Latest links on Friedman/Sanders, etc.

More posts related to the kerfuffle over our columnist Gerald Friedman’s report WHAT WOULD SANDERS DO? ESTIMATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF SANDERS PROGRAMS:

Alan Harvey, IDEAeconomics, Standard Fare or Fantasy Economics? An excellent and vigorous defense of the plausibility of Friedman’s growth projections and a useful summary of the debate, including Christina and David Romer’s intervention into it. Among the telling points he makes in support of the plausibility 5+% growth rates with the kinds of big, big programs Sanders is suggesting: the fact that “the average growth rate under Democratic presidents prior to Barack Obama was 4.2 percent.” Gee, Friedman estimates a few years of growth 1.1 percentage points higher than the average growth rate under pre-Great Recession Democratic presidents, and suddenly puppies are flying?

Here are some of Harvey’s useful points about the Romers’ critique:

“Romer criticized Friedman for confusing stocks and flows, suggesting – as I understand it – that the Friedman analysis projected multipliers too far into the future. The multiplier is the increment of new activity produced by an investment or government spending program. The stimulus money spent is income to workers and businesses, who each save some, but spend most,
which becomes income to other workers and businesses and results in further spending. …”

“Christina Romer is uniquely qualified to discuss overreach in projections, since she was chair of the CEA during the Obama stimulus period and famously forecast an immediate reduction in unemployment that did not materialize. [Ouch!] This failure was seized upon by Republicans to discredit government stimulus entirely. We can, of course, look back and see the economic effects, which were substantial. But because they did not match the projection, the theory of the projectors suffered. …”

“Romer appears to suggest in the Wolfers piece that multipliers act only during the period of stimulus spending, and she faults Friedman for misunderstanding stocks and flows. It should be obvious, however, that a measure which provokes additional private investment can claim credit for economic activity induced by that additional investment. If Ms. Romer is suggesting otherwise, she is wrong.”

In a nice turn of phrase, Harvey suggests that, contra Larry Summers’ mantra, in the midst of the debates about the appropriate level of stimulus, that stimulus should be “timely, targeted and temporary,” Sanders’ proposed stimulus is (as it should be) “substantial, strategic and sustained.”

James K. Galbraith, Boston Globe, The kerfuffle over Sanders’ economic planA summary similar to his other pieces, but in a forum that will have reached a much broader audience.

James K. Galbraith, interviewed on the Real News Network, Attacks on Sanders Economic Plan By Former CEA Chairs Are Irresponsible.  Some nice detail in this interview, conducted by TRNN’s Sharmini Peries, that hasn’t appeared in his earlier written statements. The summary: “So what we had here was a, what was essentially an academic exercise that produced a result that was highly favorable to the Sanders position, and showed that if you did an ambitious program you would get a strong growth response. It’s reasonable, certainly, for the first three or four years that that would transpire in practice. And what happened was that people who didn’t like that result politically jumped on it in a way which was, frankly speaking, professionally irresponsible, in my view. It was designed to convey the impression, which it succeeded in doing for a brief while through the broad media, that this was not a reputable exercise, and that there were responsible people on one side of the debate, and irresponsible people on the other.And that was, again, something that–an impression that could be conveyed through the mass media, but would not withstand scrutiny, and didn’t withstand scrutiny, once a few of us stood up and started saying, okay, where’s your evidence, on what are you basing this argument? And revealed the point, which the Romers implicitly conceded, and I give them credit for that, that in order to criticize a fellow economist you need to do some work.”

Michael S. Gordon, Boston Globe, Socialists, look to economists at UMass Amherst for support.  In light of the huge uptick in the number of people in the U.S. who call themselves “socialists” (see below), this headline isn’t as snide or marginalizing as it might have seemed a couple of years ago. Look for an uptick in applications to the UMass-Amherst econ department from all those millennial Berniegals and -bros.

