Choosing who to get elected and reelected should probably be considered long term thinking. Unless you think he made mistakes, for his purposes, in whom he got elected.
What I think has no bearing on who Karl Rove supports. While getting Republicans elected and re-elected might be long-term thinking, it certainly isn’t long-term policy.
And I"m still wondering what new economic policy will affect us in 2050.
Thanks! Much appreciated.
I watched some of the original interview. It was a pretty unimpressive showing. The unemployment part was technically wrong, but at least you could see where she was going. The capitalism part was so vague, it was hard to know where she was headed. Hopefully, she’ll get more details of her talking points nailed down as she goes along.
btw, I looked this up earlier because I didn’t know what it meant. The saying is so old that it’s not even true anymore. According to wiki, Peoria isn’t a bellwether anymore.
As to whether AOC’s brand of democratic socialism will work there, it probably stands a better chance than in many other places.
It can’t be much lower than 150. Probably 160-180. Of course that’s totally pulled out of nether-regions.
Is that what she said? She wants to “ban” people from being able to draft legislation? :dubious:
ETA: I see on re-read that others called you out for your “interpretation” of what was actually said. I also see that you doubled down on it, even tho it’s obviously a stupid argument.
Nitpick: It may be asking too much for Dopers to spell voilà with its accent grave, but unless you post about stringed-instrument music please configure your spell-checkers to reject Viola. 
Oh my. It is AOC’s terse diction on which you hang your case? :smack: Words fail me … in this forum. Report to the Pit if you need to know why your train of thought is not entirely reasonable.
I’ve no idea whether DrDeth is a right-winger, left-winger or centrist… (Can we get a Grease Monkey script to tag posters?) But I’ve learned to ignore posts at SDMB which mention “economics” unless the poster is … an economist! For example
At the time of this post, I went through a list of Nobel-prize winning economists and stopped when I couldn’t find a single one who did NOT support basic income! I will bet three gallons of cheap red wine that the next time a right-winger writes the equivalent of “I’m not inclined to provide a basic introduction to Econ 101” he’s supporting an argument that suggests he’s never taken Econ 101! 
What list are you supposed to draw on?
There is the great debate on the concept of the basic income as a solution. There is certainly the wide agreement among the market economists (not even counting the Left ones) that the issue of the inequality and the inefficient distribution of the wealth is pressing and rebalancing measures are needed to ensure long term growth. It is less agreed that a universal basic income versus other mechanisms is in the near term a good solution.
and yes I am actually an economist.
Speaking as a non-economist, a list of Nobel-winning economists sounds to me like a pretty good one to draw on.
I Love Me, Vol. I, I think you have a very, very inflated sense of the range of IQ values. Less than one person in two thousand has an IQ of 150 or higher, and less than one person in 20 million has a score of 180 or higher. Barack Obama almost certainly has an above-average intelligence. And he absolutely certainly has some talents which are very far indeed above average. But the talents in which he is the furthest above average are mostly not the ones that are measured in an IQ test, and there’s no way he’s one of the 15 most intelligent people in the country.
I normally do not post in this folder out of the outright fear of being banned, but I can’t let this slide. To the rest of you: do a better job. It doesn’t take much chakra to dismantle these arguments. Even the simplest Harem No Jutsu or Reverse Harem No Jutsu would do. To address the OP, they hate on Ms. Ocasio-Cortez because that is what Republicans do. Republicans smear every Democrat who could be President or control the levers of power. Republicans have smeared (and/or dehumanized) Hillary Clinton, Terry McAuliffe, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders, Maxine Waters, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Kirstin Gillibrand, Chuck Schumer, Al Sharpton, Tim Kaine, Michael Moore, Van Jones, Ruth Ginsberg, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Oprah, and even Michael Avenatti (not that he needed much help). Did I miss anyone? No, really, did I miss anyone? It would be as if Rachel Maddow stalked and hounded Matt Gaetz or Dan Crenshaw in order to smear them. Republicans are like white people. You see, white people don’t define themselves by their whiteness, they define themselves by their anti-blackness. You can observe this in the threads that promulgated here and elsewhere. Similarly, Republicans don’t define themselves by their political ideology, they define themselves by their opposition to Democrats (See Climate Change). Look at the criminal justice bill that sits bogged down in Congress. It sits there (and, mark my words, will not pass) because white folks can’t bear to do something that might benefit people of color. White folks promptly stopped that shit in 1964.
