AOC Hits it out of the Park again

[NWRatCon]

Both parties support "A" Green New Deal, not AOC's Green New Deal. Read the article.
....
“Other research has shown that people evaluate policies more negatively when they are told it is backed by politicians from an opposing political party. Conversely, people evaluate the same policy more positively when told it is backed by politicians from their own party,” the poll takers wrote in a blog post explaining its results.

“Therefore, these findings may indicate that although most Republicans and conservatives are in favor of the Green New Deal’s policies in principle, they are not yet aware that this plan is proposed by the political Left.”

Kinda like The ACA. Republican voters liked all the parts of it, they just didn't like that it was a Democratic plan. Deep thinkers, wot?

 

[Tanya]

The obsession with her stems from the fact that it is and has been MOST RARE to hear the truth spoken in Congress. She is a breath of fresh air to those longing for responsive government, to those disgusted with the status quo. Like me.

I guess that is a fair argument. Doesn't explain why both parties pinning their hopes on complete morons. Sounds more like insanity than disrupting the status quo.

 

[Tanya]

Oh yes, yes you are.

What am I missing? Pretend I know nothing about finance, if it helps.

 

[Tanya]

Kinda like The ACA. Republican voters liked all the parts of it, they just didn't like that it was a Democratic plan. Deep thinkers, wot?

Then only thing you're telling me is that tribalism exist.

 

[joko104]

It is amazing seeing how easy it is for the MSM to ram Cortez down Democrat's throat. She is one of 435 members of the House of Representatives, a freshman, and as unimportant as it gets.

 

[NWRatCon]

A couple of points

It's not industry practice to assume malicious intent when you are conducting a risk analysis. It's just... weird.

Which industry, what level? That's just.... inaccurate. There is more left out of this than included. I could give dozens of counterexamples (including in banking). Here's one: Do retailers take shoplifting into account when assessing cash flow? Or how about, Do banks evaluate default rates in assessing credit risk and lending rates? Dimon essentially lied. Of course they price it in.

Also, if we're not going to prevent that equating turnstile jumpers with commercial/investment banking activities is a ridiculous comparison, she basically already answered her own question with the inquiry. If there was anything illegal going on, people would have been sent to jail.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you have to be kidding here, right?

First, who did you think her audience is? It's s important to communicate with your expected audience. Do you think the YouTubers "got" her point? Do you not see the parallels? Is "gaming the system" different for bankers than commuters?

Second, if you think financial criminals get prosecuted you probably own shares in the Brooklyn Bridge. Financial crimes are the least prosecuted crimes on the books. Have you not been paying attention? One of the reasons is that courts "discount" the effects of white collar crimes ridiculously - to wit: Paul Manafort - so prosecutors don't bother. The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime (Bloomberg Opinion).

Since the financial crisis, the lack of criminal prosecutions has been widely deplored. Yet white-collar prosecutions are still on course to fall to their lowest level in at least 20 years, down more than 40 percent from 1998.

I could fill 50 posts just with the headlines.

They're not good questions. Better questions would have been, "What steps are you taking to ensure that this doesn't happen again?"

I agree, great question. Do you think it wasn't asked?

 

[NWRatCon]

Not meaning to pick on you, Tanya. I just realized my last three responses were to your posts.

 

[Deuce]

It is amazing seeing how easy it is for the MSM to ram Cortez down Democrat's throat. She is one of 435 members of the House of Representatives, a freshman, and as unimportant as it gets.

Conservatives obsessing over her has driven quite a bit of that.

 

[Deuce]

Words have not been invented to describe how uninformed this post is...

You're wrong.

 

[calamity]

Conservatives obsessing over her has driven quite a bit of that.

It's driven all of it.

 

[Winston]

My claim is that they are both ignorant and unknowledgable; not that they have stated the same amount of factually inaccurate statements.

Already backpedaling from the mirror image comment? Yes, that's an alright statement to make they, like everyone on the planet they are ignorant on some topics and knowledgeable on others, for Trump he is more ignorant in a lot more areas than Cortez if you want to be accurate.

No where in that article does it show the assessment from the IPCC.

The IPCC would be the authorities on Climate Change, I did not reference them in debate, rather brought them up as a counter example, so, your appeal to authority attempt fails miserably. The Pentagon, may have some authorities on Climate Science, but, that's ancillary to the point. They are first hand witnesses to the effects of Climate Change, being stationed all over the world, they are credible not because they are experts on Climate Science, rather they are witnesses to it.

