This guy is the real deal. His personality and policy ideas is exactly what we need right now in the US. I hope to see him on the ballot.
Opened this thread because I’d like to discuss his politics, but also the larger trends associated with peak automation (in this field as well as others.)
The jre episode in the link is great, and I hope you guys get a chance to watch it.
Bench
Feb 18, 19 3:43 pm
Honest question - you've self-described as libertarian on this forum (some might say 'extremely' so); how do you square UBI with that outlook? It would seem these are in conflict with each other.
(BTW - I think AY is a great candidate)
x-jla
Feb 18, 19 3:51 pm
Bench, there is nothing about UBI that goes against libertarianism. Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, was a huge proponent of UBI. I think many people just don’t understand what libertarianism is. I blame that mostly on bad PR, Ayn Rand, and the libertarian party. Libertarianism as a philosophy is about limited govt, maximum individual autonomy, and prevention of state violence “non aggression principle”. Providing social safety nets is not necessarily anti libertarian so long as it is done in a way that doesn’t redistribute wealth via property seizures back by state threat of violence (prison).
x-jla
Feb 18, 19 3:54 pm
Yang talks about this towards the end of the interview. He is also running as a dem, not a libertarian to be clear...but certainly seems to be leaning libertarian in many areas. He’s really refreshing imho.
x-jla
Feb 18, 19 3:59 pm
Personally, I’ve been preaching about automation and the inevitability of UBI for some time now. I think it is the most humane and doable solution to the rise of automation and AI. I don’t think 1000$ is enough, but it’s a start. On the libertarianism thread I discussed removing the federal reserve and creating a trickle up economy, where money enters the system through UBI, and the amount is itself automatically determined and in flux based on livable wage per person. I just don’t see how a society where 90% of jobs are automated can exist without this change.
x-jla
Feb 18, 19 4:10 pm
And to answer a little further...libertarianism is not about zero govt. it’s not an absolute ideology. It’s about “maximizing” freedom. If there is no feasible market solution, then govt should be used. It’s like minimalism...no minimalist architect is proposing that we just don’t build anything and sleep outside...that isn’t the ultimate fulfillment of the philosophy.
x-jla
Feb 18, 19 4:18 pm
Also bench, I’m often playing to the extremes for the sake of debate.
tduds
Feb 18, 19 5:31 pm
Good responses. "Trickle Up" is certainly interesting to think about. A lot of this sounds great in theory but in practice I don't understand how it'd work without a large bureaucratic institution. I'm not opposed to large bureaucratic institutions, though.
tduds
Feb 18, 19 5:32 pm
Never heard of him before. I don't have time right now to listen to that link but I'll try to check it out soon.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 18, 19 6:37 pm
Yang's human capital is a conceptual basis for a good value system but he is clueless about economics as he think taxes limit government spending (how are we going to pay for it?). His positions on foreign policy, war, and military spending are empty platitudes.
Libertarians suffer from a number of fundamental contradictions including the prohibition of violence in any form except economic, such as denying social services, which they view as paid for by theft (taxes). This shows that they are as economically clueless as Yang.
UBI is a great idea that would if properly implemented (along with universal health care [NOT insurance]) eliminate poverty as well as all the needlessly wasteful bureaucratic systems that social services require. It would in theory improve the health and education of society with attendant effects of crime reduction, increased life expectancy, etc.
How would jla-x pay for it?
randomised
Feb 19, 19 1:13 am
I don't get that, non-dems running as dems, or non-rep running as rep...start your own f-ing party, it will either undermine the party (trump) or the party will undermine the candidate (sanders).
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 9:14 am
I agree. The way it’s set up however makes that very difficult.
SneakyPete
Feb 19, 19 1:49 pm
We need a reconfiguration of our electoral system AWAY from first past the post. That combined with a useful voice for any minority members in the government beyond obstructionism would go a long way to aligning our leadership with our electorate.
tduds
Feb 19, 19 1:51 pm
For better or worse, the only way to win (or even be taken seriously) is from within one of the two major parties. This won't change unless the US changes the way we vote.
SneakyPete
Feb 19, 19 1:53 pm
Which SHOULD happen but won't because we ceded control of our politicians to money and big business.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 19, 19 6:27 pm
randomised - The two parties have an ironclad lock on the system. After Ross Perot scared the shit out of them by running as an independent third parties have been banned from debates, media coverage, etc. Green Party candidate Jill Stein was detained in handcuffs just for showing up at a Obama-Romney debate at Hofstra University.
That's why Bernie ran as a Dem, otherwise he would have been completely ignored. The League of Women Voters used to sponsor presidential debates but stopped in 1988. Since then the so-called debates (where no debate actually happens) have been sponsored by The Commission on Presidential Debates, a.k.a. DNC and RNC.
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.
I heard this guy on Sam Harris awhile back. He's got some interesting ideas. I really like the idea of UBI but when you start to look at the numbers it's hard to see how it would really work without some major updates to the tax code ie some serious income distribution.
I do think the automation economy is the looming disaster that no one is talking about. Including our illustrious politicians and the media.
randomised
Feb 19, 19 10:23 am
"I really like the idea of UBI but when you start to look at the numbers it's hard to see how it would really work without some major updates to the tax code ie some serious income distribution."
It's not supposed to work without those updates, they are essential.
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 1:43 pm
Banks create 97% of “new money”. It’s all fiat. We can have zero taxes and simply replace the banks ability to create fiat money with a UBI.
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 1:49 pm
The UBI could be some kind of cryptocurrency that automatically adjusts to inflation. We can essentially replace banks with an AI that determines and adjusts the livable wage so that lowest you can fall is always humane, but the highest you can go is always limitless. I’m not going to pretend to know the math, but I think it’s a workable system that allows for the best of both worlds.
