Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

[Nestito]

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

Negative income tax - Wikipedia

Milton Friedman is for UBI, lol.

Why Milton Friedman Supported a Guaranteed Income (5 Reasons)

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

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 don't think I heard him say that just by having some form of AI, the owner will have to pay a tax. As I see it, it's mostly from companies, so unless you're selling something and replacing people with AI, you wouldn't have to pay any added tax.

The part where he talks about paying people the UBI is a little fuzzy in my mind, but I think I made a mistake when I wrote that: the money will come from the government, since the government can handle it, but the companies that are replacing people with AI will pay extra taxes to the government. I'm not sure how much money those companies will have to pay, since Yang said that the government will get, through regular taxes, money from people who can find their back into society by using the UBI as a stepping stone. Also he said that the government is really good at sending money to people fast. So the money isn't going directly from those companies to the people, sorry for the confusion.

 

[Nestito]

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!"

The inflation worries have already been more than addressed. We're one of the only industrialized countries that doesn't use a VAT. Yang's is half of what is used in European countries. Also, you do realize that your avatar is that of a failed businessman right? We literally elected a reality TV show star that lacks morality as our president.

At least Yang has a good track record and has had a successful non-profit that's helped create jobs in poor communities (Venture for America). We should really be listening to his ideas.

 

[pepsi]

What a bleak sad outlook.

His plan doesnt make any sense though.

Jobs in the trucking, service/retail, clerical/office services will be cut because of automation.
He plans to give everybody 1K month, then those people will put that back into the
economy, which should then grow the economy therefore more jobs. But where will these jobs grow from
if everything is automated? It will just drive more economy to the automated services
that wont need new employees to handle the increased business. Just more money for amazon basically.

I think the focus should be on creating new jobs to fit the new economy of automation.

If that doesnt work and things get really bleak, remember the label "Made in the USA",
people can choose to buy only products/services with the label - "Made by real people".

I know my profession will be automated in the future. My plan is to buy some land and
work it and become as self sufficient as possible.

Hopefully it wont get as bleak as he states.

 

[Nestito]

What a bleak sad outlook.

His plan doesnt make any sense though.

Jobs in the trucking, service/retail, clerical/office services will be cut because of automation.
He plans to give everybody 1K month, then those people will put that back into the
economy, which should then grow the economy therefore more jobs. But where will these jobs grow from
if everything is automated? It will just drive more economy to the automated services
that wont need new employees to handle the increased business. Just more money for amazon basically.

I think the focus should be on creating new jobs to fit the new economy of automation.

If that doesnt work and things get really bleak, remember the label "Made in the USA",
people can choose to buy only products/services with the label - "Made by real people".

I know my profession will be automated in the future. My plan is to buy some land and
work it and become as self sufficient as possible.

Hopefully it wont get as bleak as he states.

Local businesses and communities would have a better chance at thriving. Mom & Pop shops won't be automated. But yeah, it is bleak. Certainly beats the alternative that the other candidates are proposing. There will be jobs created in renewable energy for sure if we go that route.

But yeah, it's certainly not the solution but a stage for the solution. It just makes the most sense moving forward.

 

[Nestito]

 

[tankasnowgod]

I don't think I heard him say that just by having some form of AI, the owner will have to pay a tax. As I see it, it's mostly from companies, so unless you're selling something and replacing people with AI, you wouldn't have to pay any added tax.

The part where he talks about paying people the UBI is a little fuzzy in my mind, but I think I made a mistake when I wrote that: the money will come from the government, since the government can handle it, but the companies that are replacing people with AI will pay extra taxes to the government. I'm not sure how much money those companies will have to pay, since Yang said that the government will get, through regular taxes, money from people who can find their back into society by using the UBI as a stepping stone. Also he said that the government is really good at sending money to people fast. So the money isn't going directly from those companies to the people, sorry for the confusion.

And that, of course, is the rub. For this plan to work, in the US at least, individuals will be depending on an entity that claims to be AT LEAST 22 Trillion in debt. God knows what the real number is. There are also claims of 200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is also the same entity that helped to promote excess PUFA consumption (through nutrition guidelines and subsidies), mandated the poisoning of the American public with iron fortification (and knew this plan was hazardous to health since the 70s), approved the use of benzos, SSRIs and other hazardous drugs, has been fighting some war or another for pretty much my entire lifetime, created rampant inflation with it's partnership with the Federal Reserve, so yeah, color me very dubious. But hey, they gave 800 Billion to the bankers back in 2008, so what the hell, why not give this insane plan a shot?

 

[jzeno]

@Nestito blah blah blah. If it's such a good idea and Yang if such a great candidate why is his approval so low? He can't win. No one will vote for the guy and the DNC knows it.

 

[tankasnowgod]

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.

This has already been proven false in this country. Welfare and Social Security programs have existed for decades, and yet, homelessness and mental and social issues are a massive problem. According to Yang's own proposal, those already receiving at least $1000 wouldn't get any more. So how could it possibly help?

