Links on the Kerfuffle about Friedman’s Sanders Analysis

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:

Jackie Calmes, New York TimesLeft-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Sanders’s Plans I linked to this in my last blog post; this article mentions Jerry Friedman and his analysis, but doesn’t quote him (they apparently didn’t contact him before running the piece–I am sure he would have spoken to them if they had!). The piece also makes it sound as if Jared Bernstein, about the only truly left-leaning economist they quote, is harsher on Friedman than he is, and even more misleadingly, that he is skeptical of Sanders’ plans (more on this below).

Dean Baker, Beat the Press, NYT Invents Left-Leaning Economists to Attack Bernie Sanders.  Lots of good points here critiquing the Calmes NYT piece, especially how the people they quote aren’t leftists, and in one case (Ezra Klein) not an economist.

Doug Henwood, FAIR blog, NYT Rounds Up ‘Left-Leaning Economists’ for a Unicorn HuntAlso a very good critique of the Calmes NYT piece, plus a great new metaphor for hippie-punching–the “unicorn hunt.” Since the kerfuffle really blew up, though, Henwood has been harsh about Friedman on Twitter, calling his analysis “embarrassing.” (Henwood finds Jerry’s the growth-rate projections “risible.” Ouch, comrade.)

Alan Krueger, Austan Goolsbee, Christina Romer, Laura D’Andrea Tyson, An Open Letter from Past CEA Chairs to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald FriedmanHere is the real driver of the kerfuffle. It is amazing that they take Friedman to task for growth projections that they say are not credible (and take Sanders to task for relying on them–though the Sanders campaign did not commission this analysis), but they don’t give any specific empirical criticism of his analysis. Instead, they fault Sanders/Friedman for making projections that are outlandish in the way that GOP projections standardly are. (But see below–many observers have defended Friedman on this score.)

Jim Tankersley, at WashPo’s Wonkblog, The economist who vouched for Bernie Sanders’ big liberal plans is voting for Hillary Clinton.  Ok, this is just weird. Not an entirely unsympathetic article, but I wish Jerry were more careful not to feed into Clinton’s “one-issue candidate” talking point. (“I agree with Bernie on economic issues, but there are other issues.”)

James K. Galbraith, open letter (dated February 18) to Kreuger, Goolsbee, Romer, and Tyson (posted here). A lengthy response, starting by taking them to task for not providing any substantive critique or analysis of Friedman’s research: “You write that you have applied rigor to your analyses of economic proposals by Democrats and Republicans. On reading this sentence I looked to the bottom of the page, to find a reference or link to your rigorous review of Professor Friedman’s study. I found nothing there.” Then there are a couple of pages of analysis defending Friedman’s analysis and methods. (“There is no ‘magic asterisk,’ no strange theory involved here.” The conclusion: “What the Friedman paper shows, is that under conventional assumptions, the projected impact of Senator Sanders’ proposals stems from their scale and ambition. When you dare to do big things, big results should be expected. The Sanders program is big, and when you run it through a standard model, you get a big result.”

Matthew Klein, FT Alphaville, “Extreme” doesn’t mean what it used to, Sanders vs the CEA.  This piece (which you have to be registered to see) explains why Friedman’s growth projections may not be as outlandish as Kreuger et al. suggest, using this chart, showing that Friedman’s optimistic growth rate under Sanders programs only brings the growth rate back to the 1984-2007 pre-recession trend line:

Sanders-growth-590x275

Matthew Yglesias, Vox, Top Democratic economists don’t think much of Bernienomics. He doesn’t care.  Surprisingly, a piece from Vox that is pretty sympathetic to Sanders and Friedman (though he identifies the parts of Friedman’s analysis that he thinks are implausible). Under the heading “Imperious dismissals only make Sanders stronger,” Yglesias writes: “It’s noteworthy that the former CEA chairs criticizing Friedman didn’t bother to run through a detailed explanation of their problems with the paper. To them, the 5.3 percent figure was simply absurd on its face, and it was good enough for them to say so, relying on their authority to generate media coverage.”

Nick Timiraos and Laura Meckler, Wall Street Journal, Democratic Economists Say Bernie Sanders’s Math Doesn’t Add Up. Reporting on the past CEA chairs’ open letter; does better than the NYT piece on reporting Jared Bernstein’s actual views. Requires subscription.

Jared Bernstein, at his blog, I Endorse…(No One!)  Does the best at explaining Jared Bernstein’s actual views. He thinks Friedman’s projections are overly optimistic, but he repudiates the CEA chairs’ comparison with Republican “fairy dust”: “I do give Friedman credit for running all of Sanders’ plans through a macro model, versus Republican candidates’ hand-waving claims that the power of their personalities leavened with massive sprinklings of supply-side fairy dust will generate GDP growth of 4, 6, 8 percent! But such models are a function of your assumptions, and his, including his multipliers, the sharp increase in labor supply and productivity, diminished health care inflation, and a passive Fed amidst all this stellar growth, all seemed way too sunny to me (I called them ‘wishful thinking’ in the NYT).”

