Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit

[Starlight]

Too bad that isn’t what Americans want, huh?

The majority of them do. Too bad the US voting system is set up to avoid majority representation.

[Psychic Missile]

I do know what socialism is. It is when the government/state controls the means of production, the jobs, and the distribution of goods while calling itself "the people" or "proletariat" -- pretty simple.

There's a lot more to it than that, and it is more a matter of degree of control than a binary state of control. It also most certainly does not prevent someone from doing or having something expensive.

[Psychic Missile]

Hey PM, here's a news flash for you: Sparko is not your only audience.

PS - you're the one looking salty here; you've been called out, and found wanting. Feel free to rectify that.

Socialism is a complicated idea to define due to its varied historical applications, regimes masquerading as socialist, overzealous description of anti-oppression policy as socialist by conservatives, and individualized interpretations. There is a general idea of modern socialism, often called Democratic Socialism, the Nordic model, or social democracy, which is what the minority of Democrats are fighting for and to which I refer to as modern US socialism. This should be understood due to its prevalence in the news cycle. It is not necessary to act in bad faith by making the assumption that someone doesn't know what they're talking about (a clear projection in this case) until they define it. The discussion will then be based on challenging that definition, a level of nitpicking and digression I am wholly uninterested in. Otherwise, if you, Sparko, or Cow Poke are interested in talking about why some of the conservatives on this board think liberals aren't but should be against people owning or borrowing expensive clothing, I would very interested.

[lilpixieofterror]

The majority of them do. Too bad the US voting system is set up to avoid majority representation.

Than why are people getting into power that don’t want this? Are you saying that members of congress are not majority elected? How about state ones, are they not elected by popular majority. Sorry, but the only position that isn’t majority elected is the president. Everyone else is, so try again Starlight.

[Roy]

The US has a much larger population and no it can’t, not by itself anyway. If you don’t believe me, how much profit does the oil companies bring in and how much would universal healthcare cost?

The US also has much larger oil production - so much larger that the US still has greater oil production per capita. You could and should have checked this prior to objecting based on population size.

I have no idea how oil profit compares to universal healthcare cost. I do know that US healthcare isn't very cost effective.

[Roy]

Yes, the US has about 50% more crude oil production per capita than Denmark from a quick browse of current production statistics on the internet.

Hmmm. My source only suggested it was about 15% higher.

[lilpixieofterror]

The US also has much larger oil production - so much larger that the US still has greater oil production per capita. You could and should have checked this prior to objecting based on population size.

It doesn’t matter the production capacity as it matters the cost vs profit. US oil production has only recciently reached the levels it has thanks to new methods of oil extraction. Methods that didn’t exist a few years ago for one and methods that does add up the cost for two. Did you factor that in?

I have no idea how oil profit compares to universal healthcare cost. I do know that US healthcare isn't very cost effective.

It’s as easy as searching the web and reading the numbers. It doesn’t matter how cost effective US healthcare is because it isn’t the government flipping the bill yet. As I recall, the CBO estimated 22 trillion dollars is what universal US healthcare would cost over 10 years. The US oil industry makes a total profit of less than 10% of that total amount. There would need to be more sources of revenue. Lots more, if the 22 trillion number is accurate.

[Roy]

The US also has much larger oil production - so much larger that the US still has greater oil production per capita. You could and should have checked this prior to objecting based on population size.

It doesn’t matter the production capacity as it matters the cost vs profit. US oil production has only recciently reached the levels it has thanks to new methods of oil extraction. Methods that didn’t exist a few years ago for one and methods that does add up the cost for two. Did you factor that in?

Do you not know that US oil production was around the current level for a long time in the 1960s-1980s, without using new expensive methods? The current level of oil production is not unprecedented.

It doesn’t matter how cost effective US healthcare is because it isn’t the government flipping the bill yet. As I recall, the CBO estimated 22 trillion dollars is what universal US healthcare would cost over 10 years. The US oil industry makes a total profit of less than 10% of that total amount. There would need to be more sources of revenue. Lots more, if the 22 trillion number is accurate.

So? No-one has advocated using all and only oil revenue, or supporting only universal healthcare.

The claim was that the Danish government puts oil revenue towards a welfare state. If the US government doesn't, and the result is that the US is not as well off regarding work force involvement, life expectancy and level of education, the US only has itself to blame. The US produces more oil than Denmark does. Oil revenue should be able to fund welfare in the US as well as it does in Denmark.

Since the Danish healthcare system is not funded solely from oil, but does have more sources of revenue, you're simply introducing irrelevancies.

