Andrew Yang for prez...

[SKJ 1,305]

This is his appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast.

This guy fucks

[horncyclist 1,386]

I've been talking to people about Yang and his ideas quite a bit after seeing this. It occurred to me in listening to this that we're not only not addressing the real problems, but our way of digesting and analyzing policy publicly is outdated. I'm skeptical he gets anywhere, but no one could have foreseen Sanders' rise at this stage in 2016 either. I could see him catching on with a lot of young people. Honestly, the first declared candidate that I've been truly excited listing to this cycle.  

[Hornius Emeritus 12,420]

I just watched the whole thing and not once did he denigrate an opposing with a belittling nickname. Do not want.

[bad_teammate 13,132]

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

Edited February 18, 2019 by bad_teammate

[SKJ 1,305]

15 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

I took it a little differently in the college thing, and that he was circling it around to ubi in that if you had 1,000 a month guaranteed to live on you'd see more of that... More freedom to find apprenticeships, and etc... I don't think he was thinking that free college is a bad step, but moreso that many of the jobs people are getting out of school are going to be automated and that we need to move more people into trades that are not easily automated.

He also wants to destroy the fucking drug war, and pardon all the non violent offenders on a mass scale.

I think the ubi proposal is the incremental first step in reversing the most dangerous threat to our society that no one is even talking about, and that no one will be able to solve in 8-10 years... It'll already be too late. Like he said, we're already in the third inning.

I've donated to him, just $10.00, but I got an email from him that we need to get a bunch more individual donors for him to be in the debates. Just a $1 donation from more people. 

Whatever. It's a long shot, but we can sit here as a country and argue about stupid shit like abortion and a fucking wall, but can't see the decimation of our economy literally a decade away

 

[SKJ 1,305]

17 hours ago, horncyclist said:

I've been talking to people about Yang and his ideas quite a bit after seeing this. It occurred to me in listening to this that we're not only not addressing the real problems, but our way of digesting and analyzing policy publicly is outdated. I'm skeptical he gets anywhere, but no one could have foreseen Sanders' rise at this stage in 2016 either. I could see him catching on with a lot of young people. Honestly, the first declared candidate that I've been truly excited listing to this cycle.  

Just donate a dollar to him. Let him debate. 

[Bruh Man 3,160]

How do you control inflation if you give everyone 1k a month? That's my main concern. 

[SKJ 1,305]

13 minutes ago, Bruh Man said:

How do you control inflation if you give everyone 1k a month? That's my main concern. 

From his website, also explained in the podcast

 

Wouldn’t that cause rampant inflation?

The federal government recently printed $4 trillion for the bank bailouts in its quantitative easing program with no inflation. Our plan for a Universal Basic Income uses money already in the economy. In monetary economics, leading theory states that inflation is based on changes in the supply of money. Our UBI plan has no changes in the supply of money because it is funded by a Value-added Tax. 

It is likely that some companies will increase their prices in response to people having more buying power, and a VAT would also increase prices marginally. However, there will still be competition between firms that will keep prices in check. Over time, technology will continue to decrease the prices of most goods where it is allowed to do so (e.g., clothing, media, consumer electronics, etc.). The main inflation we currently experience is in sectors where automation has not been applied due to government regulation or inapplicability – primarily housing, education, and healthcare. The real issue isn’t Universal Basic Income, it’s whether technology and automation will be allowed to reduce prices in different sectors.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13,414]

UBI seems inevitable to me but we’re not there yet.  And it may be 100 years before we are.    Income inequality will have to get much worse before UBI becomes a reality.  You need to tax the hell out of the wealthy and not enough people are behind that  

UBI already exists in some ways in terms of services.  Poorer people get access to better govt services because wealthier people live in their town paying more in taxes.  Schools, road, fire dept, etc.  

last note on UBI, I’ve heard that some UBI experiments that didn’t initially get the intended results.  The people receiving it said their life barely changed with an additional ~$500/month.   Until the experiment ended along with the income.  Then those people really missed it because they had gotten used to it.

[horncyclist 1,386]

21 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

- Here's $1k/mth
- Don't go to college, it's not worth it
- I don't really have any other ideas for you, maybe find an apprenticeship?
- PROFIT?