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 1:54 pm
we would have to replace the dollar with something else. It’s one of those things that would be politically difficult but technically doable.
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 2:14 pm
In other words the money should be somehow connected to its living power for essentials per person. Housing,eating,etc. that should automatically adjust so that inflationary periods do not lead to political battles and poverty. Rather than a static number the UBI should be a self adjusting rate that guarantees x amount of buying power. That is the key to the UBI thing working imo. The other key is to not make it reliant on income taxation. Instead, taxes should be recirculated through consumption taxes placed on non-essential goods and luxury items. The rich will end up
paying more naturally because they will buy more. Do the numbers work? Idk. Assuming something like this ends up happening, how do people live their daily lives? What will cities look like? What will happen to the cultural and artistic landscape with so many more people with time to produce and consume culture, art, information...? Imo that is the real interesting question.
x-jla
Feb 19, 19 2:33 pm
A system based on income taxation will put the wealthy minority in a position of control, and require an ever expanding state power that will eventually either stunt growth by taking too much, or cause the producing class to up and leave. This is basically what happened in Venuzuela. Rather than class warfare, we can have a system where taxation is based on voluntary transactions.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 19, 19 6:32 pm
"A system based on income taxation will put the wealthy minority in a position of control" ...
LOL exactly who do you think is in control right now?
x-jla
Feb 20, 19 1:23 am
Miles, I’d say they have major influence now, but if a significant portion of the population was being completely supported by the taxes of a small minority it would quickly devolve into a true oligarchy. Like hunger games shit. What we have now on anabolic steroids.
NYC is a good, but moderate example. A huge overhead city that depends on millionaires to finance it...and in return panders to them for dear life. They have an enormous amount of pull because if they leave or stop production the city is fucked.
The system that I am describing would remove this dependency.
Koww
Feb 19, 19 8:42 pm
i don't want basic income. i want lots of cash and a ferrari.
x-jla
Feb 20, 19 1:36 am
Both things can exist in my techno-libertarian utopia.
x-jla
Feb 20, 19 1:36 am
lol :)
randomised
Feb 20, 19 2:48 am
one person's utopia is the other's dystopia
Leofingal
May 10, 19 9:02 pm
I am quite excited by Andrew Yang. His major platform ideas are extremely well aligned with what I think we need to be doing to address the shifts in the economy. A couple issues I see (which maybe would need to be addressed in the longer run are:
$1k per month is too little(probably needs to be $2k), mostly for the following reasons
Should be a mechanism to replace multiple current programs such as Unemployment benefits, Social Security, Welfare, WIC etc.
In addition to eliminating older systems such as above, it should also eliminate minimum wage. After all, by providing a real floor to what we consider allowable standard of living, you can make wages unconstrained, and true Free Market style.
I also think that it might make a lot of sense to consider changing the tax code significantly:
Institute a VAT of 10% (tax on all goods regardless of their origin). Historically, I have considered sales tax or VAT to be a Regressive Tax since it disproportionately hurts the poor, as they spend a higher percentage of their earnings on purchases. However, by providing a decent base level (UBI) then the regressive nature of VAT is overcome.
And even more radically, I think the income tax should be replaced with a very high savings tax (or perhaps through a digital currency, an expiring monetary system). The purpose of such a crazy thing would be to increase the velocity of spending, stimulating the economy further. The leeching of the funds by savings puts a major damping force on the economy.
By having a reasonably high UBI you can eliminate many of the reasons for saving (retirement risks, rainy day funds, etc.) thus driving higher currency velocity (which gets taxed each transaction).
Andrew's approaches are a little more in line with the current economic structure (much less disruptive), but the more radical approach above has other benefits such as greatly simplifying our safety net systems.
Of course this also requires medicare for all to eliminate the association of medical coverage with employment. This would also help by making work far more flexible. I would love to work less hours (and be paid hourly), however full time employment is needed for insurance. This negatively impacts my likelihood of trying to start up a new business, or moving from corporate to consulting etc. Employers would be more likely to offer flexible hours if they did not have to have high fixed costs associated with each employee like healthcare.
None of this has been modeled at this point, but I think there are pretty significant benefits to pumping the money in from the bottom up instead of from the top down. Happy to get feedback.
x-jla
Oct 20, 19 11:44 am
I agree with you on everything except the savings tax. Not really sure I like the idea of taxing savings, because saving is a way to reach long term goals...could create a society of short term impulse buying.
HowardA
Jul 7, 19 5:17 pm
Leofingal I agree with much of what you say here, particularly it would be great if the "normal growth" of the money supply could be funneled through the Freedom Dividend. The money supply grows about $700bil per year, and the gross cost of the FD is about $3 tril. Currently there appears to be @ a $trillion funding gap in the FD. There is a lively discussion on Twitter if you want to check it out. My twitter handle is @Rondout70
I really tried but I couldn't finish this. Even giving a lot of leeway since I assume English is not your primary language, this was a struggle to make any sense of.
davidbai
Oct 16, 19 8:54 pm
I wrote a piece
Miles Jaffe
Oct 16, 19 9:22 pm
... of crap. Ayn Rand was a sociopath and so are her followers. Her ideology is the basis for radical conservatism (libertarianism) that promotes the individual above all others. This is the very antithesis of civilized society. You are wasting your time here, you need to hang out at stormfront.org with her other admirers.
OddArchitect
Oct 17, 19 6:59 pm
You know the difference between an Ayn Rand novel and Lord of the Rings? One if filled with ridiculous fantasy characters and lands that don't exist. The other has orcs.
x-jla
Oct 20, 19 11:47 am
Libertarianism predates rand.
