Schmid: What Democratic Socialists Don't Get

Authored by Valentin Schmid via The Epoch Times,

NY Socialist candidate wants to solve problems with the same tools that created them...

It was quite an upset. The leftist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat a more moderate democrat Joe Crowley in a New York primary for the house of representatives in June. Given New York’s preference for democrats, this result all but assures her of a seat in the House come midterm elections.

What prompted the 16,000 primary voters (out of 292,000 eligible in the Queens/Bronx 14th district) to vote for Ocasio-Cortez over her competitor, who only got 11,800 votes? Free stuff and anti-Trump rhetoric. Free education, medical care and a federal jobs guarantee (free stuff), as well as the abolishment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement or ICE (anti-Trump).

“I understand the economic crises people are facing in New York City; we can’t afford to live in the neighborhoods that our families have called home for generations, including my own family,” she told Vice News.

But her own family background is far from “working class” as she describes on her campaign page, as the Daily Mail reports. Although Cortez was born in the Bronx and lived there until age 5, her father—an architect who ran his own business—moved the family to posh Westchester County, where she attended Yorktown high school. Cortez, who attended Boston University, only moved back to the Bronx after her father died, making money as a waitress and bartender—working class after all.

Either way, for her and her family, the days of not being able to afford living in the Bronx, or anywhere else for that matter are most likely over. If elected representative, Cortez will enjoy the benefits of “earning” $174,000 base pay for 120-150 days of “work,” a budget of $1.2 million for staff and travel expenses, as well as insider trading privileges.

If she is smart, she can use some of that free time to take lessons from Democratic Rep. Judy Chu from California, who built up a net worth of more than $3 million day-trading the S&P 500 with call and put options since her first election in 2009.

Not bad for 16,000 votes; and at least one Bronx family won’t have economic issues again for the near future. Of course, it remains to be seen how many people turn out for her in this year’s midterm election.

Socialist Confusion

As for her politics, Cortez demonstrates the same delusional lack of understanding of history and economics that other socialists exhibit, most recently and notably Bernie Sanders.

“I don’t believe that in a moral and wealthy America, people should be too poor to live,” she told Qatari-funded AJ+.

This is why she promises the free stuff for poor people, as well as government job guarantees. “I will not compromise on the future that I think is best for this country,” she tells Vice. Given these statements, it sounds awfully like she thinks she is the wise central planner who knows what’s best for everybody. The wise central planner who so far has never materialized for all socialist and communist societies and has brought about misery and death. That this lesson of history is lost on Cortez and her backers of the Democratic Socialists who openly state that “communism is good,” is sad but hardly surprising.

New York Socialism

It is more surprising Cortez hasn’t noticed that the city of New York, where all those poor people who can’t afford to live in the houses they wish to live in, has mostly been ruled by democratic mayors since the 1850s, with the occasional Republican in between, —mayor Bloomberg notwithstanding. It is similar though less clear cut for New York State.

Or may we say she hasn’t noticed because she lived most of her life in Westchester County rather than the Bronx?

Either way, her policies reflect the same socialist delusion, whether it’s on the local or federal level: The problems of poverty and unaffordable housing, according to Cortez, don’t exist because of the thousands of failed government initiatives but because there hasn’t been enough of them.

Of course, the subtleties of supply and demand, as well as investment and production, are probably lost on Cortez, but let’s go through the example of real estate, which is a good one.

Let’s start with the basics. Real estate prices are high because of a corrupt monetary system, supported and sanctioned by the state. The Fed and private banks print money out of nothing which goes to them and their cronies first. They buy up assets like stocks and real estate on the cheap while the working man’s wages go up last, if at all.

Because money can be created out of thin air by private banks, and the state accepts it as payment for taxes, this is not free-market banking, but rather a corrupt private-public hybrid more akin to Marx’s centralization of money and credit than to Rothbardian free and fully-reserved banking.

In case something goes wrong in this operation, like it did in 2008, the state stands ready to bail out the private banking system with taxpayer money voted for by Democrats and Republicans alike. Although Cortez is critical of Wall Street, her vision of the banking system probably will eliminate private banks altogether and fuse them with the state. The outcome of that operation certainly won’t be pretty either.

Second, decades of city interference in the housing market has punished private developers who want to build affordable housing of lower quality. Why? Because the city, through rent controls, sets prices too low which always and by definition leads to shortages in supply of the desired product. Let’s say to recoup investment and make a modest profit, a developer needs $100 in rent per month from an affordable housing unit. If the city says the maximum he can charge is $50, there won’t be any development of affordable housing.

