Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872

Soren

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,648

The reason these tax cuts "did not work" is because there was no cut back on government spending and regulation. If you have tax cuts but at the same time have government spending that exceeds the rate of inflation and on top of that increasing regulation you're going to have problems.

I put "did not work" in quotations because it depends on what your definition of "work" is. Tax cuts are a good thing but they have to be looked at in context. If you have very low taxes but a massively expanding government you're going to eventually run into problems. The financial crisis of 2008 never really ended. The government bailouts and regulations have made a bad situation even worse. The banks that were bailed out should have been closed down and broken up and shareholders should have lost their money. The con of 2008 was that the American Tax payer bailed out the wealthiest Americans and there was never any consequence for it. I actually think that you had to bail them out otherwise there would have been a financial collapse but I also think that every bank that was bailed out should have been broken up after things had "settled down" so to speak.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
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.

Dontcha think it's about time we questioned pro-work dogma
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
The reason these tax cuts did not work is because there was no cut back on government spending and regulation. If you have tax cuts but at the same time have government spending that exceeds the rate of inflation and on top of that increasing regulation you're going to have problems.

That makes absolutely no sense. Which isn't surprising considering which school of thought it comes from. And deregulation only increased during those periods.

Tax cuts don't work for most people because they were never meant to. They sound good though.
 

Soren

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,648
Dontcha think it's about time we questioned pro-work dogma

I think that framing it as "pro-work dogma" is the wrong way to look at it. One has to think about it in terms of having a purpose and motivation. Those who have everything provided for them and have no reason to get out of bed in the morning whether they be rich or poor are the most unhappy unfulfilled people. I've seen it first hand among the very poor and the very rich. For many people if they are provided with the basic necessities, food, water housing etc and they don't have to do anything to achieve it they never will be motivated to do anything more than sit on the couch all day watching netflix.

There has to be that little incentive to do something more, in previous times it was survival, if you didn't go out and work you would perish. Whilst we can agree that this is not a desirable circumstance having that drive to go out and achieve is a vital foundation for people finding purpose and meaning in their life and while the initial struggle of working in a job that is unfulfilling and unsatisfying may be bad it can be used as a stepping stone for something much greater. It is not about "pro-work dogma" it is about being pro-purpose and pro-meaning.
 

Soren

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,648
That makes absolutely no sense. Which isn't surprising considering which school of thought it comes from. And deregulation only increased during those periods.

Tax cuts don't work for most people because they were never meant to. They sound good though.

Why does it not make sense? If you have massive tax cuts but the government continues to spend and borrow money then the value of that money goes down as the government has to borrow more to pay off its debts or print money and thereby increase inflation. Contrary to what might be the assumed belief George Bush did NOT decrease government spending or regulation he massively increased it on both fronts. Until Obama came along Bush was the most profligate President in US history, Trump is no better he has increased spending just as Obama did.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
Those who have everything provided for them and have no reason to get out of bed in the morning whether they be rich or poor are the most unhappy unfulfilled people. I've seen it first hand among the very poor and the very rich. For many people if they are provided with the basic necessities, food, water housing etc and they don't have to do anything to achieve it they never will be motivated to do anything more than sit on the couch all day watching netflix

There are plenty of rich people who work incredibly hard at when they don't have to though. Its a bit more complicated than being rich=no motivation, poor=motivation. Surely it's fundamentally a matter of health? Sure a poor person will *have* to do something- anything- in order to meet basics needs when a rich person doesn't have to but threat of poverty is a terrible stick to wield over people.

There has to be that little incentive to do something more, in previous times it was survival, if you didn't go out and work you would perish. Whilst we can agree that this is not a desirable circumstance having that drive to go out and achieve is a vital foundation for people finding purpose and meaning in their life and while the initial struggle of working in a job that is unfulfilling and unsatisfying may be bad it can be used as a stepping stone for something much greater. It is not about "pro-work dogma" it is about being pro-purpose and pro-meaning.

Isn't that just demonstrating a total lack of trust in other people and asserting they need to be pushed by some authority for their own good? But more importantly, what's all this activity that needs to be done? Seems to me most jobs are useless and exist for the sake of jobs. The tasks that actually provide our material needs are probably very few. I don't understand this great anxiety about people not working. If work is lousy why isn't this a good thing?

