imagine a world where your college educated kid can move back home, make $24K (worst case) in 2 years and be pretty much self-sufficient enough to pay rent somewhere, rather than making $0 in 2 years and suckling your tetas if they haven't found a jerb.

9/26/2019 4:56:02 PM

^ now you know why I gotta get this UBI. these kids is expensive!

Geppetto as for inflation I invite you to look at Scott Santens article

https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7

9/26/2019 5:55:46 PM

Yangs white nationalist buddy Dave rubin
https://twitter.com/mbueckert/status/1177354598199308288?s=19

9/26/2019 9:40:58 PM

I am not super familiar with Rubin, but I had the sense he was an amoral grifter rather than a dyed-in-the-wool white nationalist. In other words, he is willing to pander to them to make money off that audience but is not necessarily a true believer himself.

But it doesn't matter. It's no different. He's still complicit, so fuck him.

[Edited on September 27, 2019 at 8:28 AM. Reason : ///]

9/27/2019 8:27:55 AM

You lay with dogs, you gon get fleas.

9/27/2019 8:43:41 AM

^4

Preamble: I acknowledge that you're trying, so I'll just resolve that there isn't enough out there to adequately convince me that UBI, which as a reminder I like in theory, is fundamentally sound. For me there are just too many concrete examples from economic theory and application to sway me in faith. But I do appreciate it.

-------
I read the medium article and noticed he has explanations and arguments that seem sound intertwined with explanations and arguments that are largely unsound.

Example: saying that monthly UBI payments are a dollar for dollar exchange rather than newly printed money, so inflation isn't worried.

Notwithstanding the fact that he immediately hedges this comment by stating a little inflation is a good thing, his explanation just isn't how money supply works. It's not just bout printing more money, it's about the usage of money. This is why QE didn't have the inflationary concerns because individuals hoarded cash and banks were not lending, preventing money cycling through. As individuals demand good and services or saves cash, this money enters the money supply and has a multiplying effect on the monetary base as banks choose to lend it out. In order for the additional funds to not have inflationary pressure, holders of the money would have to not increase consumption (unlikely since that is exactly what happens has people get more money) and banks would have to agree not to lend any of these additional funds and keep their reserves at a proportionately higher level (also unlikely). Again, with QE, individuals didn't really have more money, so their consumption did not increase and banks were extremely risk averse and did not loan out more funds. The argument here has no basis.


He does bring in evidence with Alaska and Kuwait, which I find interesting, but I would need to look at the other factors in those areas at the time rather than trust an immediate causality, such as the one he implied with QE.

He then makes the point that individuals would increase entrepreneurship, with which I agree, but is adding that to his argument that there would be no inflation. I'm not sure of the connection there, but agree with the general point, and it is one of the reasons why I favor it.

Next he goes into 'basics' of economic theory and makes the argument that the price of milk would not rise because demand for milk is constant and those who were using food stamps for milk will now use cash, so demand remains even. This is true but only for a limited set of goods and services. There are several goods and services that people wish they could have but do not because "I don't have enough money." I for one would love to renovate my home, but I don't have enough money. There are people who want massages, but don't have enough money. Some want to go out for a fancy dinner but don't have enough, so on and so on. These are net new consumptions that are difficult to ignore. This makes it clear that there is extra demand out there beyond what is currently in the market. This is even excluding the increases that will be mitigated with some cannibalization, such as people in lower markets who can't afford a car and now buy a lower end Mazda, while some have a Mazda and want an Audi. The net demand for Audi's increases and since there are more people at the bottom, those who left for Audi don't make up for the net gain to Mazda.

He then moves to citing that we have 5x more homes than homeless people in the US, making a specious argument that this means supply exceeds demand so home prices and rent will not rise. But here is the thing ... home prices and rents in particular have been rising, so much so that affordable housing is becoming a concern. We have seen these increases with the extra supply the author cites.


While I support the author's enthusiasm and agree that UBI is good in theory, his economic explanations are so easily contradicted with everyday evidence that if he is an expert in UBI, it makes me even more concerned that it is not being thought out entirely.