Annie Lowrey, New York magazine, Who’s Winning the Great Bernie Magic-Math Battle?  Follow up to an earlier piece (something of a hit piece) by Lowrey, Bernie Sanders Has Started Thinking Like a Republican  (where Bernie is “thinking like a Republican” because “He has no interest in garnering respectability and credibility among Establishment Democrats,” with the suggestion that he is willing to make unrealistic promises). Despite her continued use of the derogatory and tendentious term “magic math,” the more recent piece is more favorable to Friedman:

“The truth is that it seems impossible for Sanders’s economic plans to do what Friedman thinks they would. But the whole debate has underscored that our current growth rates are as much a function of policy as they are of anything else, and that we need not resign ourselves to growing at 2 percent a year, year after year. Maybe the technocrat wonks are right. But maybe Hillary Clinton should be promising to try for 5 percent growth herself. Smarter policies —infrastructure investment, early childhood education, making work pay, rebuilding the safety net, declining to raise interest rates and choke off a recovery — would all help bolster the economy. Five percent growth over a decade might be fantastical, but 5 percent in a few years might not be.”

Two pieces I had missed on the keruffle:

Mark Thoma, The Fiscal Times (Feb. 23), Here’s Why Bernie Sanders’ 5% Growth Plan Isn’t Crazy After All. Another prominent left-leaning economist weighing in on Friedman’s side. Thoma quotes former Minneapolis Fed chair (whose blog posts I linked to in my last post):

“Narayana Kocherlakota argues ‘that there are good reasons to believe that, with appropriate stimulus, it would be possible to achieve growth outcomes of around 5-6 percent per year for the next four years.’ But we won’t know unless we try. The inflation risk is minimal, and we owe the households who have struggled so much during the recession and the long, drawn out recovery the best possible chance we can give them of finding a decent job.”

Greg Ip, Wall Street Journal (Feb. 19), To Match Lofty Growth Goals, Presidential Candidates Need Better Plans.  Discussion of what Ip views as overly optimistic growth promises from both Sanders and Republicans; an early criticism of Friedman’s report, but he appears to have actually read it: “Mr. Friedman claims a big deficit-financed stimulus, increased entitlements and redistribution would achieve this. That seems implausible; Barack Obama, after all, did all three (though by less than Mr. Sanders would), and labor-force participation and productivity growth have trended down. Indeed, in theory, increased social transfers and marginal tax rates tend to reduce labor-force participation, and increased regulation hurts productivity growth.” He concludes: “There’s nothing wrong with outside-the-box thinking. That’s what got the U.S. out of the Great Depression. But so far, what the candidates have offered doesn’t measure up. Either more realistic goals or far more unorthodox thinking is in order.” Sounds good–let’s go for much bigger stimulus and government intervention than Sanders is calling for!

Related Items on Candidates’ Health Care Proposals (or Lack Thereof):

Beverly Mann, Angry Bear, Clinton Announces When She Will Disclose Her Healthcare Insurance Improvement Plan: She’ll announce it just as soon as the Republican presidential candidates tell us theirs.  (Via Naked Capitalism.) See also Ben Mathis-Lilley, Slate, Hillary Clinton Doesn’t Have a Practical Plan, or Any Plan, for Universal Health Care Coverage.  So much for “pragmatism.” As David Sirota pointed out on Twitter, in its efforts to hitch Clinton to Obama’s parade, the Clinton campaign sometimes overstates Obama’s achievements, including on health care: “See this quote from Clinton campaign, then note that 30+ million don’t have health insurance:”


Find this statement on Hillary Clinton’s campaign site, here.  So maybe the reason Clinton doesn’t seem to have a plan to make health care universal is that she believes her own false claim that it is already universal (and affordable–which Obamacare isn’t either).

Is Clinton much better than Trump on this score? See Roy Poses, Health Care Renewal blog, It Has Come to This? – Donald Trump’s “Truly Absurd,” “Word Salad,” “Gibberish” Health Care Policy. (This also via Naked Capitalism.) This piece makes fun of the “word salad” and “gibberish” in Trumps debate answers about health care, mostly endless repeating that he will “get rid of the lines between states.” More recently, though, Trump has gone beyond revisionist cartography by posting more details about his health care reform ideas on his website. Besides repeal of Obamacare and “[m]odify[ing] existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines,” the reform plans include allowing taxpayers to deduct premium payments, plus health savings account. Standard “free-market” fare, but trust him, “It’s gonna be great.”

