AOC's Latest Economics Blunder

[gatomontes99]

I couldn't let this go. 

If you are a communist/liberal, you are nodding along with what she said. You believe that building a business based on a product or service, is not earning wealth. 

The argument is, correct me if I am wrong (but I am not) that the billionaire did not earn the money because (s)he exploited workers' talents for profit. And profit is bad. 

Let's explore that a little from back to front:

Profit is not bad. We hear this a lot. Communist/liberals (I am sorry I repeat myself so much) love to lift up nonprofits as some bastian of freedom in the utopia of commy land. The reality is that a nonprofit is unstable and incapable of growth. 

Without capital from profits, nonprofits cannot weather economic downturns. They are "living pay check to pay check", so to speak. If they miss a pay check, they don't have the funds to maintain staff or property. Even if they don't miss a pay check, they still cannot expand, modify or improve product or react to market/demand changes. They are fixed to a specific set of products and services at a specific price in specific economic conditions. Any changes will cause a catastrophic collapse. 

Profits are not bad. If we stipulate that they are, we still have the factually inaccurate claim that business owners (in this case, billionaires) are exploiting workers for their talents. The logic (is it logic?) behind that claim is that employees are not being paid enough because the business owner is making a lot of money. 

The first, and wrong, assumption that they make is that they get to determine what a business owner can take in profit. Since they believe that profit is evil, they are hard wired to believe they have a moral authority to prevent such a travesty. The obvious argument against this is that a free society does not limit wealth. Which should tell you everything you need to know about their ideology. 

The fact that we have laws against exploitation means that widespread crimal exploitation is not reality. The reality is that employees are paid based on their worth to the business. If wages are too low, other businesses will hire off the best talent. If the wages are too high, profits will diminish. Employees trade their services for certainty of a steady pay check and benefits. Meanwhile, business owners take on the risk of producing and providing goods and services with the hopes of large profits. In a perfect world, both win. 

The idea that billionaires did not earn their money is also absurd. To run a business, the owner must be adept at organization, identifying talent and implementing policies and procedures to facilitate productivity. To say they did not earn their money because others did work too is like saying Tom Brady did not deserve his Superbowl rings. Being a part of a team is earning the accolades. Leading the team is no different. 

Here is where we need to be careful. If they can limit the wealth of billionaires, they can do it to all of us. That is all they need. They come for the billionaires first because if they can establish a precedence that wealth is the pervue of the government and contrallable via lrgislation, then they can expand to millionaires. Then, they can devalue the money until we are all millionaires. 

Do not fall for the communist/liberal demonization lf peopke with wealth. They do not do demonize them because of who they are, what they have done or how much money they have. They demonize them to establish the moral authority to take full control of the economy and ultimately, you.

 

 

 

[paxamericana]

The problem with neo marxist like Bernie Sanders and his flunkies is their underlying argument. Look at how much more someone else makes than me, envy. It’s a moronic idea built on quicksand. Not only are they idi0ts, but also evil.

Edited May 9 by paxamericana

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I couldn't let this go. 

If you are a communist/liberal, you are nodding along with what she said. You believe that building a business based on a product or service, is not earning wealth. 

The argument is, correct me if I am wrong (but I am not) that the billionaire did not earn the money because (s)he exploited workers' talents for profit. And profit is bad. 

Let's explore that a little from back to front:

Profit is not bad. We hear this a lot. Communist/liberals (I am sorry I repeat myself so much) love to lift up nonprofits as some bastian of freedom in the utopia of commy land. The reality is that a nonprofit is unstable and incapable of growth. 

Without capital from profits, nonprofits cannot weather economic downturns. They are "living pay check to pay check", so to speak. If they miss a pay check, they don't have the funds to maintain staff or property. Even if they don't miss a pay check, they still cannot expand, modify or improve product or react to market/demand changes. They are fixed to a specific set of products and services at a specific price in specific economic conditions. Any changes will cause a catastrophic collapse. 