Don't get me wrong, I like that he's at least acknowledging that there's a problem. That's actually pretty huge. The Democrats are extremely dismissive of working class whites and that's terrible for a dozen reasons. (*ahem*)

Yang is OBVIOUSLY both smart and a genuinely good human. I like him. (He also wants to go after the Purdues and other pharma monsters, which is awesome)

But really, he's still dealing with the symptoms of a larger disease without even acknowledging the disease, which is too-lightly-regulated capitalism. Also, his joining in the attempt to dismiss the value of secondary education is disheartening. The "free college!" movement is dismissed by the right as "oh so you want everyone to talk Women's Studies, huh???" and ignores the reality that "free college!" also includes every sort of secondary vocational training you could think of, so it really sucks to see someone as smart as Yang parrot that BS line.

Simply saying, "Do an apprenticeship!" is like telling a man in a desert to just reach down and grab a bottle of water. How many apprenticeships do you know of?

He was right about a ton of things:
- Take healthcare provision off the backs of business and individuals
- Lack of childcare produces worse childhoods, which in turn produces worse adulthoods
- Going after big pharma is a moral necessity

What I would really like to see from him is a policy of redistribution of the wealth and income of the nation. It doesn't have to be direct, but the lower and middle classes need more, and to get there the economy itself needs dramatic restructuring.

Did you listen to the podcast?

[CooterBrown 17,913]

How do you control inflation if you give everyone 1k a month? That's my main concern. 

Austria gives every family that has a kid $1k/mo, until that kid turns 18, to offset expenses.

[Parliament 14,138]

The big shortcoming of UBI is that so many poor people can't manage money.  They'll spend their monthly check on random things, and still need heating assistance, free school lunches, etc.  ie, we'd soon find ourselves "doubling up" welfare programs.

The example I use is our tax system's refundable tax credits (EITC, dependent tax credit, child-care tax credit, etc). If I understand it right, people can get $8k back.  A person making $18k/year can get one, single check for $8k in March.  They don't spend that money very well.

 

[bad_teammate 13,132]

57 minutes ago, horncyclist said:

Did you listen to the podcast?

Yes.

Edited February 19, 2019 by bad_teammate

[horncyclist 1,386]

18 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes.

I got the impression he's thought through things a lot more than you gave him credit for. 

[NoRagrets 1,125]

He seems like a good guy with a good heart and well thought out ideas. I may disagree with him, but he actually seems pretty center left.

[SquishMitten 10,401]

I don't think it's a bad idea when you look at it from an overall, societal economic standpoint. I just don't think we're anywhere near it becoming a possibility. For one, very few people will take the time to consider the full economics of it (much less have the ability to comprehend it). But more importantly, there's a substantial portion of our population that genuinely believes minorities have children for the sole purpose of increasing the government benefits available to them. 

[tucker 238]

4 hours ago, Parliament said:

The big shortcoming of UBI is that so many poor people can't manage money.  They'll spend their monthly check on random things, and still need heating assistance, free school lunches, etc.  ie, we'd soon find ourselves "doubling up" welfare programs.

The example I use is our tax system's refundable tax credits (EITC, dependent tax credit, child-care tax credit, etc). If I understand it right, people can get $8k back.  A person making $18k/year can get one, single check for $8k in March.  They don't spend that money very well.

 

Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

[Incredulity 11,555]

24 minutes ago, tucker said:

Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

[tucker 238]

Just now, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, tucker said:

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

They just have more margin for error.

Giving everyone $1000 per month isn't going to solve shit.  Car payments and rents will eat that up in short order.

[elfenix 34,171]

6 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

"everyone else is the same" isn't "poor people are worse." 

 

[Incredulity 11,555]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

"everyone else is the same" isn't "poor people are worse." 

 

Fair enough.

Giving people stuff never works.

 

 

[SKJ 1,305]

50 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I don't think it's a bad idea when you look at it from an overall, societal economic standpoint. I just don't think we're anywhere near it becoming a possibility. For one, very few people will take the time to consider the full economics of it (much less have the ability to comprehend it). But more importantly, there's a substantial portion of our population that genuinely believes minorities have children for the sole purpose of increasing the government benefits available to them. 

This is addressed in the podcast, but the actual expenditure for it is pretty small

[SKJ 1,305]

20 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

In my experience, yes.

You telling me you don't know people who spend whatever they have no matter how much it is?  I see that shit all the time.  They are continuously utterly amazed that they don't have enough money after a job is over, but when the good times are rolling its toys, toys, toys,...(toys being cars, drugs, alcohol, vacations, remodels, .....)

What percentage of Americans so you suppose this is?

Or is this just a random guess made about a population from anecdotal evidence?

 

[SKJ 1,305]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Fair enough.

