic theory with the neoclassical approach broadly speaking as the conventional approach that prioritizes economic growth and economic efficiency by reducing "frictions," especially in the form of government intrusion in finance and the economy.
While I don't think that anyone is going to mistake Sanders for a neoliberal, his emphasis on economics is neoliberal and especially when it is presented in neoclassical terms.
Bernie really needs to start listening to Stephanie instead of his big name advisers. I would advise him to hire Randy on as the chief economic adviser to his campaign if he wants to keep Stephanie low profile as the chief economist of the Senate budget committee for the minority.
Agree with @Tom.
The debate about Bernie-nomics has been dumb on both sides of the aisle. The neoliberals say it won't work because Bernie would run out of money, while the Bernie bros envision Bernie-nomics as some sort of MMT big spending utopia, which it isn't, nor would Congress ever pass an MMT big spending budget unless there was a Republican in the White House.
Bernie is a deficit dove. He fully supported PAYGO and most of his proposals are PAYGO-like. Freidman projects that the Bernie budget would turn a surplus after a few years. MMT should be objecting to some of Bernie's proposals.
It may well be that Bernie only pretends to be a deficit dove while he is actually an owl who will come out of the closet when the election is over, but I don't think so. And in any event, Bernie will face a Republican Senate if not a Republican Congress.
An old list: Top Economists to Advise Sanders on Fed Reform
Kelton, Wray, Galbraith, Black, Canova all on it. An Auerbach & a Hickey too, but not the right ones. :-) Just about everyone else is some kind of Keynesian, mostly of the saner sort, especially if they listen to their logical hearts instead of their maybe more foolish heads. MMT is very heavily overweighted in proportion to its academic demography. All in all, about as good as one could hope, especially with Kelton working for him.
Bernie needs Stephanie Kelton to run as his VP. NOW. It's not normal practice, but if Sanders does not prevail in the primaries, a lot of the desire for meaningful change will wither (some on the left will not vote for Trump).
It would end the gender issue and give him possibly the best way of countering the super-delegate gerrymander.
Last but not least, it would put a first-class economist squarely into the middle of his administration (if elected).
Post a Comment