There is a reason why it's called the "energy" sector.

Saying Exxon is pro-renewable energy is gas lighting. They may have invested in some measure of solar and wind power. But, their real money is made in Oil & Gas and you know it.

Not that popular. Trump has a higher approval rating...

Most Americans Support Increasing Taxes on the Wealthy: Poll | Fortune

Support for raising taxes is widespread, according to a new poll, which found that 76% of registered voters want the wealthiest Americans to pay more.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Green New Deal support among Americans: poll - Business Insider

More than 80% of Americans support almost all of the key ideas in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal | TheHill

70 percent of Americans support 'Medicare for all' proposal

Two-Thirds of Americans Support Free College Tuition - NBC News

Two-Thirds of Americans Support Free College Tuition

Good luck the Thatcher/Reaganite worldview is pretty much dead. It's a new world, Tanya.

The point is her policies aren't driven by facts or popular support.

It's a ridiculous point since Amazon moving or not moving to New York City has nothing to do with AOC's platform.

 

[NWRatCon]

We all have heart for someone. I am sure AOC would love to know of your heart for her but unless you are one of her constituents it does her no good. And reports out there saying her constituents are not happy with her as she has been ignoring their local needs while she is out their blaming all that is wrong with the world on Climate. I guess her heart isn't in the Bronx her constituents have been wanting her to address.
Ocasio-Cortez's 'heart is not in The Bronx', locals say

If this continues poor AOC may be out after one term.

LOL. The New York Post!? That's like quoting Trump. Talk about "propaganda". LOL. Really reliable there.

 

[Winston]

Anyone that is impressed with AOC is a complete idiot. There are no doubts about this.

Hell no, people that are impressed with Trump lying to them non-stop are the idiots.

AOC is a refreshing voice in Congress. She's not corrupted by corporate $$$ and people on the right and left are scared of her because of that. That in itself is impressive.

 

[Tanya]

A couple of pointsWhich industry, what level? That's just.... inaccurate. There is more left out of this than included. I could give dozens of counterexamples (including in banking). Here's one: Do retailers take shoplifting into account when assessing cash flow? Or how about, Do banks evaluate default rates in assessing credit risk and lending rates? Dimon essentially lied. Of course they price it in.

First of all, Dimon didn't answer the risk question. Cobalt did.

Secondly, it was already pretty obvious that AOC hasn't worked a day in banking; now I can say the same for you, because it's not industry practice to assume malicious intent when conducting a risk analysis. Most risk analysis in Finance is done with something called Credit Value-at-Risk (or VaR), which is the expected loss of a portfolio of any given period of time, within 1 percentile or 2.33 standard deviations of historical performance. Sometimes, RiskMetrics is also used, which involves the expected value of a number of different factors. Banks also used industry metrics such as coverage ratios, structure impairment of loans, and capital assessment of risk-weighted assets.

But "malicious intent" is qualitative data; this is nothing something you can quantify and not something you could model. You don't know what you're talking about here.

I don't mean to be condescending, but you have to be kidding here, right?

First, who did you think her audience is? It's s important to communicate with your expected audience. Do you think the YouTubers "got" her point? Do you not see the parallels? Is "gaming the system" different for bankers than commuters?

It's not a good anology, no matter how to try to s

Second, if you think financial criminals get prosecuted you probably own shares in the Brooklyn Bridge. Financial crimes are the least prosecuted crimes on the books. Have you not been paying attention? One of the reasons is that courts "discount" the effects of white collar crimes ridiculously - to wit: Paul Manafort - so prosecutors don't bother. The U.S. Needs to Crack Down on White-Collar Crime (Bloomberg Opinion).

This comment demonstrates two things:

1) You don't understand the arguments being presented. I never stated financial crimes are prosecuted more or less than other crimes. I stated that anyone doing anything illegal would most likely have been prosecuted.

2) You've moved the goalpost to Paul Manafort, which only shows you don't understand the issue. We're discussing any potential crimes related to the financial crisis.

We are discussing issues related to banking and finance.

I could fill 50 posts just with the headlines.

How about post something relevant to the financial crisis? As we have stated, if anyone did anything illegal during that period, they would have gone to jail.

Either refute or don't waste your own time. You don't always need to have an opinion on everything outside your relm of knowledge.

