AOC: Capitalism is not a redeemable system for us (4 Viewers)

[sho nuff]

That's pretty radical, that statement. And certainly arguable. The pursuit of profit at all human cost. The pursuit of profit at all environmental cost. The pursuit of profit at all social cost. 

I don't know that a system has ever functioned in the way she describes when it comes to capitalism. Prices and wages are too reliable an indicator of a product's or labor's worthiness to ever be able to trammel all human, environmental, and social cost. If we think of each purchase as a vote, and people see human costs or social costs that are too great, they will stop purchasing items that destroy life and the environment, because eventually they will bear the problem of purchasing things at that cost. 

Really, though, instead of the American Democratic left hitching their wagons to things hopefully misquoted, we can accurately portray and write and think about AOC as she is: A radical who is ensconced by region in a radical area of the USA, which is even radical for the Western world. 

And even here...you took out the one part of the statement...but thats ok too.

Was she going a bit over the top with it...yeah...she is crazy and that is part of how she goes about things.

But do you really think people aren't buying things not caring about a human, social or environmental cost?  I mean, how much of our stuff comes from China as an example...we constantly buy things that are cheap not knowing or caring if they are creating massive environmental issues, child labor issues, human rights issues.

A lot of what she said is misquoted...look at blade's post where he does nothing more than quote the title of the thread.

Does that make her overall great?  Not at all.  But it does make part of this point pretty pertinent about how we go about things here.  Call it crazy, call it woke, call it whatever.  But she is not completely wrong here.

 

[sho nuff]

Only when it’s convenient to them of course. 

Who isn't in favor of a capitlistic based government in here?  Do you think anyone who has ever defended something AOC said, or Bernie or anything is not in favor of capitalism?

 

[SoBeDad]

The USA is a "mixed market economy."  The heritage index of economic freedom has the USA ranked #20, behind Singapore, New Zealand (no surprise), and surprisingly Denmark,  UAE, and Chile among others. Chile is a good example of how capitalism has benefitted many people with a rising boat. 

This is not black and white and as Tim points out it's largely about regulating business. On the environment, a Nixon started the EPA and Teddy started the national park system,  which placed restrictions on private lands inside the parks . On protecting humans in cars, Republicans were against mandatory seat belts at one time, because of the negative impact on the car industry, hard to believe millions of saved lives later. On the social security safety net, I'm sure many capitalists thought it would hurt business, but instead it brought many elderly people out of poverty, a benefit to the economy.

What are we really taking about here besides broad labels? Where's the policy? 

 

[rockaction]

And even here...you took out the one part of the statement...but thats ok too.

 I don't think I took a thing out. If you're talking about the next paragraph, that makes it worse for her. 

_________________________________________________________

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I believe that in a broad sense-- because when we toss out these big words, capitalism, socialism, they get sensationalized. And people translate them into meaning things that perhaps they don't mean. So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing.

And what we're also discussing is the ability for a very small group of actual capitalists, and that is people who have so much money that their money makes money and they don't have to work, and they can control industry, they can control our energy sources, they can control our labor, they can control massive markets, that they dictate and can capture governments, and they it can essentially have power over the many. And to me, that is not a redeemable system for us to be able to participate in for the prosperity and peace for the vast majority of people.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Sure. But that not what AOC was talking about. I’m sure you took the time to read about it before determining she was wrong. So that makes your argument here, well, a little awkward. 

No, I read her comments and I read your posts on the subject.  And I thought "I'll bet Sinn Fein is actually totally okay with private companies acting in their own self-interest when he happens to approve of the result."  And sure enough I was right.

It's almost as if people have different opinions about what expressions like "the best interests of society" mean.

 

[chet]

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” - Churchill

 

[rockaction]

What are we really taking about here besides broad labels? Where's the policy?

We're talking broad labels because she endorses the use of a broad label that encompasses her entire economic worldview. It's called command economy, and it isn't a "mixed market" one. 

We're not talking policy because presumably she's restrained by the overwhelming majority of people's thoughts about the economy. If she were unrestrained, I believe you'd see a lot more policy discussed. The reporter asked her a question about systems, and she responded. This was no policy debate. 

 

[sho nuff]

 I don't think I took a thing out. If you're talking about the next paragraph, that makes it worse for her. 

_________________________________________________________

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: Well, I believe that in a broad sense-- because when we toss out these big words, capitalism, socialism, they get sensationalized. And people translate them into meaning things that perhaps they don't mean. So to me, capitalism at its core, what we're talking about when we talk about that is the absolute pursuit of profit at all human, environmental, and social cost. That is what we're really discussing.

