Leo, (and anyone else) what are your thoughts on andrew yang?

[Justincredible76]

Im not very well versed in politics, but from what I've seen the ideas yang has seem to be reasonable and pose an interesting out side of the box solution for an upcoming problem. What do you guys think about his ideas like the freedom dividend and the robot tax? Again, my ideas aren't very well rehearsed or established so id love to hear everyones thoughts. I think Bernie is cool too and id vote for him if yang doesn't work out in the polls.

[avilo]

He isn't challenging the system like Bernie is

[Justincredible76]

@avilo true, but to be honest im not sure that what is completely necessary at the present day is a complete systemic overhaul of the way our country operates. I think, the ideas yang can put in place would be a sort of foundation to make capitalism actually work for the people not us for capitalism. Then once the system has made its improvements, id like to see Bernie put in place, where the system could then be changed. I guess i have doubts about how well it would go if we tried to overturn the system as it is now, just because its pretty much the foundation of our economic structure, wouldn't you say? It might be too much all at once to change it at the core right now, so if it were a slow gradient of change from a capitalistic system which the people work for, to a capitalist system that works for us, and maybe then unto a different system like whatever else would work for us, maybe the slower paced change would allow for stability and experimentation as to what works and what doesn’t to be nourished. It would especially be a shame if bernie brings about a systemic change only for it to fail in some aspects or fail miserably, and then the people fall back into another candidate that consoles their worries about the new change like DT sort of did with the people. I think the slower pace allows us to figure out what works without complete overhaul just yet.  

[Bas]

UBI will just be milked by insurance companies and landowners. In your country there are no caps on how much you can increase the price for medicine or rent.

If UBI landed right now, what is stopping landlords from raising their rent by a thousand dollars? See how he doges the problem in the video below by giving the standard lazy libertarian argument: "well, you can just move!"

Now don't get me wrong, UBI is the future, but there are some basic pillars it needs to stand on.

[StephenK]

@Bas I wonder if UBI could be partitioned so that 20% can only be redeemable for food, 25% only redeemable for education etc, and we use the current education budget to fund that 25% of UBI required for education. This would allow parents to be forced to invest in education, but at a private institution of their choice. Hopefully the free market will fight to lower education prices. I'm no economist, so I'm sure there are holes in my plan that I cant see.  

[Justincredible76]

@Bas Hmm, how unreasonable is it to do so? And what do you say about those incentives? If its true that landlords are incentivized to increase prices as of now, if we could get rid of those incentives might that not solve the issue? After all, if they had no reason to raise the prices they wouldn't. Do you have an idea on how to accomplish this? I do not. 

[Justincredible76]

@StephenK having only certain parts of the ubi might be a problem due to the fact that everyones needs are different. If we say 20% on food 20% housing 20% education and the rest is free the spend on whatever, different people need that money for other things in order to fit their needs. Someone who doesnt want to go to college may not need that money for education, and someone who eats less might not need that much for food, someone who lives in a small house willingly may not need that for that either. This is how i see it anyway. Subject to change. 

[Bas]

Things like healthcare, education, and housing should not be subject to a completely unregulated free market. Because the demand of these products is determined by them being basic human needs, not supply.

Reread what you two just said:

1 hour ago, StephenK said:

Hopefully the free market will fight to lower education prices.

 

1 hour ago, Justincredible76 said:

After all, if they had no reason to raise the prices they wouldn't.

 

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. This system is by no means perfect or directly transferable to a USA healthcare system. Just pay close attention to the roles of the market and government, you guys need to get more creative about the role of government ;D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_Netherlands

Edited September 26, 2019 by Bas

[StephenK]

10 minutes ago, Bas said:

Things like healthcare, education, and housing should not be subject to a completely unregulated free market. Because the demand of these products is determined by them being basic human needs

Free healthcare is kind of like ubi though isn't it? -- government mandated ubi in a sense. Instead of the individual having control over those healthcare funds, the government has control. Yes, I agree that a completely unregulated free market will cause problems, but if private institutions are able to offer higher quality healthcare than government healthcare (maybe as a result of government corruption, lack of innovation), then private citizens should have some level of autonomy in deciding how/where those healthcare funds get spent. Somehow the gross inefficiencies of government spending needs to be kept in line, in the same way that the unregulated free market needs to be kept in line.  

