Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

[iPeat]

Tell it to Yang, they’re his ideas. You probably won’t though, because you’re just trolling.

LOL $12k is enough to sit around and scratch your butt?! Where do you live?!?! You are not able to testify as to what other people are thinking/feeling, so you should stop including things like this in your comments if you want to be taken seriously.

Alaska already has UBI (for years) from oil money, and it’s worked great. You’d know this if you actually did some homework and read Yang’s site. But you’re just here to express your emotions and to troll.

What exactly are these truck drivers going to do? And do they even want to? Yang addresses this on his website, please visit it.

The numbers are that retraining has a <15% success rate. So no ones thinking anyone are morons, history shows people are not as adaptable as you think. Either they can’t or don’t want to.

You’re arguments are exactly what Yang wants to avoid, because they haven’t been working. Doing the same thing expecting a different result is a sign of insanity/retardation. That’s not very Peat.

You: technology only changes the jobs available but never lowers them > people will find something else to do as they always have even though they don’t want to do it and the numbers show retraining doesn’t work > I’ll accuse you of thinking people are morons (weirdly injected emotional stmnt) > they’ll lose their job they like/that serves their interests but maybe they’ll get lucky and technology will create something they like even though technology doesn’t reduce jobs, it just makes new ones people like better, with better pay, working conditions, and location > let’s keep our fingers crossed

You do a lot of speculation about people for someone telling me not to. Your statements are vague and purely emotional opinion about what should be.

iPeat land....where the “free market” equates to being a slave to market forces ... but hey, at least jobs are never reduced, you’re just displaced and have a life event at 50 with a family and health problems, but at least you’ll get to learn a new trade from the ground up, and if you’re lucky you’ll actually like it!!

Hey, good on you for doing all that research. I've listened to him speak on several occasions, read some of his stuff, and have listened to counterarguments. That's all the energy I'm willing to expend on someone that has no chance of having their policies implemented anytime soon.

I regret that you're misinterpreting everything I'm saying and not seeing my underlying arguments. I don't think it's productive for the 2 of us to continue this discussion so I'm gonna bail after this post. We're on different wavelengths and I seem to be bothering you.

I look at it simply. I see the core fundamentals of what has made countries rich, and what has kept countries poor. The countries that have embraced their human capital, and kept it as free as possible, have become the most prosperous and progressive. The countries that rely on stealing money from the productive people in their society usually fail, or at best, stagnate.

"You can only confiscate the material wealth. You cannot confiscate the human capital." -Thomas Sowell

If technology replaces 99% of human production, that will mean we can be 99% more productive. We can get the same job done (as a society and as individuals) with far less effort, making our lives way easier (that's Peat-y, no?). We don't need government's "help" dealing with progress.

As you said, doing the same thing expecting a different result is undesirable. Yang's plan is just an expansion of the same tried and tested social program failures of the last 70 years. Spending your way to prosperity has never worked and I personally don't see why Yang's plan would be any different.

"...give them spoons..." -Milton Friedman

Good luck with everything. Hopefully we can have a more pleasant discussion over on the Progesterone threads or something lol. I'll now respectfully agree to disagree and bow out.

 

[Satellite]

Hey, good on you for doing all that research. I've listened to him speak on several occasions, read some of his stuff, and have listened to counterarguments. That's all the energy I'm willing to expend on someone that has no chance of having their policies implemented anytime soon.

I regret that you're misinterpreting everything I'm saying and not seeing my underlying arguments. I don't think it's productive for the 2 of us to continue this discussion so I'm gonna bail after this post. We're on different wavelengths and I seem to be bothering you.

I look at it simply. I see the core fundamentals of what has made countries rich, and what has kept countries poor. The countries that have embraced their human capital, and kept it as free as possible, have become the most prosperous and progressive. The countries that rely on stealing money from the productive people in their society usually fail, or at best, stagnate.

"You can only confiscate the material wealth. You cannot confiscate the human capital." -Thomas Sowell

If technology replaces 99% of human production, that will mean we can be 99% more productive. We can get the same job done (as a society and as individuals) with far less effort, making our lives way easier (that's Peat-y, no?). We don't need government's "help" dealing with progress.

As you said, doing the same thing expecting a different result is undesirable. Yang's plan is just an expansion of the same tried and tested social program failures of the last 70 years. Spending your way to prosperity has never worked and I personally don't see why Yang's plan would be any different.

"...give them spoons..." -Milton Friedman

Good luck with everything. Hopefully we can have a more pleasant discussion over on the Progesterone threads or something lol. I'll now respectfully agree to disagree and bow out.

I am not misinterpreting anything, I am trying to help you with your comprehension problems. Perhaps too much serotonin or estrogen; you also seem sensitive and unable to accept criticism.

Do you understand the concept of stealing??

I really don’t know how to say it any other way.

As I’ve explained...
No one is stealing anything.
Nor creating new money.
Yang merely wants to change the way the existing cash flows.

It’s these tech giants that are stealing, stealing our data and using it to make billions without giving citizens their equity.

Stealing jobs and uprooting people. Sure some may become better off, others not. The point is that they’re causing mass disruption, but not offering a solution.

The UBI in Alaska has been very successful for years!

We need government or someone to regulate, because companies are not voluntarily helping citizens. They implement technology to cut costs and increase profits, nothing else.

It’s a measly $1K per month, not an income replacement. It’s just enough to move into that house you always wanted, or buy a new car, or start a side business, or go shopping/on vacation, etc.

$1K doesn’t go very far, but it’s enough of a security blanket to increase mobility. The system is currently designed for immobility, it’s very hard to move up in socio-economic class, because making money is insanely hard.

The people at the top who create value will still create value and those on welfare may even stay at that level, but they’ll all be circulating more money.

