MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Unemployment Is Low 'Because Everyone Has Two Jobs,' Which Is Not How Unemployment Rates Work

"Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world."

AOSScreenshot via Firing LineAlexandria Ocasio-Cortez was roundly criticized on social media yesterday for supposedly botching a question about Israeli-Palestine relations during an interview with Firing Line's Margaret Hoover. But Ocasio-Cortez's admission that she was "no expert on geopolitics" was much more satisfactory than her answer to a question about the unemployment rate, which she claimed was low merely "because everyone has two jobs."

This is wrong for two reasons. First, people working multiple jobs has no distorting effect on the unemployment rate, which is calculated by taking the number of unemployed people and dividing it by the number of people in the labor force. The raw number of jobs being worked by Americans has no bearing on these numbers.

Second, everyone does not have two jobs. As Bloomberg View's Noah Smith points out, only about 5 percent of workers are moonlighting. This rate has actually dropped slightly over the last three decades.

Ocasio-Cortez continued: "Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week, and can barely feed their kids." Again, the number of overtime hours Americans are working has no impact on the unemployment rate.

Ocasio-Cortez blames profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" for the conditions in which people struggle to feed their kids. Hunger and poverty are indeed problems faced by millions of Americans—14 percent of U.S. households experience food insecurity. Under capitalism, though, world poverty has declined precipitously. Over the past few decades, the economic growth that global trade has brought to developing economies has helped lift a billion people out of poverty. Between 2001 and 2011, some 700 million people exited from extreme poverty worldwide.

"Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world," said Ocasio-Cortez. But the scale of human suffering was inarguably greater in the era before capitalism, and would be again in any post-market era, if socialism's failure rate is any indication.

Photo Credit: Screenshot

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Eddy||

    How far do her share-and-share-alike socialist principles extend? For example, (deleted)?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    I could use me some (deleted). Just maybe not from her.

  • Antilles||

    According to her coworkers at the bar where she worked she didn't like to share her tips. Like all communists she believes that what's hers is hers and what's ours is hers too. Communism is for the people, not the actual communists.

  • BYODB||

    ^ This.

  • BYODB||

    Oh, and for the record there are real communists who truly believe in the ethos. You'll find them out there, and they're good people by and large. They live on communes, collectively, and they kick you the fuck out if you don't pull your weight.

    Go figure. Any politician endorsing socialism or communism is almost by definition not a socialist or a communist. They're a power hungry jackoff that will put a million people in graves.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    You mean like the hippies who gave old Bernie the boot for lazing about their commune back i the early 70's?

  • BYODB||

    This is exactly what I was thinking, Shitlord. ^_-

  • Antilles||

    I have NO problem with people forming communes and living that lifestyle. But communists won't allow people to form Capitalist communities. They have to impose their belief at the point of a gun because no rational person would ever accept it.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes! Individualism can implement voluntary socialism through contracts. No form of forced collectivism can even allow individualism.

  • BYODB||


    They have to impose their belief at the point of a gun because no rational person would ever accept it.


    This is the bit that isn't necessarily true of the individuals, but is true of politicians who try and bring about socialist or communist states.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    That's fine, because not everybody is rational.

    The problem is, their ideas don't scale, and they refuse to accept that.

  • Curt2004||

    These days that's an understatement...

  • ||

    Any politician endorsing socialism or communism is almost by definition not a socialist or a communist. They're a power hungry jackoff that will put a million people in graves.

    ^ This.

  • Unemployed Armenian Tranny||

    Those are socialists, not communists. Communists have a State, and violent enforcement of their authority - they dont kick you out if you dont "pull your weight", they pile on the wieght and kill you when you give out or refuse. Where are all the lazy people that Soviet Russia and China kicked out? Have you ever met any? Has anyone?

    When those Socialists of yours determine that you or anyone else have become "too lazy" or even too greedy, they seize control of your means of production, because they think they can do better, as disinterested hard-working parties. They have become Communists. Lenin was right - Socialism is a means to Communism, not an end in itself.

    Socialism is how "good people by and large" are turned in to evil people through and through.

  • Praveen R.||

    Yeah, I won't agree with them on the need for an entire country to be based off of those ideals, but I can respect their right to organize in a small community and live that way and respect the way they live as it is not a bad way to live if you get buy in from like minded others.

    A lot of these politicians want to forcefeed everyone the same solution that works only for some.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Too good to fact check?

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Communism is for the people, not the actual communists.

    Oh. I get it! You mean communism is like diversity!

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Like all communists she believes that what's hers is hers and what's ours is hers too.

    I believe I've shared this anecdote before, but what the hell.

    In college I knew a guy who was an out and out Communist. Believed in state ownership of the means of production, the whole 9 yards. One day he was spouting off about that shit, and so I got up, walked over to his refrigerator and helped myself to a soda and a handful of chips from a open bag of Lay's that was nearby. When he asked me what the hell I was doing helping myself to HIS chips and soda, I said to him "You just said you don't believe in property rights and believe in community ownership of everything. I was feeling a little thirsty and hungry and assumed you wouldn't mind if I helped myself to some of these communal chips and soda." We never really spoke after that.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm sure he immediately hated you with the burning heat of a thousand exploding suns after that. They really hate getting called out on their shit.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    No doubt if he'd ever gotten his "revolution" I would have been one of the first to be put against a wall.

  • Delius||

    I heard a (probably anecdotal) story from my college days, one of those FOAF things, where a guy walked up to the Young Anarchists table in the quad, grabbed one of the books they were selling, yelled "Anarchy!" and walked off.

  • Agammamon||

    It would have been funny if the anarchist had explained the difference between anarchy and chaos to him by banding together and beating the crap out of him for stealing their property.

    Then he'd learn first hand how personal property rights can exist without a centralized government.

  • retiredfire||

    So, in the world of Agammamon, the biggest, meanest dude, or the most violent group, get everything.
    The rest get what's left over.
    I think Somalia is calling you.

  • mr simple||

    That's a really retarded interpretation of that comment, corpsefucker.

  • CDRSchafer||

    That's how it works in the real world where real people exist.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    A co-worker was a full-blown communist, so she said, and NOT a Stalinist, she always added, as if there were some practical difference. Had just come back from a stint in Leningrad as a grad student studying the role of women in the 917 revolution. She was arguing one time that artists deserved to be supported by the State. I asked who picks the artists worthy of support? She said artists choose themselves, it is not up to the State to choose. I said I was going to paint circles on walls and call it art and demand support. She said that's not art. Round and round in circles we went. She could not see her own hypocrisy.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    A co-worker was a full-blown communist, so she said, and NOT a Stalinist, she always added, as if there were some practical difference.

    Probably that old "Stalinism wasn't 'real communism'" horseshit they love to pull. Just like how Venezuela isn't practicing "real socialism" now.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    I'm certain that's exactly what she's saying right now.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    It works better if you spill a bunch of the chips and pour out half the soda because you didn't like it.

  • perlchpr||

    That's glorious. :D

  • AlmightyJB||

    That's not how any of his works! She's an idiot.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Of course she is. when have you ever seen a democrat function from a position of logical analysis and extensive knowledge? It's all feelz. Envy in particular.

    Their shit must come to an end. Howling are the rest of us going to suffer for their abject stupidity?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    'How long', not 'howling'

  • An Owl Named Dur||

    Actually, "howling" actually works too if you think about.

  • cluskillz||

    She has a degree in economics, dontcha know.

    I also know someone who holds a degree in architecture and is borderline fucking illiterate in reading architectural drawings. Maybe they know each other.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    She's the kind of person with a degree in economics who spends most of a decade pouring people coffee after graduating. That is to say, all her practical knowledge is about how to pour coffee.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""That is to say, all her practical knowledge is about how to pour coffee.""

    As a freshmen in Congress, that might be a useful skill.

  • Ron||

    I had an economics professor who claimed to be a communist. I think thats why I failed his class, communism has nothing to do with economics

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    She's still learning. Give her time.

    And besides, she wants to #AbolishICE. I'll take a Democratic Socialist who agrees with libertarians on immigration over a white nationalist capitalist any day of the week.

    #LibertariansForOcasioCortez

  • ||

    #ImWithDumbBrick
    #Socialism4Evah
    #AbolishOBL

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    #AbolishOBL indeed!

    Coffee hurts when it goes out your nose by the way...

  • Longtobefree||

    As long as it did not go in through a plastic straw - - - - - -

  • Microaggressor||

    #MakeAmericaMoreLikeVenezuela

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I guarantee you that she prefers Venezuela's equal suffering over some doing better than others in a free market economy.

  • juris imprudent||

    Govt is what we do together, and it can't possibly be fair for only some to hoard all of the misery!

  • perlchpr||

    I have to admit, I dunno if I actually approve of the whole "Abolish ICE" idea, but it is nice to see Democrats calling for eliminating part of the FedGov. I don't think I've ever seen that before.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    So, I'm definitely for abolishing ICE. Though I wonder if these people think that means we won't have any border patrol anymore (Border patrol is a different agency)? Because I'm for abolishing ICE with the idea that everything they did reverts back up to INS and the other agencies ICE spun off from.

