Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Derec]

AOC is a wonderful Congresswoman and, by the way, probably understands economics better than most of the Republioturds in the House.

If she did understand economics, she would not be a socialist.

Get back to us with a valid complaint when one of AOC's impractical plans actually passes both Houses of Congress and gets signed into law by POTUS.

There is nothing to pass anyway. Five years since she first introduced her GND, and she still did not write any actual legislation.
The devil is always in the details. Writing a resolution is easy.

 

[ZiprHead]

AOC is a wonderful Congresswoman and, by the way, probably understands economics better than most of the Republioturds in the House.

If she did understand economics, she would not be a socialist.

Sez the computer programmer/"amateur economist".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

By all means. And also appreciate the challenges and the scale of the task. These major changes to the US economy took decades to proliferate. AOC's GND had a horizon of 10 years, and almost half of it is already gone and she hasn't even written the actual legislation, much less passed it.
The GND was also filled with left-wing ideas unrelated to climate or environment, ideas such as federal job guarantees, as well as unpopular ideas like getting rid of air travel or "farting cows".

Air travel makes a convenient demon but I strongly suspect that unless the rest of society is green then air travel isn't not green. The thing is there is a strong relationship between the energy that goes into a product and the cost of that product. And for most long distance passenger transport the costs by far favor going by air. Since little of that input energy was green in all probability less CO2 came out of the airplane.

 

[scombrid]

AOC is a wonderful Congresswoman and, by the way, probably understands economics better than most of the Republioturds in the House.

If she did understand economics, she would not be a socialist.

Get back to us with a valid complaint when one of AOC's impractical plans actually passes both Houses of Congress and gets signed into law by POTUS.

There is nothing to pass anyway. Five years since she first introduced her GND, and she still did not write any actual legislation.
The devil is always in the details. Writing a resolution is easy.

Tell us about economics with your candidate proposing to eliminate the income tax and replace it with yuge tariffs on imports. Aside from being insanely regressive what do you think that would do to prices, GDP, etc...?

 

[Swammerdami]

AOC is a wonderful Congresswoman and, by the way, probably understands economics better than most of the Republioturds in the House.

If she did understand economics, she would not be a socialist.

Get back to us with a valid complaint when one of AOC's impractical plans actually passes both Houses of Congress and gets signed into law by POTUS.

There is nothing to pass anyway. Five years since she first introduced her GND, and she still did not write any actual legislation.
The devil is always in the details. Writing a resolution is easy.

Tell us about economics with your candidate proposing to eliminate the income tax and replace it with yuge tariffs on imports. Aside from being insanely regressive what do you think that would do to prices, GDP, etc...?

Careful. He pretends not to be a Trump-licker. And under the rules we have to pretend to believe him.

(I actually DID believe him for a while. -- Gullible Swammerdami. It was only his recent descent into the Ridiculous that woke me up.)

 

[Derec]

Sez the computer programmer/"amateur economist".

Since she never worked in economics, she is just as much an "amateur economist" as I am.
But at least I have the good economic sense to reject socialism and realize that the Magic Money Tree does not exist.

 

[Derec]

Air travel makes a convenient demon but I strongly suspect that unless the rest of society is green then air travel isn't not green. The thing is there is a strong relationship between the energy that goes into a product and the cost of that product. And for most long distance passenger transport the costs by far favor going by air. Since little of that input energy was green in all probability less CO2 came out of the airplane.

Airliners average about 50 mpg/passenger on average, but the actual fuel economy varies by occupancy, of course. That is efficient, but the opponents of air travel would counter that fast and affordable air travel encourages long distance travel. If people had to take trains with sleeper cars or ocean liners (or even Zeppelins) to go long distances, far fewer people would do so.

 

[Derec]

Tell us about economics with your candidate proposing to eliminate the income tax and replace it with yuge tariffs on imports. Aside from being insanely regressive what do you think that would do to prices, GDP, etc...?

