Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Bringing Moral Courage to American Politics

[iuwclurker]

View embedded media

You may not agree with AOC's political philosophies, but I don't think any sensible person could watch this discussion with Ta-Nehisi Coates (first ~50 min of the video) and think that this is a stupid person.

Woe to those who underestimate her. Wow! Setting aside her particular views, her depth of thought and her ability to articulate her ideas fluidly and clearly is far beyond most politicians today. And again, I see her intent as more practical than socialist -- she's more interested in solving the urgent problems than how.

I think she's making one profound mistake. She views society having billionaires as morally wrong. That view overlooks what such people have brought to the world. Her mistake is to think zero sum/scarcity. I think the more correct and accurate view of existence is that the wealthy and pro-wealthy policies are missing the opportunity to multiply the advancement of society for all by not including all people. In other words, the right policy needn't take away from the most successful, it should just incentivize the long-term approach of leveraging all human capital for the good of all. The end result would be the same for the billionaires. The difference would be that everyone else would be much better off. Instead of a GDP of $5 trillion, it would be a non-inflated $50 trillion.

~~~

Note: For those who don't like her social media and provocative approach, listen to ~50:00 to ~55:00.

 

[Digressions]

I think the more correct and accurate view of existence is that the wealthy and pro-wealthy policies are missing the opportunity to multiply the advancement of society for all by not including all people. In other words, the right policy needn't take away from the most successful, it should just incentivize the long-term approach of leveraging all human capital for the good of all. The end result would be the same for the billionaires. The difference would be that everyone else would be much better off. Instead of a GDP of $5 trillion, it would be a non-inflated $50 trillion.

^^^This^^^

This is what most people can't grasp about our current economic condition.

I would also add that AOC may be many things- a freshman, green, ignorant, all the things that she's been accused of- non of which, make her wrong.

 

[twenty02]

^^^This^^^

This is what most people can't grasp about our current economic condition.

I would also add that AOC may be many things- a freshman, green, ignorant, all the things that she's been accused of- non of which, make her wrong.

That's fine and all, but I've yet to see many actual real life policy proposals that would make much of a difference, re: economy. One could argue to some extent about our health care system, and it's lack of efficiency, but even that is a very tough nut to crack. And many people from across the political spectrum now agree that we've been way off track with our criminal justice system.

The rest of it all fizzles out once you go about one layer deep.

 

[twenty02]

Woe to those who underestimate her. Wow! Setting aside her particular views, her depth of thought and her ability to articulate her ideas fluidly and clearly is far beyond most politicians today. And again, I see her intent as more practical than socialist -- she's more interested in solving the urgent problems than how.

I think she's making one profound mistake. She views society having billionaires as morally wrong. That view overlooks what such people have brought to the world. Her mistake is to think zero sum/scarcity. I think the more correct and accurate view of existence is that the wealthy and pro-wealthy policies are missing the opportunity to multiply the advancement of society for all by not including all people. In other words, the right policy needn't take away from the most successful, it should just incentivize the long-term approach of leveraging all human capital for the good of all. The end result would be the same for the billionaires. The difference would be that everyone else would be much better off. Instead of a GDP of $5 trillion, it would be a non-inflated $50 trillion.

~~~

Note: For those who don't like her social media and provocative approach, listen to ~50:00 to ~55:00.

Ah.....the world is going to end in 12 years, according to her. And you are going to increase GDP ten-fold with your magic economic beans.

You think there is a reason that some of us do nothing but a lot of this.... when some talk?

I thought you were the self-described pragmatist? And yet you're getting all aroused by a far-left populist with ideas that are the antithesis of pragmatism?

"More worried with solving the problems than how".....isn't that the polar opposite of pragmatism and practicality?

 

[Digressions]

Ah.....the world is going to end in 12 years, according to her. And you are going to increase GDP ten-fold with your magic economic beans.

You think there is a reason that some of us do nothing but a lot of this.... when some talk?

I thought you were the self-described pragmatist? And yet you're getting all aroused by a far-left populist with ideas that are the antithesis of pragmatism?

"More worried with solving the problems than how".....isn't that the polar opposite of pragmatism and practicality?

Yeah, 10x is a bit too much. I assume he was exaggerating for effect. Current GDP is roughly 19T, so I don't think he was trying to be technical.

We keep getting hung up on individual rates, which I agree with you, will only take us so far, but it is a part of the solution. We mentioned capital gains, estate, the roll technology, automation, and globalization play. It's all a part of it. We will have to eventually raise taxes on the middle to upper middle class. But the rising tide didn't lift all boats, it lifted about 8% of them. The bottom line is that wealth and money will have to be redistributed to the middle class some how, some way.

