Politics
Politics
Out of context: Reply #30557
- Started
- Last post
- 33,769 Responses
- mathinc6
Just watched the Andrew Yang interview on Joe Rogan's podcast. Really interesting, I like Yang a lot now. Probably old news since it aired over a month ago. But I was totally averse to the idea of universal basic income before hearing him talk about it. He obviously isn't very evolved outside of economics and the American Condition (i.e. with foreign policy).
- chapo did a good summary of yang on their most recent episodecolin_s
- He just qualified for the Primary debates. Very interesting to see what the general public thinks of him and his ideas.R_Kercz
- only 1 hour and 52 minutes? This is a short podcast for Joe Rogan.fooler
- His description of what's happening in this country feels authentically true. Doesn't seem ready to be president to me. Looking forward to the debates.mathinc
- What's funny is if you look at the comments for this video, LOTS of self-proclaimed Trump Republicans saying they would vote for him.mathinc
- Yeah its bizarre...there are people in the actual alt right who are abandoning Trump for him.yuekit
- I guess they view the UBI proposal as helping out of work whites? I haven't seen anything from Yang himself that suggests he is conservative on any issues.yuekit
- should look more towards milton friedman for UBI case. However he also said he had no solution to politicians running on the idea of ever increasing it for vote********
- and at the same time quitting all other social programs and gov jobs involved. no UBI plus welfare and other social safety nets********
- i agree with milton less money would be wasted but also i have no idea how to satiate the greed of politicians and people when it comes to free shit********
- it's a good thing that he appeals to Trump voters - and not that weird. Lots of them voted Trump out of desperation w the Dems' lack of policiesFax_Benson
- https://www.youtube.…********
- a big part of UBI that is being ignored is you need it not as flat rate but as percentage. The biggest problem of flat welfare rate is you penalize anyone who********
- attempts to do better but rises only so slightly or just hits the median. this makes you not even try to rise, because you get paid the same if you fail********
- you can look at indian reservations who took gov money or decided to fore go it for casinos and business********
- if he wants to reintroduce friedman's proposal, as he states im down with. If simplified add on to existing hell no.********
- I would say the problem with existing welfare is more it attempts to control your life. For instance if not working you get unemployment, but if you pick up ayuekit
- freelance job suddenly you're not qualified. This creates perverse incentive not to work.yuekit
- that's what im saying too ukit. friedmans negative income tax was progressive in you only get cut off by a percentage of your gains. You took a job u dont lose********
- all welfare. you actually get wages plus a percentage of the welfare which is more than basic welfare. so you dont get penalized for trying********
- all the current systems, by design or mistake, only are liek opiodes in controlling behavior********
- if time and effort is a risk to barely break even with payment of doing nothing at all, bett to do nothign and sling drugs or illegal work on the side********
- i havent looked to much into yang, so i dont know if hes a milton friedman kind of guy or just idiot aco new deal promising free shit.********
- and dont forget while logical, friedman said there is no way to control ppl trying to get elected calls to raise it regardless of fiscal responsibility********
- people act selfishly period. not so much as rationally. hence socialism. it would consolidate and focus a easy political call to arms********
- as much as i hate chinas social engineering. although we still have our own way of it, maybe be better to shape culture instead of social programs********
- reintroduce western thought and culture. Even wild west. public edu seem focused on public planning. higher edu even worst********
- just a thought towards not treating symptoms but the problems********
- What you're talking about isn't unique to Friedman's version. All basic income proposals would allow you to receive the payments regardless of working or not.yuekit
- I think the difference is that negative income tax cuts off at some point -- if you make above a certain amount.yuekit
- Where as universal basic income like Yang's proposal would be truly universal...everyone gets $1000/month regardless of their income etc.yuekit
- So ukit you think a basic stipend for everyone, billionaire or not, should get 1k a month? That would be different than friedman's proposal and a false********
- solution for so many reasons. It similar in reason but larger in scope of bush tax cuts, refunds.********
