Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Mercer]

16 hours ago, Hua Guofang said:

I'm not big on economics but have worked in politics and security for the majority of my adult life. So I can't say socialist economics is good or bad in any way. However, I Can say that in the majority of socialist countries where things turned to shit, it wasn't just the economics that did it. Chavez, for instance, was what any normal person would call corrupt, manipulative, megalomaniac, dictatorial, etc. etc. Mao was the same, Stalin was the poster boy, etc. etc. They, and their ilk are authoritarians and despots, they did  shit load more than just implement economics. They murdered opposition, manufactured truths, started wars of revenge and national prestige, they committed genocide, they implemented retarded farming techniques, they killed off scientists and experts and replaced their school curriculum with ideology and retarded the intellectual growth of their populations for generations (I've travelled extensively through rural China and it is mind blowing how you can see the ripples of the revolution and cultural revolution pulsing through the family trees and the community)

 

I don't always read the walls of text on these matters as I often get left behind, and I do this shit for work and couldn't be arsed in my spare time. But I get the feeling that you cats are only focused on part of the picture. Sure, socialist economics may be fucked, I wouldn't know. But it's only part of the picture and I sense that you cats simplify it by making out it is THE single point of failure in the cases you cite.

Economics is extremely underrated topic, considering it is arguably the single most determining factor in human quality of life. Without economics, armies cannot be funded, people cannot be fed, specialization of trade, and order and can not be maintained or improved. If every major famine over the last century has taught us anything, the  consequences of socialism, and it's intrusive economic mismanagement are often life and death on a massive scale. Imagine half the population in your area dying from starvation. Again, economics is very important. 

 

The fact is we're all out here using oil, and energy right? So if we use the state to change how this is done for our benefit, why lean towards the methods with the most disastrous consequences. I've been against the Dakota Access Pipeline since day one, but randomly changing the laws without thinking, in order to target banks that probably all finance/do business with companies that have ecological accidents would cause even more harm.

 

We all need to be held responsible for our own use of gasoline, plastic,  and energy. Feels good to target, or point at Wells Fargo, but it would feel even better if we found ways to point our fingers with clean hands. That entire exchange between AOC, and the Random Wells Fargo Guy was a ridiculous emotional appeal to people ignorant of economics/finance. In no way did it advance any cause, other than earning votes. 

 

If we're being honest here, Wells Fargo is responsible for far worse shit than this. Again, not defending Wells Fargo, or even lending institutions in general. I'm defending free market principals. A prosperous economy requires that businesses are able to operate within a predictable set of rules, common sense that seems to be lost on the masses ATM. 

[misteraven]

6 hours ago, One Man Banned said:

Mercer and Raven both mentioned emotion over logic- hope that's generalizing people and not directed at me.  If it is, have to remind you I have no dog in this fight so little emotion here.  Again, I think most politicians are ass clowns, it's amusing to see you guys single out the new guy when there are dozens to choose from who have been that way for years.  Also ideas like if one of these socialists was in charge that it would run the country into the ground.  Arguably, we have the most inept leader of our time in office and while we could always be in better shape, the country still stands.  This is not an endorsement of her/their ideas either.

 

@misteravenI don't want to distract from AOC bashing but on banks... I have a few friends who went the small bank/credit union route for different reasons and were happy with it, so I have def considered.  Even then though, still have to research them.  And I'd never do a bank transaction online or on a phone (whenever I get a 'smart' one).  You're right I wouldn't sue Ford like I wouldn't sue the gun manufacturers (know you're watching that).  But the bank is really a different issue.  On an uber simplistic level, they're holding my money for me yes, but they're not doing that as a free service for me or my benefit. More simplistic, if I see someone doing shit I don't like, I don't fuck with them.  Brain fading for now because I have other shit to do so will end with being an informed/responsible consumer, acountability, responsibility, etc., etc.  

 

No, not directed at you at all, so apologies if my comment came off that way. I'm calling her out, because that's what the thread is about, but assume there's a thread about her because she's in the spotlight (much like Trump, who I also called out).

 

I feel you on the bank issue. I left Chase because they required ID for all transactions, including depositing money into an account. I asked why that mattered and they said it was a new law. I looked into it and it wasnt a new law, much like a lot of their "rules for your protection" but rather them willingly cooperating with the government, no doubt because they're largely in bed together. I found it an invasion or privacy for them to ask for me to identify myself when I was handing them money or that they were tracking who was depositing money to me. Tried to do the right thing and take my money elsewhere and being honest, its been a huge pain in the ass ever since. Granted there are no Chase where I live, so it would be a pain regardless, but back when I lived in a regular city, they were on every corner. Their iPhone app is super slick and their banking makes things very easy to keep money in motion.