What I took away from lurkers post is that we have reached a point where even the one percent are not reaching their potential. Why? In short, because we don't have a strong enough middle class to buy the goods and services the one percent is selling. We need growth, consumption, an increase in the velocity of the dollar.

In the graph you posted about effective tax rates for the one percent, you never responded to the response(someone else's btw). What would the graph look like if it were the top .1%? I would add, it shows a ~6% decrease in the ETR. That's not insignificant, when discussing wealth, when you compound it over 40 years. Especially when you compare what the top 1% made in the 50's as compared to today. Also, it doesn't take into account what the more progressive code did to keep those incomes suppressed relative to the middle class. With a very progressive structure at some point a person had to decide what to do with the next dollar of income they claimed. They could keep $.30 of each dollar, or they could buy a new piece of equipment (increase individual net worth and productivity, increase overall consumption and productivity), or hire another employee (increase individual productivity, increase overall productivity and pressure on wages). Somewhere along the way the choice changed to, if I can figure out a way to cut labor costs, I can keep $.75 of every dollar I save. Or if I'm lucky enough, I'll get paid in stock and if I hold it for two years, I can keep $.85.

What are your solutions to get money in the hands of the middle class? I assume we can all agree that should be our top priority.

Also, over the past hundred years, what was our highest GDP levels, and why?

Note: Sorry to ramble, and if I oversimplified.

 

[twenty02]

Yeah, 10x is a bit too much. I assume he was exaggerating for effect. Current GDP is roughly 19T, so I don't think he was trying to be technical.

We keep getting hung up on individual rates, which I agree with you, will only take us so far, but it is a part of the solution. We mentioned capital gains, estate, the roll technology, automation, and globalization play. It's all a part of it. We will have to eventually raise taxes on the middle to upper middle class. But the rising tide didn't lift all boats, it lifted about 8% of them. The bottom line is that wealth and money will have to be redistributed to the middle class some how, some way.

What I took away from lurkers post is that we have reached a point where even the one percent are not reaching their potential. Why? In short, because we don't have a strong enough middle class to buy the goods and services the one percent is selling. We need growth, consumption, an increase in the velocity of the dollar.

In the graph you posted about effective tax rates for the one percent, you never responded to the response(someone else's btw). What would the graph look like if it were the top .1%? I would add, it shows a ~6% decrease in the ETR. That's not insignificant, when discussing wealth, when you compound it over 40 years. Especially when you compare what the top 1% made in the 50's as compared to today. Also, it doesn't take into account what the more progressive code did to keep those incomes suppressed relative to the middle class. With a very progressive structure at some point a person had to decide what to do with the next dollar of income they claimed. They could keep $.30 of each dollar, or they could buy a new piece of equipment (increase individual net worth and productivity, increase overall consumption and productivity), or hire another employee (increase individual productivity, increase overall productivity and pressure on wages). Somewhere along the way the choice changed to, if I can figure out a way to cut labor costs, I can keep $.75 of every dollar I save. Or if I'm lucky enough, I'll get paid in stock and if I hold it for two years, I can keep $.85.

What are your solutions to get money in the hands of the middle class? I assume we can all agree that should be our top priority.

Also, over the past hundred years, what was our highest GDP levels, and why?

Note: Sorry to ramble, and if I oversimplified.

I don't know what the ETR was for the top 0.1%....not sure that data is even available going back two generations. And I'm not really sure that it matters, anyway. I think enough can be obtained from looking at top 1%.

The whole discussion is pointless anyway when discussing income tax rates. Wealth concentration doesn't come from income but from capital appreciation (Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc...didn't become fabulously wealthy from their salary they took for themselves from their firms).

If AOC had a clue what she was talking about whatsoever, she'd be discussing capital gains rates, not income tax rates. I've said for some years there should be some level of further progressivity added to the cap gains brackets.

As to how you "get more money in the hands of the middle class".....I have no clue, and I'm not sure anyone else really does either. You have to create economic forces that push wages for labor up. That means either increasing demand or reducing supply.

If you go the Trump/Breitbart angle....you want to cut immigrant labor and force the market to pay more for domestic workers. Combined with a tariff policy to tax imported goods, making domestic producers more competitive. This is on the reduce supply side. I don't agree with it at all, but it least has some rationale economic thought in there that you could debate on.