This is a thread about AOC, NOT about Trump (who is not even my candidate). There are already plenty of threads about him or about the presidential race generally. No need to derail this thread, no matter your level of TDS.

 

[Derec]

Careful. He pretends not to be a Trump-licker. And under the rules we have to pretend to believe him.

I pretend nothing. I voted for Trump exactly zero times, and do not plan to vote for him this year either.

(I actually DID believe him for a while. -- Gullible Swammerdami. It was only his recent descent into the Ridiculous that woke me up.)

Like what, lmao? And again, this thread is about the Squad Sergeant, so kindly please stop derailing.

 

[ZiprHead]

Sez the computer programmer/"amateur economist".

Since she never worked in economics, she is just as much an "amateur economist" as I am.
But at least I have the good economic sense to reject socialism and realize that the Magic Money Tree does not exist.

Really?

While Republicans often claim that they are the more fiscally responsible party, my research suggests otherwise. Compared to Democratic presidents, Republicans are estimated to add between 0.75% and 1.2% more to the deficit (as a percent of GDP) each year they are in office. This result controls for economic conditions, and explains 75% of the variation in the annual changes to deficits.

Which party adds more to deficits?

Hint: it’s the Republicans

towardsdatascience.com

 

[Derec]

Really?

Yes, really. She thinks her $60-100T "Green New Deal" can be easily funded by deficit spending.
This Economic Theory Could Be Used To Pay For The Green New Deal

While Republicans often claim that they are the more fiscally responsible party, my research suggests otherwise. Compared to Democratic presidents, Republicans are estimated to add between 0.75% and 1.2% more to the deficit (as a percent of GDP) each year they are in office. This result controls for economic conditions, and explains 75% of the variation in the annual changes to deficits.

Even if we should trust the analysis of this random blogger hosted by Medium, I do not see how it applies to discussions of AOC. She hasn't been president - at least not yet. And besides, the only reason Biden did not spend an extra $3.5T is the courageous stand by two people - Manchin and Sinema.

 

[ZiprHead]

Really?

Yes, really. She thinks her $60-100T "Green New Deal" can be easily funded by deficit spending.
This Economic Theory Could Be Used To Pay For The Green New Deal

While Republicans often claim that they are the more fiscally responsible party, my research suggests otherwise. Compared to Democratic presidents, Republicans are estimated to add between 0.75% and 1.2% more to the deficit (as a percent of GDP) each year they are in office. This result controls for economic conditions, and explains 75% of the variation in the annual changes to deficits.

Even if we should trust the analysis of this random blogger hosted by Medium, I do not see how it applies to discussions of AOC. She hasn't been president - at least not yet. And besides, the only reason Biden did not spend an extra $3.5T is the courageous stand by two people - Manchin and Sinema.

A dose of reality.

Sens. John Barrasso, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and Joni Ernst, among many others, have also cited the same $93 trillion figure.

The number is an estimate from the American Action Forum, a self-described “center-right policy institute.” The AAF is the “sister organization” of the American Action Network, a conservative nonprofit that has spent tens of millions of dollars supporting Republicans in general elections. The AAN is a tax-exempt 501(c)(4) that doesn’t disclose donors, but must disclose any independent expenditures on TV ads for or against specific candidates to the Federal Election Commission.

In a brief analysis, the AAF estimated costs for six sectors related to Green New Deal goals, including clean energy, high-speed rail, a job guarantee, health care, green housing and food security. The estimated costs only include outlays, and don’t factor in economic benefits or other effects.

But the experts we spoke to said it’s not possible to put a specific price tag on the Green New Deal.

“I’d say that it is *way* too early to even pretend to put cost estimates on the ‘Green New Deal.’ It’s at this point a still-amorphous construct,” said Josh Bivens, director of research at the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute, in an email to FactCheck.org.

Noah Kaufman, a research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy, agreed. When asked what one can say about how much the Green New Deal would cost, he said, “basically nothing.”

