Kevin Drum has an article up, with graph, that shows how incredibly unrealistic the Sanders campaign’s economic projections are and before you summarily dismiss Mr. Drum, he actually mentions in the article he’s gone easy on Sanders because he likes his vision.
I'm sure we’ll see a ‘No we can't’ or two posted in comments.
Gerald Friedman is predicting a decade growth we haven't seen since WWII. These projections are tied into funding Sanders Medicare-For-All plan. Mr. Friedman has been used at every turn by the Sanders and his supporters to give credence to his economic proposals.
These projections are not rooted in reality. Some highlights below, from Mr. Drum.
m.motherjones.com/...
Drum seems totally shocked here, when he realizes what a farce these projections are by Friedman. Just read the miraculous projections. It can't be taken seriously.
WTF? Per-capita GDP will grow 4.5 percent? And not just in a single year: Friedman is projecting that it will grow by an average of 4.5 percent every year for the next decade. Productivity growth will double compared to CBO projections—and in case you're curious, there has never been a 10-year period since World War II in which productivity grew 3.18 percent. Not one.
And miraculously, the employment-population ratio, which has been declining since 2000 and has never reached 65 percent ever in history, will rise to 65 percent in a mere ten years.
The Sanders campaign hasn't endorsed the plan yet, but they are loving the vision and they are getting it out there. Of course they do, because it’s the only way they could possibly do Medicare-For-All and all the other programs they are proposing.
They hail the report as feasible! Oh, boy. Anyone looking at these projections can't use the word feasible to describe them.
It would take this type of unrealistic growth to fund it all and keep all in balance.
Warren Gunnels, policy director for the Sanders campaign, hailed the report’s finding that the proposals are feasible and expressed hope that more people will look into them. “It’s gotten a little bit of attention, but not nearly as much as we would like,”
"It shows that over a 10-year period, we would create 26 million new jobs, the poverty rate would plummet, that incomes would go up dramatically, and we would have strong economic growth. ... It’s a very bold plan, and we want to get this out there.”
Drum then reminds us what a sham these numbers are and in very stark terms. As he says in his article, this isn't reality.
I've generally tried to go easy on Bernie Sanders. I like his vision, and I like his general attitude toward Wall Street. But this is insane. If anything, it's worse than the endless magic asterisks that Republicans use to pretend that their tax plans will supercharge the economy and pay for themselves. It's not even remotely in the realm of reality.
Austan Goolsbee and many other economists are right, "magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars” is what the Sanders campaign economic plan really is. It’s fantasy they're selling and if Sanders became President, he would end up disappointing millions of voters.
www.nytimes.com/...
“The numbers don’t remotely add up,” said Austan Goolsbee, formerly chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, now at the University of Chicago.
Alluding to one progressive analyst’s criticism of the Sanders agenda as “puppies and rainbows,” Mr. Goolsbee said that after his and others’ further study, “they’ve evolved into magic flying puppies with winning Lotto tickets tied to their collars.”
No we can’t, because it's just not feasible. A vision is not a plan. You can't just throw numbers out there and hope they stick. What the Sanders campaign is selling is not reality. The projections don't add up.