OneLostArchitect
Oct 16, 19 10:40 pm
Andrew Yang is a hack. $1000 a month in basic income? What a joke. Democrats are a sad bunch right now. I do like Gabbard out of all of them... but she wouldn’t stand a chance. Only chance the Dems have left is if they parachute Hillary.
SneakyPete
Oct 17, 19 12:44 pm
How cynical. You fuckers and your "better than Trump isn't good enough, be perfect or we will kill this country" can fuck right off.
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 17, 19 2:37 pm
sNEAKY, marry me.
tduds
Oct 17, 19 6:53 pm
Why is it a joke?
OneLostArchitect
Oct 17, 19 7:35 pm
Sneaky Pete... triggered?
tduds
Oct 18, 19 3:42 pm
Way to dodge the question.
OneLostArchitect
Oct 18, 19 3:45 pm
What’s the question?
tduds
Oct 18, 19 4:10 pm
Why is it a joke?
SneakyPete
Oct 18, 19 4:11 pm
Triggering people who don't agree with you amuses you. Yep. You're a sociopath.
OneLostArchitect
Oct 20, 19 12:26 am
Tduds do the math
x-jla
Oct 20, 19 11:51 am
Gabbard is the best. She will never win. She’s against war. That’s soooo. 2005. Democrats and liberals like war now because they were told to by their cnn overlords and crooked Hillary. .
...baaahhhaaa.
x-jla
Oct 20, 19 11:52 am
Tulsi would completely disrupt the election if she runs as a third party.
tduds
Oct 21, 19 12:09 pm
Gabbard is awful.
tduds
Oct 21, 19 12:12 pm
In 2017, she revealed she met Syria's brutal dictator Assad without informing top Democrats. She refused to call him a war criminal for years, instead she called US backed groups in Syria “terrorists”
In 2015, she sided with Republicans to block virtually all (Muslim) Syrian & Iraqi refugees from coming to the US. However she introduced a resolution calling for US to prioritize religious minorities (Christians) when granting refugee status.
She released a video alleging the Mueller Report said Trump did not collude with Russia and it's time to move on.
She is allegedly anti-war (she isn't) but is fine w/ Russians bombing Syrian civilians. She said she's a hawk when it comes to war against "terrorists" (happens to be Muslims, btw).
She hasn't condemned the use of torture
She supports anti-Muslim extremist Modi, and Egyptian dictator Sisi
tduds
Oct 21, 19 12:14 pm
OneLostArchitect "Do the math" doesn't answer the question. Is it too much? Not enough? Are you arguing we can't fund it? Shouldn't? "It's a joke. Do the math" is not a serious argument.
x-jla
Oct 21, 19 8:44 pm
One thing is clear...Hillary is a Russian agent.
OneLostArchitect
Oct 17, 19 7:22 pm
sneaky Pete... lay off the peace pipe!
Koww
Oct 17, 19 7:28 pm
Quoth the Yang:
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:
1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion
a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This
reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already
receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current
benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Why would you give people a choice like this that punishes those who need support in the first place? This makes their condition even worse relative to their abled peers than it already was.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health
care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save
$100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of
themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would
generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself
by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot
up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as
much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
What is the effect of lost revenues for hospitals, jails, homeless services, etc? Where is it proven that giving people extra money will make them take better care of themselves?
2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4
trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level
would generate $800 billion in new revenue A VAT will become more and
more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income
tax from robots or software.
A) You may not have an income tax on robots or software but you can tax their use
B) Same as above, either employers or employees will be responsible for VAT. How is this going to increase quality of life for the poor and middle class?
3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers
would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the
economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million
new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new
revenue from economic growth.
I wouldn't count on the economy growing given problems of climate change, dwindling resources, and foreign conflicts, and increasing inequality. If anything debt will increase further.
4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social
Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the
favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can
decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend.
We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to
funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required
to cover the cost of this program.
This is only part that makes sense... I would add that wealth should be taxed, not only earnings
x-jla
Oct 20, 19 11:55 am
Punishing success makes no sense. Race to the bottom thinking. The left worships the down and out....and hates the successful...very bad mentality.
tduds
Oct 21, 19 12:07 pm
No they don't.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 21, 19 12:15 pm
Real success is different than corrupt, greedy, and exploitative behavior that increases one's monetary situation.
x-jla
Oct 21, 19 2:03 pm
I agree tinnt, but that’s a moral argument, and it should be left out of political hands. The liberal morality of recent decades has become a sort of religion...understandable...as they’ve abandoned traditional religion and human need for a belief system kicked in...but we need to keep a separation of that kind of religion from state too imo. Success is subjective and personal.
tduds
Oct 22, 19 1:40 pm
You're very good at providing incorrect definitions of things so it's easier for you to argue against them.
tduds
Oct 22, 19 1:42 pm
There is no such thing as an amoral politics. We don't live in rhetorical vacuums. Abandoning a 'moral' argument implicitly endorses the immoral alternative. Failing to save lives through political action implicitly kills by political action. Silence in the presence of injustice is injustice.
x-jla
Oct 22, 19 5:11 pm
“Silence in the presence of injustice is injustice”. Yes, but no one is calling for immoral citizens. I’m saying that morality is a function of culture and communities not a function of state via coercion of action.
x-jla
Oct 22, 19 5:15 pm
Your argument implies that morality is top down, yet at the top we have an concentration of immoral players...a feature of any political rat race...your logic doesn’t jive with reality...
x-jla
Oct 22, 19 5:23 pm
I understand the ills of concentrated wealth and power into the hands of a few corporations...what I don’t understand is why that becomes better when we concentrate all the wealth and power into one entity and replace the word corporation with government...the left is good at pointing out problems...which are mostly correct...but really bad at solving them...and the “solutions” they propose are almost always a path towards a much worse outcome. The solution to something flawed isn’t to make it completely terrible.
tduds
Oct 22, 19 5:30 pm
"what I don’t understand is why that becomes better when we concentrate all the wealth and power into one entity and replace the word corporation with government."