Meanwhile, Sanders’ plan has gotten more scrutiny than Clinton’s and Trump’s non-plans. In an earlier post I mentioned the piece from WashPo Wonkblog,  Study: Bernie Sanders’s health plan is actually kind of a train wreck for the poor. This is the one that only cited Kenneth Thorpe’s study, and not the critiques of it by Friedman and by Woolhandler/Himmelstein. Where’s the scrutiny for Clinton’s failure to explain how she’s going make Obamacare truly universal?

Our current issue, which just went out to e-subscribers and is being mailed soon to print subscribers, includes a column by Gerald Friedman on Sanders’ health care proposals. I’ll post that to the website soon–probably next week.

Several pieces about the leftward shift in U.S. politics (without a corresponding leftward shift among establishment elites):

Gertrude Schaffner Goldberg and Sheila D. Collins, HuffPo, Diminishing Expectations: For Whom?  Great piece by two friends of D&S (see Trudy Goldberg’s Jan/Feb 2015 cover story, Where Are Today’s Left Movements?: What we can learn from the millions who demonstrated for jobs, government relief, and collective bargaining rights in the 1930s). The first paragraph gives the lie to Clinton’s claim to be the best candidate for people of color: “In a debate with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Senator Sanders referred to the achievements of the Nordic countries in providing such things as universal health care and free higher education as models for the United States. Secretary Clinton responded by saying, ‘I love Denmark, but the United States is not Denmark.’ What does that mean? The allusion is not to insufficient economic resources but to unrealistic political expectations. Sometimes the excuse or barrier is our ‘diversity.’ In the final analysis, one might infer from that explanation that we would extend these benefits if it didn’t mean that they would be provided to persons of color, immigrants or other groups somehow regarded as alien and undeserving.” (Clinton’s remark about Denmark is another example of how easily she picks up right-wing talking points against social-democratic goals; this is on par with her criticisms of Sanders for promising “free stuff” and her promise not to raise taxes on the middle class (which would make it hard to replace premium-supported Obamacare with a tax-funded single-payer system).)
This piece reads well alongside Doug Henwood’s Post-Hope Democrats, which I linked to in an earlier post.

Harold Myerson, The Guardian, Why are there suddenly millions of socialists in America?  “It used to be a dirty word. Bernie Sanders helped remove the stigma – but it’s the spectacular failure of capitalism that has really changed people’s minds.” An excerpt:

“Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign has made clear that many Democrats are inclined to vote for a candidate who proclaims himself a democratic socialist, but even more dramatic and consequential are the many Democrats who say they’re socialists themselves. In a poll on the eve of the Iowa caucuses, more than 40% of likely Democratic caucus attendees said they were socialists. In a Boston Globe poll on the eve of the New Hampshire primary, 31% of New Hampshire Democratic voters called themselves socialists; among voters under 35, just over half did. And in late February, a Bloomberg poll of likely voters in the Democratic primary in South Carolina – South Carolina! – showed that 39% described themselves as socialists.

“Favorable views of socialism aren’t limited to Sanders supporters. The 39% of South Carolina Democrats who call themselves socialists exceeded by 13 percentage points the number who actually voted for Sanders. In a New York Times poll last November 56% of Democrats – including 52% of Hillary Clinton supporters – said they held a favorable view of socialism. Nor was this sway toward socialism triggered by Sanders’s candidacy: as far back as 2011, a Pew poll revealed, fully 49% of Americans (not just Democrats) under 30 had a positive view of socialism, while just 47% had a favorable opinion of capitalism.”

See also: Peter Beinart, The Atlantic, Why America Is Moving Left. An interesting piece, but hard to follow because of the author’s use of the term “liberalism” to mean “left,” and the author’s suggestion that Obama is liberal/left, as in this thesis statement: “There is a backlash against the liberalism of the Obama era. But it is louder than it is strong. Instead of turning right, the country as a whole is still moving to the left.” Shouldn’t he instead say that there is simultaneously a left-wing backlash against neoliberal Obama, and a right-wing reaction against that backlash (and against whatever socially liberal elements or imagined “left” or “socialist” elements there are in the Obama administration)?

