There’s been quite a fuss about our columnist Jerry Friedman’s analysis of the macroeconomic effects that implementation of all of Bernie Sanders’ proposals would have. (The analysis was the basis of two of Jerry’s recent columns for us, here and here.) Here’s a minimally annotated round-up of articles and blog posts related to the kerfuffle:The D & S Blog
Links on the Kerfuffle about Friedman’s Sanders Analysis
1 comment:
"Apart from any benefits these programs would bring directly, their cost would be reduced in four ways: Two operate by offsetting current spending and tax policies—either replacing existing federal spending or reducing tax breaks currently subsidizing private spending. The other two, which account for over 70% of the cost reduction, are the “dynamic effects” of increased economic growth—boosting tax revenues and reducing federal safety-net spending when the economy expands."
Ok so his "70%" here is complete bullshit so that means we will get AT LEAST 70% of what Bernie proposes... looks like the other 30% may not apply...
70% of 3.8T over 10 years is $266B per year of additional spending is pretty darn good compared to past few years of negligible increases... get rates moving up too at the same time and it could really get going...
Post a Comment