U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2019, 10:05 AM
 
2,157 posts, read 527,667 times
Reputation: 3746

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quietude View Post
Shaddap, Louie.


And I disagree with both "frequently" and "substantial." Both are utterly subjective and usually used in this context by someone whose aims are thwarted by them damn regs...
George Stigler had no "aims that were thwarted by them damn regs." He had no dog in the hunt. He studied regulations & their formation at length, creating an entire branch of economic analysis, earning the 1982 Nobel Prize for his universally lauded academic research demonstrating that Governmental Regulations are an "Economic Good" in the same sense as guns & butter in that they respond to the laws of demand & supply, and that much economic regulation was demanded to protect incumbent players in the industries being regulated. I had the good fortune to take a few grad school classes from him; I can assure you first hand he was intellectually honest in all of his research & analysis.

Last edited by RationalExpectations; 05-27-2019 at 10:41 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2019, 10:57 AM
 
Location: Aurora Denveralis
8,586 posts, read 3,010,942 times
Reputation: 12809
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
George Stigler had no "aims that were thwarted by them damn regs." He had no dog in the hunt. He studied regulations & their formation at length, creating an entire branch of economic analysis, earning the 1982 Nobel Prize for his universally lauded academic research demonstrating that Governmental Regulations are an "Economic Good" in the same sense as guns & butter in that they respond to the laws of demand & supply, and that much economic regulation was demanded to protect incumbent players in the industries being regulated. I had the good fortune to take a few grad school classes from him; I can assure you first hand he was intellectually honest in all of his research & analysis.
Um, okay, that's actually quite interesting, but something of a tangent - the generic argument was made that "overregulation is bad" and I countered that most who say so are those chafing because can't maximixe profits at the expense of others (economically, environmentally, etc.) I read the above as saying regulation is a positive force.

Certainly regs are often crafted with the players in mind - either through open collaboration or heavy financial lobbying - and are perhaps never as tight as regulators and watchdogs would like, and do tend to reinforce industry practices and situations that aren't... ideal for everyone else. But that's a bit to the side as to whether "overregulation" is a bad thing... or even exists in any widespread sense.

Foes of 'regulation' and 'big government' fail to grasp that administrative issues expand exponentially, not linearly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 03:01 PM
 
138 posts, read 42,104 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
If anything these numbers underline the flaws of capitalism. No other developed country has a greater wealth inequality, and no other developed country has no universal health care.
Capitalism is a huge fail, it just doesn't know it yet. The debt crisis is coming.
Seems like you know a better system. Why not share it with the world? You can start here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 05:24 PM
 
Location: 5,400 feet
2,617 posts, read 2,573,574 times
Reputation: 3667
Quote:
Originally Posted by RationalExpectations View Post
George Stigler had no "aims that were thwarted by them damn regs." He had no dog in the hunt. He studied regulations & their formation at length, creating an entire branch of economic analysis, earning the 1982 Nobel Prize for his universally lauded academic research demonstrating that Governmental Regulations are an "Economic Good" in the same sense as guns & butter in that they respond to the laws of demand & supply, and that much economic regulation was demanded to protect incumbent players in the industries being regulated. I had the good fortune to take a few grad school classes from him; I can assure you first hand he was intellectually honest in all of his research & analysis.

Here's an interesting look at the growth in federal regulation over the years. The numbers are a little staggering.



https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 05:50 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,857 posts, read 546,663 times
Reputation: 4706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Banbuk77 View Post
Seems like you know a better system. Why not share it with the world? You can start here.
Socialist countries do better on every scale I care about. But i'm not Gordon Gecko.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 05:58 PM
 
Location: Ohio
19,883 posts, read 14,221,081 times
Reputation: 16076
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
If anything these numbers underline the flaws of capitalism. No other developed country has a greater wealth inequality,...
Wealth is irrelevant, which makes the buzz-phrase "wealth inequality" nothing more than propaganda.