I've long talked about domestic demand growth being a demographic problem...namely the low birth rates in advanced economies. This isn't just an American phenomenon, it is even worse in Western Europe and Japan (and why their GDP growth rates are worse than ours, and the middle class are literally burning Paris).

One solution on the demand side would be higher levels of immigration. But that's not politically palatable to much of the country....and it does create friction within the lower and middle class labor markets, by holding their wages down in the interim until a robust demand kicks in a couple decades down the road.

I should have just stopped with I don't have an answer....and everyone should be really quite skeptical of any Twittering Twit politician that claims to.

 

[Digressions]

I don't know what the ETR was for the top 0.1%....not sure that data is even available going back two generations. And I'm not really sure that it matters, anyway. I think enough can be obtained from looking at top 1%.

The whole discussion is pointless anyway when discussing income tax rates. Wealth concentration doesn't come from income but from capital appreciation (Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc...didn't become fabulously wealthy from their salary they took for themselves from their firms).

If AOC had a clue what she was talking about whatsoever, she'd be discussing capital gains rates, not income tax rates. I've said for some years there should be some level of further progressivity added to the cap gains brackets.

As to how you "get more money in the hands of the middle class".....I have no clue, and I'm not sure anyone else really does either. You have to create economic forces that push wages for labor up. That means either increasing demand or reducing supply.

If you go the Trump/Breitbart angle....you want to cut immigrant labor and force the market to pay more for domestic workers. Combined with a tariff policy to tax imported goods, making domestic producers more competitive. This is on the reduce supply side.

I've long talked about domestic demand growth being a demographic problem...namely the low birth rates in advanced economies. This isn't just an American phenomenon, it is even worse in Western Europe and Japan (and why their GDP growth rates are worse than ours, and the middle class are literally burning Paris).

One solution on the demand side would be higher levels of immigration. But that's not politically palatable to much of the country....and it does create friction within the lower and middle class labor markets, by holding their wages down in the interim until a robust demand kicks in a couple decades down the road.

I should have just stopped with I don't have an answer....and everyone should be really quite skeptical of any Twittering Twit politician that claims to.

Thanks for the response. I agree with much of what you wrote. Especially what you're saying wrt the capital gains and wealth distribution.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

As to how you "get more money in the hands of the middle class".....I have no clue, and I'm not sure anyone else really does either. You have to create economic forces that push wages for labor up.

minimum wage.

you're welcome.

 

[iuwclurker]

I don't know what the ETR was for the top 0.1%....not sure that data is even available going back two generations. And I'm not really sure that it matters, anyway. I think enough can be obtained from looking at top 1%.

The whole discussion is pointless anyway when discussing income tax rates. Wealth concentration doesn't come from income but from capital appreciation (Gates, Buffett, Bezos, etc...didn't become fabulously wealthy from their salary they took for themselves from their firms).

If AOC had a clue what she was talking about whatsoever, she'd be discussing capital gains rates, not income tax rates. I've said for some years there should be some level of further progressivity added to the cap gains brackets.

As to how you "get more money in the hands of the middle class".....I have no clue, and I'm not sure anyone else really does either. You have to create economic forces that push wages for labor up. That means either increasing demand or reducing supply.

If you go the Trump/Breitbart angle....you want to cut immigrant labor and force the market to pay more for domestic workers. Combined with a tariff policy to tax imported goods, making domestic producers more competitive. This is on the reduce supply side. I don't agree with it at all, but it least has some rationale economic thought in there that you could debate on.

I've long talked about domestic demand growth being a demographic problem...namely the low birth rates in advanced economies. This isn't just an American phenomenon, it is even worse in Western Europe and Japan (and why their GDP growth rates are worse than ours, and the middle class are literally burning Paris).

One solution on the demand side would be higher levels of immigration. But that's not politically palatable to much of the country....and it does create friction within the lower and middle class labor markets, by holding their wages down in the interim until a robust demand kicks in a couple decades down the road.

I should have just stopped with I don't have an answer....and everyone should be really quite skeptical of any Twittering Twit politician that claims to.

I'm going to respond to this one rather than your prior one because you clearly sobered up a bit, or drank more, not sure which.

My review of AOC had to do with her mental acuity, knowledge and ability to fluidly articulate her thoughts. I attacked her ideology at its core. I guess you somehow missed that, Digressions didn't. For starters, I don't think tax policy is particularly relevant, which you seem to agree with here. What I'm thinking is all the pro-wealthy policies enacted from Reagan onward. I don't have that list in front of me but Rockfish1 does.