Finding meaning and purpose in work seems more cliche than fact.

Unhappy Employees Outnumber Happy Ones By Two To One Worldwide


It's been my experience that people are generally not idle when they in good health...they want to design,create,learn, tinker,
 

Soren

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2016
Messages
1,648
There are plenty of rich people who work incredibly hard at when they don't have to though. Its a bit more complicated than being rich=no motivation, poor=motivation. Surely it's fundamentally a matter of health? Sure a poor person will *have* to do something- anything- in order to meet basics needs when a rich person doesn't have to but threat of poverty is a terrible stick to wield over people.

I think you've misunderstood me I am not saying that rich=no motivation and poor=motivation, I was saying that in both cases the rich and the poor can live lives without motivation or purpose but both are essentially victims of the same circumstance. Those who are born into very rich families for example and who have no need to do anything often end up in dead end meaningless lives (not always obviously but it happens a lot) equally those who are poor in the modern world end up leading similar lives because in the welfare system they are provided enough that they don't need to go and seek something more. The difference in the past was that the poor did not have this option, it was either go work or die.

No one is wielding the stick of poverty. No one is saying "work or you will be poor" it is actually the opposite, if you don't work you will remain poor, work and you can be set free. If anything the government welfare system keeps people poor because it crushes incentive to break out of poverty. Why would you even take the first step to something better or new if you don't feel any need to? The strive to create, achieve, to pursue your own interests and do something more with your life is a natural human instinct that existed before the welfare state. The welfare state has not helped people achieve more it has KEPT them poor.



Isn't that just demonstrating a total lack of trust in other people and asserting they need to be pushed by some authority for their own good? But more importantly, what's all this activity that needs to be done? Seems to me most jobs are useless and exist for the sake of jobs. The tasks that actually provide our material needs are probably very few.

Finding meaning and purpose in work seems more cliche than fact.

Unhappy Employees Outnumber Happy Ones By Two To One Worldwide


It's been my experience that people are generally not idle when they in good health...they want to design,create,learn, tinker,

I am actually saying the opposite of what you assert here. I am putting trust in people to be able to sort out their own lives and live them how they see fit. I don't want any authoritarian system controlling the lives of others. If your life is dependent on a check from the government you are wholly dependent on the government for your life. If they decide to cut you off, to lower the amount they send to you how do you fight back? You have no regress you are completely enslaved to the government. Whereas if you provide for yourself, you can choose to leave a bad job, look for another one, start your own business you're in control of your own destiny. UBI if done incorrectly is a tool for enslavement, if done correctly it can be a tool to set people free.

Finally I think it is a fundamental mistake to believe that most jobs are useless. The one area where I would agree with you is within the government, there you can find many useless jobs. But in the private sector very few if any jobs are useless because if they were they would not exist. The reason that any job exists is because it is providing a service for something that someone else wants. It is thereby useful by definition because it provides a service for someone. I would concede that there are a lot of jobs in the private sector that are probably not needed but that is because many private sector jobs are not really private and are in fact subsidised and supported by government regulation and cronyism.

If you really think most jobs are useless please could you tell me what those are? How do you define useless? The free market is pretty good at weeding out that which is not necessary or not wanted. Again the exception is Government, there you will find an endless supply of useless jobs and when government combines with private enterprise you will find many jobs that should have died years ago kept on life support from government subsidies.
 
Last edited:

schultz

Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2014
Messages
2,653
It's been my experience that people are generally not idle when they in good health...they want to design,create,learn, tinker,

Interesting conversation. Personally, I don't need a job or career to be fulfilled and have meaning. My children give me meaning, but I also have a ton of things I am interested in. My wife and I are both like that. Interestingly, she was talking to a couple of her friends and she figured out that both of them have zero hobbies. They can't be alone because when they are they have nothing to do, so they are always bringing their children to extracurriculars to keep themselves busy. How do you not have hobbies!? There are so many fun things to do in this world...
 

