AOC Flunks Economics 101

[Cecilie1200]

do you know oddballs credentials?

seems you did a paint yourself in a corner post. as usual.

do you know oddballs credentials?

seems you did a paint yourself in a corner post. as usual.

I know enough to know you both have no clue in this regard. Those who have the education and experience able to readily spot those who do not.

Brilliant economists often work as bartenders...…..

A trained economist nonetheless. You are not.

A trained economist nonetheless.

What did that training get her again?
Apparently zero work in her field by the age of 29...…..

The title of "economist". The title refers to training, not occupation.

Nope.

Definition of ECONOMIST

1archaic : one who practices economy
2: a specialist in economics

the definition of economist

a specialist in economics.

Economist - Wikipedia

An economist is a practitioner in the social science discipline of economics.

The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. Within this field there are many sub-fields, ranging from the broad philosophical theories to the focused study of minutiae within specific markets, macroeconomic analysis, microeconomic analysis or financial statement analysis, involving analytical methods and tools such as econometrics, statistics, economics computational models, financial economics, mathematical finance and mathematical economics.

So no, getting an undergrad degree and toddling off to tend bar does NOT make one an economist.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

Brilliant economists often work as bartenders...…..

A trained economist nonetheless. You are not.

A trained economist nonetheless.

What did that training get her again?
Apparently zero work in her field by the age of 29...…..

The title of "economist". The title refers to training, not occupation.

training, not occupation.

Or knowledge, apparently.

The knowledge is apparent given the degree, dope.

I've been in my current field for over 15 years. It's obvious with every new hire the worthlessness of college degrees. They are literally sheets of paper, nothing more.

 

[Cecilie1200]

1968 - Upon graduation from Wharton, Trump receives a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a specialization in finance. At that time his father's company was in the lead in real estate, and Donald Trump began working in the family business.

Using your logic, Trump is an economic genius.

My logic never attributed anyone as a "genius", dope.

But Trump has a degree in economics.

He must be right now. Your rules, not mine.

I never argued right or wrong, dope. I argued she was an economist.

And implied what with that logic? Eat it, fuck stick. I'm out.

That she's eminently more well versed on the subject than you, of course.

Judging by what spews from her headhole, I'd say she's less "well-versed" on the subject than my fourth-grader.

Of course, leftists have never been good at the whole "judging people by their content, rather than by their appearance" concept.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Brilliant economists often work as bartenders...…..

A trained economist nonetheless. You are not.

A trained economist nonetheless.

What did that training get her again?
Apparently zero work in her field by the age of 29...…..

The title of "economist". The title refers to training, not occupation.

training, not occupation.

Or knowledge, apparently.

The knowledge is apparent given the degree, dope.

Only to dopes like you who want to believe it.

The lack of knowledge is apparent given her words.

 

[Cecilie1200]

AOC wants to do away with cows, cars, children and airplanes and the cost will only be $94 trillion!

Her Green New Deal will only cost each American $600,000 each.

Oh My God. Yet another dumbass Trumpette who can't fucking tread.

You people are dumber than shit.

"Can't tread"? Yeah, you're TOTALLY qualified to call other people dumb, "Assfuck Dave".

 

[Cecilie1200]

She has "education" yet doesn't know diddly-shit...If she was so smart, how did her econ degree not land her a big time job, other than being an over-educated bartender?

She chose to run for congress, dope.

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

1968 - Upon graduation from Wharton, Trump receives a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a specialization in finance. At that time his father's company was in the lead in real estate, and Donald Trump began working in the family business.

Using your logic, Trump is an economic genius.

You seem to think he is.

So why not AOC?

Because she says stuff more ignorant and crazy than Trump ever considered, and that's really saying something.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

Let me shed some wisdom on you from one of the chief founders and MOTHERFUCKING GENIUS, Thomas Jefferson:

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

"It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

The Constitution is not a single welfare clause.


As to your warfare comment, the Constitution does, IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, provide for the "common defense." The plain meaning of that word would include defensive military action and fortifications (a wall).

But, I do agree with you on the point that "defense" does not mean offense. So, to the extent our wars are offensive in nature or brought for the sole purpose of protecting anyone but citizens of the Union, I would object to those hostile actions.

 

[Wry Catcher]

She chose to run for congress, dope.

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

1968 - Upon graduation from Wharton, Trump receives a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a specialization in finance. At that time his father's company was in the lead in real estate, and Donald Trump began working in the family business.

Using your logic, Trump is an economic genius.

