Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

[iPeat]

Just because someone works their a$$ off, it doesn't mean that's the only way to go about things. Of course, nothing wrong with working, as long as you're engaged in something that is interesting for you. Doing repetitive jobs that you hate for a boss that you hate, to get just enough money to buy food and not live on the streets is a terrible life.

The problem with employable skills is that many of those are useless: picture a doctor examining you and saying " your cholesterol is high, take these statins!". Just because the system values something, it doesn't mean you'll help people, it also doesn't mean you won't harm people. And doctors get paid good money to basically either do nothing or just make things worse. Same thing with teachers: you won't be allowed to talk about the absurdity of membrane pumps or the organized structure of water inside cells without making your students realize that so many things that they've been taught about genetics and biology isn't accurate. Sure, if your job is fixing computers, for example, then it's obvious whether or not the computer was fixed correctly. Same thing with carpentry, there is less space for theories that don't work, which isn't the case with medicine( with the exception ER and surgery) or school or college.



I question the word motivated. Some behaviors are seen as motivated by society, while others are seen as unmotivated. Who defines that? Somebody who sleeps 5 hours a day and works 50 hours a week minimum would be seen as motivated by most people that I know, while someone who sleeps 9 hours a day everyday and makes sure to pay attention to things such as bowel movement regularity and proper nutrition is seen as "somebody who has too much free time". So the health conscious person should be supervised to make sure that they don't relax even once a day or pay attention to their own health? That's a great way to turn them into slaves. I do understand that you're concerned with how people spend their money, and, yeah, if someone doesn't have too much money, then surely they need to prioritize food, water and rent first, then, if there is some spare money, then they can spend on less urgent necessities. Also, sick people are just trying to feel better by buying things, since buying can be pleasurable, but it won't last, since their metabolism is so low. Also, the money wouldn't disappear, as Yang said, it would be used very quickly for basic necessities or not, and it would re-enter the economy.

The idea that we need to give back to the government is something I really disagree with. The government should be serving us, but we what we see is the exact opposite. People getting paid by simply being part of a country is the minimum that the government should do. Instead we are just slaves that give up a third of our day, 5 times a week for just for a paycheck. We are already giving way too much to the government, it doesn't need any more.


He adressed this bit in the video: AI won't slowly enter the economy, it has already entered it. What about Amazon? Their work force is basically AI, which is much cheaper and efficient than people at these repetitive jobs. This isn't identical to featherbedding, where you basically hire way more people than necessary. Featherbedding is what is going on nowadays, with people doing jobs that machines could do for us. I see it all the time in my country. Lots of cashiers who just sit there all day looking like they wanna run away and never come back. Almost all of them have bloated bellies, btw. AI would rid people of working unnecessarily, and it would reduce featherbedding. Also, Yang said that society will not adapt to it well, it will just lead to massive unemployment, since who would hire people to do a job that a machine can do faster, more efficiently, with less mistakes, etc.?

How is giving people money akin to spending money on war? War is terrible and pointless, most of the time. Politicians literally do almost nothing and get paid extremely well. Politicians don't even use buses or any public transport in country, they like to travel by helicopter or by plane. Where does this money come from? And why 25% of my country's population is poor while working when politicians can just sit in a room with air conditioning all day and do nothing and get paid 10 times more? Banks are certainly not solving society's problems either.



Lol don't worry, my bubble has been broken a long time ago, and I certainly don't think the government will simply become friends with the people, even if it's giving them money. There will still be fluoride in the water. I'm just enjoying this topic, because it makes me think of how good the government could be in theory.

If government wasn't stomping on your throat, you wouldn't need to work your **** off. Of course you could if you wanted to. The amount of money the average person is directly or indirectly giving to government is staggering and they've done a terrific job of hiding it.

 

[Satellite]

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!"

-obviously lower taxes stimulates the economy

-real world economics never correlates with textbooks lol never

-most professors are clueless technicians

-UBI isn’t meant to solve automation problems, it is meant to curb some of its disastrous economic effects - only a supplement

-Yang’s UBI isn’t just about automation - it improves quality of life by creating human-centered capitalism

-Automation and increased spending will reduce costs and increase competition, respectively, of which both will lower prices as external and internal business factors will require it to avoid bankruptcy. People choose where to spend.