Profits are not bad. If we stipulate that they are, we still have the factually inaccurate claim that business owners (in this case, billionaires) are exploiting workers for their talents. The logic (is it logic?) behind that claim is that employees are not being paid enough because the business owner is making a lot of money. 

The first, and wrong, assumption that they make is that they get to determine what a business owner can take in profit. Since they believe that profit is evil, they are hard wired to believe they have a moral authority to prevent such a travesty. The obvious argument against this is that a free society does not limit wealth. Which should tell you everything you need to know about their ideology. 

The fact that we have laws against exploitation means that widespread crimal exploitation is not reality. The reality is that employees are paid based on their worth to the business. If wages are too low, other businesses will hire off the best talent. If the wages are too high, profits will diminish. Employees trade their services for certainty of a steady pay check and benefits. Meanwhile, business owners take on the risk of producing and providing goods and services with the hopes of large profits. In a perfect world, both win. 

The idea that billionaires did not earn their money is also absurd. To run a business, the owner must be adept at organization, identifying talent and implementing policies and procedures to facilitate productivity. To say they did not earn their money because others did work too is like saying Tom Brady did not deserve his Superbowl rings. Being a part of a team is earning the accolades. Leading the team is no different. 

Here is where we need to be careful. If they can limit the wealth of billionaires, they can do it to all of us. That is all they need. They come for the billionaires first because if they can establish a precedence that wealth is the pervue of the government and contrallable via lrgislation, then they can expand to millionaires. Then, they can devalue the money until we are all millionaires. 

Do not fall for the communist/liberal demonization lf peopke with wealth. They do not do demonize them because of who they are, what they have done or how much money they have. They demonize them to establish the moral authority to take full control of the economy and ultimately, you.

 

 

 

There's a very long list of things that are fundamentally wrong with that post. 

Top 3: 

1. It's absurd that you still don't know the difference between communism, socialism and liberalism. Conflating them is just silly, and neither socialists nor liberals are opposed to profit. 

2. Nonprofits can't expand and grow? Are you oblivious? I really think you don't have any idea what "nonprofit" means.

They absolutely can generate revenue over cost. They can hold cash reserves. They are not "living paycheck to paycheck,' and they certainly can grow. In fact, grow and expand is ALL that nonprofit can do. With no one taking profit out of the organization all revenue above cost is plowed back into the growth and expansion of the organization, as it must be. 

There are non-profits operating on a massive scale like a fortune 50 company. Kaiser Permanente is a $100+ billion organization. Novo Nordisk Foundation holds a $167 Billion endowment. 

It's true that they often grow slower because they actually have to earn their growth capital rather than gambling with investor contributed capital. But they do grow.

3. Your unfettered free market dogma is demonstrably wrong. There are countries that are thriving in systems that embrace profit, but also are structured to curb extreme individual wealth. (You're the OP of a thread discussing this fact.) They prioritize building a robust middle class of spenders rather than consolidating wealth in the hands of a few.

Hell, the biggest economic boom period in American history was post-war through the mid 70s. And we had a top tax rate of 90%+. You want to "Make America Great Again," but you have no idea what made it great. It's certainly not the busted-ass dogma of the Reagan era. 

Edited May 9 by Hodad

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

1. It's absurd that you still don't know the difference between communism, socialism and liberalism. Conflating them is just silly, and neither socialists nor liberals are opposed to profit. 

I am not conflating the two. I am saying that most liberals are really communists. 

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

2. Nonprofits can't expand and grow? Are you oblivious? I really think you don't have any idea what "nonprofit" means.

They absolutely can generate revenue over cost. They can hold cash reserves. They are not "living paycheck to paycheck,' and they certainly can grow. In fact, grow and expand is ALL that nonprofit can do. With no one taking profit out of the organization all revenue above cost is plowed back into the growth and expansion of the organization, as it must be. 

There are non-profits operating on a massive scale like a fortune 50 company. Kaiser Permanente is a $100+ billion organization. Novo Nordisk Foundation holds a $167 Billion endowment. 

It's true that they often grow slower because they actually have to earn their growth capital rather than gambling with investor contributed capital. But they do grow.

