I don't like him. Here's why:

Here is Bernie Sanders' platform. Let's review. I'll try to address all of his proposals, but some of them have pretty much zero content on them. I'll tackle what I can.

Rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure:
It's more correct to say that America has mis-invested rather than under-invested in infrastructure. The problem of America's infrastructure is wildly over-stated. 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. Most of what appears on the red list offers no value in terms of replacement, and is completely serviceable. IGM has conducted a poll of economists on this issue, and the results are pretty clear: there are high-return projects available, but it's far from clear that they will I) be identified and II) actually promote growth.

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.

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.

It's also interesting to see no mention of nuclear power, despite the fact that it's currently our most promising route for achieving cleaner energy. The other policy worth considering besides a tax on pollution would be precisely to lower the regulatory burden on nuclear energy, given the disproportionate amount they shoulder.

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.

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.

Pay equality for women:
Nope. Not even fucking touching this one.

Trade policies that benefit American workers:
Well this is just dumb. Free trade doesn't result in unemployment, it probably doesn't increase inequality and involves a transfer, not loss. of wages.

I also feel the need to comment on the fact that it's ridiculously chauvinistic of Sanders to essentially discount the massive gains the poorest in the world feel from trade because he wants to appeal to American workers. He's either incredibly stupid, or incredibly callous.

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.

Taking on Wall Street:
This is just a long line of errors and mistaken ideas. Financial investment doesn't count towards GDP, so the comparison is pretty much useless. There is some evidence to suggest that the US has a larger financial sector (and individual banks) than is optimal for an economy, although it's possible that the Recession itself corrected this. Nevertheless, breaking up the banks is just a bad idea; the US should be seeking to emulate Canada, which has huge banks who manage to avoid financial crises by virtue of being highly diversified. Personally, I also think some macroprudential regulation to increase capital requirements, end too-big-too-fail and control the use of mortgage-backed securities are good moves.
 
Sanders also seems to be conflating the financial crisis and the Recession; the financial crisis was, indeed, caused by toxic, securitised mortgage debt but there is little evidence that the ensuing debt crisis and financial disintermediation had any serious negative consequences for the economy. There's some evidence that falling house prices in 2006-7 led to an initial consumption shock, although the primary cause of the Recession seems to be monetary disequilibrium which then triggered and intensified the sub-prime debt crisis.

Healthcare as a right for all:
Bernie Sander's dislike for the US healthcare system is warranted, of course. . . It's a fucking mess. I've seen him criticise rising healthcare costs in the past, but estimates for healthcare premiums are relatively unchanged at around 20-30pc; rising costs come primarily from technological changes. It's nigh-on impossible to compare outcomes in healthcare between developed countries, since public health will be determined more by lifestyle than the actual effectiveness of the healthcare industry; some very limited evidence suggests that, if we could control for lifestyle bias, the US would probably come out on top.

Changing to a single-payer system wouldn't be particularly good (evidence from such systems like the NHS would suggest there isn't any guarantee of quality or success, and given the nature of the US political system this criticism is more than relevant. If anything, the US should transition to a multi-tiered insurance system like that of Germany.

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.

When it comes to poverty, it's again pretty clear what we should do: wage subsidies, like the EITC.

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. CPS doesn't accurately measure income, and CPI doesn't accurately measure inflation across all income groups; people just don't experience inflation in the same ways. Accordingly, a straight GINI line records growing income inequality simply through data bias. 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.

When it comes to capital's share of income displacing labour (think Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century), the primary issue is coming from land and associated things like rent. Land itself is artificially made scarce by legislation which restricts planning (zoning laws, and the like). This is true of both Britain and the US.

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.

The problem with having strong opinions on how tax ought to be structured is that people are often unwilling to consider that they might be wrong, simply by virtue of confusing an economic issue for a political one. I, personally, prefer a combination of progressive consumption and property taxes; although a good tax plan which Sanders would never accept is the X-tax, which combines a flat tax with progressive wage subsidies.

Who's a better candidate?

Jeb Bush, I'd say.

More moderate than the likes of Walker, with some decent economic advisors and, AFAIK, policy proposals. Clinton is essentially in the same boat, although she comes with the surcharge of being Clinton.

Jeb Bush, I'd say.

More moderate than the likes of Walker, with some decent economic advisors and, AFAIK, policy proposals. Clinton is essentially in the same boat, although she comes with the surcharge of being Clinton.

i'll be back

>being against trade unions

Opinion disregarded.

>being against trade unions

Opinion disregarded.

>blindly supporting trade unions to the detriment of both the economy and labour

Op-- Oh, wait. I never gave a fuck about your retarded opinions in the first place.

your fucking nameplate is broken shit

The workers deserve more than what they're getting. America is run by less than 100 people, all who are going to make more money than they'll be able to spend in ten lifetimes. That's downright wrong. Labor unions are the only groups with enough guts to actually challenge our corporate overlords.

UNTHINK UNGOOD THOUGHTS, CITIZEN. REPORT YOURSELF TO THE NEAREST RE-EDUCATION CAMP.

Seriously, get the fuck out of here with this black helicopter, "corporations run America and I'm clearly qualified to say how much people should be getting paid" bullshit. Do you have any logic for simply assuming income distribution is zero-sum? Do you have any refutation for the fact that I've already pointed out the confusing nature of income inequality stats? Do you have any reason for supporting unions over works council, besides blind ideology? Why do you apparently think labour unions are the perfect representation of labour's interests as opposed to beasts unto themselves? Do you have anything to say about the ambivalent evidence regarding the effects of trade unions?

Fuck, do you have anything to say which isn't tiresome and worn-out rhetoric?

Bush/Rubio all the way, baby. I'm kind of hoping John Kasich makes it into the top spots though. I think he'd be good.

Anybody but Walker.

you know, the nice thing about the young and dumb is that... they have no say in public affairs
they're allowed to say stuff like "politics is stupid" and whatnot, and that's fine, because kids shouldn't have to worry about politics

but if an individual who is of voting age is going to treat the subject of "which of these idiots is going to lead my country" with such jejune flippancy

that's a little bit distressing

i mean, if you're gonna just make middle-school-level jokes, at least have some kind of underlying agenda, or something

christ

there's a time and a place
all i'm saying

in hindsight, that was pretty harsh
i apologize