I worked to acquire an asset, and then you have the unmitigated gall to blame me, because other people place an extraordinary monetary value on the asset I worked to acquire.

That's just Marxism squared by another name, and Marx in English means Jealousy®.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
...and no other developed country has no universal health care.
And, yet it was interference in the Free Market by federal and State governments that created your healthcare nightmare.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when it levied Wage & Price Controls to stop Wage Inflation?

The effect of the government's gross error was that employers could not give pay raises to employees without obtaining prior written consent and approval from the National Labor Board, later, the National War Labor Board.

To get around the government's interference in the Market, employers began offering to pay for an employee's health insurance plan in lieu of wages.

The employee chose the plan, not the employer, and the employer agreed to pay all or part of the costs of the plan.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when the National War Labor Board declared health care plans to be fringe benefits in 1942?

The end result is that employers were able to lord over healthcare plans to the detriment of employees.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when the Supreme Court issued its 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision?

That was the final nail in the coffin trapping people into getting healthcare only from an employer.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when Congress changed the 1954 IRS Tax Code at the behest of the American Hospital Association to ban the practice of tying life insurance to catastrophic insurance?

Prior to the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision, the only health insurance companies were the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross and the American Medical Association's Blue Shield, and perhaps three or four other insurance companies.

The 1949 decision opened the flood-gates. Now all insurers were offering health insurance, and they were tying it to life insurance. It worked like this:

You pay premiums for 10 years, and 10 years only, and then you never pay another dime the rest of your life, but you and your spouse (and minor children) are covered for the rest of your life, then when you die, whatever you didn't use gets paid to your named beneficiaries like your spouse or children or grandchildren.

What a wonderful way for Middle Class and Lower Class families to build wealth and pass it on!

How could anyone possibly be opposed to that?

Additionally, if the 10-year premiums were too rich for you, you could pay a lower premium over 20 years, and an even lower premium over 30 years to fit your budget.

One small problem: The Blue Cross couldn't do that.

The Blue Cross was not a bona fide insurance company, because the American Hospital Association lobbied the State legislatures for "enabling laws" to enable it to operate without complying with State insurance laws and regulations.

The Blue Cross could not legally offer life insurance.

What moron would pay money to the Blue Cross until the day they died and never get a dime back?

Well, no one, because everyone was hot for the better deal.

Within 2 years, Blue Cross' market share dropped from 80% to 54% and falling like a led zepplin.

In a few more years, there wouldn't be a Blue Cross.

The American Hospital Association ran to Congress and rammed through legislation to outlaw the practice and screw Millions and Millions of American Middle Class and Lower Class families.

After you federal government and the American Hospital Association totally effed-over everyone so the only way to get health insurance is to have a job, leaving Millions of Americans without, the American Hospital Association valiantly plays hero and offers up the Blue Cross to "save" America with Medicare:

The American Hospital Association has already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."

Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965

At the same time your federal government interfered in the Free Market and screwed your healthcare, the States were mucking things up, too.

Do you deny the State legislatures made a gross error by granting monopoly status to hospitals?

If those were oil companies, you'd be foaming at the mouth until you fell over backward and urinated and defecated yourself, but because they're hospital monopolies, you're a limp biscuit.

Monopolies are bad. Period. Healthcare monopolies are even worse than bad.

People point to Switzerland as a model, and yet Switzerland bans hospital monopolies.

Not only do the Swiss ban monopolies, it's one owner/operator per Canton, to encourage competition.

While you're doing nothing very slowly, huge mega-cartels are being created, and in 12-15 years, every healthcare facility in the US will be under the control of Tri-Health, Mercy, Franciscan or Kaiser, and then you're going to whine about the monopoly prices they dictate to you.

Do you deny the State legislatures made a gross error by protecting the "Out-of-Network" policy?

80% of hospitals were members of the American Hospital Association and to shut down the 20% of hospitals who were members of the American Hospital Association, the AHA instituted the "Out-of-Network" policy.

