Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

[tankasnowgod]

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).

Actually, you can just print it out. That's what the Federal Reserve does, and that's how most central banks work. It's basically the current system we are in. Although, it does destroy the value of that currency and causes real assets to flow upwards towards those who issue the currency. It's great if you're the one printing the money, not so great for those downstream saving or spending it.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

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!"

But, according to Yang, they won't simply give money that came from nothing, the money will come from the profit that the new machinery and AI will provide to multiple areas of society. Since AI, as Yang stated, can work more with less resources, then why not give the profit to the population directly instead of sending it to the goverment?

Btw, I totally get what you said about printing money. You can't print more money and expect people to be richer, but you can build a machine that does the same work as, say, 1000 people and provides way more profit, right?

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to figure this out, since, admittedly, I know very little about economy.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Actually, you can just print it out. That's what the Federal Reserve does, and that's how most central banks work. It's basically the current system we are in. Although, it does destroy the value of that currency and causes real assets to flow upwards towards those who issue the currency. It's great if you're the one printing the money, not so great for those downstream saving or spending it.

Wow, I didn't know that. I thought they printed more money in a way that was demand-driven, as in printing more money only when somebody really produced more wealth. I can see how that's bad for regular people.

 

[CLASH]

.

 

[jzeno]

@CLASH @tankasnowgod

Printing money will devalue the currency is my point--and you two of all people should understand this.

You cannot print endless amounts of money for this Ubi idea and also have stable inflation as we do now. You cannot have your cake, and eat it too. We either have stable inflation or we're all zillionaires.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

I think I share that concern as well. Our current society has so many problems. And I don't see the government tackling issues such as excessive PUFA consumption, SSRIs, EMFs and other poisons that clearly make people very ill and hateful. The government not only does nothing about these things, but they even make these things extremely accessible to almost anyone. How cheap is soybean oil or corn oil? Not to mention the brainwashing that children get from such an early age at school( "stop chatting and listen to the teacher!"). The system was designed to keep people lost and to destroy a lot of possibilities for meaningful actions, so that's why so many people are just lost and don't even know very well where they could start.

 

[CLASH]

.

 

[JudiBlueHen]

These are all good arguments for why the UBI cannot work - especially in the long run. However, I think the main point is that this is NOT really a plan for the long run - I think it is possibly a COVER for how the federal government will bail out the cities that cannot meet their pension and budget obligations. They can use the money now obligated for rent subsidies to "fix" their budget problems. This way the cities do not have to go explicitly begging to the federal govt for a bailout, but they can effectively get federal money anyway. Look at the strategic implications!

 

[tankasnowgod]

I think I share that concern as well. Our current society has so many problems. And I don't see the government tackling issues such as excessive PUFA consumption, SSRIs, EMFs and other poisons that clearly make people very ill and hateful. The government not only does nothing about these things, but they even make these things extremely accessible to almost anyone. How cheap is soybean oil or corn oil? Not to mention the brainwashing that children get from such an early age at school( "stop chatting and listen to the teacher!"). The system was designed to keep people lost and to destroy a lot of possibilities for meaningful actions, so that's why so many people are just lost and don't even know very well where they could start.

The federal government helped to CREATE excess PUFA consumption, through nutrition guidelines that demonized cholesterol and saturated fat, and subsidies for soy and corn.

 

[tankasnowgod]

@CLASH @tankasnowgod

Printing money will devalue the currency is my point--and you two of all people should understand this.

You cannot print endless amounts of money for this Ubi idea and also have stable inflation as we do now. You cannot have your cake, and eat it too. We either have stable inflation or we're all zillionaires.

I understand this, and I think central banks understand this as well. The people who print the money reap the benefits of inflation. And I don't think inflation is all that "stable" now, nor do I think any level of inflation is good for people who use a currency.

 

[Soren]

The Negative income tax as put forth by Milton Friedman is a much better version of Andrew Yang's UBI.

Negative income tax - Wikipedia

 

[tankasnowgod]

But, according to Yang, they won't simply give money that came from nothing, the money will come from the profit that the new machinery and AI will provide to multiple areas of society. Since AI, as Yang stated, can work more with less resources, then why not give the profit to the population directly instead of sending it to the goverment?

So, the money would go directly from AI, or companies that benefit from AI, to people in the US over 18? Just directly cutting a check with no middle man?

I also don't think that profits from AI and new machinery will cover the $2.5 Trillion needed per year.

 

[jzeno]

@Soren Agreed.

 

[Lee Simeon]

So, the money would go directly from AI, or companies that benefit from AI, to people in the US over 18? Just directly cutting a check with no middle man?

I also don't think that profits from AI and new machinery will cover the $2.5 Trillion needed per year.

I think he explains it in the JRE interview. There will be much less social security costs and crime rates. The costs of reducing child poverty is also something that comes to mind. He claims that the VAT should cover 800 million USD to make the math add up.

 

[postman]

I think he's one of the more interesting candidates.

Recently I saw him act like an **** and a coward though, even if the reporter was obnoxious it still weird conduct for a politician:

 

[tankasnowgod]

I think he explains it in the JRE interview. There will be much less social security costs and crime rates. The costs of reducing child poverty is also something that comes to mind. He claims that the VAT should cover 800 million USD to make the math add up.

$800 Million would only cover one month of payments for 800,000 people, assuming zero administrative costs. 209 Million 18+ Americans times $1000 per month times 12 is over 2.5 Trillion per year.

 

[Lee Simeon]

$800 Million would only cover one month of payments for 800,000 people, assuming zero administrative costs. 209 Million 18+ Americans times $1000 per month times 12 is over 2.5 Trillion per year.

My bad, 800 billion is what I meant.

 

[tankasnowgod]

My bad, 800 billion is what I meant.

Even so, he's still 1.7 Trillion short.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Even so, he's still 1.7 Trillion short.

I think he said that people who are already benefiting from social security will not be included, unless they're getting less than 1000 dollars a month, in which case they get enough money to bring them up to the 1000 dollar mark. That eliminates some people from receiving UBI.

Yang's first mention of how much money you'd' need for UBI to work was 3 trillion dollars, then he says that, in reality, it would be almost half that, since around 50% of americans are already on some form of social security. Yang said that the cost of UBI would be around 1,8 trillion. The entire US economy is 20 trillion,so, according to him, it's manageable.

 

[Nestito]

Even so, he's still 1.7 Trillion short.