You seem to think he is.

So why not AOC?

I swear stupid is contageous.

Yeah, the echo chamber membership never seems to check the facts. One never sees a thread of liberals echoing each other in a circle jerk. That has become a daily tournament among right wing hacks.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're correct, you cannot be fixed.

Either you are stupid, or too biased to see a point made by her which wasn't even abstract. She simply made an observation that the priorities would create long term jobs and lift up the people in her district.

She's a genuine moron and economic illiterate.

Are you agreeing with her?

I understand what she meant. It's kinda sad that you fit the mold of Easy65 - unable too think outside the box, the tiny little box of ignorance.

Another illiterate, too got-damned stoopit to recognize that the $3 bil isn't cash-on-hand.

LOL, a classic STRAW MAN. You are the one who is stupid.

NOWHERE DID SHE OR I SAY THE $3 BILLION WAS CASH IN HAND. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE DISHONEST AND TOO STUPID TO BELIEVE OTHERS DON'T SEE THOROUGH YOUR MENDACIOUS METHODS AND CLICHES.

"Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to." - AOC

Here's an idea, go to any bank of your choice, and tell them you would like to invest $3 billion dollars in future tax savings. Let us know how that goes please.

LOL, yes Virgina, there are stupid posts, colored by bigotry.

Does an analogy need to framed by real life?

 

[Oddball]

Yeah, the echo chamber membership never seems to check the facts. One never sees a thread of liberals echoing each other in a circle jerk. That has become a daily tournament among right wing hacks.

 

[iceberg]

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

1968 - Upon graduation from Wharton, Trump receives a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a specialization in finance. At that time his father's company was in the lead in real estate, and Donald Trump began working in the family business.

Using your logic, Trump is an economic genius.

You seem to think he is.

So why not AOC?

I swear stupid is contageous.

Yeah, the echo chamber membership never seems to check the facts. One never sees a thread of liberals echoing each other in a circle jerk. That has become a daily tournament among right wing hacks.

no.

never.

 

[danielpalos]

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

Let me shed some wisdom on you from one of the chief founders and MOTHERFUCKING GENIUS, Thomas Jefferson:

"To lay taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States, that is to say, “to lay taxes for the purpose of providing for the general welfare.” For the laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose. To consider the latter phrase, not as describing the purpose of the first, but as giving a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless.

"It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please."

The Constitution is not a single welfare clause.


As to your warfare comment, the Constitution does, IN THE VERY SAME SENTENCE, provide for the "common defense." The plain meaning of that word would include defensive military action and fortifications (a wall).

But, I do agree with you on the point that "defense" does not mean offense. So, to the extent our wars are offensive in nature or brought for the sole purpose of protecting anyone but citizens of the Union, I would object to those hostile actions.

He was a Republican not a federalist.

Our welfare clause is general and there is no provision for excuses.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I know enough to know you both have no clue in this regard. Those who have the education and experience able to readily spot those who do not.

She has "education" yet doesn't know diddly-shit...If she was so smart, how did her econ degree not land her a big time job, other than being an over-educated bartender?

She chose to run for congress, dope.

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

Yep, she has an undergrad degree, which anyone who isn't an ignorant elite-worshipper knows is just about worth the paper it's printed on outside of the STEM subjects.

And don't even get me started on your hypocrisy in the area of "This person has a DEGREE. That makes them brilliant and knowledgeable and professional!" Would you like to talk about the MANY people with degrees that you routinely dismiss as idiots, just because they aren't saying what you want to hear?

Why don't you say what you REALLY mean, which is "I agree with her, so that means she HAS to be brilliant, and I will grasp any straw to believe that"?

STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and MATH).

Economics is a social science and uses mathematical economics. Mathematics allows economists to form meaningful, testable propositions about wide-ranging and complex subjects which could less easily be expressed informally.

Consider how Trump expressed his theory on Tariff's. Simple is an understatement.

 

[danielpalos]

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

1968 - Upon graduation from Wharton, Trump receives a Bachelor of Science degree in economics and a specialization in finance. At that time his father's company was in the lead in real estate, and Donald Trump began working in the family business.

Using your logic, Trump is an economic genius.

You seem to think he is.

So why not AOC?

I swear stupid is contageous.

Yeah, the echo chamber membership never seems to check the facts. One never sees a thread of liberals echoing each other in a circle jerk. That has become a daily tournament among right wing hacks.

is it any wonder we are for diversity and inclusion (of women, too).

