The AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) thread



There is no 3 billion…it’s a tax incentive in return for 25-40k jobs what is estimated to generate 37 billion, not to mention 2.5 billion promised to invest into long island.


Bernie demonstrates his policies :joy:


Indeed. It’s not difficult to figure out what she meant. Unemployment is low because many people are doing multiple shite jobs. This is a key factor in the political situation in many developed countries.


To clarify her point. It’s easy to get full employment when you don’t mandate a living wage and count below living wage occupations as jobs.


A job is a job though, otherwise we may have to consider the 8 years of #44 as a catastrophe… #literallyshaking


Unemployment is going to be higher with her scaring everyone away from NY. I spent a lot of time in Long Island with a lot of my friends there. They really could have benefited from Amazon HQ2. Not saying it is perfect but it was a good deal, not like Foxconn.


Conversely, it’s easy to raise the unemployment rate by mandating a “living wage.” Surely a low-paying job is better than no job at all?


Hey if you’re gonna be delusional and self aggrandizing, swing for the fences! I like that.


I don’t see how you’re making any arguments or adding anything when you’re saying things like “you’re just jealous!”

split this topic #291

A post was split to a new topic: From AOC


That deserves a debate all of its own. Which one do you prefer? 4 percent unemployment with min 2400 a month vs 2 percent unemployment with 1400 a month. Of course, actual numbers need input from actual economists, I’m just demonstrating that higher unemployment is not necessarily worse for the average person.


It’s worse if you’re one of those people who has no job at all.


Capitalism has not always existed in the world, and it will not always exist in the world.

That’s the last sentence she spoke to Hoover, and she’s completely wrong.

Capitalism has always existed in the world, capitalism is a normal human behavior. We humans trade, we barter, we learn how to accumulate excess for lean times, to save, we then look for ways to convert that excess to profit (or at the very least no loss, like in converting excess grain into alcohol), we hoard. We humans have done this forever.

Illegal capitalist behavior existed in the USSR, in communist China, in Venezuela now.

AOC is just completely on the wrong side of history. She has simply chosen the wrong team. I don’t think there’s any question about it.


Feudalism wasn’t capitalism. How can serfdom or slavery be capitalist?


It depends on your definition. I would say capitalism originated in trade and commerce and is a natural human behavior you can see from the earliest humans with one another. There just wasn’t a lot of capital before for it to really flourish and was restrained by feudalism. Even then, there was a form of capitalism with mercantilism during that time that preceded the different types of capitalism we have that are a bit of a hybrid.

Even during feudal times, there were totally black market transactions with things the Kings and lord could not fully control. Black markets are pretty much pure capitalism.


What was the punishment for withholding grain or milk (or nearly anything) from the vassal’s master?

Why was such a punishment established? I mean, if trading/saving/hoarding is not a normal human behavior, then it’s just an aberration and can be ignored. Why have laws established about the consequences?

I’m no expert on feudalism. However, I suspect the economy was capitalist for feudal lords and kings. Feudalism was just a way to keep vassals conveniently out of the cut. And it didn’t last.


This applies to every concept.

My definition is an economic system where individuals control trade, not the state. If we’re going to allow exceptions within a state such as black markets then, yes, every economic system has always been capitalist. Medieval kingdoms, the Soviet Union, North Korea…


If she defines unemployment as people sitting around not working, then that would probably be the only way I can makes sense of what she’s saying.

But that’s not how the BLS defines the unemployment rate. Since she majored in economics, she should have learned that in either beginning or intermediate macroeconomics.

Unemployment Rate = Number of People Employed / (Number of People Employed + Number of Peoplen Unemployed)

If you work 1 job, that’s a 1 in the numerator. If you work 2 jobs, that’s still a 1.

What’s also bizarre is if she studied mainstream economics, she shouldn’t been saying all this death to capitalism stuff because all economics is is how markets produce the optimal outcome (absent certain exxeptions).

Unless she went to UMass, New School or Utah, (which she didn’t).

Noticed I haven’t called her stupid.


I think you need to quote what you think she said and your understanding of what she meant.


But it’s rather telling of our nature no?