I do like UBI as a future solution to structural unemployment caused by automation. That being said, I do like Andrew Yang.
As for his chances, we’re in a new age that was hinted at as early as the 2012 elections when Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann rose to the top of the polls briefly and Ben Carson’s brief run at the top in 2016, that social media can turn unknowns into top tier contenders. It’s just a matter of whether they can handle the limelight once they get there. But it wouldn’t surprise me at all if a good debate performance made Yang or Buttigieg contenders.
Nice article in the Washington Post. Andrew Yang is running for president. Haven’t heard of him? You will soon. Someone did some nice research for that article. Most of the media I’ve linked in this thread are linked in that article, including the Fung Bros. interview. It’s a pretty comprehensive condensed view of the recent events with the campaign.
Nice crowd at a San Francisco rally, estimated to be about a thousand people. At the Yang Rally in San Francisco!!! #yangGang is out! Over 1K people!! An interview [youtube] at a yacht club in Iowa city. In this, he says he’s for the spirit of $15/hr min. wage, but he says that there are small businesses that wouldn’t hire someone if they raised the min. wage, and some places would automate faster. I don’t know if I buy this. He says that he’s more for the freedom dividend, and after it’s implemented, he would support the states to increase the minimum wage if they chose. His answer about universal health care was odd. His website says he’s for Medicare for all or another universal health care. In this, he says he’s for a public option with a copay so the hypochondriacs don’t abuse it. That’s a weird reason to make everyone have copays.
One of the Progressives on youtube is disappointed that Yang is not following the college tuition for all platform. He says that a college education is a good in itself regardless of whether it helps people get a job. I’m conflicted about it. Having an educated population has always been a goal. But education is getting more narrowly defined, and higher education is getting to be more of a status symbol than a sign that the people are getting more ready to tackle society’s bigger problems.
There is an OP with a letter supposedly posted by Yang. I don’t know the usernames, so I don’t know if it’s legit. It looks legit. In the letter, he says that someone proposed that he think about legalizing opiates. He says that he researched it, and is now leaning toward legalizing them to help people get the treatment that they need. He didn’t commit to anything. He was just sharing thoughts, it looked like. He talks about his busy week in Iowa and his upcoming rally in SF.
Things are still moving at a really rapid pace with his campaign.
Pardon if I sound like a broken record, but since we’re talking about predictit and betting markets, I don’t think Yang can win, but I think Yang can absolutely influence the democratic debate. I think that his potential contribution is that he can maybe get independent voters to stop obsessing over immigration and focusing more on automation. It’s displacement that represents the greatest threat to the so-called ‘white working class’ - the 40 and 50-something WWC to be more specific.
Might I suggest that it feels that way to you because you seem to be following it at a very granular level. You’re reporting here when someone starts a thread on reddit or a betting site adds him. These are not campaign events.
Yes, and it’s relative. I’ve been watching Yang’s campaign since last year. Last year, it wasn’t moving very much. Compared to that, it’s moving rapidly. Compared to Bernie Sanders’ campaign getting 1M volunteers within days, there’s no comparison.
I watched AOC’s campaign before people were paying attention too. When no one was paying attention, it moved very slowly. But it was still fun to watch.
Yes, and it has the feel of something organized–as if a group of Yang supporters out there has a twitter feed or subreddit or email list or some such which gives specific recommendations to followers to make the candidate appear to be catching fire. “If you have a few spare minutes, google Yang a dozen times–every google attempt adds to the buzz.” “Hey, howzabout tweeting MSNBC and telling them that they really need to start talking about Yang–here are some quick talking points, and here’s where you send it.” “Spread the word on social media that CNN’s dropping the ball by not giving Yang equal time.” I mentioned the similarity to Ron Paul earlier–his campaign did the same kind of stuff, though lower tech (writing letters to newspaper editors, etc.).
My favorite example of this was in the runup to 2016, when fivethirtyeight introduced their endorsement tracker. I used to read the comments, the more fool me, but hey…anyway, every couple of days early in the process you’d get a Sanders supporter pointing out that the site was unfairly downgrading Bernie, that he actually had a TON of endorsements, and then would proceed to list a bunch of state legislators, nearly all from New Hampshire and Vermont. Someone would then point out that fivethirtyeight was excluding state legislative endorsements, you didn;t even have to read the fine print for that, it was right there in the explanation of what they were doing; and then a day or two later you’d get another commenter with the same basic complaint and the identical list. It was very clear that some group was orchestrating the complaints. Not exactly subtle, but oh well.
But I have a problem with your term regressive, now if VAT impacts the poor a few percentage points more than a Sales tax, but the end result is that VAT brings in more revenue overall, and becomes a more reliable source of tax income in general, then this negates the regressive nature due to the government, in theory, being able to collect the taxes and mitigate whatever disadvantage there would be. Again, alot of what you’re referring to in regard to VAT is that it can also exempt food and clothing, provisions are made for the poor in countries which excise VAT.
