Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[skepticalbip]

Saving money under the bed is not the same as investing it, even if you put quotes around "invest" like this. Seriously. Since your point is that semantic quibbling means more than the big picture, you lose the argument automatically.

you missed the ,or saved. that would make it part of one's wealth. Cash in one's wallet or under a mattress is obviously part of one's wealth - until it is spent on something other than an asset. With the interest paid by savings accounts or interest bearing checking accounts today, there is little difference between them and a mattress. But saving is not income... it is one of the things one can do with income.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Saving money under the bed is not the same as investing it, even if you put quotes around "invest" like this. Seriously. Since your point is that semantic quibbling means more than the big picture, you lose the argument automatically.

you missed the ,or saved. that would make it part of one's wealth. Cash in one's wallet or under a mattress is obviously part of one's wealth - until it is spent on something other than an asset. With the interest paid by savings accounts or interest bearing checking accounts today, there is little difference between them and a mattress. But saving is not income... it is one of the things one can do with income.

...and you can also go do stuff with savings and investments. at the point of income, i.e. the income, it is contributing to wealth because it is a monetary asset. later, one may go to buy something and the debt will decrease one's wealth. that is how money works.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

That is a non sequitur.

How so? Infrastructure costs money. My wealth and the infrastructure that supports it are certainly connected. Separating wealth and income seems like an exercise in semantics. They are both possessions. They both require infrastructure to have value. Taxes paid should reflect that.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

She may or may not have some clue about economics but that is beside the point. She has stated that morality is more important than the facts. So, even if she understands the facts, they are irrelevant to her in her desire for her utopian dream.

I think you're in fantasy land. Do you have any quotes from AOC to back up your assertion?

Haven't you seen the quote from her saying morality was more important than the facts? (Context: When her numbers about the Pentagon were shown to be nonsense.)

One mention of it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...n-facts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b59f16c1cbf0

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The latter causes major inflation at the level any modern government needs to do it (you could fund government with the printing press if it were something like 10% of it's current size) and history shows it causes major problems for the economy.

History shows not, if you don't spend beyond your productive capacity - whether by "borrowing or the printing press".

The money supply needs to grow to match the growth in productivity. So long as you confine your spending to that growth you're fine. If you spend more than that you increase the money supply beyond what you're producing and you get inflation. The growth in productivity is roughly 10% of the current federal tax take.

No. We were in a disinflationay era but we are not anymore. That was an anomaly caused by a major government fuck-up, it isn't the normal state.

If you can increase the money supply by $4 trillion and there's no inflation, you are in a disinflationary era. The US inflation rate averaged 3.27% over the last century, and was down to 1.9% in Dec 2018. Productivity growth is still below pre-crisis levels and way below pre-neoliberal levels. Real wages have been flatlining for 40 years. There could hardly be a better time for expansionary fiscal policy.

I don't see what your numbers have to do with showing that we are now in a deflationary era. We added $4T when we were but that's not now.

Said inflation starts showing up at about 10% of current federal spending.

Wow, so current federal spending is 10x the level at which inflation starts accelerating? Don't think so.

Out of context! If you fund it with the printing press that's the limit before you get inflation. To spend more than that you have to take it back out of the economy somehow.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Income is part of wealth. I certainly don't pay income tax on my house or my car or my land but I certainly pay tax on those things based on their value. If I'm consuming 90% of the water in an area why should I only be paying for 36% of the water?

Possessing wealth doesn't consume it.

 

[Arctish]

She may or may not have some clue about economics but that is beside the point. She has stated that morality is more important than the facts. So, even if she understands the facts, they are irrelevant to her in her desire for her utopian dream.

I think you're in fantasy land. Do you have any quotes from AOC to back up your assertion?

Haven't you seen the quote from her saying morality was more important than the facts? (Context: When her numbers about the Pentagon were shown to be nonsense.)

One mention of it:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...n-facts/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b59f16c1cbf0

It's a mined quote, devoid of context and incomplete, presented as though it was an accurate summation of her thoughts.

Here is a link to a video clip of that part of her conversation with Anderson Cooper. As you can see, those who say it indicates AOC disregards the importance of facts have distorted her words almost beyond recognition.