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
You guys are only charging $1,000/month for your freedom? That doesn't even cover half my rent.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help." -Reagan

"We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added." -Reagan

Say what you will about Reagan, but you can't deny that he could deliver a line.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
You guys are only charging $1,000/month for your freedom? That doesn't even cover half my rent.

"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help." -Reagan

"We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added." -Reagan

Say what you will about Reagan, but you can't deny that he could deliver a line.

How does $1,000 a month in basic income reduce anyone's freedom?

What about basic income would make anyone less free than with out it?

Some would even argue that it makes one more free since they have more expendable capital that they could use for many things.

The best example I've heard is that people could stack their UBIs to help increase productivity or living means. For example, say you have two families living in one house and it isn't a very good living situation. Well, with UBI, said family of, say, 5 would have an extra $60,000.00 to help improve their situation or change it for the better. A couple could stack their $24,000.00 UBI to help put a down payment on a house or start a business or etc.

The whole idea here is that the newly founded UBI would not be a crutch as much as a stepping stone.

People might assume that by getting something you are dependent on it and thus it is bad. Why not view this as giving things to people so they have more potential and means of then fulfilling possibilities to become more sustainable and independent themselves? The arguments I see is that UBI is bad because it is a government dispersing money to everyone, which makes everyone dependent on it. If you use your UBI to help yourself become more independent, then are you really solely dependent on it? I don't prefer to only look at it in the "it is given to you so you are dependent and need it" angle without also looking at it in the stepping stone kind of way.

If a system is for basic income, failings of people would be more on their poor choices than any failing system if the system is set up to provide an income for all. If anything there would be less scrutiny to the government in such a case because there would no longer be means testing or a need to qualify for your share of guaranteed minimum income.
 
Last edited:

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
How does $1,000 a month in basic income reduce anyone's freedom?

What about basic income would make anyone less free than with out it?

Some would even argue that it makes one more free since they have more expendable capital that they could use for many things.

The best example I've heard is that people could stack their UBIs to help increase productivity or living means. For example, say you have two families living in one house and it isn't a very good living situation. Well, with UBI, said family of, say, 5 would have an extra $60,000.00 to help improve their situation or change it for the better. A couple could stack their $24,000.00 UBI to help put a down payment on a house or start a business or etc.

The whole idea here is that the newly founded UBI would not be a crutch as much as a stepping stone.

Government gives you money. Economy adjusts to everyone having that extra money. Now you're dependent on that money.

What would you do to keep it?

"If you can't say, 'no,' you're a slave." -Jordan Peterson.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
Government gives you money. Economy adjusts to everyone having that extra money. Now you're dependent on that money.

What would you do to keep it?

"If you can't say, 'no,' you're a slave." -Jordan Peterson.

So when the government gives someone newly on disability their first check, does rent go up for them?

When Donald Trump goes to McDonald's, does the restaurant up their prices because he is rich?

If a landlord is also receiving UBI (they would), what is the incentive to raise rent prices?

If small businesses and so many others are going to have more capital, what would the incentive be for all prices to start hiking up? Markets and prices and etc. always change regardless. If some shady businesses think they can charge massive amounts suddenly because people will fall for it after UBI is in effect, it is up to the people to decide whether it is right to spend excess as compared to before (and they shouldn't do it).

Any big drawback to UBI and pricing/the economy would fall more on people than the UBI itself I think.

UBI is not only going to be for the poor so that others not also getting it could see an easy way to take advantage -- it is for all 18+ year olds.

Not saying economic changes won't happen, but I don't think they will some imagine, given UBI in effect.
 
Last edited:

iPeat

Member
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
222
So when the government gives someone newly on disability their first check, does rent go up for them?

When Donald Trump goes to McDonald's, does the restaurant up their prices because he is rich?

If a landlord is also receiving UBI (they would), what is the incentive to raise rent prices?

If small businesses and so many others are going to have more capital, what would the incentive be for all prices to start hiking up?

UBI is not only going to be for the poor so that others not also getting it could see an easy way to take advantage -- it is for all 18+ year olds.

Not saying economic changes won't happen, but I don't think they will some imagine, given UBI in effect.


Disability is temporary and selective. UBI is for all. You know many welfare or SS recipients who vote for reform? Or do they vote to keep the checks coming in and increasing, irregardless of any other policy? That's exactly what would happen with UBI, and we all know it.