    It's so weird, because it's only 15 years old as an institution. Honestly, we could probably just get rid of all of DHS.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Honestly, we could probably just get rid of all of DHS.

    And let "the terrorists" win? Crazy talk!

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Yeah, those pirated DVDs aren't going to police themselves.

  • Trollificus||

    After 9/11, back when "something must be done!", DHS was the something that was done. And now, it will be lost...like tears, in rain. Tears of shit.

  • Zeb||

    I thought ICE was INS and Customs and Border Patrol (and maybe some others) mashed together into one big agency.

    In any case, abolishing ICE would most likely mean going back to smaller separate agencies. Which I think would be better. ICE is way too big and powerful.

  • Zeb||

    I guess I was wrong. ICE and CBP are both under DHS.

    Why the hell is customs now divided between two agencies? That doesn't make much sense.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    No it does not.

    I think there was some plausible discussion after 9/11 about how the large bureaus of the CIA and FBI had issues with communication. This I recall was a major talking point right after 9/11, and it sounds reasonable enough to me.

    And so, what they did was make another independent agency called DHS which I've heard has actually further affected communication.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    One need only look at TSA to see everything that is right (for them) and wrong (for society) of encrusted bureaucratic arbitrary and capricious government (but I repeat repeat repeat repeat myself).

  • Agammamon||

    INS used to be what is ICE and CBP together.

    post9-11 it was broken up and moved to DHS.

  • ||

    Actually, no, INS was the Immigration and Naturalization Service and as its name suggests was responsible for Immigration and Naturalization enforcement and facilitation. It was part of the Department of Justice until 2003.

    Referred to by some as former INS[2] and by others as legacy INS, the agency ceased to exist under that name on March 1, 2003, when most of its functions were transferred to three new entities – U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – within the newly created Department of Homeland Security, as part of a major government reorganization following the September 11 attacks of 2001.


    Before 2003 Customs enforcement was under the Treasury Dept as the U.S. Customs Service.

    Immigration and customs are two separate issues, the first is concerned with whether you are eligible to enter the country, the second with whether you are carrying any contraband or items on which duty must be paid. IOW one inspects your "papers" while the other inspects your luggage.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    it is nice to see Democrats calling for eliminating part of the FedGov

    Silver linings, I guess. The biggest problem with the "Abolish ICE" stuff is that it shows a complete lack of understanding about how the federal leviathan works. If you abolish ICE, their powers and responsibilities will just be transferred to another alphabet soup agency, probably CBP. At which point they get a bigger budget, bring over a bunch of the former ICE agents, who then go right back to the same job they were doing before only now with "CBP" on the backs of their windbreakers instead of "ICE." It won't accomplish a damn thing except maybe make some progressives feel better, which of course is what this is all about: the feelz.

  • ChuckNorrisBeardFist||

    It's debatable if it eliminates part of the FedGov. When you read the bill, it just moves the civil servants to other areas.

  • Happy Chandler||

    The biggest problem is that you don't understand the problem.

    Enforcement should not be a separate agency that does not support the goals of the broader strategy. Having ICE be its own agency means that the goal is enforcement for enforcement's sake. Having border security under CBP means that enforcement is integrated into the border strategy. Having immigration enforcement being part of USCIS means that enforcement is integrated into that strategy. It's about not splintering agencies and having oversight.

  • Trollificus||

    It's not just the letters on the back of the windbreakers, man. They get mugs too.

  • Rock Lobster||

    Now if the innumerate dumbfucks were calling for the abolition of the TSA, on the other hand, that I could get behind.

  • retiredfire||

    "...it is nice to see Democrats calling for eliminating part of the FedGov. I don't think I've ever seen that before."

    I am pretty sure that every demoncrap would be just fine with eliminating the DOD - Department of Defense - because that is taking money away from social programs.
    Where do they go for cuts, as soon as they get into power?

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    #StillWithHim
    #InternsToo
    #Incest

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""First, people working multiple jobs has no distorting effect on the unemployment rate, which is calculated by taking the number of unemployed people and dividing it by the number of people in the labor force""

    Isn't the unemployment rate is based on the number of jobless claims, as in people filing for unemployment. Not on the actual number of people unemployed?

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Correct! That allows the ruling party (meet the new boss, same as the old boss) to hide the numbers of people who are chronically unemployable.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Depends on which measure is being reported.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    There are various unemployment rates, but the one most often quoted is as you described.

  • BYODB||

    If it's the government, I think they only ever use the U2 which is generally understood by everyone to be a lie.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Bono might disagree.

    Seriously though, I thought it was the U3 since early in Obama's first term and the U6 prior to that. No?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Edit: NVM, I should have scrolled down to read what Longtobefree already wrote.

  • BYODB||

    And I was wrong, but I usually guess wrong on particular unemployment metrics. There's not many, but somehow I still usually guess 'U-2' and yeah that's probably Bono's fault. ^_-

    Normally I try and go to their website to double check, but I can't be bothered today. You guys are (mostly) adults and can figure it out!

  • Longtobefree||

    The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has defined the basic employment concepts as follows:
    People with jobs are employed.
    People who are jobless, looking for jobs within the last 4 weeks, and available for work are unemployed.
    People who are neither employed nor have looked for a job within the last 4 weeks are not included in the labor force.
    Employed persons consist of:
    All persons who did any work for pay or profit during the survey reference week.
    All persons who did at least 15 hours of unpaid work in a family-owned enterprise operated by someone in their household.
    All persons who were temporarily absent from their regular jobs, whether they were paid or not.
    Full-time employed persons work 35 hours or more, considering all jobs, while part-time employed persons work less than 35 hours.
    Who is counted as unemployed?
    Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.
    Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific job-seeking activity.
    In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness) in order to be counted as unemployed.

  • Longtobefree||

    The unemployment rate (U-3), measured as the number of persons unemployed divided by the civilian labor force, rose from 5.0% in December 2007 to peak at 10.0% in October 2009, before falling to the low level of 4.2% by September 2017
    The unemployment rate (U-6) is a wider measure of unemployment, which treats additional workers as unemployed (e.g., those employed part-time for economic reasons and certain "marginally attached" workers outside the labor force, who have looked for a job within the last year, but not within the last 4 weeks). The U-6 rate rose from 8.8% in December 2007 to a peak of 17.1% in November 2009, before steadily falling to 8.3% in September 2017.
    Pick a number, any number - - - -

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""The unemployment rate (U-3), measured as the number of persons unemployed"'

    How do they know who's unemployed? Serious question.

    When I hear about unemployment on the news radio (1010 wins) it always refers to jobless claims.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Ah, and the answer is a survey, (from BLS website)

    "Because unemployment insurance records relate only to people who have applied for such benefits, and since it is impractical to count every unemployed person each month, the government conducts a monthly survey called the Current Population Survey (CPS) to measure the extent of unemployment in the country. The CPS has been conducted in the United States every month since 1940, when it began as a Work Projects Administration program. In 1942, the U.S. Census Bureau took over responsibility for the CPS. The survey has been expanded and modified several times since then. In 1994, for instance, the CPS underwent a major redesign in order to computerize the interview process as well as to obtain more comprehensive and relevant information.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Read the parent comment!

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Nothing in the parent comment tells how it determines someone is unemployed.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    People who are jobless, looking for jobs within the last 4 weeks, and available for work are unemployed.
  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    That doesn't explain how they discover who fits that category.

  • retiredfire||

    How do they know who's unemployed?
    The same way everyone said HiLIARy would be the president.

  • Zeb||

    Well, whatever the unemployment rate means, it makes absolutely no sense to say that people having multiple jobs is a reason for it being low.

  • DarrenM||

    The presupposition is that every job should be able to support one person and that every person should be satisfied with one job.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Agh. That damn "food insecurity" scam again. "1 in 6 kids are worried about where their next meal comes from." Bullshit.

    See this.

    For a site called "Reason", this site's authors are way too credulous. To be sure, Robby, to be sure.

  • Poor Kay||

    Drink!

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    I intentionally left that out. I'm over my daily limit and it's only 10:30.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Well, it's 5:00 somewhere ...

  • Antilles||

    Actually, I experienced legitimate food insecurity between the ages of 18-24 and often went hungry because I literally had no money left for food. But I survived, never took a handout, and eventually got well-paying jobs where it was no longer an issue.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    Me too. But I guarantee that you and I are not representative of the general population. Especially of families with kids. Absent employment, there's a gobsmacking amount of aid available from the government. Never mind what you can get from private food banks.

  • Antilles||

    Yep. My ex-girlfriend's sister has two kids, no job, and their kitchen was always stocked with food thanks to government handouts. But I'd rather go hungry than grovel to the government for assistance.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    She sounds hot.

  • Fk_Censorship||

    I experienced legitimate food insecurity before the age of 9 and often lacked enough nutrients because I lived in a country which enforced a strict socialist economy, as well as a very protectionist minimal import policy.
    I am moderately overweight now as an adult, so there's a happy ending. Also, the respective country has minimal issues related to nutritional deficiency because it gave up that economic model.

  • Trollificus||

    Does not having money for food because it would have cut into my drug and alcohol budget count? Coz about that same age, yeah.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Vox doesn't have unlimited slots and yesterday suderman upped his game by pointing out what a fascist trump is. Do you think Robby is going to let that challenge to his career go unaswered?

