Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

AOC

Recommended Posts

Yeah, nah. Nope nope-itty nope. 

Any Nobel-winning economists agree with Hanson? And I wonder what kind of electorate she'd win 78% of the vote in...? 

I don't suppose you've read Capital in the Twenty-First Century? 

Edited by Kimmo
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's good looking, young, leftie and socially media savvy. Which means she appeals to a certain class of person poorly educated in reality.

 

Expect a trajectory that follows all yesterday's icons who are all molded from the same cloth: Trudeau, Macron, etc.

 

In 2y time it'll be AOC-who?

Edited by Leonid
Spellink

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An NYC version of Sarah Hanson-Young.

Idealist, populist with well wisher ideas that wouldn't work in reality.

Fair enough that she supports socialism of a level that the UK has but hey - the US can't even sustain it's current level of government spending at it's current inclination on the spectrum.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could also say:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, My Dear Friend, is about the end of any nation.  You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

― Congressional Record, 1958 and others.

 

 

That is, and has always been the essential failure of left-wing economics. It ALWAYS ends badly when economic correction is via redistribution or cutting the legs off from under productive workers to enable unproductive ones.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm,

I can think of one society that has a good record for governmental "cradle-to;grave" population support, that's Sweden although the other Scandinavian societies have a similar reputation.

The catch of course is very high taxation, but the Swedes seem to be o.k. with it, with one caveat - there is a strong tendency to boredom among Swedes - lack of life challenge it is often suggested.

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

She's good looking, young, leftie and socially media savvy. Which means she appeals to a certain class of person poorly educated in reality.

 

she is also Jewish;

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheManFromPOST said:

she is also Jewish;

 

Lol. Off course she is ?

26 minutes ago, chrisg said:

Hmm,

I can think of one society that has a good record for governmental "cradle-to;grave" population support, that's Sweden although the other Scandinavian societies have a similar reputation.

The catch of course is very high taxation, but the Swedes seem to be o.k. with it, with one caveat - there is a strong tendency to boredom among Swedes - lack of life challenge it is often suggested.

Cheers

 

Sweden has one of the most liberal economies in the world. Their economy is more free than America’s and Forbes rates it #2 in terms of countries for doing business.

 

The Scandinavians have done what Center right economists have been drumming into Westerners for ages: you can only afford welfare when you can pay for it from a free economy, high productivity and low immigration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

You could also say:

"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.  What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 

The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, My Dear Friend, is about the end of any nation.  You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."

― Congressional Record, 1958 and others.

 

 

That is, and has always been the essential failure of left-wing economics. It ALWAYS ends badly when economic correction is via redistribution or cutting the legs off from under productive workers to enable unproductive ones.

 

48 minutes ago, Leonid said:

The Scandinavians have done what Center right economists have been drumming into Westerners for ages: you can only afford welfare when you can pay for it from a free economy, high productivity and low immigration.

..?  Those two statements seem to me to be in direct opposition, Leo.

These socialised economies are not free in the sense the Americans use (laissez-faire capitalism).  They have very severe progressive taxes - which taxes are used to provide both general public services and a safety net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Rybags said:

ideas that wouldn't work in reality.
 

You wanna talk about ideas that don't work in reality? 

Get a load of the status quo. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You just repeated what I said before... the US can't even pay for what they provide already so HTF could they afford to lean towards being a welfare state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Rybags said:

You just repeated what I said before... the US can't even pay for what they provide already so HTF could they afford to lean towards being a welfare state?

...by changing their tax system around a bit, presumably?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cybes said:

 

..?  Those two statements seem to me to be in direct opposition, Leo.

These socialised economies are not free in the sense the Americans use (laissez-faire capitalism).  They have very severe progressive taxes - which taxes are used to provide both general public services and a safety net.

Except off course you’re ignoring their GP Co-contributions, the forcing of Muslim children to be away from their parents to become Norwegian-ised (into a Norwegian framework of labour and values), the low corporate taxes, low bureaucracy levels, small governments and an enviable tech startup scene?

And then off course there’s the fact that at least one of the Scandinavians is the epitome of Sarah Palin’s “drill baby, drill” commentary...