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

What a bleak sad outlook.

His plan doesnt make any sense though.

Jobs in the trucking, service/retail, clerical/office services will be cut because of automation.
He plans to give everybody 1K month, then those people will put that back into the
economy, which should then grow the economy therefore more jobs. But where will these jobs grow from
if everything is automated? It will just drive more economy to the automated services
that wont need new employees to handle the increased business. Just more money for amazon basically.

I think the focus should be on creating new jobs to fit the new economy of automation.

If that doesnt work and things get really bleak, remember the label "Made in the USA",
people can choose to buy only products/services with the label - "Made by real people".

I know my profession will be automated in the future. My plan is to buy some land and
work it and become as self sufficient as possible.

Hopefully it wont get as bleak as he states.

Yang said something interesting about relocating people from one job to another: the government is terrible at doing that. The success rate is between 0% and 15%. He said he even asked other politicians about this and they didn't have good answers. Also, Yang said that most people( 60%, I think) just don't want to graduate or have a degree of higher education, which I think is totally fine. People shouldn't be forced to go a certain path they don't want to. Jobs nowadays are getting more and more sophisticated, and, as Yang said, asking people that they need to find one of these sophisticated jobs is likely just not gonna happen. That's my understanding of it. Then they talk about the sentence"learn to code"( which was even banned on twitter), that is, people who aren't valued by the market just need to learn to do something that the market wants, as if learning to code was super easy.

I get what you're saying with the jobs: if they make it so AI isn't totally automated, then there is room for people operating the machine. But the thing is, maybe that isn't the best solution. If something can be done by a machine, why not? Of course, there will probably be a part of the market that will always like something that is hand-made, but for most people that I know, convenience and cheapness come first. If we can have machines doing some very tiresome and even dangerous work, and we can, as a society, profit from that, then we have way more flexibility to actually choose what we want to do.

About buying land, I would love to do that too. Raising my own chickens( with low PUFA feed, no soybeans or corn, free range), even growing some potatoes, as well as some melons. Doing that would be so much more possible with a UBI, that way I wouldn't be hard-pressed to sell my own chickens or their eggs for money, and could focus on raising them well. If I had enough money though, should I have an excess of eggs or even chicken, I don't think I would sells, I would probably just give them for free to my neighbors or to people to I know. Sucks that I live in Brazil, so even if Yang wins, the economy of my country probably can't even manage a UBI. It can't even manage a decent minimum wage which, is 250 dollars for working a regular job here. Lol 4 times less than what a person would get in Yang's USA and even with that shitty payment, I would be a freaking slave working 40 hours a week.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

And that, of course, is the rub. For this plan to work, in the US at least, individuals will be depending on an entity that claims to be AT LEAST 22 Trillion in debt. God knows what the real number is. There are also claims of 200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities. This is also the same entity that helped to promote excess PUFA consumption (through nutrition guidelines and subsidies), mandated the poisoning of the American public with iron fortification (and knew this plan was hazardous to health since the 70s), approved the use of benzos, SSRIs and other hazardous drugs, has been fighting some war or another for pretty much my entire lifetime, created rampant inflation with it's partnership with the Federal Reserve, so yeah, color me very dubious. But hey, they gave 800 Billion to the bankers back in 2008, so what the hell, why not give this insane plan a shot?

Yeah, although I'm quite excited to see what is going to happen, I still have quite a bit doubt, and even if this gets approved, it's not all or even most problems of society will be solved, and it's certainly not like I'll start to trust any type of governmental institution. Vaccinations is also something that came to mind when he said one of his sons had autism. I think that, with all the damage that the system has caused to the citizens, a significant portion of UBI will go to doctors and the pharmaceutical industry, so this UBI will likely only be real useful if people realize how the government has been betraying them about so many things. If people use this money to improve their environment and their metabolism, I think that the government's wish( that people just keep their eyes closed to the truth and keep doing what it wants them too) may not materialize. I think it's possible, since relatively well-known( more well-known than Ray, at least) people such as Stan Efferding are warning people against the usage of PUFA oils and pretty much encouraging them to eat a low PUFA, low inflammatory diet.

 

[tankasnowgod]

Also, you do realize that your avatar is that of a failed businessman right? We literally elected a reality TV show star that lacks morality as our president.

Trump is a failed businessman in the same sense that Michael Jordan is a failed NBA player. I mean, he missed so many shots!

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

This has already been proven false in this country. Welfare and Social Security programs have existed for decades, and yet, homelessness and mental and social issues are a massive problem. According to Yang's own proposal, those already receiving at least $1000 wouldn't get any more. So how could it possibly help?

To play Devil's advocate, maybe homelessness and mental issues would be even worse if it wasn't for social security?

Low metabolism can cause mental issues, so the only way to really heal people would be by improving the environment, but if Yang says that the seed oil industries need to go, then he may go to sleep forever. Or perhaps he'll just get massively ridiculed by the medical community or the media.

