Who Here Stands With Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?

[jc456]

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty,

An expensive handout that incentivizes sloth. Nope.

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

That is the stupidest post ever. What demand have they made. Nothing changes. What 5th grade economic book are you reading? You can’t equate taxes to demand of goods. Your analogy doesn’t follow through. They spend more of their income because their income is low. As their income increase the amount as a percentage of their income that is spent goes down. Jesus! Get some help.

Christ, I need to take my own advice. I can’t do this with a myopic neophyte like you.

People spending wages from fifteen dollars an hour and people receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; Must create some Demand in Any economy.

That’s where you’re wrong. But go figure, it’s you

 

[jc456]

Lazy dumb Entitlement degenerates. They absolutely adore her.

she should be able to raise plenty of cash, then.

we routinely have to bailout the rich.

the right wing Only complain about the Poor, simply Because, the Poor are not capitally Worth it under our form of Capitalism.

Her supporter-base is made up of mostly Entitlement douchebags. Typical Democrats.

the left claims to be moral enough to be socialist and care about the poor, not just the profit.

The best thing for the poor is an education and a good paying job. Government can't provide that. That's why socialism fails.

The government can’t provide education? Are you high? So tell me. Let’s take government out of the picture. What incentive does the private industry have to educate the poor?

I’m sure they can do a great job educating the wealthy which is why private / prep schools do so well. But tell me how the poor fit into the business model?

They don’t, they like free money

 

[tycho1572]

I first thought she was a republican masquerading as a liberal to highlight their ignorance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I first thought she was a republican masquerading as a liberal to highlight their ignorance.

It's impossible to fake that level of stupid. One must GENUINELY be an imbecile to pull that off.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Fox news has conservatives trained like dogs. You guys just hate whoever they tell you to hate.

Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
David Hogg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Oh yeah, THAT'S why we dislike those people: because Fox News told us to. It can't POSSIBLY be because they're all nasty, objectionable people in their own right, with terrible ideas. Good God, no! They're leftists, so they're automatically perfect, charming, and brilliant, and we're all just brainwashed to hate.

In other news, I'm very sorry to hear that your lobotomy scars are itching.

There are plenty of leftists. Those ones are targeted by Fox, and just like the good little sheep that you guys are, THOSE are the ones that you guys target.

I suppose you think that's a coincidence lol.

Coincidence? No. I think there's a very clear chain of causality.

Nancy Pelosi - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, because she's MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. So . . . kind of an important person.

Hillary Clinton - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, because she's THE MOST RECENT DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. So . . . kind of an important person.

David Hogg - Is reported on by Fox, because he's reported on by the mainstream media, as THE FACE OF GUN CONTROL. He's not especially important, but the issue kind of is, being all related to Constitutional rights and shit.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, as THE FACE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. She's vaguely important, since she's going to be a Congressional Representative, and the movement to fundamentally change our entire society and economy is quite important.

Of course there are other Democrats/leftists out there, and here's a newsflash: we don't like them either.

Any time the media wants to stop nominating poster children to sing paeans to, they're welcome to do so. But don't think you're going to dodge having to answer for stupid policies and stupid people pushing them by dismissing it as "You just hate them because Fox says so." We hate them because they're a boil on the ass of America. We talk about hating them because the media - ALL of it, not just Fox - brought them up in conversation.

Hillary Clinton hasn't been relevant since 2016. Mitt Romney and John McCain were hardly talked about at all after they lost their respective elections.

Your handlers must be so proud of you!

 

[XponentialChaos]

Fox news has conservatives trained like dogs. You guys just hate whoever they tell you to hate.

Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
David Hogg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

So you love Nancy Pelosi? Ewwww....

Please, get help.

That's a good boy!

Now roll over! Shake hands!

Gawd you are dull.

SRSLY

The Noobs here just keep getting duller and dullerer.

So sad.

Get back to me when your handlers give you something more clever to say.

Your gauge for "cleverness" doesn't function, so I'll pass.

Well that was at least better than calling someone a noob on an anonymous internet message board.

You're getting there.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I'll donate to her campaign if she debates Shapiro.

 

[EverCurious]

danielpalos

You're entire theory essentially relies on a belief that "greed" only exists in "capitalist's" (the rich, wealthy, business peeps, etc) That is patently false. You can huff and puff about being "more moral" by "providing" a "good life" for every American (or human) all you want, but the reality is that people, in general, are proven to be both lazy and greedy and will take the easiest path 99% of the time. You cannot support a nation on these principles because the tax money dries up real fast when no one bothers to work.