And what we're also discussing is the ability for a very small group of actual capitalists, and that is people who have so much money that their money makes money and they don't have to work, and they can control industry, they can control our energy sources, they can control our labor, they can control massive markets, that they dictate and can capture governments, and they it can essentially have power over the many. And to me, that is not a redeemable system for us to be able to participate in for the prosperity and peace for the vast majority of people.

Perhaps...but also what preceded that played a lot into what we saw in this thread.  People like to sensationalize things.  Like she actually did for sure...and like those who came to this thread, never read her quote, and just ran with the text of the title and claimed it like that is all she said.  And you know this...I know you saw it happening...it happens often where people don't get past the headline of an article and then post about the whole thing...often without all the information of what was being discussed.

It doesn't make her right overall...her thinking is still flawed.  But it also doesn't make it so black and white simple as some tried to make it.  That was my point.

 

[SoBeDad]

We're talking broad labels because she endorses the use of a broad label that encompasses her entire economic worldview. It's called command economy, and it isn't a "mixed market" one. 

Was she right about Amazon HQ in her district? I'm not sure, but it seems relevant.

 

[General Malaise]

You guys love to marginalize AOC but she still has more Twitter followers than anyone else in the Democratic Party.

It doesn't hurt that she's beautiful.  If her name was Steve and she looked like me, do you think she'd have that many followers?   

 

[rockaction]

But it also doesn't make it so black and white simple as some tried to make it.  That was my point.

That's fine. That's why I addressed what she actually said. What she said is very problematic in many ways, actually. I don't mean problematic as in it puts my knickers in a bunch because of her radical thoughts -- I've heard much worse than hers -- I mean problematic in a number of logical and historical ways. 

 

[rockaction]

If her name was Steve and she looked like me, do you think she'd have that many followers?   

If her name was Steve and she looked like you I could see plenty of empty lecture halls in her future. 

Just...nothing against you, GM, but you're not packin' 'em in in the political or academic world unless you're way more radical than that. And even then what's a brother/comrade got to do to get a cup of coffee, you know? 

 

[Juxtatarot]

If you mean that all systems deserve a healthy skepticism, then I'm with you.

Yes, I think that's what I'm getting at.  Thanks for answering.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

What are we really taking about here besides broad labels? Where's the policy? 

One area where capitalism really sucks is when it comes to producing public goods* like local roads.  Every ECON 101 textbook published in the last 50 years spends a chapter or so on this topic -- if you leave the production of public goods up to the private sector, they won't get produced.  As in, they probably won't get produced at all.  At best they'll be wildly under-produced, but in a lot of cases the actual level of production will be literally zero.

The solution to this problem is pretty simple.  We create a not-for-profit entity that builds roads for us without worrying about whether they're profitable.  That entity needs money to pay for road construction, and people won't contribute voluntarily because of the free rider problem, so we have to force people to pay for road construction whether they want to or not.  Problem solved.  We call this not-for-profit entity a "government." 

That's a non-capitalist solution to a problem inherent in capitalism.  Nobody to the left of the most ardent anarcho-capitalist has an issue with this.  But it's a nice illustration of identifying a particular problem and finding a policy solution.  It's the opposite of turning on your crazy eyes and waving your hands at [all this] and making broad, sweeping pronouncements.  In other words, it's the kind of thing that makes for a productive message board conversation but doesn't get the base riled up.  AOC just wants the base riled up. 

* Goods that are non-excludable and non-rival, not "things that are good for the public."

 

[General Malaise]

If her name was Steve and she looked like you I could see plenty of empty lecture halls in her future. 

Just...nothing against you, GM, but you're not packin' 'em in in the political or academic world unless you're way more radical than that. And even then what's a brother/comrade got to do to get a cup of coffee, you know? 

Why do you think I had so many kids?  A man this needy had no other option in commanding the room. 

 

[rockaction]

Was she right about Amazon HQ in her district? I'm not sure, but it seems relevant.

I don't know. I don't think so. I think the progressives would laud her for her stance. I'd say she botched a great opportunity. 

Read my edit to your posting above. It's really because they asked her about the "capitalist system" that it engenders such a response. 

 

[sho nuff]

That's fine. That's why I addressed what she actually said. What she said is very problematic in many ways, actually. I don't mean problematic as in it puts my knickers in a bunch because of her radical thoughts -- I've heard much worse than hers -- I mean problematic in a number of logical and historical ways. 

