So I have been corresponding with a relative of mine that is a big Hillary supporter (i.e. he is a donor, has been to many fundraisers and met her on several occasions). He owns a financial services firm in NYC, and used to work on Wall Street. We talked a few weeks ago, and I mentioned that I was supporting Bernie Sanders. He was shocked because he didn't know anyone supporting Bernie Sanders (yeah, I know, I couldn't believe it either that a financial services exec didn't know anybody supporting Bernie for President), and he wanted to understand why, which I give him credit for. So we have been exchanging emails on an almost daily basis about the primary, and the following is one such exchange regarding the criticism of Bernie's economic plan(s).

Good morning (me),

NYT article - Criticism of Prof. Friedman's study of Bernie's economic plan

A professor’s analysis predicted an economic boom but based it on a belief that temporary government stimulus has a permanent effect. Did Friedman respond to this?

Best,
xxxxxxxx

(He asked for my response, so I gave it to him)

Hi xxxxxxx,

I hope all is well and you are enjoying the primary season. Things are looking pretty good for Hillary, so I'm sure you feel pretty happy about that. That said, don't count Bernie out just yet. Michigan will be an interesting primary.

Ok, onto my reply.

(Note - Keep in mind that I know very little about economic theory and understand it even less. Then again, the study of "economics" was called "political economy" up until the late 19th century, which I feel is a far more accurate term because economic arguments are far from scientific and rely on the political landscape, the political leanings of the author and the audience. It is for this reason that it is easy to find someone to support whatever crazed economic ideas one may have - hence, Republican "economics" that have support from someone somewhere (like this batshit-crazy lady Sue Lowden who ran for Senate in Nevada in 2010 who thought we should go back to the barter system - she unsurprisingly lost that race against Harry Reid) . Unlike actual sciences, there really are no "right" answers with the exception of 'having money means you can buy things'. Theories are just that, theories. Just wanted to throw this in because you are doubtlessly a thousand times more informed than I am on the subject. That being said, I still have my opinions for better or worse.)

In any case, Prof. Friedman did respond to Prof. Wolfers' article (and the analysis conducted by Profs. Romer and Romer) here (It is an article that responds to Paul Starr's criticism, but rebuts the Romers' criticism as well). And there is also this video. The thing that immediately jumped out at me from the Wolfers NYT article is that he specifically states that he talked to Prof. Friedman about the problems the Romers raised, and that Prof. Friedman all but agreed with their complaints. However he provides no citation or additional information about the discussion with Prof. Friedman and Prof. Friedman has not mentioned his discussion with Prof. Wolfers as far as I can tell. Something about that does not smell right. If he indeed got Prof. Friedman to admit to any obvious mistakes, I would presume that it would be big news, and yet there is no further mention of it anywhere (and certainly not from Prof. Friedman in the form of some kind of an apology).

Moving on from Wolfers and the Romers', a good resource is his blog and Twitter account account. There are additional defenses of Prof. Friedman, although this really isn't, or shouldn't be, about him per se. It is about Bernie Sanders. Robert Reich (former Secretary of Labor under Bill Clinton and currently a Professor at UC-Berkeley) provided a defense (although short on details), Alan Harvey (Executive Director of IDEAnomics [I never heard of him before, but I found his analysis helpful]) provided a much more thorough defense, and Prof. James Galbraith continues to defend both Friedman and Sanders. And there is also this article by an economist named Edwin Dolan, and he provides a relatively thorough analysis of Bernie's health care plans.

For what it's worth, I agree with Prof. Galbraith (link is to an interview he did 3 days ago) regarding Bernie Sanders' plans. It is certainly reasonable to argue with and debate whether the real-world effects of Bernie Sanders economic plans (which I completely support) would have the same results as the model, which I doubt they will since they never do. But attacking Prof. Friedman is basically non-sense since all he did was produce a model, by imputing numbers into it and looking at the results. It was not a bad model, and he didn't falsify any of it. And to top it off, he isn't even a Bernie supporter and did the research out of curiosity, not because he was asked or paid to do it. The original article you sent me from the NYT about the Romers analysis of the Friedman model (as you noted) was boiled down to:

"Here's the problem: Mr. Friedman's calculations assume that removing a stimulus has no effect. The result is that temporary stimulus has a permanent effect."

Again, I don't claim to be an economic genius, but my opinion is that temporary stimulus does create a permanent effect (as Prof. Galbraith argues). In addition, the bigger the stimulus, the bigger the resulting impact and lasting benefits that outlive the stimulus itself. For example,​ if we spent $100 billion dollars on infrastructure in the form of providing nationwide wifi, the benefits would undeniably be long-lasting and potentially even grow over time. If we provided high-speed internet across the entire country, it would enable faster and more opportunities for innovation, even 10-20-30 years after the stimulus is removed. On the other hand, I have no doubt that there would be negative effects of the stimulus ending, but hopefully it would be limited​ ​by the benefits produced. I'm curious if you have any perspective to share.

Lastly, I was very happy to hear Bernie state unequivocally (again) last night during the Fox townhall that he does not believe in trickle down economics (since it is a complete and utter failure), and that trickle up economics is the best way to create a reboot for the American middle class. But the best line of the night was the following:

Bret Baier: "Where does your belief that health care is a human right come from?"

Bernie: "From being a human being."

If that's not revolutionary, I don't know what is. And that fact that it has gained acceptance with a substantial number of Democrats is something that we (and particularly myself) can never thank Bernie enough for. He may not win the nomination, but he has changed the debate, and made once taboo ideas about health care, taxation and even the term "liberal" itself, respectable again.​ It may be that there was always a sizable portion of the American people who believed it, but we have never had a champion like Bernie before. ​I can only hope that his campaign is the jump-start to a new American vision and idealism for the 21st century, because I believe it is.​

​Best,
(me)​

He has not responded yet, and I am counting down the seconds...