What do the results of Biden and Trump mean for non-centrists?
AOC... what’s the deal
- Thread starter jerzboy
- Start date
I'd imagine she has a better grasp of politics and economics than you.
What exactly doesn't she know?
LV Koopa
Jester from Hell
Pretty much this
LV Koopa
Jester from Hell
Definitely not economics. Which is sad considering that's her degree and she routinely gets things wrong. She still doesn't understand how minimum wage works, and she is still caping for Nationalized Healthcare while still not being able to explain why the US health system can't function like other countries. Even BASIC research would show that you need to fix the HMO and Big Pharma problem before screaming about everyone paying their fair share.
A lot of this is very low level economics and problem solving. But she does not solve problems - she just rails on and on about what's fair and what isn't without showing due diligence in knowing how these problems have come about and why some solutions do not work.
Let A Fro Be A Fro
Superstar
She doesn't get them wrong at all. Minimum wage increases do not automatically drop the supply of jobs. There are externalities involved that have a much greater impact on that - and there are plenty of experiments across the US that show why we can absolutely raise the minimum wage and should have done so a decade ago.
Nationalized healthcare in the US can absolutely happen - she's talked about the medical-industrial complex and nationalized healthcare in depth over the past few years - all you have to do is Google it.
It sounds like you have an incredibly basic understanding of economics and you've already reached your limit. Put down the Thomas Sowell and read some of Jason Hickel, or David Graeber or Darrick Hamilton's work.
Cape for a Latina with a white boyfriend, brehs.
Take off the cape. She's not gonna reward you for coming to her rescue.
You don't even know what objectify means. It's just an SJW buzzword. We still see her as a human being. A human being with nice tiddies
I'm not sure what the issue is. While reparations for African-Americans both for chattel slavery as well as for the apartheid state and post-segregation discrimination are the absolute primary focuses for me, and many others - it certainly doesn't represent the end-all.
The US government should pay for the entirety of its crimes against its citizenry. They're two different "discussions" - but I don't recall seeing any mention of PR or Chicanos in the actual legislation being pushed from HB 40 or any others - so this is a non-factor.
Doesn't take away from her being one of the best politicians on the national stage.
calixprynce
...
great question, i'm curious as well. I dont know the answer to this
Sure she can push all she wants but that's not going to change the fact we don't have the proper political representation to actually have these policies enacted and also respected, even if she did help were still poor all over the map and many of us don't have the proper knowledge or spirit to take advantage of the proper opportunities to raise the standards of our people.
ISO
Pass me the rock nikka
No she doesn’t she’s average at best
LV Koopa
Jester from Hell
MW does drop the amount of people being picked up for those jobs - from the pool that has the least "qualifications" to offer. You are not picking out of 1 pool of candidates, you're picking out of several. It's a simple exercise - place yourself in the shoes of the business owner. If your labor costs go up, you pick from the cheapest people with the most value. You don't hire out people that are young and joining the work force as much as you would before, or older people, or people with handicaps because they cost you more. This is part of the stupidity going on with college degrees and why it is more difficult to get a job without one. Minimum wage going up when the value of the job does not move in tandem results in poorer people getting locked out of the potential hiring pool.
The MW experiments are just that - experiments. It STILL does not solve the core issue which is the government is setting the price of labor independent of the value of the job. And BASIC ECONOMICS shows that when you set a price floor you increase the amount of people willing to go for that job. Hence once again - the people that would be picked normally are going against a larger pool of people that are also more qualified. This doesn't solve the poverty problem and it doesn't address why some people can't qualify for jobs. It is literally just moving the goal post to appease people thinking they will earn more money without acknowledging the fact that not only have you ignored the core problem, but you've brought more competition into their lives.
Nationalized healthcare in the US cannot happen until Congress stops talking out of both sides of their neck. You cannot nationalize healthcare without breaking up HMO and Pharma holds on the country. Before even getting there you would probably be better of trying to create a free market healthcare system, which the US does not have. Even worse is if you somehow got that far, no other country would really want that - as their medical costs would skyrocket once the government becomes the only buyer for medical services and can effectively bully Pharma for discounts like other countries do. Many of those health care systems are already struggling, Canada being the prime target with some of their provinces showing budget issues managing costs. They already get heavily discounted medical prices due to US citizens subsidizing the costs. A national healthcare system in America means that no longer happens for them or any other country and their systems would be toast.
My understanding of economics is far better than hers. Especially since I don't just sit around coming up with crazy ideas and actually put my money to work instead of sitting around pretending that it's all a neat puzzle that is easy to solve by giving people more money. Plenty of civilizations have tried it over thousands of years and it has never solved the poverty issue.