9/27/2019 10:48:34 AM

Quote :

" It's not just bout printing more money, it's about the usage of money This is why QE didn't have the inflationary concerns ... preventing money cycling through. As individuals demand good and services or saves cash, this money enters the money supply and has a multiplying effect on the monetary base as banks choose to lend it out. In order for the additional funds to not have inflationary pressure, holders of the money would have to not increase consumption"

again, I don't see how this doesn't boil down to "using money and people spending in the economy will cause inflation, so we should avoid measures that give people more money to use and spend in the economy"

and UBI isn't funded by printing money like QE was anyways. it's funded by VAT revenue on existing economic activity plus decreases in spending on other existing programs. I can see how in the first year it could be funded by deficit spending, but it's not the same as QE, so the inflationary concerns don't apply in the same way

9/27/2019 4:58:04 PM

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/business/yang-warren-taxes-mankiw.html

Quote :

"In the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Elizabeth Warren, of Massachusetts, and Andrew Yang, a former tech executive and entrepreneur, have both proposed bold plans for redistributing economic resources. Their plans are as different as can be. Only Mr. Yang’s is practical. Let’s start with some undeniable preliminaries. First, we live in a time of great economic inequality. Economists debate the roles of technology, trade and public policy in explaining this fact. But there is no doubt that disparities in income and wealth are far greater today than they were half a century ago. Second, reasonable people can disagree about the role the government should play in addressing this inequality. The issue involves not just economics but also political philosophy. Like most people, I have opinions on this thorny question, but I won’t try to resolve it all here. Instead, let’s consider a simpler question: Assume that one way or another, the government is going to pursue new policies to increase the equality of economic outcomes. Given that assumption, what is the best approach? Senator Warren has proposed a new tax on millionaires and billionaires. Every year, households would be taxed 2 percent on wealth exceeding $50 million or 3 percent on wealth exceeding $1 billion. The revenue, Senator Warren has said, would fund programs such as universal child care and tuition for public higher education. The political appeal is clear. Millions of Americans would benefit from this new public spending, while a small sliver of the population would bear the cost. According to a new paper by the University of California, Berkeley economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, who helped to design the Warren plan, less than 0.1 percent of families would pay this tax. Determining how much those families would owe, however, would be devilishly difficult. One problem is that many kinds of wealth have no market valuation. Take Rihanna. She is fabulously wealthy, but to put a number on her wealth, the I.R.S. would have to also estimate the present value of her songs and their possible future royalties. Sometimes, such intangible assets are sold on markets — Michael Jackson once bought the rights to Beatles songs — but often there is no market price for them. How popular will her songs be decades from now, and how much money will they bring in? Any estimate would be an educated guess, at best, yet it would have to be made. A similar situation arises for many family businesses. When businesses are sold, accountants often attribute significant value to an intangible asset called good will. To assess a wealth tax, the I.R.S. would have to estimate the good will of every family business that hasn’t been sold. Good will is hard to measure: It includes things like a business’s brand name, reputation, technology and its network of customers and contacts. Simple formulas that the I.R.S. might use to calculate this could result in substantial inequities and perhaps litigation. More important, Senator Warren’s tax would likely raise less revenue than its proponents believe, as rich people would take actions to avoid it. For example, the Warren tax may provide an incentive for high-wealth couples to divorce. Whereas a married couple could exempt $50 million of wealth from the tax, two unmarried partners could each exempt $50 million for a total of $100 million. Given the 2 percent tax rate, married couples could avoid $1 million per year in taxes by divorcing. Giving money to adult children would also reduce a family’s tax liability. A married couple with three adult children could, by divorcing and gift-giving, exempt $250 million from the Warren tax. In addition, rich folk planning to bequeath much of their wealth to charity would have an incentive to accelerate that giving during their lives, shrinking the wealth base subject to the Warren tax. And I could go on: There are countless ways for people with vast resources to avoid a complex tax like this one. In short, what Senator Warren’s proposal enjoys in political appeal, it lacks in workability. Mr. Yang has a very different approach. He proposes implementing a value-added tax and using the revenue to provide every American adult with a universal basic income of $1,000 per month, which he calls a “freedom dividend.” It’s easy to see how the Yang proposal would work. Value-added taxes, which are essentially sales taxes, have proven remarkably efficient in many European countries. And the universality of the dividend would make it simple to administer. The Yang proposal would not only be more workable than the Warren plan, but it would also target those who spend lavishly. Consider two hypothetical C.E.O.s, each earning $10 million a year. Spendthrift Sam spends all his money living the high life. He drinks expensive wine, drives Ferraris and flies a private jet to extravagant vacations. Frugal Frank lives modestly, saving most of his earnings and accumulating a large nest egg. He plans to leave some of it to his children and grandchildren and the rest to charity. Ask yourself: Who should pay higher taxes? The Warren proposal hits the frugal executive hard but leaves the spendthrift without a scratch. The Yang proposal hits the spendthrift hard and takes a smaller bite from the frugal person who has saved his money. If you, like me, think that society could benefit from fewer spendthrifts and more savers, Mr. Yang’s proposal makes much more sense than Senator Warren’s. And if the goal is to raise substantial revenue from rich taxpayers to strengthen the social safety net, Mr. Yang’s plan is more likely to succeed. Persuading voters to embrace Mr. Yang’s idea, however, won’t be easy. Under his plan, lower-income families would get back more than they pay in taxes, but everyone would see their taxes increase. Higher taxes are always a hard sell. Mr. Yang’s plan is more likely to work. Whether it can win over public opinion remains to be seen."