My favorite example is a company where I worked. The company had a banner year and the company's guru (my boss) wanted to re-invest the profits into the company for a conservatively estimated tenfold gain. The head honcho took that $1 million and pocketed it instead. The point was, if he could have waited another year, he could pocket his $1M and the company would have an additional $9M to play around with. He was an idiot, he refused to listen to the talent who really made the company what it was.

My $5T to $50T was just an example, not hard figures. (D'oh!) What I'm talking about is treating all working Americans as human resources and capitalizing on that power. That's the real power of any group or nation. The first capitalist was a human resource (to himself) before he amassed wealth using himself. This has nothing to do with her 70% marginal tax rates. In fact, imo that tax rate is the idiotic head honcho -- that's just taking investment capital away from the geniuses who know how best to use it. That's why it's the policies that have to incentivize human resources.

Edit: Another way to say it, the greed of the billionaires is hurting them most, because they gain the highest percentage from every new dollar anyway. They need to realize that scarcity is a lie and the zero-sum game is a lie. Our economy being so huge and growing is Exhibit A. The smartest possible game is to use all human resources available in a win-win game.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

I

My review of AOC had to do with her mental acuity, knowledge and ability to fluidly articulate her thoughts.

I guess this is just different strokes for different folks. I see a child who uses "um" and "like" every other word.

I've yet to see proof of any mental acuity. But you have a crush, so I understand.

 

[twenty02]

I'm going to respond to this one rather than your prior one because you clearly sobered up a bit, or drank more, not sure which.

My review of AOC had to do with her mental acuity, knowledge and ability to fluidly articulate her thoughts. I attacked her ideology at its core. I guess you somehow missed that, Digressions didn't. For starters, I don't think tax policy is particularly relevant, which you seem to agree with here. What I'm thinking is all the pro-wealthy policies enacted from Reagan onward. I don't have that list in front of me but Rockfish1 does.

My favorite example is a company where I worked. The company had a banner year and the company's guru (my boss) wanted to re-invest the profits into the company for a conservatively estimated tenfold gain. The head honcho took that $1 million and pocketed it instead. The point was, if he could have waited another year, he could pocket his $1M and the company would have an additional $9M to play around with. He was an idiot, he refused to listen to the talent who really made the company what it was.

My $5T to $50T was just an example, not hard figures. (D'oh!) What I'm talking about is treating all working Americans as human resources and capitalizing on that power. That's the real power of any group or nation. The first capitalist was a human resource (to himself) before he amassed wealth using himself. This has nothing to do with her 70% marginal tax rates. In fact, imo that tax rate is the idiotic head honcho -- that's just taking investment capital away from the geniuses who know how best to use it. That's why it's the policies that have to incentivize human resources.

Edit: Another way to say it, the greed of the billionaires is hurting them most, because they gain the highest percentage from every new dollar anyway. They need to realize that scarcity is a lie and the zero-sum game is a lie. Our economy being so huge and growing is Exhibit A. The smartest possible game is to use all human resources available in a win-win game.

If what you are saying about your former company is accurate, then I'd agree he's a crappy business owner and has likely been greatly surpassed by a firm that didn't look at things so short-sighted. But not really sure what govt policy can really do to correct crappy strategic decisions made by owners of firms.


Sounds a long way from billionaire status, however. Last I checked there were only about 500 billionaires in the entire country. And a good number of them are fairly overt progressives, particularly since tech has taken over as the top industry of the generation.

 

[iuwclurker]

If what you are saying about your former company is accurate, then I'd agree he's a crappy business owner and has likely been greatly surpassed by a firm that didn't look at things so short-sighted. But not really sure what govt policy can really do to correct crappy strategic decisions made by owners of firms.

sheesh, guy, are you trying to miss the point? Have Rockfish1's 4,567,345,789,432,234 posts on this sort of flown by you? I'm talking about legislation that tilts the playing field and so on. It's currently on the books.

 

[zeke4ahs]

View embedded media

You may not agree with AOC's political philosophies, but I don't think any sensible person could watch this discussion with Ta-Nehisi Coates (first ~50 min of the video) and think that this is a stupid person.

She isn’t stupid. At all. I think there are many things she doesn’t know yet and speaks out like she does. I have great confidence that she will learn much as she goes along the way. That’s one of my many beefs with Trump. He thinks he knows everything and refuses to listen to the experts. There is little hope of him learning.

 

[Digressions]

minimum wage.

you're welcome.