 

[Nestito]

@Nestito blah blah blah. If it's such a good idea and Yang if such a great candidate why is his approval so low? He can't win. No one will vote for the guy and the DNC knows it.

That's what they said about your avatar.

Trump is a failed businessman in the same sense that Michael Jordan is a failed NBA player. I mean, he missed so many shots!

There goes that validity out the window.

I guess, I'll just have to ask Peat himself how he feels about Yang.

 

[MetabolicTrash]

To play Devil's advocate, maybe homelessness and mental issues would be even worse if it wasn't for social security?

Low metabolism can cause mental issues, so the only way to really heal people would be by improving the environment, but if Yang says that the seed oil industries need to go, then he may go to sleep forever. Or perhaps he'll just get massively ridiculed by the medical community or the media.

Also, welfare and social security systems are means tested sort of things, which means not comparable to a no questions asked basic income.

Not all of these systems even pay out an amount comparable to a steady, guaranteed basic income that is pretty much always guaranteed ideally.

It isn't like I was saying everything will magically be fixed -- but UBI sure seems to make the simplicity of income for all much more straightforward than systems now. Plus, you avoid/eradicate the whole welfare discrimination/stigma since literally every 18+ will get it, rich or poor to begin with. Nobody can easily discriminate based on a universal income because it isn't only geared for a certain classification of people, as is disability and SSI like concepts (in the United States) where the presumption is seemingly always that the person is poor and/or impoverished/incapable/a failure or loser/etc.

There is a certain shame element involved in applying for financial benefits since it is like admitting defeat/inability to be independent as compared to others not having to resort to such. In an UBI system everyone would just get their minimum dues and likely focus less on their predicament or see it as more normal than shameful. I get the irony that you could say it is still dependent but when it comes to the stigma of government benefits and whatnot, the UBI system would change the tone and feel of it more so than the means tested social security and disability setups that exist now since you don't need to have governments discriminate based on particular reasons of income qualification -- it just makes it all the more smoother and less stressful for many people since it's just there for you.

 

[nwo2012]

Its all BS. Scrap the worlwide Jewish banking system and youd instantly make citizens wealthier. But nobody has the balls to stand up to the true rulers, those which you cant openly criticize. Says it all really..........

 

[Nestito]

and from Ray Peat himself:

"I think he’s the most plausible one, assuming Bernie is out of consideration."

damn, was he quick to reply.

 

[Nestito]

Also, welfare and social security systems are means tested sort of things, which means not comparable to a no questions asked basic income.

Not all of these systems even pay out an amount comparable to a steady, guaranteed basic income that is pretty much always guaranteed ideally.

It isn't like I was saying everything will magically be fixed -- but UBI sure seems to make the simplicity of income for all much more straightforward than systems now. Plus, you avoid/eradicate the whole welfare discrimination/stigma since literally every 18+ will get it, rich or poor to begin with. Nobody can easily discriminate based on a universal income because it isn't only geared for a certain classification of people, as is disability and SSI like concepts (in the United States) where the presumption is seemingly always that the person is poor and/or impoverished/incapable/a failure or loser/etc.

There is a certain shame element involved in applying for financial benefits since it is like admitting defeat/inability to be independent as compared to others not having to resort to such. In an UBI system everyone would just get their minimum dues and likely focus less on their predicament or see it as more normal than shameful. I get the irony that you could say it is still dependent but when it comes to the stigma of government benefits and whatnot, the UBI system would change the tone and feel of it more so than the means tested social security and disability setups that exist now since you don't need to have governments discriminate based on particular reasons of income qualification -- it just makes it all the more smoother and less stressful for many people since it's just there for you.

Scurve, thank you for your understanding!

 

[yerrag]

Its all BS. Scrap the worlwide Jewish banking system and youd instantly make citizens wealthier. But nobody has the balls to stand up to the true rulers, those which you cant openly criticize. Says it all really..........

You know that truly well. If it wasn't for the extremely harsh and punitive terms imposed by the United Kingdom on Germany on its defeat in World War I, which was then as now controlled by Jewish financial mafia, in the same way the US is now controlled, Hitler would not rise to power on the winds of his demagoguery, with the hapless Jewry as the target (who were unfairly lumped together with the Jewish mafia). It's unfortunate that the Holocaust victims became the lightning rod for the Jewish financial mafia to claim the mantle of eternal victimhood, so that they could always deflect the abuses they perpetuate at the world economy (and on world peace), strangled by the usurious lending practices (e.g. fees used in place of interest rates to push up the effective interest rate) and the various schemes concocted to rob the credulous, naive, and trusting middle class of their savings, and of peaceful peoples of economic independence.

China remains the only great power that is free from the tight claws of the Jewish mafia.

 

[Soren]

Milton Friedman is for UBI, lol.

Why Milton Friedman Supported a Guaranteed Income (5 Reasons)

Yes but if you watch the video Friedman's version of UBI is different to Andrew Yangs (if I have not misunderstood Yang's proposal) because it provides much greater incentive to go out and find work. Yang's system does not provide enough incentive.