[Hua Guofang]

5 hours ago, Mercer said:

Economics is extremely underrated topic, considering it is arguably the single most determining factor in human quality of life. Without economics, armies cannot be funded, people cannot be fed, specialization of trade, and order and can not be maintained or improved. If every major famine over the last century has taught us anything, the  consequences of socialism, and it's intrusive economic mismanagement are often life and death on a massive scale. Imagine half the population in your area dying from starvation. Again, economics is very important. 

 

The fact is we're all out here using oil, and energy right? So if we use the state to change how this is done for our benefit, why lean towards the methods with the most disastrous consequences. I've been against the Dakota Access Pipeline since day one, but randomly changing the laws without thinking, in order to target banks that probably all finance/do business with companies that have ecological accidents would cause even more harm.

 

We all need to be held responsible for our own use of gasoline, plastic,  and energy. Feels good to target, or point at Wells Fargo, but it would feel even better if we found ways to point our fingers with clean hands. That entire exchange between AOC, and the Random Wells Fargo Guy was a ridiculous emotional appeal to people ignorant of economics/finance. In no way did it advance any cause, other than earning votes. 

 

If we're being honest here, Wells Fargo is responsible for far worse shit than this. Again, not defending Wells Fargo, or even lending institutions in general. I'm defending free market principals. A prosperous economy requires that businesses are able to operate within a predictable set of rules, common sense that seems to be lost on the masses ATM. 

I'm not sure how this addressed my argument. IF I follow your train of thinking, I'd say that some of it actually backs up what I'm saying, which is that you seem to be disproportionately focusing on economics.

 

You cite famines as an outstanding example of intrusive socialist economics. I look at the one major famine that I know about, the Chinese famine after the Great Leap Forward. I follow the link you provided and even Wikipeadia explains that the cause of the famine was political leadership and not economic policies. The page misses a number of things relevant to that famine, such as Mao dictating the use of unworkable farming methods and no one wanting to say no to the great leader. Mao also encouraged the killing of small birds so they don't eat the grains, which then resulted in an over-abundance of insect pests, which ate the crops. But the most important was that regions competed for the favour of Beijing by falsely reporting their yield, which gave falsely inflated numbers for central planners.

 

The things that led to the great Chinese famine were not economic, they were based on cult of personality politics and failed agricultural and environmental policies.

 

So I clicked on another famine out of the list you provided, the famine of Tigray in 1958. Ethiopia wasn't a socialist country in '58 and the famine occurred due to Salasse's decisions not to assist the region. This famine was not due to economic structures but leadership decision.

 

I then looked at the great famine in Ethiopia, that we all remember, in the 1980s and it seems that it was a direct result of both civil war and drought. It was exacerbated by the government refusing to allow aid to spread to rebel areas. This famine was not due to economic structures but conflict and environmental factors.

 

IF I look down that list, I can see numerous examples of famine in the last century that were explicitly a result of war, not socialist economic policies. And that brings me to my rebuttal to your post, that economics is not the single most determining factor in quality of life. I argue that security is the most determining factor. The reason for this is that if you don't have security (defined here as the freedom from violence or the threat of violence and arbitrary incarceration) you can't really have an economy, regardless of your economic ideology. It would be like trying to tell a jew in the Warsaw ghetto that the Nazi's economic policies were more important their quality of life than Hitler's final solution or telling a dissident lawyer in a Chinese prison that China's policy of supporting state owned enterprises with central banks is more important to her qualify of life than the Party's practice of extra-judicial incarceration.

