Author Topic: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'  (Read 8120 times)

MarkS

  • Guest
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #100 on: February 16, 2019, 07:41:09 AM »
Thanks Cigarbutt

Good link!   I believe Buddhist refer to it as "impermanence" - which can be a cruel teacher.  I'm actually not that pessimistic about the future -  one of the benefits of being older is that your future is somewhat limited - I'm just not sure that for the moment raising the incomes of most Americans is particularly doable.

« Last Edit: February 16, 2019, 07:47:40 AM by MarkS »


MarkS

  • Guest
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #101 on: February 16, 2019, 10:14:39 AM »
Creating an environment where people maintain the hope and belief that they can move up the economic ladder is a noble cause.  I completely agree with the sentiment, however, I'm deeply sceptical over our long term ability to provide that environment.
Here are just some of the reasons why I'm sceptical:

1). Fewer marriages and fewer family formations

2). Poor lower educational system / high cost of college attendance

3).  Rising competition from developing countries

4). Rise of Artificial Intelligence

5).  High government debt levels limits ability for future spending on needed programs

6). Huge inflows of immigrants with little or no basic education and/or skills

7). Growing animosity between various identity groups

8).  Dysfunctional government

I could go on but I'm starting to find myself depressed. 😕
Hi MarkS,
Here's a link with an excerpt from Will Durant whose parents came from a similar genetic basin as mine and who moved to the US because it was the land of relative opportunities.
https://www.valueinvestingworld.com/
We'll get there (to be defined) somehow.
Also, all the reasons you mention should be seen as potential opportunities for value investors. :)
BTW my favorite cello piece is the Cello Suite No. 1, Prelude 1 by J.S. Bach. It is short, intense and full of hope!

That's too funny.  A few days ago i sent this link to the Cello Suite No. 1, Prelude to DooDiligence.  https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=cello+bach+prelude+1&&view=detail&mid=40F6614C11D690F1871040F6614C11D690F18710&&FORM=VRDGAR

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #102 on: February 25, 2019, 10:51:37 AM »
Aw, man - is this chick crazy?

https://www.dailywire.com/news/43880/ocasio-cortez-people-maybe-shouldnt-reproduce-due-ryan-saavedra

I mean, every time she opens her mouth it's like Ground Hog Day: "Dumb and Dumber"

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3013
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #103 on: February 25, 2019, 12:10:03 PM »
Apparently that she found a job for her boyfriend in the swamp. Do you think that two will not have childrens eventually?

Do what I say, not as I do!

Cardboard

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1492
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #104 on: February 25, 2019, 01:55:38 PM »
Apparently that she found a job for her boyfriend in the swamp. Do you think that two will not have childrens eventually?

Do what I say, not as I do!

Cardboard

Trump's NSA tried to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to personally profit. Trump personally asked the FBI Director to stop his investigation in to Flynn and asked for loyalty from the FBI Director around the time of the prior request. That thread on Flynn's attempt to sell nuclear technology to SA is radio silent.

Rules for me, but not for thee!

cubsfan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1146
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #105 on: February 25, 2019, 02:09:44 PM »
Apparently that she found a job for her boyfriend in the swamp. Do you think that two will not have childrens eventually?

Do what I say, not as I do!

Cardboard

Trump's NSA tried to sell nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia to personally profit. Trump personally asked the FBI Director to stop his investigation in to Flynn and asked for loyalty from the FBI Director around the time of the prior request. That thread on Flynn's attempt to sell nuclear technology to SA is radio silent.

Rules for me, but not for thee!

Yea, not nearly as slick as Hillary greasing the skids for the Russian Uranium One deal for a cool
$150M "donation" to the Clinton Foundation "slush fund" - now there was a real "pay for play" deal!!

Oh, yeah, but at the time, Russia was not really our enemy... like now...right.

Cardboard

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3013
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #106 on: February 25, 2019, 04:03:12 PM »
Schwab just volunteered for castration. AOC promised to send him a portrait of her to thank him for his contribution!