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    I'm worried about where lunch is coming from. But I'm pretty sure I'll be eating lunch somewhere.

  • cluskillz||

    A charity solicited a donation from me via snail mail and had that bullshit statistic written in the first paragraph of their pitch. I proceeded to stuff the entire package into the prepaid return envelope with a message that basically said if they're going to lie to me, they'll only get money from me by flat out stealing it (which they probably already do via government grants).

    I never heard back from them.

    I guess I'll give Reason Mag a pass. This time.

  • XM||

    How can a nation so insecure about food be so fat?

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Some of those impoverished kids could use a little hunger. I want a survey that not only asks about their "worries" but also puts their fat asses on a scale.

  • Ron||

    and also ask how many tv's they have and if they have satalite and cable and how much internet they have, most of which they all have but their parents refuse to give up to feed their own kids

  • mpercy||

    0.7 percent does not translate to one-in-six...

    USDA 2015 report:

    An estimated 87.3 percent of American households were food secure throughout the entire
    year in 2015, meaning that they had access at all times to enough food for an active, healthy
    life for all household members.

    Declines from 2014 in food insecurity overall and in very low food security were statistically significant.

    The prevalence rate of food insecurity overall declined from 14.0 percent in 2014, and very low food security declined from 5.6 percent in 2014.

    Food insecurity among children and very low food security among children also
    declined significantly from 2014. Children and adults were food insecure in 7.8 percent of
    households with children in 2015, down from 9.4 percent in 2014.

    Very low food security among children was 0.7 percent in 2015, down from 1.1 percent in 2014.

  • fatcyst||

    Also, where are all his low brow insults that he would levy in a Trump article?

  • ||

    All she knows is the narrative.

  • DajjaI||

    People say she's the new face of the democratic party, but in fact she very shrewdly flew under the radar on her campaign to avoid scrutiny like this. But we learned our lesson that. Even with the current round of TDS, her faction has no traction. People know socialism is complete bs and ultimately will vote against importing more of such future voters. (Wow can't believe I said that. Am I drunk?)

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    (Wow can't believe I said that. Am I drunk?)

    I've often wondered that, AddictionMyth. Often.

  • Microaggressor||

    People know socialism is complete bs

    A lot of young people lack that wisdom. It's not like they teach it in history class.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    I kinda want to ask her if she has an example of a country that switched to socialized medicine when they had a 21T debt, and a lot of immigration.

  • Uncle Adolf's Gas and Grill||

    Well, I'm fairness, you'd be hard put to find a country that has any significant support for switching over to a US style health care system, either.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Not sure what that has to do with my question.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, I wouldn't advocate a US style health care system, either. I'd prefer a free market.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, I'm fairness, you'd be hard put to find a country that has any significant support for switching over to a US style health care system, either.

    Everyone wants US style health care, you know-- the kind that really works--but no one wants the US style health care system

  • Zeb||

    Really? Who the hell is she?

  • damikesc||

    I'm baffled she isn't getting the Todd Akin treatment. I'm also baffled all Dems aren't being asked about her comments.

    Note: I'm not really that baffled.

  • Ariki||

    Vote her in.
    Often the best lessons for children come from failure and suffering.
    Anyone who votes for her needs to see the end results of their choices before they drop the "its not real socialism" BS

  • Placeholder Name||

    Why do you perpetuate non-sense progressive newspeak like "food insecurity." The 14% of households that are supposedly "food insecure" are disproportionately overweight and obese.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    You don't get those choice cocktail party invites unless you toe the party lion. And without cocktail parties, where would Robby get his fruit sushi? You can't *buy* that stuff on a Reason (ok, just one more...) staff writer salary you know.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Are you saying Robbie is food insecure? Where's the donate link?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "Where's the donate link?"

    In a jar at his hairdressers.

  • NashTiger||

    The Party Lion sounds fun. And more than a little dangerous

  • Ariki||

    Conga line anyone?

  • Trollificus||

    You mean "Conga LION", don't you?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That is supposedly because all they can figure out to eat is fast food. And apparently a lot of it.

  • juris imprudent||

    You get fat, you get insecure and then you eat more bad for you food. See? It all makes sense.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    And you use 3+ straws per day.

  • ||

    From ~12-18 we were always worried that we wouldn't have enough food in the house to last until the next payday. Of course, several pounds of food including a dozen eggs, whole chickens, pizzas, pies, and about a gallon of milk flowed in and out of the house daily but that's not what's important. What's important is that the further we got from payday, the more worried we got that we wouldn't have ice cream sandwiches *and* drumsticks in the freezer.

    Then we went off to college and learned how to survive on one plate of cooked spaghetti and Italian dressing a day so we could afford beer and rent. And Mom stopped worrying about whether we were gonna run out of food.

  • Bubba Jones||

    Baked potatoes and salsa.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Rat meat and a small bag of Cheetos.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The still beating heart of a vivisected fallen enemy.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    How is that a bad thing???

  • I am the 0.000000013%||

    It's not sporting if they've fallen first

  • Agammamon||

    It is if you're the lne who tripped them.

  • Trollificus||

    You can live off just the lamentations of their women, though it's a very low-cal diet.

  • BYODB||

    Ramen with miracle whip makes a mean ghetto alfredo.

    True story, I lived off mostly that in college. Thanks, South African roomie for teaching me how to make something out of nothing.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I mostly lived off liver chili, because the local butcher shop was practically giving that stuff away, and with enough hot peppers my mooching roommate wouldn't eat it.

    I'm not sure they HAD instant ramen back in the 70's, or I'd have been eating it.

  • Trollificus||

    Late 70s, 10/$1

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    LOL when I graduated high school and was fed by the Navy instead of my parents it freed so much money up that they got cable TV, new carpets for the house, re-upholstered all the furniture, etc.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    Then we went off to college and learned how to survive on one plate of cooked spaghetti and Italian dressing a day

    You could actually afford spaghetti? Must have been nice.

  • ||

    You could actually afford spaghetti? Must have been nice.

    Ramen is for poseurs and the economically illiterate. The noodles don't come out like that, pre-packaged they pre-cook them and then dry them. You're paying extra for the ready-to-eat factor. That's why a package of ramen is/was $0.50 for 3-4 oz. and spaghetti was $1.50 for the 16 oz. of the fancy, name brand I-talian noodles.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    That's why a package of ramen is/was $0.50 for 3-4 oz.

    Where do you live that a package of ramen is $0.50? When I was in college in the mid-90's they were routinely on sale for 10 to 12 packages for $1.00, and even now they tend to run about $0.29 cents for the cheap shit.

  • ||

    When I was in college in the mid-90's they were routinely on sale for 10 to 12 packages for $1.00, and even now they tend to run about $0.29 cents for the cheap shit.

    The Midwest/Great Lakes region. We shopped around. You could occasionally find deals where Ramen packets were ~$0.30, but generic and dollar store spaghetti could always be had at $0.80-$1/lb. The only way you reliably got to $0.30 was if you bought 24 packs and that much Ramen wasn't good for anybody.

    And my off-the-cuff Amazon shopping doesn't seem incosistent: here and here. Maybe we only had the fancy ramen where I grew up, but that seems... ethnically inconsistent.

  • NashTiger||

    Ramen is 15-16 cents per pack, 29 cents per cup in Kroger right now. You can get a 6 pack for a dollar, or a 12 pack for 1.87.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    It is convenient. Day one you've got soup, and by day three the leftovers are a casserole. I still use them for the noodles in my soup, I just start with lots of veggies and home made chicken stock. My family gobbles that stuff right up.

  • Paloma||

    14% food insecure, but 40% of inner city kids are overweight or obese? How the hell? Unless you're insecure where your sixth Big Mac that day is coming from.

  • Earth Skeptic||

    Insecurity leads to eating disorders, so it's still oppression!

  • Microaggressor||

    The belief in post-capitalism is a religious belief, complete with a foreseen utopia, virtue, and sin. And happens to be the most deadly and impoverishing religion known to history. A lot of public schools preach the faith. I thought they weren't allowed to do things like that. Weird.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    I agree, but strictly speaking "post capitalism" is not a religion [though we know is damn well is, for the reasons you list]. That is how is gets under the First Amendment radar, under the guise of fairness and such crap.

  • Len Bias||

    "The belief in post-capitalism is a religious belief, complete with a foreseen utopia,"

    That's a charitable reading of it. I've started to think that destroying capitalism is an end, not a means. They don't really care what comes after. Better people starve than be "greedy."

  • perlchpr||

    And once they've managed to murder all the farmers, simply wanting food to eat will be evidence of "greed".

  • Trollificus||

    Better all to starve than 'inequality'.

  • the other Jim||

    "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world," said Ocasio-Cortez.

    "Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.

    This is known as "bad luck."
    ~Heinlein

  • Bubba Jones||

    Recently read a claim that clocks suitable for ocean voyages were the product of a single, obsessive man working his entire life.

  • Bubba Jones||

  • Alcibiades||

    Recently read a claim that clocks suitable for ocean voyages were the product of a single, obsessive man working his entire life.

    Documented in Longitude by Dava Sobel:

    https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B003WUYE66/reasonmagazineA/
    ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

    Read it, if it wasn't all documented and researched you wouldn't believe it happened.