The "Out-of-Network" policy was the cornerstone of the Blue Cross created by the American Hospital Association in 1946.

No such thing as "Out-of-Network" for home-owner's insurance, or auto insurance, or business, casualty, fire, life and such.

Your State legislatures could ban the practice of "Out-of-Network" any time they want, except the American Hospital Association owns their asses.

What kind of Free Market is that, where a special interest group dictates the rules?

Do you deny the State legislatures made gross errors through mandates?

A mandate is when your State legislature says you have to pay for something you don't want or can't use.

States mandate insurance companies cover doctor office visits, so you pay extra for that, then when you go to the doctor's office, you pay even more, because you haven't met the deductible to get reimbursed for the coverage for which you're paying.

What kind of nonsense is that?

Do you seriously believe my 74-year-old mother is going to another kid soon? Yet she pays extra for birth control coverage she neither needs nor wants, and pregnancy/maternity coverage she neither needs nor wants and extra coverage for neo-natal care that she neither needs nor wants.

What kind of Free Market is that?

The Free Market is about voluntary transactions. Coercing people into transactions is proof of the absence of a Free Market.

If States defined catastrophic coverage and allowed people to purchase only that and nothing more, then health insurance would be affordable for everyone.

And, if for some reason it wasn't, State could allow people to purchase ER coverage only, so you buy $50,000 or $150,000 or $1 Million if you want, because that's what the Free Market is about -- voluntary choices -- it would be affordable for everyone.

But, first, you should be like Switzerland and ban monopolies, because that drops the price of medical care 30% to 60% which then drives down the price of health insurance 30% to 60%.

Why are you so afraid to do that?

And, if you dropped the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic/Polyclinic Model that Euro-States use, you'd decrease the cost of medical care another 10% to 30% and drive down health insurance another 10% to 30%.

Why are you so afraid to do that?

I'm guessing you're afraid because Capitalism and the Free Market would really work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
Capitalism is a huge fail, it just doesn't know it yet. The debt crisis is coming.
Uh-huh.

And the unfunded liabilities for Euro-States through 2040?

Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources, including the Market Economy Foundation and the EU Central Bank put it at 276% and 228% of GDP respectively.

Will you at least admit that 228% and 276% are economically unsustainable?

There's no tax increase that will cover that.

It'll take a massive tax increase, plus slashing their social security and healthcare programs.

Germany is not the only Euro-State with this problem.

So, the universal healthcare you're raving about is going to go down the tubes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 06:36 PM
 
Location: Riding a rock floating through space
1,857 posts, read 546,663 times
Reputation: 4706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea View Post
Wealth is irrelevant, which makes the buzz-phrase "wealth inequality" nothing more than propaganda.

I worked to acquire an asset, and then you have the unmitigated gall to blame me, because other people place an extraordinary monetary value on the asset I worked to acquire.

That's just Marxism squared by another name, and Marx in English means Jealousy®.



And, yet it was interference in the Free Market by federal and State governments that created your healthcare nightmare.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when it levied Wage & Price Controls to stop Wage Inflation?

The effect of the government's gross error was that employers could not give pay raises to employees without obtaining prior written consent and approval from the National Labor Board, later, the National War Labor Board.

To get around the government's interference in the Market, employers began offering to pay for an employee's health insurance plan in lieu of wages.

The employee chose the plan, not the employer, and the employer agreed to pay all or part of the costs of the plan.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when the National War Labor Board declared health care plans to be fringe benefits in 1942?

The end result is that employers were able to lord over healthcare plans to the detriment of employees.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when the Supreme Court issued its 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision?

That was the final nail in the coffin trapping people into getting healthcare only from an employer.

Do you deny that the federal government made a gross error when Congress changed the 1954 IRS Tax Code at the behest of the American Hospital Association to ban the practice of tying life insurance to catastrophic insurance?