-It comes from giant tech companies making billions off our data who pay no taxes and continue cutting costs as technology improves, what aren’t you getting?!

-When money goes digital you could certainly create it out of thin air and merely set the market values based off something other than scarcity

-This does not relate to the war on drugs whatsoever

You’re analysis skills are lacking clubbed with your complete emotional bias about what’s right.

First, learn proper analysis skills, then actually read Yang’s policies, then you may come back and comment.

Until then you’re dismissed.

 

[iPeat]

-obviously lower taxes stimulates the economy

-real world economics never correlates with textbooks lol never

-most professors are clueless technicians

-UBI isn’t meant to solve automation problems, it is meant to curb some of its disastrous economic effects - only a supplement

-Yang’s UBI isn’t just about automation - it improves quality of life by creating human-centered capitalism

-Automation and increased spending will reduce costs and increase competition, respectively, of which both will lower prices as external and internal business factors will require it to avoid bankruptcy. People choose where to spend.

-It comes from giant tech companies making billions off our data who pay no taxes and continue cutting costs as technology improves, what aren’t you getting?!

-When money goes digital you could certainly create it out of thin air and merely set the market values based off something other than scarcity

-This does not relate to the war on drugs whatsoever

You’re analysis skills are lacking clubbed with your complete emotional bias about what’s right.

First, learn proper analysis skills, then actually read Yang’s policies, then you may come back and comment.

Until then you’re dismissed.

The terrifying part of UBI is that people with this mentality will probably be the ones signing the checks and determining policy and who gets paid.

Again, it's only human-centered if it's unconditional. You really think it wouldn't turn into some form digital "Gubment Bucks" and you wouldn't immediately be told what you could spend it on? This system wouldn't immediately be corrupted at all? When has this ever happened?

And where does this money come from? If you don't produce $1k/month in value, it doesn't exist. You have to steal it from someone else. This is basic economic theory. It's the same as "free college tuition." If you think it's free, or that you aren't paying for it yourself, you're insane.

If you happen to be partisan, imagine Obama or Trump (or better yet, someone imaginably worse like a dictator-type) being in charge of UBI. Still want the government in charge of it?

 

[Satellite]

The terrifying part of UBI is that people with this mentality will probably be the ones signing the checks and determining policy and who gets paid.

Again, it's only human-centered if it's unconditional. You really think it wouldn't turn into some form digital "Gubment Bucks" and you wouldn't immediately be told what you could spend it on? This system wouldn't immediately be corrupted at all? When has this ever happened?

And where does this money come from? If you don't produce $1k/month in value, it doesn't exist. You have to steal it from someone else. This is basic economic theory. It's the same as "free college tuition." If you think it's free, or that you aren't paying for it yourself, you're insane.

If you happen to be partisan, imagine Obama or Trump (or better yet, someone imaginably worse like a dictator-type) being in charge of UBI. Still want the government in charge of it?

- The problem isn’t UBI, it is people with this mentality applying obsolete economics. Scarcity is dead. Debt based systems are dead. The US monetary system is obsolete.

-This statement like the other person’s is pure emotional, fear-based hype

-How many times do I need to explain the same thing? The money comes from our data! Data is 24/7 and worth well more than $1K per month.

-Money is what we determine it to be. We can make it whatever we want. We can have as many forms of it as we want. Your ideas of zero-sum money are archaic.

-There is no such dictator LOL laws passed go through a process SMH more fear based hype

 

[fractal]

The money comes from our data! Data is 24/7 and worth well more than $1K per month.

It comes from giant tech companies making billions off our data who pay no taxes and continue cutting costs as technology improves, what aren’t you getting?!

Excellent points! I hope you choose to start a thread.