As I said above...yes and no.  Is it that radical to make a claim we don't care much about social, economic, and human costs?  Again...people see a tag and their product is made in China or Bengladesh or wherever...are they really considering if that place is not killing the environment, using child or slave labor...and so on?  All to get the cheapest product...because the company is going to do whatever they can to make things cheaper to increase their profit.

She stretched it...and yes went too far with latter statements and much else of what she said...but I don't think that point of capitalism at all costs is that far off from things we have seen.

 

[Sinn Fein]

AOC just wants the base riled up. 

Funny - because it looks like the only people riled up by AOC, are folks that don't like AOC.

 

[FairWarning]

Sorry folks, but she is not wrong.

Should she accept any evil corporate money then?  

 

[Sinn Fein]

Should she accept any evil corporate money then?  

Yes.  Yes she should.

 

[FairWarning]

Funny - because it looks like the only people riled up by AOC, are folks that don't like AOC.

I wouldn’t expect any of her supporters to be against her.  They support her economic beliefs.  Just be careful what you wish for.

 

[FairWarning]

Yes.  Yes she should.

Why?  

 

[Stealthycat]

AOC is loud, found a group of people to represent that loves free things and its given her power and wealth - quite the gig actually, smart lady 

 

[Sinn Fein]

Why?  

Because you need money to get re-elected.

 

[FairWarning]

AOC is loud, found a group of people to represent that loves free things and its given her power and wealth - quite the gig actually, smart lady 

She’s a great marketer.

 

[FairWarning]

Because you need money to get re-elected.

So she can be bought, just like the people she is knocking?  She didn’t need them to get elected.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Agreed, but then you need to understand that black people, native Americans, Mexicans who had land stolen from them, Asians who were sold into slavery here to build railroads, etc etc etc etc are sort of forced to see it the same way you do and I think that's pretty awful.  

We both agree that our country was taken from others and largely enhanced by slavery. Instead of just saying "that's the way the world works" maybe try and consider the point of view of others?  

Is that asking too much?  

You know that Indian tribes were very violent, stole land, women, goods and slaughtered other tribes long before anyone arrived here right?

The world was uncivilized hundreds of years ago and that is all cultures. 

 

[BladeRunner]

You know that Indian tribes were very violent, stole land, women, goods and slaughtered other tribes long before anyway arrived here right?

The world was uncivilized hundreds of years ago and that is all cultures. 

As I pointed out earlier, the entire history of the world is built upon people taking #### from other people and enslaving them.  Our world history is built on blood and that does not exclude ANYONE, even these supposed peaceful unicorns that people want to trot out as if the world before America was the Garden of Eden.

 

[Summer Wheat]

Some of it was built on slave labor. Some of it was stolen. But some of it was built on free labor, and most of the wealth is the result of the innovations of immigrants. 
This country’s history, including that of capitalism, is neither immoral nor moral. It has elements of both. There is both much great good and great evil in our past; it’s important to acknowledge all of it. 

Every country, every culture in the world has been this way.  Some way more evil, a few less.

Even though much of what Cortez says comes off as her own pipe dream she does makes sense on this topic.  Off course Nancy Pelosi dismissed her on this topic as her family was a big stock holder.

Ocasio-Cortez said, 'Last year there was at least 75 members of Congress  held individual stock in vaccine companies Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer.' 

At least 75 members of Congress did hold shares in the three pharmaceutical companies that developed a Covid-19 vaccine, even as they voted on legislation to allocate billions on developing and distributing the vaccine.

'That is where we should be drawing the line,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 

'I am a member of Congress. Members of Congress have security clearances, access to very detailed, tailored briefings. Our job is to try to anticipate and legislate for what we see is coming. We should not have the ability to both have access to that information and to hold and trade in individual stock.'

 

[SeniorVBDStudent]

Agreed. But I would note that while most moderate and liberal Democrats believe in regulated capitalism, most Republicans seem to always fight against it, and conservative legislation always seems to be focused on repealing whatever regulations are already in place. 

It's Reagan rhetoric...."government is not the solution to our problems....government is the problem".

This is not new, and its why we have a bimodal income society.  The hilarious part is that Bubba is actually marginalized by this world view, but his party is right with Jesus / prolife / anti LBGT / progun / antiwelfare / antiimmigrant and Bubba is so enamored with the platform that he doesn't see the men behind the curtain raking in billions and trillions.  Joining Bubba in the Republican rank and file is the middle income "rich man wannabees" with their "concerns about unfair taxation" blah blah blah.