 

I'm not trying to argue that economics is not important, it is clearly one of the central pillars of life in the modern world. You could have an excellent government in terms of security, but if they fuck the economy up then life is going to suck, no doubt. I just think that there is a tendency on this website to see economics as the only consideration and when socialism is discussed, it is done so without any consideration of numerous other factors that likely have a greater impact on the failing of a state and nation. The result of this is that socialist economics may be attributed with failures that it's not wholly responsible for. My argument is that many things you blame socialist economics for is likely to be the fault of leadership decisions not related to economics.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

@Hua Guofang

 

That's the thing, any famine caused by political interference in the economy is both an economic, and political crisis. The people that starved to death in the largest numbers were all due to Socialism mostly in China, and the USSR and Soviet Block. Socialism is state interference in the economic system, which means it has both political, and economic ramifications. All famines are economic, in that the supply of food does not meet the market demand. When people are unable to purchase, trade, or barter for enough food they slowly starve to death in mass. In my opinion most of the 20th centuries large famines were due to political reasons (Socialism & Communism) mainly central government control of the economy, as opposed to free markets. It's astonishing to me that Socialism isn't associated with poverty any longer in the west.

Edited March 16, 2019 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

6 hours ago, Mercer said:

@Hua Guofang

 

That's the thing, any famine caused by political interference in the economy is both an economic, and political crisis. The people that starved to death in the largest numbers were all due to Socialism mostly in China, and the USSR and Soviet Block. Socialism is state interference in the economic system, which means it has both political, and economic ramifications. All famines are economic, in that the supply of food does not meet the market demand. When people are unable to purchase, trade, or barter for enough food they slowly starve to death in mass. In my opinion most of the 20th centuries large famines were due to political reasons (Socialism & Communism) mainly central government control of the economy, as opposed to free markets. It's astonishing to me that Socialism isn't associated with poverty any longer in the west.

Again, I frame my remarks with the disclaimer that I'm not an economist, so you'll have to excuse me if I misunderstand something. But I think the issue is a misrepresentation of cause an effect and/or different perspectives and definitions.

 

"All famines are economic, in that the supply of food does not meet the market demand. When people are unable to purchase, trade, or barter for enough food they slowly starve to death in mass"

 

What that statement says to me is that the effect, in the case of Mao and the Great LEap Forward, was economic failure - the supply could not keep up with market demand. However, I struggle to see how the cause was through intervention in the economy rather than intervention into market behaviour - and this may be where the perspective/definition difference is. When Mao dictated farming methods of the communes he was intervening in agricultural policy, not economic policy. When Mao said kill all the flies, sparrows, rats and mosquitoes, to me he was intervening in environmental policy. The knock on effect was that suppliers failed to meet demand, but this was a scend, to third order impact of a failed agri/enviro policy. I clearly have a policy approach to these things, which is different to yours. However, I reckon we can both agree that it was Mao's intervention that caused the problem and the 'people's' reverence (Confucianism) and fear (authoritarianism) of him that stopped them from saying "that's a bad idea, we should not do that". 

 

Where I think your statement might fall down altogether is in cases of war and environmental disaster. Civil or international war occurs (caused by govt or not) and crops are destroyed, infrastructure destroyed and farmers displaced or killed. Thus, supply can't meet demand. But this is not a failure of economics, it's a breakdown of the food sector of the economy because of security policy or a response to another nation's security related policies.

 

I would also go back to the issue of the Ethiopian famines, one of the big ones of the 20th century (There was more than one there). Neither famine was caused by a policy based on socialist principles, yet famine occurred. I can also look at countries where socialist economic principals occur and there is no famine. So, I have to ask, is socialist ideology the determining factor or bad leadership the determining factor?

Edited March 17, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

Quote

However, I struggle to see how the cause was through intervention in the economy rather than intervention into market behaviour - and this may be where the perspective/definition difference is.

This is the crux of the problem and possibly what's missing from the general populations philosophical perspective on economics. It cannot be explained, examples sited, and argued in a few words, but I'll attempt to throw an abbreviated summary.

 

In free market capitalism, all economic decisions are ultimately being made by the consumers choosing what to buy. This in and of itself is worth a chapter or two but I'll leave it at that. Accommodating this decision making system requires the foresight, imagination, and planning power of (in the case of the great leap forward)  millions of Chinese individuals. Farmers deciding what to grow, how to grow it, along with millions of agricultural investors, entrepreneurs with an eye on the market gambling on which investments will meet market demand best. The system has a built in robustness, and  redundancy with investors gambling on multiple market solutions, often hedging their bets to ensure acceptable outcomes.

 

This consumer decision making power is greatly diminished in non-free market decisions. The government intervenes with, and alters the economy, and basically makes the majority of what would be entrepreneurial decisions centrally. Think of the difference in computing power between millions of Chineses farmers, and entrepreneurs making decisions, or stripping that away and handing it to one dude, MAO, and everyone basically is subject to how MAO (with his diminished computing/market knowledge) decides to gamble. MAO no doubt thought he was doing the right thing. He could theoretically get lucky, or be so knowledgable in every aspect of agricultural economics that he could always make the decisions using a central government agency, as opposed to millions of Chinese experts, specialized  in their sector of that market.