    Self-taught he achieved what all the greatest minds of the time couldn't.
    A mechanical clock that is more accurate than today's average quartz watch and that achieved this accuracy in British warships constantly in motion, in damp, salty environments.

    The account of how he built the watch and tested it was also made into a movie.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Didn't know about a movie, but the book was fantastic.

  • Sevo||

    "...but the book was fantastic."
    +1

  • retiredfire||

    Recently read a claim that clocks suitable for ocean voyages were the product of a single, obsessive man working his entire life.

    And a big payout by the British Parliament.

    Capitalism strikes again!

  • Ariki||

    The power of autism, a force for good?

  • Trollificus||

    That was, many, many years ago, an objection penciled into the margins of my copy of "Atlas Shrugged".

    "All the heroic qualities of her great, self-interested super achievers+altruism=an even more valuable member of society. Voluntary, self-interested altruism. Serves self-interest in bettering the society of which we are a part. And, of course, freely done, with NO obligation imposed on the recipient. You don't help someone by imposing a debt on them." (as close as I can recall)

    In Rand's world, the freeway ramp beggars stand nobly erect all day, with a sign that says only, "Choose to help, or do not."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Before capitalism, trade consisted of one Cro-Magnon man bashing another's skull and taking whatever he had.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    So Bernie Sanders style top down socialism?

  • perlchpr||

    Grog didn't need 23 different kinds of club.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Then Grog realized he could get more pelts by making and selling clubs!

  • Longtobefree||

    Finally, Grog realized if he outlawed clubs, he could invent taxes and make everyone else GIVE him pelts.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Then Ook suggested that government power should be by the consent of the governed, and was promptly beaten to death by Grog's men.

  • ||

    Before capitalism, trade consisted of one Cro-Magnon man bashing another's skull and taking whatever he had.

    Weird, that's how they do it in post-capitalist societies too.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    It is as if she was directly imported from Cuba, or Venezuela. She just gets on national media and says this stupid shit, no worries. Looks like the "future of the Democratic Party" is becoming their laughing stock. Not that it matters to those who hold fast to the narrative.

  • ||

    It is as if she was directly imported from Cuba, or Venezuela.

    You say that like there are potential downsides to inviting anyone and everyone to bring their shitty ideologies with them to play in your borderless, welfare-addled utopia.

  • perlchpr||

    It is as if she was directly imported from Cuba, or Venezuela.

    Is it really? I mean, I'm going to be perfectly clear here that I do not know anyone living in either of those countries, nor, indeed, even any recent immigrants.

    But what I'm getting at is, do the people in those places actually believe in socialism? Or, having experienced it ("I'm having dinner at the Zoo tonight!"), do they understand that it's crap, but offer lip service because they don't want to end up in a black hood?

    I mean, from my observations, it nearly requires growing up well-off to have the sort of disconnect from reality that thinking that socialism is a good idea anymore neccesitates.

  • prolefeed||

    My understanding is that Cubans living in South Florida tend to not care for socialism, having some experience with it, directly or indirectly.

    I'm gonna guess Venezuelans who succeed in fleeing to the U.S. might have a similar mentality.

  • Paloma||

    A lot of the reason Florida is Republican is because of Cubans who fled communism. Most Venezuelans I know lean on the conservative side.

  • Alcibiades||

    ^ ^ ^
    This, it's often been noted that often the most ardent true believers of socialism had privileged, quite wealthy upbringings.

    Check out this guy, Vladimir Jaffe:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYquuFjE0cc

    He grew up under commumism before emigrating to the US and starting a business.
    He goes around talking to protestors advocating for socialism and communism and engages them in conversation, or at least tries to.
    Priceless...

  • Ariki||

    90% of all the socialist leaders/founders come from upper middle class to lower upper class backgrounds.
    My theory is they are too stupid to compete with those above them but desperately want to be better then them.
    What better weapon than the masses?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    I mean, from my observations, it nearly requires growing up well-off to have the sort of disconnect from reality that thinking that socialism is a good idea anymore necessitates.

    This. It's no surprise that your loudest and proudest Marxists tend to be upper middle class white people.

  • Rhywun||

    loudest and proudest Marxists tend to be upper middle class white people

    Which is the exact opposite from the population of this chick's district (mostly blue-collar Latinos), but because she's posing as a Democrat they'll reflexively vote for her anyway.

  • ||

    It's no surprise that your loudest and proudest Marxists tend to be upper middle class white people.

    Not that white people aren't a part of the group but as much or more as with racism and/or nationalism skin color is a tangent at best. I don't think it benefits anyone to perpetuate *their* ethnic stereotyping. Yellow, red, white, and brown Marxists are always nominally the same color as the oppressed and the opposite color of their oppressors. Ocasio-cortez, despite her skin color and family heritage, is more white than I am. She is as white as Barack Obama, Elizabeth Warren, and George W. Bush.

  • Paloma||

    In Puerto Rico I observed that the whiter the candidate, the more they tended to be leftists. And Black Puerto Ricans tend to be conservatives who vote for statehood. When they move to the states they tend to change. If you were black and independentista, everyone knew you were from New York.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    But what I'm getting at is, do the people in those places actually believe in socialism? Or, having experienced it ("I'm having dinner at the Zoo tonight!"), do they understand that it's crap, but offer lip service because they don't want to end up in a black hood?

    I strongly suspect it's this. Another question to ask is this:

    Who's more likely to import socialist ideology with them when they come here? Cubans and Venezuelans who were forced to live under a despotic, tyrannical, communist kleptocracy*, or - for example - Scandinavians who willingly chose to live under some sort of "kinder, gentler" "democratic socialism**?"

    * "Not real socialism" or some such horseshit.
    ** "Real socialism" according to morons who probably have never actually read anything Marx wrote and are just regurgitating whatever their college professors told them.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    You just never know what's going to kick off a thread around here.

    To be more specific, by "Cuba or Venezuela" I was thinking of someone from their government, like a believe in La Revolution, who would spout this sort of perverse verbiage. Not someone from the proletariat who actually had to live with it. Some animals are more equal than others, you know.

  • Longtobefree||

    Well, she graduated fourth in her class with degrees in both International relations and Economics.
    So much for Boston University.

  • NashTiger||

    I have, er, anectdotal evidence, stories of Colombian young working women who despise Venezuelans for flooding their country, and flooding the market for certain services, thereby depressing wages.

    Not sure if that answers any of your questions, and frankly I don't care

  • DajjaI||

    people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week

    Small price to pay for living in the g-d Garden of Eden.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    aka Kew Gardens?

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    If they weren't working 80 hrs/week, they'd be getting drink and making babies.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's not her fault. The Russians hacked her brain.

    I want to believe

  • NoVaNick||

    Remember, Marxists don't want anyone to have to work, so we can write poetry all day long...

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Yeah, self actualization. Someone should have killed that fucker Maslow from the get go.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    What she's discussing is "under-employment". For which there's no meaningful statistics.

  • Sevo||

    I also doubt that it exists.
    The barrista at Starbucks with a post-graduate degree in "X Studies" is *appropriately* employed. (S)he will do less harm to the world there than anywhere else.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Under employment is a very squishy term.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The one has to break out what portion is voluntary versus involuntary. Which I thought was supposed to be part of the calculations in the labor participation rate.

    Is that not true?

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I don't know. It's squishy in the sense that a chemist who can't get a job as a chemist and works construction may consider himself underemployed. Some schmuck with a GED working at McDonalds may consider himself underemployed because he's not the CEO of Microsoft.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Hunger and poverty are indeed problems faced by millions of Americans—14 percent of U.S. households experience food insecurity.

    I remember just a few years ago when the problem wasn't hunger or... "food insecurity" but too much easy access to high calorie food that poor people inevitably choose.

  • Freddy the Jerk||

    "Too many calories" isn't the kind of slogan that keeps the government gravy train rolling. See the article I linked above...

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    A lot of poor people eat shitty food in part because democrat policies have made good wulatiy nutritious food prohibitively expensive.

    They really are to blame.

  • kcuch||

    thee might be more options to purchase goods if the residents would stop robbing the merchants.

  • Ken Hagler||

    There was also that Swedish study that found that people considered "impoverished" in America had a better standard of living than rich people in Sweden.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Sweden does have all those tall hot blonde chicks though.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    Give it a generation.

  • LynchPin1477||

    What study was this? I'd be interested in reading that.

  • Toranth||

    I can't find the study itself, but I found a bunch of articles about a Swedish Institute of Trade study (including an article by Rueters). The study covered 1990-1999, and concluded "the median household income in Sweden at the end of the 1990s was the equivalent of $26,800, compared with a median of $39,400 for U.S. households."
    In other words, "average income in Sweden is less than average income for black Americans, which comprise the lowest-income socioeconomic group in this country."

  • Sevo||

    "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world," said Ocasio-Cortez."

    It may be the 'new face' of the D's, but unfortunately, it's also the 'old, obsolete brain'.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    People like her remind me how there are millions of other like her. OTOH, there are also plenty of landfills too.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Another nobody I never heard of getting press for unknown reasons.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    She's cuter than Bernie, and managed to primary the establishment hack democrat through an incredibly low primary turnout. So now she is the hope of the democrat party.