[Edited on September 27, 2019 at 4:59 PM. Reason : .]

9/27/2019 4:59:02 PM

JD law degree pays off.

9/27/2019 5:39:14 PM

Quote :

" For example, the Warren tax may provide an incentive for high-wealth couples to divorce. Whereas a married couple could exempt $50 million of wealth from the tax, two unmarried partners could each exempt $50 million for a total of $100 million. Given the 2 percent tax rate, married couples could avoid $1 million per year in taxes by divorcing."

I don’t think would be as prevalent as author makes out, certainly not prevalent enough to make the idea not a net positive in terms of revenue for the gov.

I like idea of spindthrifts benefiting, but rich people should still pay more. Rich person and poor person buying same loaf of bread with VAT seems unfair to me. Both pay same tax on a loaf of bread, but as a percentage of income hits poor person harder.

Plus I thought with VAT one of the criticisms is that it would lead to a barter economy because everyone would figure out how to avoid the tax?

Why can’t they do both? Tax higher income people above 50 million, and add a VAT that gives everyone 1000/month?

9/27/2019 5:40:19 PM

i'd be ok with a VAT if income taxes went away. both? hell no

9/27/2019 7:11:58 PM

I love how every "economist" poops on a tax increase for the 1% by saying "they just wont pay it"

Like, why is that okay and accepted?

9/27/2019 10:44:57 PM

I don't think anyone is saying it's ok. Some taxes by their structural nature are harder to avoid and are therefore more effective. When's the last time you heard about the wealthy avoiding sales tax?

9/27/2019 10:53:09 PM

^when that person you quoted said thrifty rich would save

^^not 1 percent. The .1%. May not seem like much of a difference, but .1 goes into 1 10 times.

9/28/2019 12:05:02 AM

Quote :

"again, I don't see how this doesn't boil down to "using money and people spending in the economy will cause inflation, so we should avoid measures that give people more money to use and spend in the economy""

I think my point can be phrased many ways, but a direct phrasing is I don't see the point of giving a UBI, or higher income, if that does not result in more purchasing power. I suspect purchasing gains would be short lived and, ultimately, as inflation much of the new income will be required to purchase the same goods and services one afforded prior to the UBI. I have additional questions since now I'm purchasing the same goods at an inflated rate but also paying a VAT, which overall increases price more only to land at these inflated prices.

Quote :

" and UBI isn't funded by printing money like QE was anyways. it's funded by VAT revenue on existing economic activity plus decreases in spending on other existing programs. I can see how in the first year it could be funded by deficit spending, but it's not the same as QE, so the inflationary concerns don't apply in the same way"

I understand UBI isn't funded by printing money and that it comes from the VAT, but as I stated in my previous post it is not how it is funded that matters, but increases in money supply and monetary based that happy as a result of consumption with new income at a large scale.