I'm not even referring to rent. I'm referring to the millions of probable unintended consequences of wealth redistribution on a national scale. You will be dependent on it in a heartbeat, and in that same heartbeat, it will be corrupted and changed to come with stipulations.

Once dependent on their check, almost no one would vote for anything but to keep them coming in. Then the government would continue to overreach, just like college tuition (if you accept government loans for tuition, the curriculum must be government-approved).

I'm not even being conspiratorial here. This is already happening with every government social program. Try getting disability, SS, Welfare, Medicaid, etc. without doing exactly what the government tells you you have to do for it.

Unless you think this'll be that one magical time that the government behaves itself. Honestly, UBI is the most dangerous idea I've seen in American politics. Guaranteed minimum income (MLK's idea for the poor) is one thing, but UBI is a terrific way to enact obedience for all Americans in one fell swoop.

There's no government like no government.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2019
Messages
597
Location
Near the Promised Land
Disability is temporary and selective. UBI is for all. You know many welfare or SS recipients who vote for reform? Or do they vote to keep the checks coming in and increasing, irregardless of any other policy? That's exactly what would happen with UBI, and we all know it.

I'm not even referring to rent. I'm referring to the millions of probable unintended consequences of wealth redistribution on a national scale. You will be dependent on it in a heartbeat, and in that same heartbeat, it will be corrupted and changed to come with stipulations.

Once dependent on their check, almost no one would vote for anything but to keep them coming in. Then the government would continue to overreach, just like college tuition (if you accept government loans for tuition, the curriculum must be government-approved).

I'm not even being conspiratorial here. This is already happening with every government social program. Try getting disability, SS, Welfare, Medicaid, etc. without doing exactly what the government tells you you have to do for it.

Unless you think this'll be that one magical time that the government behaves itself. Honestly, UBI is the most dangerous idea I've seen in American politics. Guaranteed minimum income (MLK's idea for the poor) is one thing, but UBI is a terrific way to enact obedience for all Americans in one fell swoop.

There's no government like no government.

If you're forever dependent on it then maybe you're not implementing the use of it correctly/ideally. With no questions asked UBI it isn't like means tested government programs now that require you to jump through hoops and etc. to earn money. Also, the notion is correct that lots of these types of SSIs/disability/etc. do not have any incentives behind them for people to work -- this and people with no hope does create dependency. The ideal UBI is to side-step from this and use it as a means of making people more independent with the use of resources granted to them, as opposed to being depressed/sullen and even in a sense "working" on keeping their checks coming by having to see multiple doctors/etc. or are returning back to zero/homeless (if they aren't already). The good thing about UBI in this sense is you don't have to do anything to get it -- that's the whole idea. Take your capital and do good with it -- not have it like a carrot hanging from a tree you have to climb to keep getting. We the people need to use the resources to better ourselves. It's not a concern of the government's role in such a case -- it's about what benefits can be made given the circumstances.

In other words, if after UBI is established and some people can't do better with it, again it's on people and their decisions more so than the UBI system likely. The system is for no questions asked funds to people -- so if people overall can't make good use of this vs. bad I'd say it's down to the people, not the government.

Also if you want to go the the extremes of no government, might as well consider the revoking all laws and the constitution (for U.S. people) too.
 
Last edited:

tankasnowgod

Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,131
That's what they said about your avatar.

There goes that validity out the window.

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

Well, Donald Trump was a household name for 40 years before he ever ran for President. Everyone knew he was in real estate, the casino industry, a New York Times best selling author, appeared in movies, had his own reality show, appeared in the Bobby Brown video for "On Our Own," and was a WWE Hall of Famer. Yang has none of that fame and familiarity. He is an afterthought in his own party's primary, and can easily be ignored and overshadowed. Trump always demanded and got attention (be it positive or negative), even in a field of 17 Republican candidates.

