Letters From the December 30, 2019/January 6, 2020 Issue

Letters From the December 30, 2019/January 6, 2020 Issue

Debating Biden… Andrew Yang’s fuzzy math…

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Debating Biden

I agree with the assessments in the editorial “Against Biden” [November 25] that Joe Biden is weak and distracting as a candidate and that we should be grateful to have a wider lane of progressive candidates than we’ve had in the past. So it’s disturbing that, according to polls and interviews, many people with sympathies for the progressive candidates are inclined toward Biden or one of the other centrists because they think those are safer bets for defeating Donald Trump. But that evaluation may well prove wrong.

A poll is needed that asks people which candidate they favor without regard to any estimate of electability. If more people prefer the progressives than emerges in the current polling, then broadcasting that finding might persuade voters to vote for their true choice.
 
Susan Sugarman
princeton, n.j.

So in 2016, Hillary Clinton was bad, and Bernie Sanders was great—and The Nation and others with a similar bent (which I share) attacked her during the nominating process. Then she won the nomination, after which came a grudging acceptance, especially as progressives realized the disaster that awaited if the Republican won. The Republican won, and it has been a disaster.

It would be nice if The Nation had learned from that experience that you do not attack the Democratic candidate you disagree with. You lay out how other candidates have better positions while explaining that those you find disagreeable are still better than Trump’s. But The Nation has learned nothing from 2016. Then again, many of my fellow lefty Democrats didn’t learn anything from 1968, 1980, 1988, or 2000 either. So perhaps as you criticize Biden for making the same errors over and over again, you might want to look in the mirror.

Michael Green
las vegas

Andrew Yang’s Fuzzy Math

It is unfortunate that my friend John Nichols seems to have bought Andrew Yang’s upside-down understanding of the economy [“Yang Isn’t Ready,” December 2/9]. Yang’s basic story is that we are facing a massive wave of unemployment due to the spread of automation and artificial intelligence. This is a story in which we are seeing enormous increases in productivity, as we can now produce the same output with many fewer hours of work or, alternatively, can produce hugely more output with the same number of hours of work. The basic problem with this story is that all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Rather than being a period of exceptional productivity growth, the years since 2005 have been a time of extraordinarily weak productivity growth. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, productivity growth has averaged just 1.3 percent annually over the last 14 years. That compares with 3.0 percent annually in the long golden age from 1947 to 1973 and again from 1995 to 2005.

Not only is it flat-out wrong to claim that we are seeing a massive displacement of labor by technology; there is no reason to think that workers would be suffering if we did. The high-productivity-growth years from 1947 to 1973 were ones of rapid wage gains and low unemployment.

Basically, Yang has gotten everything wrong. It’s as though we had a major presidential candidate warning us about the dangers of global cooling. He is wrong on both the economy’s problems and his proposed solution.

Dean Baker
Senior Economist
Center for Economic and Policy Research
washington

Support independent journalism that exposes oligarchs and profiteers


Donald Trump’s cruel and chaotic second term is just getting started. In his first month back in office, Trump and his lackey Elon Musk (or is it the other way around?) have proven that nothing is safe from sacrifice at the altar of unchecked power and riches.

Only robust independent journalism can cut through the noise and offer clear-eyed reporting and analysis based on principle and conscience. That’s what The Nation has done for 160 years and that’s what we’re doing now.

Our independent journalism doesn’t allow injustice to go unnoticed or unchallenged—nor will we abandon hope for a better world. Our writers, editors, and fact-checkers are working relentlessly to keep you informed and empowered when so much of the media fails to do so out of credulity, fear, or fealty.

The Nation has seen unprecedented times before. We draw strength and guidance from our history of principled progressive journalism in times of crisis, and we are committed to continuing this legacy today.

We’re aiming to raise $25,000 during our Spring Fundraising Campaign to ensure that we have the resources to expose the oligarchs and profiteers attempting to loot our republic. Stand for bold independent journalism and donate to support The Nation today.

Onward,

Katrina vanden Heuvel

Editorial Director and Publisher, The Nation

x