Sanders, far from a dream book – L’Indro

Joe Biden 513 delegates, to which he added those of his former rival since last night Michael Bloomberg, Bernie Sanders 461 delegates.
Biden at this point can be said to have done the‘full‘ of delegates given away, the endorsement thatthe will come, and will come, will be endorsementmoral, and certainly monetary. Sanders no, he is still waiting for the ‘gift‘ of Elizabeth Warren. A gift that many analysts consider may be imminent, and not just because of his enturage is leaked that the senator would be considering withdrawing, but also because many of his supporters are now considering that it would be the only politically serious thing that Elizabethcould make, and in this direction it is solicited both, of course, by Sanders’ supporters, but also by its constituents. Today ‘Business Insider’Publishes a survey conducted among Warren supporters that the 70% say it would ‘satisfied‘ even if Sanders was the Democratic candidate, noting that there is a ‘significant overlap’ between the programs of the two candidates, while only 55% would be in favor of Biden, however significant percentage, given the programmatic distance between Warren and Biden.

The program is the central element -for supporters, as for detractors- of the electoral affair of Sanders.
Painted as a ‘socialist’ or a ‘democratic socialist’ by the more peaceful, or as an old idealist madman, an extremist, and perhaps even a Communist along the lines of Fidel, by the most avid, considered a devil, who with his election would bring down sheer stock exchanges all over the world, by some of the most respected American economists his program is not only approved, but openly and strongly supported.

‘Socialist ‘,’ democratic socialist ‘. Kaushik Basu, former chief economist of the World Bank, former chief economic adviser to the GIndian overno, full professor of economics at Cornell University and analyst for Brookings Institution, clarifies the topic. “When American Senator Bernie Sanders calls himself a‘democratic socialist‘, probably use these words differently than many other people“, Clarified the misunderstanding,”more American voters should have reason to support it, more than they currently do. ” The misunderstanding for Basu is almost elementary: «The original meaning of socialism implied public ownership of the means of production», The« nationalization of enterprises and societies. Being socialist according to this definition would really be a mistake », but if you listen carefully to Sanders, is “immediately evident that it aspires to a ‘socialism‘ very different -that means, a variant of the Nordic model,remodeled for the 21st century“, And the” Nordic countries are far fairer than the United States and, contrary to popular opinion, their economies also allow for greater upward mobility. A poor person in Denmark, for example, has a much better chance of climbing the income ladder than his counterpart in America today “. In short, says Basu, he is a social democrat.
Decoding of Sanders’ socialism shared by Jeffrey D. Sachs, Professor of Sustainable Development and Health Policy and Management at Columbia University, as well as Director of the Columbia Center for Sustainable Development and the United Nations Network of Sustainable Development Solutions, who says:“In Europe, Sanders would be a traditional social democrat».

About the attacks on Wall Street and the elite of power – those within the Democratic Party including, together with liberal media battleships, such as’New York Times‘ is ‘Washington Post’- of which Sanders has been the victim of the 2016 election campaign, Sachs is lashing, he speaks of ‘narcissism‘ is ‘Panglossian obscurantism‘, is gives a comprehensive picture of why elite consider Sanders a Lucifer. Why Sanders “vhe wants to restore some basic decency in American life:universal health care financed by public funds; wages above poverty for full-time workers, along with basic performance like family leave for babies and the paid sick leave;university education that does not induce young adults to go into debt for life; elections that billionaires cannot buy; and the public policy determined by public opinion, not from corporate pressures (which they have reached 3.47 billion of dollars in the United States in 2019) “.

The American public supports all these positions in grandis majority. “Americans want the government ensure health care for everyone.They want higher taxes for the rich. They want one transition to renewable energies. And they want limits to big money in politics».in conclusion what’s this “very sensible” that trigger it“shocking contempt for the elite (and elite media) “, why “or they don’t know or don’t care» to know what are the conditions of a large part of Americans.
Provided that Sachs summarizes thus: tens of millions of Americans do not have basic health coverage and medical bills neither they send in fallichin about 500,000 every year, one in five families has zero or negative equity is almost 40% ago struggles to meet basic needs, 44 million Americans I’mburdened with student debt for a total of 1.6 trillion dollars, is “While the stock markets have skyrocketed, enriching the elites, suicide rates and others’died of desperation’(Like opioid overdoses) have increased dramatically, while the working class has further fallen into financial and psychological insecurity».

One of the reasons Basic so the elites don’t notice these facts, he claims Sachs, is which have not been taken into account for 40 years now. From Ronald Reagan to Bill Clinton – “who with the support of Wall Street won the presidency” – to Barack Obama – “who followed Clinton’s playbook in the 2008 election”, until you get to Donald Trump. A “2008 photos: Donald Trump, Michael Bloomberg and Bill Clinton play golf together. It’s a big happy family. “

THEn all this there is the reason why a great campaign dthe demolition is ista launched, even from progressive circles, against Sanders’ program, passing on the message that his program is madness, absolutely unsustainable and out of time.