That isn't a nonptofit then, is it? Keeping profits to grow the business is for profit.

6 hours ago, Hodad said:

Hell, the biggest economic boom period in American history was post-war through the mid 70s. And we had a top tax rate of 90%+. You want to "Make America Great Again," but you have no idea what made it great. It's certainly not the busted-ass dogma of the Reagan era. 

Oh bullshit. Right before that we had price controls, rationing and forced manufacturers to produce war related products for a set price. Attributing the growth of an economy that regained millions of workers, freedom of pricing and production and distribution to a high marginal tax rate is peak moŕonic. Tell me genius, if the top rate was so grand, why did they reduce it? 

[Hodad]

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I am not conflating the two. I am saying that most liberals are really communists. 

 Which is bullshit, and Rush Limbaugh dittohead stupid. Not even a straw man. Just dumb. 

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

That isn't a nonptofit then, is it? Keeping profits to grow the business is for profit.

 

Lol. Welp, you just confirmed that you have no farking clue what a nonprofit is. Maybe read up on that before offering any further opinions. 

15 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Oh bullshit. Right before that we had price controls, rationing and forced manufacturers to produce war related products for a set price. Attributing the growth of an economy that regained millions of workers, freedom of pricing and production and distribution to a high marginal tax rate is peak moŕonic. Tell me genius, if the top rate was so grand, why did they reduce it? 

i didn't attribute growth exclusively to a high top marginal tax rate. But it's absolutely a proof point that those rates are fully compatible with explosive growth. The idea that the rich will just stop their commerce if they have to pay protonate taxes is the silliest kind of dogma.

But those high rates did indeed help fuel the economic boom. They funded things like the GI Bill and projects like the interstate highway system, adding massive amounts of human capital and economy-accelerating infrastructure. And if personal profit taking is heavily taxed, there is incentive to put profit back into expansion. 

You're welcome to dither about this or that, but bottom line is that it happened--for decades it worked. 

Rates were lowered in an effort to put more free cash into a stagnant economy. The economy did start rolling again (again not exclusively because of tax rates) but Reagan also gutted much of what helped build that boom with his trickle-down bullshit, and ushered in the era of voluntary deficits. We're still paying and suffering--from those decisions.

Now the middle class continues to shrink, and the ultra rich keep getting richer. The American dream is dying in the shadow of the Reaganomics legacy. 

[User]

On 5/8/2026 at 9:47 PM, Hodad said:

Hell, the biggest economic boom period in American history was post-war through the mid 70s. And we had a top tax rate of 90%+. You want to "Make America Great Again," but you have no idea what made it great. It's certainly not the busted-ass dogma of the Reagan era. 

Yet another Brian Dead leftist talking point about 90%+ rate... that when you start to look at it, you realize the EFFECTIVE rate was actually far less, and that this generated perverse incentives to avoid taxes through other compensation means and loopholes and deductions as the tax code was also far different then as well. Very few actually paid that amount as they were able to avoid it. 
 

You people also forget how the Carter economy was shit and how it was not just some busted ass dogma of the Reagan era, but how things turned around during his era. 

 

[gatomontes99]

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Which is bullshit, and Rush Limbaugh dittohead stupid. Not even a straw man. Just dumb. 

I just deal in reality: 

Democrats are the only partisan group of the three that views socialism more positively than capitalism — 66% to 42%, respectively.

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Lol. Welp, you just confirmed that you have no farking clue what a nonprofit is. Maybe read up on that before offering any further opinions. 

No. I know the tax laws allow for profit organizations to claim they are nonprofit if they use their profits to grow or store their profits in bank accounts or investments. But that is not a real nonprofit, is it? No. They are just lying to chumps that eat it up and buy their worthless shit thinking they are doing some thing good. 

 

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

But those high rates did indeed help fuel the economic boom. They funded things like the GI Bill and projects like the interstate highway system, adding massive amounts of human capital and economy-accelerating infrastructure. And if personal profit taking is heavily taxed, there is incentive to put profit back into expansion. 

