But, but, she’s in charge

https://pilotonline.com/opinion/columnist/guest/article_14a2b75e-6954-5e71-ba2b-e49018cd5508.html

OAC wants to run the country, but can’t understand that you can’t spend gold eggs if you kill the goose before they are laid.

14 thoughts on “But, but, she’s in charge

  1. Trump is also (supposedly) in charge. We’ll survive both.

    AOC is drawing attention to some of the things that really matter. And a few miles of snazzy fencing is not one of them.

    Pelosi, unlike Ryan or Boehner, can control her extremes. And at the same time show McConnell and Trump who controls the purse strings.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. OAC’,s The Green New Deal, is poorly crafted around a hot subject of our environmental health. Primarily with no viable solution to pay for the outlined initiatives. Estimates of cost are all over the board, but many seem to think in the $90-$100 trillion range – roughly 5 times our national debt. Other than saying she would tax the rich to pay for it; she really has no viable answer or a clue. In fact, she is using it as a political ploy to to bolster her support base, while knowing she will not ever have to address how the pie-in-the-sky deal would be financed – because likely will not happen during her lifetime. She certainly does not possess even the most basic of economic principles; as demonstrated in her “victory” of kicking out Amazon in NY. Her public statements have firmly placed her in the “low-information” generation.

    Like

    1. There is plenty of money to pay for everything proposed in the Green New Deal. It is really a question of priorities. Do we want a bloated military or do we want to help every American reach their full potential? Do we want to continue creating a hereditary billionaire aristocracy or do we to stop our information, energy and transportation infrastructure rescue? etc.

      Furthermore, we must address these questions on the basis of facts and evidence not lies and namecalling. For example, viewed in its entirety, Medicare-for-all will save the country trillions and yet the same people who cried “Socialism!” when Social Security, Medicare and the ACA were enacted claim there is no money to pay for it. Buzzzzz! False.

      Like

  3. The trickle down economics embedded in your goose analogy has been tried repeatedly and failed utterly. Look at the promised versus the actual results of Trump’s tax cuts if you care at all about evidence.

    What “goose” are you afraid is going to be killed. During the good old days when our country was thriving and growing and ordinary people could pay their bills and educate their children, the marginal tax rate on massive incomes was 70% or higher and inheritance tax was a real thing.

    For the sake of future economic, social and political stability, we need to reverse the dangerous and growing concentration of wealth and the so-called “free market” works in the opposite direction. We desperately need a new New Deal to save freedom and capitalism just as the first New Deal did.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. No thanks.

      I’m not aware of any economists who seriously believe the original New Deal “saved capitalism.” The very notion is absurd, rather like claiming that Einstein “saved gravity.”

      On the other hand, it is inarguable that the New Deal exploited a failure in national monetary policy to greatly expand the powers and authorities of the federal government. The Green New Deal would do the same.

      And for that reason alone I am unalterably against it.

      Like

      1. There are many, many things that you are not aware of. The New Deal DID save capitalism in this country. Your analogy about gravity misses the mark. Gravity cannot be banished. Capitalism most certainly can be. That is not an economic judgement but a historical one. The United States responded to the Great Depression with the New Deal. Other countries turned to socialism, fascism and Stalinism.

        I am not sure what you are trying to say about “failures in monetary policy” but I am willing to listen. As far as I am aware the Great Depression affected almost every country regardless of their monetary policies. Maybe you are talking about fiscal policy?

        Like

        1. RE: “Capitalism most certainly can be [banished].”

          I suppose it can by, for example, banning all forms of human interaction involving any exchange of goods. But that would be insanely impractical, even as a philosophical proposition.

          As for “failures in monetary policy,” I would simply refer you to Milton Friedman, whose work on the connections between monetary policy and the Great Depression is widely discussed.

          Like

      2. Don, you and I have disagreed on this often. And probably will continue to do so.

        Here is another angle.

        Post WW2 was in many ways a golden age of economics in the US. Wages were good, the GI bill gave essentially free higher education for most Americans. Families could do well on one wage earner. Well enough so that blue collar trades made enough to be solidly middle class with vacation homes, two cars, a house in the ‘burbs and good schools. Pensions were good and SS helped in retirement. Healthcare was affordable if not as sophisticated.

        The reason behind most of that: we were the last man standing in a devastating world war that ultimately cost the lives of 10’s of millions and the wholesale destruction of entire cities.

        So as the competition heated up on a global scale, America did a turnabout with the primary excuse being the new challenges from abroad.

        The started the “pre-distribution” policies that slowly and inextricably moved income and wealth from the middle to the top. Tax policies, pensions stopped and often raided, corporate buyouts that destroyed companies and disenfranchised workers and unions eliminated. Walmarts and discount retailers pushing Chinese products kept most consumer goods cheap to lessen the sting of 2 earner families’ income stagnation.

        The wealth was growing in the country, but it was also pooling at one end. National expenses skyrocketed with 2 wars, healthcare, aging population, education costs, etc., and yet tax cuts ruled the day. The burdens on the working and middle income classes were heavier and heavier.

        OK, so politicians and economists kept saying that the post WW2 era was an anomaly.

