AOC = Liberal Goddess

[Grizalltheway]

That isn't what Ocasio-Cortez is saying. She's for full on socialism and the de facto end of capitalism.

Do you have any other straw men to offer or is that the only one?

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

I think it's been proven that a Scandinavian-like system wouldn't work here because...reasons.

[kalm]

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

I think it's been proven that a Scandinavian-like system wouldn't work here because...reasons.

[Chizzang]

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

I think it's been proven that a Scandinavian-like system wouldn't work here because...reasons.

It won't work here because 50% of the poor people in this country hate poor people



Frankly is fascinating to watch

[Baldy]

That isn't what Ocasio-Cortez is saying. She's for full on socialism and the de facto end of capitalism.

Do you have any other straw men to offer or is that the only one?

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

Why did you leave off the rest of her quote?

“so to me capitalism is irredeemable.”

[CID1990]

That isn't what Ocasio-Cortez is saying. She's for full on socialism and the de facto end of capitalism.

Do you have any other straw men to offer or is that the only one?

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

So you're just going to double down on it, huh?

A mixed system isn't what she is talking about.

And I don't know what it is about Sweden that gives you and others such a hard on. They and the other Scandinavian countries are very poor examples of successful socialist systems. - Getting Sweden and actual socialism confused is something you do frequently. Looks like Griz does too

Sweden is a free market country, with a generous social safety net, and very high taxation to pay for it. They were also very successful economically before they built their welfare infrastructure. "Socialism" did not build Sweden's wealth - the free market did.

Somehow I think you are rushing to her defense because you think I am making an all-or-nothing argument. Jelly does that with Libertarianism too. It is very shallow thinking. Then again, maybe that's the answer to why you defend AOC - similar logical processes

[kalm]

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

Why did you leave off the rest of her quote?

“so to me capitalism is irredeemable.”

I didn’t QZ.com did.

And that ending doesn’t exactly jive with the previous sentence. Happen to have the full quote?

[kalm]

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

So you're just going to double down on it, huh?

A mixed system isn't what she is talking about.

And I don't know what it is about Sweden that gives you and others such a hard on. They and the other Scandinavian countries are very poor examples of successful socialist systems. - Getting Sweden and actual socialism confused is something you do frequently. Looks like Griz does too

Sweden is a free market country, with a generous social safety net, and very high taxation to pay for it. They were also very successful economically before they built their welfare infrastructure. "Socialism" did not build Sweden's wealth - the free market did.

Somehow I think you are rushing to her defense because you think I am making an all-or-nothing argument. Jelly does that with Libertarianism too. It is very shallow thinking. Then again, maybe that's the answer to why you defend AOC - similar logical processes

Struck a nerve, I see...

We are a mixed economy too. The argument is simply a matter of degrees. I could be mistaken but I think it was you who accused AOC of promoting full blown socialism a few posts back. I just haven’t seen great examples of where that’s her point.

[Grizalltheway]

Gotcha....I thought she was more like the Swedes...or Eisenhower...

“Capitalism, to me, is an ideology of capital. The most important thing is the concentration of capital, and it means that we prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else, and we seek it at any human and environmental cost… But when we talk about ideas like democratic socialism, it means putting democracy and society first, instead of capital first; it doesn’t mean that the actual concept of capitalistic society should be abolished.”

So you're just going to double down on it, huh?

A mixed system isn't what she is talking about.

And I don't know what it is about Sweden that gives you and others such a hard on. They and the other Scandinavian countries are very poor examples of successful socialist systems. - Getting Sweden and actual socialism confused is something you do frequently. Looks like Griz does too

Sweden is a free market country, with a generous social safety net, and very high taxation to pay for it. They were also very successful economically before they built their welfare infrastructure. "Socialism" did not build Sweden's wealth - the free market did.

Somehow I think you are rushing to her defense because you think I am making an all-or-nothing argument. Jelly does that with Libertarianism too. It is very shallow thinking. Then again, maybe that's the answer to why you defend AOC - similar logical processes

My statement was only tangentially related to AOC. Don't let that ruin a good back-patting session, though.

[Baldy]

Why did you leave off the rest of her quote?

I didn’t QZ.com did.

And that ending doesn’t exactly jive with the previous sentence. Happen to have the full quote?

Of course it doesn's jive with the previous sentence, this is Occasional-Kotex talking here.

“Capitalism is an ideology of capital –- the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” Ocasio-Cortez said. And that comes at any cost to people and to the environment, she said, “so to me capitalism is irredeemable.”

[kalm]

I didn’t QZ.com did.

And that ending doesn’t exactly jive with the previous sentence. Happen to have the full quote?

Of course it doesn's jive with the previous sentence, this is Occasional-Kotex talking here.

“Capitalism is an ideology of capital –- the most important thing is the concentration of capital and to seek and maximize profit,” Ocasio-Cortez said. And that comes at any cost to people and to the environment, she said, “so to me capitalism is irredeemable.”

Yep...I read that one too in another article after you pointed it out. So the other sentence was made up or pulled out context?

