hand, many economists suggest that Friedman overestimates the multiplier effect, and the Economist 16 have even contended Sanders’ economic policies to be fallible, as it would require new taxes on most of the working class, which essentially is worth 8.4% of their income that would not accommodate his ambitious economic aims that requires huge cost to fund its services. Despite the fact that many economists concur that Sanders’ economic policies might not be as effective as he and many of his supporters would have imagined, Bernie Sanders’ economic stance mattered greatly to the context of the US. He has successfully set the context for Hilary Clinton to respond in the presidential nomination race, particularly pushing Clinton to the left for economic policies. Sanders notably criticised Clinton for her close links with donors from Wall Street, whilst at the same advocating reforms for Wall Street, by reiterating the importance of breaking up big banks. He and was prepared to reintroduce the Glass-Steagall Act 17 , legislation which prohibits traditional commercial banks from engaging in high-risk investment services, in order to prevent the outbreak of another financial crash since 2008. Clinton, who has dismissed Sanders’ claim that she places her priorities in Wall Street bankers and firms, was also forced to respond due to the booming support Sanders received as the elections unravelled. She then initiated some reforms for Wall Street, which includes regulations on shadow banking as well as increasing transparency and accountability for banks through sustaining the current Dodd-Frank legislation (which created the Financial Stability Oversight Council that would have the power to monitor liquidation and advisory activities of hedge funds). Throughout the presidential nomination debates, Clinton also adjusted her views, and plans to offer a $15 minimum wage and aims to make colleges’ tuition fees debt-free if she becomes President. Therefore, it is important to note that the progressive economic policies Sanders’ had in hands might not be downright feasible, yet it was underpinned by popular endorsement from the public, which evidently convinced and pressured Hilary Clinton to alter her initially cautious free-market-economy proposal that highlights trade deals like the TPP, to a more domestic, socio-economically focused manifesto. Politically, Bernie Sanders presented himself as an anti-establishment and ethically clean figure who is willing to challenge the bi-polar, traditional political narratives in the United States. Sanders’ campaign mobilised many of the grassroots, particularly the disenfranchised to support him. He also encouraged many activists to join his campaign with his ideals, of whom most rated him highly despite having doubts on his electability to win the presidential nomination in the Democratic Party. In the entirety of his campaign, Bernie Sanders has raised nearly $222.2 million, of which 99.99% came from campaign donations, and it had 60% of more of its donation that was donations of $200 or less. The rather populist approach of Sanders discernably drew him critics, like the well-known economist Paul Krugman who laments the uncompromising and idealistic vision of Bernie Sanders. Nonetheless, one should realise the rise of politicians like Bernie Sanders or even Donald Trump represents the widespread dissent of the establishment across the political spectrum, and thus call to mind that populist candidates also do hold the democratic legitimacy and the support from different streams and ethnic, cultural groups of the society. Through having Bernie Sanders to have actively remained in elections’ debate and the political discourse, benefitted different political factions’ indeed, as they would all be able to interact to create nuanced arguments and policies that could better help them to be more in-tuned with the political atmosphere. More importantly, different candidates can challenge viewpoints and policies in a concrete manner, and would be able to show inclinable openness to connect with disenfranchised groups of the society. This is because politicians are willing to put forward different views in a public platform, even when they are within the same party, to reflect the fact that they are legitimately representing its supporters and the people.
16 http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21692895-health-care-costs-and-high-taxes-would-sink-sanders-economic-plan-vote- what 17 https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/banking/glass-steagall-act-explained/
24
Made with FlippingBook Annual report