Steve Randy Waldman, Your theory of politics is wrong:

I support Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary. I don’t support Sanders because I think he is brilliant in some academic way. I don’t support Sanders because I am particularly impressed with the details of his policy proposals, although they are not nearly as hopeless as some self-proclaimed technocrats make them out to be. A democracy is not a graduate seminar.

Continue reading →

I noted yesterday that there is much fussing in housebroken liberal circles about UMass economist Gerald Friedman’s prediction that, if implemented, Sanders’ economic agenda would cause GDP growth to rise to 5.3%.   That’s higher than the yearly average has been since prior to WWII.   Friedman defends his prediction here.  Former MN Fed President Narayana Kocherlakota, a reality-based individual, implies that it’s not a ridiculous number:

Professor Gerald Friedman has argued here that, by adopting Senator Bernie Sanders’ economic proposals, the US economy would grow in excess of 5% per year over the next decade.   Previously, former Governor Jeb Bush put forward (different) proposals that he has argued would lead to 4% economic growth over an extended period.  These kinds of growth outcomes are often dismissed as prima face unachievable given the historical behavior of the US economy.  (That’s one way that some readers have interpreted this letter.) 

I don’t attempt a full examination of Senator Sanders’ or Mr. Bush’s proposals in this post.  Rather, I make three points related to this discussion that don’t receive sufficient attention:

1. There is no technological reason why real gross domestic product (GDP) cannot grow at a materially above-normal rate over the next decade

2. Given (1), the relevant issue is: are the benefits of achieving such a growth path higher than the costs of doing so?   I suggest that there are good reasons to believe that the answer to this question is more likely to be positive than at any time since the end of World War II. 

3. If the answer to (2) is affirmative, the question becomes: what set of economic proposals will best allow the country to achieve those positive net benefits?  As noted above, I don’t attempt a detailed examination of the consequences of Senator Sanders’ proposals or those of Mr. Bush.  I only make the broad point that, given current economic circumstances, demand-based stimulus is likely to be more effective than supply-based stimulus.

I think that’s an excellent frame.  Based on how the US economy has performed over recent decades, I remain skeptical of being able to hit 5.3% with Sanders’ or anyone else’s plan but I believe Kocherlakota is right, there’s no technological reason why GDP can’t grow at a much higher rate than it has been.   There are huge political hurdles and technical challenges to generating that kind of growth but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.   And even if 5.3% isn’t in the cards I do believe we can do much better than we’ve done.  We’re at about 2% now.   Would we not be happy with 4% or even 3%?

Whether or not it’s theoretically possible to hit 5.3%, one argument against putting that number forward is that it smacks of delusional optimism and that’s not good practice.   A serious candidate should not adopt implausible policy positions [see Note 1 below].   I concur.  I also believe that whether Sanders’ economic plan would generate 5.3% growth or 3.5% or 2% growth is beside the point.   His campaign isn’t about goosing GDP, it’s about changing the rules of the game.  I doubt there are many Sanders supporters who are with him because of an expectation of any particular GDP growth rate.  It’s about changing the power dynamic to improve the quality of life for most Americans.

Continue reading →