Ethan Young, Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, A Political Revolution for the U.S. Left. Much better piece. “The U.S. Left is in the process of emerging from decades of decline. It entered the Obama years in terrible shape: politically incoherent, cut off from its historical continuity, and organizationally and socially fragmented. Yet in the last years there have been signs of awakening, and in the past few months a new progressive insurgency has appeared, piercing public consciousness in a way not seen in generations.

“The most distinctive form this insurgency takes is the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party nomination for president in 2016. Sanders is the first self-proclaimed socialist to win a national audience since Eugene V. Debs ran as the Socialist Party’s presidential candidate in the early 20th century, and the size of his base is arguably greater than that of any socialist leader in U.S. history.”

Two pieces on the Democratic primaries:

Jim Naureckas, FAIR/Extra! blog, NYT Works Hard to Present Primary Race as More Boring Than It Is.  This is a searing critique of the NYT’s post-Super Tuesday piece that originally bore the headline “Wins for Sanders in Liberal Strongholds,” but eventually read Minority Voters Push Hillary Clinton to Victories. As Naureckas rightly points out, it’s ridiculous to call Oklahoma and Colorado “liberal strongholds.”

Corey Robin, from his blog, Super Tuesday: March Theses. Republished at the Jacobin website as The Primary Isn’t Over  (whose title I would have edited to “The Primaries Are Not Over”). Excellent points about how the Super Tuesday results are not as good for Clinton as many have suggested. After Super Tuesday, Clinton has ten states and Sanders has five, but: “[t]he elections in Nevada, Iowa, and Massachusetts were either close or extraordinarily close. A little bit more time here, a little bit more organizing there, and they could easily have tipped his way. In other words, Sanders could very easily have seven states now to Clinton’s eight. He doesn’t, and coulda shoulda woulda is just that. But what this does mean, going forward, is that we have the opportunity to turn potential into actual. We’ve got time, we’ve got organizing, we’ve got money: let’s make use of it all.” Others have pointed out that Clinton’s wins on Tuesday were in the south, states which (with the exception of Virginia) neither Democrat would be likely to win in the general election. So Sanders’ wins in Oklahoma and Colorado may be more significant. What’s more, in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton won CA, NY, NJ, MA, FL, CA, PA, TX, and a bunch of smaller states, and still lost to Obama, as this map shows:


(*Remember that the delegates assigned from the MI and FL primaries were disqualified, because those states held their primaries earlier than the DNC allowed. Still, the rest of the states I listed are big states.) This surely had to do partly with the (small) margins by which she won those big states and the (large) margins by which she lost the less populous states that Obama won. But all this is to say that it is far from clear that Clinton will inevitably win the primaries. As Robin says, “Clinton’s strongest weapon is the aura of inevitability that she and her supporters and the media have concocted around her.” I would add that one of her weaknesses may be a sense of complacency among her supporters about the upcoming primaries; Sanders supporters can take advantage of that by heeding Robin’s advice to make use of the time, money, and organizing that we have on our side. (I myself canvassed in NH and MA and will make phone calls to likely Democratic voters in upcoming primary states. Maybe you should too.)

Yet More Links on Friedman-Sanders Kerfuffle

Christina D. Romer and David H. Romer, Senator Sanders’s Proposed Policies and Economic Growth.  Finally, one of the “Gang of 4” (as Bill Black has dubbed them) has responded to Friedman’s paper with an actual substantial critique.  From the conclusion:

“The bottom line of our evaluation of Professor Friedman’s analysis is that it is highly deficient.  The estimated demand-induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible. Moreover, even if they were not deeply flawed, Freidman’s enormous estimates of demand-fueled growth could not and would not come to pass. Even very generous estimates of the amount of slack still present in the American economy would not be enough to accommodate demand-driven growth of anything near what Friedman is estimating. As a result, inflation would soar and monetary policy would swing strongly to counteract them. Finally, a realistic evaluation of the impact of Senator Sanders’s policies on productive capacity (something that is neglected in Friedman’s analysis) suggests that those impacts are likely small and possibly negative.

