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
governments inability to address large scale problems
And what makes him think 'government' would perform any differently with him behind the wheel?? GTFOH (i.e. never mind; I don't want to know).
right here, so all else being equal he gets my (primary) vote in favor of anyone else who doesn't.
I'd rather see him stumping on Medicare for All than basic income though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
... thinking there will still be a United States in 2020.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
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.'"
At this point in USA history it is really time to make a stand towards eliminating our party system. The easiest way to do that is get a few big players campaigning on independent tickets, or small third parties with the goal of gaining the 5-10 percent for national recognition and then start winning overall elections once the big parties have begun faltering.
Until that happens we will see the same mess repeating that has been for the past 200+ years of American History.
Yeah, it's sad that so many of the founding fathers had the right idea (that political parties were a bad idea), and now we have an institutionalized system that pretty much guarantees an ongoing 2 party system.
I've always liked the idea that one of the houses (probably representatives) be taken over by a Sortocracy (aka lottocracy) , like was in place in Athens and many other Greek city states. Basically, the idea is that representatives are chosen at random from a pool of eligible citizens. Yeah, you get a few crack-pots in that way, but there are many benefits.
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
5) Representatives do what they think is right, not what they think will get them elected (goes back to point 1).
It's the best way to get a truly representative body and not the polar ends of the spectrum that you end up with with party elected politics.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
If America wanted an establishment whore, it would have elected Clinton. Instead it elected Trump and got one anyway.
You really bumped your head hard if you call Hillary a centerist... Think about that for a few minutes until the birds stop flying around your head..
Ever hear of Barack Obama?
I'm a born-and-raised American citizen, was not Republican OR Democrat in November 2016, and I didn't want EITHER ONE OF THEM; what does that make me, you drunk sonofabitch?
Either someone who wanted to vote for Sanders, or a statistical outlier whose influence on the election was negligible and can be ignored.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Wouldn't it be ironic that all those people Slashdotters usually look down on...people who work with their hands, the earth, and livestock, are suddenly the only ones that can feed and raise a family?
Meanwhile, erstwhile Slashdot posters are sit in front of their dark screens wishing they could post some snark about how they've been screwed by automation, the Rich, or both.
You can have mass immigration or you can have nice things. Notice that the people who are pushing mass immigration, such as Koch bros, already have nice things and benefit more from cheaper labor than better public schools and such. UBI is another example of this. If the US had less immigration, both legal and illegal, as well as no anchor babies then UBI would be much more attainable. Also wages would be better, traffic would be less, and housing would be more affordable. UBI is interesting but unless immigration is *greatly* reduced don't expect it regardless of how much AI and robotics reduce jobs.
You forgot to add all-caps. How are people going to know you are right if you don't put them?
Only I can judge 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'
they have machine guns now. And supply lines so that when your semi-autos run out of bullets theirs don't. Best case scenario you get a military junta and a change of masters.
Violence isn't going to work anymore. If you want freedom you have to take care of your working class _before_ they turn to a militant strong man. So far we are not doing a good job of that. Hopefully next election we turn things around and at least run somebody like this Andrew fellow who appears to belong to the populist left.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
our Senate and Electoral colleges were purpose built to protect the interests of a few wealthy landowners. The political parties are just natural outgrowths of that system. What's needed is a parliamentary system that gives everybody who gets x% of the vote some power. That and compulsory voting. If voting was mandatory people couldn't get away with voter suppression.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
At one time every able bodied man was supposed to turn out for the defense of the village whenever the feudal lord ordered it. We then evolved into professional volunteer armies and today the concept of the draft has gone away.
Similarly in the future people will work if they want to not because they have been drafted to. Today everyone has to work or starve - there is no real choice.
With an UBI, work becomes a choice and the workers will be much more professional as they would have CHOSEN to work rather than forced to.
**Life is too short to be serious**
The grain dole in Roman times: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Just saying it wouldn't be the first time government supplied free sustenance. With mixed results. And then Regan gave us the cheese: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
OK, talking to a true-blue Californian Democrat:
The Californian says, "We have it figured out. We get UBI, we do not have to work anymore!"
And I ask, "But who is going to do all the needed work?"
"Ah, simple," says he. "The illegal immigrants!"
"But they don't pay taxes!"
Then, with a quick wink he says "We are still working on that minor problem!"
1) It is a TRUE representation of the population. It's not a polarized system like you get with voting. Anyone can put their name forwards. The house represents the people.
If it is opt-in, then only those who can afford being away from their job for 1-6 years (depending on how it is implemented) will opt-in. Biasing the pool. If it is not opt-in, those who cannot afford such a breach in their employment history will refuse to answer when selected.
One would be paid whilst serving the nation by the nation. The same as what happens today. Congressmen receive a salary once they're elected.
2) You don't have to be wealthy to rule. You don't have to be rich enough to go for years without working in order to fund a campaign.
But you either have to be able to afford the time not at your job, or not have a job to miss out on anyway. Either way, bad representation.
Not all...see above point.
3) You don't have to have the backing of a party. You are allowed to have your own ideas and thoughts.
Until it comes to actually trying to get anything done. This will result in a perpetual deadlock, only interrupted when a skilled liar pushes an action.
There wouldn't necessarily be ANY parties in the sorti-elected government. They might separate themselves into groups once elected, or associate with parties. Compare it to today though where as many as 10%-50% of people prefer a third party to the main party (depending on who you believe)... What % of senators are third-party or in either house? Very few. You need the backing of one of two main parties to win an election- even though a significant portion of the country identify with neither party.
4) You don't have any exposure to lobbyists. Lobbyists are powerless to influence you.
HAHAHAHAHA! They'll be the ones offering catering services at the votes!
They can't fund the election of the representatives because the representatives don't have any election costs. All they could possibly do is bribe the representatives (which is already illegal) and would result in crippling fines on the lobbyists and expulsion/jail time for the reps and lobbyists offering the bribes.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch