Forum Thread

Rep Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's populist appeal

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 46 - 60 of 65 Prev 1 2 3 4 5 Next
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dutch, Too much dancing around inflation never mentioning deflation and varying use of taxes.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- I really have a hard time understanding your statement: "There should be no reason to save in a fair economy that your work contributed to help build. Saving is giving the money you earned back to the people you earned it from so they will give some of it back to you. Saving is a curse put on people who lost the benefit of their work."

    You also said you are against savings in all of the forms I previously listed. Which gets back, I suppose to how you want to redefine money. If money is no longer needed as a medium of exchange for labor because all labor is rewarded equally, then in effect you don't need money at all. No one saves because that contributes to inequality down the line.

    To push this idea further, in "Chet's Utopian Society", savings would be penalized to the extent that there would be no incentive to save. Period! Capitalism hence would be dead because everyone would be rewarded the same for their labor -- and that reward would not be monetary, but rather the government providing for all your material and social needs from housing to health care to food to education in exchange for the fruits of your labor. Everyone would live in a commune because people living in more grandiose houses would go against the concept of equality for all. Corporations as such would not exist -- they would all be part of the government run apparatus whose focus was also on equality for all.

    There would be no need for savings for retirement because the concept of retirement would no longer exist. Everyone would work to earn their "bread and butter" until they die. The concept of retirement would be a kin to setting up two classes...a working class and a leisure class and that in itself is the definition of inequality.

    The rewards for labor would be exactly the same for all and that includes food. If people were caught hoarding food they would be penalized (jailed) for going against the spirit of the state of equality for all.

    There would be no need for religion either. The head of the state would serve both a person's material and spiritual needs. No poverty...no poor people...no rich people...no middle class. Just a classless society where everyone works for the benefit of the state -- and the state is there to ensure the equality of everyone in the state.

    So Chet, is that what you mean by the "Turbo MMT" term that you threw out there? I am extrapolating from your statements for sure, but carried to the extreme that is what I see your idea of society evolving to -- Chet's Utopian Society where everyone is equal and classless.

    Elementary?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, I respect the time and effort you put forth in your posting. But in this last post you exemplify your lack of rational reasoning trying to redefine what I say in terms of your standard oppositions. If you can't see the temporary short time advantage of MMT and the long term disastrous effect then you are blinded by your respect for Carlitos. Let me refer to me in the beginning explaining to you the eventual outcome of the 2016 election. I supplied constant critiques of the failures of dealing with Trump. I even posted on Oct 28, 2016 that the polls were wrong and that Trump was very likely going to win. I said people were lying to pollsters much like the Bradley effect. Anybody believe me??? Dutch said I might have something, but ridicule from the rest. I know people and I know what can happen. You said you lived a frugal life to have money for your retirement. Shouldn't your work, the fruit of your labor paid for a retirement at your standard wage??? Somebody benefited exorbitantly from your work. Why shouldn't you???
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet -- This is what some would call diversion. I admit to not understanding your postings, which appear more "rant like" than carefully thought out. But maybe that's just me on this website. Admittedly, I made large extrapolations of what your "war on savings" and your redefinition of money would look like if carried out to the extreme. At least in that Utopian Society there are no poor people. Isn't that what you what you are driving towards with your war on savings?

    Regarding your other point, my wife and I did benefit from my work and frugal life style. I make no apologies for it. I retired from my company at age 56, and we both have been living off our "savings" for the last 16 years. The savings, of course, are not just my basis -- the money I put into my savings -- but also the earnings from careful investments. We are enjoying life and are not "wanting", but at the same time we have never been excessive in our spending habits, not before retirement and not after. We have been leading a comfortable life style always living within our means. No credit card debt ever. It requires discipline in spending.

    Now we have certainly been spending our savings for the last 16 years, but at the same time our savings earn interest. I calculate we'll have enough to keep us okay until we die. We will never be a burden on society. We have only taken what we have earned and that includes Social Security and Medicare benefits. Nothing more.

    Furthermore, I contribute to charitable causes especially the homeless. I have not forgotten my roots and the sometimes very difficult times in the 1950s and 60s when miners were on strike and my parents savings were fully depleted. I know that feeling quite well, the worry on my Mom's face as she struggled to feed us kids while my Dad ventured far from home to try find work during the prolonged strikes. So do not judge me.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    Chet -- This is what some would call diversion. I admit to not understanding your postings, which appear more "rant like" than carefully thought out. But maybe that's just me on this website. Admittedly, I made large extrapolations of what your "war on savings" and your redefinition of money would look like if carried out to the extreme. At least in that Utopian Society there are no poor people. Isn't that what you what you are driving towards with your war on savings?

    Regarding your other point, my wife and I did benefit from my work and frugal life style. I make no apologies for it. I retired from my company at age 56, and we both have been living off our "savings" for the last 16 years. The savings, of course, are not just my basis -- the money I put into my savings -- but also the earnings from careful investments. We are enjoying life and are not "wanting", but at the same time we have never been excessive in our spending habits, not before retirement and not after. We have been leading a comfortable life style always living within our means. No credit card debt ever. It requires discipline in spending.

    Now we have certainly been spending our savings for the last 16 years, but at the same time our savings earn interest. I calculate we'll have enough to keep us okay until we die. We will never be a burden on society. We have only taken what we have earned and that includes Social Security and Medicare benefits. Nothing more.

    Furthermore, I contribute to charitable causes especially the homeless. I have not forgotten my roots and the sometimes very difficult times in the 1950s and 60s when miners were on strike and my parents savings were fully depleted. I know that feeling quite well, the worry on my Mom's face as she struggled to feed us kids while my Dad ventured far from home to try find work during the prolonged strikes. So do not judge me.