Small incremental increases in the minimum wage may be part of the solution. How many small businesses/mom and pop stores are reliant on minimum wage labor? I honestly don't know and will try to look it up.

I think infrastructure spending might be a better way to put upward pressure on stagnant wages. It would help gdp, and when we get done, maybe we'll have "nice things". Infrastructure alone won't solve the problem either, but it is a big missing ingredient to M(ing)AGA.

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

In the last two days AOC has said that the World is going to end in 12 years (via climate change), and that Billionaires are immoral.

No, definitely not dumb at all.

 

[iu-in-philly]

I agree that AOC is not "dumb", but perhaps ill-informed on certain matters. There is a difference between having the mental "capacity" to understand complex topics and simply not knowing enough (or have read enough) about the functional aspects of the topic.

I think what causes much of these problems is simply the nature of economics as a subject of study. One the one hand, econ has a degree of "moral" importance that if you chose to get interested in the subject, you could approach every discussion on econ as a moral choice reflecting the language of pure COAS/"social science" and be considered a serious economic thinker (ex: how do we as a country allow billionaires to retain so much wealth as others go hungry?) On the flip side, econ is also a VERY technical/functional science where there are mountains of white papers, books, studies and histories on how particular policies actually impact an economy's performance. And like the social science approach, you could simply focus on just the functional component questions and likewise be considered a serious advocate for policies (ex: what is the impact of high marginal tax rates on aggregate GDP?). I've studied econ since I was 12 and read about 1 econ book a month...and I still would never feel I had all the answers to how to shape policy in a way that would address both the social and functional components at the same time. Like a Dunning-Kruger effect, the more I read, the more I realized how much I had not yet read. AOC is clearly in the former group and is HIGHLY articulate about the social impacts of policy, but her inability (and sometimes outright refusal) to address the latter functional concerns is problematic.

AOC in a ways reminds me of sister-in-law. She's a writer in Portland and is highly intelligent and is a die-hard Socialist politically and a proud graduate of Oberlin. A neutral observer would likely see her as some caricature of a Portland socialist only PJ O'Rourke or Christopher Buckley could contrive. When she and I get into debates on econ policy, much of the moral vs functional rift presents itself. At a dinner party once she laid into me on a 5 minute tirade of tremendous eloquence about the immorality of climate change, economic privation of the underclass, governmental indifference to lack of healthcare and a host of social maladies with economic relevance. People at the party were literally high-fiving her after she was through. But when I pressed her on the simple questions of functionality (how much will your ideas cost? Who is paying for this and how? What impact may your ideas have on GDP, productivity, investment?) she not only had no real, direct answers, but the ones she gave made her otherwise intelligent presentation sound in the end like a fact-free, unrealistic, fantasy. "We'll just print more money"....but how will that impact inflation?...."Inflation and supply/demand issues are just a right-wing creation to maintain the status quo." It didn't get better as she went. After she was done with such comments, I got some high-fives.

Many of the lingering questions raised before in this thread by others (Scheffler90, lurker and others) seem pertinent. If we're going to completely overhaul the largest and most productive economy in the world, shouldn't it be done by people that have the most understanding of the functional aspects of such ideas? Much of the current presentation by AOC seems very eloquent on the pathos side, but very light and sometimes downright scary in the lack of logos. It is a very Trumpy approach to issues and one gladly some of the more moderate Dems are reacting to.

 

[Cortez88]

I agree that AOC is not "dumb", but perhaps ill-informed on certain matters. There is a difference between having the mental "capacity" to understand complex topics and simply not knowing enough (or have read enough) about the functional aspects of the topic.

I think what causes much of these problems is simply the nature of economics as a subject of study. One the one hand, econ has a degree of "moral" importance that if you chose to get interested in the subject, you could approach every discussion on econ as a moral choice reflecting the language of pure COAS/"social science" and be considered a serious economic thinker (ex: how do we as a country allow billionaires to retain so much wealth as others go hungry?) On the flip side, econ is also a VERY technical/functional science where there are mountains of white papers, books, studies and histories on how particular policies actually impact an economy's performance. And like the social science approach, you could simply focus on just the functional component questions and likewise be considered a serious advocate for policies (ex: what is the impact of high marginal tax rates on aggregate GDP?). I've studied econ since I was 12 and read about 1 econ book a month...and I still would never feel I had all the answers to how to shape policy in a way that would address both the social and functional components at the same time. Like a Dunning-Kruger effect, the more I read, the more I realized how much I had not yet read. AOC is clearly in the former group and is HIGHLY articulate about the social impacts of policy, but her inability (and sometimes outright refusal) to address the latter functional concerns is problematic.