 

[jzeno]

Me: Look at these news outlets which have collected and analyzed a variety of studies on the costs and effects of UBI all demonstrating that UBI is not effective

@Satellite: your analysis is bad

You might get angry about it, but seriously Yang isn't even registering on most major polls and I've already shown how UBI is a bad idea not equipped to remedy the things which it aims to remedy, so just move on is what I would say. Do you seriously think the way you're defending UBI is going to persuade me in the next election? It's not and the way you go about arguing this, instead of trying to demonstrate the flaws in my logic just goes to show you don't understand how our (US) political system works. You can't just shout out people "You're wrong" and expect other people to say "oh. how foolish of me. You must know better than me. Why didn't I think of that?" It takes more than that and that you or most of the people here defending Yang and UBI don't understand how to engage with others and argue a point--without attacking the person--and just attack and poke holes shows that this idea isn't really going anywhere and fast and you're somewhat ignorant of how to effectively get things done in the US and history, too, considering what I just described is what the whole of Western civilization is built upon. Attack me all you want, all you do is just make yourself look like you don't understand what we're talking about at all. It's not like you can just decree UBI into existence--that isn't how our government works and that you do not understand that, makes it seem like 1) This isn't a conversation worth having and 2) UBI shouldn't be taken seriously because the people promoting it behave like this.

Granted, I did attack Yang (moron, etc.), but I wasn't trying to persuade OP or the people in this thread, I was just making a point expressing my opinion that I think UBI is bad and Yang is foolish because he doesn't understand the full effect of what he's trying to accomplish. I followed up with another citation and some points, but instead of someone willing to reason it out I get responses like yours.

I will note that OP made a very nice comment, something along the lines of "agree to disagree", which I respect very much and would be willing to listen to more just based on the fact that he has shown a basic level of dignity and respect to his equals. I'm not going to discuss something with someone who wants to yell and call me names or try to embarrass me (your analysis is bad) because obviously you're ineffective at getting your ideas across (otherwise you would have realized this method doesn't work) and--probably most important--is that you view me as less then you, which is why you think it's okay to be so disrespectful in the first place, whether it's conscious or not. Just doesn't work very well tbh to attack or embarrass the people you need to persuade. I think I'll just take me and my ideas elsewhere, which is a shame for your because in order to pass UBI you need people like me to elect people who support UBI. Now I just want to do the opposite.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

If government wasn't stomping on your throat, you wouldn't need to work your **** off. Of course you could if you wanted to. The amount of money the average person is directly or indirectly giving to government is staggering and they've done a terrific job of hiding it.

Oh yeah, I agree.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Excellent points! I hope you choose to start a thread.

I found that very interesting too. I thought the money would come from the cheapness of AI regarding multiple services in society, but considering how the government values information, it makes sense.

 

[iPeat]

- The problem isn’t UBI, it is people with this mentality applying obsolete economics. Scarcity is dead. Debt based systems are dead. The US monetary system is obsolete.

-This statement like the other person’s is pure emotional, fear-based hype

-How many times do I need to explain the same thing? The money comes from our data! Data is 24/7 and worth well more than $1K per month.

-Money is what we determine it to be. We can make it whatever we want. We can have as many forms of it as we want. Your ideas of zero-sum money are archaic.

-There is no such dictator LOL laws passed go through a process SMH more fear based hype

-The problem isn't people having more money. People having more money is great for the economy. However, if you just print it out and give it to them for not doing anything, it's just devalued garbage, or you've stolen it from someone else.

-I'm not arguing zero-sum. That's ridiculous.

-You're argument is completely emotional, not mine. I have the entirety of political history on my side. Government will abuse that power, not doubt about it. You're the one arguing fantasies of magical data that produces enough value to feed the masses and keep them happy.

-You can explain anything as much as you want. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You have yet to prove yourself correct. You're just asserting that you are.

-There is no dictator, yes. Are you just trolling? I was obviously illustrating the problems that could arise by giving people in government oppressive power. Do you not understand the concept of not giving other people power strong enough to kill/oppress you... because they might actually kill/oppress you with it?

 

[iPeat]

Excellent points! I hope you choose to start a thread.

I also hope they choose to start a thread. I'd like an explanation of how this data that I don't consent to have sold in the first place, somehow produces enough value to amount to more than a real-life turkey sandwich.

In actuality, I'd guess this data is used to sell us more stuff. Which if we don't have the money to buy, no one would want to sell us anything. Sounds like a giant chicken and egg Ponzi scheme to me.