    They'll probably run her for president in 2032.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She won out of nowhere and is explicitly a communist. For the not insignificant amount of people who view that as progress it is exciting. The fact that she is a know nothing will probably not impact those people's views.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    Its a forgone conclusion that her handlers will never let her do a real interview, never let her in a real debate, or any venue where she will seriously have to defend her ideas.

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    She is very pretty.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    She sure does have a purty mouth ...

  • Rich||

    "Unemployment is low because people are working 60, 70, 80 hours a week, and can barely feed their kids."

    "Unemployment is low because I won the primary."

  • BYODB||

    She's a socialist, she doesn't understand how anything works except, perhaps, how kulaks are wrecking her socialist paradise.

  • BYODB||

    Ha, I made this comment before reading the article. (Yes, I know. So sue me.)

    In the article?

    Ocasio-Cortez blames profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" for the conditions in which people struggle to feed their kids.

    So, yes, kulaks.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The byline tells you 90% of what you need to know. Supposedly.

  • BYODB||

    More like socialists are pretty easy to predict, really, but you're not wrong. I already knew she was a socialist so her opinions on things are going to be set in stone, by necessity, in service to her ethos.

    After all, there's really only one way for socialism to 'work' yet socialists seeking office never follow that one way. Ever.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    The safety net in this country is so strong that it's almost impossible to really go hungry for any length of time. And that is before all the government welfare.

    She is incredibly full of shit.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    I made this comment before reading the article.

    It's not too hard to guess what socialists think. Just think of a normal person and then take away reason and accountability... and add a massive sense of entitlement and an overdeveloped feeling of envy and you've basically got it.

  • BYODB||

    It's truly strange how certain movies seem to be enjoyed by almost all self-styled libertarians, but then again it could just be because movies like As Good As It Gets and The Big Lebowski are fucking brilliant films.

    Either way, good example!

  • Mickey Rat||

    Keep in mind that her schooling was in international relations and economics. She has shown some fascinating gaps in her knowledge about both subjects this week.

  • Longtobefree||

    Which speaks volumes about the quality of degrees from Boston University. (she was 4th in her class!)

    Side note: She had a John F. Lopez fellowship; The JFL Fellowship gives high-achieving college students the opportunity to develop their ability to mobilize communities and operate at executive levels and provides these students with a means to share their developing knowledge and expertise with others. As counselors, research specialists, trainers and planners, fellows gain direct interactive experiences that enable them to critically examine the needs and capacities required for future leadership.
    Still knows nothing.
    She was an intern in the immigration office of U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy
    Still knows nothing.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    She was an intern in the immigration office of U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy
    Still knows nothing.

    As an intern for Ted Kennedy who actually survived I suspect she learned to say "How about if I drive this time, Senator."

  • vek||

    What she REALLY was was a "diversity" admittance case, who probably didn't even have the grades to get in on merit. Just like all these morons who float through some shitty college program, not actually paying attention or learning anything, she came out thinking she's a genius, when she's really a moron.

    I never went to full on university... But I have literally schooled ECONOMICS MAJORS on basic tenants of economics. History Majors on history. Etc etc etc.

    Just like some idiots graduate high school without hardly being able to read or write, the same shit seems to happen at universities. They've lowered the standards so much over the years, and they're letting in so many women/minorities with VASTLY lower grades just to fill diversity goals, that it literally means nothing anymore to have graduated from a supposedly great school.

  • perlchpr||

    Mandatory 80% (or 85%!) pass rates have made a university education something of a joke.

    I suspect it's still possible to go to university and get an education. But I suspect it's also possible to graduate without ever having gone to class.

    Professor Fired For Having Standards

  • vek||

    Yup. It's insane.

    Just one more lunatic thing that can't last forever. It is becoming such a well known fact that I wouldn't be surprised if some private school comes out in 10 years and starts saying "We are now only accepting people based on merit, no special entry at all based on anything other than test scores and grades at previous schools. We have objective standards that are set exceedingly high. If people cannot pass, we simply fail them out. We're not just handing our worthless pieces of paper here, if you see our name on a resume you can be 100% assured they're first rate."

    It really has got so bad even employers know a degree is worthless now... So something like the above is really the only place for it to go long term.

  • Cynical Asshole||

    "Socialist Twat Says Something Stupid
    In other news: water is wet and grass is green."

  • perlchpr||

    I re-read The Gods of the Copybook Headings last night, so my immediate reaction was to rephrase it as "In other news, water is wet and fire will burn." :D

  • LynchPin1477||

    An economically illiterate socialist? Who would have thought?!?!

  • Antilles||

    She has a degree in Economics, but is still a communist. Plus she works in a bar rather than an actual career using the degree she obtained through Affirmative Action.

  • Longtobefree||

    Fourth in your class is probably not ALL affirmative action.

  • LynchPin1477||

    Plus she works in a bar

    She graduated 4th in her class from BU, won a fellowship, interned in Ted Kennedy's office, and *still* works as a bartender? As her full time job? If that is all true and she's the hope of the Democrats then, ooo weee.

  • LynchPin1477||

    OK, sounds like she got a more real job after the bartending stuff. So there's that, at least.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I didn't see her whole quote, but what she said could be factually correct if her argument is that a person's second job could be an unemployed person's first job. This is probably what she meant, given that she's one of the "living wage" crowd who advocates people needing to work fewer hours to make ends meet.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    But she was trying to claim that the reported unemployment rate is lower than it really should be -- that the nefarious capitalists are getting credit for a low rate, but if you "corrected" it to account for people working two jobs, the rate would be higher (which is wrong for the reasons Soave explains). Your suggested explanation would mean that if people's second jobs were taken by others, the reported rate would be even lower,which is is an argument somewhat lacking in urgency.

  • Chipper Got Me Banned||

    Next thing you know, she'll be telling us the rent (RENT!) is TOO DAMN HIGH!
    Her mustache and beard are motherfucking fly!
    Snitches get stitches, and then they die, because the rent (RENT!)
    Is TOO DAMN HIGH!

  • Poor Kay||

    I like working 60 to 70 hours a week, just like I enjoyed going to the gym after practice in college. I mean, I don't love it, but I love the idea of being prepared when others are not and when I myself am fatigued (or old) and the work I did carries me through.

  • Live Free Or Diet||

    "because everyone has two jobs."

    No, I have *no* job because I want it that way, and capitalism enabled me (born with a plastic spoon in my mouth) to accomplish getting here.

  • Kristian H.||

    'But Ocasio-Cortez's admission that she was "no expert on geopolitics" was much more satisfactory than her answer to a question about the unemployment rate, which she claimed was low merely "because everyone has two jobs." '

    Pity she didn't take an Econ in college.

    Eh? What?

    "Ocasio-Cortez, 28, graduated from the College of Arts & Sciences in 2011, with a degree in economics and international relations, according to her Facebook page and the Associated Press."

    from https://tinyurl.com/ybrc2d4e

    Shouldn't she then know something about
    a) geopolitics
    b) economics
    ?????

  • Chipper Got Me Banned||

    Her Facebook page says she graduated, not that she learned anything.

  • Kristian H.||

    BU should sue her for defamation or something.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    Learning is just a tool of the capitalist oligarchical cis-hetero shitlord patriarchy.

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    They have a social justice track in their international relations program. She may in fact not have been exposed to geopolitics or economics.

  • Microaggressor||

    That much is evident.

  • Longtobefree||

    Boston University

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    Funniest comments 2018. But it's sobering to realise this complete moron has power now.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    If you are referring to Corez, she has almost no power. Like every other freshman in the house or reps.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    house of reps

  • Longtobefree||

    Won't she have to actually win the election first?
    Turns out just being a woman on the democrat ticket is no longer enough.
    Elections have consequences.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Of course. But she's pretty much a shoe in. I don't think there is another woman. The guy she beat is still an option under another party. But he's not going to do anything to campaign.

  • Mickey Rat||

    She has not actually won a seat in Congress yet, though the general election is likely a foregone conclusion given the district.

  • damikesc||

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex was roundly criticized on social media yesterday for supposedly botching a question about Israeli-Palestine relations during an interview with Firing Line's Margaret Hoover.

    In what way did she not botch that question? Being called out for spouting platitudes that you know basically zero about isn't a POSITIVE thing.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    I think it's worth noting the distinction that she identifies as a socialist, which is a bit distinguished from communist in that communists flat-out don't believe in private property. Socialists try in various ways to dress that concept up in class distinctions to make it more acceptable: It's not your property -- the fruit of your labor -- that should be collectivized. It's the property of those fatcat employers who are exploiting you. It ignores any agency on the part of workers, and any ambiguity regarding wages vs. profit, or who is an "employer".

  • Longtobefree||

    The economic philosophy that espouses private ownership of the means of production, but government control of the economy (what is produced and where and by which companies) is Fascism.

  • mr simple||

    Fascism is a political philosophy, not economic. The Fascists originally espoused syndicallism but moved to corporatism as they were coming to power.

  • H. Farnham||

    "Capitalism has not always existed in the world and it will not always exist in the world," said Ocasio-Cortez.

