If you have a college education it must be from Trump University! Not realizing that there isn't a guy named Milton Keynes isn't sarcasm, it's rank stupidity if your claiming to know jack shit about economics. Perhaps you should google the definition of the word "sarcasm" in the same place as you did "John Maynard Keynes (pronounced Kanes)" because it clearly doesn't mean what you think it means, same as "Milton Keynes" didn't. Doubling down on stupid with your projection is just the sign of an insecure narc. Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out snowflake.
Sig when he was younger and not taking crap... Sig now older, much stronger and still not taking crap... wrbtrader
am i seeing right????? you said AOC of all people is well educated????? what a joke!!! its unbelievable how such a stupid person got elected. look around at a bunch of things that she says, they show that she is totally ignorant in many areas, but the problem is that she pretends that she is not. but any well educated person can tell in a second that she is crazy. have you listened to her ideas? totally crazy! she just babbles on even though she doesnt have a basic understanding how the world works. just goes to show that anybody can win office. you dont need brains all you need is a mouth. i feel bad for nyc and the usa for the road that this crazy person and her so called "squad" is taking us down.
Yup, and he quoted the venerable AOC saying just that in the link he provided above. You simply chose to skip it and proceeded with the academic arguments of yours. Lovely self-entrapment. Anyway, the gist of the OP is that the Economics is a murky field pretending to be a science. On top of that we have a US Representative with economics degree who cannot tell Maynard from Milton.
For those who actually care about macro, there is a Macro Musings podcast with David Beckworth and him. He is extremely knowledgeable about the mechanics of the Fed and has very interesting insights. I first heard of his because he perfectly called the repo squeeze last fall. The fact that he is completely self-taught is mind boggling.
Congressman Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University with a degree in international relations and economics. By most definitions that's "well educated". Where is your degree from and what kind of honors did you graduate with? It's fine to disagree with her politics, it's even fine that you find many or all of her positions to be, to use your educated and erudite term, "stupid". But she's objectively and undeniably "well educated", so one has to wonder about the intelligence and education of someone who would rail against a simple fact like that?
FYI. from Wiki: Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007.[18] In high school and college, Ocasio-Cortez went by the name of "Sandy".[19] She came in second in the Microbiology category of the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair with a microbiology research project on the effect of antioxidants on the lifespan of the nematode C. elegans.[20] In a show of appreciation for her efforts, the MIT Lincoln Laboratory named a small asteroid after her: 23238 Ocasio-Cortez.[21][22] In high school, she took part in the National Hispanic Institute's Lorenzo de Zavala (LDZ) Youth Legislative Session. She later became the LDZ Secretary of State while she attended Boston University. Ocasio-Cortez had a John F. Lopez Fellowship.[23] In 2008, while Ocasio-Cortez was a sophomore at Boston University, her father died of lung cancer.[24][25] Ocasio-Cortez became involved in a lengthy probate battle to settle his estate. She has said that the experience helped her learn "firsthand how attorneys appointed by the court to administer an estate can enrich themselves at the expense of the families struggling to make sense of the bureaucracy."[26] During college, Ocasio-Cortez served as an intern for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, in his section on foreign affairs and immigration issues.[27] She recalled, "I was the only Spanish speaker, and as a result, as basically a kid—a 19-, 20-year-old kid—whenever a frantic call would come into the office because someone is looking for their husband because they have been snatched off the street by ICE, I was the one that had to pick up that phone. I was the one that had to help that person navigate that system."[27] Ocasio-Cortez graduated cum laude from Boston University College of Arts and Sciences with a BA in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics. Underlining is mine. It's not necessary to thank me, Bonehead.
AOC may be educated but she has an agenda and will say stupid things just to justify it. Open borders? For her extended latino family to easily join her in the States along with drug dealers, human traffickers, foreign spies. Criticizing detention facilities as concentration camps? Expect all illegal aliens to be angels and let them enter the country with an appointment to report back later. There will be lots of Pakistanis and Afghans visitors disappearing to start a bomb festival in the country.
That's a policy discussion, like I said anyone is free to disagree with her policy positions. Personally attacking her as uneducated is a far different thing, it's both factually incorrect and says far more about the insecurities and lack of education of the poster than anything else. It's long past time to start understanding the difference between disagreements on policy and personal attacks driven by personal animus.
Thanks for your pointing out the Macro Musings Podcast. I found this Tankus fellow's article that I referenced to be remarkable in its clarity and insight. Sometime after 2005 I became a serious student of Economics, and it wasn't long before I came across the MMT economists and began to read both Wray and Mitchell and other MMT economists. That they have a thorough understanding of consolidated fed-treasury operations should no longer be questioned. The area where debate is appropriate is the social-political implications of MMT. Wray, at least as early as 1995, possibly Mosler before that, pointed out that the central bank (the "fed") and the U.S. Treasury were really one coordinated operation; this could be discerned by examination of the consolidated books. Therefore, what I found astounding in Tankus's article were his charts of treasury--fed-banking-private sector assets and liabilities. Although these charts make a very complex monetary system seem less complex than it is, to get them right requires a depth of knowledge that I doubt exists in very few economists, even many working at the fed or treasury. I want to know now whether they appear in the new Macro Economics text , just out with the 1st edition already sold out, by Wray, Mitchell, and Watts; or did Tankus originate them? If the latter is the case, then he has already made a major contribution to the full understanding of MMT economics. I shall write to Tankus to find out. I always thought the idea that taxes gave money value, a core idea within MMT, while not wrong, was too simple, I and find support for my view in Jo Michell's (Univ. of the West of England) review of the Wray, et. al, text. [see https://www.researchgate.net/public...Randall_Wray_and_Martin_Watts_Macroeconomics] In that same review, however, i found this, which I believe evidences a rather profound misunderstanding of MMT by the reviewer: In focusing on the immediate balance sheet implications of money-financed government spending activity, MMT downplays the implications of subse- quent factors such as funding through taxation or bond issuance, and other constraints such as exchange rate movements or foreign exchange shortages. This is done partly through esoteric use of language and redefinition of com- monly used terms.This approach is reflected in the structure and content of Macroeconomics; as a result, readers are likely to come away with an uneven view of the potential trade-offs and constraints associated with the use of fiscal policy. I underlined the "such as funding through taxation or bond issuance..." because here is where MMT departs drastically from conventional thinking on government spending and financing. MMT offers convincing proof that governments finance their spending neither by taxation nor bond issuance! ; despite giving the outward appearance of doing so. MMT economists will tell you that bonds and taxes serve an entirely different purpose than paying for government expenditures!!! So, in the above remarks by the reviewer, we have highlighted the difficulty any new theory that breaks drastically from the old will run into: those that do not yet have a complete grasp of the new theory will be capable of viewing it only through an old lens! The inevitable result will be people talking past each other. Thank you again for the tip on the Beckworth-Tankus podcast.