 

[Rafael Lao Wai]

Me: Look at these news outlets which have collected and analyzed a variety of studies on the costs and effects of UBI all demonstrating that UBI is not effective

@Satellite: your analysis is bad

You might get angry about it, but seriously Yang isn't even registering on most major polls and I've already shown how UBI is a bad idea not equipped to remedy the things which it aims to remedy, so just move on is what I would say. Do you seriously think the way you're defending UBI is going to persuade me in the next election? It's not and the way you go about arguing this, instead of trying to demonstrate the flaws in my logic just goes to show you don't understand how our (US) political system works. You can't just shout out people "You're wrong" and expect other people to say "oh. how foolish of me. You must know better than me. Why didn't I think of that?" It takes more than that and that you or most of the people here defending Yang and UBI don't understand how to engage with others and argue a point--without attacking the person--and just attack and poke holes shows that this idea isn't really going anywhere and fast and you're somewhat ignorant of how to effectively get things done in the US and history, too, considering what I just described is what the whole of Western civilization is built upon. Attack me all you want, all you do is just make yourself look like you don't understand what we're talking about at all. It's not like you can just decree UBI into existence--that isn't how our government works and that you do not understand that, makes it seem like 1) This isn't a conversation worth having and 2) UBI shouldn't be taken seriously because the people promoting it behave like this.

Granted, I did attack Yang (moron, etc.), but I wasn't trying to persuade OP or the people in this thread, I was just making a point expressing my opinion that I think UBI is bad and Yang is foolish because he doesn't understand the full effect of what he's trying to accomplish. I followed up with another citation and some points, but instead of someone willing to reason it out I get responses like yours.

I will note that OP made a very nice comment, something along the lines of "agree to disagree", which I respect very much and would be willing to listen to more just based on the fact that he has shown a basic level of dignity and respect to his equals. I'm not going to discuss something with someone who wants to yell and call me names or try to embarrass me (your analysis is bad) because obviously you're ineffective at getting your ideas across (otherwise you would have realized this method doesn't work) and--probably most important--is that you view me as less then you, which is why you think it's okay to be so disrespectful in the first place, whether it's conscious or not. Just doesn't work very well tbh to attack or embarrass the people you need to persuade. I think I'll just take me and my ideas elsewhere, which is a shame for your because in order to pass UBI you need people like me to elect people who support UBI. Now I just want to do the opposite.

So calling Democrats retarded isn't calling people names? How is saying that anyone that supports UBI " has not read the literature" not embarrassing to them? Personally, I wouldn't be too pissed if somebody said that my analysis was wrong, but politics usually stirs up some emotions and I can understand that, but don't you think it's okay to let other people be emotional too, if you yourself are behaving like that?

 

[Satellite]

Me: Look at these news outlets which have collected and analyzed a variety of studies on the costs and effects of UBI all demonstrating that UBI is not effective

@Satellite: your analysis is bad

You might get angry about it, but seriously Yang isn't even registering on most major polls and I've already shown how UBI is a bad idea not equipped to remedy the things which it aims to remedy, so just move on is what I would say. Do you seriously think the way you're defending UBI is going to persuade me in the next election? It's not and the way you go about arguing this, instead of trying to demonstrate the flaws in my logic just goes to show you don't understand how our (US) political system works. You can't just shout out people "You're wrong" and expect other people to say "oh. how foolish of me. You must know better than me. Why didn't I think of that?" It takes more than that and that you or most of the people here defending Yang and UBI don't understand how to engage with others and argue a point--without attacking the person--and just attack and poke holes shows that this idea isn't really going anywhere and fast and you're somewhat ignorant of how to effectively get things done in the US and history, too, considering what I just described is what the whole of Western civilization is built upon. Attack me all you want, all you do is just make yourself look like you don't understand what we're talking about at all. It's not like you can just decree UBI into existence--that isn't how our government works and that you do not understand that, makes it seem like 1) This isn't a conversation worth having and 2) UBI shouldn't be taken seriously because the people promoting it behave like this.

Granted, I did attack Yang (moron, etc.), but I wasn't trying to persuade OP or the people in this thread, I was just making a point expressing my opinion that I think UBI is bad and Yang is foolish because he doesn't understand the full effect of what he's trying to accomplish. I followed up with another citation and some points, but instead of someone willing to reason it out I get responses like yours.

