Some of the Dems are dinosaurs, as well. I did say “righties”, but there are at least a few Dem centrists who go into panic mode about AOC, too. I’m willing to be bipartisan in my scorn.
OK, so maybe it won’t work at all. Or maybe some of it will work, and some of it won’t. So, we find out? Keep in mind, it wasn’t that long ago that solar energy was impossible. Not difficult, no unlikely, but impossible, inconceivable.
Of course, there will be problems. Just the other day, there was a major accident at a wind power farm, wind spilled all over everything! Nobody knows yet how much the cleanup is going to cost! Fuckin’ hippies!
Hippy: “Wind farms and solar farms kill endangered species man!!” …handed new sign, woman in white outfit whispers in his ear…“We need wind farms and solar farms everywhere man!!”
Yes socialism is bad. I didn’t even know that was a serious debate in the United States. I would guess that an overwhelming majority of Democrats are opposed to socialism. It is/was agreed that the term was so bad that when Republicans would claim that a Dem policy was socialist, the response would be that it is fear mongering.
Dems always argued that their policies were not socialist, but merely a thumb on the scale to keep things a little fairer. We just take a little extra from the rich and give a little here to the poor and most people seem to be fine with that.
But embracing socialism is an admission that the worst fear mongering that the GOP ever did, as it relates to economics, is absolutely correct. Of course, with a generation now having grown up not remembering the disaster that was the old Soviet Union, maybe it will get some play with younger voters. But younger voters haven’t made up the bulk of the electorate yet.
piffle,
What we see now is the result of the people seeing the GOP embracing and becoming the caricature that the Democratic party and liberals had about Republicans for ages.
And no, socialism is not being embraced, but policies that moderate the worst aspects of capitalism.
Yeah, these jokerslook like they’re having a ball! :dubious: 
:rolleyes:
Wow, I stopped counting the many times discredited bastard pun-dits ( 
) that use constant lies to prop up the president in that video. And one was of course Bastardi.
So you oppose our socialized police force, military, firefighting, courts, and much more… or are different folks just using different definitions for “socialism”?
These are indisputably governmental functions. I don’t know anyone (except for possibly hard core Libertarians) who views government doing government things as socialism.
These are not production of goods or services. Under what basis could we have private court systems, for example? If I am charged with a crime, do I as a “consumer” of court services get to pick my judge?
The argument for capitalism is not an argument for anarchy. I simply fail to see the inconsistency of my point because of the observation that governments are instituted.
Capitalism ensures the most efficient use of goods and services. If I have a bushel of tomatoes and I sell it to the person who bids the highest price, then the tomatoes go to the person who places the highest value on them. Maybe I don’t like tomatoes and I would let them rot. This guy obviously loves tomatoes by his decision to use his money and outbid everyone else for them. Therefore the limited supply of tomatoes flow to those who most enjoy them. Nothing is wasted and all products and services flow to those who value them the most.
Now, the counterargument is that we should distribute those tomatoes to those that “need” them instead of those who want them. The main objection to this (and I admit it is very simplistic) is that the very idea of need comes into play, not as a moral issue, but an economic one. As a matter of basic principle, just because you need something doesn’t mean that others in a free society should be obligated to provide it to you. Be charitable, yes, but don’t create a positive entitlement to the fruits of the labor of others.
The second main objection is that this disincentives production. If I get things I need without any corresponding economic value, then why do I want to work to get those things?
This is basic Econ 101 that I thought those in the United States agreed upon.
I’m glad she mentions FDR - because that’s exactly the type of New Deal we need…
You mean, in the US? If so, how do you know?
The thing you’re missing here is that the right went ahead and said, “Universal health care is socialist!” And then they went ahead and said “Welfare is socialism!” And then they said “Attempts at consumer protection in the branch of finance is socialism!” (Fucking really!) And then you could pick basically any democratic policy from the last 30 years - anything that goes against neoliberalistic order of unfettered capitalism and inequality is “socialism” and puts us on a path to bread lines and gulags.
Is it any wonder that so many people have a good opinion of socialism when your party spent so long calling a whole bunch of really excellent policies “socialism” in a shoddy attempt to discredit them? Is it any wonder that people have a poor opinion of capitalism when it’s becoming increasingly clear that unfettered capitalism is responsible for the ongoing catastrophe that is global warming? (Tangentially related: “When I asked the IPCC authors in October whether a “market solution” could keep warming within 1.5 degrees C, they literally laughed.”)
Hey, if you’re worried about socialism, here’s a great idea: make it so that your party - traditionally the party most fiercely against socialism - isn’t run by conmen and madmen. Make it so that you could reasonably root for the anti-socialist party while also being sane and sensible.
No one is going to enrich themselves if we are all eating dirt.
