I find this exchange funny after BS missed the point and the sarcasm of my post.
Don’t flatter yourself by acting like that was valid satire. Yours was not sarcasm by any metric Greenie because the comparisons were invalid and GuyOnABuffalo’s wasn’t so much sarcasm (he went on to mention that he still thinks she’s a “crazy fringy nutjob”) so much as it was then rolled into a broad criticism of politics that he backed into.
NPR played an audio snip from Pelosi yesterday that described her as fringe. That is her own party’s characterization not mine. And yes it was meant to be a broad criticism of politics. Why is it that you don’t vote again?
Yours was more understandable but Greenie didn’t get the free pass so you got lumped in because of Greenie hitching his horse to your wagon. So for what it’s worth not trying to antagonize although was just pointing out that your first post and second post were somewhat incongruous. I don’t vote because I honestly think both parties are two sides of the same career politician coin. So for me personally things like this NY primary are exciting and make me consider coming out of voting retirement, more candidates like this and I would. I’m not opposed to higher taxes, it’s the self serving gridlock and refusal to compromise that gets my goat.
Because they needed fabricate.
What numbers do you use to know they are fabricated?
First, I NEVER follow media and government (repackaging), that’s all disinformation. That’s second hand data, AT BEST, which has been reworked to project a certain narrative, i.e. “the global growth story” or some other nonsense.
I construct a basic model of the world bottom-up with the available hard data points. Only data points that are almost certainly correct are allowed into the model (there is a country called the United States with 50 states, it has a known population, etc). That bottom-up model, with top-down synthesis of these known truths, is actually just enough to allow us to discard a huge number of fake-stat claims (like the employment numbers, inflation, etc). How? Because when people lie with numbers it is impossible for them to keep their lies straight, the lies won’t reconcile with known data points in the model, or won’t reconcile with themselves across time.
It’s not really hard, it’s just that I’m one of the last real analysts, most are lazy and rely on corporate/government propaganda (not going to mention Ohai directly). 
where do you get hard data about china?
That is fascinating. Just so I can follow the math, can you provide an example of one data point not linking to the others?
Says the guy who said “I am massively short US equities” about two years ago.
I tried to find the thread, but couldn’t.
Can anybody explain this person to me? I really do not understand anything she is saying.
Apparently she got an economics degree from Boston University and graduated cum laude. Based on the stupid sht that she says, I’m ready to call the entire university a sham.
Please take this argument in good faith: In short, Americans currently pay a lot for health care. A universal system would increase bargaining power and decrease prices. Meaning, that in aggregate when you take personal & gov’t expenditures, total cost goes down. Yes, the gov’t pays more, but the US as a whole pays less. Ex. You save 5k a year and the gov’t spends 4k more. If you don’t take my word for it, take a look at Koch funded research. See: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/aug/03/bernie-s/did-conservative-study-show-big-savings-bernie-san/
What’s to explain? She’s smart, young, articulate and good-looking. The last two points especially have made her a media darling.
In US terms she is a far left extremist. In other western countries she would rank center-left I’d say.
^agreed. we need collective bargaining to reduce costs. it’s actually a no brainer. it aint that hard to choose.
insurance for large companies are much cheaper than insurance for smaller companies.
plus if we just aggregated everyone we can essentially bring prices down to the people who bring care. its amusing how these hospitals can charge different prices for a similar procedure. if you are a medical proffesional, you arent doing it for the money so neg them down. there’s also a lack of price transparency. you dont get the bill until the very end. this is the most ridiculous system ever.
How come people don’t understand Ocasio-Cortez on the left or Steve King on the right. We need them to help show where is the middle. They serve a useful purpose even if we have to listen to ideas we don’t like or agree.
Man, if you’re republican today, and you can see this train wreck coming, get off at the next stop and go independent. When historians write about this era, future americans will not look kindly on republicans who pulled a con on americans by convincing them that receiving healthcare is anti-liberty or not in their self-interest. Totally agree with nerdy and schopenaur, in fact, I don’t even understand how this is a debate. We will keep ACA or get another version of national healthcare cause access to healthcare is good for people, for families, good for the economy, and good for national security. And, the fairest way to deliver healthcare to the population is by a program like ACA or Medicare/caid. Every day i read an article about some rural state or district, usually votes republican, where people young and old are dying from opiod addiction. Clearly people are experiencing pain, physical or mental, they need medical attention but they can’t get it because their gov broke the ACA.
…they’ll be Chinese.
- The 70 percent tax rate on earnings above $10 million proposed by freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., has the elite financiers attending Davos worried.
- “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” says Scott Minerd, global chief investment officer for $265 billion Guggenheim Partners.
- “It’s not going to happen – trust me,” says one billionaire.
- “By the time we get to the presidential election, this is going to gain more momentum,” said Minerd, who added that he would probably be personally impacted by it. “And I think the likelihood that a 70 percent tax rate, or something like that, becomes policy is actually very real.” The billionaires and millionaires attending Davos had misgivings about Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal, which she made during a recent interview on CBS’ “60 Minutes.” A poll found that 59 percent of voters were in favor of the idea, and even 45 percent of Republicans liked it. The lawmaker has turned heads in Washington and on Wall Street with her left-wing economic rhetoric, despite only being sworn into office earlier this month. Ocasio-Cortez, who represents parts of Queens and the Bronx, identifies as a Democratic-Socialist.
- The problem with the tax — nearly double the current top rate of 37 percent — is that rich people will simply figure out ways to shelter their income, and that will be a drag on productivity, Minerd said. “The political pendulum is swinging,” Minerd said. “The conservatives found out they’re being held hostage by the extreme right. Now the Democrats are going to find out they’re being held hostage by the extreme left.”
why cant we have a progressive whi understand economics?
Not only did AOC get a minor in Econ, but this policy makes sense. I’d support the same tax regime that America had back in the 1950s. Back when America was great.