I will note that OP made a very nice comment, something along the lines of "agree to disagree", which I respect very much and would be willing to listen to more just based on the fact that he has shown a basic level of dignity and respect to his equals. I'm not going to discuss something with someone who wants to yell and call me names or try to embarrass me (your analysis is bad) because obviously you're ineffective at getting your ideas across (otherwise you would have realized this method doesn't work) and--probably most important--is that you view me as less then you, which is why you think it's okay to be so disrespectful in the first place, whether it's conscious or not. Just doesn't work very well tbh to attack or embarrass the people you need to persuade. I think I'll just take me and my ideas elsewhere, which is a shame for your because in order to pass UBI you need people like me to elect people who support UBI. Now I just want to do the opposite.

First, I am not trying to convince anyone, especially you. Just clarifying things so when others read it they get factual statements about Yang’s ideas. I merely corrected your statements as what you are portraying Yang to be is incorrect.

Your misanalyses continues. I am trained in intelligence analysis. I am not attacking you, just noticing your thinking is not sound. Regardless of what anyone says, how you react to it is 100% on you. You are an adult.

You are making emotional, biased statements and then finding sources that support your points. Your sources so far are all mainstream: professors, the media, our US political system. These are not credible sources as they have not produced what is needed for Americans. Yang supporters want to change the system, so using the current system will never be accepted, it’s broken/obsolete.

If you truly understood Yang’s perspective you would know this. But you’re not trying to understand other perspectives, you’ve already decided what is right.

Regardless of sources, “it is the soundness of your thinking that determines your success.” ~Morgan D. Jones, former CIA analyst.

In any type of analysis it is the soundness of thoughts that counts. Structuring your analysis properly is imperative as it funnels your thoughts a certain way.

The key to a good analysis is not making an argument and then finding info to back it up (lawyers use this method), it is finding info from ALL sides and then testing a hypothesis until it can never be proven false.

Well, we have seen the info from your side too, for centuries, and it isn’t working either...

 

[Satellite]

So calling Democrats retarded isn't calling people names? How is saying that anyone that supports UBI " has not read the literature" not embarrassing to them? Personally, I wouldn't be too pissed if somebody said that my analysis was wrong, but politics usually stirs up some emotions and I can understand that, but don't you think it's okay to let other people be emotional too, if you yourself are behaving like that?

This is a common trait amongst authoritarians who like to vote themselves as the authority on things.

 

[Satellite]

-The problem isn't people having more money. People having more money is great for the economy. However, if you just print it out and give it to them for not doing anything, it's just devalued garbage, or you've stolen it from someone else.

-I'm not arguing zero-sum. That's ridiculous.

-You're argument is completely emotional, not mine. I have the entirety of political history on my side. Government will abuse that power, not doubt about it. You're the one arguing fantasies of magical data that produces enough value to feed the masses and keep them happy.

-You can explain anything as much as you want. If you're wrong, you're wrong. You have yet to prove yourself correct. You're just asserting that you are.

-There is no dictator, yes. Are you just trolling? I was obviously illustrating the problems that could arise by giving people in government oppressive power. Do you not understand the concept of not giving other people power strong enough to kill/oppress you... because they might actually kill/oppress you with it?

-This again?! We are not creating new money. We are taxing the winners of the tech industry that make billions and pay no taxes. Right now that’s companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Those taxes can more than cover the $1K per month, especially when people will use part of it to buy goods on Amazon, Facebook ads, etc. So it’s like taking $1K and continuously running it through your bank account, it’s recycled.

-Please visit Yang’s site. Heck even a few of Yang’s YT interviews would have explained this.

-I agree though, many problems would be solved if they simply deflated our currency, increasing our purchasing power.

-When the bottom 90% have extra cash it creates a wholly different economy. When money trickles down, the 90% get a salary raise to cover inflation plus 1-2% increase. Most of the money is spent by business owners buying more assets and infrastructure for their business. When most of the money is in the hands of the 90% it still trickles up, but now there are more smaller businesses, etc. It’s a different landscape.

