Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

Discussion in 'Political Talk, Alternative World Theories' started by Nestito, Oct 4, 2019.

  1. Nestito

    Nestito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Gender:
    Male


    This is where I first heard of him and after this podcast I've jumped in and have become obsessed. His UBI idea sounds absurd at first, but he's really onto something. He's not only just UBI, but has a bunch of other really good policy ideas.

    I've literally never been so excited about a presidential candidate in my life.
     
  2. jzeno

    jzeno Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh for fucs sake. Gtfo of here with that nonsense.

    Why not just lower taxes instead of raising taxes and then redistributing income? The most ******* childish, moronic take I've ever heard. Moron (Yang, not you).

    It's just silly and anyone suggesting Ubi has not read the literature: it never works.

    Finland to end basic income trial after two years | Finland | The Guardian

    Pass. He should be laughed out of every debate stage, but the Democrats are so retarded they can't get their ***t together enough to call him out, because their ideas are even worse.
     
  3. OP
    Nestito

    Nestito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    There are some issues with the Finland trial, so I'll just leave this here where it touches on that. Andrew Yang: I'm running for president and everyone deserves $1,000 a month — so I'm putting my money where my mouth is

    The thing with income and wealth taxes is that there are plenty of loopholes and pitfalls with them. VAT is the way to go, as most industrialized countries have found out. You'd have to spend $120,000 a year to have your UBI cancel out, which most of us won't even come close to doing.

    and again, the reason this even needs to be discussed is because of the vast amounts of jobs that'll be displaced in the coming decades with automation.

    Thanks for replying Jzeno.
     
  4. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    1,895
    Gender:
    Male
    Did you fully listen to what Yang said? The tax is a value added tax placed on companies that are using automation to take away jobs, not on citizens. Apparently Amazon made a trillion dollars last year but paid 0 in taxes, so obviously tax laws have to be changed; the only thing really radical he's saying is that this tax money from corporations is going to go directly to people instead of the US government, because the gov will just squander it.
     
  5. ScurveDream

    ScurveDream Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    World Citizen -- Maybe....
    I've heard of and been a follower for some time.

    I'm looking forward to the next debates.
     
  6. OP
    Nestito

    Nestito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    Me too! It sucks he's being blacked out by the media and moderators, he'd own anybody on that stage. He's definitely the Peatiest as far as the future of work is concerned.

    "Our present lives are usually divided between routine work and entertainment. The entertainment is supposed to enliven us, to help us recover from the deadening effects of routine work. Some people put great energy and concentration into their hobbies, because they find the activity intrinsically interesting. Such intrinsic value and interest is what should be demanded of our work. But for many people, free time is routinized too. To them, Jarrett’s suggestion sounds like nothing but hard work. This is where the whole person has been affected by a certain approach to work, and work is seen as something to avoid ? the idle rich seem to have found the only satisfactory life."
    Peat, Ray. Nutrition for Women. Raymond Peat: Eugene, OR, 1993.

    UBI would certainly allow people a better chance to develop career paths they find meaning in.
     
  7. Rafael Lao Wai

    Rafael Lao Wai Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    It seems interesting.
     
  8. jzeno

    jzeno Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    Do your research. Finland isn't unique. Ubi is a poor idea and libs usually don't understand it enough to realize it's pitfalls but love taxes and sharing other people's wealth.

    https://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/universal-basic-income-experiments-fail/#

    The automation that we will and are experiencing is similar to the transition we made from an agrarian society to a manufacturing one. Yes it will be a change and challenge but Ubi is not going to be the tool to help us overcome those obstacles.
     
  9. OP
    Nestito

    Nestito Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    60
    Gender:
    Male
    It's actually an old idea that libertarians like Thomas Paine put forth forward at the founding of the country. It's not a new concept. But I hear ya, and I guess we'll just have to disagree.
     
