What are Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Flaws?

This interview was interesting. Chuck Todd couldn't totally turn off his essential Chuck Todd-ness, but it's worth watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wypN0PChAtg

xp- j.

you don't pay for socialism by printing money. Scandinavia don't print money, they pay for popular social programs with high (by US standards) progressive but broad-based taxes. there is no other way to do it. it's true that deficit hysteria is overblown, but you don't need MMT to know that. and you can't pay for a permanent expansion in spending/transfers by printing money without costs. using taxes, we can make those costs transparent and choose them democratically. using MMT, the costs are opaque, depend on inflation, and ultimately punted into the future

MMT is a scam with significant parallels to cryptocurrency: shrouded in confusing jargon and terminology (accounting minutiae of fed balance sheets), funded by shady finance billionaires (Warren Mosler Jerome Levy, others), a large online community of die-hard believers who recite its arguments like the fn catechism in the mentions of anyone who tweets about it. seriously, it sucks so bad and i really hope the new gen of progressive politicians don't buy it. it's snake oil twitternomics. there's promising signs that AOC is reconsidering after the backlash to the GND FAQ they posted (and almost immediately took down, and are now claiming doesn't even exist) that cited MMT heavily. to the extent that AOC represents the dems' 'tea party' and exists to shift the overton window the center left, maybe citing crazypants MMT is a good thing. but i don't think MMT deserves to get play at the national level, from the left, and i think AOC's long-term ambitions are more than to be just a strategic counterweight

quotes below are from an MMT profile in the Atlantic a couple years ago. both Mosler and Levy are billionaire financiers

MMT didn’t get much traction outside of academia at first. In fact, it was (and remains) on the fringes of the economics profession itself. “We all had offices in the same alley at the Levy Institute,” Kelton recalls.

Then along came Warren Mosler, a wealthy financier who, as a result of his banking work, had come to some unorthodox and complementary ideas about money. Eager to share his views, Mosler finagled a meeting with Donald Rumsfeld in the steam room of the Chicago Racquet Club. Rumsfeld led him to Arthur Laffer, the right-wing economist who came up with the “Laffer curve” theory promoting low taxes, and Laffer, in turn, connected Mosler with his future collaborator, the economist Mark McNary. In an independently published paper titled “Soft-Currency Economics,” Mosler, drawing on McNary’s research, argued that taxes are what create a demand for federal spending and that deficits don’t cause countries to default on their debt.

Kelton is an intellectually disingenuous hack who went to bat for Trump tax cuts on MMT grounds that the deficit increases didn't matter. it's a total coincidence that she is associated with the left, which she herself has admitted in the past. from the same profile:

Kelton sees the fundamentals of her work as “a descriptive analysis that could be exploited by either side: Democrats and Republicans can use the insight to push tax cuts or increase spending.” Indeed, the idea of a big-spending economic stimulus to fix the country’s infrastructure served as a common ground for Trump and Sanders voters who liked the idea of jobs perhaps more than they disliked the idea of national indebtedness. If that’s what voters want, then MMT is a rare bird: an economic theory that not only validates their hunches, but contends that they’re the key to a healthy, stable, prosperous economy for all.

there are very good reasons we don't use functional finance rules (which were first proposed by Abba Lerner in the 50s, if not earlier) where treasury and central bank are consolidated and fiscal policy is used to control inflation. it's very hard for a government to credibly commit to controlling inflation, which is why every country has an independent CB that controls money supply/interest rates.

if you try to follow MMT logic all the way through you'll notice there's a huge bait and switch involved. we can print money to fund spending, and deficits don't matter because we can pay it off by printing money. the only thing that matter is if inflation erodes the value of the money we are using to pay off the deficit. but then we'll just use fiscal policy (cut spending, raise taxes) to bring down inflation. so all they did is punt the taxes and spending down the road, to something we'll deal with when inflation hits. they don't like saying this, that all gets you is to shift the budget constraint out to the inflation frontier, because (i) it's not original, everyone has known this for at least 50 years, and (ii) they prefer to present MMT as a magical new world with no constraints. to the left this means you can have a green new deal, basic income, job guarantee without raising taxes, to the right it means Republicans can pass an insanely regressive tax cut and that's perfectly fine because the deficit doesn't matter

if it’s wrong to believe the deficit doesn’t matter I don’t want to be right.

oh well that is disappointing. she's certainly talking herself up well then

i think i must have seen that marshall steinbaum fellow, who seemed legit, say something approving of her and hence

if it’s wrong to believe the deficit doesn’t matter I don’t want to be right.

― Norm’s Superego (silby), Saturday, February 9, 2019 8:44 PM (ten minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

saying 'the deficit doesn't matter' in the sense of, we don't need to freak out and pay it off is one thing. saying you can pay for anything forever and revenue doesn't matter is a different thing

i think i must have seen that marshall steinbaum fellow, who seemed legit, say something approving of her and hence

― j., Saturday, February 9, 2019 8:51 PM (three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

marshall is semi-legit and strategically neutral on MMT. he and kelton have work together about student debt that crisis that doesn't really rely on MMT

Her speaking voice sucks and she's going to have vocal problems pretty soon if she doesn't change it. I genuinely think a lot of "SHE'S DUMB!!!!" stuff coming from the right is an unconscious reaction to her voice. I think she's pretty all right generally, but the voice messes me up because 1. I'm old and 2. moms was an opera singer.

i like her voice

You're welcome to.

