|
|
 Originally Posted by bigred
Hey Wuf, you said," The typical Redditor supports Bernie for his technically incorrect policy positions. I support Cruz for his technically correct policy positions."
Is there a Cruz policies for dummies summary somewhere that isn't his campaign page? Something with minimal bias towards left or right?
Edit:
Also, understanding why Bernie's policies are technically incorrect and how you define technically incorrect would help. Do you mean technically unfeasible? And by technically something similar to pragmatically?
The only source I can think of that tells you where candidates stand is ontheissues.org, but it still tells you little. I don't know of any "policies for dummies" page.
Here's one example of Sanders' plans not reflecting reality, by an economist: http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=31156
The majority of what I'm getting at when I say "technically correct" is economics. Virtually every economic position Sanders holds doesn't reflect academic interpretations. Taxing the rich to pay for services for the middle class doesn't have the desired effect because there isn't nearly enough money and because even the wealthy operate on the margins and are already taxed at much higher rates than other income groups. He makes mistakes like thinking that savings is bad and spending is good.
A recent comment he's made is something along the lines of "you don't need the choice to buy between 17 different kinds of shoes" (I don't remember exactly what it was, but the sentiment is the same). His intent was in that he thinks that by reducing some of the profit incentive of companies, the leftover money can be put to better use by being funneled into poor or middle class funds or services, and he acknowledges that this would reduce the number of companies and types of shoes. Economists in entirety disagree with this assessment. Econ 101 teaches that the shoe market is technically a "monopolistic competition" model, where a reduction in supply increases prices and where price controls and regulations create capital flight from the market. Sanders' proposal is seen in action today in virtually every major city center housing and rent prices. Construction regulations are so extreme that only a handful of companies are capable of building (and only certain types of building). This keeps supply of housing extremely low and prices extremely high. We all take it for granted that city prices are naturally sky high, but economists do not believe they are naturally sky high and instead think the prices are a byproduct of the regulatory environment. So, while Sanders thinks socializing elements of shoe distribution would benefit the poor, what it actually does is make everybody worse off, most significantly so the poor.
Possibly Sanders' most egregious economics mistake is misunderstanding incentives. It should be noted that when economists discuss public policy, they're really just talking about incentives, so this isn't small beans. At large, Sanders' ideas greatly reduce the incentive towards production and productivity. They do these all sorts of ways, by increasing barriers to entry in markets for producers, by reducing marginal incomes through taxes, by reducing labor force participation through welfare. One area in which Sanders is possibly decent though is that his education ideas would possibly orient the education system less towards the current anti-labor-force paradigm. Granted, the net effect of his increasing subsidization of education would be negative when compared to the far higher degree of competition and innovation that would come through lower subsidization at all levels and a move towards school choice.
As for Cruz, what I've seen from him is a solid understanding of economics. He's so good on it that he's the only politician I've seen discuss the role of the Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy in creation of the 08 financial crisis. This is stuff that you never see discussed outside of economics circles. I suspect Cruz knows about it since he was roomies with Ramesh Ponnuru at Princeton, who is close friends with David Beckworth, one of the leading economics bloggers on the issues of monetary policy and the Fed.
Cruz's view of taxes, regulations, education, welfare, and healthcare pretty much all align with what I know about economics. On taxes, he's all about deleting distorted incentives created by the tax code (a HUGE deal) and increasing production. On regulations, he doesn't seem to be too much unlike Calvin Coolidge, who presided over the best economy possibly in the country's history all because of how much he reduced federal intrusion into producer and consumer choices. On education, he wants to decentralize and reduce subsidization, which is easily the best thing that can be done for the education system. Nobody was talking about a failing education system in the 50s, and it was because incentives and choice regarding education was localized, non-distorted, and robust. The economist widely considered in the top 2 most important of the 20th century, Milton Friedman, has discussed this at length in various books. On welfare, well, it's all about incentives. Giving people money is just bad news because of how it disrupts productive capital. Taking it from the productive reduces their production, and giving it to the unproductive increases their unproductive-ness. Regulation is a big factor here too, like in how all this pro-union, pro-minimum-wage, pro-red-tape stuff raises the price of labor enough that the lower skilled are permanently kicked out of the labor market.
There's much more than can be said, but the post is already way too long. Hope this helps.
|
Reply With Quote
