I don't think it's a fallacy since AOC so clearly implies, if not outright states, that the reason people are poor in America is because people richer than them have too much money, and should have less. If that applies to them, why doesn't it apply to her? At what level is the cutoff?
No, her argument is not that people have too much money, it's that the system allows for it. She's dedicating her biggest resource, her time, to fixing this.
There's a greater wealth inequality in the US now than there was at any other point in time.
> No, her argument is not that people have too much money, it's that the system allows for it.
What's the difference? Either way, she's trying to change it so people can't have so much money.
And why? To what end? How does trying to tear down people who have money help anyone else? Why doesn't she instead spend that time trying to create more worth and opportunity for people who don't?
Because she believes that the economy is closer to zero sum than you do. One person having a lot means another person has less, not just in terms of material distribution either, but also the distribution of power.
It is rather strange to have a system where the problem is lots of people don't have access to material goods and power, and you see a few people with huge amounts of those things, and not think that maybe those few people should have less so the majority can have more. You may disagree based on economic analysis, but surely that follows intuitively?
I think she's wrong in almost every way. AOC is a demagogue who focuses on getting her constituents to dislike people with money, and in order to do so, she massively oversimplifies things.
First of all, the average person has more power today than at almost any point in the past. If you're obsessively focused on making people hate others with money, then, of course, you're going to spread the message that money is the only thing that contributes to power, but that's far from the case. Any scholar of personal power would tell you that that's incredibly oversimplified to the point of being almost laughable.
Compared to, say, 70 years ago, the average person has a greatly increased ability to: publish and distribute ideas, organize large amounts of people quickly, start a business, influence culture without being gate-kept by institutions, gain and maintain attention without being gate-kept by institutions, etc. Education is better and more broadly available, capital is more accessible, legal and bureaucratic tools are easier to use, geographic constraints matter much less, more paths to elite influence exist. And of course, far more people are included in what "the average person" is, more can vote, more can be part of society. And this is over the exact same time period that income inequality has increasing. Income equality is only part of the picture when it comes to personal power, not everything, as AOC would have you believe. Also, there are more people in the upper and middle classes today than there ever have been in the United States!
Also, she's hugely oversimplifying the economic landscape. There aren't just two parties, rich and poor. There's a huge third party known as the government. And that party's express mandate is to take care of the people. And the people pay into that party's coffers in order to help it do so. And they pay at progressively higher rates based on how rich they are. The top 1% alone pay about 40% of federal income taxes.
So yeah, if you just completely oversimplify things and pretend that this entity doesn't exist, and you came into a situation where the rich had all they money and power, you might propose a system exactly like this. And I would agree. We should tax people, and that tax should be progressive, and that tax should go to a central government, and that central government should have stewards who we elect to help redistribute the money. And that's what we do.
But these stewards are also so busy telling everyone to hate each other -- hate the trans, hate the atheists, hate the rich, hate the men, hate the conservatives, hate the business owners, hate the elites, hate the immigrants, hate the blacks, etc. The average person is extremely susceptible to demagoguery. It's much easier to hate and blame your neighbor than it is to actually look into government budgetary figures.
And it's much nicer as a steward of the government budget to get everybody hating their neighbors than to have everybody scrutinizing what you're doing with their money.
Have you actually listened to AOC? Because this entire post feels like one massive strawman. I don't think AOC has argued things were better 70 years ago, and I think you know that. She has correctly suggested the wealthiest country in the world, one that routinely exploits poorer countries, shouldn't have citizens that are afraid to call an ambulance. That's tremendous failure.
Your government budget comment is just fluff. If you actually engaged with her in good faith, you'd realize she is not someone who thinks government spending should go unchecked, and the only issue is how much it's getting. She just disagrees with the right on where it should go. For instance, it shouldn't go towards bombing a country for 3 months just to wind up paying them billions for the same deal we already had. I think we can agree having a world leader that is so easily baited into pointless conflicts is bad for our budget. But I guess we balance it out by slashing social programs.
A lot of people's interest in government budgets coincides with the introduction of DOGE. That is to say, their entire understanding of it ends with what Musk tells them. Most people have no idea how it works, and half the things they suggest are already happening. It shouldn't shock you to know some people think billionaires could pay a little more and we can be smarter about where the money goes.
I didn't say that AOC said that things were better 70 years ago. I said she makes it sound like people have decreasing power due to income inequality, so I'm comparing to times where income was vastly more equal, and I simply don't think her claims hold up. Your-income-relative-the-richest-people's-income is, imo, a very small factor of how much overall power you have in society as an individual, compared to the other factors I listed. Yet it is repeatedly harped on as if it's the only factor that matters.