Because governments are (When structured correctly) elected by and accountable to the people. Corporations are not. The larger problem is that our structure needs an overhaul. However, that doesn't negate the smaller problem that government action by definition has a moral angle.
I find this frustratingly common thread among the right, wherein *a* solution is deliberately mis-construed as *the entire* solution, and then discarded out of hand without bothering to consider how an approach might fit into a larger systemic reform. In other words: if all we do is replace Donald Trump, we've done nothing to address the failures that created him or put him in power or allowed him to wield such power unaccountably. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of Trump.
Miles Jaffe
Oct 22, 19 5:52 pm
Corporations are accountable (in theory, at least) to shareholders, and their responsibility is to return maximum profit. Labor costs, social costs, environmental concerns, taxes, etc. just get in the way of profit.
x-jla
Oct 22, 19 8:19 pm
Tduds, you literally just proved my point. Govt power ought to be limited because as a system/electorate becomes flawed trumps are likely. Your ideology relies on a perfect democracy with a moral and educated electorate. Here’s where the disconnect happens. I agree in principle with a lot of the things you want to do...but understand that flaws are an integral part of humanity. Humans are messy and not capable of concentrated power. The best known system is one that limits and decentralized govt
tduds
Oct 22, 19 8:26 pm
I actually believe in representative republicanism, not direct democracy. Democracy is terrible. Power can be decentralized without being weak. This idea is already the underpinning of our structure of government.
Miles Jaffe
Oct 22, 19 8:53 pm
The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible. (Wikipedia)
x-jla
Oct 24, 19 5:16 pm
Exactly^. Therefore democratic socialism is a myth.
tduds
Oct 24, 19 6:13 pm
It doesn't seem fair to drop that quote without also recognizing that Michels famously endorsed fascism as an alternative.
Dokuser
Oct 18, 19 9:25 pm
I’d take Sanders over Yang and I don’t even like either of them.
( o Y o )
Oct 21, 19 2:21 pm
Quoth the Koww
What is the effect of lost revenues for hospitals, jails, homeless services, etc?
Because the sick, homeless, and criminal as profit centers are far more important than correcting these conditions.
Where is it proven that giving people extra money will make them take better care of themselves?
By the direct inverse relationship of these conditions to wealth.
Same as above, either employers or employees will be responsible for VAT. How is this going to increase quality of life for the poor and middle class?
Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of VAT as a tax on consumption paid by all consumers (the more you consume the more you pay) as well as the critical necessity to move away from consumption based economies.
I wouldn't count on the economy growing given problems of climate change, dwindling resources, and foreign conflicts, and increasing inequality. If anything debt will increase further.
Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics, fiat money, sovereign currency, and debt. Unrestrained / eternal growth is called cancer.
Donna Sink
Oct 23, 19 9:38 am
I heard Yang on an NPR segment this morning and it was laughably dumb? Either he doesn't understand how things work or he doesn't understand how to explain how things work. My money is on both. He struck me as really just not very smart, but also not very charismatic, so I can't figure out how he's even gotten any attention, frankly.
(Also jlx remember I have you on Ignore so you don't need to spend time responding to me b/c I won't see it.)
b3tadine[sutures]
Oct 23, 19 10:06 pm
Oh, he's dumb. When asked to list some of the ways our country has interfered in other countries elections, he couldn't name one. Uhhhh....Iran? I like UBI, but it's not even his idea for god sake.
x-jla
Oct 24, 19 5:15 pm
ha. He and Tulsi are the smartest candidates up there...Biden, warren, Harris, etc....big dummies.
tduds
Oct 24, 19 5:17 pm
That's just, like, your opinion..man.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 24, 19 5:52 pm
This comment got me interested in checking this guy out. (disappointment emoji here)
x-jla
Oct 26, 19 8:58 pm
He’s an absolutely terrible sound bite guy...listen to his long form interviews and he doesn’t sound dumb as some people suggest. Dumb 2 minute debate settings make thoughtful people look stupid and stupid people look smart...because it all depends on how well rehearsed those sound bites are...not about actual debate.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 26, 19 11:39 pm
I listened to plenty. Hours. No.
Wilma Buttfit
Oct 26, 19 11:40 pm
Shakes head no emoji here
proto
Oct 25, 19 2:11 pm
maybe the Gabbard/Yang ticket can go 3rd party & split the GOP vote, since so many republicans & libertari...uh, I mean "independents" love them so much
x-jla
Oct 26, 19 8:59 pm
I hope they do. Best case they win, worst case trump loses...both good outcomes.
bradynquintard
Feb 4, 20 9:50 am
This thread seems pretty packed on the whole so this might get overlooked, but just a question to pose about Yang's UBI plan specifically. I fully support the intention behind it and I'm actually a fan of a lot of other Yang policies, but I'm struggling to see how it is sustainable in the long-term. We've seen studies to show how an increase in purchasing power for people who weren't necessarily top consumers in the past will lead to increased prices, inflation, and simply raise the poverty line along with the average income (since businesses adapt and the cost of living will increase). It is also hard to conceptualize where this money will come from - a substantial hit to the national debt or deficit is not something that the US can afford, and the citizens certainly wouldn't be willing to pay a fee that hefty on top of their current taxes (especially since the money that they put in to this program through taxes might negate their yearly stipend!). I really do want to support UBI in theory, but I can't wrap my head around how it'll actually work.