“Though we have been frankly critical of Professor Friedman’s analysis, he has provided a service to public debate by posting his analysis so that other economists can evaluate its validity. We are posting our evaluation in the same spirit.”

James K. Galbraith, Economic Forecasting Models and Sanders Program Controversy. Galbraith comes to Friedman’s defense vigorously, again, by pointing out that they differ from him because of their theoretical assumptions and approach, not because he is in error.  And their theoretical approach has a sorry history.  The gist:

“All forecasting models embody theoretical views. All involve making assumptions about the shape of the world, and about those features, which can, and cannot, safely be neglected. This is true of the models the Romers favor, as well as of Professor Friedman’s, as it would be true of mine. So each model deserves to be scrutinized.

“In the case of the models favored by the Romers, we have the experience of forecasting from the outset of the Great Financial Crisis, which was marked by a famous exercise in early 2009 known as the Romer-Bernstein forecast. According to this forecast (a) the economy would have recovered on its own, in full and with no assistance from government, by 2014, (b) the only effect of the entire stimulus package would be to accelerate the date of full recovery by about six months, and (c) by 2016, the economy would actually be performing worse than if there had been no stimulus at all, since the greater ‘burden’ of the government debt would push up interest rates and depress business investment relative to the full employment level.

“It’s fair to say that this forecast was not borne out: the economy did not fully recover even with the ARRA, and there is no sign of ‘crowding out,’ even now. The idea that the economy is now worse off than it would have been without any Obama program is, to most people, I imagine, quite strange. These facts should prompt a careful look at the modeling strategy that the Romers espouse.”

Justin Wolfers, NYT Upshot blog, Uncovering the Bad Math (or Logic) Behind Bernie Sanders’s Economic Plan. After a phone conversation with Friedman, Wolfers tries to pick apart his analysis based on the Romers’ criticisms of it. “Here’s the problem: Mr. Friedman’s calculations assume that removing a stimulus has no effect. The result is that temporary stimulus has a permanent effect.” But by the end of the article Wolfers claims to have cornered Friedman into admitting that his model doesn’t depend on standard macroeconomic assumptions, but instead depends on “the understanding of an earlier generation of economists–a sub-tribe of Keynesians he called ‘Joan Robinson Keynesians.'” So if Wolfers is concluding that this is based on a theoretical difference, why would he suggest (and why would the Times editors allow him to suggest) that the difference is the result of math errors (or possibly errors in logic)? That would only be true if Friedman were applying the neoclassical models that the Romers and Wolfers rely on. As far as I can tell, the only error Wolfers has revealed is Friedman’s possible assumption at he was relying on standard models. That is only a real error if you assume that the standard models must be correct (and even then, it wouldn’t be a “logical” error!). There are two other problems with the Wolfers piece. One is that he is biased, having worked with David Romer, also also arguably because his partner Betsey Stevenson worked in the Obama administration until recently (and Obama and his economic advisors are supporting Clinton), which he doesn’t disclose. The other is that the title mentions “Bernie Sanders’s Economic Plan,” which mis-describes Friedman’s paper (which hasn’t been endorsed by Bernie Sanders–only mentioned favorably by someone from Sanders’s campaign).

Gerald Friedman, Response to the Romers. This is an exclusive to D&S;  he’ll have more to say soon, I’m sure.  Here’s his response in its entirety: “The Romers, and I suppose other neoclassical macro economists, believe that the economy tends towards full employment equilibrium and will move there on its own without need for government intervention or stimulus. They would acknowledge that following a negative shock, government stimulus spending may accelerate the recovery somewhat, as Bernstein and Romer in 2009 anticipated the Obama stimulus would speed recovery by about 6 months. They deny, however, that stimulus spending could change the permanent level of output because the economy will on its own return to full employment at a capacity output set without regard to the level of employment by factor endowments, by preferences, and by the level of exogenous technology. From this perspective, because a period of prolonged measured slow growth cannot be caused by involuntary unemployment, it must, by a priori assumption, be due to a decline in the exogenously determined growth rate in capacity. Like mosquitos on an otherwise delightful summer afternoon, slow growth is unfortunate but there is little that can safely be done about it.

