New Christy Romer memo shreds Sanders' claims on economic growth
http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/2/25/1491522/-New-Christy-Romer-memo-shreds-Sanders-claims-on-economic-growthBy andrewj54
Christy Romer, formerly of the Council of Economic Advisors, and David Romer, have provided a response to those defending the growth claims embedded in Sanders’ policies. It’s eleven pages of what looks to me like rigorous economic analysis.
From the opening of the memo:
Unfortunately, careful examination of Friedman’s work confirms the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.” We identify three fundamental problems in Friedman’s analysis.
• First, all the effects of Senator Sanders’s policies that he identifies are assumed to come through their impact on demand. However, his estimates of those demand effects are far too large to be credible—even given Friedman’s own assumptions.
• Second, in assuming that demand stimulus can raise output 37% over the next 10 years relative to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline forecast, Friedman is implicitly assuming that the U.S. economy is (and will continue to be for a long time) dramatically below its productive capacity. However, while some output gap likely still exists, the plausible range for the output gap is much too small to accommodate demand effects nearly as large as Friedman finds. As a result, capacity constraints would likely lead to inflation and the Federal Reserve raising interest rates long before such high growth rates were realized.
• Third, a realistic examination of the impact of the Sanders policies on the economy’s productive capacity suggests those effects are likely to be small at best, and possibly even negative.
(More in link)
= new reply since forum marked as read
with Larry Summers who gave us the 'pseudo-recovery' of 2008 to 2010 has provided a non-biased analysis of Sander's economic plan?
She is already been quite rightly questioned on the demand gap issue as it was in 2008 and now in 2016. What has changed and why?
She was all for stimulus spending then without any of these types of concerns. What has changed and why?
She and the other economists from Obama's White House have already been correctly criticized on their methodology, analysis, and conclusions. What has changed and why?
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2016/02/krugman-and-his-gangs-libeling-of-economist-gerald-friedman-for-finding-that-conventional-models-show-that-sanders-plan-could-work.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/02/23/sanders-economic-plan-controversy
http://m.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/second-thought-maybe-bernie-sanders-growth-claims-arent-crazy-i-thought
http://dollarsandsense.org/blog/2016/02/more-links-on-kerfuffle-about-friedmans-sanders-analysis.html
It really makes me wonder why so many supposed 'progressive' economists are so quick to dismiss stimulus spending and progressive ideas like universal healthcare and free college tuition like all other civilized nations in the world.
It seems that in their rush to support Clinton, they are turning their backs on what we will actually help us. Either this or they are not really 'progressives'. They are just the same tired neoliberals we have been dealing with since the 1980's.
No we can't has become the mantra on the left. Say it enough, and guess what? No we won't. 