Since the developer doesn’t want to give up his job, there will be more development of real estate where the regulations don’t apply, like the thousands of luxury condos currently under construction in Manhattan funded by money created out of nothing in the state-sanctioned, fractional-reserve banking system.

Democratic Problems

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s victory highlights many problems in our democracy. It’s a perfect case of how a young, inexperienced, and completely uneducated person in business and economics can come close to wield a budget of $1.2 million just by promising people free stuff.

But this is only natural. It is natural for a 28-year-old to want to help others by taking from the productive without doing anything herself. It is also natural for voters to look outside for help rather than trying to change their life situation by their own doing.

Socialism appeals to the dark side of human nature, robs it of agency and responsibility, and always leads to hunger, misery, and death. It is up to the responsible citizen to make sure this doesn’t happen in the United States by voting to prevent people like Cortez or Sanders from coming to power.

Tags

Comments

LawsofPhysics JimmyJones Tue, 07/10/2018 - 11:49 Permalink

I am confused, it was the FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL "PRODUCTS" LIKE MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES that caused all the problems!!!!

These were created by democratic socialists?!?! I don't think so motherfucker. Remind me, how many of the people who created and profited from all that financial fraud went to prison again? < crickets > yeah, that's what I thought. Fuck ALL the "isms", nothing but useful idiots on BOTH sides of the aisle. Again, the FACT is that BOTH parties have been socializing PRIVATE losses for 40+ fucking years!!!!

"Full FAITH and Credit"

same as it ever was!

In reply to by JimmyJones

ParkAveFlasher Stan522 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:10 Permalink

Fake news.  Joe Crowley is not "moderate", never was.  Chair of the local Democrat Committee. 

He is all about screwing his constituency in the most underhanded manner possible.

His cousin "Dizzy" Liz Crowley was just voted off the city council in my district, which is not the same as Joe's. 

In any case this socialista is a product of Clintonian Westchester and certainly doesn't represent a Democratic schism, simply a changeover.  The Crowleys are old-school pit bosses and don't just go away.  IMO their cover is blown therefore the party complexion must be darkened up a bit.  So, fake news.

In reply to by Stan522

gdpetti james diamond squid Tue, 07/10/2018 - 13:31 Permalink

And for what purpose? this falls into the SG script... 'out with their OWO, in with their NWO'.

It's all the usual 'divide and conquer' gameplan... first the larger groups, then within the smaller ones... get all the sheeple fighting amongst themselves... classic. Here's a recent example of this, even as some participants start to realize how they are being scammed... sort of like that paragraph by that German writer about the Nazis.. 'first they came for... but I wasn't..."

Here's that recent example of the engineered friction at work:

Feminists Clash with Transgenders at London Pride Parade

https://pjmedia.com/trending/lesbians-blame-transgenderism-for-conversion-therapy-and-rape-culture-at-london-pride-parade/

In reply to by james diamond squid

edotabin venturen Tue, 07/10/2018 - 15:17 Permalink

The fact that it appears to be so difficult for someone to simply state what is going on is a clear indication as to how sad the state of affairs is in the world today. So many brains, so many "educated" minds yet we get nothing but endless paragraphs of drivel that miss the point.

Any system winds up being about control and domination. In unrestricted capitalism you wind up with monopolies disguised as duopolies just to appease the masses who would all live in company housing and buy the necessities from the company store. With socialism, the government takes the place of the company and also takes over more aspects of your life as it creeps towards totalitarianism. The main advantage of capitalism is that, while still difficult, it is much easier to find another company to work for than to overthrow socialism. Therefore, we see that concentration of power must be discouraged. You can have many companies. You can't have many governments.

The "industrialist" will give you a job in a very "take it or leave it" fashion which, if accepted, will result in paid slavery. The socialist is a pernicious individual that will seek concentration of power through insidious means by preying on any imaginable circumstance, emotion or feeling to achieve their goal. The socialists will decry the inequities, which to some extent may be true, but purposely ignore the fact that many will use that system to hide their insecurities, inability or unwillingness to produce. In other words, many of the people joining are just as disingenuous as those at the top and do nothing other than wrap lies within lies. When enough of such people are amassed, it all sinks like a rock.

Multiple smaller companies in a properly refereed capitalist system is the way to go. A system that encourages and allows for individual freedoms is best. Naturally, we have neither today.

I know it's quite obvious but it appears the simple has become complex.

