Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[skepticalbip]

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.

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate or nationalize it?

 

[PyramidHead]

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.

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate it?

Facebook, like every company, should be owned by the people who maintain it: the programmers, database administrators, artists, writers, and everyone else involved in actually producing and updating the web service itself. I would actually go even further and say it should probably be publicly owned and operated.

 

[skepticalbip]

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate it?

Facebook, like every company, should be owned by the people who maintain it: the programmers, database administrators, artists, writers, and everyone else involved in actually producing and updating the web service itself. I would actually go even further and say it should probably be publicly owned and operated.

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

 

[PyramidHead]

Really? Then you believe that the government should not allow Mark Zuckerberg to retain his shares of facebook? You do know that his massive wealth is overwhelmingly his ownership of facebook don't you? And what do you think the government should do with facebook once they confiscate it?

Facebook, like every company, should be owned by the people who maintain it: the programmers, database administrators, artists, writers, and everyone else involved in actually producing and updating the web service itself. I would actually go even further and say it should probably be publicly owned and operated.

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

It would have been created by any other person or people with the same basic idea, like most major inventions. Don't buy into the entrepreneurial myth of the Idea Man who everybody else just trails alongside as spectators.

 

[J842P]

NVM

 

[skepticalbip]

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

It would have been created by any other person or people with the same basic idea, like most major inventions. Don't buy into the entrepreneurial myth of the Idea Man who everybody else just trails alongside as spectators.

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

 

[J842P]

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

It would have been created by any other person or people with the same basic idea, like most major inventions. Don't buy into the entrepreneurial myth of the Idea Man who everybody else just trails alongside as spectators.

Not to mention, it's not like Zuckerberg had any particularly new ideas. Social networks that worked essentially the same as Facebook already existed and were popular, in fact.

What the Zuck was able to do was make FB the most popular one, and I think that was mostly due to the way they rolled it out: first only Harvard, then the Ivy League schools, then a select few colleges, then everyone.

When I got facebook, I had to wait until I had my college e-mail address to register.

It was the allure of being in a more exclusive one... until they opened it to everyone.

 

[laughing dog]

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

It would have been created by any other person or people with the same basic idea, like most major inventions. Don't buy into the entrepreneurial myth of the Idea Man who everybody else just trails alongside as spectators.

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

Only under the unsubstatantiated assumption that the motivating factor driving these innovations is the desire for massive amounts of income/wealth.

 

[skepticalbip]

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

Only under the unsubstatantiated assumption that the motivating factor driving these innovations is the desire for massive amounts of income/wealth.

The motivating factor (despite the risk assumed) is the chance of a return for the time, effort, and expense. Once that is realized (if it is realized rather than a loss), more time, effort, and expense is applied for improvement and expansion of the enterprise for a greater return... etc. Each step of expansion creates more jobs for employees and more return.

 

[Toni]

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.

Neither a small nor an exclusive club, Trausti.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is not what she will say, but what she will accomplish in office. When we compare to Bush and the Republican Congress that all but destroyed the America economy, she is going to have to really do a lot of truly stupid things to top the Shrub and company.

Trump: "Here's the big tax cuts I promised!".
Mitch McConnell: "Look at these massive deficits! I guess we will have to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To balance the Budget!".

It is going to be hard to top that sort of screaming stupidity, all by herself.

 

[laughing dog]

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

Only under the unsubstatantiated assumption that the motivating factor driving these innovations is the desire for massive amounts of income/wealth.

The motivating factor (despite the risk assumed) is the chance of a return for the time, effort, and expense.

Okay, but that does not require the return to mostly monetary in nature. Other factors motivate innovators.

 

[PyramidHead]

If such a system were in place then there is very little likelihood that there would be a facebook because Zuckerberg would have had no reason to spend the time, effort, and expense to create it. All those employees would not have the jobs they now hold.

It would have been created by any other person or people with the same basic idea, like most major inventions. Don't buy into the entrepreneurial myth of the Idea Man who everybody else just trails alongside as spectators.

