The economist who vouched for Bernie Sanders’ big liberal plans is voting for Hillary Clinton

[kennetha]

Even the people the Sanders campaign "consults" with prefer Hillary to him.

The first thing you should know about Gerald Friedman, the economist suddenly at the center of a wonk-storm over Bernie Sanders’ policy proposals, is that he does not actually support Bernie Sanders for president.

He likes Sanders. And he has written, in consultation with the Sanders campaign, an analysis that projects Sanders’ ambitious domestic agenda would raise economic growth to as high as 5.3 percent per year, yielding sustained income gains for the middle class.

But Friedman, an economist at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says he’ll vote for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primary.

“I support Clinton,” he said in an interview on Thursday. “I donate $10 a month to Clinton. I remember the woman who said, women’s rights are human rights. I think she did a great job as secretary of state. I agree with Bernie on economic issues, but there are other issues.”

The economist who vouched for Bernie Sanders’ big liberal plans is voting for Hillary Clinton

[SunSeeker]

1. K & R

[kristopher]

2. James Galbraith Smacks Down the Faux-Liberal Economists In Analysis of Sanders

Originally posted by Nanjeanne http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511276629

James Galbraith Smacks Down the Faux-Liberal Economists In Analysis of Sanders

I was highly interested to see your letter of yesterday's date to Senator Sanders and Professor Gerald
Friedman. I respond here as a former Executive Director of the Joint Economic Committee – the
congressional counterpart to the CEA.

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.

<SNIP>
It is not fair or honest to claim that Professor Friedman's methods are extreme. On the contrary, with
respect to forecasting method, they are largely mainstream. Nor is it fair or honest to imply that you have given Professor Friedman's paper a rigorous review. You have not.

What you have done, is to light a fire under Paul Krugman, who is now using his high perch to airily dismiss the Friedman paper as “nonsense.” Paul is an immensely powerful figure, and many people rely on him for careful assessments. It seems clear that he has made no such assessment in this case. Instead, Paul relies on you to impugn an economist with far less reach, whose work is far more careful, in point of fact, than your casual dismissal of it. He and you also imply that Professor Friedman did his
work for an unprofessional motive. But let me point out, in case you missed it, that Professor Friedman is a political supporter of Secretary Clinton. His motives are, on the face of it, not political.

For the record, in case you're curious, I'm not tied to Professor Friedman in any way. But the powerful – such as Paul and yourselves – should be careful where you step.

<SNIP>
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.

That, by the way, is the lesson of the Reagan era – like it or not. It is a lesson that, among today's political leaders, only Senator Sanders has learned.


Read whole letter here: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ResponsetoCEA.pdf

James Galbraith: American economist who writes frequently for the popular press on economic topics. He is currently a professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs and at the Department of Government, University of Texas at Austin. He is also a Senior Scholar with the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College and part of the executive committee of the World Economics Association, created in 2011. Son of John Galbraith

[libtodeath]

3. So?

It does not disqualify his vetting of Bernies plan.

[kennetha]

4. Let's see what his revised, more realistic estimate, looks like

Friedman said he is revising his estimates now with more pessimistic assumptions about that response, but that he still expects the new numbers to show broad growth and income gains as a result of Sanders’ plans.

[frazzled]

5. He could afford more than $10 a month

Given the big bucks I'm sure he was paid to write something "in consultation with the Sanders campaign." I'd like to know what his fee was. Release the emails! If the campaign won't, I'm sure it's hiding something REALLY BAD.

[SheenaR]

6. Non issue

In fact I appreciate this economist being fair considering he IS supporting Clinton.

Take note Paul Krugman, et. al

[farleftlib]

7. +1

Big frenzied ado about very, very little as usual with Hill fans.

[MattSh]

8. No surprise...

Sounds like this economy is treating him very well. And if Clinton wins, it will be treating him very well indeed!

[thesquanderer]

9. As many people here say, "not everything comes down to economics"

and that said, each candidate has other things people may prefer.

The flip side of this is, if a major economist who supports Hillary says that Bernie's economic plan is perfectly reasonable and not pie-in-the-sky, I guess that means Hillary supporters will stop saying otherwise?

Nah, didn't think so.