I don't believe I said that AOC thinks government spending should go unchecked. But the vast majority of comments I've read from AOC seem to blame the plight of the poor on the success of the rich.
People have decreasing power because the very people AOC is targeting are nakedly taking power from us, thumbing in our faces, and then whining when they get called out on it. This goes way beyond hoarding wealth. There's no world in which Palantir exists and you can seriously argue these rich people are not our problem. I think AOC feels a way about the oligopoly that many of us do. The lobbies that flood our elections, the social media companies pumping filth to make the internet a hellscape. We do not have to pretend they need to be coddled anymore. People have had enough. Yes, they are scumbags, and they can pay more, and nobody gives a fuck if they think different. Heaven knows they deserve worse. If they acted like real human beings for even a few seconds, they would be treated like kings. But instead they ratfuck the country
The only real question is how someone can delude themselves into buying the Aw Sucks routine of the most powerful people on the planet.
For one, if she “anonymously” donates to charities, how would anyone ever attribute any donations to her??
For another, as a sibling comment points out, AOC can have a much greater impact by influencing policies that help the people than through charitable donations, which, let’s face it, are just a bandaid on the structural issues that lead to such wealth inequality. Making something one’s professional goal when in a position of influence is much more impactful than optional activities on the side like charitable donations.
> if she “anonymously” donates to charities, how would anyone ever attribute any donations to her?
If she was truly moral, she wouldn't need to be feted for her actions. Virtue comes from doing the right thing even when other people are not looking.
Her using her position of power to extract money from Peter and give it to Paul does not bestow on her any morality or virtue points. One could characterize it as "buying votes with other peoples' money".
> But the reason it's a "fallacy" is AOC could donate 100% of her current salary for 63,000 years and that would equal 1% of Elon's current net worth.
I didn't say anything about Elon's money being related to AOC's morals. I said AOC's morals were dependent on her donating her money without bragging about it. The claim of logical fallacy does not follow.
I don't think it's a fallacy since AOC so clearly implies, if not outright states, that the reason people are poor in America is because people richer than them have too much money, and should have less. If that applies to them, why doesn't it apply to her? At what level is the cutoff?
No, her argument is not that people have too much money, it's that the system allows for it. She's dedicating her biggest resource, her time, to fixing this.
There's a greater wealth inequality in the US now than there was at any other point in time.
> No, her argument is not that people have too much money, it's that the system allows for it.
What's the difference? Either way, she's trying to change it so people can't have so much money.
And why? To what end? How does trying to tear down people who have money help anyone else? Why doesn't she instead spend that time trying to create more worth and opportunity for people who don't?
Because she believes that the economy is closer to zero sum than you do. One person having a lot means another person has less, not just in terms of material distribution either, but also the distribution of power.
It is rather strange to have a system where the problem is lots of people don't have access to material goods and power, and you see a few people with huge amounts of those things, and not think that maybe those few people should have less so the majority can have more. You may disagree based on economic analysis, but surely that follows intuitively?
I think she's wrong in almost every way. AOC is a demagogue who focuses on getting her constituents to dislike people with money, and in order to do so, she massively oversimplifies things.
First of all, the average person has more power today than at almost any point in the past. If you're obsessively focused on making people hate others with money, then, of course, you're going to spread the message that money is the only thing that contributes to power, but that's far from the case. Any scholar of personal power would tell you that that's incredibly oversimplified to the point of being almost laughable.
Compared to, say, 70 years ago, the average person has a greatly increased ability to: publish and distribute ideas, organize large amounts of people quickly, start a business, influence culture without being gate-kept by institutions, gain and maintain attention without being gate-kept by institutions, etc. Education is better and more broadly available, capital is more accessible, legal and bureaucratic tools are easier to use, geographic constraints matter much less, more paths to elite influence exist. And of course, far more people are included in what "the average person" is, more can vote, more can be part of society. And this is over the exact same time period that income inequality has increasing. Income equality is only part of the picture when it comes to personal power, not everything, as AOC would have you believe. Also, there are more people in the upper and middle classes today than there ever have been in the United States!
Also, she's hugely oversimplifying the economic landscape. There aren't just two parties, rich and poor. There's a huge third party known as the government. And that party's express mandate is to take care of the people. And the people pay into that party's coffers in order to help it do so. And they pay at progressively higher rates based on how rich they are. The top 1% alone pay about 40% of federal income taxes.