“Or maybe we can find safe pesticides. Here I agree with John Maynard Keynes that the economy can have a low-employment equilibrium because of a lack of effective demand, and I agree with Nicholas Kaldor and Petrus Verdoorn that productivity and the growth rate of capacity can be increased by policies that push the economy to a higher level of employment. And to the contrary, periods of prolonged unemployment and underutilization of capacity can lower capacity by discouraging workers and reducing the incentive to invest, to innovate, and to raise productivity. Unfortunately, this is what has been happening in the US for the last few years; and, fortunately, there is reason to believe following Keynes/Kaldor/Verdoorn that policy can reverse this decline by pushing the economy to a higher level of output and thus a higher level of productivity. Rather than dismiss the rising output gap as orthodox macro economists have done by assuming that the United States suffered a great loss of efficiency since 2007, I see an economy at low-employment equilibrium where discouraged workers have abandoned the labor market and firms have had little incentive to innovate or to raise productivity. In this situation, additional stimulus can not only temporarily raise output but by priming the pump and encouraging additional private spending and investment, it can push the economy upwards towards capacity. And, beyond because at higher levels of employment, more people will look for work, more businesses will invest, and employment will grow faster and productivity will rise pushing up the growth rate in capacity. That is why I see lasting effects from a government stimulus when, as now, the economy is in a low-employment equilibrium.

“This theoretical point turns on empirical questions: are we 11% below capacity, as I would estimate, or are we 2-4% below, as the Romers suggest? And is capacity set or is it endogenous with respect to output levels; does it rise when the economy approaches capacity? If the Romers were right that the economy is at full employment at capacity utilization, and capacity utilization grows independently of the level of output, then there cannot be a lasting stimulus effect at a fully employed economy. In the Romer case, a stimulus can raise output only temporarily because output depends on capacity and the economy is always at or moving towards capacity. But, if the economy can be stuck at an unemployment equilibrium, if it does not move to a full employment equilibrium, or if a higher employment and output level can trigger a higher growth rate, then a Keynesian-style government stimulus can have lasting effects. Even a one year stimulus can push employment and output to a permanently higher level, and at that higher level it can generate faster growth by pulling more into the labor force and stimulating higher productivity growth. We might call this, the Keynesian-Kaldor case with equilibrium unemployment and growth dependent on the level of the output gap. In the Keynesian-Kaldor case, a one year stimulus can lead to permanently higher output both by reducing unemployment and by raising the growth rate of capacity.

“Gerald Friedman, University of Massachusetts at Amherst
February 27, 2016”

Also, here is Friedman’s new website!

Dean Baker, at his CEPR blog “Beat the Press,” The Romers Do the Numbers on Friedman-Sanders.  Disappointingly (to me, at any rate), Baker sides with the Romers:  “I could quibble with aspects of their critique, but I would say it is basically right. There clearly is still a large amount of slack in the economy which would allow for 2–4 years of exceptionally strong growth (e.g. 4–5 percent). However, it is very hard to envision a story where this sort of growth rate is maintained for a full eight years of a Sanders’ administration.” But I find this puzzling, as did at least one commenter on Baker’s blog: “This seems to be the exact opposite of what the Romers are saying. To Quote: ‘First, standard indicators of slack suggest that the output gap is currently no more than moderate. […] Second, experts think that slack is small. […] This suggests that, at least by this measure, professional forecasters see little if any slack in the current economy.'” 

John Cassidy, The New Yorker, Bernie Sanders and the Case for a New Economic-Stimulus Package.  Seems to side with Friedman against the “Post-Hope Democrats” (as Doug Henwood calls them).