So, you are saying that she is educating the hippies? Awesome.
Police (protection of the community) is certainly a service, as is firefighting. As are many other governmental functions, such as inspecting food and drugs, maintaining parks, maintaining roads, and much, much more. We have many socialist functions in the US, by this definition (government involvement in “production of goods or services”).
You don’t have to convince me, or even AOC or Bernie, of the benefits of capitalism. We’re all for them (though not necessarily for every single possible service or function for society). The difference between me and you is which functions (and which services) we think capitalism results in a better outcome, and which functions/services we think socialism results in a better outcome. For example, we both probably agree that capitalism results in the highest quality dining, entertainment, and vacation experiences. Capitalism results in the highest quality consumer electronics. Capitalism results in the best performing automobiles (with some government regulation for safety and environment). And much more, quite obviously. But we might disagree on whether capitalism or socialism results in the best results for community health care. Or other functions and services.
These are reasonable discussions, and much more nuanced and adult than “capitalism = good, socialism = bad”.
Not true. The tomatoes go to the person who has the most money. A starving person with no money will obviously place a higher value on those tomatoes than a rich fat guy. Money /= value.
Nope; I just showed that this is not true.
Have you considered taking Econ 102? Or 103? Or maybe even Econ 201? Because there’s all kinds of interesting and weird and very important edge cases where the relationship isn’t quite so simple. There’s a whole field, economic psychology, predicated on the reality that this just isn’t how humans work in the real world.
Seriously, people (most conservatives) keep coming into discussions on government actions and socialism/captialism with this Econ 101 material, and it’s like showing up to a physics conference thinking that F=M*A and being shocked and dismayed when people throw out a formula like this. It’s tiresome. Why yes, when it comes to who gets the tomato, the market is horribly efficient! When it comes to, say, anything related to medicine, the market is a moral and economic atrocity that needs to die sooner rather than later. Sometimes “basic economics” means “there’s more to this and things get fuzzier and more complicated, but this is the simplified model we teach to toddlers to help them understand the very basics”.
What hippies have you been talking to? We complain about nuclear plants & fracking for natural gas. Sometimes we complain about macro-hydroelectric, because it floods poor people out of their homes. Wind & solar can seem kind of area-intensive, but they’re very close to non-polluting and can be built on top of our own buildings. (Wind power is kind of noisy, though.)
And in the First World, health coverage is also indisputably a governmental function. Which is what Exceptional America calls “socialism”.
Wait. He was being sarcastic? Bummer, man.
Damn. You’ve said everything I’ve intended to say, and you’ve said it much more succinctly. I would only mildly counter that any progress achieved by capturing the emotional convictions of the capite censi would be offset by the gorilla lurking in the shadows that would be experiencing the personal costs necessary to secure such lofty ideals.
IOW, what substantive benefit is there to convincing people to believe in the policies and goals you are envisioning, if that belief comes at the expense of not being informed of the personal real-world impacts enacting such policies would have on THEM? They may be idiots but they deserved to be fully informed. Too bad they’re idiots…
Disagree. Republicans absolutely arent afraid of AOC. She is a gift from the White, Male, Conservative Jesus as far as they are concerned. And the reasons for this are multiple. For one, yes, they recognize the undeniable star-like presence she commands in front of the cameras, as well as her almost rabid popularity amongst the farther-left of The Democratic Party.
Two, they also recognize she is an empty suit, an effective vessel to communicate to a much larger audience, what they (Republicans) believe to be a guaranteed to lose and lose bad platform. Because of this, they are eager to paint AOC not as she is in reality, a freshman Congresswoman whose positions align only partlly with the rest ofnther party, but rather as the National Face and Identity of The Democratic Party.
Her positions represent the positions of all mainstream Dems. According to the Republican spin machine anyway. And that spin machine will broadcast that image of The Dems as far and wide and often as sub-humanly possible.
And I think that pre-election belief about Trump was not an irrational one to have. 99/100, it would have been the correct belief to base your hopes on as a D.
I basically agree with most of your post. The D’s need more AOCs, in a broad sense (gawd, no pun). Youth, fire, passion, empathy, heart, boldness, all absolutely indisputably priceless commodities for the quest for progressive ideals. But AOC’s special ability, at this green stage in her career at least, is as a uniqiely effective vessel to deliver the larger vision of her party and/or alliances.
She hasn’t said much, to my ears at least, that, if asked, just about everyone wouldnt agree that what she laid out as goals would be beneficial to society as a whole…if they were just somehow magically implemented. AOC ain’t doin any heavy lifting. The hard part isn’t convincing people that getting “free stuff” is a good thing for them. The hard part is convincing them that it’s a good enough thing that it’s worth a substantial increase in money they directly pay to the gov’t (taxes) in order to fund it.