So yeah, if you just completely oversimplify things and pretend that this entity doesn't exist, and you came into a situation where the rich had all they money and power, you might propose a system exactly like this. And I would agree. We should tax people, and that tax should be progressive, and that tax should go to a central government, and that central government should have stewards who we elect to help redistribute the money. And that's what we do.
But these stewards are also so busy telling everyone to hate each other -- hate the trans, hate the atheists, hate the rich, hate the men, hate the conservatives, hate the business owners, hate the elites, hate the immigrants, hate the blacks, etc. The average person is extremely susceptible to demagoguery. It's much easier to hate and blame your neighbor than it is to actually look into government budgetary figures.
And it's much nicer as a steward of the government budget to get everybody hating their neighbors than to have everybody scrutinizing what you're doing with their money.
Have you actually listened to AOC? Because this entire post feels like one massive strawman. I don't think AOC has argued things were better 70 years ago, and I think you know that. She has correctly suggested the wealthiest country in the world, one that routinely exploits poorer countries, shouldn't have citizens that are afraid to call an ambulance. That's tremendous failure.
Your government budget comment is just fluff. If you actually engaged with her in good faith, you'd realize she is not someone who thinks government spending should go unchecked, and the only issue is how much it's getting. She just disagrees with the right on where it should go. For instance, it shouldn't go towards bombing a country for 3 months just to wind up paying them billions for the same deal we already had. I think we can agree having a world leader that is so easily baited into pointless conflicts is bad for our budget. But I guess we balance it out by slashing social programs.
A lot of people's interest in government budgets coincides with the introduction of DOGE. That is to say, their entire understanding of it ends with what Musk tells them. Most people have no idea how it works, and half the things they suggest are already happening. It shouldn't shock you to know some people think billionaires could pay a little more and we can be smarter about where the money goes.
I didn't say that AOC said that things were better 70 years ago. I said she makes it sound like people have decreasing power due to income inequality, so I'm comparing to times where income was vastly more equal, and I simply don't think her claims hold up. Your-income-relative-the-richest-people's-income is, imo, a very small factor of how much overall power you have in society as an individual, compared to the other factors I listed. Yet it is repeatedly harped on as if it's the only factor that matters.
I don't believe I said that AOC thinks government spending should go unchecked. But the vast majority of comments I've read from AOC seem to blame the plight of the poor on the success of the rich.
People have decreasing power because the very people AOC is targeting are nakedly taking power from us, thumbing in our faces, and then whining when they get called out on it. This goes way beyond hoarding wealth. There's no world in which Palantir exists and you can seriously argue these rich people are not our problem. I think AOC feels a way about the oligopoly that many of us do. The lobbies that flood our elections, the social media companies pumping filth to make the internet a hellscape. We do not have to pretend they need to be coddled anymore. People have had enough. Yes, they are scumbags, and they can pay more, and nobody gives a fuck if they think different. Heaven knows they deserve worse. If they acted like real human beings for even a few seconds, they would be treated like kings. But instead they ratfuck the country
The only real question is how someone can delude themselves into buying the Aw Sucks routine of the most powerful people on the planet.
Explain how it is a logical fallacy.
For one, if she “anonymously” donates to charities, how would anyone ever attribute any donations to her??
For another, as a sibling comment points out, AOC can have a much greater impact by influencing policies that help the people than through charitable donations, which, let’s face it, are just a bandaid on the structural issues that lead to such wealth inequality. Making something one’s professional goal when in a position of influence is much more impactful than optional activities on the side like charitable donations.
> if she “anonymously” donates to charities, how would anyone ever attribute any donations to her?
If she was truly moral, she wouldn't need to be feted for her actions. Virtue comes from doing the right thing even when other people are not looking.
Her using her position of power to extract money from Peter and give it to Paul does not bestow on her any morality or virtue points. One could characterize it as "buying votes with other peoples' money".
Homelessness won't be ended with just money, it'll be solved with (or caused by) politics and policies.
But the reason it's a "fallacy" is AOC could donate 100% of her current salary for 63,000 years and that would equal 1% of Elon's current net worth.
Even if you did get 1% of Elon's money, it wouldn't be enough. Real change comes from structural change, not pure cash.
And as the original person pointed out, you're clearly smart enough to know that.
> But the reason it's a "fallacy" is AOC could donate 100% of her current salary for 63,000 years and that would equal 1% of Elon's current net worth.
I didn't say anything about Elon's money being related to AOC's morals. I said AOC's morals were dependent on her donating her money without bragging about it. The claim of logical fallacy does not follow.