Cardboard

Schwab711

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1492
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #107 on: February 25, 2019, 06:14:18 PM »
Childish whining. Virtue signaling crap that contradicts something you wrote hours or days before. Trigger-induced insults.

Signed,
Cardboard

rukawa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 861
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #108 on: February 25, 2019, 08:30:27 PM »
LC the very fact that we see increased regulation, increased laws, increased social programs, should be evidence enough that the government thinks it knows what's best for you. Just last month I had to have an inspector come into my house and look at the screw patterns on my drywall to make sure it was "safe." Only once I paid $100 and had this approved was I allowed to put mud over it. Sure, this is on the local level, but the principle is the same. Government is getting involved in things they have no business knowings.
Yeah so this is question around regulation, correct?

We've got some anarchists on this board who will happily welcome you into their ranks  ;D

I agree not all regulations are "good". Some are outdated, some are lobbied by industry to provide barriers to entry, some are created simply to siphon rents for government, and some are genuinely sensible.

For example, what if you put all your drywall screws through the romex and it started an electrical fire, and burned down your house and died? Or even worse if it burned down half the block, and threw out the transformer and the neighborhood lost power?

Building codes exist for a few reasons:
1- the homeowner's safety and assurance
2- the safety and assurance of your neighbors
3- shared lower costs of insurance premiums
4- general ease of burden on shared services (utility services/repairs, firefighters, ambulances, etc.)

I think building codes are fantastic. In fact things like that I regard as the only real progress of humanity. Its like this invisible thing no one sees and is not in any political debates but saves lives. However I am not sure that government inspectors need to be involved with building codes. But government does need to be involved in some way. Perhaps by requiring certain forms of insurance.

The problem as I see it is that bureaucracies tend to grow over time. Castanza's example is a good one. That inspection of his house was probably a waste of time but the inspector needs something to do so they make work up. Government almost never shrinks...it only increases in size.

Incidentally a large amount of industrial safety practices and ideas did not come from government. It came from insurers. A good example is underwriters limited.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UL_(safety_organization)

There is also a big question as to the effectiveness of most health and safety regulations. If I were to guess I would suspect that 90% of the increase in safety and health across the economy is purely due to technological innovation. E.g. we didn't get rid of horse dung from cities due to regulations...we got rid of it because of the car.

Read the Footnotes

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 106
Re: Ocasio Cortez Plan 'economic security for those unwilling to work'
« Reply #109 on: April 05, 2019, 03:50:19 PM »
AOC is using Trump’s playbook. Whoever screams the loudest nonsense wins.
I agree. Both are dangerous because:

1. Loud and attention seeking
2. Frequently full of nonsense
3. Populist
4. Exploiting divisive rhetoric
5. Successful at attracting attention by spewing nonsensical divisive populist rhetoric

It will be interesting to see if she will be successful at utilizing improvisation as a populist. It will also be interesting to see if she is capable of distracting, deflecting or denying if her previously held positions if they are proven to be nonsensical.



There is certainly nothing wrong with being a populist, when government fails to represent your interest.


You are right. There is nothing wrong with being a populist. Here's a definition for populist that I grabbed off the web:

Quote
a person, especially a politician, who strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.
"he ran as a populist on an anticorruption platform"

I didn't say there was anything wrong with populism by itself. Populism in the right hands could be admirable.

I stand by my statement that populism in combination with the other traits and behaviors I listed should be concerning.

One danger of populism is that even good people could become drunk on the power of populism. Think of populism like "the force". It has a dark side and some won't be able to resist it, or won't even want to try.

Many populists have later been seen to be disingenuous and to have manipulated the population they appealed to. Sometimes the damage done is small, sometimes it is calamitous.

Like conmen, disingenuous populists appeal to peoples emotions and interests, and like conmen a disingenuous populist is only successful when they succeed in charming their prey to the point the prey can't tell they are being conned. Even after the con is exposed, some people will refuse to change their opinion. There were people after the fall of the Third Reich who continued to believe in Hitler and the National Socialist propaganda and refused to believe evidence to the contrary. These were people who wouldn't believe that maybe the Nazi's stretched the truth a little bit.