First of all, people of color won’t play the race card if white folks quit being the dealers. Second, your post highlights the double standard for people of color. White folks are allowed to make mistakes, are allowed to be in the upper echelons of power and be average, and are always given the doubt. That last part merits highlighting: people of color are rarely given the benefit of the doubt. In fact, if you’re a person of color, you’re expected to be the damn near magical. You had, in recent memory, a Vice President who didn’t know how to spell potato and a current President who believes that Frederick-fucking-Douglass is still alive fighting the good fight against slavery. You have a sitting Supreme Court Justice who has no formal training in mathematics, statistics, or any other quantitative field dismiss mathematical formula (that he doesn’t understand) as gobbledygook. A sitting senator talk about how she’d like to be at a public execution/lynching/hanging. And a clown-car full of Republicans getting suckered by a British comedian into screaming racial epithets and marketing firearms to toddlers. So, to use select comments made by Ms. Ocasio-Cortez as an indictment on either her ability or her intelligence is absurd. Finally, as others have pointed out, Ms. Ocasio-Cortez* has* formal training in economics and likely took coursework in politics and political theory, she graduated with honors, went one of the top schools of the country, she organized her campaign, put in the hard work going door-to-door, beat a longtime incumbent, and garnered nearly 80% of the vote. She clearly has grit and has achieved more in her 29 years of life than most of us. And she hasn’t even been sworn in yet. What I admire most about Ms. Ocasio-Cortez can be summed in a tweet she put out a few days ago in response to Republicans taking a picture of her back and mocking her clothes. She said “Dark hates light - that’s why you tune it out. Shine bright & keep it pushin”. Best advice to any person (regardless of color) in dealing with bullies, haters, and racists.
As an economist I would like to see this list and the supposed parameters of the agreement as the ‘approval’ as the direct unqualified support is very doubtful to me.
of course it is more relevant to look at the works of the economists who are working on the issues, as saying list of nobel winning economsts is like saying list of nobel winning scientists - to be a physicist is not to be a specialist in biology…
the work I am familiar with there are many question marks if the concept specifically is workable and provides the desired net benefits.
if the approval is on the need to have solutions then it is not a surprise
Basic income is generally defined, I think, to NOT require means testing, thereby avoiding wrong incentives.
As I posted in that two-years-ago thread, Friedman and Hayek on the right AND Stiglitz and Krugman on the left all support basic income (or its close cousin, negative income tax). Four out of 4 seemed satisfactory and I apologize if I implied that I continued down the list, Googling all laureates. (Did the mathematician John Nash even express an opinion on the topic? :rolleyes: )
And of course I knew you are an economist; I’ve learned from you in the past.
Pelosi (and Harry Reid) were both very effective in passing Obamacare, despite unified opposition. This was difficult even with the supermajority (because there were at least a few Democrats opposed to the law), but it really got bad when Ted Kennedy passed away. They still got the law passed, though.
I think they were both very effective “parliamentarians” and effective at getting things done behind the scenes, too. Sadly, you can be an effective backroom person and not be great at winning elections (and some politicians have the opposite skillset).
I’m sure Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s race, gender, and youth are all putting a target on her back as far as some conservatives are concerned, but there are other politicians who fit those descriptions. She drew attention, which only made the target larger. She also has some very strong left-wing views. (I’m a left-winger, but I’m aware you can have too much of a good thing.)
True… I’m sure Obama has an above-average IQ, but IQ is not how I would define the types of intelligence required for leadership and policymaking. He is certainly well-read, well-educated, intellectually curious, interested in bringing rational approaches to policy making, interested in rational decision-making (almost to a fault), pragmatic, and has an interest in understanding both big-picture and small-picture detail. Occasionally he got things wrong, but not for lack of thinking about it.