 

[blastula]

She'd tried to downplay her mistake by saying being morally right is more important. It's weaselly, especially since whether you are morally right depends on the facts of the situation.

Her initial tweets about it are bad too.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1069307293752279040

After someone corrected her, she tweeted. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1069455599149219840

@TheNation: “DoD has literally been making up numbers in its reports to Congress— knowing that Congress would rely on those reports when deciding how much to give the following year.”

*To clarify, this is to say that we only demand fiscal details w/ health+edu, rarely elsewhere.

She moved the goalposts, since a fiscal details double standard was clearly not her original point. It'd be better for her to just admit she's human. That would be a real breath of fresh air. Because right now she's building a cult following that will defend her to the death even when she's wrong.

 

[Toni]

She'd tried to downplay her mistake by saying being morally right is more important. It's weaselly, especially since whether you are morally right depends on the facts of the situation.

Her initial tweets about it are bad too.

https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1069307293752279040

After someone corrected her, she tweeted. https://twitter.com/AOC/status/1069455599149219840

@TheNation: “DoD has literally been making up numbers in its reports to Congress— knowing that Congress would rely on those reports when deciding how much to give the following year.”

*To clarify, this is to say that we only demand fiscal details w/ health+edu, rarely elsewhere.

She moved the goalposts, since a fiscal details double standard was clearly not her original point. It'd be better for her to just admit she's human. That would be a real breath of fresh air. Because right now she's building a cult following that will defend her to the death even when she's wrong.

OMG: The youngest member of Congress to ever hold the office made a mistake!!!!!!!!!! How DARE she!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Meanwhile a genuine shitgibbon sits in the white house and believes it is a throne....

 

[blastula]

^Good example of the empty, phony defenses she gets. It's not that she made a mistake, it's that she lies about her mistake and then argues it doesn't matter anyway. And the whatabouttrump is just sad. As though as long as someone's not as bad as Trump, they can't be criticized. Magaheads have no standing to criticize her, but the rest of us in reality land do.

 

[Toni]

^Good example of the empty, phony defenses she gets. It's not that she made a mistake, it's that she lies about her mistake and then argues it doesn't matter anyway. And the whatabouttrump is just sad. As though as long as someone's not as bad as Trump, they can't be criticized. Magaheads have no standing to criticize her, but the rest of us in reality land do.

Good example of: newly elected person isn’t perfect and other people notice so trump isn’t an actual treasonous incompetent shitgibbon so yrmphaters are just as bad as trump and his treasonous fellow colluders and idiot supporters !!!!

 

[Arctish]

She'd tried to downplay her mistake by saying being morally right is more important.

No, she didn't. Here's a link to the entire interview.

Anderson Cooper: One of the criticisms of you is that— that your math is fuzzy. The Washington Post recently awarded you four Pinocchios—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Oh my goodness—

Anderson Cooper: —for misstating some statistics about Pentagon spending?

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: If people want to really blow up one figure here or one word there, I would argue that they're missing the forest for the trees. I think that there's a lot of people more concerned about being precisely, factually, and semantically correct than about being morally right.

Anderson Cooper: But being factually correct is important—

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: It's absolutely important. And whenever I make a mistake. I say, "Okay, this was clumsy." and then I restate what my point was. But it's— it's not the same thing as— as the president lying about immigrants. It's not the same thing, at all.

She said that people who focus on her occasional mistakes rather than on the points she raises are "missing the forest for the trees", and that getting a fact wrong here or there is not the same thing as lying.

Perhaps in a few months she'll learn how to make the point, that the morality underpinning an argument is more important than pedantry, so excruciatingly clear that even the Facebook MAGA bots will have trouble spinning it into her just blurting out "Facts don't matter".

 

[barbos]

21 trillion dollars twit was remarkably stupid and she has ..... economics degree. I predict that will stick to her for a long while.

 

[Trausti]

21 trillion dollars twit was remarkably stupid and she has ..... economics degree. I predict that will stick to her for a long while.

Nah. Give her time. She's got plenty more stupid things to say.

 

[Arctish]

Oh, it'll stick. It's like Trump calling Warren 'Pocahontas'. It's become a meme, and Trump supporters will keep repeating it forever.

