Slashdot Mirror
Entrepreneur Andrew Yang, a Big Supporter Of Universal Basic Income, is Running For President (techcrunch.com)
In a recently published podcast, Andrew Yang, tech entrepreneur and founder of Venture for America, said he is vying for the Democratic party nomination to run for President of the United States. From a report: Yang outlines his radical policy agenda, which focuses on Universal Basic Income and includes a "freedom dividend." He talks about the very real and immediate threat of artificial intelligence, how new technologies are erasing millions of jobs before our eyes, and why we need to put humanity first. He also addresses "the big four" and what he plans to do about Amazon.
During the interview, Yang called out governments inability to address large scale problems and the challenges that technology is creating in modern American society. "I believe that we need to start owning these realities [of automation and artificial intelligence taking away jobs] and these challenges as a people, as a country, and as a society, and start being honest. I'm running for president to solve the big problems and to show that these things are not beyond us," Yang says. Yang's own plan to address the increasing power tech companies are wielding in the world involves something called a "freedom dividend", which would paid for by a value-added tax. The revenue from that tax (levied on "gains from the big four") would be redistributed via the "freedom dividend" to citizens, Yang says.
During the interview, Yang called out governments inability to address large scale problems and the challenges that technology is creating in modern American society. "I believe that we need to start owning these realities [of automation and artificial intelligence taking away jobs] and these challenges as a people, as a country, and as a society, and start being honest. I'm running for president to solve the big problems and to show that these things are not beyond us," Yang says. Yang's own plan to address the increasing power tech companies are wielding in the world involves something called a "freedom dividend", which would paid for by a value-added tax. The revenue from that tax (levied on "gains from the big four") would be redistributed via the "freedom dividend" to citizens, Yang says.
We either plan for it now or start buying pitchforks and torches. And oiling up the guillotines because we _will_ eat the rich.
Only I can judge you.
I don't deny that one day UBI might be feasible, and even necessary but it's just too soon and too radical, especially for the US. He's not going to get his party's nomination, and if he does, it's 4 more years of Trump.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Promising free shit to the young, stupid, and lazy worked out so great for Bernie, didn't it?
These people should first worry about the DNC existing long enough to put forth a candidate in 2020. It's a bit premature to be hobbling together a hollow platform that will only get you Bernied.
Beyond that, why are you planning for action in 2020 when you'll be up against an incumbent POTUS? (For all of you who can't fathom Trump being reelected - Bush Jr. was reviled and won reelection, and the popular vote, easily. This happened because he was the incumbent and people fear change. The DNC put forth a bland turkey-burger candidate knowing they didn't want to waste any real effort against an incumbent. And of course, Obama sat and watched as the economy burned and our rights were stripped away and the surveillance state grew. He, too, won reelection handily.)
You save your plays until 2024 unless you want to tip your hand and risk being scooped. It might make sense to throw your hat into the ring in 2020 and get your name out there, but you do NOT put your platform out there. It'll just have 4 extra years to be dismantled, attacked, made irrelevant, or copied.
I view UBI as just another fad in the recent trend of America's liberal thinking (which, by the way, has been taken over by almost teenage-/child-like levels of logic) that seeks to equalize all outcomes for all people, end suffering, poverty, and eliminate inequity at every stage of life. Damn anyone who thinks otherwise or wonders about how it will work (and be accused of spouting hate speech if you disagree). This is getting ridiculous, and is by the way, impossible. And mind you, I'm generally liberal myself.
UBI is the most blatant example among many proposals that is very clearly a taking of $ from the highest earners, and giving it to the lowest earners. How else could it work? If you have a closed system where the income distribution is even linear up the scale, the only way UBI works is if the top subsidize the bottom. So it's a different form of progressive tax.
However, in this case, instead of subsidizing the means to be productive and earn a living, you simply give the people cash and assume they'll work it out for themselves. (For those imagining we would keep the social services, get real -- would we really give them cash *and* the social services too? Isn't UBI envisioned as a way to reduce social services? If social services worked, why do UBI?)
Anyway, aside from the possibility somehow that corporations are the ones taxed and not individuals -- the long term question is: what kind of society does this produce, if brought to its conclusion? Some kind of Star Trek utopia where everyone's free to pursue higher, loftier goals for humanity? Or, more realistically, some kind of even more unbalanced state where the very few people at the top produce wealth, the middle class is hollowed out, and the lowest earners don't have to work? Has anyone studied the incentives that this produces, and whether it makes our society better?
I think that is lacking in these idealized proposals.
Can we not have a decent level headed somewhat moderate person please?
If America wanted a centrist, it would have elected Clinton. That's not what America wants. Why can't you see that? It's as plain as day. America would rather have a pussy-grabbing steak salesman than a centrist.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The scumbag's explicit reference to guillotine shows, the French terror is what he wants for this country. He may be too stupid to do very much to advance this goal, but he is still a scumbag — just the kind to stand out there masked and shouting "Communism will win".
Adherents of the vilest and deadliest school of thought known to humanity, responsible for millions of deaths and economic devastation of entire countries, these people somehow remain acceptable for the polite society — and even find sympathetic moderators to upvote their murderous rhetoric. All the while, for example, the stupid schmucks of the (relatively) harmless KKK are hunted and persecuted as if they were Satan incarnates.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
She only knows how to do one thing, but somebody needs to explain the situation to her. She put Trump in office...that's how bad at politics she is.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'