 

[Oddball]

STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and MATH).

Economics is a social science and uses mathematical economics. Mathematics allows economists to form meaningful, testable propositions about wide-ranging and complex subjects which could less easily be expressed informally.

Consider how Trump expressed his theory on Tariff's. Simple is an understatement.

Yet Occasional-Cortex can't even correctly define what an externality is (something you learn about in the first couple weeks of any econ course) , let alone perform any complex mathematics.

BTW, there's no apostrophe in "tariffs", brainiac.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

She's a genuine moron and economic illiterate.

Are you agreeing with her?

I understand what she meant. It's kinda sad that you fit the mold of Easy65 - unable too think outside the box, the tiny little box of ignorance.

Another illiterate, too got-damned stoopit to recognize that the $3 bil isn't cash-on-hand.

LOL, a classic STRAW MAN. You are the one who is stupid.

NOWHERE DID SHE OR I SAY THE $3 BILLION WAS CASH IN HAND. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE DISHONEST AND TOO STUPID TO BELIEVE OTHERS DON'T SEE THOROUGH YOUR MENDACIOUS METHODS AND CLICHES.

"Frankly, if we were willing to give away $3 billion for this deal, we could invest those $3 billion in our district, ourselves, if we wanted to." - AOC

Here's an idea, go to any bank of your choice, and tell them you would like to invest $3 billion dollars in future tax savings. Let us know how that goes please.

LOL, yes Virgina, there are stupid posts, colored by bigotry.

Does an analogy need to framed by real life?

AOC was talking AS IF it were cash in hand. Because she is stupid. That's the point.

AOC said that her district would not "giving away" $3 billion, but invest it in the community.

The rub is (and for some reason, some are confused by this) that the $3 billion in tax incentives to Amazon to move to NYC was nothing more than NYC agreeing NOT to collect $3 billion in tax dollars.

It's AMAZON's money.

NYC would not collect it EITHER WAY.

The difference is that, rather than NOT getting $3 billion in taxes, but getting thousands of new jobs and FUTURE tax revenues from Amazon, NYC is now just NOT getting $3 billion....with nothing to show for it but AOC's morbid stupidity.

Option A:
Get a huge employer to bring thousands of jobs and HUGE future tax revenues, but not take $3 billion in initial would-be taxes.

Option B:
Run off said huge employer, lose out on thousands of jobs and HUGE future tax revenues, and STILL not take $3 billion in initial would-be taxes.

WHICH ONE IS THE BETTER DEAL???



Boston College must be a fucking shit-hole school to produce such a clue-fuck.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

is it any wonder we are for diversity and inclusion (of women, too).

I only discriminate against dumb fucks. When dumb fucks become a protected class, I will grab my rifle and start a revolt.

 

[danielpalos]

is it any wonder we are for diversity and inclusion (of women, too).

I only discriminate against dumb fucks. When dumb fucks become a protected class, I will grab my rifle and start a revolt.

too much drama, on your part, right wingers. We have a First Amendment, first.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

too much drama, on your part, right wingers. We have a First Amendment, first.

What?

Too much drama followed by 1st Amendment talk?

You are not making sense.

.

 

[iceberg]

She has "education" yet doesn't know diddly-shit...If she was so smart, how did her econ degree not land her a big time job, other than being an over-educated bartender?

She chose to run for congress, dope.

And that means what? That she's an expert in BSing? It sure doesn't mean she knows squat about economics or anything else. ANYONE can run for Congress. Strippers have done it.

Yep, she's degreed in economics but "knows squat about economics". ^Another obtuse loser.

Yep, she has an undergrad degree, which anyone who isn't an ignorant elite-worshipper knows is just about worth the paper it's printed on outside of the STEM subjects.

And don't even get me started on your hypocrisy in the area of "This person has a DEGREE. That makes them brilliant and knowledgeable and professional!" Would you like to talk about the MANY people with degrees that you routinely dismiss as idiots, just because they aren't saying what you want to hear?

Why don't you say what you REALLY mean, which is "I agree with her, so that means she HAS to be brilliant, and I will grasp any straw to believe that"?

STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering and MATH).

Economics is a social science and uses mathematical economics. Mathematics allows economists to form meaningful, testable propositions about wide-ranging and complex subjects which could less easily be expressed informally.

Consider how Trump expressed his theory on Tariff's. Simple is an understatement.

except trump also has a degree in economics.

kinda fucks up your slam-defense doesn't it?