 

The centralization, and political intervention into free markets has been the root cause of most modern famines. You're framing it as either a governmental failure, or a market failure, but it's not that simple. In reality what's happening is the governmental intervenes into the market, causing market failures. Over a century of Socialism's devastating economic effects should make that abundantly clear. When compared to free markets, the standards of living under socialism, communism, and national socialism (non-free markets) are vastly inferior as evident by the contrast between the iron curtain, Korean DMZ etc.

 

This is the broader perspective that almost all economist share in regards to Socialism. If AOC requires lending institutions be responsible for the industrial accidents associated with funds they lend, our finance system will break down, and that has real life consequences far worse than DAPL. There are far superior solutions to this environmental failure to protect drinking water, that don't involve decapitating the finance industry.  I consider it, like most environmental failures a private property violation. Nevertheless, the same theme is present in the Socialist solution to this problem. A harmful (well meaning) governmental interference into the economy, with real life consequences, and ramifications that take more than a network news soundbite to explain.

[Mercer]

I meant to say *not in the case of the great leap forward* which was centrally planned by Mao.

[Hua Guofang]

Just quickly, I want to reiterate that I’m not trying to argue socialism’s merits. I’m just trying to say, leaving AOC aside, that you only ever focus on the economy as socialism’s failing. I see the failings of DPRK, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Russia, etc. as much more than the economic failure (as in their market interventions).  It almost feels to me that you’re saying that everything is “the market” or that genocide, arbitrary incarceration, ideological indoctrination and such won’t matter if you have a free market. 

[Mercer]

You’re correct, that’s exactly what I’m emphasizing here because AOC isn’t proposing annexation, invasions, and gulags yet. She’s only proposing economic suicide to the cheers of the short sighted masses.

 

If you’d like to debate military deaths, and genocide caused by government death camps, and military attacks on civilians, ask yourself which system has lead to the highest numbers of intentional deaths over the last century also. I’ll give you hint, this system makes Hitler’s Nationalst-Socialist numbers look like child’s play.

 

Every time, even when you’ve got well meaning Marxist leading the revolution, Socialism’s grip on every aspect of private life is too tempting for corruption. People who truly believe in Socialsm like Bernie, AOC, and  Lenin, are always, if not immediately replaced by Stalin’s, and so on. Once the central controls of absolute dictatorship are put into place, guess what kind of leaders you get from that. Humans are incapable of wielding that much intrusive power centrally without abuse.

Edited March 18, 2019 by Mercer

[Hua Guofang]

I get the feeling that I’m not explaining myself clearly and that you get the impression that I’m trying to defend socialism. I’m most definitely not doing that. 

 

Ive probably chosen the wrong thread to bring this up as it’s only tangentially related to AOC. 

 

The point I was looking to stress was that you seem to place disproportionate weight on market intervention for the failure of socialist and communist nations/states. I don’t disagree that these were failures, I argue that there was much more than market intervention at play here (such as cult of personality, arbitrary incarceration, ideological education, genocide, civil war, etc). 

 

Market interventions were definitely one of the major failings, but I feel your analysis suffers from not properly considering the other variables involved. 

 

In saying that, I’m just going off what’s been casually discussed here and there, which may not fully communicate your thinking on the matter. 

[Mercer]

I think the disconnect is due to our almost opposite areas of expertise. Yours leans heavily towards the realm of political, and state use of force, while i can only speak to economics as that's my main area of interest/expertise. I don't think we have any disagreement as to what we see, as much as a perspective difference on the subject where we're looking at the same thing from different sides, struggling to describe what we see to the other person lol.

 

Honestly, I only dabble in political study, from my perspective the governments, and political force is the main cause of most violence, and the largest threat to individual freedom. I'd like to take government in a less intrusive (eventually non-existent) direction. To me Socialism, and it's it's intrusive nature represent a regression into the wrong direction from my perspective.

[Hua Guofang]

YEah, I don't disagree with much of that at all.