Prior to the 1949 In Re: Inland Steel decision, the only health insurance companies were the American Hospital Association's Blue Cross and the American Medical Association's Blue Shield, and perhaps three or four other insurance companies.

The 1949 decision opened the flood-gates. Now all insurers were offering health insurance, and they were tying it to life insurance. It worked like this:

You pay premiums for 10 years, and 10 years only, and then you never pay another dime the rest of your life, but you and your spouse (and minor children) are covered for the rest of your life, then when you die, whatever you didn't use gets paid to your named beneficiaries like your spouse or children or grandchildren.

What a wonderful way for Middle Class and Lower Class families to build wealth and pass it on!

How could anyone possibly be opposed to that?

Additionally, if the 10-year premiums were too rich for you, you could pay a lower premium over 20 years, and an even lower premium over 30 years to fit your budget.

One small problem: The Blue Cross couldn't do that.

The Blue Cross was not a bona fide insurance company, because the American Hospital Association lobbied the State legislatures for "enabling laws" to enable it to operate without complying with State insurance laws and regulations.

The Blue Cross could not legally offer life insurance.

What moron would pay money to the Blue Cross until the day they died and never get a dime back?

Well, no one, because everyone was hot for the better deal.

Within 2 years, Blue Cross' market share dropped from 80% to 54% and falling like a led zepplin.

In a few more years, there wouldn't be a Blue Cross.

The American Hospital Association ran to Congress and rammed through legislation to outlaw the practice and screw Millions and Millions of American Middle Class and Lower Class families.

After you federal government and the American Hospital Association totally effed-over everyone so the only way to get health insurance is to have a job, leaving Millions of Americans without, the American Hospital Association valiantly plays hero and offers up the Blue Cross to "save" America with Medicare:

The American Hospital Association has already nominated the Blue Cross organization for its membership, although some member hospitals will undoubtedly elect out of this arrangement. We have proceeded very far in the development of working arrangements with Blue Cross, although no formal approval as a fiscal intermediary has yet been given them."

Source: Report to Social Security Administration Staff on the Implementation of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, Robert M. Ball Commissioner, November 15, 1965

At the same time your federal government interfered in the Free Market and screwed your healthcare, the States were mucking things up, too.

Do you deny the State legislatures made a gross error by granting monopoly status to hospitals?

If those were oil companies, you'd be foaming at the mouth until you fell over backward and urinated and defecated yourself, but because they're hospital monopolies, you're a limp biscuit.

Monopolies are bad. Period. Healthcare monopolies are even worse than bad.

People point to Switzerland as a model, and yet Switzerland bans hospital monopolies.

Not only do the Swiss ban monopolies, it's one owner/operator per Canton, to encourage competition.

While you're doing nothing very slowly, huge mega-cartels are being created, and in 12-15 years, every healthcare facility in the US will be under the control of Tri-Health, Mercy, Franciscan or Kaiser, and then you're going to whine about the monopoly prices they dictate to you.

Do you deny the State legislatures made a gross error by protecting the "Out-of-Network" policy?

80% of hospitals were members of the American Hospital Association and to shut down the 20% of hospitals who were members of the American Hospital Association, the AHA instituted the "Out-of-Network" policy.

The "Out-of-Network" policy was the cornerstone of the Blue Cross created by the American Hospital Association in 1946.

No such thing as "Out-of-Network" for home-owner's insurance, or auto insurance, or business, casualty, fire, life and such.

Your State legislatures could ban the practice of "Out-of-Network" any time they want, except the American Hospital Association owns their asses.

What kind of Free Market is that, where a special interest group dictates the rules?

Do you deny the State legislatures made gross errors through mandates?

A mandate is when your State legislature says you have to pay for something you don't want or can't use.

States mandate insurance companies cover doctor office visits, so you pay extra for that, then when you go to the doctor's office, you pay even more, because you haven't met the deductible to get reimbursed for the coverage for which you're paying.

What kind of nonsense is that?