The Green New Deal, he said, is a set of ambitions, not policies, and how much things cost will depend on what the policies are.

“You can’t use policy analysis if you don’t have policy,” said Kaufman, who previously served as President Barack Obama’s deputy associate director of energy and climate change. “It just seems definitely premature and a little misleading to try to claim we know how much.”

Jeffrey Miron, the director of economic studies at the libertarian Cato Institute, said, “It’s hard to be very precise because a lot of the proposals are broad brush and vague.”

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/03/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/

 

[Derec]

A dose of reality.

I agree that precise amounts like $93T are not realistic because of how vague GND is. That's why I offered a pretty broad range which I think is realistic. Nobody disputes that GND, as proposed by AOC, would be extremely expensive. Which is why MMT was offered as an argument that money printer can just go brrrr to pay for it.

By the way, it is a point against the GND as a serious proposal that five years later AOC and her fellow GND proponents still have not fleshed out an actual bill. The problem of climate change is so pressing that GND offered a 10 year timeframe for getting the economic and energy transition done. And yet, what has she done for half that time horizon? Precious little!

She is a showhorse rather than a workhorse after all!

 

[lpetrich]

AOC is a wonderful Congresswoman and, by the way, probably understands economics better than most of the Republioturds in the House.

If she did understand economics, she would not be a socialist.

Define "socialism".

AOC herself claims to support "democratic socialism", which she distinguishes from plain "socialism".

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (CAS’11) Talks Democratic Socialism with Stephen Colbert | Bostonia | Boston University - January 22, 2019

Interview with BU history professor Jonathan Zatlin.

People looked to the Soviet Union as embodying certain ideals, especially when it comes to the economy—the planned economy. Those who called themselves democratic socialists—in opposition to the dictatorial methods of the communists—rejected the Soviet Union. They start to say, we don’t want a government that enforces communal property ownership. Most American socialists were democrats and modeled themselves on the social democrats in Europe, especially during the Cold War.

It’s unclear if the people in the United States who say they are democratic socialists want to reform or abolish capitalism.

What might AOC do?

She’s not a communist, so she’s not going to go the dictatorial route like the Soviets. But no one knows what democratic socialism would really look like.

So she can try to limit markets, maybe by using the government to interfere with them, and just wait for the day that something else comes along to replace capitalism.

Or she can say, the market is good, but it’s often unfair. I want to restrain it, use the state to ensure markets benefit everyone.

Except, that’s not socialism. That’s still capitalism. From what I can see, she’s a welfare statist, not a socialist. She wants to use the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

...
Is she a socialist? This drives me nuts, when politicians say they’re socialists.

...
As a historian, I would tell her this: There are many policy options she could adopt if she’s critical of capitalism.

...
I do worry that her command of tax law is not that great. There is a big distinction between income and wealth.

 

[lpetrich]

TALKING SOCIALISM | Catching up with AOC - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) - March 19, 2021

"What initially drew me to DSA was the fact that they showed up everywhere that I showed up."

She talked about activism and organizing, and how she earlier didn't think that being elected would accomplish very much. Also about Michelle Caruso-Cabrera running against her in 2020, a fellow Hispanic woman with a hyphenated name. "And it was just the most cynical, disgusting thing."

You’re famous for skillfully clapping back at haters from time to time, but you don’t come off as mean, and you never punch down. How do you stay so positive?

Oh, thank you. Well, you know, positivity is an organizing tool. And I say that with so much earnestness. There’s a reason why Jabari [Brisport] won, there’s a reason why Zohran [Mamdani] won, there’s a reason why Marcela [Mitaynes] and Phara [Souffrant Forrest] — these wins that we had on the state level, why those candidates won. Look at them. They are relentlessly positive. They are people that you want to be around. And they are not cynical, and they do not engage in “more socialist than thou.” They are just relentlessly positive.

Sort of like Ronald Reagan, someone who would respond to criticisms with "There you go again".