        Really? That’s encouraging (sarcasm alert). So the Depression and the period from the 1980’s forward are more like capitalism is supposed to be?

        That would mean that a broad based economy is not the virtue of free market capitalism over the long haul. Just under certain circumstances, such as zero competition. Combined with a generous payback, like the GI Bill, to those who survived after saving our economy, there will there be a majority of the wealth spread among the majority of the people.

        So it takes major wars to keep capitalism alive? Or a crushing recession as in 2009 with major infusions of cash by the government to keep it from completely collapsing?

        And who is paying for all this? Debt. We cut taxes on the wealthiest, borrow money, and that is supposed to keep capitalism alive and well from the clutches of communism?

        So my position is still that capitalism’s best friends are strong social safety nets for healthcare, education and pensions. Strong unions and other methods to protect workers from the shift of wealth without at least paying fair wages and benefits. And that means effective, not token, union representation on boards of shareholder owned companies.

        There will still be plenty of opportunity for entrepreneurs and major leaders to become wealthy. The cost of doing business in a safe, relatively corruption-free, clean, rule of law nation needs to be covered by commerce, not debt.

        IMHO

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: ” capitalism’s best friends are strong social safety nets for healthcare, education and pensions.”

          Analysis of the post-WWII economy in the U.S. doesn’t really support that view. The alternative view is that simple deregulation of the wartime “command economy” freed the private sector to allocate productive resources more efficiently. Thus, as government spending and control declined, private sector spending was able to rise.

          Here’s a brief Mercatus Center essay that makes the argument for the alternative view:

          https://www.mercatus.org/publication/economic-recovery-lessons-post-world-war-ii-period

          Like

          1. “Certain consumer goods, such as automobiles and other durables, were simply not produced in the war years. There were periodic shortages of goods ranging from milk to men’s pajamas. The quality of goods deteriorated as producers tried to evade price ceilings, and illegal markets were pervasive. The government actually seized firms and directed their operations.”

            So the pent up demand coupled with the lack of competition pushed the “golden era”. In addition we went overnight from a “command” economy to one of demand.

            An artificial economic scenario. Certainly not long term sustainable.

            My contention, I think, still stands. Over time capitalism can kill its own goose. The accumulation of enormous weath among a tiny minority while stagnating the wealth of a substantial majority creates adverse political and social conditions. Wealth is power and power affects economic policy. Our founding fathers, particularly Jefferson, were concerned about creating an aristocracy of money.

            The estate taxes were created in the early part of the 20th century just for that purpose: to curtail the formation of dynasties.

            Free market capitalism is a wonderful servant for economic prosperity. But a terrible master when it gets out of control. And by that I mean losing the “free market” part. Some entities get so strong that competition is stifled worse than any socialist state.

            So we should be vigilant and make sure that the costs of doing business in a nation like ours also include the “externalities” like social safety nets, solid wages, healthcare, education, pensions and security in old age. Otherwise we will go into debt to pay for these things

            Like we are doing right now.

            IMHO

            Like

          2. RE: “So the pent up demand coupled with the lack of competition pushed the ‘golden era’. “

            No. More efficient/productive allocation of resources pushed the Golden Era.

            RE: “Over time capitalism can kill its own goose.”

            No. Capitalism consists of voluntary transactions. To expect voluntary exchange to destroy wealth is insane. You might as well expect people to choose to be poor.

            RE: “Some entities get so strong that competition is stifled worse than any socialist state.”

            No. Concentrations of wealth may indeed be conceptualized as concentrations of power, but they are not in any practical way comparable to the use of force to coerce human behavior. If you can figure out a way to produce the supposed benefits you list without forcibly taking wealth away from those who create or own it, let us know. You will have discovered an otherwise unknown economic miracle.

            Like

    2. “What “goose” are you afraid is going to be killed.”

      In this case I am referring to OAC and her ilk’s successful opposition to Amazon locating a facility there.

      Amazon would have paid $30Billion in taxes over 10 years, and negotiated a $3Billion reduction.

      OAC complained that they could find a better use for the $3Billion than to give it to Amazon(and Bezos) so they protested and Amazon pulled out.

      The net result is that NYC won’t get $27Billion in taxes. and it still doesn’t have the $3Billion either. The $3Billion only existed if Amazon was there, and was only a reduction in what Amazon would pay, NYC was never going to pay Amazon anything.

      Like

      1. As fast as Amazon pulled out and with new plans to use existing locations to “make up” the difference I wonder if AOC just gave them an easy exit strategy.

        NY has issues with high priced real estate and a serious problem with mass transit. It will take decades and 100’s of billions to repair and expand what was once the greatest subway in the world.

        NYC without good mass transit is not even possible.

        Like

      2. If you were consistent you would be cheering AOC and her “ilk” for standing against government putting its thumb on the scale by giving one for-profit company economic advantages that it does not give to other for-profit companies.

        Whether the loss of this project is a good thing or a bad thing for the New York City community is debatable and I do not pretend to know the answer, but AOC was far from alone in her opposition and was only one voice among many.

        The bigger picture is that it is past time for taxpayers to be funding billionaire vanity projects based on often imaginary benefits.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s