EDIT: You can actually see the above principle in action when it comes to our public education - For example, it's not that our K-12 schools are not free and available; it's that the students drop out or fail to apply themselves to the "goal" of graduation. It's also not necessarily that the "education sucks" either, when's the last time any employer has asked any new hire about basic HS knowledge? Employers just want to see the piece of paper, the diploma, that say's Hey this kid was dedicated to graduating and put in the effort. The actual information learned in school, even college, is 90% quasi useless bullshit and 10% actual usable on the job information. They want to see proof of effort.

You are basically talking about a "Star Trek" fantasy economy, problem is we can't just replicate everything everyone needs for free. Every bit of what you want [that "quality of life"] costs money; money that won't magically appear simply because you want to do the "moral thing" for folks. EVEN if you completely got rid of the "trading money for labor" model we use, (aka straight up communism where the gov controls all jobs and shit) the gov would /still/ have to pay for many products and a foreign government which produces them (while American's sit on their asses) isn't going to accept your "moral currency" in trade - further that is an idea that 100% turns every citizen of the country into a slave of the government...


Start with this decent primer that goes fairly in depth about why supply side economics has made America one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, also touches upon how capitalism has massively reduced global poverty, which is a real and proven "morally good" argument.

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.

You mean a never ending circle of increased cost of living. If you increase min wage, businesses raise prices, then the folks at the bottom making min wage can't afford the "current" cost of living - requiring another increase in minimum wage. Rinse and repeat.

No, I mean more automatic stabilization of the markets in our economy.

The goal of automatic stabilization is to typically to increase employment and higher productivity (and thus higher gov revenue through taxes) We are, right now, at one of the lowest unemployment rates seen in the nation so there is /zero/ point to automatic stabilization.

The purpose and use of such policy is /not/ to "increase wages" or reduce "income inequality" which is what your pipe dream boils down to, in fact, the application of automatic stabilization would do the /opposite/ of your stated goal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Fox news has conservatives trained like dogs. You guys just hate whoever they tell you to hate.

Nancy Pelosi
Hillary Clinton
David Hogg
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Oh yeah, THAT'S why we dislike those people: because Fox News told us to. It can't POSSIBLY be because they're all nasty, objectionable people in their own right, with terrible ideas. Good God, no! They're leftists, so they're automatically perfect, charming, and brilliant, and we're all just brainwashed to hate.

In other news, I'm very sorry to hear that your lobotomy scars are itching.

There are plenty of leftists. Those ones are targeted by Fox, and just like the good little sheep that you guys are, THOSE are the ones that you guys target.

I suppose you think that's a coincidence lol.

Coincidence? No. I think there's a very clear chain of causality.

Nancy Pelosi - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, because she's MINORITY LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. So . . . kind of an important person.

Hillary Clinton - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, because she's THE MOST RECENT DEMOCRAT CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT. So . . . kind of an important person.

David Hogg - Is reported on by Fox, because he's reported on by the mainstream media, as THE FACE OF GUN CONTROL. He's not especially important, but the issue kind of is, being all related to Constitutional rights and shit.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez - Is reported on by Fox, because she's reported on by the mainstream media, as THE FACE OF DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. She's vaguely important, since she's going to be a Congressional Representative, and the movement to fundamentally change our entire society and economy is quite important.

Of course there are other Democrats/leftists out there, and here's a newsflash: we don't like them either.

Any time the media wants to stop nominating poster children to sing paeans to, they're welcome to do so. But don't think you're going to dodge having to answer for stupid policies and stupid people pushing them by dismissing it as "You just hate them because Fox says so." We hate them because they're a boil on the ass of America. We talk about hating them because the media - ALL of it, not just Fox - brought them up in conversation.

Hillary Clinton hasn't been relevant since 2016. Mitt Romney and John McCain were hardly talked about at all after they lost their respective elections.

Your handlers must be so proud of you!

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is still relevant to SOMEONE, since she's still getting newsprint, Chuckles. Romney and McCain stopped being talked about because they both had the decency to go back to their lives, and because the MSM didn't worship them.

Your brain surgeon probably has your frontal lobe in a jar on his desk, right?

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

That is the stupidest post ever. What demand have they made. Nothing changes. What 5th grade economic book are you reading? You can’t equate taxes to demand of goods. Your analogy doesn’t follow through. They spend more of their income because their income is low. As their income increase the amount as a percentage of their income that is spent goes down. Jesus! Get some help.

