Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Canard DuJour]

Several sympathetic commentators here seem to think AOC has made some naive economic mistakes, but have yet to articulate what they are. Seems to me she is courageously challenging some very flawed folk-economics that have been hindering economies like the US and UK for decades.

 

[untermensche]

Several sympathetic commentators here seem to think AOC has made some naive economic mistakes, but have yet to articulate what they are. Seems to me she is courageously challenging some very flawed folk-economics that have been hindering economies like the US and UK for decades.

She just says what is obvious.

Trillions appear when there is a war to profit off.

But there is nothing to move the US into the 21st century in terms of infrastructure, cost of college, universal health insurance, and a decent pension system that isn't taxed, paying for it was a tax, or reduced if a person decides to work a little.

 

[PyramidHead]

Several sympathetic commentators here seem to think AOC has made some naive economic mistakes, but have yet to articulate what they are. Seems to me she is courageously challenging some very flawed folk-economics that have been hindering economies like the US and UK for decades.

I agree, but she is doing so with hesitation:

Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, specifically has a problem with the proposed environmental initiative's call for the federal government to guarantee a job for all Americans.

"I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something," Trump said in an excerpt from an interview on Fox News' "The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton." The full interview is scheduled to air on Sunday.

"I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get," Trump said when asked about the proposed progressive guarantee.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., who was one of the Green New Deal resolution sponsors, responded to Trump's remarks in a tweet on Tuesday.

"As a person who actually worked for tips & hourly wages in my life, instead of having to learn about it 2nd-hand, I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live," Cortez said.

"A living wage isn’t a gift, it’s a right. Workers are often paid far less than the value they create."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eal-idea-of-guaranteed-employment/2991691002/

To anybody who understands capitalism and how it works, the "often" in the bolded statement is kind of strange. It's not that sometimes, if you have a really crappy boss or work for a greedy corporation, you might be unlucky enough to get paid far less than the value you create. As a structural feature, regardless of the business or the attitude of its owners, workers must be paid considerably less than the value they create, as this is the only way the owners can guarantee a return on their investment. Her phrasing here, which directly positions worker pay against value created, is undoubtedly taken from Marx. She knows what she's saying. But she doesn't want to come out and SAY it, which would be crossing a line that separates reformers of capitalism and unabashed critics of it. She frames the issue as people having the right to earn a wage high enough to live, which echoes the refrain of many progressives who say things like "Nobody should go hungry if they work 40 hours a week." That's a cop-out, a miserable substitute for what should be the actual commitment: nobody should go hungry! Again, I believe (or I hope) AOC knows this, but she feels she must straddle the fence and portion out her radicalism in measured doses.

For instance, this tweet is textbook Marx with a nice dose of Richard D. Wolff:



Yet, she never completes the circle and actually says why there should be workplace democracy, why it matters that workers create all the surplus value, and what this means for our way of economic and political life in America. This can only be tactical, as her language here and in other places convinces me she is well aware of the implications behind her words.

 

[untermensche]

...workers must be paid considerably less than the value they create, as this is the only way the owners can guarantee a return on their investment...

Yes.

It is a system where the many are trapped in service for the return on investment of the very few.

It is a world of deprivation and human servitude traps as the only means to survive for most.

But what Anarchists in Spain found out was you can do away with those at the top taking the lions share, pay off your loans just like the capitalist is paying off their loans with their servants, and everybody makes more and things run just fine democratically.

 

[ZiprHead]

Several sympathetic commentators here seem to think AOC has made some naive economic mistakes, but have yet to articulate what they are. Seems to me she is courageously challenging some very flawed folk-economics that have been hindering economies like the US and UK for decades.

I agree, but she is doing so with hesitation:

Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, specifically has a problem with the proposed environmental initiative's call for the federal government to guarantee a job for all Americans.

"I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something," Trump said in an excerpt from an interview on Fox News' "The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton." The full interview is scheduled to air on Sunday.

"I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get," Trump said when asked about the proposed progressive guarantee.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., who was one of the Green New Deal resolution sponsors, responded to Trump's remarks in a tweet on Tuesday.

"As a person who actually worked for tips & hourly wages in my life, instead of having to learn about it 2nd-hand, I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live," Cortez said.

