Here’s a thoughtful argument against Bernie (unless you want Trump to win, I guess):
https://thebulwark.com/this-is-how-trump-would-destroy-bernie-sanders/
Fairly devastating critique, though such critiques do not matter to voters. Nor will it matter that (if taken literally) Sanders is proposing a government that will consume 70% of GDP, more than 20 percentage points higher than the oft-admired Scandinavian countries and more than double current spending levels. If we should not take Sanders literally then we can perhaps forgive Trump voters for taking him seriously but not literally in 2016, and perhaps again, in 2020.
This guy has quite the right-wing bias.
1. He talks about the 30-40T M4A would cost over the next decade, but very slyly admits that "the $3 trillion saved by state governments under Medicare For All", and doesn't mention what percentage of GDP the US will spend on healthcare without M4A (hint: it's more than 30-40T)
2. He doesn't factor in how Bernie's plan would affect GDP compared to the status quo. You see Friedman's piece on how Bernie's plan could really affect GDP for the better. (2016) http://www.populareconomics.org/what-would-sanders-do-the-dynamic-effects-of-his-economic-program/
Do I think Bernie's plans would cause a 5% GDP growth for the next decade? No, but these policies on their very face would absolutely increase GDP beyond what this author seems to be ignoring.
The part in question:
"According to my estimates, the growth rate of the real gross domestic product would rise from 2.1% per annum to 5.1% "
Didn't Trump promise 5% growth as well? Belief in one set of policies over another is all it takes to find one assertion credible and the other one incredible (I don't believe 5% for Sanders just as I knew the Trump figure was similarly...aspirational). Here is the most favorable spin, showing possibly a 0.3% annual over-performance to 2016 CBO projections for the Trump case.
Why are you equivocating Trump's and Bernie's based on one thing they both said? That's not a rational analysis of the proposals. Bernie's proposal would put more money in the hands of consumers which would necessarily increase GDP. Trump hasn't really done much of anything beyond a tax break for wealthy people. That caused a slight bump which everyone predicted, but it's basically already over.
Also does this article factor in the amount of money the US will save from Green New Deal policy? It doesn't look like it. These are basically long-term investments such as rebuilding and renovating infrastructure and buildings. Investing in clean energy that will be cheaper in the long-term. Building better rail transport (or hyperloop). Or worse, what the actual cost of this will be down the line if we continue to neglect it? What will become of our universities that basically keep our economy rolling if they stop attracting international students or become cost prohibitive to middle income folks and our supply of engineers dwindle?
This is a site all about making the smart investment today that will pay off 30 years from now. Why do we not expect the same thing from our government? If the government is making smart investments today at a high savings rate that will have huge pay-offs down the line, shouldn't we want that?
I guess it depends on what you think a smart investment is. I can make a case for some of Trump's policies and I understand where your argument regarding Bernie's policies is going but I think both are substantially wrong in systematic ways. However, I'm not discussing the merits of Trump's vs. Sanders' policies; rather, I'm interested in how at an epistemological level, the two are very similar. They both ask us to suspend disbelief and to imagine some future that perhaps only their policies and force of will can bring about. That both can inspire supporters to suspend disbelief and embrace an anticipated >5% growth rate is telling about the strengths and overlaps in their demagogic styles.
Bernie is a bit like what you would get if you held up a mirror on Trump's extreme left. When imagining how to argue in favor of Bernie's polices, I find that sleight-of-hand maneuvers, smoothing over critical details, and suspension of disbelief regarding our best interpretation of economic theory are all necessary components. The same as with Trump! The technocratic nausea that candidates such as Warren induces in me is at least reassuring in that she understands that while policy ideas might conceived on the campaign trail that they are consummated
afterwards in painful detail on paper. Hillary, likewise (though HRC is a ballsier version of Warren, especially with respect to foreign policy).
Speaking of Hillary, a shame she is probably not going to run again since she might be the best Democratic alternative within the realm of plausibility. It is funny how candidates like her or Pete get attacked for not being "authentic" as if that is some platonic ideal in politicians. Trump is as
authentic as it gets if you think about his raging narcissism in just the right way. Candidates like Hillary or Pete, I would argue, are
authentically inauthentic. They see the existential void that Trump and Bernie are blind to and realize they need
reasons for their reasons; i.e., they are substantially self-aware. The trouble with the self-aware is it invites a sort of humility that looks like weakness on a campaign trail. Bernie, free from this constraint, can advocate for the capture of 70% of all national commerce, then regulating another 5-8% on top of that via a national rent control proposal. Economic theory doesn't matter if someone is
authentic, though!