There’s literally no other way to prosperity other than spending. Not one person ever got rich with a savings account, not even a 401K. The wealthy all have or had astronomical debt. Financing productive assets is required.

You do realize that these “productive” people all use other people’s money to create their value right? Either directly or indirectly.

Business loans come from banks who make their money off the citizens making deposits at their bank. That money then flows out to be “productive”, but will not impact every person in the nation. How much has your bank paid you for your savings? How much has it made off you?

Very rarely will any company who truly creates value for the world have 100% owner financing, and I don’t mean stockholders, I mean the founder bank rolled everything from their own pocket.

Trickle down just doesn’t work for the masses.

 

[nwo2012]

I'm sure you can find lots of opinions saying that. The facts are another thing, though.


Sure it's disputed. The effects of tax cuts depend on who they go to (to what extent they are regressive vs progressive), how they are balanced with revenue (or not - adding large debt, which is likely to burden the economy), and what spending is being reduced to enable the tax cuts.

In general, there are almost always more effective ways to stimulate an economy than to give tax cuts on high incomes. Most of the US tax cuts in the current US admin have gone to the 1% (contrary to what they said would happen). They suggested that would help them increase wages, but that didn't happen. There were stock buy backs etc though.


It's relative, but they don't look like high rates to me, compared with what they've been in the past, or with what many other wealthy countries do.

If by helicopter money you mean giving a little money to everyone, it's more likely to stimulate the economy than targetting large tax cuts mainly for the wealthiest 1% or less.

I'm not in US, and I'm not advocating policy, and I don't know what realistic levels such policies could be run at in the short term. But it doesn't look particularly absurd compared with the reality of the way the current US economy is run.
Sure the money would have to come from somewhere. But if you are talking basic income, what people actually need to live, then that has to come from somewhere anyway. It's a matter of working out mechanisms. Progressive taxation can be one part of the mechanism. Obviously, that's in the opposite direction to the recent tax cuts, the bulk of which went to the wealthy. (It's funny how some of the deficit hawks can be so vigilant about spending that is clearly needed, but fall silent when it comes to putting 100s of billions in the pockets of a few who clearly don't need it. )

It has an extremely low minimum wage, and CEOs of big corporations can get paid several hundred times what their basic workers get.
Reduce inequality, and you reduce a major driver for many expensive problems.

To some extent, this looks like an issue with allowing reserve bank functions to be handled (and profited from) by a private institutions. This seems a bizarre situation.
Hyperinflation is a problem. But I think a little inflation tends to remove more value from those with large savings than those with hardly any.

From here, it looks a lot less insane to give the money to everyone, including those most harmed by the crash, than to specifically reward the institutions and people that created the problem (especially when the elected leadership don't dare to regulate them adequately to prevent repeats).


You don't have to play devil's advocate to observe that.
Another thing that would likely reduce poverty and homelessness would be paying people who work a living/family wage for a reasonable working week. If automation is reducing jobs, then reducing the standard work week (and incorporating reasonable vacation time, like most western countries do) might make sense too.




This is the kind of anti-Jewish attitude that has emboldened the scapegoating and pogroms against Jews repeatedly over centuries. By all means look hard at the harm done by the financial institutions, and figure out how to change them/prevent it, but don't confuse it with anti-semitism. It's wrong, and it makes the job of solving it harder.

Unfortunately you cant play the get out of jail free card on me with the antisemitism BS. Thats all its ever been. Centuries past it usually followed after jews were forced out of towns worlwide when caught sacrificing children of goyim. Im born of jews so the best you could use on me is call me self hating. Which is the card used when they cant use the antisemitism one.
But nobody expects you to not be blinded. They own hollywood and majority if the media afterall.

 

[lampofred]

Unfortunately you cant play the get out of jail free card on me with the antisemitism BS. Thats all its ever been. Centuries past it usually followed after jews were forced out of towns worlwide when caught sacrificing children of goyim. Im born of jews so the best you could use on me is call me self hating. Which is the card used when they cant use the antisemitism one.
But nobody expects you to not be blinded. They own hollywood and majority if the media afterall.

I don't know about child sacrifice or any major conspiracy theory type stuff, and the ordinary citizens I have met in real life have been great & kind people, but I think there is a lot of evidence that the ultra-orthodox at the top have been implementing deeply thought out plans for control of the world's money supply and strongly support religious warfare to remove all religions that are not of the book.

I don't believe that they are truly evil (I think they are doing it because they believe they know what is best for the world, not out of malice) and I definitely do not at all subscribe to the "master" / "inferior" race type of thinking, but I agree that the people at the top are very likely not "live and let live" type of people.

My 2c.

 

[yerrag]

strongly support religious warfare to remove all religions that are not of the book.

Far from it. They are masters at coopting institutions, religions included, so that these religions can be used to further achieve their goals.

Look at how many evangelical Christians embrace Israel and come to their defense. This is just one example. I think many pastors are on the take. It's one thing not being antisemitist, but another to become an accomplice or confederate.

Another example is how the goyims in the ruling family of Saudi Arabia play the opposition to Israel.

These are just two examples.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

You don't have to play devil's advocate to observe that.
Another thing that would likely reduce poverty and homelessness would be paying people who work a living/family wage for a reasonable working week. If automation is reducing jobs, then reducing the standard work week (and incorporating reasonable vacation time, like most western countries do) might make sense too.

So paying people their guaranteed wage/ UBI on a weekly basis? @Satellite mentioned earlier that the Ubi would maybe be paid at the beginning of the month, which would have more of an anti- stress effect than receiving it weekly, right? I'm not sure the system will allow people whose jobs aren't automated yet to work less days of the week, although I can see that improving productivity.

 

[Satellite]

What is Universal Basic Income? - Yang2020 - Andrew Yang for President