People hold a romantic view of the Scandinavians that hasn’t actually been true since the early 80s.

11 minutes ago, Nich... said:

...by changing their tax system around a bit, presumably?

You can’t tax a nation into prosperity.

 

That impulse is ALWAYS the wrong answer.

1 hour ago, Kimmo said:

You wanna talk about ideas that don't work in reality? 

Get a load of the status quo. 

This is why capitalists will (generally) freely admit that the present system is the worst devised by man except for all the others which are even worse.

There’s nothing forward-thinking about an economic system from the 19th century as devised by a broke-ass moocher who couldn’t even solve the fundamental problem of his theory, as even he admitted.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's better looking and younger and not married to Bill Clinton << these are all pluses for her. No idea whether the Dems will win in 2020, but they really really need to improve their list of opponents in for the running.
Is one year long enough for AOC to get it all together ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hope I have is that Sanders will be too old and tired and Clinton too unpallatable to contest the primaries, leaving at least some chance of a decent Democratic candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely by now even the firmest of Dems has strong issues re Hilary and the Clinton shenanigans  .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chrisg said:

Hmm,

I can think of one society that has a good record for governmental "cradle-to;grave" population support, that's Sweden although the other Scandinavian societies have a similar reputation.

The catch of course is very high taxation, but the Swedes seem to be o.k. with it, with one caveat - there is a strong tendency to boredom among Swedes - lack of life challenge it is often suggested.

Cheers

 

I have no problem with high taxes in return for health and education. As for being bored, I'd rather be bored than dead. Someone I know has just been diagnosed with terminal bowel cancer after having to wait for 6 months for a colonoscopy through the public system. She's in a country town. It would be 6 months longer for Sydney. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, SacrificialNewt said:

I have no problem with high taxes in return for health and education. As for being bored, I'd rather be bored than dead. Someone I know has just been diagnosed with terminal bowel cancer after having to wait for 6 months for a colonoscopy through the public system. She's in a country town. It would be 6 months longer for Sydney. 

Higher taxes won’t get you better waiting times.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Higher taxes won’t get you better waiting times.

By rights, it should. If it doesn't then it's because someone, somewhere is misappropriating funds.

 

I remember 20 years ago, living in Bowral as a single parent and having immediate access to free speech pathology for my daughter, physio and dental for both of us at the local hospital. I know they've lost a lot of funding for such things in recent years.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, SacrificialNewt said:

By rights, it should. If it doesn't then it's because someone, somewhere is misappropriating funds.

 

I remember 20 years ago, living in Bowral as a single parent and having immediate access to free speech pathology for my daughter, physio and dental for both of us at the local hospital. I know they've lost a lot of funding for such things in recent years.

It shouldn’t. Just like education funding (at the top of the oecd) doesn’t mean good results (average [at best] for the oecd).

Australia increased in size by about 400k people last year, 40% was natural growth, the rest immigration.

In other words we added a city the size of Canberra to our population. Did we build 2 hospitals in that one year to match the expansion? Did we hire staff for those hospitals? Did we build 20 new schools?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with our insane growth rate is that we don’t plan for it. Either major party (inc. the green-tinged morons).

They either fail to plan or plan to fail. And sometimes both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Leonid said:

You can’t tax a nation into prosperity.

That impulse is ALWAYS the wrong answer.

I didn't say that, tho'.

 

52 minutes ago, SacrificialNewt said:

As for being bored, I'd rather be bored than dead.

Many a time I'd rather have been dead, than bored.  Depends what kind of boredom is more common in the countries in question, really.  And whether 'boredom' is being used there as code for 'life is too easy, we need to make people struggle to survive again so they're not bored'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SacrificialNewt said:

By rights, it should. If it doesn't then it's because someone, somewhere is misappropriating funds.

 

I remember 20 years ago, living in Bowral as a single parent and having immediate access to free speech pathology for my daughter, physio and dental for both of us at the local hospital. I know they've lost a lot of funding for such things in recent years.

But when you think about the things they can and do test for and subsidise these days, it's no wonder there's a lack of funding. We want all these tests to still be government funded but it doesn't keep up with what we know about diseases and conditions now. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×