“Having read Friedman’s paper pretty carefully on my return to the United States, I remain deeply skeptical of his projections for G.D.P. growth and productivity. But his analysis, which isn’t an official campaign document, was well worth spending some time with. For one thing, it is the first effort I have seen to quantify how some of Sanders’s proposals, such as raising the minimum wage to fifteen dollars and sharply raising taxes on high earners, would reduce income inequality. Friedman outlines a compelling scenario under which the ratio of the average incomes of the richest five per cent of households to the poorest twenty percent would fall from 27.5 to 10.1. And this estimate doesn’t hinge on his own macroeconomic assumptions—it mainly reflects explicit efforts to boost the wages of low-paid workers, and to redistribute post-tax incomes.

“In addition, Friedman makes a valuable contribution to the debate about how we can escape from the New Normal, or secular stagnation, or whatever other label you want to attach to our era of seemingly permanent low growth. To repeat: I think Friedman overstates the likely impact of Sanders’s policies. But he offers a timely reminder that economic growth rates aren’t set in stone, and that changes in policy—particularly those that seek to boost overall demand—can have a substantial impact, even when the official unemployment rate isn’t particularly elevated.”

Paul Starr, Politico, Why Democrats Should Beware Sanders’ Socialism
He’s a socialist, not a liberal—and there’s a big difference.  Ridiculous red-baiting here.  See also On Point with Tom Ashbrook (NPR), Debating Bernie Sanders’ Vision. With Paul Starr doing more red-baiting, and Jonathan Tasini doing a great job of calling him on his red-baiting (and explaining Sanders’s proposals).

Doug Henwood, at his blog LBO News, Liberal Redbaiting.  An excellent take-down of the liberal conniptions about Sanders; especially good on Paul Starr’s red-baiting (e.g., his ridiculous claims that single-payer will involve worrisome centralization of power).

Matthew Yglesias, Slate, Have top Democrats given up too soon on boosting economic growth?  A surprisingly good piece, though he takes a potshot at Friedman in calling his report “somewhat silly” (apparently on the basis of Brad DeLong’s criticism that it’s too late to fill the output gap left by the Great Recession–but if other high-profile economists disagree, is it fair to call Friedman’s view “silly”?).

Michael Corcoran, Truthout, The Dominant Media, “Left-Leaning” Economists and the Illusion of Consensus.  An excellent review of the kerfuffle, with an emphasis on the Times’s propaganda role.

Dave Johnson, Campaign for America’s Future, The Sanders “Economic Plan” Controversy. A very good review of the kerfuffle.

Dolphin99, Daily Kos, Sanders and the Economists.  An earlier review of the kerfuffle.

Chris Matthews, Fortune, Meet the Man Who Says Bernie Sanders Can Deliver 5.3% Economic Growth.  Another earlier piece I’d missed. (Not that Chris Matthews.)

Jordan Weissman, Slate’s Moneybox blog, Here’s Something Important That Bernie Sanders Gets Absolutely Right About the Economy. It’s on his infrastructure spending plan. Weissman seems to have been dismissive of Friedman in another post.

Max Ehrenfreund, WashPo Wonkblog, Study: Bernie Sanders’s health plan is actually kind of a train wreck for the poor.  A lazy piece–based on Thorpe’s criticisms of Sanders’s single-payer plan, with no mention of Friedman’s critique of it or Woolhandler/Himmelstein defense of Sanders’s single-payer plan.

David Sirota, International Business Times, Election 2016: Do Sanders’ Economic Plans Add Up? The Cost Of His ‘Revolution’. A great review of the kerfuffle, nicely balanced, which does (on the single-payer issue) what the Wonkblog piece failed to do–talks about both the Thorpe analysis and critiques of it.

Tim Mullaney, MarketWatch, Could it be that Bernie Sanders is the real-deal capitalist?  An offbeat take that takes Friedman’s study more seriously than some.  On the one hand, I don’t think Sanders is actually anti-capitalist.  On the other, I am guessing this author feels he has to emphasize that Sanders is the “real-deal capitalist” because he (the author) likes Sanders programs and their projected effects.

Narayana Kocherlakota, at his policy blog, Faster Growth IS Possible – And It May Well Be Desirable.  I had neglected to link to this post by the former president of the Minneapolis Fed (he has a couple more recent related posts) that lend support to Friedman’s analysis. (Hat-tip to Eileen Applebaum on Twitter for this.)