I only deal in reality:

Simply put, Washington collects more income-tax revenues (as a share of GDP) today with a top tax bracket of 37% than it collected in the 1950s with a 91% tax bracket. In fact, since 1950, the yearly correlation between the highest income-tax bracket and federal income-tax revenues as a share of the economy is –0.23, meaning that higher top tax rates are correlated with lower income-tax revenues.

7 hours ago, Hodad said:

Now the middle class continues to shrink, and the ultra rich keep getting richer. The American dream is dying in the shadow of the Reaganomics legacy. 

Oh that is so dramatic. And false. The biggest drag on the middle class is subsidies. Subsidies for education drive up the cost of college degrees. Subsidies for health care drive up the cost of health care. Subsidies for food drive up the cost of food. Subsidies for energy drive up the cost of energy. Subsidies for housing is driving up the cost of housing.

Government spending is what is driving up the cost of living. Guess who is desperately trying to prevent spending cuts and fraud prosecutions. 

[Fluffypants]

The fact she has an ECONOMICS degree makes Boston University a suspect institution.

[Lockback]

On 5/8/2026 at 10:33 PM, gatomontes99 said:

I couldn't let this go. 

If you are a communist/liberal, you are nodding along with what she said. You believe that building a business based on a product or service, is not earning wealth. 

The argument is, correct me if I am wrong (but I am not) that the billionaire did not earn the money because (s)he exploited workers' talents for profit. And profit is bad. 

Let's explore that a little from back to front:

Profit is not bad. We hear this a lot. Communist/liberals (I am sorry I repeat myself so much) love to lift up nonprofits as some bastian of freedom in the utopia of commy land. The reality is that a nonprofit is unstable and incapable of growth. 

Without capital from profits, nonprofits cannot weather economic downturns. They are "living pay check to pay check", so to speak. If they miss a pay check, they don't have the funds to maintain staff or property. Even if they don't miss a pay check, they still cannot expand, modify or improve product or react to market/demand changes. They are fixed to a specific set of products and services at a specific price in specific economic conditions. Any changes will cause a catastrophic collapse. 

Profits are not bad. If we stipulate that they are, we still have the factually inaccurate claim that business owners (in this case, billionaires) are exploiting workers for their talents. The logic (is it logic?) behind that claim is that employees are not being paid enough because the business owner is making a lot of money. 

The first, and wrong, assumption that they make is that they get to determine what a business owner can take in profit. Since they believe that profit is evil, they are hard wired to believe they have a moral authority to prevent such a travesty. The obvious argument against this is that a free society does not limit wealth. Which should tell you everything you need to know about their ideology. 

The fact that we have laws against exploitation means that widespread crimal exploitation is not reality. The reality is that employees are paid based on their worth to the business. If wages are too low, other businesses will hire off the best talent. If the wages are too high, profits will diminish. Employees trade their services for certainty of a steady pay check and benefits. Meanwhile, business owners take on the risk of producing and providing goods and services with the hopes of large profits. In a perfect world, both win. 

The idea that billionaires did not earn their money is also absurd. To run a business, the owner must be adept at organization, identifying talent and implementing policies and procedures to facilitate productivity. To say they did not earn their money because others did work too is like saying Tom Brady did not deserve his Superbowl rings. Being a part of a team is earning the accolades. Leading the team is no different. 

Here is where we need to be careful. If they can limit the wealth of billionaires, they can do it to all of us. That is all they need. They come for the billionaires first because if they can establish a precedence that wealth is the pervue of the government and contrallable via lrgislation, then they can expand to millionaires. Then, they can devalue the money until we are all millionaires. 

Do not fall for the communist/liberal demonization lf peopke with wealth. They do not do demonize them because of who they are, what they have done or how much money they have. They demonize them to establish the moral authority to take full control of the economy and ultimately, you.

 

 

 

She's a communist.  And a not very bright one at that.

The scary thing is that millions of people think she's brilliant.

Terrifying.

[CdnFox]

13 minutes ago, Lockback said:

She's a communist.  And a not very bright one at that.

The scary thing is that millions of people think she's brilliant.

Terrifying.