- for those not poor just hand out at expense of paying larger taxes. for the poor just more welfare that provides no incentive to work.********
- I think the cap at some point is a carat that benefits lower incomes than proportional to everyone. If everyone gets UBI basically nothing has changed.********
- You could say 1k-100k per month for everyone. Money supply and demand of items would still balance out all the same. A fruitless activity.********
- It would need to be specific to poorer class and the cap would be constantly bombarded by politicians running to raise it with little sense of econ********
- monopoly. instead of passing go u collect 200 you collect 1200. how would that work if prices are not dictated by the board? More money more competition higher********
- prices. looking at simply more money in someones pocket outside larger econ is short sighted.********
- another part of UBI is to fund it is to get rid of all assistance programs. Meaning countless gov jobs. Another political hurdle. What is there 100k jobs relate********
- d to welfare funding and programs for state and fed. Well i guess they get UBI... but any politician wont touch that hot dog********
- I think part of what people like about it is the simplicity. Everyone just gets the same amount -- similar to what they have in Alaska where everyone gets a cutyuekit
- of the oil revenue. Sure you could argue the rich don't need it, but there aren't that many rich people in the grand scheme of things anyway.yuekit
- In terms of whether it's a good idea, my suspicion is that it would be better than the current system because there is a lot of wasted human potential.yuekit
- Yes some people would sit around and get high all day but this would be balanced out by people who previously were trapped in poverty or debt finally beingyuekit
- able to contribute to society. Think of it as venture capital for the entire population. Also probably lower crime rates, health care cost, etc.yuekit
- I do agree that transitioning to such a different system would be difficult. Yang's idea is that if you take the basic income, you have to opt out of otheryuekit
- welfare programs. Unclear exactly how that would work though. And yes it would ultimately involve shrinking the government, because there would be less toyuekit
- administer. This is partly why it can appeal to people on both the left and right.yuekit
- I'm for the simplicity of a system that give a simple liquid source with no string attached as social safety net that enables less overhead********
- but not on board with everyone getting it and not on any sort of percentage based. the idea that giving people all together extra money only inflates costs********
- perhaps drive a FED acceptable inflationary measure over 2%. Offering to all even waterdowns its initial reason for being. And likely has absolute effect with i********
- nflation. Like changing a $1 to a $10 when everyone get the capital, if that makes sense.********
- I think the negative income tax is far superior as a safety net, but it comes with its inherent flaws of a social system to be used for votes in promising more********
- for the masses as social security or even minimum wages is used. plenty of ppl call for 15 without considering local economies********
- Maybe i should ask ukit how you see ppl not being in debt, crime, and all that work out. Do you see prices staying flat as demand grows with influx of money?********
- It's not really an influx of money, it's just taking money from one place (such as other welfare programs) and redistributing it.yuekit
- There might be some inflation, but I don't think it's the case that prices would simply rise by an equivalent amount and erase all the benefit.yuekit
- Because people would spend it on all kinds of different things depending on their needs. If you gave me an extra $1000/month for instance, I wouldn't go out andyuekit
- buy more food, because I already have enough money to buy all the food I need (and most people do). So it's hard to predict exactly what would happenyuekit
- but I don't think it's as simple as you're making it out to be.yuekit
- well yea its not simple. i was merely looking at inflation because i'm not sure there is enough money to satisfy the cost. what is a monthly projection cost and********
- how will it be funded. one thing is most small tests of this have had little positive impact to effect the high costs and dont work out.********
- i think if you take current money with no new taxes, and cost saved by firing gov employees, and divide that by who qualifies********
- it might not look that rosy********
- But if a ton of people lose jobs so people might get 200 bucks a month might be hard to swallow politically. and need some hard constitutional ruling to prevent********
- any more than fixed percentage of gdp. and preventions from raising taxes to increase gdp for work arounds, etc..********