 

In reply to by venturen

curbjob LawsofPhysics Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:03 Permalink

While I personally have never belonged to a political party, I think the political tilt of Wall St CEO's is dependent on the industry their respective corporation represents . MIC, red .. Technology, blue ... Finance , purple.

Interestingly enough,  the ranks of the fugazi liberal Jews are being split by Trumps recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish Homeland .

In reply to by LawsofPhysics

swmnguy curbjob Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:27 Permalink

The problem Democrats have is in trying to keep our broken and failed system of state-supported corporate finance capitalism running with a few tweaks to make it "fair."  The whole point of the system is to prevent fairness from intruding on the Oligarchs' scam.

However, if we're going to divert the wealth of America through corporate finance, like running plasma through a corpse, why not keep citizens of the richest country in human history from living in poverty?  Or at least do something to level the playing field somewhat for people who have to work for a living.  

Why on Earth would uncovered medical costs, for people who have insurance, be the #1 cause of consumer bankruptcy, when premiums are the #2 cost for businesses and households, and the Federal Government subsidizes the whole medical finance system already?

I don't see mainstream Dems or Repubs suggesting any coherent solution to this problem, which exists nowhere else.

In reply to by curbjob

LawsofPhysics dchang0 Tue, 07/10/2018 - 11:56 Permalink

BULLSHIT. Semantics you stupid fuck. Bottom line, it is a "let the majority eat cake" monetary policy where a select few oligarchs have access to all the "money" they want and are not subject to any rule of law,

Yet another stupid weak-minded fuck. Time to thin the damn herd already. Soon enough, if you don't perform real work, you won't fucking eat you ignorant fuck. Can't happen soon enough if you ask me.

In reply to by dchang0

hongdo LawsofPhysics Tue, 07/10/2018 - 12:32 Permalink

You don't understand that socialism is just a method for a new boss to replace the old boss.  But historically the new socialist boss is worse than the old capitalist boss.  We can argue about the details -  like who is more likely to kill you or starve you (you are starving right?) - but don't swallow the red herring.

In China my driver complained about the communist bosses driving without license plates so no one could ticket them.  He did not believe it when I told him same-same in US - Obama stopped traffic in LA for hours so he could speed through.  

A boss is a boss in a society stratified by whatever caste criteria.

In reply to by LawsofPhysics

TheReplacement LawsofPhysics Tue, 07/10/2018 - 13:15 Permalink

Pfft.  It has been pointed out on these pages innumerable times that those losses were socialized.  Even if nobody went to jail at least we SHOULD have been able to say that those bastards lost their shirts, homes, cars, trophy wives, and everything else.  What you are complaining about is the rule of law factor.  You tend to have problems with justice systems when you have socialism as has been shown around the world, again, innumerable times before.  Is one the product of the other or do they go together?  I would say in our case we got the banking system first so take it for what it is.

In reply to by LawsofPhysics

TGF Texas Free This Tue, 07/10/2018 - 11:43 Permalink

What Socialist don't get....Um, that list is way too long, but #1 is....

They are the useful idiots of the, PEDO's, SATANIST's, and TPTB. TPTB use their media arm to support and fawn over them, because they know it will accelerate their plans for the moral destruction of the World, which their book tells them, will be the catalyst for the second coming of God.

 

It's all very simple!

In reply to by Free This

glenlloyd migra Tue, 07/10/2018 - 11:42 Permalink

This has been tried before and it's failed miserably every time, except for the few at the top running the show.

It's nothing but forced poverty on the masses. Those who want socialism don't know what it is, they just continue to say that the reason it's failed before is the wrong people were running it.

If that's the case, if it's that vulnerable to the "wrong people" then I want to no part of it and any true American would run away from people with these kind of faulty logic ideas as fast as they can.

It doesn't work people!!

In reply to by migra

DisorderlyConduct Free This Tue, 07/10/2018 - 13:09 Permalink

Well, even if they do work, they think that life should be more 'fair' - meaning they should get more for their effort. This is actually the opposite of fair. Fair means getting reward commensurate with your skills and efforts - as determined by the market for whatever it is that you're doing. To them fair means they get more regardless of effort or skill.

I wonder how nice the cheap gas is in Venezuela these days?

Odd that socialists will blame the US for the failure of Venezuela, but not acknowledge that they failed to be a state strong enough to defend itself. As if the US is responsible for their success or failure. LOL. And at no time did the US get credit when they were fat and happy on $100 oil... ^_^

In reply to by Free This