AOC in a ways reminds me of sister-in-law. She's a writer in Portland and is highly intelligent and is a die-hard Socialist politically and a proud graduate of Oberlin. A neutral observer would likely see her as some caricature of a Portland socialist only PJ O'Rourke or Christopher Buckley could contrive. When she and I get into debates on econ policy, much of the moral vs functional rift presents itself. At a dinner party once she laid into me on a 5 minute tirade of tremendous eloquence about the immorality of climate change, economic privation of the underclass, governmental indifference to lack of healthcare and a host of social maladies with economic relevance. People at the party were literally high-fiving her after she was through. But when I pressed her on the simple questions of functionality (how much will your ideas cost? Who is paying for this and how? What impact may your ideas have on GDP, productivity, investment?) she not only had no real, direct answers, but the ones she gave made her otherwise intelligent presentation sound in the end like a fact-free, unrealistic, fantasy. "We'll just print more money"....but how will that impact inflation?...."Inflation and supply/demand issues are just a right-wing creation to maintain the status quo." It didn't get better as she went. After she was done with such comments, I got some high-fives.

Many of the lingering questions raised before in this thread by others (Scheffler90, lurker and others) seem pertinent. If we're going to completely overhaul the largest and most productive economy in the world, shouldn't it be done by people that have the most understanding of the functional aspects of such ideas? Much of the current presentation by AOC seems very eloquent on the pathos side, but very light and sometimes downright scary in the lack of logos. It is a very Trumpy approach to issues and one gladly some of the more moderate Dems are reacting to.

Good post. While I do not doubt that she gets ahead of her knowledge and experience on certain topics, she faces much more criticism.

For example, the GOP passed a massive tax cut for corporations and mostly high end earners. The rationale was the old trickle down economics. We’ve seen this movie before and know that it is voodoo economics. We know it won’t work and we know because we’ve all watched it fail before. Yet, no one was talking about GOP legislators like they talk about AOC. They didn’t call these men “silly” or “unaware of the real world”. Saying these tax cuts would pay themselves is just as silly as not knowing how you can pay for Medicare for all.

 

[Digressions]

Unfortunately, economists are rarely politicians.

Good post. While I do not doubt that she gets ahead of her knowledge and experience on certain topics, she faces much more criticism.

For example, the GOP passed a massive tax cut for corporations and mostly high end earners. The rationale was the old trickle down economics. We’ve seen this movie before and know that it is voodoo economics. We know it won’t work and we know because we’ve all watched it fail before. Yet, no one was talking about GOP legislators like they talk about AOC. They didn’t call these men “silly” or “unaware of the real world”. Saying these tax cuts would pay themselves is just as silly as not knowing how you can pay for Medicare for all.

Great post. The irony being that the most vocal critics, generally speaking, are the ones that ascribe to the failed policies that got us into this situation. IOW, they f'd it up so bad, they can't comprehend a way it could possibly be fixed.

 

[twenty02]

Good post. While I do not doubt that she gets ahead of her knowledge and experience on certain topics, she faces much more criticism.

For example, the GOP passed a massive tax cut for corporations and mostly high end earners. The rationale was the old trickle down economics. We’ve seen this movie before and know that it is voodoo economics. We know it won’t work and we know because we’ve all watched it fail before. Yet, no one was talking about GOP legislators like they talk about AOC. They didn’t call these men “silly” or “unaware of the real world”. Saying these tax cuts would pay themselves is just as silly as not knowing how you can pay for Medicare for all.

No, people are being gentle with her, just calling her silly or naive.

The alternative is just to call her a bold-faced liar, like I and most others called those in the GOP making claims about tax cuts paying for themselves.

Give her time, I guess, that's what she can aspire too after a couple decades in Washington.......... full blown political cynicism, where the lies are so obvious they aren't even worth acknowledging.

 

[hoosboot]

No, people are being gentle with her, just calling her silly or naive.

Hmmm...interesting. I would humbly suggest there is quite a bit more vitriol than just gentle criticism, but to each their own.

 

[iuwclurker]

a proud graduate of Oberlin

What year?

 

[IDontWannaLargeFarva]

What year?

Of course you went to Oberlin....... Now it all makes sense.

 

[iuwclurker]

No, people are being gentle with her, just calling her silly or naive.

The alternative is just to call her a bold-faced liar, like I and most others called those in the GOP making claims about tax cuts paying for themselves.