I’m referring to state sales tax.
I never implied that, I just find it fantastical that his platform is going to be 100% implemented if he ever became President, because no President in the history of the US has ever had their agenda implemented without compromise.
Again, like most things, it depends on interpretation, where as you might be correct in respects to a thriving area, like NYC, as opposed to Detroit, there will be degrees of which it would be a good idea and where it would be a bad idea. However, I doubt highly that it wouldn’t be subject to certain judicial oversight.
But it would be vested in the legislature and judiciary not the executive, and non partisan. Again, I see no problem with it as it’d be something along the lines of beefing up the FCC to go after fake news and misinformation, some of which, is propagated by foreign state actors.
Again, your interpretation is different from mine, I see him as allocating more power away from himself to the institutions which defend American democracy, and ensure it is not being manipulated, you see it as merely another extension of government power being detremental to individual freedom.
Yang is scheduled to be on Velshi and Ruhle on April 4. The transaction looked like a casual conversation.
Yang posted a tweet about the Freedom Dividend. Ali Velshi tweeted “Want to come on my show to discuss?” Yang responded "Yes Ali - will be there! " And Ali responded back “April 4th in the 3pm hour. Look forward to talking with you on TV”
And just like that, he’s on a national broadcast show. Behind the scenes, it took a while for Yang to see the tweet. People on Reddit were trying to alert him to it. It took a few days for him to respond.
One funding tool they’re using is merchandise. They sold 500 Math hats in 2 hours.
3000 people showed up at a rally in San Francisco. The person introducing him at the rally was a UFC fighter that he helped.
Yang just did an interview on c-span in Plymouth, New Hampshire with Steve Marchand, former mayor of Portsmouth, NH. This might be a better interview than the Joe Rogan one in terms of the issues covered and the questions being asked. It’s getting a lot less views though.
Yang’s schedule is crazy and impressive. He visits between 1 and 5 places a day, speaking at different events. He’s been on that pace for a while now, from what I can tell.
Are you somehow thinking that the proposal is to replace state sales taxes (which fund state expenses) with a Federal VAT??? If so, then no, it is not. States collect their taxes. His (again way inadequate) funding proposal is for a 10% VAT (which would have a tremendous shortfall even if broad-based), an additional regressive consumption tax, above and beyond sales taxes levied by the states.
Yes, in theory the money thus collected could be redistributed in such a way as to more than offset the regressiveness of the tax. In this case however the distribution is also regressive, compounding the impact, further increasing wealth inequality. That’s the math of it.
Refresher on how our government is organized: the Legislature writes laws and (in theory) controls the purse; the Judiciary interprets the laws and decides if they are constitutional or when laws conflict which takes precedence; the Executive executes the laws. Various Federal agencies are part of the executive branch and while they traditionally are allowed some independence this president has demonstrated that a president CAN fire the directors as he pleases to put ones in place who will comply with what the president wishes. The president is the boss of that branch. Neither the Legislature or the Judiciary execute the laws; that power is vested in the Executive.
Yang proposes an ombudsman at the FCC, who of course would serve at the president’s discretion because that is the way the executive branch is set up, who would have the power to decide what is “bad” news and media and prevent it. Is it very hard to imagine a president’s lackey fining MSNBC or CNN for what the president declares to be “fake news”, or censoring SNL for being so “unfair” and for their obvious “collusion”? (Of course a mythic president Yang would use the power only for good!)
Now of course if any president wanted this to occur they’d have to get Congress to propose it and to pass it and for it to stand up as constitutional when challenged. Neither would occur. But the vision is still one that is totalitarian, a scary vision to me. And it is not too far fetched of a thought to think that the last Congress would have granted Trump’s executive those powers if he had thought of the plans. Would SCOTUS have gone along? I’d hope not but I could not assume so.
I cannot see any way to interpret this vision of an executive with a Legion that can destroy and build without mind of rules and ordinances (nuclear waste dump next door perhaps), with an appointed (even if requiring approval by Congress) FCC ombudsman who is the decider of what is “fake news” and who can control speech, as allocating power away from the executive and to the institutions which defend American democracy.
I don’t see how it would be different from CPB or PBS, of which has an ombudsman to monitor objectivity and root out bias, and with CPB, the President cannot promote a majority of candidates to the board.
Nope, state VAT.
What? The distribution is regressive in that it impacts more wealthy consumers who can afford it and the proceeds of which are distributed to those who are not? If that’s what you’re implying then this goes back to my initial claim that you and I have differing opinions on what regressive is, because even if you’re right, you are also ignoring that the poorest would still have more disposable income even if there was (And it would be) a slight increase in prices due to VAT.