Christ, I need to take my own advice. I can’t do this with a myopic neophyte like you.

People spending wages from fifteen dollars an hour and people receiving unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed; Must create some Demand in Any economy.

That’s where you’re wrong. But go figure, it’s you

nope; i am right even though i am on the left; and, you are wrong, even though you are on the right.

there is a difference, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

danielpalos

You're entire theory essentially relies on a belief that "greed" only exists in "capitalist's" (the rich, wealthy, business peeps, etc) That is patently false. You can huff and puff about being "more moral" by "providing" a "good life" for every American (or human) all you want, but the reality is that people, in general, are proven to be both lazy and greedy and will take the easiest path 99% of the time. You cannot support a nation on these principles because the tax money dries up real fast when no one bothers to work.

EDIT: You can actually see the above principle in action when it comes to our public education - For example, it's not that our K-12 schools are not free and available; it's that the students drop out or fail to apply themselves to the "goal" of graduation. It's also not necessarily that the "education sucks" either, when's the last time any employer has asked any new hire about basic HS knowledge? Employers just want to see the piece of paper, the diploma, that say's Hey this kid was dedicated to graduating and put in the effort. The actual information learned in school, even college, is 90% quasi useless bullshit and 10% actual usable on the job information. They want to see proof of effort.

You are basically talking about a "Star Trek" fantasy economy, problem is we can't just replicate everything everyone needs for free. Every bit of what you want [that "quality of life"] costs money; money that won't magically appear simply because you want to do the "moral thing" for folks. EVEN if you completely got rid of the "trading money for labor" model we use, (aka straight up communism where the gov controls all jobs and shit) the gov would /still/ have to pay for many products and a foreign government which produces them (while American's sit on their asses) isn't going to accept your "moral currency" in trade - further that is an idea that 100% turns every citizen of the country into a slave of the government...


Start with this decent primer that goes fairly in depth about why supply side economics has made America one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, also touches upon how capitalism has massively reduced global poverty, which is a real and proven "morally good" argument.

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.

You mean a never ending circle of increased cost of living. If you increase min wage, businesses raise prices, then the folks at the bottom making min wage can't afford the "current" cost of living - requiring another increase in minimum wage. Rinse and repeat.

No, I mean more automatic stabilization of the markets in our economy.

The goal of automatic stabilization is to typically to increase employment and higher productivity (and thus higher gov revenue through taxes) We are, right now, at one of the lowest unemployment rates seen in the nation so there is /zero/ point to automatic stabilization.

The purpose and use of such policy is /not/ to "increase wages" or reduce "income inequality" which is what your pipe dream boils down to, in fact, the application of automatic stabilization would do the /opposite/ of your stated goal.

that isn't good enough for the left, dear.

full employment equals one hundred percent, for the left.

 

[EverCurious]

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage is a cost of living adjustment.

A fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage will cause many unskilled/low-skilled workers to be unemployable.

Unemployment compensation for being unemployed in our at-will employment States solves for simple poverty.

Huge spending programs that also reduce the incentive to work will harm our economy.

and giga-recycling "factories" help with social costs by creating a market for repurposable goods.

Feel free to invest your weed earnings in that.​

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty, and a sustainable solution for our environment.

For the People! Not the capital Profit!

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty,

An expensive handout that incentivizes sloth. Nope.

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

And NOTHING those folks have to put into the economy will ever, ever compare to the amount of money that the wealthy put into the economy.

A fast food worker making an extra $1200 a month is not worth the economic instability of doubling the minimum wage... not even close.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is still relevant to SOMEONE, since she's still getting newsprint, Chuckles. Romney and McCain stopped being talked about because they both had the decency to go back to their lives, and because the MSM didn't worship them.

Your brain surgeon probably has your frontal lobe in a jar on his desk, right?

Excellent. I think we've come full circle now.

She's still relevant to conservatives, who have been trained by Fox news to hate Hillary Clinton, despite her lack of relevance.

Good job. Here's a treat.

 

[danielpalos]

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty, and a sustainable solution for our environment.

For the People! Not the capital Profit!

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty,

An expensive handout that incentivizes sloth. Nope.

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

And NOTHING those folks have to put into the economy will ever, ever compare to the amount of money that the wealthy put into the economy.

A fast food worker making an extra $1200 a month is not worth the economic instability of doubling the minimum wage... not even close.

