Have Any Of You Guys Heard Of Andrew Yang?

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

  1. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    There you go again. Assuming the other person doesn't know what they're talking about and/or haven't "done their homework." Get off the high horse if you want to have a conversation.

    Using the "Amazon doesn't pay any taxes" argument, is like sticking a big sticker on your forehead that's reads, "I don't understand economics."
     
  2. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Now there's the pot calling the kettle black.
     
  3. rei

    rei Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2017
    Messages:
    598
    Yes, political opinion is different from hard facts like calculated savings in the budget. Sadly not every country has a world central bank that can print money and export the inflation seemingly forever, so there must be consideration to costs and not only blind political ideology damn the costs.

    The only program that is as obviously insane as the current welfare system and still in use is the war on drugs. Cannabis legalization already brought huge benefits and costs savings to many states, but ending the drug war would bring an order of magnitude more, for the whole world. But still old propaganda-based political ideology is preventing it for now. Like in medicine, change can seemingly only happen as the old generation dies because most people are unable to change their opinion no matter what the facts turn out to be -- it would necessitate for them to admit they were wrong.
     
  4. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Is there a reason you hold employers responsible for anything?
     
  5. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    You're arguing for adding trillions to spending while we're 22 trillion in debt...
     
  6. Collden

    Collden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Its undeniable that recent technological advances has generated tremendous wealth, but most of that wealth has simply ended up in the pockets of the richest fraction of the population. The net worth of the worlds billionaires has increased 600% in just the past 15 years. The net worth of the richest 10 percent in the US in the same period has more than doubled from 30 to 75 trillions, whereas the net worth of the bottom 50% has actually decreased.

    I used to think that financing a substantial UBI by redistributing the federal budget would be difficult, but even a quite generous UBI would be easy to finance with minor taxation of the wealth generated by the largest tech companies. Yang brings up the example that automation of the trucking industry is expected to save almost 200 billion dollars. If even 20% of those savings were redistributed to the 3 million truckers that will soon be jobless that alone would cover the UBI Yang proposes.
     
  7. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    It's an old video but still relevant. If you can manage to sit through 8 minutes of a differing opinion, here's a good video about "eating the rich."



    You can also look up Miltom Friedman's work on the Robber Baron Myth if you're so inclined.

    Seeking revenge on the people who efficiently produce wealth, while increasing the power of government, which produces nothing but debt and steals your money in the process, is extremely counterproductive.

    It's like telling someone that's beating the crap out of you that their shoes are untied. While I agree that Big Business has the capability to do "bad" things, they can't force you to do anything.

    It's also ignoring the fact of trickled down tax burden. You can tax the rich to death. They'll leave, stop doing business, or pass that cost along to the consumer. Hence, the disproportionate tax burden placed on the poor.
     
  8. Collden

    Collden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Funny video, but something doesn't add up. He asserts that liquidating all the assets of every single rich person in the US would barely reach 3.7 trillion. Meanwhile this CBO report asserts that the richest 10% in the US have a total wealth of nearly 70 trillion - and that they've accumulated 40 of these trillions in the past 15-20 years. This only goes to 2013 but I'm sure the numbers are even higher today.
    Trends in Family Wealth, 1989 to 2013 | Congressional Budget Office

    Also, redistributing some of this wealth to the general population does not make the money disappear, it immediately goes back into the economy as people spend their money. Poor and desperate people are however very bad for the economy as they do not buy anything and if anything turn to destructive behaviors that end up costing society a lot of money.
     
  9. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    I appreciate you taking the time to watch that. He was talking about funding a $3.7 trillion increase in spending (ObamaCare), not redistributing it to the masses. That wasn't even mentioning the current government spending. It was also 8 years ago.

    "CBO measured wealth as marketable wealth, which consists of assets that are easily tradable and that have value even after the death of their owner. Those assets include home equity, other real estate (net of real estate loans), financial securities, bank deposits, defined contribution pension accounts, and business equity. Debt is nonmortgage debt, including credit card debt, auto loans, and student loans, for example."

    So it's basically a measurement of America's productivity. Hooray for us. I don't see the point. You're ok forcing people to sell their assets to pay for UBI? You don't see the problem here?
     
  10. Collden

    Collden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Just saying there has been an enormous amount of wealth generated by technological advances in just the past few decades and very little of it has trickled down to the average citizen. The point is not only that some form of wealth redistribution is highly justified because technological progress is a collaborative effort that takes the support of an entire society to flourish.

    The point is also that redistribution will become an absolute necessity in the near future to prevent large segments of the population from becoming destitute, desperate and destructive. We will soon have mass riots on our hands if this wealth does not start finding its way into the general population.
     