I have no idea what metrics you are using to say that Trump is a "failed" businessman, but all the objective metrics would show that he is far more successful than Andrew Yang, and in more industries.
 

thomas00

Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Messages
872
I think you've misunderstood me I am not saying that rich=no motivation and poor=motivation, I was saying that in both cases the rich and the poor can live lives without motivation or purpose but both are essentially victims of the same circumstance. Those who are born into very rich families for example and who have no need to do anything often end up in dead end meaningless lives (not always obviously but it happens a lot) equally those who are poor in the modern world end up leading similar lives because in the welfare system they are provided enough that they don't need to go and seek something more. The difference in the past was that the poor did not have this option, it was either go work or die.

No one is wielding the stick of poverty. No one is saying "work or you will be poor" it is actually the opposite, if you don't work you will remain poor, work and you can be set free. If anything the government welfare system keeps people poor because it crushes incentive to break out of poverty. Why would you even take the first step to something better or new if you don't feel any need to? The strive to create, achieve, to pursue your own interests and do something more with your life is a natural human instinct that existed before the welfare state. The welfare state has not helped people achieve more it has KEPT them poor.

Well I'd like to see facts and figures before I commit to the idea that rich people aren't living lives of meaning. Without it we're just speculating. We know why people become miserable, feel like they have no place in the world and start self medicating etc. It's a health issue and it can affect anyone, though it's really not hard to see why growing up poorer circumstances is more stressful and there is a tonne of public health research about this.

I don't know why you think poverty is not used to coerce. What options does somebody have if they take a look around and don't like what they see? It's be a wageslave or enjoy the streets.

Work as freedom? Not if it's on somebody else's terms, for mostly somebody's benefit. And judging by the large degree of work-dissatisfaction this seems to be the case.

Welfare dependency is a myth advanced by conservative politicians
New research busts the myth of welfare dependency

People stay on welfare because capitalism has never and will never provide full employment, or an employment guarantee. Many are sick and disabled. Where I live in the last month there ~150,000 jobs available for the month. There were however, ~750,000 unemployed.


I am actually saying the opposite of what you assert here. I am putting trust in people to be able to sort out their own lives and live them how they see fit. I don't want any authoritarian system controlling the lives of others. If your life is dependent on a check from the government you are wholly dependent on the government for your life. If they decide to cut you off, to lower the amount they send to you how do you fight back? You have no regress you are completely enslaved to the government. Whereas if you provide for yourself, you can choose to leave a bad job, look for another one, start your own business you're in control of your own destiny. UBI if done incorrectly is a tool for enslavement, if done correctly it can be a tool to set people free.

the alternative is to be enslaved to an employer who takes all of your time in exchange for that paycheck. I know which one I would choose. Being employed means no time to work on your own endeavors, that's the beauty of UBI

Finally I think it is a fundamental mistake to believe that most jobs are useless. The one area where I would agree with you is within the government, there you can find many useless jobs. But in the private sector very few if any jobs are useless because if they were they would not exist. The reason that any job exists is because it is providing a service for something that someone else wants. It is thereby useful by definition because it provides a service for someone. I would concede that there are a lot of jobs in the private sector that are probably not needed but that is because many private sector jobs are not really private and are in fact subsidised and supported by government regulation and cronyism.

If you really think most jobs are useless please could you tell me what those are? How do you define useless? The free market is pretty good at weeding out that which is not necessary or not wanted. Again the exception is Government, there you will find an endless supply of useless jobs and when government combines with private enterprise you will find many jobs that should have died years ago kept on life support from government subsidies.

bull**** Jobs - Wikipedia is a good read.
 
Last edited:

Collden

Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
630
Making UBI unconditional is the key to avoiding the welfare trap. People on welfare stay on welfare because working a minimum wage does not in any way improve their situation, whereas with UBI, any additional income only improves your situation so there is far less incentive to just lie on the couch as compared with means-tested welfare.

People who choose to do nothing will still be on bare subsistence level and at the absolute bottom of the social hierarchy, very few are going to be content to remain there. UBI would offer a tremendous amount of employee freedom to engage in just the amount of wage work that suits your situation. Not many people would like to work 50 hours a week every week as a street sweeper or garbage man, but if its something you could easily engage in part-time to supplement your income then the barrier to entering employment is greatly reduced.

Rather than having half the population overworked and the other half on welfare, UBI would make it easier to redistribute the workload evenly across the population through part-time employment.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom