The Sanders’s campaign economic analysis of their plans is at this link. I pulled out a couple of their tables and highlighted the interesting to me areas
I want a pony with these projections.
Yesterday I mentioned the Sanders plan claimed 5.3% GDP growth but I am highlighting a different number here of 4.5%
P.2 of the link:
The growth rate of the real gross domestic product will rise from 2.1% per annum to 5.3% so that real GDP per capita will be over $20,000 higher in 2026 than is projected under the current policy
The difference is the qualifier. Yesterday was economy-wide growth of 5.3%. The highlighted number today is 4.5% per person. Slightly different metrics that are both wild-eye guesstimates that don’t pass basic sensitivity testing. I can understand a campaign putting out optimistic numbers but when the numbers coming out are so optimistic that people who look at this stuff for a living start to first laugh and then cringe, three things need to be asked:
a) What is the mechanism of change that can produce these massive variances?
b) If they are real in A, why have they not been proposed and implemented in the past as 5% economy wide real growth solves an amazing shit ton of problems without any hard decisions or trade-offs?
c) Does any of this make sense?