so, what this article is telling me is that these third way people don't understand economics.

the kneejerk response is that the way to increase opportunity is to offer free tuition, and i support that, but not in that context. free tuition on it's own is likely to restrict opportunity by creating increased competition for scarce positions and even more downward pressures on wages. we are already over-educated for the job market that exists; we have people with master's degrees waiting tables, and people trying to balance defending their thesis with their coffee shop job - and potentially even realizing that there are more long term opportunities at the coffee shop.

debt is a burden, sure. but, the more pressing requirement at the moment is job creation.

and, how do we create jobs? c'mon kids: how do we create jobs?

(*crickets*)

by stimulating an increase in aggregate demand!

(oh. yeah. of course. increasing demand. how could i forget?)

the tuition thing is actually supply-side economics. it's not sanders' argument, mind you - he wants to cut the debt, which works out to a tax cut for the lower middle class, which is the kind of tax cuts you want, in order to stimulate the economy. it's better thought through than his opponents would have you believe, because i've never seen a costing with a proper multiplier effect worked in. the truth is that it will actually pay for itself in tax revenue, as all of that money lost to tuition instead gets spent on stuff.

which brings us back to the initial question: what do you do to increase opportunity? you stimulate an increase in aggregate demand, which is the only way that we know how to create jobs. and, how do you do that? you give more money to people that have less, so they can spend it.

if these guys had any idea at all what they're talking about, they would realize that.

but, maybe they just want to open up more spaces in astronaut school.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/business/economy/democratic-party-economy-inequality.html