Quantcast
Andrew Yang secured enough unique donors to enter debate stage

Forums - Politics Discussion - Andrew Yang secured enough unique donors to enter debate stage

Do you like Andrew Yang?

Yang for president! 3 13.04%
 
Needs to be vice president of my first pick. 0 0.00%
 
We need his voice in the debate. 13 56.52%
 
Yang should fail with his presidential bid. 2 8.70%
 
Who is this again? 5 21.74%
 
Total:23

I have a feeling Trump gets reelected easily. I'd give Rick Flair a chance if he ran against him.



Around the Network

Tbh im not a big fan of the government giving people money but at the same time i dont trusy the government to handle money so im like 50/50 on UBI.
Yang seems like a chill guy tho with some good solutions.



SpokenTruth said:
WolfpackN64 said:
I'm not for a UBI (an I'm not a US citizen, so whatever). But I do try to follow the US' politics.
He looks interesting, at least more so then that O'Rourke guy.
Someone do tell me, how many candidates are there on the democratic side?

It's certainly getting crowded.  I count 16 officially right now with a couple more expected to announce soon (Joe Bidden for instance).  Of the 16, I'd guess 8 are truly contenders.

Yeah, 16 contenders though Wayne hasn't officially announced candidacy and only an exploratory committee yet.

Additionally, Andrew Gillum is scheduled already to announce his candidacy on March 20. One more to the list...



DarthMetalliCube said:
Jumpin said:

Care to explain this? I've been following Bernie fairly closely for years now, and haven't seen either of those things.

"sold out to the Clinton machine" is false; do you mean, joining the democratic party so he could up his visibility? That's not selling out.

And what do you mean by identity politics bs? Are you saying that because he's Jewish?

1. Wow no no no, absolutely not lol.. I have close familiy that is Jewish. But even if I didn't, I have less than zero against Jewish people.. That would be absurd and unfair for me to argue that baked in traits means you're pushing identity politics. What I mean is his statements like "white people don't know what it's like to be poor", talking about the "wage gap", which has long since been debunked that it has to do with sexism. He's also talked about "racial equity" with his policies. No, not "equality", which I of course support, but EQUITY, whcih means litterally giving people of certain races advantages over others, to "tip the scales" in their favor I guess or help even things out in some way, which basically means enacting racist policies.

2. He sold out by basically bowing out of the race and supporting the very pro Wall Street, pro free trade Clinton, despite being very much against both himself. Considering he got very clearly screwed over by the DNC with the collusion and super delagate fiasco, I wish he would just just made more of a stink about it I guess. Though I suppose you could say his hands were tied somewhat. 

3. Bernie thrives far more when he focuses on the economy, Wall Street, foreign policy, etc. which I haven't seen as much lately. I've seen more just typical anti Trump hysteria and identity politic jargon which I find repellent. Like, yes, yes I get it. "Orange man bad" and all. That's great.. Tell me specifically how YOU would make a better president. That's what I want. Tulsi and Yang seem like they're doing that far more. Focusing on solutions far more than negativity and what NOT to do.

Regardless, I just don't find him as appealing as I once did. 

1. I am not sure what you mean by "I support equality but not equity" - that doesn't make sense, since equity IS the method by which you establish equality on a financial basis; this is not something Bernie just started supporting, he has done so since the 1960s. Additionally, of course Bernie doesn't think there's no poor white people, most of the groups he supports have a white majority within them (such as seniors, students, veterans, and more), but even if there are disadvantaged classes containing white people, white people aren't a disadvantaged class in the US - this isn't BS, racism in the US is obvious. Sexism in the US isn't BS either -- using politics as an example: it's clear women get scrutinized to WAY higher degrees than men, and the US ranks 79th in the world for women in elected positions as of 2019, and apparently this is a record high; the country is clearly sexist. These aren't fake issues as you claim; and Bernie's consistent positions on them over decades is why he's the most popular senator in the US.