I also understand that VAT is applied in many European countries, so I'm not refuting that VAT can work. However, these are not VATs designed to fund a UBI system. To say that VAT works in Europe to increase tax revenues by taxing people isn't the same as saying we can make a UBI work here by funding it with a VAT.

Also if the assumption is that the wealthy will consume more and spend more in VAT, and therefore receive less in benefits than less wealthy individuals, then the system seems less efficient than just taxing wealthy and redistributing that in various forms to other groups. Paying me a thousand dollars just to have me fund a thousand dollars into the system doesn't seem well thought out.

9/28/2019 2:16:17 PM

[Edited on September 30, 2019 at 9:25 AM. Reason : ^ PM sent ]

9/30/2019 9:14:33 AM

So I just watched a "viral" video of a chick singing puccini in the LA subway. Watched it via LAPD twitter post.

Most of the comments assumed she is homeless, and started talking shit to the LAPD. Then I saw a comment where someone wrote that andrew yangs freedom dividend wouldve helped her.

Yang Bros are going to be a huge hurdle for Yang to overcome.

9/30/2019 10:45:08 AM

bros always are

9/30/2019 11:45:14 AM

what exactly is objectionable about this??

https://twitter.com/AndyWan35430522/status/1177769400524398592

and he's right. an extra $1000/month would help her. doesn't mean it's going to completely eradicate homelessness or poverty, but it WILL help her.

i mean, aren't all the other candidates policies designed to HELP people? why is suggesting the Freedom Dividend will help people a bad thing??

you might prefer another candidate, but there's no need to distort what Yang's supporters are saying or their behavior/demeanor


[Edited on September 30, 2019 at 12:06 PM. Reason : #HumanityFirst and #YangGangLove]

9/30/2019 12:01:59 PM

to get her off the streets youd have to buy bill gates socks, of course

9/30/2019 12:03:30 PM

Quote :

"what exactly is objectionable about this??"

Not everything is a springboard to talk about one's love of Yang.

YangGangLove / Veganism / Crossfit

This thread - great place to talk about Yang

The comments on a random video of a possibly homeless woman singing opera in a subway station - not so much

9/30/2019 12:19:35 PM

thats just a sign of the times. look under a facebook advertisement for sandwich meat it gets political fast.

[Edited on September 30, 2019 at 12:23 PM. Reason : etc]

9/30/2019 12:23:09 PM

Quote :

" Not everything is a springboard to talk about one's love of Yang"

i see. i don't see that particular tweet as being egregiously irrelevant, but I understand your point.

9/30/2019 12:29:22 PM

I think it's weird Yang is fine with a VAT but not a wealth tax

9/30/2019 5:55:34 PM

why is that? Yang isn't anti- wealth tax, he's pro- efficient taxation of the wealthy.

https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1177670060808327168

[Edited on September 30, 2019 at 7:00 PM. Reason : pragmatic problem solver, not driven by a particular ideology]

9/30/2019 6:59:36 PM

A wealth tax is trivial to implement compared to a citizens dividend, it doesn’t make sense that it’s the difficulty of implementation that deters him. You can decipher most wealth from bank and tax records already.

Consider that Trumps tariffs are one of the biggest tax increases in the American public in history, but no one cares because this isn’t a line item on receipts. A VAT that is even half the tariffs would anger basically everyone, and disproportionately impact the disposable income of the poor and middle class. We don’t need to be doing anything to make taxes more regressive while inequality is growing.

Also, massive Inequality and billionaires is a bug in our financial system. It’s an unintended consequence of the usage of currency as a proxy for labor. We NEED a wealth tax to patch this loophole, regardless of any other spending policies. It’s an absolutely necessity at this point.

9/30/2019 7:14:23 PM

Quote :

" You can decipher most wealth from bank and tax records already."

I'll offer the Panama Papers as a counter example.