The law of large numbers applies. And, the poor spend money locally, not in foreign tax shelters that make more money, with any tax break simply due to the already existing Wealth.

 

[EverCurious]

danielpalos

You're entire theory essentially relies on a belief that "greed" only exists in "capitalist's" (the rich, wealthy, business peeps, etc) That is patently false. You can huff and puff about being "more moral" by "providing" a "good life" for every American (or human) all you want, but the reality is that people, in general, are proven to be both lazy and greedy and will take the easiest path 99% of the time. You cannot support a nation on these principles because the tax money dries up real fast when no one bothers to work.

EDIT: You can actually see the above principle in action when it comes to our public education - For example, it's not that our K-12 schools are not free and available; it's that the students drop out or fail to apply themselves to the "goal" of graduation. It's also not necessarily that the "education sucks" either, when's the last time any employer has asked any new hire about basic HS knowledge? Employers just want to see the piece of paper, the diploma, that say's Hey this kid was dedicated to graduating and put in the effort. The actual information learned in school, even college, is 90% quasi useless bullshit and 10% actual usable on the job information. They want to see proof of effort.

You are basically talking about a "Star Trek" fantasy economy, problem is we can't just replicate everything everyone needs for free. Every bit of what you want [that "quality of life"] costs money; money that won't magically appear simply because you want to do the "moral thing" for folks. EVEN if you completely got rid of the "trading money for labor" model we use, (aka straight up communism where the gov controls all jobs and shit) the gov would /still/ have to pay for many products and a foreign government which produces them (while American's sit on their asses) isn't going to accept your "moral currency" in trade - further that is an idea that 100% turns every citizen of the country into a slave of the government...


Start with this decent primer that goes fairly in depth about why supply side economics has made America one of the wealthiest nations on the planet, also touches upon how capitalism has massively reduced global poverty, which is a real and proven "morally good" argument.

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.

You mean a never ending circle of increased cost of living. If you increase min wage, businesses raise prices, then the folks at the bottom making min wage can't afford the "current" cost of living - requiring another increase in minimum wage. Rinse and repeat.

No, I mean more automatic stabilization of the markets in our economy.

The goal of automatic stabilization is to typically to increase employment and higher productivity (and thus higher gov revenue through taxes) We are, right now, at one of the lowest unemployment rates seen in the nation so there is /zero/ point to automatic stabilization.

The purpose and use of such policy is /not/ to "increase wages" or reduce "income inequality" which is what your pipe dream boils down to, in fact, the application of automatic stabilization would do the /opposite/ of your stated goal.

that isn't good enough for the left, dear.

full employment equals one hundred percent, for the left.

Yeah... that's just stupid because there is no such thing as 100% employment (unless you're talking slavery.) There's folks like me, who could work, but chose not to for whatever reason - for me its because I'm retired (and don't need the money,) but one of the biggest groups would be the ones who are taking care of their kids, or teens/young adults who are supported by their parents (like my almost 20 year old son who's in college and who I'd rather full time his degree than make a few dollars he'll just waste on video games and soda heh) There are also folks who /can't/ work due to disabilities, and criminals who are in jail and thus can't work, and rich folks who don't work, etc., etc.

 

[danielpalos]

we really just need a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage, unemployment compensation for being unemployed on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States, and giga-recycling factories to help with social costs.

You mean a never ending circle of increased cost of living. If you increase min wage, businesses raise prices, then the folks at the bottom making min wage can't afford the "current" cost of living - requiring another increase in minimum wage. Rinse and repeat.

No, I mean more automatic stabilization of the markets in our economy.

The goal of automatic stabilization is to typically to increase employment and higher productivity (and thus higher gov revenue through taxes) We are, right now, at one of the lowest unemployment rates seen in the nation so there is /zero/ point to automatic stabilization.

The purpose and use of such policy is /not/ to "increase wages" or reduce "income inequality" which is what your pipe dream boils down to, in fact, the application of automatic stabilization would do the /opposite/ of your stated goal.

that isn't good enough for the left, dear.

full employment equals one hundred percent, for the left.

Yeah... that's just stupid because there is no such thing as 100% employment (unless you're talking slavery.) There's folks like me, who could work, but chose not to for whatever reason - for me its because I'm retired (and don't need the money,) but one of the biggest groups would be the ones who are taking care of their kids, or teens/young adults who are supported by their parents (like my almost 20 year old son who's in college and who I'd rather full time his degree than make a few dollars he'll just waste on video games and soda heh) There are also folks who /can't/ work due to disabilities, and criminals who are in jail and thus can't work, and rich folks who don't work, etc., etc.