Give her time, I guess, that's what she can aspire too after a couple decades in Washington.......... full blown political cynicism, where the lies are so obvious they aren't even worth acknowledging.

 

[twenty02]

No booze until 9p.

Just picked some Rossville Union Rye....Will crack it at tipoff.

 

[Univee2]

No booze until 9p.

Just picked some Rossville Union Rye....Will crack it at tipoff.

You might have this emptied by the end of the first half. We might have one of the student managers subbing in at a guard spot before the game is over.

 

[iuwclurker]

6 in 10 Americans know AOC already. More conservatives than liberals!

And freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has swiftly made a name for herself, with nearly 6 in 10 adults holding a view of her one way or the other less than a month after taking office. Overall, 27% have a positive view, 32% a negative one. She is better known among Republicans than Democrats (33% of Republicans say they haven't heard of her or have no opinion, compared with 45% of Democrats), and more Republicans say they have a negative view of her (58%) than Democrats have a positive one (49%). Among independents, 35% have an unfavorable view, 23% a favorable one.​

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

She is better known among Republicans than Democrats (33% of Republicans say they haven't heard of her or have no opinion, compared with 45% of Democrats)

Big surprise.

 

[glidresquirrel]

6 in 10 Americans know AOC already. More conservatives than liberals!

And freshman Democratic congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has swiftly made a name for herself, with nearly 6 in 10 adults holding a view of her one way or the other less than a month after taking office. Overall, 27% have a positive view, 32% a negative one. She is better known among Republicans than Democrats (33% of Republicans say they haven't heard of her or have no opinion, compared with 45% of Democrats), and more Republicans say they have a negative view of her (58%) than Democrats have a positive one (49%). Among independents, 35% have an unfavorable view, 23% a favorable one.​

We all get it,for whatever reason you are completely enamored with her. Give it a try, ask her out and then get over it

 

[iuwclurker]

We all get it,for whatever reason you are completely enamored with her. Give it a try, ask her out and then get over it

You missed the point, dufalot. More conservatives know her than liberals. Treed yourself again, squirrel.

 

[MonroeCity]

It appears McConnell, in a move that shows true bipartisanship, is going to give the Democrats a chance to vote for her Green New Deal. We will see how many Senators vote to transform the U.S. into Venezuela but with less toilet paper.

 

[All4You]

Is this a win or a loss? An article from ealier in the week:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...-shocks-nyc-real-estate/ar-BBTlJ6D?li=BBnb7Kz

After a highly publicized search for a second headquarters, Amazon in November announced it was splitting the expansion between the New York neighborhood of Long Island City and Northern Virginia’s Crystal City. The company touted upwards of 50,000 jobs that the deal would create, while the real estate industry salivated over prospects for massive office developments.

They didn’t account for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the 29-year old freshly elected congresswoman, and other New York politicians who slammed the subsidies the city and state offered. That whipped up a political firestorm that may now be calling the deal into question.
For now, people are trying to assess whether it’s all just a bargaining tactic. Amazon has used the threat of slowing down its growth to win policy concessions in Seattle, where it’s headquartered and employs tens of thousands of workers.

And now, Amazon cancels it's NYC plans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...-to-build-headquarters-in-new-york/ar-BBTAJaa

 

[Hank Reardon]

Is this a win or a loss? An article from ealier in the week:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/rea...-shocks-nyc-real-estate/ar-BBTlJ6D?li=BBnb7Kz



And now, Amazon cancels it's NYC plans.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/com...-to-build-headquarters-in-new-york/ar-BBTAJaa

Not sure what AOC's connection is here specifically. But was this some sort of Atlas Shrugged gesture?

 

[All4You]

Not sure what AOC's connection is here specifically. But was this some sort of Atlas Shrugged gesture?

She was mentioned and/or quoted in both articles as being against the Amazon deal, along with other freshly minted (again, according to the Bloomberg article) NY politicians who for many reasons (subsidies, infrastructure, lack of unionization, increased rents) were against the deal. And it apparently cost them the deal. I posted it here since she was mentioned but afterwards Jamie posted it in another thread specifically about Amazon from November.

Edit:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...es-anything-is-possible/ar-BBTB80a?li=BBnb7Kz

Her tweet celebrating the news:

Anything is possible: today was the day a group of dedicated, everyday New Yorkers & their neighbors defeated Amazon’s corporate greed, its worker exploitation, and the power of the richest man in the world.