Do you seriously believe my 74-year-old mother is going to another kid soon? Yet she pays extra for birth control coverage she neither needs nor wants, and pregnancy/maternity coverage she neither needs nor wants and extra coverage for neo-natal care that she neither needs nor wants.

What kind of Free Market is that?

The Free Market is about voluntary transactions. Coercing people into transactions is proof of the absence of a Free Market.

If States defined catastrophic coverage and allowed people to purchase only that and nothing more, then health insurance would be affordable for everyone.

And, if for some reason it wasn't, State could allow people to purchase ER coverage only, so you buy $50,000 or $150,000 or $1 Million if you want, because that's what the Free Market is about -- voluntary choices -- it would be affordable for everyone.

But, first, you should be like Switzerland and ban monopolies, because that drops the price of medical care 30% to 60% which then drives down the price of health insurance 30% to 60%.

Why are you so afraid to do that?

And, if you dropped the Hospital Model in favor of the Clinic/Polyclinic Model that Euro-States use, you'd decrease the cost of medical care another 10% to 30% and drive down health insurance another 10% to 30%.

Why are you so afraid to do that?

I'm guessing you're afraid because Capitalism and the Free Market would really work.



Uh-huh.

And the unfunded liabilities for Euro-States through 2040?

Germany claims its unfunded liabilities are only 80% of GDP, but a number of independent sources, including the Market Economy Foundation and the EU Central Bank put it at 276% and 228% of GDP respectively.

Will you at least admit that 228% and 276% are economically unsustainable?

There's no tax increase that will cover that.

It'll take a massive tax increase, plus slashing their social security and healthcare programs.

Germany is not the only Euro-State with this problem.

So, the universal healthcare you're raving about is going to go down the tubes.
Sheesh, time for a Xanax?

Last edited by duke944; 05-27-2019 at 06:52 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 08:18 PM
 
3,764 posts, read 3,500,076 times
Reputation: 8933
I think a lot of people misunderstand what wealth means in stock market-driven capitalism. There are some people with millions of shares of a company who don't have much cash. What they have is a large stake in a corporation.

Take Jeff Bezos, for example. He's currently, or recently, the richest man in the world, in terms of his paper value. He is a major stockholder in Amazon, because he has consistently hung onto his Amazon shares through ups and downs. That demonstrates not greed but dedication and faith. He believes in his company and shows it by keeping his stock even when it went down quite a bit in the post doc com era. His actual salary is about $200K.

Bezos sells one or two billion dollars worth of stock every year to finance his spaceship company, Blue Origin.

Does Bezos make more, and have more, than the lowest people on the rung at his company, i.e. the warehouse workers making min wage? Yes. Is it grossly unfair? NO! Why should this guy, who built this company and is now investing in space travel, be punished for having more paper wealth than some high school grad whose only skill is to pick up a box and place it on a cart?

There are a lot of other corporate leaders, of course, who are being paid millions of dollars in cash and stock. Some more cash, some more stock. You can argue all day long whether this is fair or not, and by whose definition of "fair". These guys are responsible for keeping a $100 billion or $500 billion or $1 trillion company growing. They have to make billion dollar decisions every week, maybe every day. They have to have the intelligence, the vision, and the guts, to make their companies more successful. That's why they're worth millions of dollars to the corporation. If they were losing the company money, they'd be canned pretty fast (albeit, sometimes with nice golden parachutes but that's all part of the package).

People tend to focus on the dollar amounts while ignoring or not knowing all the complexities and nuances. They just say "rich people control too much of the wealth! They didn't build that. Let's redistribute it." We had a President recently who talked that way. In fact "you didn't build that" will possibly go down in history as his most memorable statement, along with "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor!" or "If I had a son, blah blah blah". Yeah I didn't like Obama that much. Anyway the point is that he adopted that populist rhetoric though he is highly educated and he has to be smart enough to know it's BS, just leftist talking points to get more votes.