  10. Lee Simeon

    Lee Simeon Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    239
    Gender:
    Male
    I get your point, but this current wave of automation is not inherently similar from the transition we made from an agrarian society. I think Yang paints a disturbing picture as to what could happen when truck drivers’ jobs are automated. Yet nearly every sector will be affected by it the use of AI. I for a long time thought that jobs like doctor, teacher, psychologist would be free of automation, but many people prefer a mental health chatbot to a real psychologist. Yang is one of the only ones who is talking about it, and while UBI is not a be all solution to automation, it is for sure a step in the right direction and certainly better than the plan of Bill de Blasio. UBI could even be an interesting idea regardless of automation, and I don’t believe the Finland experiment is a good example of why UBI is a bad idea. The full report is not done until next year so I am excited to read it, but the health and wellbeing of the population were significantly improved. Economic security was also improved and people became more optimistic about the future and experience enhanced cognitive abilities (improved concentration). Another interesting part is that people experienced increased trust in each other and also in their politicians.
    Regardless of the Finland experiment, I think the research is heavily in favor of UBI. Even the research that some people claim to be against UBI is even in favor of UBI. I think the Speenhamland system is a good example of this. People grow up to be healthier and more caring citizens, birth weights increases, less crime and substance abuse and more people are starting businesses. UBI would improve our health and make people more focused on each other and less on work that is not meaningful. While I respect Bernie Sanders for his character and grit, I believe UBI is for sure a better alternative to raising the minimum wage or FJG. UBI gives the people more power to bargain and peoples work situation would in many cases improve. Whether or not if one agrees with Yang on UBI or not, he has a ton of other good policies such as democracy dollars. Have you watched some of the longer videos of Yang? It is cool if you disagree with him, but he is certainly a smart individual with good morals. I would recommend you watch the interview with Eric Weinstein, Joe Rogan or Ben Shapiro if you have not already watched them :)
     
  11. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    473
    Gender:
    Male

    because that's a talking point created by think tanks owned by billionaires, not a coherent explanation for poverty.
     
  12. PTP

    PTP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2015
    Messages:
    43
    I used to believe in a UBI. But reading Henry George makes me think that the increased income would mostly be paid to landlords in the form of increased rent, effectively transferring tax revenue from average tax payer to land owners, much like feudal times. Henry George did seem in favour of a "universal pension", it's own form of UBI, but he would have it paid out of taxes on land.
     
  13. ScurveDream

    ScurveDream Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    World Citizen -- Maybe....
    I don't think altering taxes would make much of a difference for money issues.

    The simplest and most straightforward way to help with money is basically ... Money!

    People talk about tax cuts, economic changes/job market, stock market, etc. There is also talk of loans, financial aid and other things like medical that people want to be supported.

    What is the boogeyman with some when it comes to a universal income though? I mean it isn't all that different from wanting ease of access to healthcare approval/coverage for more people, financial aid, disabilities and loans/assistance anyways -- just making the process more to the point instead jumping through hoops in some cases.

    I don't think it is a bad idea at all. What harm can you expect from everyone having a higher baseline of guaranteed income? I think people exaggerate the inflation examples a bit too much.

    I don't think giving people $1,000.00 a month would make them not want to contribute or do anything in society that is helpful -- it would, if anything, make them more likely to do it since even the "laziest of the lazy" would have means of some sort/financial independence -- not to mention this likely will help more and more people have access and means of acquiring better health too.

    You wouldn't have to live with parents/family past 25-30+ like so many people are forced to do now pretty much because of insufficient income/lack of steady work.

    Besides UBI isn't all that Yang stands for -- that's just his "selling pitch" of sorts.

    But I really don't know why some are so against UBI no matter how you interpret the ideal possibilities from such a system. Sure, it can't "cure" low income issues, but at least it can prevent absolute rock bottom in many cases -- and help sort out homelessness + mental and social issues to some degree for many, many people. I don't see how changes taxes or "this or that" will help one come up with much needed rent they may short on; or how it will help someone struggling to find work or independence financially and getting out of a rut either.

    At best UBI provides a fallback for people -- it isn't meant to replace the concept for working or such entirely. And on a final note, I'm pretty sure this would reduce theft cases too as people who are compelled to steal usually do so because they have no money.

    There are endless ways you can look at this, but overall I think basic income is worth testing to see what it can bring to a massive and growing country like the U.S., both socially and economically.
     
  14. methylenewhite

    methylenewhite Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2018
    Messages:
    463
    Gender:
    Male
    UBI is a mental poison created by leftist psychos to destroy Western Civilization.
     