2. You can make a legitimate argument that Bernie Sanders sold out by joining the Democratic party, but that's not what you're doing. What you are describing (and even stating is bowing out), not selling out. These are two completely different things with different motivations.

3. Really? Economic issues is by far main thing he has been talking about. Here is his kickoff speech, economics is at the core of about 95% of what he is talking about, I don't think he mentioned Trump at all (which is actually kind of weird, IMO, Trump is clearly going to be his opponent):

 

Anyway, on Universal basic income, which I guess this Yang guy supports. IMO, that is one of the best systems for the next phase in automation, which is the AI revolution currently in its infancy, but about to hit a growth spurt REALLY soon. UBI is a good fix for the change in the job market: but what it isn't is a replacement for social programs, and it won't fix the issues caused by the lack of worker union rights in the US; but it can work alongside those things. Removing the need for a government mandated minimum wage, and putting that sort of regulation in the hands of unions is a far better solution, and having UBI can really ease that transition. UBI without fixing the US problem with education access could send the country in the wrong direction economically - with the removal of routine work, education has never been more important: both academic (which teaches critical thought and application across a number of subjects) and vocational (which working class people are going to need free access to, otherwise they could end up 45-50 years old with only skills and experience in an obsolete job, and no real path toward a new career in a healthy field).

Basically, Bernie Sanders already has a very developed platform; he could easily add UBI. Two easy models:
1. High marginal income tax, but everyone gets a monthly credit.
2. Negative tax credit, which would mean WAY less in the way of new tax. Might be the better choice in the US economy.

In both cases, stimulating the lowest echelon of the economy will drop crime rates and vastly improve the overall consumer economy of the US.

In short: UBI is good, but it's only a partial treatment to the issues plaguing the US, and a very expensive one that might be a hard sell in 2020, but perhaps an easier one in 2024, by then we'll be seeing AI controlled mass transit, trucks, and cabs; and the question will be "Do we make AI illegal, or do we change the economy to work for everyone?" the latter being the main goal of Bernie Sanders, and from what I have seen, no one has a better platform than him in the US (though, I admit, I am not overly familiar with most of the other candidates). It seems to me, AOC in 2024 will be the biggest player.

Either way, just some thoughts.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Interesting person with interesting perspectives that are needed to push the party towards more progressive issues. Universal basic income is a completely useless proposition though, but I agree with much of his other positions.



Around the Network
Kerotan said:
I have a feeling Trump gets reelected easily. I'd give Rick Flair a chance if he ran against him.

Reminder that this is not a Trump discussion thread. A better thread to predict a victory would be this thread http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=239622



     

Check out my lastest games review: Fast RMX and  Snipperclips: Cut it out Together

Mnementh said:

Yeah, the effect on the value of the currency itself could be quite complicated. Which is why I would start with a smaller UBI or make initially only a part of the people eligible (like seniors) and incrementally increase the amount and/or the persons eligible, all while watching which effects it has. Every economical policy can have widespread effects that are hard to gauge initially. We have to see what happens here.

Another effect you didn't talk about is, that the value of jobs changes with a UBI. If poor people have the option to turn down jobs that are dangerous or otherwise problematic, it could happen that safe jobs in an office might get paid less while dangerous jobs get paid more. Also it will effect prices. Prices of some products might go down (especially products which include much manual labor currently) and for others up. The effects will be complicated.

It's not about the value of currency. We need to realize that currency by itself has no intrinsic value attached to it ... 

The economy itself has value because it is productive. The economy doesn't have value because there's money in it. It's a near unanimous myth among society in the belief that a fiat currency's primary function is supposed to be a store of value but they aren't all that good at that objective! Money is only meant to be a medium of exchange and a unit of account, giving more of it doesn't magically increase productivity ... 

We need to decouple the idea that money is somehow connected to productivity when there's no relationship between the two so a UBI doesn't address the underlying problem that we still have scarce resource economy ... 