 

[Axulus]

That is a non sequitur.

How so? Infrastructure costs money. My wealth and the infrastructure that supports it are certainly connected. Separating wealth and income seems like an exercise in semantics. They are both possessions. They both require infrastructure to have value. Taxes paid should reflect that.

Your argument is self defeating. If the rich were charged only for the public services they consume their taxes would be _substantially_ lower.

- - - Updated - - -

And she's fearless

With the economic pain and dire safety risks caused by the record-long government shutdown becoming clearer by the day, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and a group of her fellow freshman House Democrats marched to the Senate building on Wednesday to hand-deliver a letter demanding that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) immediately hold a vote to reopen the government.

After searching for and failing to find McConnell in the Republican cloakroom, his office, or on the Senate floor, the Democrats left copies of their letter on McConnell's desk and in his personal office.

#WheresMitch

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...emocrats-search-high-and-low-demand-mcconnell

What is fearless about a meaningless political stunt?

 

[barbos]

Oh, it'll stick. It's like Trump calling Warren 'Pocahontas'. It's become a meme, and Trump supporters will keep repeating it forever.

There is a difference, Trump is pretty much alone and wrong. Whereas in case of 21 trillion, even CNN is sticking it.

 

[Canard DuJour]

History shows not, if you don't spend beyond your productive capacity - whether by "borrowing or the printing press".

The money supply needs to grow to match the growth in productivity. So long as you confine your spending to that growth you're fine. If you spend more than that you increase the money supply beyond what you're producing and you get inflation.

Indeed, so if the economy gets stuck in a low-wage/low-productivity rut, direct fiscal stimulus can correct that. Several historical examples were given in the video link you've apparently edited out.

The growth in productivity is roughly 10% of the current federal tax take.

Meaning..?

No. We were in a disinflationay era but we are not anymore. That was an anomaly caused by a major government fuck-up, it isn't the normal state.

If you can increase the money supply by $4 trillion and there's no inflation, you are in a disinflationary era. The US inflation rate averaged 3.27% over the last century, and was down to 1.9% in Dec 2018. Productivity growth is still below pre-crisis levels and way below pre-neoliberal levels. Real wages have been flatlining for 40 years. There could hardly be a better time for expansionary fiscal policy.

I don't see what your numbers have to do with showing that we are now in a deflationary era. We added $4T when we were but that's not now.

I said disinflationary. Go get thee to a dictionary, Loren Pechtel.

Said inflation starts showing up at about 10% of current federal spending.

Wow, so current federal spending is 10x the level at which inflation starts accelerating? Don't think so.

Out of context! If you fund it with the printing press that's the limit before you get inflation.

That'd depend on macroeconomic conditions and, crucially, what the spending is on. I don't know where you're getting this 10%, but at least this is more like a sensible discussion of public finance than the usual household budget nonsense.

To spend more than that you have to take it back out of the economy somehow.

Fine. Tax, raise interest rates or cut spending as and when inflation kicks in. Don't hamstring the economy with an artificial scarcity of money just because some people don't like public spending.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Your argument is self defeating. If the rich were charged only for the public services they consume their taxes would be _substantially_ lower.

Not at all. Every bit of infrastructure in this country can be logically and proportionally attributed to the relative wealth that it sustains and protects. If it isn't doing that then what is it doing?

I'm not arguing to make rich people poor, which seems to be the bent that most people take. They are still going to be wealthy, they will simply be paying their fair share of taxes relative to that wealth.

 

[Elixir]

I'm not arguing to make rich people poor, which seems to be the bent that most rich people take. They are still going to be wealthy, they will simply be paying their fair share of taxes relative to that wealth.

FIFY
Thing is, our American oligarchs are not just looking to be rich to the point where they, their offspring, their grandchildren and great-grandchildren are set for life. They are each trying to set up dynasties to rule over the bourgeoisie for generations and generations. Little mini dictators, each with their own special American fiefdoms. You can't make them any less rich, or they are ceding territory to other oligarchs. No, they have to grab up as much wealth and property as possible under any circumstance - no limit. Boundless greed, in the true spirit of Ayn Rand.