  11. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree. However, I think you have the wrong "bad guy," and a, at best temporary, solution.

    The "technology will take all the jobs" has been spouted since the industrial revolution. That's never been the case. It just makes our lives easier and more efficient, making us more productive. Think of all the advancements in the last 50 years (computers, phones, air travel, etc., etc.). You're far better off despite massive technological expansion, and so are the poor. I believe the average poor household has 2 TVs, AC, and a computer. Not saying they shouldn't have more. I think they should have more. Much more. And my opinion, it's the government boot keeping them down, not the rich.

    Technology has made their lives better, not worse. As technology gets better and cheaper, the quality of life of the poor increases as well. Stealing the productivity of the uber productive, only stunts further progress.
     
  12. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Just want to clarify that when I pointed out that the poor have "luxury items," I don't mean that they shouldn't have them, or that they aren't, in fact, poor. I'm illustrating that it's awesome that our society has created those things and, I believe, it's a great sign of progress that those "luxury items" exist at all, and that they've worked their way down to essentially every American.

    Also, I'm trying not to make "fix the poor problem" argument. Just that UBI would be a horrific idea.
     
  13. Collden

    Collden Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2012
    Messages:
    347
    Gender:
    Male
    Yangs argument is that this is simply not happening. Factory workers displaced by automation have not been retrained or found other jobs, they simply left the work force. Its not feasible to retrain millions of truck drivers or other menial laborers to become software engineers or medical doctors. When these people get replaced by robots it is going to be increasingly harder for them to find other jobs because the list of occupations that humans can do better than robots is steadily shrinking, and what is left is already occupied by the young/educated/intelligent/talented elite.

    What would you do about the growing number of people today who are simply unemployable and caught in a welfare trap?
     
  14. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male

    Again, this "scare tactic" is so tired. It's been used forever. It never winds up happening that way.

    We have more technology now than ever before, by far, and the unemployment rate is the lowest it's ever been. I don't see your crisis. People will do what they always do - what's in their best interest. I don't have the arrogance to think I know what's best for someone else, or believe I can see the future. That's actually the whole point - stop controlling people and who knows what the next leap will be.
     
  15. RealNeat

    RealNeat Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2019
    Messages:
    76
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minnesota
    Just be ready for a carbon tax and Pro-geoengineering propaganda
     
  16. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Right. And Yang essentially admitted this in the debates by saying that after UBI is implemented that we can "better focus on climate change."
     
  17. Satellite

    Satellite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    148
    You accused me of being a troll and expressed disbelief that Amazon didn’t pay any taxes. A simple internet search would tell you what you needed to know.

    Instead you chose to call me a troll, so who’s really trolling?

    Don’t message me again.
     
  18. iPeat

    iPeat Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2018
    Messages:
    147
    Gender:
    Male
    Like I told you before - saying that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes is the same a saying that you don't understand economics. The value that Amazon has contributed to this country is almost immeasurable, and they didn't steal your money to do it.
     
  19. lampofred

    lampofred Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2016
    Messages:
    2,103
    Gender:
    Male
    True, the value Google, Amazon, Apple, etc have added is immeasurable so let's not concern ourselves if they don't pay taxes. In fact let's cut taxes for all big tech firms while demanding more from ordinary citizens because ordinary citizens don't add any value to this country right.

    I'm obviously capitalist myself but I don't understand apologists who defend everything big companies do via some twisting of "might is right" or "you get what you deserve" kind of philosophy.
     
  20. Satellite

    Satellite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2018
    Messages:
    148
    Don’t waste your time with it, @iPeat is just trolling.

    If @iPeat did any homework, just fifteen minutes even, he would know that no one including Yang is blaming anyone.

    Automation is changing our economy, it’s a fact, and we’re not going backwards.

    @iPeat looks at the government as the enemy and then applies that logic to us as if we think private sector is the enemy.

    This line of thinking is archaic and tired.

    Not even the CEOs of these tech companies agree with @iPeat LOLOL

    They said they are totally willing to pay the taxes, because they see what is happening.

    When automation causes mass displacement, it is no longer possible to operate using the previous model, it needs to adapt.

    Yet @iPeat wants to go back to the Stone Age or something. It’s hard to tell exactly, because he throws out slanderous statements from left field.

    “Amazon didn’t steal your money.”

    Who said they did?????

    They use OUR data FOR FREE to MAKE MONEY FOR THEMSELVES without paying us for it or even asking our permission.

    They can make as much money and use as much automation as they want, just as long as US citizens are paid their share of the equity.

    How is this so complicated to understand.
     
Loading...