I know for a fact that a huge portion of the US population believes Bernie Madoff was solely responsible for the fraud. There continue to be newspaper articles that are still anchored to Bernie's original message that he acted alone. The fact that plenty of Madoff employees and family members have gone to prison is totally lost on these people. Anyone who tried to prove that Bernie was a fraud before his fall was probably just going to anger people and look like a kook. Harry Markopolos proved that people would respond that way, but unfortunately, Markopolos was right.

I am not trying to say that anyone is Hitler or Bernie Madoff. Even if I believed that, I don't think it would be productive to say so. I am saying that populism in certain hands can be very dangerous. Certain personalities and behaviors make that risk much higher and people tend to be very bad at assessing when they are being conned.

I also believe people tend to underestimate these risks in spite of historical precedent. If the risks were not underestimated, then despots would not be so successful at using populism early in their rise to power. Plus we in the US and Canada (and many other countries) were blessed with only relatively mild innocuous forms of populism for a long period. If we had recent experience with populism in its worst forms, experience that some other nations have, we would likely be much more wary. In fact the mere fact that we have the wealth and luxury to spend time reading and posting on this board is probably extremely highly correlated with not being a recent victim of the worst examples of populism gone awry.

Saying that there is no risk to populism in the wrong hands is like saying that there is no risk of real estate prices falling in 2006. Just because there hasn't been a horrible recent domestic experience does not mean there is no risk.

Ray Dalio on this subject:

In addition to social and economic bad consequences, the income/wealth/opportunity gap is leading to dangerous social and political divisions that threaten our cohesive fabric and capitalism itself.

I believe that, as a principle, if there is a very big gap in the economic conditions of people who share a budget and there is an economic downturn, there is a high risk of bad conflict. Disparity in wealth, especially when accompanied by disparity in values, leads to increasing conflict and, in the government, that manifests itself in the form of populism of the left and populism of the right and often in revolutions of one sort or another. For that reason, I am worried what the next economic downturn will be like, especially as central banks have limited ability to reverse it and we have so much political polarity and populism.

The problem is that capitalists typically don’t know how to divide the pie well and socialists typically don’t know how to grow it well. While one might hope that when such economic polarity and poor conditions exist, leaders would pull together to reform the system to both divide the economic pie and make it grow better (which is certainly doable and the best path), they typically become progressively more extreme and fight more than cooperate.

In order to understand the phenomenon of populism, two years ago I did a study of it in which I looked at 14 iconic cases and observed the patterns and the forces behind them. If you are interested in it, you can read it here at www.economicprinciples.org. In brief, I learned that populism arises when strong fighters/leaders of the right or of the left who are looking to fight and defeat the opposition come to power and escalate their conflict with the opposition, which typically galvanizes around comparably strong/fighting leaders. The most important thing to watch as populism develops is how conflict is handled—whether the opposing forces can coexist to make progress or whether they increasingly “go to war” to block and hurt each other and cause gridlock. In the worst cases, this conflict causes economic problems (e.g., via paralyzing strikes and demonstrations) and can even lead to moves from democratic leadership to autocratic leadership as happened in a number of countries in the 1930s.

We are now seeing conflicts between populists of the left and populists of the right increasing around the world in much the same way as they did in the 1930s when the income and wealth gaps were comparably large. In the US, the ideological polarity is greater than it has ever been and the willingness to compromise is less than it’s ever been. The chart on the left shows how conservative Republican senators and representatives have been and how liberal Democratic senators and representatives have been going back to 1900. As you can see, they are each more extreme and they are more divided than ever before. The chart on the right shows what percentage of them have voted along party lines going back to 1790, which is now the greatest ever. In other words, they have more polar extreme positions and they are more solidified in those positions than ever. And we are coming into a presidential election year. We can expect a hell of a battle.

https://www.economicprinciples.org/downloads/Why-and-How-Capitalism-Needs-To-Be-Reformed.pdf
« Last Edit: April 05, 2019, 05:08:59 PM by Read the Footnotes »