Paul Krugman, his NYT blog, Worried Wonks.  (Plus he has two other blog posts on the kerfuffle.) What’s interesting about them is not what Krugman says (which is what you’d expected now that he is in Hillary shill mode) but how many of the commenters (more than three quarters, I would say) are unsympathetic to his siding with Kreuger, et al.

Kevin Drum, Mother Jones, The Sanders Campaign Has Crossed into Neverland. Another piece highly unsympathetic to Friedman, but with no actual counter-analysis–just name-calling (see below). Surprising, for MoJo and Drum.

Ryan Cooper, The Week, Why are big-shot liberal economists hippie-punching Bernie Sanders?  A vigorous defense of Friedman and Sanders. “Ironically, in the frenzy to destroy Friedman’s reputation, nobody actually explained in detail what the problems were with his paper. The CEA pronouncement had no data or economic argument at all — it was 100 percent political handwringing. Krugman gave a very brief gloss suggesting that Sanders couldn’t possibly get labor force participation back up to 1990s levels due to aging, and trying to do so would cause inflation. Kevin Drum gave a similar incredulous stare argument about worker productivity and GDP growth, pronouncing it ‘insane,’ worse than Republican ‘magic asterisks.'” Cooper does what the big-name wonks should have, and has a mixed assessment Friedman’s analysis. But his point is: “Friedman is just a professor who thought it might be interesting to game out the Sanders platform. He doesn’t work for the campaign, or have platoons of graduate students, think-tankers, or public relations experts at his beck and call. His major error, it seems to me, is that he didn’t realize he’d be walking into a buzzsaw of Clinton supporters if he didn’t fiddle with his numbers to make them look ‘sensible.'”

Mike Konczal Roosevelt Institute Rortybomb blog, In Praise of the Wonk: Dissecting the CEA Letter and Sanders’s Other Proposals. This is a nice discussion, which agrees with Kreuger, et al. that Democrats and the left need to have good policy analyses (hence “In Priase of the Wonk”), but takes them to task for not explaining why they reject Friedman’s idea that an expansionary policy could get us back to the historical trend of growth (he uses Klein’s graph from the FT Alphaville post). “To reject Friedman’s analysis, as the former CEA chairs do, seems to involve rejecting that component of the analysis. If so, they have an obligation to explain what happened to that potential output trend from 2007.” He discusses various possibilities, plausible and not.

J.W. Mason, at his blog, Can Sanders Do It?  A nicely argued defense of Friedman, by a former student of Friedman’s who now teaches at John Jay College. He says the discussion should focus on this question “Is it reasonable to think that better macroeconomic policy could deliver substantially higher output and employment?”, where many of Friedman’s critics have focused on whether Sanders programs will get us there, or on whether Friedman has just the right numbers. Mason: “Is it plausible that there could be 5 percent-plus real GDP growth and 300,000 new jobs per month over the eight years of a Sanders presidency? I think it is — or at least, I don’t think there is a good economic argument that it’s not.” He gets there via five points (with arguments for each point–read the post for the arguments):

  1. It’s not controversial to say that a historically deep recession ought to be followed by a period of historically strong growth.
  2. Friedman’s growth estimates are just what you need to get output and employment back to trend.
  3. In other contexts, it’s taken for granted that more expansionary policy could deliver substantially higher growth.
  4. Friedman’s projections are unreasonable only if you think the US is already at full employment.
  5. The argument against Friedman’s piece comes down to the claim that the economy is already close to potential.

Ron Baiman, Chicago Political Economy Group, posting at the D&S blog, The Poverty of Neoclassical Economic Analysis. I’ll give Ron the last word: “No one assumes that Bernie’s economic program will be passed as currently conceived. The fate of these proposals depends on the power of the ‘political revolution’ that the Sander’s campaign is leading. Like the Clinton campaign, the NC-economics trained, former CEA Chairs exhibit abundant ‘pessimism of the intellect” but no ‘optimism of the will’. This is not an economic debate. It’s a political and ideological debate that reflects the deep division in fundamental theoretical outlook between NC progressive and radical democratic socialist economists.”

This is all I have for now. I am sure there will be more.