If I've got a concept wrong here please point it out. I'm trying to get a better grip on the topic so that'd be really helpful, thanks!
Miles Jaffe
Feb 4, 20 3:11 pm
You are economically clueless. Research modern monetary theory.
x-jla
Feb 5, 20 2:10 pm
I’ve thought that UBI should be determined and distributed by an automated AI...self corrects to adjust for inflation.
x-jla
Feb 5, 20 2:14 pm
It’s all funny money anyway...keep the printers rolling.
bradynquintard
Feb 4, 20 9:10 pm
Miles Jaffe chillll I don't know if you're one of those lonely internet personalities who gets his kicks crapping on kids genuinely interested in becoming a better citizen, but please take the question for what it is and understand that I'm literally acknowledging my inexperience with the topic. Get your head out of your ass and read the comment before you respond, I literally just read through studies and articles on the subject, I'm not an economics grad student. As it is, thanks anyway for the suggestion, which I'll take because I'm trying to improve.
Miles Jaffe
Feb 4, 20 11:21 pm
An insult followed by thanks. You are not only economically clueless, you are also socially retarded. If you want to improve there are plenty of avenues to address.
bradynquintard
Feb 5, 20 7:55 am
Glad you feel better about yourself now, sounds like you really need it. I insulted you because you were acting like a jackass - the thanks was for your research suggestion. As for the social suggestion, I sure as hell won't be taking your advice any time soon.
Archlandia
Feb 5, 20 3:10 pm
Less Is More (Mies van der Rohe) Less Is A Bore (Robert Venturi) I'm A Whore (Philip Johnson) More Is More (Rem Koolhaus) I'm A Bore (Andrew Yang)
Non Sequitur
Feb 5, 20 3:15 pm
yes is more (BIG)
Archlandia
Feb 5, 20 3:30 pm
I left that one out for a reason
( o Y o )
Feb 5, 20 3:43 pm
I’m guessing new member bradynretard is a political troll. Or maybe just a regular troll.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
This guy is the real deal. His personality and policy ideas is exactly what we need right now in the US. I hope to see him on the ballot.
Opened this thread because I’d like to discuss his politics, but also the larger trends associated with peak automation (in this field as well as others.)
The jre episode in the link is great, and I hope you guys get a chance to watch it.
Honest question - you've self-described as libertarian on this forum (some might say 'extremely' so); how do you square UBI with that outlook? It would seem these are in conflict with each other.
(BTW - I think AY is a great candidate)
Bench, there is nothing about UBI that goes against libertarianism. Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, was a huge proponent of UBI. I think many people just don’t understand what libertarianism is. I blame that mostly on bad PR, Ayn Rand, and the libertarian party. Libertarianism as a philosophy is about limited govt, maximum individual autonomy, and prevention of state violence “non aggression principle”. Providing social safety nets is not necessarily anti libertarian so long as it is done in a way that doesn’t redistribute wealth via property seizures back by state threat of violence (prison).
Yang talks about this towards the end of the interview. He is also running as a dem, not a libertarian to be clear...but certainly seems to be leaning libertarian in many areas. He’s really refreshing imho.
Personally, I’ve been preaching about automation and the inevitability of UBI for some time now. I think it is the most humane and doable solution to the rise of automation and AI. I don’t think 1000$ is enough, but it’s a start. On the libertarianism thread I discussed removing the federal reserve and creating a trickle up economy, where money enters the system through UBI, and the amount is itself automatically determined and in flux based on livable wage per person. I just don’t see how a society where 90% of jobs are automated can exist without this change.
And to answer a little further...libertarianism is not about zero govt. it’s not an absolute ideology. It’s about “maximizing” freedom. If there is no feasible market solution, then govt should be used. It’s like minimalism...no minimalist architect is proposing that we just don’t build anything and sleep outside...that isn’t the ultimate fulfillment of the philosophy.
Also bench, I’m often playing to the extremes for the sake of debate.
Good responses. "Trickle Up" is certainly interesting to think about. A lot of this sounds great in theory but in practice I don't understand how it'd work without a large bureaucratic institution. I'm not opposed to large bureaucratic institutions, though.
Never heard of him before. I don't have time right now to listen to that link but I'll try to check it out soon.
Yang's human capital is a conceptual basis for a good value system but he is clueless about economics as he think taxes limit government spending (how are we going to pay for it?). His positions on foreign policy, war, and military spending are empty platitudes.
Libertarians suffer from a number of fundamental contradictions including the prohibition of violence in any form except economic, such as denying social services, which they view as paid for by theft (taxes). This shows that they are as economically clueless as Yang.
UBI is a great idea that would if properly implemented (along with universal health care [NOT insurance]) eliminate poverty as well as all the needlessly wasteful bureaucratic systems that social services require. It would in theory improve the health and education of society with attendant effects of crime reduction, increased life expectancy, etc.
How would jla-x pay for it?
I don't get that, non-dems running as dems, or non-rep running as rep...start your own f-ing party, it will either undermine the party (trump) or the party will undermine the candidate (sanders).
I agree. The way it’s set up however makes that very difficult.
We need a reconfiguration of our electoral system AWAY from first past the post. That combined with a useful voice for any minority members in the government beyond obstructionism would go a long way to aligning our leadership with our electorate.
