Liberal economists to Bernie Sanders: Your economic plan is unrealistic.

a reply to: TheBandit795

I think you summed it up perfectly in the 2nd sentence of your OP.

Former Democrat economists for Obama and Clinton administrations.

The Clinton and Obama administrations follow neoliberalism (which is about economic liberty, not social liberty). They (neoliberals) believe in free trade, austerity, reductions in social spending, and other policies that increase private sectors. Predictably, those administrations also kept strong connections to Wall Street. Here's a picture of notable Goldman Sachs employees in their administrations that illustrates the point.

no-consent.org...

Bernie, on the other hand, doesn't subscribe to their economic policies. And he also had a famous feud with Alan Greenspan, the architect of alot of America's economic policies, which further highlights their differences in economic opinions. Here's a clip from 1998:

And here's one from 2003 (kudos to those who recognize a certain wretched someone at the 10sec mark):

Needless to say, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that former Clinton & Obama economists don't agree with Bernie's economic plans. Just remember, they are neoliberals not liberals, which are completely different things. Many Republicans are also neoliberals, hence the similarity in their free trade and austerity programs.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Bernie, on the other hand, doesn't subscribe to their economic policies.

Fixed that for you.

You know, I actually had to go to the hospital in Paris, France. I had to have blood work and a CAT scan. I was seen immediately, no 3 hour waiting. I wasn't dying or having heart pains either -- they were that efficient and not overly clogged with people needing basic medical care due to lack of insurance.

The hospital was clean and modern. The doctors and nurses all professional and polite. I had my results handed to me, along with my brain scans and was sent on my way. They even included notes for whatever doctor I followed up with state-side.

When I needed to get a prescription filled they had given me, I was told to go into any pharmacy marked by a neon green cross. Sure enough, they were all over. Small, privately run pharmacies that didn't charge much at all. I think I paid less than my normal co-pay for a perception. I can still remember being shocked at the price.

When I got back to the USA, I followed up with a neurologist. I had to have 2 MRI's and EEG. That alone was well over $20,000 and I maxed out my deductible, which cost quite a bit still. I was amazed at how doctors just threw around these expensive treatments and seeing the line-items my jaw hit the floor. It was insane --- no highway robbery the prices the medical industry charges.

I talked to a lot of people in France, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. None of them seemed "oppressed". Most of them thought it was bizarre that the "Greatest Nation on Earth" cared so little for her own people...and her own people cared even less for their fellow Americans.

You know what else I saw in the people I met? Actual happiness. Instead of a closet full of 50 cheap shirts, my friend may have 5 very high quality sweaters. He has less "stuff" but it's better quality, and his self-worth and self esteem wasn't nearly as tied to the physical possessions he had. I saw a much less "materialistic" people. I saw people binding their happiness to things like hobbies, pastimes, friendships and experiences. I met people who traveled extensively and had a far, FAR better grasp on the world and what's in it than most Americans.

We Americans don't seem to get out much. Is it any wonder that the "blue states" are on the coasts? People in those states general interact with foreigners more, and have a broader worldview. When you live in middle America and spend your entire life birth-to-grave without visiting more than a few neighboring states, your world-view is incredibly small. It's easy for the TV to tell you what and how to think about people who aren't like you, as you never actually have to rub elbows with them. It's also expensive to travel anywhere outside of your bubble of culture too, and because of that it becomes comfortable. No one likes being made uncomfortable.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Wow, that was a really insightful post.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

My one star is far less than your post deserves. It's all I can give though.

Thank you for your insight.

a reply to: TheBandit795


The Problem with Sanders and Trump and Clinton, ALL of them is that the motivation for running for a leadership position is ALWAYS power. And to get to that position you have to be willing to play ball with the REAL people in power. Which means, no matter who we "elect", they will ALWAYS represent the ruling elite first and foremost and all we will get are the crumbs. If that.

I've stated on many threads here, even my own, that after researching Bernie's economic plan...it is a pure FANTASY..and would not only not work , but CRACK our economy into oblivion.

Glad to see economists outside of his own agree. And even Krugman.

Repeat, it CANNOT work.

The New York Times Invents Left-Leaning Economists to Attack Bernie Sanders

A New York Times 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 New York Times even presented the comments of Ezra Klein, who is neither an economist nor a liberal, by his own identification.

also ...

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, can’t find some grounds for skepticism on any of these proposals they should probably be in a different line of work.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Blue states are on the coast. Which brings more foreigners and their descendants. Which have been trained to hail the DNC. Also "Liberal" enclaves or rich and liberal industries tend to by on coasts too.

Hollywood, New York, San Francisco..entertainment, Lawyers, education, music, artists.

And guess what, none of means we're smarter or happier.