I agree, great question. Do you think it wasn't asked?

People who have never worked in finance have no idea what questions to ask, but this is a simple question that any layman could have asked without sounding like a complete outsider.

 

[NWRatCon]

With respect, Tanya, you say that you are a constituent of AOC. Clearly you did not vote for her. The whole series of posts here appear to be griping because she won. You didn't even watch the whole five minutes of her questioning. Did you watch her questioning of Michael Cohen?

It is clear from every appearance in committee that she prepares and has facts and a clear set of points to raise. She's concise. It's not surprising given her background:

Ocasio-Cortez attended Yorktown High School, graduating in 2007. 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.
....
She graduated cum laude from Boston University's College of Arts and Sciences in 2011, majoring in international relations and economics.

(Wikipedia)

I think she has a lot more than detractors give her credit for (to their detriment, thankfully).

 

[Tanya]

Already backpedaling from the mirror image comment? Yes, that's an alright statement to make they, like everyone on the planet they are ignorant on some topics and knowledgeable on others, for Trump he is more ignorant in a lot more areas than Cortez if you want to be accurate.

Maybe. I'm not interested in seeing them debate one another. One is a trust-fund brat and the other managed to land herself in a bar despite having one of the most useful degrees in the labour market.

If you're trying to make the case that one of them is more knowledgable than the other, you're really not selling it.

The IPCC would be the authorities on Climate Change, I did not reference them in debate, rather brought them up as a counter example, so, your appeal to authority attempt fails miserably. The Pentagon, may have some authorities on Climate Science, but, that's ancillary to the point. They are first hand witnesses to the effects of Climate Change, being stationed all over the world, they are credible not because they are experts on Climate Science, rather they are witnesses to it.

More like, you couldn't bring up any science to support your assertions because you don't understand the science.

Being a witness to an event doesn't make one an authority on the subject. I don't need to explain how nonsensical that sounds.

Saying Exxon is pro-renewable energy is gas lighting. They may have invested in some measure of solar and wind power. But, their real money is made in Oil & Gas and you know it.

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en...nd_natural-gas-and-renewables-dominate-growth

Good luck the Thatcher/Reaganite worldview is pretty much dead. It's a new world, Tanya.

All of what you have posted is a complete red herring known of these post tells me her agenda; just ideas that she happens to supports. Saying, "I support idea A" and saying "this is how we will achieve idea A" are two different things. The latter will get your proposals unanimously voted down in the Senate.

It's a ridiculous point since Amazon moving or not moving to New York City has nothing to do with AOC's platform.

That is irrelevant; she has already taken a position on the deal and it was near fact based nor poll based. It was just ignorant.

 

[vesper]

LOL. The New York Post!? That's like quoting Trump. Talk about "propaganda". LOL. Really reliable there.

There's plenty of polling showing AOC losing support among her constituents. Many seem to be upset over the Amazon deal. That is not a good sign after only being in office for 3 months.

 

[Tanya]

With respect, Tanya, you say that you are a constituent of AOC. Clearly you did not vote for her. The whole series of posts here appear to be griping because she won. You didn't even watch the whole five minutes of her questioning. Did you watch her questioning of Michael Cohen?

Am I supposed to be impressed by someone asking questions?

It is clear from every appearance in committee that she prepares and has facts and a clear set of points to raise. She's concise. It's not surprising given her background: (Wikipedia)

I think she has a lot more than detractors give her credit for (to their detriment, thankfully).

This is getting ridiculous...

I've been in my line of business for almost 15 years. Every summer we hire interns or we hire for full-time roles; we receive hundreds of thousands of applications. Almost every application we receive has someone studying Finance or Economics and almost every application has someone with a near perfect GPA. Only 2% of those hundreds of thousands probably ever make it in this industry straight out of college.

And you're trying to tell me that someone who just managed to graduate with one of the most common undergraduate degrees in the labour market and was working as a bartender until her late 20's has something that everyone else doesn't?

Do tell?

 

[manofknowledge]

And you're trying to tell me that someone who just managed to graduate with one of the most common undergraduate degrees in the labour market and was working as a bartender until her late 20's has something that everyone else doesn't?

Do tell?

She has a seat in Congress. That is exceptional by any standard.

 

[NWRatCon]

Tanya, again, with respect, I appreciate that you went back and watched the whole tape (apparently)

First of all, Dimon didn't answer the risk question. Cobalt did.