Giving people stuff never works.

 

 

It's not "giving people stuff..." 

I bet your ears would bleed if you listened to the fucking podcast.

[Incredulity 11,555]

Just now, SKJ said:

What percentage of Americans so you suppose this is?

Or is this just a random guess made about a population from anecdotal evidence?

 

totally based on my own anecdotal non-scientific experience.  

 

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, SKJ said:

It's not "giving people stuff..." 

I bet your ears would bleed if you listened to the fucking podcast.

giving people $1000 per month isn't giving them stuff.

perfectly succinct summary of leftist thinking.

 

[SKJ 1,305]

Just now, Incredulity said:

giving people $1000 per month isn't giving them stuff.

perfectly succinct summary of leftist thinking.

 

And I'm just guessing you still haven't listened to the podcast.

If you did you'd understand my "leftist thinking"

I bet giving those rich people stuff totally works though. I hope you don't vote, because you're just another of the idiots that brought us Trump.

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

26 minutes ago, tucker said:

Yes, people generally but the poor aren't worse than the average at managing money. I have seen high income people live paycheck to paycheck so there is probably an argument that upper middle class is the worst at managing money.  

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

[tucker 238]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

Or one group has so much margin for error that fuck ups don't impact their wealth while the poor never make enough to cover even basic necessities. 

[SKJ 1,305]

3 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

People who stay wealthy are better at money management than those who stay poor. I know, rocket surgery and shit. The perpetually poor, those this current give away scheme targets, won’t spend it well.

Go to Wally World in a poorer area on the day the government checks are cut, and notice what people show up driving, and what they leave the store with. It isn’t clunkers being filled with eggs and butter. 

This doesn't Target the perpetually poor. You're arguing from a false assumption.

This targets you.

Listen to the podcast or Google this shit. 

[Incredulity 11,555]

8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

And I'm just guessing you still haven't listened to the podcast.

If you did you'd understand my "leftist thinking"

I bet giving those rich people stuff totally works though. I hope you don't vote, because you're just another of the idiots that brought us Trump.

Giving anyone shit doesn't work.  

See the above anecdote about Wally World and Gov't Check day.  

[Parliament 14,138]

Is this even true? I know it is standard Republican talking point but there is no evidence that poor people are worse at managing money. They just don't have any of it. Look at Trump, he is terrible at managing money.

Yeah, I should have put it that way. I hang with Shaggy 20%ers, and it amazes me how many of them don't save money.

 

My point stands though, as they would not receive any UBI.

 

[SKJ 1,305]

So the uninformed can shut the fuck up:

From his website:

Andrew would implement a Universal Basic Income, ‘The Freedom Dividend,’ of $1,000/month, $12,000 a year for every American adult over the age of 18. This is independent of one’s work status or any other factor. This would enable all Americans to pay their bills, educate themselves, start businesses, be more creative, stay healthy, relocate for work, spend time with their children, take care of loved ones, and have a real stake in the future.

• Any change to The Freedom Dividend would require a constitutional amendment.
• It will be illegal to lend or borrow against one’s Dividend.
• If one does not graduate from high school, your dividend does not begin until 20.

A Universal Basic Income at this level would permanently grow the economy by 12.56 to 13.10 percent—or about $2.5 trillion by 2025—and it would increase the labor force by 4.5 to 4.7 million people.  Putting money into people’s hands and keeping it there would be a perpetual boost and support to job growth and the economy.

[Incredulity 11,555]

laughable at best.

 

[SKJ 1,305]

Also, if someone already receives more than 1k a month in welfare, they don't get it. If they receive less than 1k, they get the difference up to 1k

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, SKJ said:

Also, if someone already receives more than 1k a month in welfare, they don't get it. If they receive less than 1k, they get the difference up to 1k

are we still not giving them anything though?

[SKJ 1,305]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

laughable at best.

 

I don't know what you do, but does your career isolate you from automation? 

You really should listen to the podcast because he destroys your position

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, SKJ said:

I don't know what you do, but does your career isolate you from automation? 

You really should listen to the podcast because he destroys your position

because you are easily persuaded, doesn't mean anything has been "destroyed".

[bad_teammate 13,132]

5 hours ago, horncyclist said:

I got the impression he's thought through things a lot more than you gave him credit for. 

Oh he's very smart and he's a big thinker. I like him. I like him a lot.

It was a very long podcast, so I couldn't talk about everything.

[David Dennison 18,661]

10 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

Giving anyone shit doesn't work.  