    Schmidt, Don't read to criticize. Read comprehensively. My post was to point out that you and I both studied the 2016 election. I told you Hillary would lose and why. You said Hillary would win and why. I countered almost the whole universe. I was right supported by continuous explanations as the campaign progressed. What I am saying is when I say something you would be better served by considering rather than trying to demean my position. Going by the record. Like you missed entirely my point that you no doubt benefited your company but didn't get compensated for your benefit, only a token wage. MMT. is an elitist thought not considering any social implication. MMTs solution for inflation is a market solution that would constitute misery at the income level where price effects demand. The only place where price significantly effects demand is the low income levels . The lower income bears the brunt of any elitist solution. Raise the price of gas to cut consumption and reduce pollution and the only people hurt enough to cut back on gas is the lower incomes. Upper incomes could care less. I've seen big high-speed gasoline boats use $2000 dollars a weekend fishing offshore. I would say that less than half the country is effected by rising prices. That is who would bear the hardship of MMT's inflationary correction.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Chet, most MMT scholars would recommend a land tax to replace most other forms of taxes. They would emphasize not letting people get fithly rich thru rent extraction and criminality in first place over utilizing taxes to curb wealth inequality and ill gotten gains, although they wouldn’t be against using the tax system that we have for that purpose should nothing else be done to police the rich.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    Chet, most MMT scholars would recommend a land tax to replace most other forms of taxes. They would emphasize not letting people get fithly rich thru rent extraction and criminality in first place over utilizing taxes to curb wealth inequality and ill gotten gains, although they wouldn’t be against using the tax system that we have for that purpose should nothing else be done to police the rich.

    Carlitos. Analogize money to a resource like water. An examination of water will show the futility of hoarding or stagnating. Water like money is the life of a system. They both should be fluid and circulating. A family at the head of a river valley that damned the river would suffer multiple actions forcing the dam to be removed. Money needs to flow and circulate. Using money as a tool to gather more money needs to be nullified with high progressively escalating taxes. Money is to facilitate the trading of goods and services. Hoarding money in trusts or using it to secure non-interestd positions in the stock or trading markets takes money away from jobs. Tax it back into the economy.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    whether we eat the rich or not has no bearing on the validity of MMT as it does not change accounting logic or fiscal/monetary operations, nor that an employed buffer stock of labor is superior to an unemployed one.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    whether we eat the rich or not has no bearing on the validity of MMT as it does not change accounting logic or fiscal/monetary operations, nor that an employed buffer stock of labor is superior to an unemployed one.

    "employed buffer stock of labor is superior to an unemployed one"

    Aren't those mutually exclusive? If labor is employed how can it be buffer stock? Are you intimating JG, and that JG employees would be fluid between government and private employment? Or something else?

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The MMT JG is meant as transitional employment as an alternative to unemployment, but at what we want the minimum compensation package in the economy to be. Most MMTers would like that to be a "living wage" at $15/hr or higher + healthcare + childcare and other benefits. Every employer would have to have offer at least that or more to keep their workforce.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote:

    The MMT JG is meant as transitional employment as an alternative to unemployment, but at what we want the minimum compensation package in the economy to be. Most MMTers would like that to be a "living wage" at $15/hr or higher + healthcare + childcare and other benefits. Every employer would have to have offer at least that or more to keep their workforce.

    I understood that but I was directing my question about the term buffer. I was wondering if you plan on using JG as an inflation buffer. If full employment was pushing inflation would you release JG employees to private employment to counter rising prices/wages?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes, but people could freely come/go from JG jobs with some limits. If there is a labor shortage putting upward pressure on prices, the JG workers would be attracted out of the JG by employers offering higher wages. That’s how it’s supposed to work now with unemployment, but we know that employers don’t want to hire those with resume gaps and we know that skills do diminish when people are unemployed, so the JG improves the quality of the entry level workforce and labor productivity. Right now, a portion of the unemployed labor buffer stock is spoiled never to return to the labor force. The permanent unemployed increase the safety net burden and other social pathologies that have real resource costs (which is a bad problem to have with a labor shortage).
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    " Right now, a portion of the unemployed labor buffer stock is spoiled never to return to the labor force."

    I see the manufestation of that in subcontractors. They get used to the boom bust cycle and cannot tie themselves to the routine of a steady job.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Carlitos Wrote: Yes, but people could freely come/go from JG jobs with some limits. If there is a labor shortage putting upward pressure on prices, the JG workers would be attracted out of the JG by employers offering higher wages. That’s how it’s supposed to work now with unemployment, but we know that employers don’t want to hire those with resume gaps and we know that skills do diminish when people are unemployed, so the JG improves the quality of the entry level workforce and labor productivity. Right now, a portion of the unemployed labor buffer stock is spoiled never to return to the labor force. The permanent unemployed increase the safety net burden and other social pathologies that have real resource costs (which is a bad problem to have with a labor shortage).

    Sad reality is Bernie is the way but people are breaking there necks to discredit him. The whole cast of candidates are patterned to some extent from Bernie. I think if he declares he will be a runaway winner.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Slowly but surely it is becoming the real American "circus" again; Trump will make sure there are enough "spoilers" as Jared rightfully said about Bernie. Now we've got on top of that the idiot of Starbucks; I bet he did get an call from Trump to play the spoiler. Trump won also because of Bernie. So wake up Democrats don't let that happen again; be unified and don't start in-fighting amongst candidates. Trump will have an"hayday" and will stoke that "diversion" fire as much as he can.