I apparently missed who was lying...

Secondly, it was already pretty obvious that AOC hasn't worked a day in banking; now I can say the same for you

I don't think she or I ever claimed to be a financier. But you are talking about a sliver of a slice of the "financial sector." I expect you know a great deal about your particular area of expertise. I have a good deal of expertise in my areas of study too. You are right, I've never worked "in finance" (if you don't count financial planning, which is "outside" of banking). So, I speak in generalities to a great extent. But, you are also talking outside of your expertise, and it also shows.

But "malicious intent" is qualitative data; this is nothing something you can quantify and not something you could model. You don't know what you're talking about here.

You are making assumptions and circumscribing the discussion to your particular narrow area of interest. I was generalizing the discussion of "risk analysis" - not specifying it to a particular analytical framework. As I noted earlier, in the retail example, "malicious intent" is clearly something that can be "modeled" in other areas. It appears you've never worked in retail or the law. Malicious intent is something that has to be proved all the time in court. To wit:

1) You don't understand the arguments being presented. I never stated financial crimes are prosecuted more or less than other crimes. I stated that anyone doing anything illegal would most likely have been prosecuted.

Which demonstrates that you are talking outside your area of knowledge. Indeed, your statement is self-contradictory - if financial crimes are prosecuted less than other crimes (they decidedly are), then it follows that it is not a given that "anything illegal would most likely have been prosecuted." White Collar Crimes are extremely resource-intensive both in investigation and prosecution. (I acknowledge here that I never prosecuted anything above check kiting, forgeries, and the like.) As I noted earlier, they don't get a lot of "bang" for the buck. My reference to Manafort was simply to prove that point - no goalpost moving. It is, in point of fact, far more likely that they are not prosecuted than they are. White Collar Prosecutions Fall to Lowest in 20 Years

These recent trends continue a long term slide in the level of federal fraud prosecutions. Indeed, current levels represent the lowest number of white collar prosecutions in more than 20 years. Overall, the data show that prosecutions are down 31.3 percent from the level of 8,108 reported in 2008 and down 40.8 percent from the level of 9,412 reported in 1998.

It's not that these crimes have gone down (quite the contrary Statistical Analysis of White-Collar Crime), it's that the resources to fight them have been taken away, and judges don't follow the sentencing guidelines when they do get prosecuted. Moreover, people fail to report white collar crime because they are unaware that they have been victimized.

All of that is just to point out that your statement "they most likely would have been prosecuted" is, well, just wrong.

I'll make you a deal: I won't pretend to know the intricacies of RiskMetrics, if you don't pretend to know about legal processes. Deal?

(BTW, I've been in my line of business for more than 30 years.)

 

[Tanya]

She has a seat in Congress. That is exceptional by any standard.

There is very little one can say to demonstrate that winning low-grade popularity contest are expectional. AOC has a seat in Congress; Trump is in the White House.

"Trump never won the popular vote," one might say. Yeah, well AOC wasn't elected by the people, either. She simply used an exploit called "primarying" (her words) in districts with very low turnout where Republican challenge is all but unlikely.

There are real people who really attempt to demonstrate that they deserve to be in the positions they are in.

 

[Winston]

Maybe. I'm not interested in seeing them debate one another. One is a trust-fund brat and the other managed to land herself in a bar despite having one of the most useful degrees in the labour market.

If you're trying to make the case that one of them is more knowledgable than the other, you're really not selling it.

That point has already been made, when you failed to refute it by summoning a single statement from AOC that you found problematic. The subsequent postings on this point have been dragged on due to an excessive stubbornness and insecurity on your part.

More like, you couldn't bring up any science to support your assertions because you don't understand the science.

Being a witness to an event doesn't make one an authority on the subject. I don't need to explain how nonsensical that sounds.

You are tried by your own words. You said referencing the Pentagon was an appeal to authority. Why do you think the Pentagon are an authority on Climate Change? That is your contention, not mine. You also said an appeal to authority is not convincing, so why would you care whether the Pentagon was an authority on Climate Change or not, in order to understand the logic of them witnessing Climate Change around the globe?

https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en...nd_natural-gas-and-renewables-dominate-growth

A single link to an Exxon mouthpiece does precious little for your position. It's irrelevant, especially since you haven't demonstrated what share of renewables make up revenue for Exxon, compared to oil and gas production. If Big Oil who owns the GOP, lock, stock, and barrel, actually supported renewables, they would work with the EPA to regulate the private sector, rather than destroying the EPA's ability to regulate.

