Galbraith responds to Clinton economic cronies

See this article. Four economists that sing for Clinton have criticized a paper by economist Friedman analyzing Sanders' proposals and finding them economically sound. However the four critics did not provide any data supporting their refutation, instead relying on an argument by authority. "Galbraith suggests that the real sham in the wonk scuffle is not Friedman's work, but the willingness of prestigious economists to rely on their mere authority to demean the work of others without actually analyzing it." Friedman, however, used "standard impact assumptions and forecasting methods" to back his claims.


And now Krugman is picking up on these four authorities without evidence as further proof that Sanders is mistaken. Never mind that Krugman's assertions are themselves suspect, e.g. his claim that breaking up the big banks is not a related to, or a fix for, the recent financial calamity when that  "statement ran against the official conclusion of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the views of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, former IMF chief economist Simon Johnson, former Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chair Sheila Bair, former bank bailout inspector general Neil Barofsky and FDIC Vice Chairman Thomas Hoenig, who have all maintained that 'too big to fail' was, in fact, central to the crisis."

That Clinton cronies are frothing at the mouth over Sanders instead of providing clear and accurate date to support their arguments is a significant indicator of who is winning this argument with the people.