James K. Galbraith, ex member of the staff of the Congress of the United States of America, then quality DJoint Economic Committee executive editor, professor at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs of the University of Texas, Austin,defining Sanders a “idealist, capable of embracing positions well to the left of the prevailing political mainstream “, states that “Sanders’ proposals are more ambitious than anything else seento neitherl New Deal of thePFranklin D. Roosevelt resident in the 1930s-1940s, and in the Great Society of the PLyndon B. Johnson resident in the 1960s. “
So: “the Sanders program falls within the capacity limits that the country must face as a whole»? “The success or failure of an economic program as a whole largely depends on how its various components add up,” he claims Galbraith, but,“it seems that a reasonable answer to the question may to be: Yup, can he».
LSanders’ agenda is largely consistent with regards to the basic economy, widely balanced between elements that stimulate economic growth and those that free resources, and largely consistent with broader domestic and international conditions, which the next is likely PUnited States resident face».

Galbraith pressed that a possible Sanders Administration, in 2021, will have to face the consequences left on the carpet of the 2008 financial crisis, which has given way to a decade of slow but steady growth, accompanied by a large reduction in unemployment. «The drop in unemployment rate partly reflects the aging of the workforce and the decrease in immigrationbut above all a strong increase in new jobs in the sector of services that pay mediocre wages. Consequently, an increasing number of U.S. families have relied on more earnings to make ends meet». The scarcity of public investment has accelerated the decline in many parts of the country. Adaptation to climate change “they require major investments and a large part of the resources available will have to work hard to successfully transition to a clean energy economy. Obviously, this did not happen under Trump ». The positive element “is that American human resources are abundant; energy costs are low at the moment; is the technological possibilities are expanding. There financial position of the country – low long-term interest rates, low inflation and the high value of the shares and the dollar- remains remarkably strong».

According to Galbraith, one of the most proposals espansivand Sanders is the increase in “federal minimum wage at 15 dollars time“, Which would have” a minimal or even negative effect on federal spending or taxation. An increase in the minimum wage equates to a transfer from profits to wages and from high individuals and families income to the low ones income” which could determine an increase in consumer spending by workers, of the qualicirca 30% would end up with an increased salary. The main advantages of a higher minimum wage are social: «would reduce disparities, would improve the quality of services for low-income consumers».

The other slightly expansive element of Sanders’ agenda is theelimination of tuition fees in colleges and public universities, “Presumably replacing a federal payment to cover most of the costs. The obvious advantage here is for students (and their parents). Many of these families would increase their other expenses».

Sanders’ proposal from increase marginal tax rates “would have a dampening effect on economic activity, because it would reduce high-end luxury spending (known as ‘plutonomy’) which makes up a growing share of total household spending in our radically unequal world. More progressive taxation and a reduction in the extravagance of the golden age of billionaires should be welcomed. But without clear compensation in the form of increased federal spending or lower taxes for low-income families, the net effect on employment and total production would be negative».

Sanders’ proposal from dissolving the big banks and reducing Wall Street’s claims to the economy would also reduce overall economic activity in the short term “Although it can be argued that a large part of the economic activity associated with Big Finance is useless or harmful”. Since 1980, the rhythms of the national economy have largely been governed by the fluxury and ebbof bank credit, from the NASDAQ boom in the late 1990s, and from bankruptcy in 2000, to the mortgage boom of the mid-2000s and the financial crisis of 2007-2009. “Since then, the economy has been driven largely by the debt of households and people – car loans, credit cards and student debt – which generate profits for banks. Break banks into smaller units, regionalize the resulting institutions and regulate them more rigorously,it could reduce the general expenses of the sector,as well as its oversized political influence».

The notorious’Medicare for All‘, According to Galbraith, would have the “advantage of place the entire population in a single insurance pool, eliminating the need for most private health insurance“,” It would be a good thing “, which would in any case reduce” economic activity. The savings in the reduced costs of Medicare for All health insurance would amount to several percentage points, 18% of the GDP that America currently spends on healthcare». If healthcare costs in the United States (beyond insurance costs), Galbraith continues, “were reduced to French, Italian or even British levels (although Sanders does not claim that his plan would do it)”, there would be “a strong decline in total production and a reduction in health-related jobs. ” According to Galbraith, he is a “misunderstanding, constantly repeated in the media, talk about how the ‘cost‘ of Medicare for All, as if moving the insurance function from the private sector to the public sector and reducing the scale of health care entailed an increase in the real cost of health care. Reality is the opposite: Medicare for All is a cost-saving program. By changing the funding model of primary health care, unnecessary expenses and waste would be eliminated -not least the profits of the insurance companies- streamlining the provision of services».

In the ‘green’ chapter of the Sanders program, Galbraith pays special attention. “Core Sanders has been integrated into the program ‘Expanded Sanders‘ including the Green New Deal (GND), a federal job guarantee,a wealth tax and a plan to abolish student loans and medical debts. Of these four policies, the first two would be expansive or stabilizing in their economic effects. The third is, in my opinion, impractical, and the fourth is perhaps wider than is generally appreciated ».