  15. JudiBlueHen

    JudiBlueHen Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2017
    Messages:
    44
    Gender:
    Female
    In most big cities, rent for a Junior one-bedroom apartment (very small maybe 400-500 sf) in a so-so neighborhood is about $1K or more. So, in effect, UBI would pay the rent. No more need for the city to subsidize rent payments. Of course, the person would still need to work to buy groceries, transportation, clothing, etc. So, it would be helpful for the person making very low wages and having to pay rent. But really, it is a TAX SUBSIDY for cities that are suffering huge budget deficits.
     
  16. thomas00

    thomas00 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    473
    Gender:
    Male
    have you tried bag breathing
     
  17. Rafael Lao Wai

    Rafael Lao Wai Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2017
    Messages:
    800
    Gender:
    Male
    I just finished listening to this podcast. He touched on many interesting topics, and I agree with him on pretty much everything he's said.

    It just seems like the way to go regarding the UBI. Shouldn't technology be used to enrich the population instead of being used by a few families to get extremely rich at the expense of everyone else? I'd be happy if truck drivers could find meaning doing another, less damaging activity, although I understand that avoiding a habit that they've had for years could cause some severe stress.

    I was surprised that this podcast was from freaking February. Youtube didn't even suggested it to me, even though it suggests me other JRE videos. It's a popular one too, with more than 4 million views. Didn't hear anything about them in the news, which I thought I would, since his ideas are extremely interesting and very pertinent to what's going on regarding automation. But then again, I didn't hear anything about automation being a problem, so the media is certainly just not talking about it.

    Thanks for posting this!
     
  18. ScurveDream

    ScurveDream Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2019
    Messages:
    169
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    World Citizen -- Maybe....
    I think the issue is that there will always be trouble with people and working certain jobs. Everyone isn't suited just basically "for a job" and that's problematic itself (this isn't saying that everyone couldn't find some means of working) because the implication is that everyone is either meant to work at any job given/immediate to them, or they're lazy and should be homeless/die because they refuse and/or cannot do the work steadily/well enough (that or people will label you as "disabled" because you're not working and apparently everyone who isn't working full-time if they have the option to can be given the label "lazy" or "crazy" by some pretty easily, which is wrong somewhat). The general idea behind proponents of UBI is that we should thrive without a basic income because everyone should ideally have the means of making sufficient money -- but that doesn't seem possible on the face of it. If everyone could just simply put some effort in and make money, how do you explain people who are homeless? Constantly laid off? Jumping between jobs? Working full time and still struggling? People like this are trying, but still not doing well -- some don't seem to realize/accept this. I don't blame some for refusing to work altogether if it will only bring stress/pain/struggle/won't fix their poverty situation -- especially if they don't have any passion/specific interest they've found yet. Should we all just force/stress ourselves to do things "just because" + it's both available and an option? I don't think that's the right way to go always!

    With a basic income there becomes less of a question and more of an answer kind of process. People who don't want UBI generally believe it's because it will not help ultimately or they're against the idea of income/money being disbursed to everyone without a specific form of merit or need. My wondering of this is, do you believe people must have a full-time job to have a need to survive? It's a pain to create arduous and subpar processes that help poor, needy, or just people struggling to get by even by putting all of the work in they're supposed to. Why make this a run around/jumping through hoops? If everyone is entitled to at least some basic resources for survival, then why would we advocate against something that could assure that and urge people to just "stop being lazy" as if that is always the problem with finances?

    There are people who work hard and still struggle sadly. I don't think it's right to tell someone working their grit to no end that they're lazy or financially incompetent just because they aren't in a comfortable place financially. We know that finances create stress, which in turns affects quality of life. Interesting that we know this, but might still reject the notion of financial abundance, which ideally would reduce stress, crime, and enable everyone to have easier means of improving health. The proponents of UBI might just generally not be looking at the potentials of such a thing from certain angles. I get the suspicion, but what is the alternative that's just as immediately helpful for nearly everyone? We will seemingly acknowledge a money problem, but then ironically vouch against a basic income system that aims to mitigate that directly and specifically -- no barriers, what-ifs, or conditionals. I believe -- for the most part -- that a well-implemented freedom dividend that Yang proposes would do far better than bad in the near future at least, even if some bad might still occur when it comes to the VAT or etc. In effect, the biggest arguments are that "UBI won't work," but I can't find any solid evidence that this catastrophic collapse of everything will supposedly happen with just $1,000 a month to be used mostly for financial security/backup uses than as a replacement of a more serious income. There is also the problem -- let's not forget -- of growing job/work limitations on top of this, which some underestimate.
     