So, no, capitalism is not irredeemable. It comes with some necessary inequalities but also vast potential to create new wealth and give everyone better prosperity and prospects. No socialist system has ever done so. The Soviet Union and Communist China and eastern Europe only got as far as they did by copying technologies created by the capitalist societies.

The social democratic welfare states of Scandinavia only succeeded because of the American nuclear umbrella and American policing of the sea lanes which allowed them to be mercantile nations unencumbered by the need to protect their commerce. Also of course they benefited from American and western European technical advances. Starting in the 1980s, these quasi-socialist states began to fail, and their socialist parties lost power. They had to privatize and deregulate in order to keep up with hard charging capitalist states, notably with the Asian Dragons: Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, and S. Korea.

A country that nationalizes its industries and caters to the lowest, least skilled workers with free social welfare benefits but no obvious way to pay for them is bound to fail. Venezuela only got as far as it did while it was making good money on oil. As U.S. fracking began to compete, Venezuela's economy simply collapsed, and without a capitalist system to rebound, it's effectively a failed state today. We don't want to be like that!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 08:50 PM
 
138 posts, read 42,104 times
Reputation: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by duke944 View Post
Socialist countries do better on every scale I care about. But i'm not Gordon Gecko.
Of course the do. Until the time they run out of other people's money and collapse.
And what scales do you care about? Hunger? Hospitals without medicine?

Google all those glowing NYT articles before 2013 about how great Venezuelans were doing living in socialist paradise. But now you won't find that word when they try to explain what went wrong.

Or do you mean Denmark and the ilk you were instructed to look at instead of Soviet Union and Venezuela?
Have to disappoint you - they still have capitalism there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2019, 09:33 PM
 
Location: MN
152 posts, read 275,879 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Modern successful business is all about deeply understanding customer's wants and desires -- indeed, mentally "becoming the customer," and finding & recommending solutions to those customer's problems. Modern successful businesses understand they must seek to delight their customers within the context of the business' strategies & tactics. Disappointed customers do not return and ruin business reputations.
That is what businesses need to do while they have competitors. When they eliminate them all they are a monopolist and they no longer need to "invest in the customer" and sell at what price they command, if the customer does not like it, then they do without. Or if they eliminate enough competition they can divvy up the market between them and become oligopolists. Catering to customers is only necessary insofar as to eliminate competitors (which, yes, can be quite difficult).
Quote:
Modern successful business understands that the quality of an employee's output is NOT independent of total compensation for that employee
When I say lowest wages possible, I mean only insofar as a capitalist gets an employee he requires. If he pays too low, then the employee may have gotten a different job and not show up, or if he needs a little more motivation, throw a few extra pennies his way.
Quote:
Yes, there are some declining businesses that are all about contraction and squeezing rocks to get blood, but they are not long term viable enterprises. Over time they tend to go out of business.
Just like Amazon and Walmart, no?
Quote:
Or maybe you know how to fix capitalism if you are not against it?
I don't believe capitalism can be permanently "fixed." It will die one day. But if one wants to lengthen it and stem growing "socialism" then my "sage advice," as a general strategy, would be to meet the social-democratic demands then send all "socialists" to the guillotine. That's what happened in the U.S. 1930s to 1960s. New Deal & better social mobility for the working class along with McCarthyism to exorcise the communists and unionists. The working class will probably look the other way if "capitalism," i.e. Wall Street & Washington, cuts them a bigger check, in fact they would probably worship them for it. It may cost Wall Street some profit, the medical industry might be axed, and banks might have to be hacked a bit, but it may keep capitalism running a while longer.
Quote:
You can call yourself whatever you want, but if someone is proposing socialist solutions - he/she is a socialist.
Sanders, Ocasio-Cortez, etc. are not socialists. I've read the Green New Deal and their policies. They are social-democratic, not socialist. It proposes to calm the effects of capitalism not abolish it. In a nutshell, it proposes giving workers higher paychecks/benefits from the workplace, it does not hand it over to them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top