I grew up in Los Angeles right near the water. There was more gang activity in those areas for years, and crime and drugs. The happy people were the ones with money...money helps.

"Foreigners" don't make us happy or smarter, or more well rounded. Come to Los Angeles and you'll see just how MISERABLE a society can be.

And many of the counties here in California all along the coast which are "happy " are Republican counties. The Liberal ones are miserable.

Hollywood, which is Liberal, and Los Angeles City proper, are raging GARBAGE DUMPS. You can literally cross lines from a Democrat city or County into a Republican one in California, and literally see the difference.

Oregon Coast same thing. Washington coast same.

I think YOU are the one watching too much TV

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Also, if you could, please tell us these "Liberal" happy Utopias are, you think exist on the West coast. I've lived up and thus entire coast in maybe 10 different counties and done business or travel in 10 others.

I'm curious where these Liberal Utopias with smart happy people are, and which "foreigners" enrich our lives.

Because from my experience the cleanest, smartest, happiest, nicest ones have been majority middle upper class Republican ones, outside of a few places maybe in the Bay Area, which is debatable

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
I've stated on many threads here, even my own, that after researching Bernie's economic plan...it is a pure FANTASY..and would not only not work , but CRACK our economy into oblivion.

Glad to see economists outside of his own agree. And even Krugman.

Repeat, it CANNOT work.

Interesting opinion, but I think I will take the word of an expert over yours.

Robert Reich: Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals are far from fantasy, would spur growth

Failure to take action on the biggest banks, a single-payer plan, widening inequality, and discrimination will almost certainly harm the economy. We can’t afford another near-meltdown of Wall Street. Health care costs continue to be a huge drain on the economy. Widening inequality is robbing the vast middle class of the purchasing power it needs to keep the economy growing. And structural discrimination is making it hard for many Americans to be successful and productive members of our society.

As Bernie Sanders has said, taking action on all these fronts would therefore spur growth, employment, and median incomes. (In this respect, I disagree with the views of four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors from the Clinton and Obama administrations.)

originally posted by: AlaskanDad

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
I've stated on many threads here, even my own, that after researching Bernie's economic plan...it is a pure FANTASY..and would not only not work , but CRACK our economy into oblivion.

Glad to see economists outside of his own agree. And even Krugman.

Repeat, it CANNOT work.

Interesting opinion, but I think I will take the word of an expert over yours.

Robert Reich: Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals are far from fantasy, would spur growth

Failure to take action on the biggest banks, a single-payer plan, widening inequality, and discrimination will almost certainly harm the economy. We can’t afford another near-meltdown of Wall Street. Health care costs continue to be a huge drain on the economy. Widening inequality is robbing the vast middle class of the purchasing power it needs to keep the economy growing. And structural discrimination is making it hard for many Americans to be successful and productive members of our society.

As Bernie Sanders has said, taking action on all these fronts would therefore spur growth, employment, and median incomes. (In this respect, I disagree with the views of four former chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors from the Clinton and Obama administrations.)

Yes, I'm aware of Robert Reich being one of Bernie's signatories.

This is also the same man who stated "White Males need not apply" when addressing Congress discussing who would fill "Stimulus" jobs.

Know him well

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Made your post look ignorant, didn't he?

But it's hard to win arguments with nothing but hot air, isn't it?

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Made your post look ignorant, didn't he?

But it's hard to win arguments with nothing but hot air, isn't it?

I have no clue what you're babbling about

Oh wait, i think I see what's going on. You post a quote from Robert Reich, which is basically a declaration of importance...

And I'm supposed to say "Oh okay...AlaskanDad...that settles it...Bernie is the answer!"

Correct?

P.S.

KRUGMAN...who is multiple times the economic mind that Reich is...and who is a huge Europe model mixed economy Keynesian...thinks Bernie's plan is a no go.

So as long as you're bluffing with a Reich and appealing to authority...I'll go all in and shove my chips with a Krugman.

a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Funny if you had followed KRUGMAN over the years; you would have realized he did a 180 recently, about the time NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I would not put my money on someone that made such a drastic change in their opinion of economics, based on their employers politics.

Do you have his figures to support your claims, I mean numbers man?

Just more hot air , i c.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: BatheInTheFountain

Funny if you had followed KRUGMAN over the years; you would have realized he did a 180 recently, about the time NYT endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I would not put my money on someone that made such a drastic change in their opinion of economics, based on their employers politics.

Do you have his figures to support your claims, I mean numbers man?

Just more hot air , i c.

Figures????

snip

You keep saying "hot air" and I have no earthly clue what you're even on about.

What "figures"??

a reply to: openminded2011

I definitely agree with this post.

You know what really gets to me with these so called economists? They never take the biggest issue, the biggest problem into consideration, which is fractional reserve banking and central banks creating money out of nothing.