-It is not possible to testify as to what anyone will do or think. Further, it’s all perspective. What you call abuse may not be to someone else who agrees with the government.

-They are not fantasies. Amazon paying zero in taxes is a fact. Please reference Yang’s website or YT videos. Facebook, Google, and others track what you do online and use it for targeting ads etc. That’s just one example of it. They do so without permission and make money from it.

-I am not arguing or trying to convince anything, merely clarifying what Yang is about. Politics isn’t always right or wrong. Yang gang wants what it wants society to be. Speaking for myself only, I do not wonder if it’s right. I would enjoy living that way over the current way, and would happily do my part to ensure it works as intended.

-America has checks and balances, and they work, exceedingly well. Nixon proved that, and now again with the pending impeachment. There’s no such thing as a single dictator in America. Sure, the entire government can become oppressive, but I’d leave.

 

[jzeno]

>pending impeachment

lol. Trump obviously isn't going to get impeached and you wouldn't say that if you understood how impeachment works in the US.

Social Studies lesson: House is responsible for initiating Impeachment with a full House vote (Nancy has not done this to stonewall Rs from being able to subpoena witnesses) and then if approved by the House with a 2/3 majority--not a simple majority--a court hearing has to be held by the Senate where the Pres. can select a defense council, call witnesses, and the House and Senate would be the jury and Chief Supreme Court Justice (now, John Roberts--Conservative) would preside over the case as judge. That will never happen with a R controlled Senate. So to say that is just silly and shows your naivety.

Bill Clinton wasn't even impeached by the Senate even though he was guilty of criminal sexual assault, etc. etc. (Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia)

>These are not credible sources as they have not produced what is needed for Americans. Yang supporters want to change the system, so using the current system will never be accepted, it’s broken/obsolete.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that is pretty radical... You think it's productive to ignore the input from all these people when they will be effected by this decision, too? Seems a little authoritarian if you ask me... Wouldn't you want the opportunity to voice your opinion if a decision that was going to be made could potentially impact you? Second, because you'll probably say "I didn't say they can't have their opinion. I said we shouldn't consider it because it's obsolete", don't you think that's a little reckless when these are professionals in their field? You're a guy--probably a kid--on the Internet. I'm going to say we can hear from you and them and at the end of the day I'm happy to let all of America, together, to decide the matter. So all the Pro UBI/VAT people can come out and all the con UBI/VAT people come out and decide it together. If gets shot down, it's obviously a bad idea. I think overthrowing the current system we have is very dangerous and should not be encouraged.

@Rafael Lao Wai Was referring to party leadership. Not average voters. Pelosi, Schumer, et al. That wasn't meant as a dig to any Ds here.

Just would like to add @Satellite you claim my thinking is not sound but fail to point it out. How is 1) Taking other people's money 2) Redistributing it to other people more efficient then 1) Taking less of other people's money. It doesn't make sense. Lowering taxes on the middle class would arguably accomplish the same thing and have a more immediate impact. My paycheck gets to me every two weeks and lowering taxes mean there's more money in my pocket right away. Compare that to a monthly payment. Which is slower? Obviously UBI.

Second, the bureaucracy needed to lower taxes = already in place. UBI/VAT? That will arguably take hundreds of more jobs, which will require an even greater budget (salaries, rents, office machines, software, buildings, health care plans, pensions, etc. etc.) which will just suck some of the effect of UBI/VAT away. This is perfectly reasonable and logical. I think what you're doing is just projecting onto me your lack of analysis because I'm clearly bringing up legitimate concerns of the drawbacks of UBI/VAT and when compared to taxes it seems we can already accomplish the same effect and yet people like you want to argue UBI/VAT when there just isn't a compelling evidence to be had. Why all the waste when we can do it easier, faster, better now with what we have?

There are a lot of reasons that UBI is just not a good idea and also not effective at what it aims to accomplish, but you're not addressing those concerns and still just side-stepping the whole thing. "Your analysis is lacking".

 

[iPeat]

-This again?! We are not creating new money. We are taxing the winners of the tech industry that make billions and pay no taxes. Right now that’s companies like Amazon, Facebook, and Google. Those taxes can more than cover the $1K per month, especially when people will use part of it to buy goods on Amazon, Facebook ads, etc. So it’s like taking $1K and continuously running it through your bank account, it’s recycled.