You could be completely right. We need a link to the full transcript.

[CID1990]

So you're just going to double down on it, huh?

A mixed system isn't what she is talking about.

And I don't know what it is about Sweden that gives you and others such a hard on. They and the other Scandinavian countries are very poor examples of successful socialist systems. - Getting Sweden and actual socialism confused is something you do frequently. Looks like Griz does too

Sweden is a free market country, with a generous social safety net, and very high taxation to pay for it. They were also very successful economically before they built their welfare infrastructure. "Socialism" did not build Sweden's wealth - the free market did.

Somehow I think you are rushing to her defense because you think I am making an all-or-nothing argument. Jelly does that with Libertarianism too. It is very shallow thinking. Then again, maybe that's the answer to why you defend AOC - similar logical processes

Struck a nerve, I see...

We are a mixed economy too. The argument is simply a matter of degrees. I could be mistaken but I think it was you who accused AOC of promoting full blown socialism a few posts back. I just haven’t seen great examples of where that’s her point.

You might notice a pattern here -

People playing stupid and fallacious logic strikes a nerve with me, that is to be sure - you are doing one or the other

AOC’s whole schtick is on replacing capitalism - she isnt talking about instituting a mixed system... that isnt radical - and we already have that

social safety nets are not state socialism - not even close. If you pay closer attention, she is talking about the way our economy is structured around the free market. Handouts are just bread and circuses. The woman is a full blown Marxist, and her statements support that conclusion.

If you want to debate the merits of the Scandinavian system, then go right ahead - but trying to conflate it with what AOC and the rest of the Justice Democrats (or whatever they call themselves) are up to is an intentional diversion




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

So you're just going to double down on it, huh?

A mixed system isn't what she is talking about.

And I don't know what it is about Sweden that gives you and others such a hard on. They and the other Scandinavian countries are very poor examples of successful socialist systems. - Getting Sweden and actual socialism confused is something you do frequently. Looks like Griz does too

Sweden is a free market country, with a generous social safety net, and very high taxation to pay for it. They were also very successful economically before they built their welfare infrastructure. "Socialism" did not build Sweden's wealth - the free market did.

Somehow I think you are rushing to her defense because you think I am making an all-or-nothing argument. Jelly does that with Libertarianism too. It is very shallow thinking. Then again, maybe that's the answer to why you defend AOC - similar logical processes

My statement was only tangentially related to AOC. Don't let that ruin a good back-patting session, though.

Congrats on pointing out the purely tangential relationship between your reply and what I’m talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Struck a nerve, I see...

We are a mixed economy too. The argument is simply a matter of degrees. I could be mistaken but I think it was you who accused AOC of promoting full blown socialism a few posts back. I just haven’t seen great examples of where that’s her point.

You might notice a pattern here -

People playing stupid and fallacious logic strikes a nerve with me, that is to be sure - you are doing one or the other

AOC’s whole schtick is on replacing capitalism - she isnt talking about instituting a mixed system... that isnt radical - and we already have that

social safety nets are not state socialism - not even close. If you pay closer attention, she is talking about the way our economy is structured around the free market. Handouts are just bread and circuses. The woman is a full blown Marxist, and her statements support that conclusion.

If you want to debate the merits of the Scandinavian system, then go right ahead - but trying to conflate it with what AOC and the rest of the Justice Democrats (or whatever they call themselves) are up to is an intentional diversion




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha. I investigated a little further and you could be right. The problem is there's evidently a difference between democratic socialists and social democracies....or something like that.

On the one hand AOC is a democratic socialist which means she wants to tear down capitalism and have government take over the means of production but in a kinder, gentler, and less authoritarian way than the old Soviet Union. Bernie Sanders and the scandahoovians are also democratic socialists but they just seek to reform capitalism so that it works for everyone, leaving the means of production up to a private sector willing (or coerced) into working WITH labor to insure a level playing field.

Right wing economics is equally confusing but that's for another thread.

[AZGrizFan]

You might notice a pattern here -

People playing stupid and fallacious logic strikes a nerve with me, that is to be sure - you are doing one or the other

AOC’s whole schtick is on replacing capitalism - she isnt talking about instituting a mixed system... that isnt radical - and we already have that

social safety nets are not state socialism - not even close. If you pay closer attention, she is talking about the way our economy is structured around the free market. Handouts are just bread and circuses. The woman is a full blown Marxist, and her statements support that conclusion.

If you want to debate the merits of the Scandinavian system, then go right ahead - but trying to conflate it with what AOC and the rest of the Justice Democrats (or whatever they call themselves) are up to is an intentional diversion




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha. I investigated a little further and you could be right. The problem is there's evidently a difference between democratic socialists and social democracies....or something like that.

On the one hand AOC is a democratic socialist which means she wants to tear down capitalism and have government take over the means of production but in a kinder, gentler, and less authoritarian way than the old Soviet Union. Bernie Sanders and the scandahoovians are also democratic socialists but they just seek to reform capitalism so that it works for everyone, leaving the means of production up to a private sector willing (or coerced) into working WITH labor to insure a level playing field.