Those things are likely partly driven by above-average IQ, but plenty of high-IQ people don’t possess those traits. In short, Obama is a curious, well-educated intellectual. I agree with the earlier comment that I don’t see many of those on the right. I’m sure some people on the right would fight me on this assertion, in the same breath claiming that they don’t care about these traits. The latter is true and it’s why I’m correct.
And winning elections isn’t the Speaker of the House’s job, anyway. That’s for the Chair of the National Committee. The Speaker’s job starts after the elections, to get all of those folks who were elected to accomplish as much as they can.
It is perfectly possible his IQ is 125. I’d say that’s just as likely as 143, or 136. 160 is possible, but unlikely.
180 is extraordinarily unlikely. On the Wechsler scale, fewer than one person in twenty million has an IQ that high; on the Stanford Binet, fewer than one in three million. So using the latter scale, saying OBama has an IQ of 180 is equivalent to saying that there are no more than one hundred people in the United States smarter than he is. That is an extraordinary claim, and I’d bet every dollar I have against it. He is a very smart man, but there’s probably a thousand people with higher IQs in university in the State of Massachusetts this semester.
There is an odd propensity to overestimate IQ, I suspect in part because people lie about their own IQ so much. An IQ of 125 is very bright; a person with an IQ that high would usually be one of the two smartest people in their class throughout elementary school.
… the idea is to have a reallocation/redistribution that does not reduce the incentives to work, from the observation that the human societies broadly find
That is different from the bald statement that such persons support the Basic Income, which implies supporting specifically the ideas this young representative is citing, more specific concepts.
That is why I asked.
the case of Finland has show that the Basic Income idea under current economic structure is not yet politically a feasible achievement and maybe is not economically feasible although the future of automations…
Negative income tax is a broader not identical concept which I believe you have in part already. Mixing these ideas as if this is support to the young representative’s is not I think accurate.
It is accurate to say there is the broad support among the market economists for the economic utility of work supporting structures of redistribution, to replace the social programs that like common in Europe have the tendency to disincentivize sometimes strongly employment since payments cut off if work on the record cuts off.
more affordable may be phased out ‘negative income tax’
No need to flatter, I would be surprised, I do not have that much cleverness and not in writing in English.
What does that matter if there is no work to be had? If automation puts people out of work (and I include many white collar jobs in this, not just blue collar), then what will people do to support themselves? Why do we need to incentivize people to work, when there isn’t work that needs to be done?
The cost of keeping someone alive is pretty nominal. Needs can be quantified and met.
Wants are different matter, and wants can be unlimited. However, we are in an era when unlimited wants can be met. Did you want to see that movie that came out, well so do I. Is there any reason why we both cannot see it? Does one of us seeing it diminish the ability or enjoyment of another seeing it?
No, there is no scarcity to be found in broadcastable entertainment. If someone just wants to watch movies and play video games all their life, I don’t see why we shouldn’t let them. At worst, we spend a couple thousand calories a day and a few hundred cubic feet on them, and get nothing in return. At best, they play games and watch movies, until they are inspired to write their own movie, or their own game.
Forcing people to go out and find jobs that they don’t really want to do, and that don’t really need to be done does not advance anything at all. People that want to work will work, and I think that that will be more than enough. Combine that with incentives of being able to fulfill material wants, or even to fulfill artificially constrained wants in the form of digital media, will make most people want to find something to contribute to society, in order to get something back that they want.
I would provide basic income largely with vouchers and free services, with very little actual cash for discretionary use. This is your incentive to work, to increase your discretionary income and resources.
the fear of the impact of expanding AI automation is the reason why the concepts and how it could work in the actual applied implementation have attracted the serious attention.
I have simply described the concept, I have no interest in hijacking the thread not about the subject principally or engaging in american politics driven discussion on the topic.
I don’t think that most people lie, per se, about their IQs. It’s just that there are a lot of tests out there that purport to be IQ tests, and a lot of people believe that they’re meaningful. And the tests that are most successful (as in, get the most people to click them and share them and so on) are the ones that give inflated scores. It’s easy for a person to say “Well, that test I took online said I was 160, and I’m sure Obama is smarter than me, so he must be, like, at least 180”.
No, we aren’t.
Regards,
Shodan