-Please visit Yang’s site. Heck even a few of Yang’s YT interviews would have explained this.

-I agree though, many problems would be solved if they simply deflated our currency, increasing our purchasing power.

-When the bottom 90% have extra cash it creates a wholly different economy. When money trickles down, the 90% get a salary raise to cover inflation plus 1-2% increase. Most of the money is spent by business owners buying more assets and infrastructure for their business. When most of the money is in the hands of the 90% it still trickles up, but now there are more smaller businesses, etc. It’s a different landscape.

-It is not possible to testify as to what anyone will do or think. Further, it’s all perspective. What you call abuse may not be to someone else who agrees with the government.

-They are not fantasies. Amazon paying zero in taxes is a fact. Please reference Yang’s website or YT videos. Facebook, Google, and others track what you do online and use it for targeting ads etc. That’s just one example of it. They do so without permission and make money from it.

-I am not arguing or trying to convince anything, merely clarifying what Yang is about. Politics isn’t always right or wrong. Yang gang wants what it wants society to be. Speaking for myself only, I do not wonder if it’s right. I would enjoy living that way over the current way, and would happily do my part to ensure it works as intended.

-America has checks and balances, and they work, exceedingly well. Nixon proved that, and now again with the pending impeachment. There’s no such thing as a single dictator in America. Sure, the entire government can become oppressive, but I’d leave.

The last 3 posts have me convinced. You're a troll. Good one, man. There's no way someone could be that informed and misinformed at the same time, all while having the ego of a prison guard. You really had me going there. Amazon doesn't pay any taxes! Lol

Edit: double quoted

 

[Satellite]

The last 3 posts have me convinced. You're a troll. Good one, man. There's no way someone could be that informed and misinformed at the same time, all while having the ego of a prison guard. You really had me going there. Amazon doesn't pay any taxes! Lol

Edit: double quoted

Geez dude do some homework please before defaming people. This is common knowledge. A simple internet search would give tons of results.

Same with Yang. Please do some homework.

Tax law didn’t help Amazon pay zero in 2018 — it was just savvy

 

[Satellite]

>pending impeachment

lol. Trump obviously isn't going to get impeached and you wouldn't say that if you understood how impeachment works in the US.

Social Studies lesson: House is responsible for initiating Impeachment with a full House vote (Nancy has not done this to stonewall Rs from being able to subpoena witnesses) and then if approved by the House with a 2/3 majority--not a simple majority--a court hearing has to be held by the Senate where the Pres. can select a defense council, call witnesses, and the House and Senate would be the jury and Chief Supreme Court Justice (now, John Roberts--Conservative) would preside over the case as judge. That will never happen with a R controlled Senate. So to say that is just silly and shows your naivety.

Bill Clinton wasn't even impeached by the Senate even though he was guilty of criminal sexual assault, etc. etc. (Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations - Wikipedia)

>These are not credible sources as they have not produced what is needed for Americans. Yang supporters want to change the system, so using the current system will never be accepted, it’s broken/obsolete.

I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that is pretty radical... You think it's productive to ignore the input from all these people when they will be effected by this decision, too? Seems a little authoritarian if you ask me... Wouldn't you want the opportunity to voice your opinion if a decision that was going to be made could potentially impact you? Second, because you'll probably say "I didn't say they can't have their opinion. I said we shouldn't consider it because it's obsolete", don't you think that's a little reckless when these are professionals in their field? You're a guy--probably a kid--on the Internet. I'm going to say we can hear from you and them and at the end of the day I'm happy to let all of America, together, to decide the matter. So all the Pro UBI/VAT people can come out and all the con UBI/VAT people come out and decide it together. If gets shot down, it's obviously a bad idea. I think overthrowing the current system we have is very dangerous and should not be encouraged.

@Rafael Lao Wai Was referring to party leadership. Not average voters. Pelosi, Schumer, et al. That wasn't meant as a dig to any Ds here.