The key proposals of the GDN “they mostly concern the energy sector, covering both the production and consumption of fossil fuels and renewable alternatives, especially solar and wind power. There are also proposals for rebuild the electricity grid” renovate public buildings,interventions against disasters caused by climate change, the fully electric ground transportation, the ban on fracking.

On proposals of this kind, admits Galbraith, “as with any important initiative, success is not guaranteed. But the same was true for the New Deal and the mobilization to win the Second World War “, rather, the GND” represents a serious commitment to face the climate crisis: $ 16.3 trillion in new expenses in ten years and the creation of 20 million new jobs. Obviously, what matters for the climate are the results; but, in both cases, the effort will be considered as an economic activity “. The numbers say: “in an economy of 21 trillion dollars, 1.6 trillion dollars per year they would amount to just under 8% of the additional activity, not to mention the ‘multiplier effects’ “, effects which, at least according to the commonly applied economic theory, show that” the total additional activity by the GND proposed by Sanders would reach around 9-10% of GDP. By itself, GND would have a strong expansive effect, sufficient to absorb the deflationary effects of the reduction of the role of the financial and health insurance sectors».

The GND would also support the occupation, is “theGND projects could be placed in such a way as to revive industrial regions in decline, thereby restoring a certain geographical balance for the national economy. As with all economic changes, some interruptions are inherent in the transition. ”

Galbraith admits that “GND is a program ofinvestments; it would not create new consumer goods in line with the increase in revenue and new jobs. Most of the effort would go towards improving the environmental consequences of existing production. THEGND is therefore a way to exchange low-cost but non-renewable and unacceptably destructive carbon-based energy with energy it is(generally) more expensive but also more sustainable».

By increasing revenue without creating new consumer goods, «GND is similar to an industrial mobilization for war. The increase in income from GND-related activities will be partially offset by a decrease in financial wastes, private health insurance and excessive medical supply (in some way defined), as well as reductions in military spending consistent with the end of the wars of the United States forever.

On balance, there would probably be a net increase in personal income over consumption».
The financing of the GND “it is a question of real resources, not hoarding tax revenue»,« Such real resources they would come from cutting funding, health insurance,unnecessary and military medical supplies, and by mobilizing the residues of unemployed and underemployed people towards more useful and necessary activities. Tax revenues would therefore come from the earnings of these workers and from more effective withdrawals on the profits of the companies that employ them “.

Linked to GND is the proposal of work guarantee by Sanders, «che would act as a stabilization measure». “In the context of a largely strong economy with high employment (supported by the GND), the question asked about the job guarantee would be small. Many people, even those released from prisons, would already work in better jobs with higher wages and better career prospects. Only when the private economy falters -when the credit boom gives way to a credit crunch- the alternative of a public job would become attractive to more people. In terms of ‘costs’, spending on job security would replace unemployment benefits, social assistance and some disability insurance. ” The most positive element of this proposal, according to Galbraith, is in the fact that it is a tool to quickly deal with the human consequences of crises.

L’wealth tax, according to Galbraith, “it would be impractical. To enforce it, the United States should create a new tax administration to evaluate all forms of wealth from a certain date each year, “it would not be worth it.
Galbraith points out that they are “certainly necessary fiscal measures to reduce the oligarchySanders appears to want to strengthen existing property taxes and donations. «This approach is valid. Property and gift taxes affect dynastic wealth and have the advantage of providing a strong incentive for philanthropic donations, creating universities, museums, hospitals, churches and other socially useful institutions “.

Sanders supports the cancellation of student debts towards the government. According to Galbraith, “Lmove is clearly expansive, since the cash flows otherwise used to repay debts would be directed towards other expenseswhich in turn would fuel new economic activities and job creation. ”

The other related proposal is the cancellation of medical debt. Here Galbraith is much more skeptical. “In the grand scheme of things, an extensive debt relief program for American families and families would be a big deal. Private debt has acted as an effective tool for social control and discipline at least since the financial deregulation that began in the 1970s, which launched the era of credit cards, the purchase of installments and mortgages that are increasingly unstable and speculative . Most Americans are affected by this debt system, but few think to question itlet alone recognize it as a form of social oppression. “

«The fundamental radicalism of Sanders’ perspectives», Galbraith concludes, «is manifested in his embrace of bold proposals, which are already expanding the public notion of the possible. As the far-reaching potential of a Sanders presidency spreads in public consciousness, the vast segment of the electorate that currently feels deprived of voting rights and demoralized will begin to think differently about the future. Debt is a weapon of the oligarchy. It is not entirely unreasonable to see debt cancellation as the trigger for a broader social movement in favor of even deeper social-democratic and socialist reforms».

Apart from the ‘revolutionary’ side, certainly functional to a good election campaign, Sanders’ economic program, therefore, according to economists, is sustainable.

Comments