Ignorance, Attraction, Aversion.  The three means by which we objectify others in the materialistic realm.  Brought to you by the Coca-Cola corporation and western Christianity.

 

[BladeRunner]

It's Reagan rhetoric...."government is not the solution to our problems....government is the problem".

This is not new, and its why we have a bimodal income society.  The hilarious part is that Bubba is actually marginalized by this world view, but his party is right with Jesus / prolife / anti LBGT / progun / antiwelfare / antiimmigrant and Bubba is so enamored with the platform that he doesn't see the men behind the curtain raking in billions and trillions.  Joining Bubba in the Republican rank and file is the middle income "rich man wannabees" with their "concerns about unfair taxation" blah blah blah.

Ignorance, Attraction, Aversion.  The three means by which we objectify others in the materialistic realm.  Brought to you by the Coca-Cola corporation and western Christianity.

If you live in the US, you should move on principle alone.  Y'know, moral high ground and all that.

Tell me, what country are you going to pick as your new home?  What country best espouses your beliefs?

 

[Nugget]

If you live in the US, you should move on principle alone.  Y'know, moral high ground and all that.

Tell me, what country are you going to pick as your new home?  What country best espouses your beliefs?

Back to the "If you don't love it, leave it" move?  Kinda counters the whole MAGA thing.

 

[Caveman33]

It's Reagan rhetoric...."government is not the solution to our problems....government is the problem".

This is not new, and its why we have a bimodal income society.  The hilarious part is that Bubba is actually marginalized by this world view, but his party is right with Jesus / prolife / anti LBGT / progun / antiwelfare / antiimmigrant and Bubba is so enamored with the platform that he doesn't see the men behind the curtain raking in billions and trillions.  Joining Bubba in the Republican rank and file is the middle income "rich man wannabees" with their "concerns about unfair taxation" blah blah blah.

Ignorance, Attraction, Aversion.  The three means by which we objectify others in the materialistic realm.  Brought to you by the Coca-Cola corporation and western Christianity.

I like the expression "temporarily embarrassed millionaires." I remember a long time, stagnating E7 in the military blowing his stack when I said we would all benefit from a progressive tax up to 90% without loopholes.  "So if I design something or build a business that makes billions, you think you deserve to take 90% from me?!  Well then, #### you!  It's people like you that are the problem with this country!"  Lol, I miss that guy.

When talking about what economic system is best, we are constrained by the inherent greed and corruption that comes with the average person.  As others have pointed out, we already have socialist aspects to our economy.  Would we benefit from socializing our healthcare?  Per capita we are among the top spenders yet by most measures, our health outcomes are in line with poorer countries.

If we had a legitimate progressive tax system, would that discourage innovation in the US?  I don't think so.  We have too many advantages from the past that we are still benefiting from today.  Even if a young Elon Musk had decided that paying 90% on his prospective billions was too much and started his business in South Africa instead, that would only create an opportunity for a less selfish Musk to flourish here.  All ideas are copied eventually. 

I don't agree with the AOC suggestion of having average workers on the board as some sort of solution.  Those average workers would just become part of the elite as we see with politicians.  The absolute best system, but only feasible in an idealistic world, would be a benevolent dictatorship.  The only entity that could make such a system sustainable is God.  I don't believe God exists.

 

[Desert_Power]

Do Marjorie Taylor Green and Lorena Bobert next and aren't you Canadian?  

Those two may spread dangerous conspiracy theories and try to undermine democracy, but at least they also want to lower his taxes. 

 

[Nugget]

Those two may spread dangerous conspiracy theories and try to undermine democracy, but at least they also want to lower his taxes. 

GOP 2022 - Defund the Government

 

[FairWarning]

Every country, every culture in the world has been this way.  Some way more evil, a few less.

Even though much of what Cortez says comes off as her own pipe dream she does makes sense on this topic.  Off course Nancy Pelosi dismissed her on this topic as her family was a big stock holder.

Ocasio-Cortez said, 'Last year there was at least 75 members of Congress  held individual stock in vaccine companies Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer.' 

At least 75 members of Congress did hold shares in the three pharmaceutical companies that developed a Covid-19 vaccine, even as they voted on legislation to allocate billions on developing and distributing the vaccine.

'That is where we should be drawing the line,' Ocasio-Cortez said. 