    I would have liked to see more criticism of this statement as being simply untrue. I would argue that capitalism is the natural state of human transactions. This is especially apparent if you accept the notion that ownership of private property is a natural right. Throughout history, capitalism has been suppressed by various coercive establishments (monarchy, socialism, theocracy, etc.), but as long as people communicate and interact with one another, there will always be traces of capitalism that cannot be feasibly stamped out.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    By that argument, there are socialist systems that many (including people associated with libertarianism) consider the "natural state of human transactions." For example, if you DON'T accept the Lockean view that ownership of private (land) property is a natural right, then there are theories like mutualism that better fit the description of what the "natural state" of affairs looks like. Most would consider those theories to be more socialist than capitalist.

  • H. Farnham||

    I didn't say that the acceptance of natural rights (especially private property) is necessary for the assertion that capitalism is the natural state of human transactions, simply that it becomes more obvious when viewed through that lens.

    It follows logically that for a system as complex as communal ownership and distribution to arise, simple interactions amongst individuals, including trade, must occur first and evolve from there.

    However, any talk of prehistoric societies is very theoretical with very little physical evidence. Historic record has shown that every society that has actively suppressed individual ownership and free exchange of property has either had to severely oppress people under its control, or simply tolerate black markets where people privately trade and exchange property. I'm claiming that no society will ever be able to completely extinguish private transactions.

  • perlchpr||

    Well, families tend to be pretty socialistic, and they're a pretty basic and natural state of human transactions. So I think a lot of socialists try and take that example and extrapolate from it to a level that just isn't realistic to expect of human behaviour towards people who aren't close blood family members.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    There's always a relationship between members of a community. In fact, this was one of the arguments that the anti-federalists made a couple hundred years ago, and which continues to be advocated by people who favor such things as state's (or county's) rights.

    And I'd argue also that it applies for those of us who view laissez faire as a viable economic system -- we generally hold that such a system would result in prosperous communities who, through free association, serve each others' needs through mutually beneficial transactions. Even though the mechanism is individualist, the statement about its benefits is still a statement about community.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Families are NOT 'socialistic' in any way.

    The idea that what one is seeing in a family is 'socialist' has been applied via hindsight by tailoring the description to appear to cover the tenets of socialism. It does not.

    Families are the smallest human grouping that shows intragroup and intergroup dynamics that reveal that humans are NOT, in any way, communal animals.

    This is why the left works endlessly to destroy the very idea of 'family'.

    If families were actual bastions of socialist ideals, Planned Parenthood would be about stopping abortion and strengthening families.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Families are the smallest human grouping that shows intragroup and intergroup dynamics that reveal that humans are NOT, in any way, communal animals.

    Could you elaborate? I don't know what dynamics you're referring to specifically, and how they show that humans are not communal animals.

  • Azathoth!!||

    This might be too much for a comment.

    Humans are creatures filled with instincts that they still obey--despite their vaunted 'sapience'. I tend to start where those instincts began and I stay with them as motivations--despite rationalization--until there is a clear departure.

    Human civilization is the discussion of those instincts, their rationalization, and the attempts to escape their animal beginnings.

    It is those initial instinctual family dynamics to which I refer. Watch chimps and bonobos.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I don't use the same starting point. Societies have gathered together specifically to defend from such instinctual behavior. Taking valuable things from others because you covet them more than you fear repercussion, intercourse with other animals without any regard for consent, etc. Advanced civilizations aim to provide a framework that limits behaviors that are harmful to the society (either to individuals or to the society as a whole).

  • Azathoth!!||

    Society is too far removed from what I am talking about. When you get to the societal level you are already wrapped in behaviors that are ambiguous to an outside view but are plain when the internal dialogue is known.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It follows logically that for a system as complex as communal ownership and distribution to arise, simple interactions amongst individuals, including trade, must occur first and evolve from there.

    Oh I agree. But it can very quickly and naturally evolve into "communal" ownership. For example, Roderick T. Long's essays on the subject. Which doesn't stray too far from Kevin Carson's view on the subject, which he has referred to as "socialism" even though it deviates quite a bit from Marxism.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Accept?

    No. Acceptance is not needed.

    Capitalism--using some kind of 'counter' be it cash, IOUs, promises, in place of the actual thing that is being traded--predates humanity.

    The idea of private property--territory-- predates multicellular life. The 'Lockean view' isn't a 'view'--it's an attempt to describe what occurs naturally.

    Every single socialist tenet starts from the premise 'well yes, but let's try this instead....". Not a single one is actually workable without a pre-existing 'capitalistic' structure to leech from.

    So, no.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Right, because volumes haven't been written on this very debate or anything. I made it all up.

    The problem with your analysis is that you're conflating two ideas: private property and territory. You do this when you say "the idea of private property--territory-- predates multicellular life." Well, which is it? The idea of private property or the idea of territory? These are two distinct things.

    For example, you can mark off your territory without owning that territory. Some argue that this is actually the natural way of things, and that "private property" is an artifice. When you put your beach blanket down on the sand, you're not claiming to own that small piece of land. But it's regarded in common law to be your temporary territory.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Private property is an outgrowth of territory.

    It exists to stop the endless fighting over territory that came before humans decided to abide by 'imaginary lines'. It does not work perfectly yet.

    When I say that there's no need for acceptance, I'm also saying that there's no 'debate'.

    There is what is, and there is what isn't.

    What appears to be debate is humans trying to alter the way reality unfolds so that it favors them through the use of rationalization.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Private property is an outgrowth of territory. It exists to stop the endless fighting over territory that came before humans decided to abide by 'imaginary lines'.

    Exactly right. But it's only ONE resolution to the problem. There are others. The notion of private property is not more "natural" than the others. Some have put forth a libertarian defense of communal property (and how private property isn't the only way to safeguard the things you're talking about), and yet others have argued against the notion of private property altogether from a libertarian perspective. So I reject the idea that the only solution is for the state to create and enforce deeds.

  • Azathoth!!||

    There are no others.

    There are unproven theories. We can talk, and enjoy the witty banter that I'm sure will ensue, but, at the end of the day what we have is private property, an outgrowth of monkey territorialism. The state, and deeds, also came later. They are all attempts to deal with the fact that humans are territorial animals.

    There also is no argument against private property that can come from a libertarian perspective. Individual ownership is intrinsic to the ideology.

    You are confusing something that is decidedly anti-liberty for something that promotes it.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You've propped up something that is an artifice by literally every definition of the word and you're trying to pretend that it's "natural". You're also ignoring the fact that there have been vast amounts of time in the world's (and even this nation's) history where the thing that you're calling natural did not exist or did not apply, and the thing that I'm calling natural did. Honestly, I think you're still conflating personal territory with private property.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Bacteria defend their territories.

    Amoeba defend their territories.

    Every single form of life that we know of defends it's territory.

    There was 'territory' and 'personal property' before there were brains, never mind anything like a 'person'.

    That is how deeply ingrained in life the concept is.

    As life evolved, the concept evolved with it, getting better, easier to cope with. Humans upon reaching the ability to think, started trying to deliberately guide it.

    I think this weird attempt to separate 'private' property, 'personal' property, and 'territory' is imagining vast differences when these are all facets of a single thing.

    Again, theories that are more a function of human garrulousness and less a representation of anything that actually exists.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You're still doing it. Territory and private property are NOT the same thing. Please google or wikipedia this. There have been volumes upon volume written about this by all the great philosophers, including the one whose ideas you're subscribing to (Locke).

  • Azathoth!!||

    They're wrong.

    All the philosophizing was castles on air trying to decouple a thing from itself.

    "You can say X, Y or Z, and that can't apply to Z, X, or Y because....blah blah blah."

    Semantic games.

    Humans see their things as their things. Period. All the verbiage exists to try to make this fact as painless as possible when you jam a lot of humans together and call it a 'society'

    The point you must work from is the point at which it originated. Going further forward without starting there will have you commenting on appearances instead of realities.

    As you've been doing.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    I largely agree, but a lot of theorists nowadays assert that property in most, and by extension the earliest, hunter-gatherer cultures is naturally communal. They also tend to glamorize that, as they're prone to glamorize hunter-gathering itself.. Not only do I think such things cease to be practical or desirable above the of level a family or family-sized group, but it's difficult for me to imagine that the concept of private property doesn't exist in some form even there -- "This is my spear, even if I'm okay with lending it out to other tribe members if circumstances dictate". And certainly, "These are our hunting and gathering grounds, and your neighboring tribe can hunt and gather there only at our sufferance."

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    "Private property" and "personal property" are usually regarded as two different things. You can't apply the same tenets to the spear that you can to a piece of earth. (even Lockeans acknowledge this when they claim that the latter can be considered "ownership" when labor is mixed with natural resources)

    Basically, you can be both a personal property fundamentalist (it's my spear, and any attempt to take it or tax it is theft) and also reject the notion of private property.

  • SchillMcGuffin||

    This also illustrates a basic definitional problem in the current rhetoric -- "Capitalism" seems often to be used as shorthand for "corporatism" rather than simple private ownership of property. I'm sure there are an awful lot of Bernie and AO-C supporters out there who fundamentally accept property rights, but profess to hate "capitalism", and support "wealth redistribution" as long as they're on the right side of it.