"A living wage isn’t a gift, it’s a right. Workers are often paid far less than the value they create."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eal-idea-of-guaranteed-employment/2991691002/

To anybody who understands capitalism and how it works, the "often" in the bolded statement is kind of strange. It's not that sometimes, if you have a really crappy boss or work for a greedy corporation, you might be unlucky enough to get paid far less than the value you create. As a structural feature, regardless of the business or the attitude of its owners, workers must be paid considerably less than the value they create, as this is the only way the owners can guarantee a return on their investment. Her phrasing here, which directly positions worker pay against value created, is undoubtedly taken from Marx. She knows what she's saying. But she doesn't want to come out and SAY it, which would be crossing a line that separates reformers of capitalism and unabashed critics of it. She frames the issue as people having the right to earn a wage high enough to live, which echoes the refrain of many progressives who say things like "Nobody should go hungry if they work 40 hours a week." That's a cop-out, a miserable substitute for what should be the actual commitment: nobody should go hungry! Again, I believe (or I hope) AOC knows this, but she feels she must straddle the fence and portion out her radicalism in measured doses.

For instance, this tweet is textbook Marx with a nice dose of Richard D. Wolff:

View attachment 20340

Yet, she never completes the circle and actually says why there should be workplace democracy, why it matters that workers create all the surplus value, and what this means for our way of economic and political life in America. This can only be tactical, as her language here and in other places convinces me she is well aware of the implications behind her words.

If you're looking for a lengthy discussion of economic and social theory in Twitter, you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Several sympathetic commentators here seem to think AOC has made some naive economic mistakes, but have yet to articulate what they are. Seems to me she is courageously challenging some very flawed folk-economics that have been hindering economies like the US and UK for decades.

I agree, but she is doing so with hesitation:

Ivanka Trump, who also serves as a senior White House adviser, specifically has a problem with the proposed environmental initiative's call for the federal government to guarantee a job for all Americans.

"I don’t think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something," Trump said in an excerpt from an interview on Fox News' "The Next Revolution with Steve Hilton." The full interview is scheduled to air on Sunday.

"I’ve spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get," Trump said when asked about the proposed progressive guarantee.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, D-N.Y., who was one of the Green New Deal resolution sponsors, responded to Trump's remarks in a tweet on Tuesday.

"As a person who actually worked for tips & hourly wages in my life, instead of having to learn about it 2nd-hand, I can tell you that most people want to be paid enough to live," Cortez said.

"A living wage isn’t a gift, it’s a right. Workers are often paid far less than the value they create."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eal-idea-of-guaranteed-employment/2991691002/

To anybody who understands capitalism and how it works, the "often" in the bolded statement is kind of strange. It's not that sometimes, if you have a really crappy boss or work for a greedy corporation, you might be unlucky enough to get paid far less than the value you create. As a structural feature, regardless of the business or the attitude of its owners, workers must be paid considerably less than the value they create, as this is the only way the owners can guarantee a return on their investment. Her phrasing here, which directly positions worker pay against value created, is undoubtedly taken from Marx. She knows what she's saying. But she doesn't want to come out and SAY it, which would be crossing a line that separates reformers of capitalism and unabashed critics of it. She frames the issue as people having the right to earn a wage high enough to live, which echoes the refrain of many progressives who say things like "Nobody should go hungry if they work 40 hours a week." That's a cop-out, a miserable substitute for what should be the actual commitment: nobody should go hungry! Again, I believe (or I hope) AOC knows this, but she feels she must straddle the fence and portion out her radicalism in measured doses.

For instance, this tweet is textbook Marx with a nice dose of Richard D. Wolff:

View attachment 20340

Yet, she never completes the circle and actually says why there should be workplace democracy, why it matters that workers create all the surplus value, and what this means for our way of economic and political life in America. This can only be tactical, as her language here and in other places convinces me she is well aware of the implications behind her words.

Yeah, and she shouldn't hesitate.

But almost everyone else on the supposedly left/progressive side has been cleaving to household-fallacy economics for decades. Labour MPs (UK) are still instructed not to challenge it publicy. Because "focus groups" suggest that voters can't get their heads round the difference between an economy and a household - as otherwise sympathetic posters here evidently can't ..yet.

Eventually someone with no corporate ties and charisma coming out of their ears has to start saying the unacceptable - like the above - and then it enters public discourse..