If we want a credible social safety net then we'd ought to have some sort of discount system in place to subsidize abundant goods or services like in America's case some food items, shale gas or in the future share some automation services because like it or not some industries are more productive or plentiful than others ... 



Puppyroach said:
Interesting person with interesting perspectives that are needed to push the party towards more progressive issues. Universal basic income is a completely useless proposition though, but I agree with much of his other positions.

And?

You started saying something, but gave no basis for your point.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

fatslob-:O said:
Mnementh said:

Yeah, the effect on the value of the currency itself could be quite complicated. Which is why I would start with a smaller UBI or make initially only a part of the people eligible (like seniors) and incrementally increase the amount and/or the persons eligible, all while watching which effects it has. Every economical policy can have widespread effects that are hard to gauge initially. We have to see what happens here.

Another effect you didn't talk about is, that the value of jobs changes with a UBI. If poor people have the option to turn down jobs that are dangerous or otherwise problematic, it could happen that safe jobs in an office might get paid less while dangerous jobs get paid more. Also it will effect prices. Prices of some products might go down (especially products which include much manual labor currently) and for others up. The effects will be complicated.

It's not about the value of currency. We need to realize that currency by itself has no intrinsic value attached to it ... 

The economy itself has value because it is productive. The economy doesn't have value because there's money in it. It's a near unanimous myth among society in the belief that a fiat currency's primary function is supposed to be a store of value but they aren't all that good at that objective! Money is only meant to be a medium of exchange and a unit of account, giving more of it doesn't magically increase productivity ... 

We need to decouple the idea that money is somehow connected to productivity when there's no relationship between the two so a UBI doesn't address the underlying problem that we still have scarce resource economy ... 

If we want a credible social safety net then we'd ought to have some sort of discount system in place to subsidize abundant goods or services like in America's case some food items, shale gas or in the future share some automation services because like it or not some industries are more productive or plentiful than others ... 

Yeah, you are right that money is a pretty bad indicator of economic value. But thing is, it is among the best we have. We could measure work (in hours for instance), but that would result in a less automated economy being more valuable than a more automated one - which can't be right. That is the reason GDP as measurent stuck as much as it did. Because we have pretty much no better indication.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018

Predictions: Switch / Switch / Switch / MHWorld / GOW > BOTW / Switch vs. XB1 in the US

Mnementh said:
fatslob-:O said:

It's not about the value of currency. We need to realize that currency by itself has no intrinsic value attached to it ... 

The economy itself has value because it is productive. The economy doesn't have value because there's money in it. It's a near unanimous myth among society in the belief that a fiat currency's primary function is supposed to be a store of value but they aren't all that good at that objective! Money is only meant to be a medium of exchange and a unit of account, giving more of it doesn't magically increase productivity ... 

We need to decouple the idea that money is somehow connected to productivity when there's no relationship between the two so a UBI doesn't address the underlying problem that we still have scarce resource economy ... 

If we want a credible social safety net then we'd ought to have some sort of discount system in place to subsidize abundant goods or services like in America's case some food items, shale gas or in the future share some automation services because like it or not some industries are more productive or plentiful than others ... 

Yeah, you are right that money is a pretty bad indicator of economic value. But thing is, it is among the best we have. We could measure work (in hours for instance), but that would result in a less automated economy being more valuable than a more automated one - which can't be right. That is the reason GDP as measurent stuck as much as it did. Because we have pretty much no better indication.

Ever heard of the Big Mac index? That one started completely as a joke - until someone remarked that it's actually a pretty valid way to calculate people's purchasing power parity, even though it has it's limitations (a Big Mac is pretty cheap in industrialized countries, but in third world countries that's sometimes a whole day's pay, even with the lower prices there).

So yeah, GDP (per capita) and PPP (Purchasing Power Parity, also per capita) are the best ones we have right now. Even though they are inherently flawed, they are less flawed than the alternatives.