Disclaimer: I'm not an ardent supporter of Bernie Sanders--he's simply the candidate that I'm liking the most thus far. This is, of course, subject to change. But as such, I'm not necessarily looking for a debate here--I just have a series of questions and skepticisms regarding a number of your rebuttals here.
The American Society of Civil Engineer's uses the Department of Transportation's "red list" to support their analysis of infrastructural well-being (which is hardly impartial), and it's essentially a dishonest attempt at mincing with the words "structurally deficient". People usually take it to mean "dangerous", when in fact all it means is not up to current construction standards. Most of the things on the DOT's list were simply built prior to an increase in said standards.
So we have structurally deficient infrastructure that isn't up to current construction standards (as a result of having those standards increased), and you don't think it's a good idea to improve upon it to achieve those standards? Sure, "structurally deficient" doesn't necessarily mean "dangerous", but so what? Are you saying we should honestly wait up until a point where our infrastructure deteriorates to such an extent where it
would become dangerous to utilize it? Why not be proactive and keep everything up to snuff before everything collapses?
Sanders also seems interested in infrastructural projects exactly for growth and jobs. Despite the fact there is very little evidence to suggest that infrastructure does promote growth when considered in a neoclassical model, and New Keynesian models only find a moderate positive effect for highway spending over the medium-run.
Does there really need to be "evidence" to suggest that improving infrastructure promotes growth? You're
improving infrastructure--I mean, it seems tautological to me. You're building your civilization. Unless I'm missing your point.
Reversing climate change:
No real content to these proposals either. Exactly how does Sanders want to induce this paradigm shift to sustainable energy? Given his priors, it will probably be a combination of regulation and subsidies which are pretty much universally considered to be inefficient when compared to a Pigouvian excise tax on the production and importation of goods.
No comment on the speculative tripe. I don't think he (or his agency) would feasibly be able to expound upon every detail of his plan here. Not on a website designed strategically to derive interest in his campaign. All his propositions therein are going to be concise and digestible because anything more isn't going to be able to cope with the sheer epheremality of our public's attention span. This isn't a problem you have with Sanders as much as its a problem you have with our campaigning procedures.
Growing the trade unions:
I'm actually going to endorse Clinton on this issue. Allow work councils to represent labour over trade unions. Trade unions are monolithic beasts who too often act like the people they claim to be protecting workers against.
In what ways?
Raising the minimum wage:
I've dealt with this before; wage subsidies are a much better solution to poverty, minimum wages are pretty ineffectual actually and have demonstrable long-run negative consequences on employment growth. The idea of a living wage is incredibly stupid, and probably doublespeak for a $15 MW. If we can't have an expansion of EITC, I'd support a $10 MW, but $15 is fucking lunacy.
Could you name me some other candidates who are also proponents of wage subsidies, as opposed to minimum wage? If not, this isn't much of a point, unless you honestly think that a better solution to the issue is to do nothing at all. Which would be crap.
Making college affordable for all:
I don't even know where this is coming from, really. There's very little evidence for credit constraints; the issue stems from the fact that tuition loans can't be dealt with via bankruptcy. If anything, the US is producing too many people with degrees.
How can a country produce "too many people with degrees"? So you're saying that less people should be going to college and pursuing degrees? I mean, that's what "too" implies--an excess. It just seems like a really silly statement, if that's how we're meant to interpret it.
"Very little evidence of credit constraints"?... All he's saying is that college is too expensive, which it is.
I don't think it's a terribly complicated proposal, or one that you could rationally be opposed to...
If you wanna ask
how he's gonna go about making college affordable, I guess you can.
Protecting the most vulnerable Americans:
Again, less meat and more problems. Strengthening social security is just a short-term cover-up to a long-term problem which isn't going to disappear by throwing more and more money at it. Certain population dynamics make it an unsustainable system (seriously, why the fuck are you giving welfare to well-off seniors?). Current CBO projections put soc-sec as running out of money in 2033. It's essentially just a redistributive tax; what the US needs to do is start transitioning to mandatory, private retirement funds.
I'm actually in agreement here.
Real tax reform:
This is pretty much all shit. There isn't any kind of consensus on whether or not income inequality has increased in the US
Why would there be? I don't think it makes it any less evident.
Even if this were the case, there isn't any clear economic evidence that inequality harms the economy; personally, I think it
does to some degree, but it's far from the case that Sanders has the answers. [/quote]I'm less concerned about the economy than I am concerned about the public's quality of life, which is harmed when there's such inequality, but that's just me.
Consensus on corporation tax does exist, and they're fucking terrible. Corporation taxes should be abolished, outright. They are paid mostly by labour in the long-run, in the form of lower wages and are ridiculously distortionary. The abolition of corporation taxes in the US would have myriad benefits, including greater investment, higher output, wage growth, higher savings and an expanded tax base. It would, quite clearly, result in a Pareto improvement and provide significant welfare benefits for future generations.
I really didn't want to touch upon any points involving economics, but this part just seems too silly, again. Come on.
Abolishing corporate taxes?... It would end up paying for itself?... Has this idea really not been debunked before? Walk me through it, if you'd please. How is giving corporations even more money going to help
anyone but themselves in the long run? Maybe you're thinking of specific corporations here, but of course, if you cut taxes for one, you gotta cut taxes for them all. Which, to me, as another economically challenged user, just sounds like garbage.
I'll be taking a close look at Jeb Bush's platform, now.
I will say that he has balls running for
anything with that surname.
Show Posts