 

[Harry Bosch]

I agree, but she is doing so with hesitation:



https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...eal-idea-of-guaranteed-employment/2991691002/

To anybody who understands capitalism and how it works, the "often" in the bolded statement is kind of strange. It's not that sometimes, if you have a really crappy boss or work for a greedy corporation, you might be unlucky enough to get paid far less than the value you create. As a structural feature, regardless of the business or the attitude of its owners, workers must be paid considerably less than the value they create, as this is the only way the owners can guarantee a return on their investment. Her phrasing here, which directly positions worker pay against value created, is undoubtedly taken from Marx. She knows what she's saying. But she doesn't want to come out and SAY it, which would be crossing a line that separates reformers of capitalism and unabashed critics of it. She frames the issue as people having the right to earn a wage high enough to live, which echoes the refrain of many progressives who say things like "Nobody should go hungry if they work 40 hours a week." That's a cop-out, a miserable substitute for what should be the actual commitment: nobody should go hungry! Again, I believe (or I hope) AOC knows this, but she feels she must straddle the fence and portion out her radicalism in measured doses.

For instance, this tweet is textbook Marx with a nice dose of Richard D. Wolff:

View attachment 20340

Yet, she never completes the circle and actually says why there should be workplace democracy, why it matters that workers create all the surplus value, and what this means for our way of economic and political life in America. This can only be tactical, as her language here and in other places convinces me she is well aware of the implications behind her words.

Yeah, and she shouldn't hesitate.

But almost everyone else on the supposedly left/progressive side has been cleaving to household-fallacy economics for decades. Labour MPs (UK) are still instructed not to challenge it publicy. Because "focus groups" suggest that voters can't get their heads round the difference between an economy and a household - as otherwise sympathetic posters here evidently can't ..yet.

Eventually someone with no corporate ties and charisma coming out of their ears has to start saying the unacceptable - like the above - and then it enters public discourse..

Except for the uncomfortable fact that workers don't create all the surplus value. In fact, many products are developed years before a single worker is even hired. For example, I invented a dental device. We built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices, established the initial markets, established the initial financing and equity, all before we hired our first worker.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Bear in mind that AOC majored in "international relations and economics" at Boston University. She no doubt understands economics on a level that most folks don't, but probably couldn't deconstruct or challenge a DSGE or ILM model. If she presents herself as some economic authority, economic authorities will be wheeled out to belittle her. So she's treading a fine line that most of us would fall off.

 

[laughing dog]

Has the Nobel Prize still have any credibility after Yasser Arafat, Al Gore, Obongo, and others were awarded it?

Throwing in a tinge of racism sure helps your idiotic argument.

Racism? As one of our Australian clueless politicians [also a female] would say: please explain!

No one named "Obango" has won the Nobel Peace Prize. And throwing in a tinge of misogyny in your attempt to defend your idiotic argument does not really help at all.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Except for the uncomfortable fact that workers don't create all the surplus value. In fact, many products are developed years before a single worker is even hired. For example, I invented a dental device. We built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices, established the initial markets, established the initial financing and equity, all before we hired our first worker.

Harry, you were in every respect a worker.

Someone who merely lent you money at interest to do that, wasn't.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Except for the uncomfortable fact that workers don't create all the surplus value. In fact, many products are developed years before a single worker is even hired. For example, I invented a dental device. We built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices, established the initial markets, established the initial financing and equity, all before we hired our first worker.

Harry, you were in every respect a worker.

Someone who merely lent you money at interest to do that, wasn't.

But we couldn't have done it on our own. We needed capital. We brought in an investor who financed our startup. He also had connections in the dental world. We have him 30% and a seat. He pretty much stayed out of the way. But we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now without his trust, connections, and excess cash to invest! BTW: we offered early workers a chance to invest in the company by forgoing some wages in exchange for shares. Most wanted the higher wages. Startups are very risky...

 

[PyramidHead]

If you're looking for a lengthy discussion of economic and social theory in Twitter, you're looking in the wrong place.

Some of the most insightful economic discussions take place on Twitter, believe it or not, though usually not from politicians.

 

[PyramidHead]

Except for the uncomfortable fact that workers don't create all the surplus value. In fact, many products are developed years before a single worker is even hired. For example, I invented a dental device. We built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices, established the initial markets, established the initial financing and equity, all before we hired our first worker.

Harry, you were in every respect a worker.

Someone who merely lent you money at interest to do that, wasn't.

But we couldn't have done it on our own. We needed capital. We brought in an investor who financed our startup. He also had connections in the dental world. We have him 30% and a seat. He pretty much stayed out of the way. But we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now without his trust, connections, and excess cash to invest! BTW: we offered early workers a chance to invest in the company by forgoing some wages in exchange for shares. Most wanted the higher wages. Startups are very risky...

