Establishment (D) Economists Whip-Up NYTimes' Manufactured "Consensus" Dissing Bernie's Policies

[99th_Monkey]

Economists and the Illusion of Consensus
By Michael Corcoran * Thursday, 25 February 2016 * Truthout

In a matter of a few days, The New York Times and a handful of liberal economists, most of them with close ties to the Democratic Party establishment, created an imaginary left-wing consensus against the most transformative Keynesian reforms in Bernie Sanders' economic agenda. Many economists and experts have since attempted to counter this manufactured consensus, but the mainstream media have largely ignored these efforts. As this false narrative turns into conventional wisdom, prospects for much-needed and substantive changes to our economy - universal health care, access to higher education, a dignified standard of living for all - continue to dwindle.

This development shows the power of the propaganda function of the mass media in the United States, which keeps parameters of debate limited on an extremely narrow spectrum. These parameters are largely shaped by the political parties, with the Democratic Party reflecting the liberal end of acceptable discourse in publications like The New York Times - thus far and no further. To go beyond this point will result in one being marginalized, ignored or mocked - treated as if they have taken "off from the planet," as Noam Chomsky once described the phenomenon. Given the narrative the mainstream media have pushed in recent weeks, it appears that proposals like single-payer health care and tuition-free college go well beyond these parameters. This is not all that surprising given the Democratic Party's financial relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and the financial services industry. ~snip~

Not a single economist who supports these plans (and many exist) was quoted in the story. Nor, for that matter, was Friedman, whose work was attacked by name. "The New York Times did not contact me [for the article]," Friedman told Truthout. "And they still haven't contacted me." The article also failed to mention that hundreds of economists have signed a letter expressing personal support for Sanders' economic agenda. Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich is among the signatories. Other signatories include Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Richard Wolff of Democracy at Work and the New School for Social Research, both of whom are more accurately reflective of "left-leaning economists," than ones cited by the Times.

The article ignored many other important facts. It made no mention of the many studies that have been done over the years that show single-payer on a national scale to not only be viable, but also to have great benefits. Some of these studies were even written by Ken Thorpe, who was one of the critics cited in the Times article and the author of a paper written in January that suggests Sanders is underestimating the cost and overstating the benefits.

MORE: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/34978-the-dominant-media-left-leaning-economists-and-the-illusion-of-consensus

[Gregorian]

1. Tim Canova is running into the same bullshit with trying to run against DWS.

The DNC is set up so as to avoid any primary conflict which could remove DWS. He said trying to get to her to discuss his opposition to the TPP was like talking to a wall.

The establishment has an agenda which is to their own benefit, and not to the people's. The media isn't giving Canova time. And he's the perfect candidate. Well, things are changing.

We have our own media. We have our own candidates, and we can finance them without corporate donations.

The "liberal economists" and the DNC and those who are still not conscious of the truth about what is happening, are going to be surprised when things keep going as they have in terms of all of the election issues.

So now, between Bakari Sellers versus Cornell West last night, the gang of economists, and those who don't see Martin King's dream for what benefits it ultimately brings to the world, all have one thing in common. An issue with money.

I see too much inexplicable behavior going on to attribute it to just political ideology.

[Uncle Joe]

2. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, 99th_Monkey.