You’ve read it a hundred times on the blog site. Socialists (progressive/statist/altruists) talk a good game, but do they really have a clue about what their “brilliant, egalitarian, centrally planned” idea will accomplish? Do they really have a clue about how to implement their “brilliant, egalitarian, centrally planned” idea?
We could certainly talk about the roll out of Obamacare. It was a slow motion train wreck! With years to ready the website, almost nothing about the website was ready for action – particularly its security. However, the case in point for today is Bernie Sanders.
Our socialist candidate has only one or two themes. To say that it is rare for the Rugged Individualist to agree with the Editorial Board of Pravda on the Potomac (i.e., the Washington Post) would be a gross understatement. But today is a banner day. They are spot on in their criticism of Bernie Sanders. What would you say is Bernie’s core issue?
Stop guessing! I’ll tell you. More than anything else, he has based his campaign on attacking Wall Street. You know, those millionaires and billionaires who, by his telling, wrecked the U.S. economy, dominate the political system and must be broken!
[Source: Mr. Sanders’s shocking ignorance on his core issue. Washington Post Editorial Board]
[From the editorial – no embellishment required, just some editing] Given his commitment to the message, you might expect he would have some familiarity with the policy details and implications.
A New York Daily News editorial board interview with the candidate proved otherwise. The senator seemed to have no idea of what reformed banks should look like, or whether he would need new legislation, even though the government under his presidency would play a central role in tearing apart these complex financial institutions.
Mr. Sanders followed the interview with what was meant to be a clarifying statement… (that basically showed that he doesn’t have a real plan or a sound notion of what the ramifications of his actions would be.)
It’s astonishing that, on this of all issues, the campaign would need to issue a what-the-candidate-meant-to-say statement. Even then, the campaign has left a lot of essential questions unanswered.
Here’s one: What is breaking up the banks meant to accomplish?
From what Mr. Sanders and his campaign have said, you could posit several possibilities: protecting taxpayers, safeguarding the financial system, making the financial sector less concentrated and reducing the financial sector’s share of the total economy. Explaining that he wants to do all of these things is not sufficient, because policies differ depending on which goal you prioritize. Regulators working under Dodd-Frank, for example, have gone a long way to addressing the first two issues without breaking up banks, a step that many experts warn may not be worth the costs. If banking-sector concentration is Mr. Sanders’s concern, then he should explain why addressing it would justify those costs; after all, countries such as Canada have more concentrated banking systems and yet weathered the financial crisis much better. If, on the other hand, Mr. Sanders wants to shrink the overall financial sector, he must explain how breaking up a few banks into a larger number of medium-size banks would contribute.
Many voters share Mr. Sanders’s disdain for high finance and his nostalgia for an economy based more on manufacturing. But such prejudices, whether sound or not, provide an insufficient basis for remaking the world’s largest economy…
Who’da’thunk it? The Rugged Individualist and the Washington Post Editorial Board – as thick as thieves!