  • H. Farnham||

    I agree. It's inevitable, though, that people will feel hostility towards economic freedom when it results in such wide ranging outcomes in relative success. Personally, I don't understand it. I don't usually harbor animosity towards others for being successful, but maybe I'm just too self-absorbed to notice.

  • This Machine Chips Fascists||

    "...there will always be traces of capitalism that cannot be feasibly stamped out."

    +1 black market

  • Sevo||

    "...there will always be traces of capitalism that cannot be feasibly stamped out."
    +1 black market"

    Even that apologist Figes admits the Soviets couldn't have existed without the black market providing sustenance to those who would have starved otherwise.
    A writer on North Korea made the observation that KIY 'made starvation the only legal option' (I'll check the bookshelves if someone wants a direct cite)

  • vek||

    I was going to say the same thing.

    The truth is that the most primitive societies could probably be argued to be "mixed economies" in a way.

    People owned and traded a lot of stuff as individuals. My spear, your spear. I'll make you a shirt if you make me a bowl. Small stuff was definitely respected and capitalistic, excepting in times of emergency, when we STILL accept the government requiring services of people, like during war.

    However some stuff, like land let us say, was often owned by the tribe as a whole. HOWEVER even within a lot of those situations, it was common for people to be given THEIR little sub plot of the land. This was usually doled out by a group leader.

    There are a lot of variations on the above, but things more or less like that are known to have been very common from when Europeans made first contact with primitive peoples around the world.

    To me this all makes perfect sense since humans are in fact a weird mix of individualistic and pack animal. Especially when dealing with close family relations, like early tribal groups were, it doesn't seem odd to me. The thing is that scale matters, and force matters. Socialism at scale when forced is an utter fail... When it's your family on a small scale, and it's voluntary, it can work sometimes.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Land was owned by the leader. Not the group --save in the sense that the group also was 'owned' by the leader.

    Humans are not communal animals. They are cooperative animals. There is a vast difference between the two.

    Humans who claim a desire for 'communality' are thinking, in their heads, of themselves as 'leaders' of such a community benevolently making sure that all things are--in their estimation--equal. Alphas--Betas at the very least.They never see themselves as Epsilons.

    There is no scale at which socialism works.

  • vek||

    Ehhhh, kinda.

    There were societies where the tribe, as a group, owned land. Some tribes did not have hereditary rulers, but elected the next chief after the old one died. The land remained the tribes between these.

    I agree that forced socialism doesn't work... But humans have cooperative, AND communal leanings in some areas of our lives. Thing is it works (sometimes) when it is voluntary, and when people are held to account, like within a family. We're a mix.

    The idea that we are all 100% individualistic OR 100% communal are both wrong. As pack animals, not herd animals, we have aspects of both.

    I don't see how there's anything wrong in accepting this, and still saying that outright communism or socialism are completely worthless failures at anything beyond extended family or maybe a very small tribal group.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Humans are not 'pack' animals or 'herd' animals.

    Primate social dynamics do not fall into those categories.

    A tribe owning land together is in no way the same as a tribe holding land that is simply declared to be communal. Ownership imparts personal --individual-- responsibility. A declaration of communality does not --in fact, it imparts the reverse, no one owns it thus no one is really responsible for it.

    That is a major difference even though it can look the same from the outside.

    Humans are not communal. Trying to impose 'communality' upon them tends to result in scenarios like the one described above--wherein no one accepts responsibility because they have been told that all are equally responsible regardless of what they do.

    Humans are 100% individualistic and 100% cooperative. These things do not conflict. Individuals can, and do, work together to get things for themselves that they could not get if they worked alone.

    Socialism doesn't ever work anywhere. It's 'virtues' on the small scale are the deliberate misinterpretations of individuals actions.

    'Accepting' those falsehoods has gotten us into the mess we're in today.

  • Agammamon||

    Even if everyone had two jobs - or 10 - that would have no bearing how hard they have to work to get by.

    I might habe 10 jobs, each only 2 hours a week - is that worse than someone working 40 at one?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Well, even not counting all the trouble that causes with scheduling, that's only 20 hours.

  • Echo Chamber||

    Kudos to Robby for going full Dan Aykroyd on this socialist Jane Curtain.

  • esteve7||

    This is why I don't really give a shit about what Trump says. What he does is more libertarian then you ever would have had under Clinton.

    No way I'm voting for the socialist party no matter how stupid Trump or the Republicans are. I'll either vote R if they arn't crazy, or vote L like I did last time.

    What doesn't the left get about this? Well Trump is so bad, therefore I will vote for their social justice nonsense. Give me a break

  • T. Lord||

    "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex" -- I think you might be giving her too much credit ;)

  • Martin Brock||

    She never suggests that official unemployment statistics misrepresent people working multiple jobs or working overtime or anything similar. She only says what David Stockman said two months ago.

    http://www.talkmarkets.com/con.....218&page=2

    You can argue with them, but cleverly pretending that she doesn't understand how the statistics are calculated, despite the economics degree, persuades no one outside of your choir.

  • ||

    The clip linked on Twitter is unedited, she said what is quoted. Also, she got a BA in "Economics and International Studies" from a liberal arts college (and nothing else). She's not an economist the way Paul Krugman, Milton Friedman, Von Mises, or Jonathan Gruber is an economist. In every regard, she's less of an economist than Donald Trump but don't let that stop you from plodding through the same stupid, failed narratives.

  • Martin Brock||

    Here's multiple job holders, not a percent of employed, from the same source you cite. You cite percent of employed.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026619

    The figure has increased steadily since employment bottomed in 2010, but because it's increasing in proportion to increasing employment, the percent of employed is not increasing.

    https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU02026620

    So while "everyone is working to jobs" is literally false and hyperbolic, your suggestion that fewer people are working multiple jobs is also misleading.

  • ||

    So while "everyone is working to jobs" is literally false and hyperbolic, your suggestion that fewer people are working multiple jobs is also misleading.

    Seems to me the only definitive statement that you are absolutely certain is wrong is 'everyone is working two jobs'. Which is what Robby claimed definitively.

  • Sevo||

    "So while "everyone is working to jobs" is literally false and hyperbolic, your suggestion that fewer people are working multiple jobs is also misleading."

    So you are a blowhard who can't be bothered to read your own link?

  • Sevo||

    Holy cow!
    Now I remember you as one of the ignorant blowhards from the (long lost) Sceptics forum way back when!
    You haven't gotten any smarter.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    Just another Progressive Moron.

  • XM||

    She'll win the election obviously. Then she'll pick fights with the elite wing of her party (Amazon, Google, Uber etc) over taxes and regulations. It'll be a sequel to that Indian socialist in Seattle.

    When you drive out mom and pop businesses, no one will care. You try to slap some taxes on Amazon, and Jeff Bezos will gently remind party leadership not to bite the hands that feed them.

  • KnaveDave||

    "people working multiple jobs has no distorting effect on the unemployment rate, which is calculated by taking the number of unemployed people and dividing it by the number of people in the labor force. The raw number of jobs being worked by Americans has no bearing on these numbers."

    That's not true. You are dividing by the "number of people in the labor force," but the government has no way of knowing whether or not any of the filled jobs it is counting as "someone in the labor force" is the SAME SOMEONE who is also employed in another one of the jobs they are counting. THEY DO NOT cross reference names associated with every job reported to make sure that none of those filled jobs have the same name and the same address.

  • Mark22||

    THEY DO NOT cross reference names associated with every job reported to make sure that none of those filled jobs have the same name and the same address.

    They don't have to. The unemployment rate isn't calculated by cross referencing, it's calculated by counting people who are looking for work.

    (The unemployment rate is also a fairly meaningless rate; the labor force participation rate among able men is arguably more important, and that is rather low.)

  • DarrenM||

    Ocasio-Cortez blames profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" for the conditions in which people struggle to feed their kids.

    So, nations like Germany must be really bad.

    Economic Freedom rankings. 2013 ratings in 2015 Annual Report.

    1. Germany
    3. New Zealand
    4. Switzerland
    8. Ireland
    9. Canada
    11. United Kingdom
    12. Australia
    16. United States

    Link

  • Miter Broller||

    Right, and it's not the fact that they had kids when they were economically unfit to do so that might be causing that struggle.

  • Mark22||

    The solution is simple: have your kid out of wedlock, declare yourself a single mom, and millions of tax paying males will be forced to pay for your livelihood! You don't even need to cook, clean, or put out.

  • Mark22||

    Those "economic freedom rankings" are a composite and represent very different economic realities. For example, labor freedom in Germany is dismal compared to the US, but Germany has better protection of property rights than the US, more government integrity, and a more effective judicial system.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Ocasio-Cortez blames profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" for the conditions in which people struggle to feed their kids.""

    Remove profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" and you still have those conditions.

  • Billybobjoe||

    Why is this woman famous?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Because her opponent was a giant dickhead.

  • Longtobefree||

    You spelled democrat wrong.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    That wouldn't make any sense. She's a democrat too.