Exxon asks U.S. regulator to block climate-change resolution: investors - Reuters

Exxon Mobil Corp is trying to block an investor proposal that calls on the world’s largest publicly traded oil company to set targets for lowering its greenhouse gas emissions, two of the investor groups involved said on Sunday.

What are Exxon's emissions and how many oil refineries are they going to close down to build wind farms in their place? :lamo

All of what you have posted is a complete red herring known of these post tells me her agenda; just ideas that she happens to supports. Saying, "I support idea A" and saying "this is how we will achieve idea A" are two different things. The latter will get your proposals unanimously voted down in the Senate.

Relevant polling data on AOC's platform is a red herring :lamo Please, your not a serious person.

 

[manofknowledge]

There is very little one can say to demonstrate that winning low-grade popularity contest are expectional. AOC has a seat in Congress; Trump is in the White House.

"Trump never won the popular vote," one might say. Yeah, well AOC wasn't elected by the people, either. She simply used an exploit called "primarying" (her words) in districts with very low turnout where Republican challenge is all but unlikely.

There are real people who really attempt to demonstrate that they deserve to be in the positions they are in.

"Primarying" means running for office.

 

[Tanya]

Tanya, again, with respect, I appreciate that you went back and watched the whole tape (apparently)I apparently missed who was lying...

No, you just don't understand what you're talking about.

I don't think she or I ever claimed to be a financier. But you are talking about a sliver of a slice of the "financial sector." I expect you know a great deal about your particular area of expertise. I have a good deal of expertise in my areas of study too. You are right, I've never worked "in finance" (if you don't count financial planning, which is "outside" of banking). So, I speak in generalities to a great extent. But, you are also talking outside of your expertise, and it also shows.

You are making assumptions and circumscribing the discussion to your particular narrow area of interest. I was generalizing the discussion of "risk analysis" - not specifying it to a particular analytical framework. As I noted earlier, in the retail example, "malicious intent" is clearly something that can be "modeled" in other areas. It appears you've never worked in retail or the law. Malicious intent is something that has to be proved all the time in court. To wit:

The question was about "the cost of doing things" in BANKING; not retail. It is unclear you decided to use it as an example because you don't understand what risk-analysis entails from a financial perspective.

Which demonstrates that you are talking outside your area of knowledge. Indeed, your statement is self-contradictory - if financial crimes are prosecuted less than other crimes (they decidedly are), then it follows that it is not a given that "anything illegal would most likely have been prosecuted."

White Collar Crimes are extremely resource-intensive both in investigation and prosecution. (I acknowledge here that I never prosecuted anything above check kiting, forgeries, and the like.) As I noted earlier, they don't get a lot of "bang" for the buck. My reference to Manafort was simply to prove that point - no goalpost moving. It is, in point of fact, far more likely that they are not prosecuted than they are. White Collar Prosecutions Fall to Lowest in 20 Years

Your reference to Manafort is a complete nonsequitor. It has little to nothing to do with the subject of the discussion: banking operations, banking fines related to the cost of doing business, and illegalities related to banking operations.

It's not that these crimes have gone down (quite the contrary Statistical Analysis of White-Collar Crime), it's that the resources to fight them have been taken away, and judges don't follow the sentencing guidelines when they do get prosecuted. Moreover, people fail to report white collar crime because they are unaware that they have been victimized.

All of that is just to point out that your statement "they most likely would have been prosecuted" is, well, just wrong.

I'll make you a deal: I won't pretend to know the intricacies of RiskMetrics, if you don't pretend to know about legal processes. Deal?

Everything you've said here is meaningless. We are not discussing simple white collar crime; we are discussing criminal banking operations from a large orgranisation. I don't understand why you keep conflating the two.

The fact that resources are not resources to fight white-collar crime has been taken away is irrelevant. This has no bearing on any crimes (potential or otherwise) related to the 2008 credit crunch, finance or banking, which I can assure you, have plenty of resources devoted to preventing criminal activity (SEC, FINRA, FDIC, etc). You simply don't understand what you are talking about.

 

[Tanya]

"Primarying" means running for office.

Not according to AOC.