The girl wrote a document saying we should cancel all airplanes for carbon reasons. And people are shocked that she's brain dead about economic matters?

[gatomontes99]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

The girl wrote a document saying we should cancel all airplanes for carbon reasons. And people are shocked that she's brain dead about economic matters?

Shooting fish in a barrel is my favorite pass-time. That is why @robosmith "blocked" me. 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

Shooting fish in a barrel is my favorite pass-time. That is why @robosmith "blocked" me. 

with a 300 Weatherby, apparently  

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Lockback said:

She's a communist.  And a not very bright one at that.

The scary thing is that millions of people think she's brilliant.

Terrifying.

Unlike you, she is very eloquent. I know you'll need to look that up.

[gatomontes99]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

Unlike you, she is very eloquent. I know you'll need to look that up.

😅😂🤣😭😅😂🤣😭

[Lockback]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

Unlike you, she is very eloquent. I know you'll need to look that up.

She's not eloquent.  In fact, she's stunningly ignorant when it comes to virtually every subject.  I'm simply amazed people fall for her nonsense.  It doesn't speak highly of  our education system when people get suckered into listening to her and believe anything she says.  She was a bartender and should have remained one.

[Michael Hardner]

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

[John Johnston]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

Wait for it...

[robosmith]

11 hours ago, Lockback said:

She's not eloquent.  In fact, she's stunningly ignorant when it comes to virtually every subject.  I'm simply amazed people fall for her nonsense.  It doesn't speak highly of  our education system when people get suckered into listening to her and believe anything she says.  She was a bartender and should have remained one.

ZERO EVIDENCE for ^this lDIOTIC CLAIM. Disagreeing with you, doesn't make anyone "IGNORANT."

Do you even know what evidence is? LMAO

AOC is a Congressional Rep, What have you done with your life?

Edited May 12 by robosmith

[User]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

LOL

Dude, your idea of a discussion is you post your thoughts, and only want agreement. 

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

Do you even know what evidence is? LMAO

Of course! It is a meme off Facebook or some random Facebook video! 

[Nationalist]

AOC is nothing more than a walking Maybelline advertisement. 

Only a complete dope would put any credibility in her words.

AOC: "The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time,"

Yes Dear. Now be a good little girl and go see if you and a box of Viagra can get Berinie hard.

 

 

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

So you came here to be insulting And adding nothing of value while complaining about the poor quality of posts

Well Mike I don't know if it's communism, but it certainly very left of you and very like you

Very rarely bring anything to the board except whining and insults

[Lockback]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

ZERO EVIDENCE for ^this lDIOTIC CLAIM. Disagreeing with you, doesn't make anyone "IGNORANT."

Do you even know what evidence is? LMAO

AOC is a Congressiinal Rep, What have you done with your life?

Well, for one thing, I've learned that communism doesn't work, which is more than she's willing to admit.

Her economics are right out of Karl Marx, which means they're absurd and don't work.

[Lockback]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

At least you didn't resort to insults of posters on here and conflating Democrats with Communists.

 

Pretty poor discussion tactics on display generally...

Well, the current Democrat Party is Far Left, veering into Communist territory and doing so with breathtaking speed and alacrity.  It's hugely discouraging and disappointing.  They used to represent working people.  Now they support illegal aliens and Marxist academics.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

AOC is nothing more than a walking Maybelline advertisement. 

Only a complete dope would put any credibility in her words.

AOC: "The American Revolution was against the billionaires of their time,"

Yes Dear. Now be a good little girl and go see if you and a box of Viagra can get Berinie hard.

Because you believe King George wasn't a man of extreme wealth during the revolution? LMAO

You've just proven YOUR IGNORANCE.

[robosmith]

39 minutes ago, Lockback said:

Well, for one thing, I've learned that communism doesn't work, which is more than she's willing to admit.

Did you ask her whether "communism works"?

You right wingers don't even know the difference between socialism and communism.

39 minutes ago, Lockback said:

Her economics are right out of Karl Marx, which means they're absurd and don't work.

Prove it. When did AOC quote Marx?