See the above anecdote about Wally World and Gov't Check day.  

Subsidies work very well.

[SKJ 1,305]

1 minute ago, Incredulity said:

because you are easily persuaded, doesn't mean anything has been "destroyed".

Because you haven't even listened, or given it any real thought, yes...

You are arguing from a silly, foregone conclusion

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

5 minutes ago, SKJ said:

This doesn't Target the perpetually poor. You're arguing from a false assumption.

This targets you.

Listen to the podcast or Google this shit. 

Yeah, actually it does. Giving me $12k a year represents a tax cut, but doesn’t really make a dent in whether I pay my bills or not. 

Giving $12k to many poor people just means they will make further bad financial decisions with an extra zero or two attached. Perhaps if that money were strictly restricted to necessities and took the place of other handouts then I could sort of buy off on it. 

But how do you fund such a thing? My back of the hand math says it represents a $2.4T give away. For some it would essentially be a tax cut. For many it’s a blatant give away. And you can’t bilk the rich enough to come up with that kinda scratch. 

[Incredulity 11,555]

1 minute ago, SKJ said:

Because you haven't even listened, or given it any real thought, yes...

You are arguing from a silly, foregone conclusion

Are you Andrew Yang's  brother or cousin or something?  

[SKJ 1,305]

1 minute ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Yeah, actually it does. Giving me $12k a year represents a tax cut, but doesn’t really make a dent in whether I pay my bills or not. 

Giving $12k to many poor people just means they will make further bad financial decisions with an extra zero or two attached. Perhaps if that money were strictly restricted to necessities and took the place of other handouts then I could sort of buy off on it. 

But how do you fund such a thing? My back of the hand math says it represents a $2.4T give away. For some it would essentially be a tax cut. For many it’s a blatant give away. And you can’t bilk the rich enough to come up with that kinda scratch. 

He breaks down the numbers quite easily. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

17 minutes ago, tucker said:

Or one group has so much margin for error that fuck ups don't impact their wealth while the poor never make enough to cover even basic necessities. 

You’re arguing from a wrong thesis. Wealthy folks aren’t wealthy because they have more margin for error. They don’t make many dumb financial decisions in the first place. You can’t out earn stupid. 

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

8 minutes ago, SKJ said:

He breaks down the numbers quite easily. 

Pretend I don’t have two hours to listen and break them down here. 

Edit:

1. Consolidation of government subsidies. Ok. Fine. 

2. 10% VAT. Not fine. 

3 and 4: this creates jobs which generates tax revenues and decreased health care costs and incarcerations. Dubious IMOHO. 

Edited February 19, 2019 by Bobby_Batronic

[SKJ 1,305]

32 minutes ago, Bobby_Batronic said:

Pretend I don’t have two hours to listen and break them down here. 

Edit:

1. Consolidation of government subsidies. Ok. Fine. 

2. 10% VAT. Not fine. 

3 and 4: this creates jobs which generates tax revenues and decreased health care costs and incarcerations. Dubious IMOHO. 

The VAT is a necessity with the coming change in our economy through automation. The way he puts it is that you can't tax robots.

The VAT would also generate more tax revenues than the current method considering the offshoring of profits from corporations.

There have been plenty of studies showing causality between much of crime and poverty. I guess we could look them up and debate them, but it's pretty much been debated to death

Edited February 19, 2019 by SKJ
Autospell sucks

[Bobby_Batronic 1,994]

Are you inferring a VAT in lieu of the current tax system or in place of it?

Crime and poverty is one thing. I would argue that the benefits would be minimal because another $12k wouldn’t be spent wisely by those who actually need it. 

Generating 4.5 million new jobs and reaping the benefits of taxing those jobs is the truly dubious part. 

Im ok with making some seismic shifts in policy and the way we handle the indigent. Young minds and bright ideas and all.  But a VAT is simply passed on to consumers. Consumers who either won’t buy the product or who will have to pay more for it contracting the value of their spending dollar.

There’s still a $1T+ shortfall assuming that this takes the place of other federal subsidies, the new jobs and tax income happens and resultant crime reduction occurs resulting in $1.2-3ishT in income to apply to UBI. One that Yang suggest we make up with a VAT. I’m fairly confident that $1T in additional taxation per year isn’t going to do our economy any good.

[Incredulity 11,555]

20 minutes ago, SKJ said:

The VAT is a necessity with the coming change in our economy through automation. The way he puts it is that you can't tax robots.

 

Business personal property tax says hello.