Also good to see aversion to leftist-vs-leftist squabbles, squabbles that are all too common, squabbles that the makers of Life of Brian satirized as the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.

 

[lpetrich]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Explains What Democratic Socialism Means - Business Insider

"We're talking about single-payer health care that has already been successful in many different models, from Finland to Canada to the UK,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez, who is still paying off her student loans, also believes in tuition-free public colleges and universities. Her platform includes guaranteeing Americans a living wage that maintains "basic levels of dignity so that no person in America is too poor to live," Ocasio-Cortez said. "That's what democratic socialism means in 2018, and not this kind of McCarthyism Red Scare of a past era.”

Welfare statism.

Democratic Socialism Is About Democracy - 07.25.2018 - Jacobin

The democratic socialist du jour, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, recently gave her own definition on Stephen Colbert’s show:

I believe that in a modern, moral, and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live. So what that means is health care as a human right. It means that every child, no matter where you are born, should have access to a college or trade school education if they so choose it. And, you know, I think that no person should be homeless if we can have public structures and public policies to allow for people to have homes and food and lead a dignified life in the United States.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Resurgence of Democratic Socialism in America - The American Prospect - July 3, 2018 - "The DSA member’s upset victory shows a growing number of Americans are no fans of actually existing capitalism."

Throughout American history, some of the nation's most influential activists and thinkers—including leaders of the major movements for social justice—embraced democratic socialism.

Listing some notable activists over the last century and a half: Eugene V. Debs (1855-1926), Francis Bellamy (1855-1931), Clarence Darrow (1859-1938), Katherine Lee Bates (1859-1929), Florence Kelley (1859-1932), John Dewey (1859-1952), Jane Addams (1860-1935), Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935), Lincoln Steffens (1866-1936), W.E.B. Du Bois (1868-1963), "Big Bill” Haywood (1869-1928), Alice Hamilton (1869-1970), Lewis Hine (1874-1940), Jack London (1876-1916), Upton Sinclair (1878-1968), Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Helen Keller (1880-1968), Norman Thomas (1884-1968), A. Philip Randolph (1889-1979), Walter Reuther (1907-1970), Bayard Rustin (1912-1987), Michael Harrington (1928-1989), Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), Gloria Steinem (1934-), Ron Dellums (1935-2018)

Many of them were active in the Progressive Era, roughly 1896–1917, but there are some from the New Deal Era, 1933 - 1940's, and the Sixties Era, roughly early 1960's - mid 1970's.

 

[lpetrich]

What did all these socialists do?

In the early 1900s, socialists led the movements for women's suffrage, child labor laws, consumer protection laws, and the progressive income tax. In 1912, at the Socialist Party's high point, about 1,200 party members held public office in 340 cities, including 79 mayors in cities such as Milwaukee, Buffalo, Minneapolis, Reading, and Schenectady. These local leaders, whose ranks included working-class labor union members and middle-class radicals such as teachers, clergy, and lawyers, worked alongside progressive reformers to improve living and working conditions in the nation's burgeoning cities. They pushed for public ownership of utilities and transportation facilities; the expansion of parks, libraries, playgrounds, and other services; and a friendlier attitude toward unions, especially in time of strikes. In Milwaukee, where Socialists led the city government for several decades, their attention to good management and infrastructure earned them the label “sewer socialists.”

Mostly a lot of social democracy. It was the more dogmatic and ideological sort of socialists who used "sewer socialist" as an insult for being pragmatic and reformist.

In 1916, Victor Berger, a socialist congressman from Milwaukee, sponsored the first bill to create “old age pensions.”

It didn't go far, but twenty years later, FDR got Congress to enact Social Security, which is much the same thing.

Much of FDR's other New Deal legislation—the minimum wage, workers' right to form unions, and public works programs to create jobs for the unemployed—was first espoused by American socialists.

Socialists were in the forefront of the civil rights movement from the founding of the NAACP in 1909 through the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Socialists have long pushed for a universal health insurance plan, which helped create the momentum for stepping-stone measures such as Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s and Obamacare today.