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

Honestly, that would probably be better for everybody except Zuckerberg.

 

[skepticalbip]

It could have been created by any other person but it wouldn't have been for the same reason there is little chance that Zuckerberg would have. It could have by all the current employees getting together and doing it and still can if they want to. But that requires effort and time with no guarantee of success so few people willing to do it. People, in general, want security and avoid risk that is why there aren't a lot of entrepreneurs. A job with a company established by one of those entrepreneurs provides that security so few people are willing to break away to form a business with their fellow workers.

So again, if the system you describe were in place there is little likelihood that there would be a facebook or the jobs those employees now hold.

Honestly, that would probably be better for everybody except Zuckerberg.

Now I can agree with that. No facebook could get people back to thinking about something important rather than worrying about attracting facebook friends. But then more than Zuckerberg would be negatively effected... there are thousands of facebook employees that would be left in the cold without a job.

But facebook was just an example of many large companies where the same argument of they likely wouldn't exist applies.

 

[Horatio Parker]

The problem is not what she will say, but what she will accomplish in office. When we compare to Bush and the Republican Congress that all but destroyed the America economy, she is going to have to really do a lot of truly stupid things to top the Shrub and company.

Trump: "Here's the big tax cuts I promised!".
Mitch McConnell: "Look at these massive deficits! I guess we will have to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To balance the Budget!".

It is going to be hard to top that sort of screaming stupidity, all by herself.

That's the nub. She rejects that framing i.e. since taxes have been cut, we can't afford [insert social program here].

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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".

A better discussion of the problem: https://hotair.com/archives/2019/01/07/aoc-facts-dont-matter-youre-morally-right/

Actually, it’s precisely the same thing, and gets to my first point about this attitude being a lot more mainstream than either side wants to pretend.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

I agree that there are times injecting money into the economy is the right thing to do. That doesn't mean you can do that in general as a way of funding the government.

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

Meaning..?

GDP grows on average a bit over 2%/year. Federal tax revenue is a bit over 20% of GDP/year. Thus if you want to fund the government with only what you can inject without causing harm you need to cut out 90% of government spending.

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.

I note your first option is tax--but this was being presented as an alternative to tax!

As for raising interest rates, that's not going to do any good. Raising interest rates is about slowing the rate money moves around and thus lowering the effective money supply. To overcome this huge injection of cash you'll have to raise them a lot every year. Pretty soon nobody will borrow and your control breaks.

And we aren't hamstringing the economy. We are trying to keep it going smoothly--the supply of money matches the goods & services available so prices stay stable. What you seem to be advocating (accepting inflation to boost the economy) was already tried--and we got stagflation. The gains are short term, the pain doesn't go away nearly so easily.

 

[skepticalbip]

I agree that there are times injecting money into the economy is the right thing to do. That doesn't mean you can do that in general as a way of funding the government.

Yes, that is the half of Keynesian economics that our politicians like. The other half is ignored.

It is good to stabilize (boost) the economy during recessionary periods by injecting money through expanding government spending. The half they ignore is that it is good to stabilize (reign in) the economy during inflationary periods by decreasing government spending.

 

[Angry Floof]

Fox News Debuts Premium Channel For 24-Hour Coverage Of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is not what she will say, but what she will accomplish in office. When we compare to Bush and the Republican Congress that all but destroyed the America economy, she is going to have to really do a lot of truly stupid things to top the Shrub and company.

Trump: "Here's the big tax cuts I promised!".
Mitch McConnell: "Look at these massive deficits! I guess we will have to slash Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. To balance the Budget!".

It is going to be hard to top that sort of screaming stupidity, all by herself.

That's the nub. She rejects that framing i.e. since taxes have been cut, we can't afford [insert social program here].

Republicans in Congress:
"Well, maybe the massive tax cuts McConnell wants to use to slash Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid isn't a good idea, but we can't roll these tax cuts back because we can't raise taxes. We all signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes. Alas, our hands are tied. Otherwise if we did, Grover would see to it that we are primaryed by an angry Tea Party Republican."