Just would like to add @Satellite you claim my thinking is not sound but fail to point it out. How is 1) Taking other people's money 2) Redistributing it to other people more efficient then 1) Taking less of other people's money. It doesn't make sense. Lowering taxes on the middle class would arguably accomplish the same thing and have a more immediate impact. My paycheck gets to me every two weeks and lowering taxes mean there's more money in my pocket right away. Compare that to a monthly payment. Which is slower? Obviously UBI.

Second, the bureaucracy needed to lower taxes = already in place. UBI/VAT? That will arguably take hundreds of more jobs, which will require an even greater budget (salaries, rents, office machines, software, buildings, health care plans, pensions, etc. etc.) which will just suck some of the effect of UBI/VAT away. This is perfectly reasonable and logical. I think what you're doing is just projecting onto me your lack of analysis because I'm clearly bringing up legitimate concerns of the drawbacks of UBI/VAT and when compared to taxes it seems we can already accomplish the same effect and yet people like you want to argue UBI/VAT when there just isn't a compelling evidence to be had. Why all the waste when we can do it easier, faster, better now with what we have?

There are a lot of reasons that UBI is just not a good idea and also not effective at what it aims to accomplish, but you're not addressing those concerns and still just side-stepping the whole thing. "Your analysis is lacking".

-Another incorrect analysis where you put words in my mouth. I made no comment about the probability of success, just that it’s pending. If our checks and balances didn’t work it would not even be pending. Trump would be doing whatever he wanted with nothing in his way. Clearly that’s not the case.

-The other two points on this just prove my point, the system is broken, it needs to be replaced. Yang gangers don’t value it.

-Rejecting someone’s opinion is authoritarian now? Other voters can think and vote how they want. The results/facts speak for themselves, the system doesn’t work. If what you said was factual then all these experts would have created a system that works, but it doesn’t work. So are they incompetent? Corrupt? Please explain their failure.

-I’m not advocating throwing over the system lol...what???? When something becomes obsolete you replace it with something that works....

-It’s not other people’s money, it’s our data. Why is my data allowed to be stolen and used for profit of which I receive none? It’s not about being efficient, it’s also about being an owner/shareholder of this country and receiving a piece of the activity that occurs here.

-Yang doesn’t want to merely decrease taxes because he says citizens should not have to work and be poor. The idea is not to be dependent on your job, that you probably dislike. A cash payment from the government as a right of citizenship frees people allowing them to pursue other things in life. So many people hate their lives/jobs but have no choice. Yang is trying to create a better lifestyle it’s not just about money.

-He said $1K a month, it doesn’t necessarily have to be one payment. But the payment is probably at the beginning of the month, which is better than split in two.

-Its too early to determine how many jobs it would take. But I’m confused, it’s a partial solution to a problem that is destroying jobs, and you consider it a negative that it will create jobs?!

 

[rei]

Me: Look at these news outlets which have collected and analyzed a variety of studies on the costs and effects of UBI all demonstrating that UBI is not effective

So you choose to rely on the corrupt analysis of media in an ultracapitalist society instead of looking at what the results were in one of the first countries that has actually tested it out and found it so effective they started the process of preparing for UBI when the party arguing for it won the elections? The arguments used by the Finnish politicians are not justice, equality etc. that are really the most important ones, instead their pragmatic approach is to demonstrate how it saves money on bureaucracy and makes it easier for people to escape the welfare trap and get employed, again saving in social security costs. They found it does not result in people avoiding jobs, it actually increases employment.

You have little facts on your side, only a politically motivated opinion. Social security is a political tool to keep poor people controlled, it has no other benefit over UBI. So the discussion should be about stopping all social programs or modernize the archaic system using UBI. The current paradigm is insane.

Sadly this is not covered by the corrupt global media so you need to find the facts from national media, but google translate handles it fairly well: Vasemmistoliitolla on perustulo ja SDP:llä vastikkeellinen yleisturva – näin valmistelijat perustelivat väittelyssä malleja

 

[thomas00]

If government wasn't stomping on your throat, you wouldn't need to work your **** off. Of course you could if you wanted to. The amount of money the average person is directly or indirectly giving to government is staggering and they've done a terrific job of hiding it.

is there are reason you don't hold employers responsible for......anything?