  • Technomad||

    Near where my mother grew up, the Amana Colonies tried to make a go of the "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" schtick for a long time. A few years after my mother was born, they finally had to give it up, and they became a corporation. Once they'd dumped the small-c communism, they started doing very well, and are now quite successful.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Socialist dingbat

  • Miter Broller||

    Yeah, but Brawndo has what plants crave...

  • vek||

    What a dumb slut.

    But she will be the gift that keeps on giving! Once this idiot is actually in congress, constantly out there spouting off her anti-white shit, pro socialism stuff... It's just going to taint the hell out of the Dems nationally. So more power to her! The Dems seem intent on just holding fewer and fewer positions nationally, and having ever more insane policies... As long as people like her are under their banner, they will not be taking back the thousands of seats they have lost all over the country in recent years.

  • Paulina||

    Of course, there is a big unemployment rate. When you've got two jobs, this doesn't mean that you are successful employed. Being successfully employed means applying your skills in the best way. I think that in order to better the employment rate in the country, the hiring managers should explain how they collect the best talent, this way the job applicants will have much better chances of successfully getting the job. Those who are looking for jobs should also know how to check best CV writing service reviews UK and choose a writer in the future.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    The future of the democratic party everybody.

  • Reverendcaptain||

    The future of the democratic party everybody.

  • BrianB||

    Ain't it great when voters keep electing dopes?

  • Enemy of the State||

    Food insecurity is a bullshit term made up by apologists for the social welfare state...

  • Mark22||

    Food insecurity is a bullshit term made up by apologists for the social welfare state...

    Food insecurity: "If I eat that extra donut, will it make my ass look noticeably fatter?"

  • Mark22||

    This is wrong for two reasons. First, people working multiple jobs has no distorting effect on the unemployment rate, which is calculated by taking the number of unemployed people and dividing it by the number of people in the labor force. The raw number of jobs being worked by Americans has no bearing on these numbers.

    No, but increasing the supply of overtime labor certainly does. That is, if regular employees have to compete for work hours with overtime labor, then regular employees are going to work fewer hours, in particular since overtime may well work out to be cheaper for employers.

    Second, everyone does not have two jobs. As Bloomberg View's Noah Smith points out, only about 5 percent of workers are moonlighting. This rate has actually dropped slightly over the last three decades.

    That does not account either for black market labor or for gigs or temporary work. Actual figures may be much higher.

    Ocasio-Cortez blames profit-seeking "no-holds-barred capitalism" for the conditions in which people struggle to feed their kids.

    Actually, it's "no-holds-barred progressivism" that causes these problems: overtime and black market labor are made attractive by the stiff government requirements imposed on firing and benefits.

  • Weygand||

    I don't care how dumb she is. I still want to do her mouth

  • vek||

    I would be okay with this. Afterwards I'd ask her how that capitalist pig semen tasted!

  • SimonP||

    Suspecting a hack job, I made sure to view the source video. And, yes, the intermediaries reporting what she said seem to have missed her point.

    She's admittedly a bit clumsy, but her point was that a "booming economy" and "low unemployment" don't necessarily tell the whole story of how good things are (or aren't) for the American people. And, if you were tracking these metrics when Trump was running for presidency with stories about economic insecurity, while claiming he was speaking to a class of people who felt left behind, you'd totally agree.

    Because, yeah, business is booming. But we're working hard, and we're not necessarily happy about it. I myself have a job that means I no longer get weekends, evenings, or true vacations. Or a life. I'm paid well, and it's a good thing, too, because my student loan debt is still astronomical even after several years of timely repayment. Meanwhile I pay a lot in taxes, while watching tax breaks that used to benefit me instead get yanked back to subsidize the capitalist class.

  • Sebastian Cremmington||

    Student loans are asinine and we have an easy way to get to mostly free college—follow the Ivy League's lead!! So private colleges should not charge tuition to students with middle class parents. In the short term most private colleges will have to reduce enrollment and cut staff but long term private colleges will benefit because a degree from a private college will automatically convey you are a good student that most likely got a full ride. So those students with degrees from those schools will take pride in their degree and donate more money to their alma mater when they are successful later in life.

    Step two is we should take the money we currently use to fund the student loan program and use it to fund colleges based on how much of their endowment they use on tuition. We can still have student loans for public universities but the states should be part of the equation so the feds aren't just printing money like the current situation.

  • nychotpilot||

    Could not agree more. She was probably driving at income inequality that is a direct outcome of the (un)sharing economy where a handful of plutocrats (Kalanick & Chesky are exhibit A&B) get to keep billions while professing to help displaced workers.

  • vek||

    What tax breaks did you just lose might I inquire???

    The state income tax deduction is the only one I can think of. That's not subsidizing the "capitalist class," it's removing a subsidy for high tax states that were being paid for by states with lower income taxes or NO income taxes.

    Just about EVERYBODY just got their taxes lowered, other than high income people in NY, CA, etc. If you believe in socialist BS like you claim to, you should be glad your taxes got raised because you're now doing more to do your part to help the poor!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    You weren't asking me specifically, but from his post it sounds like he and I are in the same boat (or similar boats). With Trump's plan, my taxes went up because I'm no longer able to write off my work expenses -- the ones I incur in the service of federal research grants, because I refuse to charge the federal government directly for these expenses. In the past, I merely asked that I wasn't taxed for the personal income that I turned around and used for business travel. But now, under Trump's reign, I'm paying taxes on these business expenditures that I'm not asking you the taxpayer to pay for. That's my reward I guess.

    And it's a net increase in taxes because my salary is in that middle range where we didn't directly benefit much from his trickle-down.

  • Azathoth!!||

    You haven't lost anything.

    ....because I refuse to charge the federal government directly for these....

    You have chosen this.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Of course I've chosen it. That's my whole point. I've chosen not to charge the federal government for every single business expense I incur. Trump is using the tax code to convince me to charge everything to the federal government's bill. I'm reluctant to do that because I don't believe in it.

    But this all avoids the main point here -- my tax rate WENT UP. So did the tax rate of a lot of others who personally incurred business expenses. Vek forgot about this massive change in the tax code.

  • vek||

    Yeah, I suppose. I'm self employed, and have generally been able to write off all relevant business expenses inside my business. I've not itemized my personal portion, because the math never worked out after minimizing stuff within the business. I suppose for some people who have large random expenses that did just get knocked off it can raise their effective rate. I would think that type of thing won't hit many people though as they're normally getting reimbursed through work or whatever.

  • ||

    She's admittedly a bit clumsy, but her point was that a "booming economy" and "low unemployment" don't necessarily tell the whole story of how good things are (or aren't) for the American people."

    I bet you she didn't think this when Obama was in power.

  • commentator||

    AOC worked for Bernie Sanders, who campaigned against Hillary "Obama's third term" Clinton.

    The left doesn't seem to have rosy-tinted glasses for centrist Dem Obama.

  • Salero21||

    We have enough Socialism already in the U.S. She's a COMMIE IMVHO just like her mentor Bernie.

  • Salero21||

    She's Clueless, Dumb and Dull.

  • josh||

    So if she doesn't even know some basic stuff about the very thing she has degrees in (and graduated only 6-7 years ago too...), then imagine how little she'll know after a couple of terms in Congress.

    But seriously, The left went after Trump for being supremely unqualified (granted the WH and Congress are different, but still...), and somehow they're not bothered by this? From the coverage I've seen, they seem to think it almost boosts her qualifications.

  • nychotpilot||

    She may have been infelicitous in her choice of words but she was right in her approach to the occupied territories: the settlements in the West Bank.

  • tkamenick||

    "Hunger and poverty are indeed problems faced by millions of Americans—14 percent of U.S. households experience food insecurity."

    Please be wary of repeating those kind of claims. Malnutrition and actual hunger have been virtually eliminated in America. "Food insecurity" was literally made up so that hunger advocates could keep complaining about something.

  • Echospinner||

    Old story

    An economics professor has introduced the basics of capitalism and socialism. He asks the class which system they would prefer and the students choose socialism.

    "OK" he says and proposes an experiment. "I have your first quarter exams. How about we average the grades and everyone gets the same"

    The students agree and the class all get a B. The hardest working gunner students are unhappy but this is working well for the majority.

    The gunner students have already figured out there is no way to get an A. The slackers figure they can coast this and stop trying altogether.

    So by the third quarter exam the average is a D now. The students are blaming each other for not doing the work.

    By the final the professor says " I am very sorry, I have never failed a student, I always was able to coach them into at least passing but I must fail you all based on these numbers"

    He says "or we could just go back to the old system and I could grade you all based on your individual scores"

    Aha.

  • Longtobefree||

    Except that there is no going back. The "D" grades are already in the computer.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    Obviously not her econ professor.

  • CDRSchafer||

    All her customers at the bar totally understood when she explained this.

  • An Innocent Man||

    Sometimes, the smarter you are, the dumber you are.

  • nychotpilot||

    Are you calling her smart?

  • Deplorable Victor||

    Ocasio-CUNTex IS EVIL.

    And a perfect example why we need another civil war. Bring it on... Soon.

  • ||

    Oh look, an illiterate socialist twit.

    That's a first.

  • nychotpilot||

    Time to immigrate to France. The Socialists are being kicked out of there

  • commentator||

    And Noah Smith deleted his tweet about moonlighting. He regretted that tweet for some reason.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online