I will post a few excerpts from Paul Krugman’s fairly recent anti-Sanders article.
From the beginning, many and probably most liberal policy wonks were skeptical about Bernie Sanders. On many major issues — including the signature issues of his campaign, especially financial reform — he seemed to go for easy slogans over hard thinking. And his political theory of change, his waving away of limits, seemed utterly unrealistic.
Just this first paragraph attacks Sanders’s policies for being “utterly unrealistic.” It gets worse.
The easy slogan here is “Break up the big banks.” It’s obvious why this slogan is appealing from a political point of view: Wall Street supplies an excellent cast of villains. But were big banks really at the heart of the financial crisis, and would breaking them up protect us from future crises?
Many analysts concluded years ago that the answers to both questions were no. Predatory lending was largely carried out by smaller, non-Wall Street institutions like Countrywide Financial; the crisis itself was centered not on big banks but on “shadow banks” like Lehman Brothers that weren’t necessarily that big. And the financial reform that President Obama signed in 2010 made a real effort to address these problems. It could and should be made stronger, but pounding the table about big banks misses the point.
Sanders “misses the point” and goes against what “many analysts concluded years ago.” Pretty harsh criticism. Oh, and it gets worse (or better, I suppose):
But in any case, the way Mr. Sanders is now campaigning raises serious character and values issues.
It’s one thing for the Sanders campaign to point to Hillary Clinton’s Wall Street connections, which are real, although the question should be whether they have distorted her positions, a case the campaign has never even tried to make. But recent attacks on Mrs. Clinton as a tool of the fossil fuel industry are just plain dishonest, and speak of a campaign that has lost its ethical moorings.
And then there was Wednesday’s rant about how Mrs. Clinton is not “qualified”to be president.
What probably set that off was a recent interview of Mr. Sanders by The Daily News, in which he repeatedly seemed unable to respond when pressed to go beyond his usual slogans.
Not only is Sanders wrong, but Krugman makes the argument that Sanders isn’t even the nice old man the media is portraying him as! Coming from Krugman, a leftist, Sanders supporters should think twice.
More economists have destroyed Sanders; it isn’t just Krugman. Libertarians like Scott Sumner and Steve Horwitz to centre-rightists like Glen Hubbard and Stephen Moore to centre-leftists like Christina Romer and Alan Golsbee have all eviscerated Sanders’s proposals. Sanders is truly an economic illiterate. So illiterate, in fact, that Sumner and Krugman agree. Interesting how shared enemies lead to unthinkable alliances!