I mean, vernacular changes because folks like the new way of speaking. Dinosaurs don't like change, folks into voice production don't like undersupport and speaking head voice.

Her speaking voice sucks and she's going to have vocal problems pretty soon if she doesn't change it.

this is one of the weirdest things i've read here.

vocal coach DESTROYS AOC with head voice critique

loll

lmao this is a new one

Most women's speaking voices "traditionally" sucks trope.

I still love that Elizabeth Holmes affecting a deeper voice story.

Thanks for the MMT post, flopson. Very interesting.

"what i choose is my voice" - aoc

what about the voice of aoc

how did it get so high

i know those things end up mattering more than they should but I hadn't noticed anything bad about her voice(!) - thought pacing and delivery was very good in that corruption hearing thing

Have seen some weird "bernie and aoc are the same / bernie and aoc are NOT the same" stuff on twitter, which again seems to come down to this "democratic socialism is compatible with capitalism" / 'democratic socialism is not compatible with capitalism" stuff which is a bit niche interest to me. cba too much with too much labelling and naming just get the ball in the net and score a goal and thats what she is doing

I don't mind AOC's voice, but I agree with three word username that such cosmetic things matter. You may not want them to, and some people get upset if you even broach the subject, but they do, a lot. Women undoubtedly get singled out disproportionately for such complaints (and they're harsher, and more symbolically loaded for a woman), but I could definitely name many men where I couldn't get past the voice. I think of Jon Huntsman immediately--I cringed every time he spoke. Ted Cruz, independent of whatever nonsense he's spouting. Martin O'Malley. Closer to home, Doug Ford.

Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm had...unconventional... New York voices, didn't seem to hurt them much.

lads

I mean how has Booker not been mentioned

poll

Ted Cruz and Doug Ford, noted losers of elections

Perhaps millions of Trump voters have still never heard him speak.

Bella Abzug and Shirley Chisholm had...unconventional... New York voices, didn't seem to hurt them much.

Ted Cruz and Doug Ford, noted losers of elections

It doesn't work that way--it's totally subjective, totally irrational. Obviously, lots of people don't mind their voices at all. I'm sure Jon Huntsman sounds like Winston Churchill to some people, just like I'm sure Winston Churchill sounds like Sarah Palin to others. I'm not predicting results here--the point is, if enough people didn't like AOC's voice, that would be a problem for her.

I think the fact that it took like 10k posts about AOC before anyone brought up her voice points to it not being a problem

what the hell is happening itt

It took a weird detour, an ILX first.

Trump voters evidently love Trump's voice. Don't ask me why.

Based on this thread, agree--only one objection raised. How representative the people posting on this thread are of the larger populace, I don't know. Anyway, again, I'm agreeing with the underlying point in TWU's post, that's all.

it not only hasn't been mentioned until now on ILX, I've never once seen it mentioned on Twitter, Reddit (left, lib or right-wing), or in the press. this is Not A Thing.

You don't want it to be, anyway. I assume you want to believe that the Person With the Best Ideas automatically wins elections. If that makes you happy, carry on.

(If you're limiting your objection to AOC only, then sure, maybe you're right.)

jesus fuck

Now jesus fuck, he had a nice voice.

the idea that right-wingers are "unconsciously objecting" to a young woman of color who supports left-wing policy because she has a "head voice" is fucking stupid sorry

Is Three Word Username a right-winger? Because I was specifically making my point within the context of his dislike of AOC's voice.

her only flaws are: american + her voice

can you fucking read

I genuinely think a lot of "SHE'S DUMB!!!!" stuff coming from the right is an unconscious reaction to her voice.

idk these same people thought Obama was dumb despite the fact that he had pretty much the best voice of any President but it occurs to me there may be another reason for that

is the flaw that she's american the flaw that she's not british? it is a cliche but we could do with a few like her

No, I can't read Simon. Please move the conversation there.

My initial post came right after TWU's post. Everything I've said was in reference to that. I'm hardly saying that AOC's voice is going to be an obstacle she may have to overcome with Trump voters (and if she can just get past that, they'll embrace her).

ive seen people call her voice 'nerdy' before but haven't seen anyone suggest it's an impediment to anything

A voice is a voice

She just sounds like a young woman to me

A Fox News intern exposes AOC's flaws:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvfMreXcAAIvkn.jpg

I see now that TWU's post had that line about the right--I was focused on his objection to her voice. So, point taken, I should have read that post closer.

To clarify: I think something like AOC's (or anybody's) voice could matter in getting his or her party's nomination. It's just there, one of the many cosmetic factors that matter, even if you don't think they should. If enough people instinctively resist, you have a problem. But no, in AOC's case, the right's hatred of her is a whole other matter.

She just sounds like a young woman to me

― frogbs, Sunday, February 10, 2019 11:40 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Billy Joel's finest hour

clemenza take your concern trolling over to some Canadian politics thread where you might have a clue what you're talking about