Right wing economics is equally confusing but that's for another thread.

I wouldn't be so sure about that....

[kalm]

Gotcha. I investigated a little further and you could be right. The problem is there's evidently a difference between democratic socialists and social democracies....or something like that.

On the one hand AOC is a democratic socialist which means she wants to tear down capitalism and have government take over the means of production but in a kinder, gentler, and less authoritarian way than the old Soviet Union. Bernie Sanders and the scandahoovians are also democratic socialists but they just seek to reform capitalism so that it works for everyone, leaving the means of production up to a private sector willing (or coerced) into working WITH labor to insure a level playing field.

Right wing economics is equally confusing but that's for another thread.

I wouldn't be so sure about that....

Sure. Just like I’m not so sure of “free” market capitalists and conservatives truly believing in competition and true open markets.

[Grizalltheway]

My statement was only tangentially related to AOC. Don't let that ruin a good back-patting session, though.

Congrats on pointing out the purely tangential relationship between your reply and what I’m talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Apology accepted.

[AZGrizFan]

I wouldn't be so sure about that....

Sure. Just like I’m not so sure of “free” market capitalists and conservatives truly believing in competition and true open markets.

Well start a thread on it then. Just don't make blanket misstatements about Uncle Bernie's beliefs and desires.

[Ivytalk]

I wouldn't be so sure about that....

Sure. Just like I’m not so sure of “free” market capitalists and conservatives truly believing in competition and true open markets.

Klam, I think you view true competition and true open markets as commerce among a peaceful nation of small shopkeepers, where each merchant has a tidy little market in which he makes a tidy little profit. True competition involves winners and losers. Some merchants fail, and others take over their business and get bigger. What you really object to is the facilitation of that process by government favoritism and subsidy. In other words, cronyism. I don’t disagree with that. However, opposition to business success and “mere bigness” misapprehends what capitalism — and the antitrust laws, for that matter— are all about.

[kalm]

Sure. Just like I’m not so sure of “free” market capitalists and conservatives truly believing in competition and true open markets.

Well start a thread on it then. Just don't make blanket misstatements about Uncle Bernie's beliefs and desires.

Go find me where he suggests that government should take over the means of production.

[kalm]

Sure. Just like I’m not so sure of “free” market capitalists and conservatives truly believing in competition and true open markets.

Klam, I think you view true competition and true open markets as commerce among a peaceful nation of small shopkeepers, where each merchant has a tidy little market in which he makes a tidy little profit. True competition involves winners and losers. Some merchants fail, and others take over their business and get bigger. What you really object to is the facilitation of that process by government favoritism and subsidy. In other words, cronyism. I don’t disagree with that. However, opposition to business success and “mere bigness” misapprehends what capitalism — and the antitrust laws, for that matter— are all about.

I agree completely with this. How does government in an even-handed way insure a level playing field or obviously should they even attempt to control the size of business? There are some services and products that ONLY large businesses can undertake. If not, then government must do it and government is the biggest monopoly of all.

(klam...The Reasonable and thoughtful centrist)

[AZGrizFan]

Well start a thread on it then. Just don't make blanket misstatements about Uncle Bernie's beliefs and desires.

Go find me where he suggests that government should take over the means of production.

Go listen to all the videos that have surfaced recently. He goes waaaay beyond your statement.

[kalm]

Go find me where he suggests that government should take over the means of production.

Go listen to all the videos that have surfaced recently. He goes waaaay beyond your statement.

No. Post links or sit back down.

[Ivytalk]

Klam, I think you view true competition and true open markets as commerce among a peaceful nation of small shopkeepers, where each merchant has a tidy little market in which he makes a tidy little profit. True competition involves winners and losers. Some merchants fail, and others take over their business and get bigger. What you really object to is the facilitation of that process by government favoritism and subsidy. In other words, cronyism. I don’t disagree with that. However, opposition to business success and “mere bigness” misapprehends what capitalism — and the antitrust laws, for that matter— are all about.

I agree completely with this. How does government in an even-handed way insure a level playing field or obviously should they even attempt to control the size of business? There are some services and products that ONLY large businesses can undertake. If not, than government must do it and government is the biggest monopoly of all.

(klam...The Reasonable and thoughtful centrist)

Channeling my inner Yoda: “The Libertarian is strong in you ...yessss...”

[AZGrizFan]

Go listen to all the videos that have surfaced recently. He goes waaaay beyond your statement.

No. Post links or sit back down.

No. And no.

[kalm]

No. Post links or sit back down.

No. And no.

So you got nothin from Bernie in his own words about the means of production?

Perhaps there's some on AOC beyond memes and right wing postulation. I don't know.

Didn't Grover Norquist suggest shrinking government to the size it could be placed in a bathtub and drowned?

Your side has its admitted anarchists and the other side has it's consolidated government power statists.

I'll just sit back and watch.

Thoughtful moderate....out!