 

I think that anyone who thinks that government involvement is a 'good' outcome is wrong. I am probably some one who is prepared to accept more govt involvement than you (I'm happy with a substantive amount of return I get for my taxes - I support a state health system, I'm happy to pay for welfare that helps those who really need it, etc.), but I am also very clear on how inefficient govt often is. In saying that, my wife works for a company that provides private solutions for what is commonly the govt realm (they work both private and govt clients and are what a lot of 'small govt' folk would support in terms of govt making high end decisions that involve national defence, etc. but contracting the market to provide the solution and services) and I am blown away at how inefficient and costly that organisation is. And they are a $350m a year turnover company, leaders in their field for this part of the world. So I don't accept that private industry is always a better solution than govt., it's possible to be the other way around sometimes.

 

I guess my bottom line would be: Communism, GTFO. Socialism, no thanks. Laissez-faire economics, no thanks (private organisations left alone can cause serious harm as well). Mixture of largely market economics with, what you would call socialist-style policies on a case-by-case basis - yes please. I live in Australia and have spent a lot of time in Nordic/Scandinavian countries as well as the US, China and a few Southeast Asian countries. Out of these, Aust, Sweden and Norway have, by a longshot, the best standards of living. They benefit from smaller populations, good natural resources, democratic government and a constant tug-of-war between progressive and mainstream conservative govt.

 

Each country has its problems but none of them have poverty, oppression and environmental degradation like China and some of Southeast Asia. None of them have the social issues and poverty like the USA, and none of them have the religious BS that you see in Malaysia and Indonesia (and the US, to a degree). I note that whilst China, Southeast Asia and the US all have different gun ownership laws, Sweden, Australia and Norway all have relatively strict laws (I say that as a shooter myself).

 

So whilst I am not prepared to see my country run a socialist system. I'm also not ideologically opposed to socialist policies like that which my country has (social welfare, state health, state schools, unions, minimum wage, sliding tax scale, etc.).

Edited March 19, 2019 by Hua Guofang

[Mercer]

I'm the opposite in regards to my views on the government. My beliefs are more aligned with what we call "Libertarian" values here in the U.S., basically what the rest of the world refers to as liberal. I'm more Rothbardian though, which isn't part of the standard political spectrum. This technically makes me an anarchist in that I'd like to see government completely eliminated eventually. Slowly replaced with a decentralized systems performing the same functions we currently assume only government can accomplish. This is where my "beef" with Socialists comes from, they basically think government is the solution to everything.

[misteraven]

It’s crazy to me that anyone would willingly prefer that someone else, literally strangers, take command of significant aspects of their every day life. That they would trust someone else to take large portions of your productivity and redistribute it in a way that is more aligned, efficient and effective than the person who’s work or talents generated it to begin with.

 

Those governing are literally, very little more than the average joe you see in the street that you’d likely not want to waste time sharing a coffee break with. Reminds me a bit of how people see LEO, like they’re somehow different than the rest of us. That because they wear a crisp uniform and open carry a weapon, that they’re a different breed of human and feel a sense of trust that they might be better at protecting your safety, your life, than you are. Never mind how poorly trained most cops are, that more often than not, the limited training they receive most often reinforces bad habits and that truth be told, they’re a reflection of society as a whole where 10% are scum bags that are held in check by a fear of consequence (rather than inherent morality) and 10% of those can best be described as evil. They’re just people like you and I and when faced with extreme circumstances most often react like you or I would. End of the day, they’re just people... No better, no worse and rarely very much more qualified when push comes to shove.

 

Politicians are are the same. Most lack the real experience to truly qualify them for the tasks the position entails. There’s no particular qualification beyond a minimum / maximum age. For most positions you don’t even need a clean criminal record. It’s a position granted by winning a contest for votes, that in itself is most often manipulated to a point that it hardly qualifies as a contest anymore, especially as the position being sought takes on more power. Yet, we’ve allowed these members of society a special position to make decisions on behalf of all of us, in areas like economics, domestic and foreign policy and every other aspect of governance of our daily lives while continuing to hand over increasingly substantial sums of money (our productivity). Reality is that this thread here on 12oz is probably more in depth on the subject of economics than likely AOC has even been subject to. But the sad reality is she’s placed in a position to sway policy that has very real world consequences in regards to economics, but very few seem to pause and really question, let alone show meaningful concern that there’s zero actual requirement that she even need any basic understanding or expertise on the subject.

 

[Mercer]

https://fiatisan.com/modern-monetary-theory-is-pure-inflation/