For better or worse, the only way to win (or even be taken seriously) is from within one of the two major parties. This won't change unless the US changes the way we vote.
Which SHOULD happen but won't because we ceded control of our politicians to money and big business.
randomised - The two parties have an ironclad lock on the system. After Ross Perot scared the shit out of them by running as an independent third parties have been banned from debates, media coverage, etc. Green Party candidate Jill Stein was detained in handcuffs just for showing up at a Obama-Romney debate at Hofstra University.
That's why Bernie ran as a Dem, otherwise he would have been completely ignored. The League of Women Voters used to sponsor presidential debates but stopped in 1988. Since then the so-called debates (where no debate actually happens) have been sponsored by The Commission on Presidential Debates, a.k.a. DNC and RNC.
"The League of Women Voters is withdrawing its sponsorship of the presidential debate scheduled for mid-October because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter," League President Nancy M. Neuman said today.
LEAGUE REFUSES TO "HELP PERPETRATE A FRAUD"
I heard this guy on Sam Harris awhile back. He's got some interesting ideas. I really like the idea of UBI but when you start to look at the numbers it's hard to see how it would really work without some major updates to the tax code ie some serious income distribution.
I do think the automation economy is the looming disaster that no one is talking about. Including our illustrious politicians and the media.
"I really like the idea of UBI but when you start to look at the numbers it's hard to see how it would really work without some major updates to the tax code ie some serious income distribution."
It's not supposed to work without those updates, they are essential.
Banks create 97% of “new money”. It’s all fiat. We can have zero taxes and simply replace the banks ability to create fiat money with a UBI.
The UBI could be some kind of cryptocurrency that automatically adjusts to inflation. We can essentially replace banks with an AI that determines and adjusts the livable wage so that lowest you can fall is always humane, but the highest you can go is always limitless. I’m not going to pretend to know the math, but I think it’s a workable system that allows for the best of both worlds.
we would have to replace the dollar with something else. It’s one of those things that would be politically difficult but technically doable.
In other words the money should be somehow connected to its living power for essentials per person. Housing,eating,etc. that should automatically adjust so that inflationary periods do not lead to political battles and poverty. Rather than a static number the UBI should be a self adjusting rate that guarantees x amount of buying power. That is the key to the UBI thing working imo. The other key is to not make it reliant on income taxation. Instead, taxes should be recirculated through consumption taxes placed on non-essential goods and luxury items. The rich will end up
paying more naturally because they will buy more. Do the numbers work? Idk. Assuming something like this ends up happening, how do people live their daily lives? What will cities look like? What will happen to the cultural and artistic landscape with so many more people with time to produce and consume culture, art, information...? Imo that is the real interesting question.
A system based on income taxation will put the wealthy minority in a position of control, and require an ever expanding state power that will eventually either stunt growth by taking too much, or cause the producing class to up and leave. This is basically what happened in Venuzuela. Rather than class warfare, we can have a system where taxation is based on voluntary transactions.
"A system based on income taxation will put the wealthy minority in a position of control" ...
LOL exactly who do you think is in control right now?
Miles, I’d say they have major influence now, but if a significant portion of the population was being completely supported by the taxes of a small minority it would quickly devolve into a true oligarchy. Like hunger games shit. What we have now on anabolic steroids.
NYC is a good, but moderate example. A huge overhead city that depends on millionaires to finance it...and in return panders to them for dear life. They have an enormous amount of pull because if they leave or stop production the city is fucked.
The system that I am describing would remove this dependency.
i don't want basic income. i want lots of cash and a ferrari.
Both things can exist in my techno-libertarian utopia.
lol :)
one person's utopia is the other's dystopia
I am quite excited by Andrew Yang. His major platform ideas are extremely well aligned with what I think we need to be doing to address the shifts in the economy. A couple issues I see (which maybe would need to be addressed in the longer run are:
$1k per month is too little(probably needs to be $2k), mostly for the following reasons
Should be a mechanism to replace multiple current programs such as Unemployment benefits, Social Security, Welfare, WIC etc.
In addition to eliminating older systems such as above, it should also eliminate minimum wage. After all, by providing a real floor to what we consider allowable standard of living, you can make wages unconstrained, and true Free Market style.
I also think that it might make a lot of sense to consider changing the tax code significantly:
Institute a VAT of 10% (tax on all goods regardless of their origin). Historically, I have considered sales tax or VAT to be a Regressive Tax since it disproportionately hurts the poor, as they spend a higher percentage of their earnings on purchases. However, by providing a decent base level (UBI) then the regressive nature of VAT is overcome.
And even more radically, I think the income tax should be replaced with a very high savings tax (or perhaps through a digital currency, an expiring monetary system). The purpose of such a crazy thing would be to increase the velocity of spending, stimulating the economy further. The leeching of the funds by savings puts a major damping force on the economy.
By having a reasonably high UBI you can eliminate many of the reasons for saving (retirement risks, rainy day funds, etc.) thus driving higher currency velocity (which gets taxed each transaction).
Andrew's approaches are a little more in line with the current economic structure (much less disruptive), but the more radical approach above has other benefits such as greatly simplifying our safety net systems.
Of course this also requires medicare for all to eliminate the association of medical coverage with employment. This would also help by making work far more flexible. I would love to work less hours (and be paid hourly), however full time employment is needed for insurance. This negatively impacts my likelihood of trying to start up a new business, or moving from corporate to consulting etc. Employers would be more likely to offer flexible hours if they did not have to have high fixed costs associated with each employee like healthcare.
None of this has been modeled at this point, but I think there are pretty significant benefits to pumping the money in from the bottom up instead of from the top down. Happy to get feedback.