[Edited on September 30, 2019 at 9:28 PM. Reason : sending checks to people is one of the few things that the government is reliably good at]

9/30/2019 9:28:09 PM

I’m not really concerned about the margin of error introduced by tax cheats in terms of the wealth tax. Hopefully a future admin properly funds the irs to prosecute those criminals anyway.

9/30/2019 9:47:12 PM

Prosecution of financial crimes definitely long overdue

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/economic-crime/

9/30/2019 9:58:37 PM

I will say that all of this spirited conversation has me playing Nation States again. If only I could remember my login for all my previous roles and compare my standing over the past few decades.

10/1/2019 9:24:46 AM

a week ago the campaign set a goal to raise $1.5M by the end of the quarter.

they hit $1.5M yesterday morning and then set a stretch goal to hit $2M, which they ALSO hit



5000+ person rally in LA last night

10/1/2019 10:09:36 AM

Friend of mine on facebook thats normally a solid republican vote seems to love this guy.

10/1/2019 5:59:03 PM

Bc that person doesn’t actually believe anything.

10/1/2019 8:20:54 PM

$10M raised in Q3 with 300k individual donors

raised $.8M in July
raised $3.7M in August
raised $5.5M in September and $2M in just the last week

took us 120 days to go from 100k donors (4/17) to 200k donors (8/15)
took us 47 days to go from 200k donors to 300k donors

[Edited on October 2, 2019 at 10:44 AM. Reason : gonna have a fun Q4]

10/2/2019 9:44:31 AM

[Edited on October 2, 2019 at 10:12 AM. Reason : .]

10/2/2019 10:11:29 AM

10/2/2019 11:43:42 AM

https://www.canandrewyangwin.com

10/4/2019 3:06:54 PM

10/6/2019 3:06:29 PM

Received his $1k bill last Saturday. I'm rich!

10/7/2019 9:28:04 AM

Yang has now qualified for the November debate



Yang appeared on Alyssa Milano's podcast this week.



as well as Eric Weintein's podcast The Portal. really liked both of these interviews



[Edited on October 10, 2019 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2019 3:00:40 PM

Lmao MLK would not have supported Yang, are you serious? Like all other socialists, MLK would have seen Yang's UBI exactly as it is, a libertarian trojan horse designed to destroy state-provided benefits and turn them over to the free market.

[Edited on October 10, 2019 at 4:00 PM. Reason : .]

10/10/2019 4:00:05 PM

CBS Sunday morning had a story on Yang this morning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYHNOEALD8

10/13/2019 12:29:10 PM

Surviving to the next debate in November.

And these are the two interviews I knew him initially through about a year ago. Interviewed by Youtube Asian celebrities Fung Brothers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUolzAltwKI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zIWZ15KAuw

[Edited on October 13, 2019 at 2:58 PM. Reason : add another note]

10/13/2019 2:54:41 PM

Fine people on both sides I guess, huh? He's either super ignorant or actively courting the white nationalists, nor sure which is worse.



https://twitter.com/ANDREWTI/status/1183969261468839936?s=19

[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 7:15 AM. Reason : E]

10/15/2019 7:02:10 AM

Well, that’s certainly one way to read that tweet, I guess.

10/15/2019 7:23:58 AM

Yep. Turns out, when people are actively bad, letting them influence you IS a bad thing.

Tucker Carlson is an unapologetic white nationalist. Nobody should give him the time of day.

10/15/2019 7:51:32 AM

Quote :

"Fine people on both sides I guess, huh? He's either super ignorant or actively courting the white nationalists, nor sure which is worse."

i mean he never deleted his Ngo tweet:
https://twitter.com/AndrewYang/status/1145755562816266240

10/15/2019 8:51:06 AM

Enjoy the debate tonight y'all .





Establishment Dems WILL lose to Trump again.



[Edited on October 15, 2019 at 10:57 AM. Reason : .]

10/15/2019 9:13:34 AM

He's No.4 in our state

10/15/2019 3:11:50 PM

I'll say that I did like how automation and UBI became more of a talking point in the conversation. I don't think that would have happened without Yang gaining some ground.

10/16/2019 10:43:21 AM