 

[twenty02]

I think it's time for people to stop ever thinking this is a smart person. She was stuck as late 20s bartender for a reason, even though she supposedly has a econ degree.




The $3b was tax incentives..... you hire 25k,
employees.....you will get this much off your tax bill (over a decade+). The state of NY was not writing a damn check to Amazon..... that money doesn't exist!

 

[Hank Reardon]

I think it's time for people to stop ever thinking this is a smart person. She was stuck as late 20s bartender for a reason, even though she supposedly has a econ degree.

View embedded media

The $3b was tax incentives..... you hire 25k,
employees.....you will get this much off your tax bill (over a decade+). The state of NY was not writing a damn check to Amazon..... that money doesn't exist!

Three billion? That's chump change anyway compared to the $21 trillion she's bringing in from those defense department bookkeeping errors. If she could look over my personal finances I'm, sure she could make me a wealthy man overnight. In her way.

 

[All4You]

I think it's time for people to stop ever thinking this is a smart person. She was stuck as late 20s bartender for a reason, even though she supposedly has a econ degree.

View embedded media

The $3b was tax incentives..... you hire 25k,
employees.....you will get this much off your tax bill (over a decade+). The state of NY was not writing a damn check to Amazon..... that money doesn't exist!

Three billion? That's chump change anyway compared to the $21 trillion she's bringing in from those defense department bookkeeping errors. If she could look over my personal finances I'm, sure she could make me a wealthy man overnight. In her way.

She should be embarrassed, but she would have to understand why she should be embarrassed first, and I just don't think her capable.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

I think it's time for people to stop ever thinking this is a smart person. She was stuck as late 20s bartender for a reason, even though she supposedly has a econ degree.

View embedded media

The $3b was tax incentives..... you hire 25k,
employees.....you will get this much off your tax bill (over a decade+). The state of NY was not writing a damn check to Amazon..... that money doesn't exist!

I have given her the benefit of the doubt while chuckling at her immature faux pas. I am beginning to wonder though.

 

[Hank Reardon]

I have given her the benefit of the doubt while chuckling at her immature faux pas. I am beginning to wonder though.

It’s quite possible that she’s not a moron, but merely assumes that everyone else is. And she may not be wrong considering how many Dem hopefuls are picking up her jackass ideas.

 

[IUJIM]

Yeah, 10x is a bit too much. I assume he was exaggerating for effect. Current GDP is roughly 19T, so I don't think he was trying to be technical.

We keep getting hung up on individual rates, which I agree with you, will only take us so far, but it is a part of the solution. We mentioned capital gains, estate, the roll technology, automation, and globalization play. It's all a part of it. We will have to eventually raise taxes on the middle to upper middle class. But the rising tide didn't lift all boats, it lifted about 8% of them. The bottom line is that wealth and money will have to be redistributed to the middle class some how, some way.

What I took away from lurkers post is that we have reached a point where even the one percent are not reaching their potential. Why? In short, because we don't have a strong enough middle class to buy the goods and services the one percent is selling. We need growth, consumption, an increase in the velocity of the dollar.

In the graph you posted about effective tax rates for the one percent, you never responded to the response(someone else's btw). What would the graph look like if it were the top .1%? I would add, it shows a ~6% decrease in the ETR. That's not insignificant, when discussing wealth, when you compound it over 40 years. Especially when you compare what the top 1% made in the 50's as compared to today. Also, it doesn't take into account what the more progressive code did to keep those incomes suppressed relative to the middle class. With a very progressive structure at some point a person had to decide what to do with the next dollar of income they claimed. They could keep $.30 of each dollar, or they could buy a new piece of equipment (increase individual net worth and productivity, increase overall consumption and productivity), or hire another employee (increase individual productivity, increase overall productivity and pressure on wages). Somewhere along the way the choice changed to, if I can figure out a way to cut labor costs, I can keep $.75 of every dollar I save. Or if I'm lucky enough, I'll get paid in stock and if I hold it for two years, I can keep $.85.

What are your solutions to get money in the hands of the middle class? I assume we can all agree that should be our top priority.

Also, over the past hundred years, what was our highest GDP levels, and why?

Note: Sorry to ramble, and if I oversimplified.

To answer your last question, I can only assume that GDP will never reach its highest levels of the past when close to 25% of GDP is comprised of our government..

 

[Digressions]

To answer your last question, I can only assume that GDP will never reach its highest levels of the past when close to 25% of GDP is comprised of our government..

When was it the highest? What percentage was government spending then? And why?