The point is, capital circulates Because we have market economies. People are, either employed, unemployed or on means tested welfare; either way, the social safety net establishes greater stability in our markets, automatically.

 

[EverCurious]

A cost of living adjustment, a solution for simple poverty,

An expensive handout that incentivizes sloth. Nope.

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

And NOTHING those folks have to put into the economy will ever, ever compare to the amount of money that the wealthy put into the economy.

A fast food worker making an extra $1200 a month is not worth the economic instability of doubling the minimum wage... not even close.

The law of large numbers applies. And, the poor spend money locally, not in foreign tax shelters that make more money, with any tax break simply due to the already existing Wealth.

No, typically the poor spend the bulk of any "extra" money on cheap products that are almost never made locally, hell most of them aren't even made nationally...

 

[Cecilie1200]

Obviously, Hillary Clinton is still relevant to SOMEONE, since she's still getting newsprint, Chuckles. Romney and McCain stopped being talked about because they both had the decency to go back to their lives, and because the MSM didn't worship them.

Your brain surgeon probably has your frontal lobe in a jar on his desk, right?

Excellent. I think we've come full circle now.

She's still relevant to conservatives, who have been trained by Fox news to hate Hillary Clinton, despite her lack of relevance.

Good job. Here's a treat.

No, dumb shit. You really think the mainstream media is printing stories about HRC because CONSERVATIVES are dying to hear about her? No, we'd love it if she'd shut up and fade into obscurity like failed candidates are SUPPOSED to do. WE are not the ones spending time and money to go hear that hag's speeches.

Bad job. No treat for you. Not 'til you're bright enough to stop piddling on the rug.

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

Stop complaining about the poor not paying their share of Taxes, right wingers.

How does it create more demand? This should be good.

Higher paid labor pays more in taxes and creates more in demand.

The poor tend to spend most of their discretionary income.

And NOTHING those folks have to put into the economy will ever, ever compare to the amount of money that the wealthy put into the economy.

A fast food worker making an extra $1200 a month is not worth the economic instability of doubling the minimum wage... not even close.

The law of large numbers applies. And, the poor spend money locally, not in foreign tax shelters that make more money, with any tax break simply due to the already existing Wealth.

No, typically the poor spend the bulk of any "extra" money on cheap products that are almost never made locally, hell most of them aren't even made nationally...

The point is dear, that money circulates locally and pays local taxes along with that demand that requires Labor.

 

[EverCurious]

You mean a never ending circle of increased cost of living. If you increase min wage, businesses raise prices, then the folks at the bottom making min wage can't afford the "current" cost of living - requiring another increase in minimum wage. Rinse and repeat.

No, I mean more automatic stabilization of the markets in our economy.

The goal of automatic stabilization is to typically to increase employment and higher productivity (and thus higher gov revenue through taxes) We are, right now, at one of the lowest unemployment rates seen in the nation so there is /zero/ point to automatic stabilization.

The purpose and use of such policy is /not/ to "increase wages" or reduce "income inequality" which is what your pipe dream boils down to, in fact, the application of automatic stabilization would do the /opposite/ of your stated goal.

that isn't good enough for the left, dear.

full employment equals one hundred percent, for the left.

Yeah... that's just stupid because there is no such thing as 100% employment (unless you're talking slavery.) There's folks like me, who could work, but chose not to for whatever reason - for me its because I'm retired (and don't need the money,) but one of the biggest groups would be the ones who are taking care of their kids, or teens/young adults who are supported by their parents (like my almost 20 year old son who's in college and who I'd rather full time his degree than make a few dollars he'll just waste on video games and soda heh) There are also folks who /can't/ work due to disabilities, and criminals who are in jail and thus can't work, and rich folks who don't work, etc., etc.

The point is, capital circulates Because we have market economies. People are, either employed, unemployed or on means tested welfare; either way, the social safety net establishes greater stability in our markets, automatically.

Massive social safety nets encourage and enable sloth in our markets. See my prior example on HS. Hand out, not hand up, which means that folks /only/ get welfare when they are truly in need aka starving, not everyone in the bottom 20% of our well above starving/having no house level of statisticians "poverty" When you take safety nets to the level ours are at already, much less take them further as you propose, you encourage and enable non-productive citizens who are a complete drag on the entire economy. This brings down the quality of living across the nation, another imaginary figure created in absence of the reality of what is a "good" quality of life by statistics.