You're making the left's point: a system where productive, talented, creative work cannot be undertaken to help people it can benefit without a third party (who doesn't work but has access to wealth and pieces of paper entitling him to property) to take a cut of the surplus created by the workers, is badly skewed in favor of the third party. You're giving somebody who contributed nothing at all to the value of what you made 30% of the earnings, not because of an immutable law of nature, but because the materials, tools, and infrastructure of production is placed beyond your reach; it must be purchased from its owners, who are not dental device creators but landlords. So, instead of having access to the productive capacity you need to manufacture your product and distribute it to those who could use it purely by virtue of being someone who makes useful things that society can benefit from, you have to borrow money from one person to pay another person for that capacity.

Neither of those people are doing anything inherently worthwhile, and are only needed because capitalism cannot accommodate giving you and people like you direct control of socially productive resources. It's not because there's any kind of shortage or scarcity, either. In America, 20% of our productive capacity--office space, factory floors, machinery, vehicles--sit collecting dust. There are people who want to work, work that needs to be done, and stuff to do it with, but because this is a capitalist society, we must wait for someone who doesn't do any work to buy some of those idle resources, then wait for someone to lend money for others to purchase or rent them, and still others to commit money to renting human beings to use them.

 

[untermensche]

She is expressing the same views that led to the development of Anarchism in Spain. But Spain moved from a very powerful union system to Anarchism at a time when the capitalist system had collapsed and was weakened. A much easier move.

Getting capital for a worker owned venture is difficult but not impossible.

You still need leaders and true leaders do deserve rewards when they lead well. But leaders do not need to be a special class. They can exist anywhere in a system where anyone can lead.

A democratic workplace represents as much a move towards freedom as a democratic government.

 

[Canard DuJour]

Except for the uncomfortable fact that workers don't create all the surplus value. In fact, many products are developed years before a single worker is even hired. For example, I invented a dental device. We built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices, established the initial markets, established the initial financing and equity, all before we hired our first worker.

Harry, you were in every respect a worker.

Someone who merely lent you money at interest to do that, wasn't.

But we couldn't have done it on our own. We needed capital. We brought in an investor who financed our startup. He also had connections in the dental world. We have him 30% and a seat. He pretty much stayed out of the way. But we wouldn't have gotten to where we are now without his trust, connections, and excess cash to invest! BTW: we offered early workers a chance to invest in the company by forgoing some wages in exchange for shares. Most wanted the higher wages. Startups are very risky...

So imagine if the investor had just given you the money without you having sussed that dental innovation. You could, at best, just have given him the same money back. Any multiplication of his investment necessarily came from your having "built the prototype, established the supply chain, set up the manufacturing process, secured all the IP and patents, built the first 100 devices". That is all human labour, without which there'd be no profit. Capitalism, as Marx observed, is an astonishing multiplying force - the most progressive in history.

 

[Canard DuJour]

..ISLM, btw.

 

[lpetrich]

Ivanka Trump On Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal

In her 2009 self-help book The Trump Card: Playing to Win In Work and Life, Ivanka Trump (or, her ghostwriter) recalls her first entrepreneurial venture: a lemonade stand with her brothers. She makes sure to point out that their parents didn't help them at all, and that their stand's location "at the end of a cul-de-sac in an affluent community of spacious homes on sprawling properties" kept them from having any customers. You almost begin to think that she understands what structural disadvantages are!

But then, Ivanka's hired help steps in to boost the business (heiresses, they're just like us). "As good fortune would have it, we had a bodyguard that summer, and it fell to him to watch us in an unobtrusive way whenever we left our front yard. That cast him as our target market, and by the end of the afternoon we got this poor guy to drink so much lemonade it's a wonder his bladder didn't burst. Just to keep us in business." Ah, good old-fashioned worker exploitation to maximize profits.

White House aides call Ivanka Trump ‘Princess Royal’: report | TheHill Privately, and behind her back. Or so some people claim. But it seems very plausible.

 

[southernhybrid]

I just want to say that AOC did an excellent job when questioning Cohen, just a few minutes ago. She handled herself extremely well and I can't say that about any of the Republicans or many of the Democrats.

 

[Angry Floof]

I just want to say that AOC did an excellent job when questioning Cohen, just a few minutes ago. She handled herself extremely well and I can't say that about any of the Republicans or many of the Democrats.

Yes, she did. Excellent questions and you bet your ass they will be followed up on based on Cohen's answers as to where the evidence of the answers could be found. Also, she did not waste her time opining or moralizing about Trump or anyone else. Just questions, and the answers to those questions hanging in the air perfectly. Not that anyone else's moralizing about our corrupt President were a huge waste of time given it just means the comments are on the record.

 

[laughing dog]

wrong thread