[lilpixieofterror]

Do you not know that US oil production was around the current level for a long time in the 1960s-1980s, without using new expensive methods? The current level of oil production is not unprecedented. Then why don't you do that, rather than relying on your faulty memory?So? No-one has advocated using all and only oil revenue, or supporting only universal healthcare. You're introducing irrelevancies as usual.

False. US oil production peaked in 1970, dropped off, rose to a high in 1985, dropped and started to rise in 2008 to peak out today. Second, the US is currently at peak oil or approaching it, where we have produced more oil than ever before while Denmark is at its lowest point since it begin drilling in the 70’s. If you compare 10 years ago, the tale is different. Try again.

The claim was that the Danish government puts oil revenue towards a welfare state. If the US government doesn't, and the result is that the US is not as well off regarding work force involvement, life expectancy and level of education, the US only has itself to blame. The US produces more oil than Denmark does. Oil revenue should be able to fund welfare in the US as well as it does in Denmark.

Lying again Roy? What I said is Denmark uses higher taxes and oil revenue to pay for its welfare state.

Since the Danish healthcare system is not funded solely from oil, but does have more sources of revenue, you're simply introducing irrelevancies.

Nah because that was my claim all along. Stop making things up Roy, you’re the one trying to change history.

[Roy]

Do you not know that US oil production was around the current level for a long time in the 1960s-1980s, without using new expensive methods? The current level of oil production is not unprecedented.

False.

True. Your own source shows that oil production was as high - over 8-10m barrels/day - from 1966 to 1987 as it was from 2014 to 2017.

The claim was that the Danish government puts oil revenue towards a welfare state. ...

Lying again Roy? What I said is Denmark uses higher taxes and oil revenue to pay for its welfare state.

How is that a lie? If the Danish government uses oil revenue (and other things) to pay for its welfare state, then clearly the Danish government puts oil revenue (and other things) towards a welfare state. That is undoubtedly a claim you made. I have never said the Danish government puts only oil revenue towards its welfare state, nor have I said that you said that.

You should retract your false accusation of lying. But I doubt you will.

[lilpixieofterror]

Did you know tax rates can be changed?

Sure, do Americans vote for people, in large numbers, that want to raise the taxes to fund a welfare state?

Economies of scale mean it should work even better for the US.

Not really because size adds hurdles that must be overcome. Moving a 1 ton bolder is different than a 50 ton bolder.

If not, do it at a state level since your individual states are a similar size to Scandinavian countries.

Some states have.

Not really relevant because NZ, Canada, and Australia all have populations as diverse as the US or more so and the welfare state functions fine in our countries.

No they don’t.

Some countries with good welfare systems are oil rich and some aren't (e.g. NZ), it's not required. However the US does have a strong oil industry, so it's totally your choice not to be taxing it more or having the government owning a company that operates in that sector.

And do Americans vote for those that say they will do that?

[lilpixieofterror]

True. Your own source shows that oil production was as high - over 8-10m barrels/day - from 1966 to 1987 as it was from 2014 to 2017.

And Denmark’s was higher too, did you forget that little detail?

How is that a lie? If the Danish government uses oil revenue (and other things) to pay for its welfare state, then clearly the Danish government puts oil revenue (and other things) towards a welfare state. That is undoubtedly a claim you made. I have never said the Danish government puts only oil revenue towards its welfare state, nor have I said that you said that.

So why did you jump into this rant to start with?

You should retract your false accusation of lying. But I doubt you will.

That’s funny coming from the same person that runs away whenever he’s proved wrong.

[Roy]

And Denmark’s was higher too, did you forget that little detail?

Denmark's past or present oil production level doesn't make US oild production levels different.

So why did you jump into this rant to start with?

Again, how was that a lie? If the Danish government uses oil revenue (and other things) to pay for its welfare state, then clearly the Danish government puts oil revenue (and other things) towards a welfare state. That is undoubtedly a claim you made. I have never said the Danish government puts only oil revenue towards its welfare state, nor have I said that you said that.

You should retract your false accusation of lying. But I doubt you will.

That’s funny coming from the same person that runs away whenever he’s proved wrong.

Retract your accusation of lying.

[lilpixieofterror]

Denmark's past or present oil production level doesn't make US oild production levels different.

It changes the per capita rate, you know the point you’re trying to compare to.

Again, how was that a lie? If the Danish government uses oil revenue (and other things) to pay for its welfare state, then clearly the Danish government puts oil revenue (and other things) towards a welfare state. That is undoubtedly a claim you made. I have never said the Danish government puts only oil revenue towards its welfare state, nor have I said that you said that.

So you decided to post because...

Retract your accusation of lying.

Stop running away when proved wrong.

[Roy]

It changes the per capita rate, you know the point you’re trying to compare to.

So you decided to post because...

Stop running away when proved wrong.

Retract your accusation of lying.