'I am a member of Congress. Members of Congress have security clearances, access to very detailed, tailored briefings. Our job is to try to anticipate and legislate for what we see is coming. We should not have the ability to both have access to that information and to hold and trade in individual stock.'

Nancy will not like that.

 

[Stealthycat]

Link

I don't think she's compatible with this country.

has she compared it to socialism and communism ? 

 

[Manster]

She is dangerous...

Sure, capitalism has it's flaws, but she, as a communist, would have the government take over massive amounts of wealth, and re-distribute it......I'm sure that would go fine.....

 

[sho nuff]

She is dangerous...

Sure, capitalism has it's flaws, but she, as a communist, would have the government take over massive amounts of wealth, and re-distribute it......I'm sure that would go fine.....

Wait…she is a communist now?

 

[chet]

has she compared it to socialism and communism ? 

Although there have been several countries which call themselves "communist", per the accecpted definition of communism, those countries are actually socialist.  Since AOC identifies as a socialist, she must be aware of the misery and death imparted by socialist regimes on their citizens in the 20th century.  However, I think she'd try to blow it off by saying her brand of socialism is different and it will work this time.  Oh bull####™

 

[Manster]

Wait…she is a communist now?

Well technically, she's a democratic socialist.  I know what the differences between the two are. 

I don't trust our federal government.  And I sure as hell don't trust the leftists who seem to believe they have intellectual, and moral superiority over "bubba".  It's total bull####!

 

[Manster]

I'm all for a way to combat crony capitalism.  I do agree with some of AOC's politics.  But massive wealth re-distribution by the fed is a slippery slope.  The fed is a massively bloated, inefficient monster as is currently.

 

[ekbeats]

It doesn't hurt that she's beautiful.  If her name was Steve and she looked like me, do you think she'd have that many followers?   

Easiest question I’ll get all week my man.

 

[the moops]

Although there have been several countries which call themselves "communist", per the accecpted definition of communism, those countries are actually socialist.  Since AOC identifies as a socialist, she must be aware of the misery and death imparted by socialist regimes on their citizens in the 20th century.  However, I think she'd try to blow it off by saying her brand of socialism is different and it will work this time.  Oh bull####™

Pretty sure she would point to Sweden and Denmark and other similar countries which has had no such misery and death. 

 

[djmich]

Pretty sure she would point to Sweden and Denmark and other similar countries which has had no such misery and death. 

I don’t see them Here

 

[the moops]

Pretty sure she would point to Sweden and Denmark and other similar countries which has had no such misery and death. 

I don’t see them Here

Well true, because Sweden and Denmark and others aren't really socialist countries. And I would argue that AOC would prefer the US to be more like those countries (hig taxation, socialized medicine, etc.) than China or Vietnam or Cuba.

 

[chet]

Pretty sure she would point to Sweden and Denmark and other similar countries which has had no such misery and death. 

Then she would be making another mistake.  They're not socialist countries.   

Nordic nations—and especially Sweden—did embrace socialism between around 1970 and 1990. During the past 30 years, however, both conservative and social democratic-led governments have moved toward the center. Today, the Nordic social democrats have adopted stricter immigration policies, tightened eligibility requirements for welfare benefit systems, taken a tougher stance on crime, and carried out business-friendly policies.

In the 20th century, socialist countries (such as but not limited to China, USSR, Cuba Venezuela, Cambodia etc) devolved into authoritarian regimes which resulted in abject misery for their citizens.  No one knows for sure how many people were killed but many say >100MM people.  

Socialism doesn't work and when socialists say it will be different this time, they're lying.

 

[BladeRunner]

Pretty sure she would point to Sweden and Denmark and other similar countries which has had no such misery and death. 

Sweden and denmark don't consider themselves socialist. 

 

[BladeRunner]

Then she would be making another mistake.  They're not socialist countries.   

In the 20th century, socialist countries (such as but not limited to China, USSR, Cuba Venezuela, Cambodia etc) devolved into authoritarian regimes which resulted in abject misery for their citizens.  No one knows for sure how many people were killed but many say >100MM people.  

Socialism doesn't work and when socialists say it will be different this time, they're lying.

Pfft.  Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Castro, Pol-Pot - what did they know?  They didn't do it right - AOC knows the right way to do it. 

 

[jon_mx]

Sweden and denmark don't consider themselves socialist. 

Except they have a lot of anti-immigrant laws, have greatly tighten their laws on welfare, and are very pro-business.  Not exactly AOC brand of socialism which favors large government planning and control of the economy, open borders, and expensive welfare.