Notes and Links on the Democratic Primaries

A round-up of some of the best things I’ve seen on the battle so far between Clinton and Sanders:

Gerald Friedman, What Would Sanders Do.  We have posted the research report by Friedman that is the basis of his two columns for us, What Would Sanders Do?, Part 1: The Dynamic Effects of Seven Sanders Initiatives, and What Would Sanders Do?, Part 2: Wages, Poverty, and Inequality. Soon we will post Friedman’s column for our March/April issue, “Bernie Sanders’s Health Care Revolution,” with the numbers behind Sanders’s “Improved Medicare for All.” We have already posted the research report behind that: Friedman Response to Thorpe. (Meanwhile, the Times mentioned Jerry Friedman in Left-Leaning Economists Question Cost of Bernie Sanders’s Plans, but didn’t bother to interview him. They seem to have scoured the universe for left critics of Sanders; as Lambert Strether of Naked Capitalism says, “When Jared Bernstein is at the far left, you know you’re looking at establishment stenography.” And I loved Matt Taibbi’s tweets about this article: “The hysterical concern over how to pay for Bernie’s plans is hilarious. Nobody worries about how we afford the F-35. Nor do we ask how we afford non-negotiated Medicare drugs, the Littoral Combat Ship, the carried interest tax break, or other idiocies.”)  And a reminder:  the whole point is that single-payer would cost less than the current system, and provide health care to many more people.

Holly Wood, The Village VoiceFeeling the Yern: Why One Millennial Woman Would Rather Go to Hell than Vote for Hillary. A hilarious riposte to Madeleine Albright’s “there’s a special place in Hell” remark. Best parts: “Capitalism, as Vonnegut explained, is ‘what the people with all our money, drunk or sober, sane or insane, decided to do today.” And: “there’s a special place in Hell for war criminals who launch hedge funds.”

Bhaskar Sunkara, Aljazeera America: Enter the Sanders Democrat:
Whether or not he defeats Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders has awakened a powerful new constituency. Excellent analysis from the founding editor of Jacobin.

Benjamin Studebaker, at his blog, Why Bernie vs Hillary Matters More Than People Think (also at HuffPo). A great blog post that has a bigger historical perspective, with some economics.

Benjamin Studebaker, at his blog, Why Bernie Sanders Is More Electable than People Think.  A follow-up, also very good.

Jeff Spross, The Week: How class could eventually remake the Democratic Party. Similar to Sunkara’s article.

Jedediah Purdy, Huffington Post: Dismissing Sanders: Democratic Condescension and the Mythic Political Grown-up.  Takes on Paul Krugman and the New Yorker‘s Alexandra Schwartz.

Thomas Piketty in the Guardian (originally in Le Monde): Thomas Piketty on the rise of Bernie Sanders: the US enters a new political era.  More recent than the others; similar points.

Greenmountainboy, Daily Kos, Crossover Appeal: Bernie Sanders Wins 2,095 Write In Votes in Republican Primary – Washington Post.  The WashPo article is Bernie Sanders won 2,095 votes in the New Hampshire Republican primary; the headline sums it up. Find the official NH results from the Secretary of State here (for the Republican side) and here (for the Democrat side).  This on top of his having gotten more NH primary votes than any candidate in either party ever, and having won by a larger margin, than in any contested NH primary in either party in history.

I agree that the votes he got in the Republican primary is a good sign for Sanders’s crossover appeal (about four times as many as Clinton got, by the way).  But as someone who lives in NH and who canvassed for Sanders here, I don’t think it is quite as good a sign as some people are making it out to be.  As most people know, NH is an “open primary” state, which means that you don’t have to be a party member to vote in a party’s primary. But I think most people don’t know the mechanics of how it works here:  you can only vote in (e.g.) the Democratic Party’s primary if, when you walk into the polls, you are registered as a Democrat or if you are unaffiliated, in which case, on the day of voting, you can switch your registration to Democrat. If you walk into the polls registered as a Republican, you can only vote in the Republican primary. (I think you can switch your affiliation up to two weeks before the primary.)  Also, many NH voters strategically switch their party affiliation (switching it back to “unaffiliated” or to the other party after they vote) depending on where they think they can have a meaningful impact. But some people forget to switch their affiliation back. Given all this, I think it’s likely that many of the people who wrote in Sanders (or Clinton) in the Republican primary may have been Democratic-leaning unaffiliated voters, or even people who are “really” Democrats (i.e., that’s where their heart is and they are usually registered as Democrats), but who had forgotten to switch their affiliation back after some previous election.  Still, I think it’s true that there’s great crossover appeal for Sanders among Republicans.  Evidence: a relative of mine, who is normally a registered Republican and went into the primary intending to vote for Chris Christie, discovered when she walked in that she was still registered as a Democrat from some previous election. So she voted for Bernie. (Don’t ask me how she can support both Christie and Bernie, but I still think it’s a good sign for Bernie that there are people like this out there.)