Basically more social democracy.

 

[Derec]

Define "socialism".

An economic system where means of production are predominately publicly owned and controlled. In Marxist theory, socialism is imagined as a transition stage before communism, where the state itself withers away, is achieved.

AOC herself claims to support "democratic socialism", which she distinguishes from plain "socialism".

Democratic socialism, as the name implies, is just socialism achieved by democratic means, rather than though, say, a proletarian revolution. It is still socialism though. It is not social democracy.

Note that AOC is member of the Democratic Socialists of America. They understand what socialism means, and they support it.

We are socialists because we reject an economic order based on private profit, alienated labor, gross inequalities of wealth and power, discrimination based on race, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability status, age, religion, and national origin, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane social order based on popular control of resources and production, economic planning, equitable distribution, feminism, racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

Emphasis mine. Note also that "alienated labor" is a term used in Marxist theory. And "equitable distribution" is just a less eloquent synonym for "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".

If AOC means something else by "socialism", then she is very confused indeed.

People looked to the Soviet Union as embodying certain ideals, especially when it comes to the economy—the planned economy. Those who called themselves democratic socialists—in opposition to the dictatorial methods of the communists—rejected the Soviet Union. They start to say, we don’t want a government that enforces communal property ownership. Most American socialists were democrats and modeled themselves on the social democrats in Europe, especially during the Cold War.

But social democracy ≠ socialism. And as I have shown, her outfit, the DSA, supports a planned economy and "popular control of resources and production".

It’s unclear if the people in the United States who say they are democratic socialists want to reform or abolish capitalism.

It's only unclear if they can't read.

Except, that’s not socialism. That’s still capitalism. From what I can see, she’s a welfare statist, not a socialist. She wants to use the power of the state to redistribute wealth.

Then she should inform herself and reject the DSA. Because they are actual socialists, not social democrats.

I do worry that her command of tax law is not that great. There is a big distinction between income and wealth.

Yeah.

 

[laughing dog]

Sez the computer programmer/"amateur economist".

Since she never worked in economics, she is just as much an "amateur economist" as I am.
But at least I have the good economic sense to reject socialism and realize that the Magic Money Tree does not exist.

I suppose it matters what one means by “ socialism” and by “ good economic sense” in order to be in a position to evaluate that claim.

 

[Derec]

"What initially drew me to DSA was the fact that they showed up everywhere that I showed up."

That's not a good reason to support them and join them. If a conservative politician had "Democratic National Socialists of America" follow him around, we would not hold him blameless for not denouncing them, much less for joining them.

Also about Michelle Caruso-Cabrera running against her in 2020, a fellow Hispanic woman with a hyphenated name. "And it was just the most cynical, disgusting thing."

She thinks it is "disgusting" that somebody would challenge her in an election?

You’re famous for skillfully clapping back at haters from time to time, but you don’t come off as mean, and you never punch down. How do you stay so positive?

Ugh. "Clapping back". "Haters".

Oh, thank you. Well, you know, positivity is an organizing tool. And I say that with so much earnestness. There’s a reason why Jabari [Brisport] won, there’s a reason why Zohran [Mamdani] won, there’s a reason why Marcela [Mitaynes] and Phara [Souffrant Forrest] — these wins that we had on the state level, why those candidates won.

Uncompetitive districts where radicals can win?

Look at them. They are relentlessly positive. They are people that you want to be around. And they are not cynical, and they do not engage in “more socialist than thou.” They are just relentlessly positive.

Positive? Mitaynes for example thinks that she should be free to not pay rent and that the rights of property owners do not matter.

She should also learn English!

Also good to see aversion to leftist-vs-leftist squabbles, squabbles that are all too common, squabbles that the makers of Life of Brian satirized as the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea.

"Pas d'ennemis à gauche", I guess. But this is toxic, as there are dangerous people and groups on the far left as well as on the far right.