I agree with you on everything except the savings tax. Not really sure I like the idea of taxing savings, because saving is a way to reach long term goals...could create a society of short term impulse buying.
Leofingal I agree with much of what you say here, particularly it would be great if the "normal growth" of the money supply could be funneled through the Freedom Dividend. The money supply grows about $700bil per year, and the gross cost of the FD is about $3 tril. Currently there appears to be @ a $trillion funding gap in the FD. There is a lively discussion on Twitter if you want to check it out. My twitter handle is @Rondout70
https://medium.com/@dbhongkong3/ayn-rand-andrew-yang-and-me-1e624f265b01
I really tried but I couldn't finish this. Even giving a lot of leeway since I assume English is not your primary language, this was a struggle to make any sense of.
I wrote a piece
... of crap. Ayn Rand was a sociopath and so are her followers. Her ideology is the basis for radical conservatism (libertarianism) that promotes the individual above all others. This is the very antithesis of civilized society. You are wasting your time here, you need to hang out at stormfront.org with her other admirers.
You know the difference between an Ayn Rand novel and Lord of the Rings? One if filled with ridiculous fantasy characters and lands that don't exist. The other has orcs.
Libertarianism predates rand.
Andrew Yang is a hack. $1000 a month in basic income? What a joke. Democrats are a sad bunch right now. I do like Gabbard out of all of them... but she wouldn’t stand a chance. Only chance the Dems have left is if they parachute Hillary.
How cynical. You fuckers and your "better than Trump isn't good enough, be perfect or we will kill this country" can fuck right off.
sNEAKY, marry me.
Why is it a joke?
Sneaky Pete... triggered?
Way to dodge the question.
What’s the question?
Why is it a joke?
Triggering people who don't agree with you amuses you. Yep. You're a sociopath.
Tduds do the math
Gabbard is the best. She will never win. She’s against war. That’s soooo. 2005. Democrats and liberals like war now because they were told to by their cnn overlords and crooked Hillary. .
...baaahhhaaa.
Tulsi would completely disrupt the election if she runs as a third party.
Gabbard is awful.
In 2017, she revealed she met Syria's brutal dictator Assad without informing top Democrats. She refused to call him a war criminal for years, instead she called US backed groups in Syria “terrorists”
In 2015, she sided with Republicans to block virtually all (Muslim) Syrian & Iraqi refugees from coming to the US. However she introduced a resolution calling for US to prioritize religious minorities (Christians) when granting refugee status.
She released a video alleging the Mueller Report said Trump did not collude with Russia and it's time to move on.
She is allegedly anti-war (she isn't) but is fine w/ Russians bombing Syrian civilians. She said she's a hawk when it comes to war against "terrorists" (happens to be Muslims, btw). She hasn't condemned the use of torture
She supports anti-Muslim extremist Modi, and Egyptian dictator Sisi
OneLostArchitect "Do the math" doesn't answer the question. Is it too much? Not enough? Are you arguing we can't fund it? Shouldn't? "It's a joke. Do the math" is not a serious argument.
One thing is clear...Hillary is a Russian agent.
sneaky Pete... lay off the peace pipe!
Quoth the Yang:
The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:
1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.
Why would you give people a choice like this that punishes those who need support in the first place? This makes their condition even worse relative to their abled peers than it already was.
Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.
What is the effect of lost revenues for hospitals, jails, homeless services, etc? Where is it proven that giving people extra money will make them take better care of themselves?
2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.
A) You may not have an income tax on robots or software but you can tax their use
B) Same as above, either employers or employees will be responsible for VAT. How is this going to increase quality of life for the poor and middle class?
3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.
I wouldn't count on the economy growing given problems of climate change, dwindling resources, and foreign conflicts, and increasing inequality. If anything debt will increase further.
4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program.
This is only part that makes sense... I would add that wealth should be taxed, not only earnings
Punishing success makes no sense. Race to the bottom thinking. The left worships the down and out....and hates the successful...very bad mentality.
No they don't.
Real success is different than corrupt, greedy, and exploitative behavior that increases one's monetary situation.
I agree tinnt, but that’s a moral argument, and it should be left out of political hands. The liberal morality of recent decades has become a sort of religion...understandable...as they’ve abandoned traditional religion and human need for a belief system kicked in...but we need to keep a separation of that kind of religion from state too imo. Success is subjective and personal.
You're very good at providing incorrect definitions of things so it's easier for you to argue against them.
There is no such thing as an amoral politics. We don't live in rhetorical vacuums. Abandoning a 'moral' argument implicitly endorses the immoral alternative. Failing to save lives through political action implicitly kills by political action. Silence in the presence of injustice is injustice.
“Silence in the presence of injustice is injustice”. Yes, but no one is calling for immoral citizens. I’m saying that morality is a function of culture and communities not a function of state via coercion of action.
Your argument implies that morality is top down, yet at the top we have an concentration of immoral players...a feature of any political rat race...your logic doesn’t jive with reality...
I understand the ills of concentrated wealth and power into the hands of a few corporations...what I don’t understand is why that becomes better when we concentrate all the wealth and power into one entity and replace the word corporation with government...the left is good at pointing out problems...which are mostly correct...but really bad at solving them...and the “solutions” they propose are almost always a path towards a much worse outcome. The solution to something flawed isn’t to make it completely terrible.
"what I don’t understand is why that becomes better when we concentrate all the wealth and power into one entity and replace the word corporation with government."
Because governments are (When structured correctly) elected by and accountable to the people. Corporations are not. The larger problem is that our structure needs an overhaul. However, that doesn't negate the smaller problem that government action by definition has a moral angle.
