Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Showing Original Post only (View all)Sanders is willing to sacrifice growth for the sake of redistribution. [View all]
There are very few unspoken rules among major-party candidates for president, and Bernie Sanders is breaking one of them. Hes saying that Americas leaders shouldnt worry so much about economic growth if that growth serves to enrich only the wealthiest Americans.
Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1 percent, Sanders said in a recent interview, even if that redistribution slows the economy overall.
Unchecked growth especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent is absurd, he said. Where weve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but weve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then theres less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then theres less worry about growth for the sake of growth.
Our economic goals have to be redistributing a significant amount of [wealth] back from the top 1 percent, Sanders said in a recent interview, even if that redistribution slows the economy overall.
Unchecked growth especially when 99 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent is absurd, he said. Where weve got to move is not growth for the sake of growth, but weve got to move to a society that provides a high quality of life for all of our people. In other words, if people have health care as a right, as do the people of every other major country, then theres less worry about growth. If people have educational opportunity and their kids can go to college and they have child care, then theres less worry about growth for the sake of growth.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/07/13/what-bernie-sanders-is-willing-to-sacrifice-for-a-more-equal-society/
This is problematic for two reasons. First, politically it is a disaster. Sure, it plays well to a portion of the base, but going into a general election arguing that we are going to sacrifice growth in order to redistribute is a losing strategy.
And the second reason is that it implicitly concedes a false right-wing economic argument, namely that sacrificing growth is necessary in order to reduce inequality. In fact, there is an argument to be made that the opposite is true: reducing inequality actually increases economic growth, particularly when inequality has reached the extreme levels we have in the US. There is research suggesting that the economically optimal tax rates on the wealthy are higher than they are right now. At worst, reducing inequality from the extreme highs we are at now is growth-neutral, so we shouldn't be talking about sacrificing growth.
Democratic policies are better for growth than Republican ones. Progressive taxation to pay for things like infrastructure, education, and scientific research increases growth in the long term. Effective financial regulation does as well, not only be preventing crises, but also by diverting more resources to the real economy rather than financial engineering. This is the argument Dems should be making.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
135 replies, 15220 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (16)
ReplyReply to this post
135 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Sanders is willing to sacrifice growth for the sake of redistribution. [View all]
DanTex
Sep 2015
OP
I agree, Sanders should not be conceding garbage neo-liberal economic talking points
DanTex
Sep 2015
#5
He does, and supplies links. Also check my post because I do know what I'm talking about.
PatrickforO
Sep 2015
#130
5 minutes ago the talking point was that Sanders supporters are all 1%er elitists.
Warren DeMontague
Sep 2015
#96
I get the feeling that some of your critics never bothered to read the material at the
MADem
Sep 2015
#13
You're a smart person too, which means you certainly are aware of the Hillary bashing going on here.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#30
She does make me want to throw my shoe -- as have many other Democrats over the last 30 years
Armstead
Sep 2015
#36
I don't buy the "both sides" thing in this case. There are a lot of asymmetries.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#40
It's all a matter of whose ox is being gored. I feel the same way you do from the other side.
Armstead
Sep 2015
#46
Not in this case. I've seen no threads accusing Sanders of being a racist. Can you link to one?
DanTex
Sep 2015
#48
A one track mind is a burden to all. But I have reason to agree with BS on this:
freshwest
Sep 2015
#107
Actually, wealth redistribution can help growth. It can produce more demand in an economy.
mmonk
Sep 2015
#14
Decreasing wealth inequality is the only way to lasting growth that won't come crashing down in
RichVRichV
Sep 2015
#87
Well, the problem is, you have to make economic policy somehow, so you have to trust something.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#23
Clearly implying that he's willing to accept less growth in order to redistribute.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#84
Correct. Not, as you have insisted, that redistribution necessitates stymieing growth.
Scootaloo
Sep 2015
#89
Which do you disagree with? Obama more left than Bill, or Hillary more left than Obama?
DanTex
Sep 2015
#69
So are you still clinging to the strawman that Bernie wants to sacrifice growth?
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#77
He came out and said that he was willing to see less growth. I'm not mischaracterizing it at all.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#82
Actual headline: The thing Bernie Sanders says about inequality that no other candidate will touch
Hiraeth
Sep 2015
#93
Poor choice of wording is "sacrifice". "Controlled growth" would be a better phrase, I think.
Hiraeth
Sep 2015
#90
Our leaders have trusted that if they take care of the wealthy the wealthy will in turn take care of
Autumn
Sep 2015
#42
Bernie is right. We shouldn’t worry so much about economic growth if that growth serves
Autumn
Sep 2015
#43
Except he's not. Sacrifice is your word, your imagery, your choice, Bernie is not saying any such
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2015
#59
I do believe there is a name for such an argument, where one misrepresenst the views
LondonReign2
Sep 2015
#65
You mischaracterize, he does not say 'sacrifice growth' he says pursue healthy growth and equitable
Bluenorthwest
Sep 2015
#56
Good luck trying to win a presidential campaign arguing that we don't need growth.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#76
Until balance is obtained the pendulum will make a wide arc. Simply put, Sanders is right.
Hiraeth
Sep 2015
#85
Sorry I'm late to this thread. Now please tell me what the fuck this is all about.
HappyPlace
Sep 2015
#102
Ironically, it's Bernie who is conceding the supply-side economics talking points here.
DanTex
Sep 2015
#125
Because I think that, long term, we need to change our economic model to one based on sustainability
Agnosticsherbet
Sep 2015
#132