This is where we disagree, again, your accusation of it being additionally regressive, is
So what’s stopping President (Yang) from enabling those organisations to be independent to ensure their impartiality by restricting his own (And any future Presidents) Executive power over them?
It’s not totalitarian, you’re being hysterical. You’re basing it on the presumption that there would be no restrictions or safeguards to ensure the scenario you’re envisioning would happen, or that Yang doesn’t see his proposal as a baseline which can be built upon.
Again, I can reconcile it as it be dependent on circumstance, for instance the comparison to NYC to Detroit, I’d assume it’d be easier to get the support for a ‘Legion’ To do major infrastructure work in that area, rather than NYC, which is alot more wealthier.
I have no idea what you think PBS has to do with proposing government control of social and other media.
Or what a state VAT or state sales tax has to do with Yang’s proposals.
As for putatively independent agencies within the executive branch please see Justice, Department of, for how president can still with some degree of success still exert control.
Totalitarian governments across the world are currently doing pretty much what Yang proposes in the same name of fighting “fake news” as a means of squelching dissent.
Be very cautious when someone proposes that the state gets more power to decide what news is or is not “fake” or “harmful to discourse.”
We are experiencing our lurch to the direction of totalitarianism and fascism with this presidency. Creating tools that would further empower such lurches when they occur seems very wrongheaded to me, even if created with the best of intentions.
“The Legion” having more power to impose its will on the less wealthy than on those with more money is not a very good argument for the concept.
Well, I used it as an example of a government run media entity which is regulated by an ombudsman, of which a system would probably be extrapolated to the entire media industry concerning the news and journalistic standards.
And how about the successful pushbacks on that control, you’re talking as if these institutions are passive entities without any autonomy within the organisations.
PBS is not a government run media. It is government supported. While I don’t know much about U.K. media the BBC ombudsman does not have authority over all media including social media in the U.K.
Moreover I am sure there are many examples of power that could be abused that are not. Nevertheless we should not grant that power even if the current leadership would use it benignly. Future leadership may not.
Not so sure how successful to judge the pushbacks against the abuses of power by this president. His administration has us closer to fascism than I had ever expected to see. The fences against such abuses need to be strengthened. Not its posts loosened.
That can only be because you don’t know what the FCC is. It is not a broadcaster like the BBC or PBS. The Federal Communications Commission is a regulatory body.
Perhaps you didn’t read what I wrote. I said the FCC would be beefed up, me and DSeid talked about the merits of an Ombudsman, where I provided an small example of one which was already established regulating a small part of American Media like the CPB.
We read what you wrote and it does not seem you understand the difference between an ombudsman empowered to monitor one corporation, be it privately owned or publicly funded, and proposed executive branch control over expression of speech across all platforms, even if well intended.
If you do understand what the FCC is then your comments are just incomprehensible.
Yes I do, I’m providing an example of how the structure of an ombudsman works in a sector of the US media, the CPB, and that being a template of which could be extrapolated throughout the FCC.
Apparently, Chicago doesn’t have any females. That whole video was filled with men.
It looks like they got a bigger crowd than they were expecting. They were talking about people in the overflow areas. The other rallies I’ve seen were a lot more diverse. This crowd looked a lot like I would imagine an internet crowd would look like.
Coincidentally, I found this UBI experimentthat Chicago is doing. The article is from Feb. 2019, so it probably hasn’t started yet. There’s also the study in Stockton, CA that should be starting. The Chicago experiment plans to pay 1,000 people $1,000 a month.
It would be nice if the studies were getting some results closer to the elections.
Some college guy dressed up as a robot and is campaigning for Yang on the ASU campus, telling people that robots are going to take their jobs. [NSFW college talk] [twitter video]
One feature of some of his proposals as versus Progressives is that his policies are less combative. One example is his idea for Democracy Dollars. His idea is to give everyone 100 Democracy Dollars to spend on the candidate(s) of their choice. If they don’t use it, they lose it that year. His hope is that the Democracy Dollars would overwhelm lobbyist money. Progressives want a Constitutional amendment to get money out of politics.
Another is his stance on climate change. While he wants to get back into the Paris Accord and likes the spirit of the Green New Deal, he realizes that the US only makes up 15% of emissions. So his focus is on finding new technologies to try to reduce the damage and then investing in infrastructure to deal with the damage due to the climate changing. [youtube of a CNET interview discussing some possible new technologies]
A third example is his idea of how to deal with the privacy invasions of the tech giants. Elizabeth Warren’s idea is to break up the monopoly. Ro Khanna’s idea is an internet bill of rights. Yang’s idea is to force the companies to pay if they want to use consumer’s information.
ETA: I’ve been hearing a lot more about UBI recently. In AOC’s town hall on the GND with Chris Hayes, one of the guests was talking about putting UBI off until after the GND was implemented. It sounded like UBI was on the table. I also heard Pete Buttigieg mention UBI in his town hall.
That whole video was filled with men.