  19. tankasnowgod

    tankasnowgod Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2014
    Messages:
    2,357
    Gender:
    Male
    I noticed anyone who talks about UBI doesn't actually crunch any numbers. According to the 2010 US Census, there were 209 Million people over the age of 18.

    https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-03.pdf

    The number is likely higher now, but let's go with that. Yang is proposing giving all those people $1000 a month. So, that's 209 Billion every month, or 2.5 Trillion dollars spent every year in Helicopter money. In less than two years, you would "give away" more money than is on the Fed's Balance sheet-

    https://money.visualcapitalist.com/worlds-money-markets-one-visualization-2017/

    There's pretty much only three ways to pay for this- taxes, debt, or print more money (basically inflation). So, you could increase an already high tax rate, add to the 20 plus Trillion in Debt and 200 plus Trillion in "unfunded liabilities," or crank up inflation even more, maybe to Venezula/Zimbabwe/Weimar republic levels (which might be on it's way anyway), or some combo. It's completely insane, but that doesn't mean it won't happen. The current unbacked fiat system we have is completely insane anyway, which is planned by a cartel of banks that struck a deal with Federal Government. And something like UBI could only be implemented in an unbacked fiat system. You would quickly exhaust world reserves if you attempted something like this with, say, ten ounces of silver a month, or four ounces of gold a year.

    At the same time, doesn't any UBI advocate wonder what the Federal Government (or whatever other entity) would "get" in exchange for this 2.5 Trillion dollars spent a year?
     
  20. jzeno

    jzeno Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    Messages:
    399
    Gender:
    Male
    So it's apparent that some people here don't understand how economics works because lowering taxes is considered "a billionaire talking point" even though any run of the mill internet blog will confirm that lowering taxes stimulate the economy:

    How Tax Cuts Stimulate the Economy

    This isn't disputed. This isn't debated. Any economist from any university will agree with the general effect of lowering taxes has on an economy.

    Second, to say that Ubi is good but not explain inflation, to me is very ignorant and deceptive. If we apply a vat tax and then reimburse all citizens, all you will see is a change of 100% inflation in the market. That means food, rent, and gas will jump 100%. So if you paid $500 for your mortgage, you'll see a jump somewhere around to $1000 (roughly speaking, all things being equal). How is that and why haven't we seen that before in Ubi experiments? First, Ubi will be implemented nationally, so as soon as it rolls out every citizen will have $1000 more dollars per month. So business will be able to charge more per good because of the huge amount of liquidity introduced into the market AND because these businesses will be passing the vat tax onto the customers. The businesses will 'pay' the tax upfront, but they'll reciprocally raise prices on good to offset the cost. Right onto customers.

    The reason we haven't seen this effect in other studies yet is because Ubi had only been tested in small controlled settings. Release it onto an entire economy and your results will be completely different from giving $500 per month to every unemployed guy and girl in some small town.

    Ubi is not a good idea and it is not in any way shape or form helpful to consider the challenges or obstacles that we may face through automation.

    The truth about Ubi is that people don't understand Ubi and they like the idea but the same people also don't understand basic economics principles. I'm not going to take advice from people who don't understand taxes or inflation. They don't need to be anywhere near the levers of power in our country.

    The comments in this thread about baseline income are just completely absurd. The money has to come from somewhere, for one. You can't just print it magically and hand it out (the ignorance behind this assumption is alarming, re: economic literacy). And second--I need to point out the hypocrisy of this because it's almost laughable--Does anywhere here believe the War on drugs has had any success? Resounding no. And yet here we are debating the merits of the Second American War On Poverty. Brilliant. Does anyone see the irony? We didn't win the war on drugs or the war on poverty and yet we want to funnel more money from business to subsidize people's lazy lifestyle when all it will do is destroy the economy. It'll be the war on drugs and over again. But we'll be "richer" by $1000. "Sign me up!"
     
Loading...