I find this frustratingly common thread among the right, wherein *a* solution is deliberately mis-construed as *the entire* solution, and then discarded out of hand without bothering to consider how an approach might fit into a larger systemic reform. In other words: if all we do is replace Donald Trump, we've done nothing to address the failures that created him or put him in power or allowed him to wield such power unaccountably. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't get rid of Trump.
Corporations are accountable (in theory, at least) to shareholders, and their responsibility is to return maximum profit. Labor costs, social costs, environmental concerns, taxes, etc. just get in the way of profit.
Tduds, you literally just proved my point. Govt power ought to be limited because as a system/electorate becomes flawed trumps are likely. Your ideology relies on a perfect democracy with a moral and educated electorate. Here’s where the disconnect happens. I agree in principle with a lot of the things you want to do...but understand that flaws are an integral part of humanity. Humans are messy and not capable of concentrated power. The best known system is one that limits and decentralized govt
I actually believe in representative republicanism, not direct democracy. Democracy is terrible. Power can be decentralized without being weak. This idea is already the underpinning of our structure of government.
The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large-scale organization. According to the "iron law," democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible. (Wikipedia)
Exactly^. Therefore democratic socialism is a myth.
It doesn't seem fair to drop that quote without also recognizing that Michels famously endorsed fascism as an alternative.
I’d take Sanders over Yang and I don’t even like either of them.
Quoth the Koww
What is the effect of lost revenues for hospitals, jails, homeless services, etc?
Because the sick, homeless, and criminal as profit centers are far more important than correcting these conditions.
Where is it proven that giving people extra money will make them take better care of themselves?
By the direct inverse relationship of these conditions to wealth.
Same as above, either employers or employees will be responsible for VAT. How is this going to increase quality of life for the poor and middle class?
Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of VAT as a tax on consumption paid by all consumers (the more you consume the more you pay) as well as the critical necessity to move away from consumption based economies.
I wouldn't count on the economy growing given problems of climate change, dwindling resources, and foreign conflicts, and increasing inequality. If anything debt will increase further.
Demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of economics, fiat money, sovereign currency, and debt. Unrestrained / eternal growth is called cancer.
I heard Yang on an NPR segment this morning and it was laughably dumb? Either he doesn't understand how things work or he doesn't understand how to explain how things work. My money is on both. He struck me as really just not very smart, but also not very charismatic, so I can't figure out how he's even gotten any attention, frankly.
(Also jlx remember I have you on Ignore so you don't need to spend time responding to me b/c I won't see it.)
Oh, he's dumb. When asked to list some of the ways our country has interfered in other countries elections, he couldn't name one. Uhhhh....Iran? I like UBI, but it's not even his idea for god sake.
ha. He and Tulsi are the smartest candidates up there...Biden, warren, Harris, etc....big dummies.
That's just, like, your opinion..man.
This comment got me interested in checking this guy out. (disappointment emoji here)
He’s an absolutely terrible sound bite guy...listen to his long form interviews and he doesn’t sound dumb as some people suggest. Dumb 2 minute debate settings make thoughtful people look stupid and stupid people look smart...because it all depends on how well rehearsed those sound bites are...not about actual debate.
I listened to plenty. Hours. No.
Shakes head no emoji here
maybe the Gabbard/Yang ticket can go 3rd party & split the GOP vote, since so many republicans & libertari...uh, I mean "independents" love them so much
I hope they do. Best case they win, worst case trump loses...both good outcomes.
This thread seems pretty packed on the whole so this might get overlooked, but just a question to pose about Yang's UBI plan specifically. I fully support the intention behind it and I'm actually a fan of a lot of other Yang policies, but I'm struggling to see how it is sustainable in the long-term. We've seen studies to show how an increase in purchasing power for people who weren't necessarily top consumers in the past will lead to increased prices, inflation, and simply raise the poverty line along with the average income (since businesses adapt and the cost of living will increase). It is also hard to conceptualize where this money will come from - a substantial hit to the national debt or deficit is not something that the US can afford, and the citizens certainly wouldn't be willing to pay a fee that hefty on top of their current taxes (especially since the money that they put in to this program through taxes might negate their yearly stipend!). I really do want to support UBI in theory, but I can't wrap my head around how it'll actually work.
If I've got a concept wrong here please point it out. I'm trying to get a better grip on the topic so that'd be really helpful, thanks!
You are economically clueless. Research modern monetary theory.
I’ve thought that UBI should be determined and distributed by an automated AI...self corrects to adjust for inflation.
It’s all funny money anyway...keep the printers rolling.
Miles Jaffe chillll I don't know if you're one of those lonely internet personalities who gets his kicks crapping on kids genuinely interested in becoming a better citizen, but please take the question for what it is and understand that I'm literally acknowledging my inexperience with the topic. Get your head out of your ass and read the comment before you respond, I literally just read through studies and articles on the subject, I'm not an economics grad student. As it is, thanks anyway for the suggestion, which I'll take because I'm trying to improve.
An insult followed by thanks. You are not only economically clueless, you are also socially retarded. If you want to improve there are plenty of avenues to address.
Glad you feel better about yourself now, sounds like you really need it. I insulted you because you were acting like a jackass - the thanks was for your research suggestion. As for the social suggestion, I sure as hell won't be taking your advice any time soon.
Less Is More (Mies van der Rohe)
Less Is A Bore (Robert Venturi)
I'm A Whore (Philip Johnson)
More Is More (Rem Koolhaus)
I'm A Bore (Andrew Yang)
yes is more (BIG)
I left that one out for a reason
I’m guessing new member bradynretard is a political troll. Or maybe just a regular troll.
:)