[Bas]

 

1 hour ago, StephenK said:

Free healthcare is kind of like ubi though isn't it?

Nope. Not at all. All the rest you said is wishful thinking and has no base in reality. I'm super blunt here I know, but it's obvious that you just assume a lot of stuff while in reality the opposite plays out right in front of you. Libertarians are super lazy, the only problem they have with Trump are his mean tweets;) I mean.. the economy is doing great right? So what's the problem?

[StephenK]

@Bas Hmm, I thought we were just having a discussion. You seem triggered and have set up a strawman and negated a question without an explanation. Since you don't want to have a discussion, I guess I'll be on my way. Nice talking to you.

[Bas]

Hey man sorry, not at all my intention! I was pondering a bit what to type down, deleting stuff, retyping, deleting. I see now not much made it to the final reply hahah. Let me see if I can expand on it a little.

2 hours ago, StephenK said:

Instead of the individual having control over those healthcare funds, the government has control.

Massive difference. Individuals have no control of the choices available to them in the market, they are subject to it. Again, the magical spell of supply and demand doesn't apply for basic human needs. This is essential to grasp. That's why strict governmental regulation is necessary for things like healthcare. Imagine you'd apply this logic to the police or fire department.

2 hours ago, StephenK said:

but if private institutions are able to offer higher quality healthcare than government healthcare

Proof? Don't forget that quality of healthcare is also determined by its availability. To give a very exaggerated example: having one super doctor per state who costs the patient 10,000 dollars per hour will not result in high quality healthcare. 

2 hours ago, StephenK said:

maybe as a result of government corruption, lack of innovation

What is the cause of corruption in the US government today? And all over the world amazing medical research is done, google that stuff.

Again I apologise for the curt response earlier, still all the assumptions you made you can check for yourself. That's why I called you lazy, you also didn't read the Wiki link I gave you or else you wouldn't have these questions. The way the USA is doing healthcare results in higher government spending, is at the same time more expensive for its citizens, and the quality isn't better (often slightly worse) all compared to North European countries. Put policies and big societal problems side to side with those of the USA.

[StephenK]

20 minutes ago, Bas said:

Hey man sorry, not at all my intention! I was pondering a bit what to type down, deleting stuff, retyping, deleting. I see now not much made it to the final reply hahah. Let me see if I can expand on it a little.

Oh, ok. No problem. I'm not committed to any particular view on this matter, so I am participating as a way to be open to new ideas.

 

21 minutes ago, Bas said:

Massive difference. Individuals have no control of the choices available to them in the market, they are subject to it. Again, the magical spell of supply and demand doesn't apply for basic human needs. This is essential to grasp. That's why strict governmental regulation is necessary for things like healthcare. Imagine you'd apply this logic to the police or fire department.

I assume you live in a first world country, and have the privilege of having a positive relationship with your government (that is largely not corrupt). I on the other hand live in a third world African country infested with corruption. In fact, I can apply that logic (I don't have to imagine) to the police department, as where I live, the police are so incompetent/corrupt that private security is needed. But perhaps I am letting my own context effect my view on what is an American issue (where corruption is not as rife) -- for now.

31 minutes ago, Bas said:

Proof? Don't forget that quality of healthcare is also determined by its availability. To give a very exaggerated example: having one super doctor per state who costs the patient 10,000 dollars per hour will not result in high quality healthcare. 

 As for your exaggerated example, than CAN be true, but I come from an African Country where the government is so corrupt that implementing universal healthcare would crash the economy and leave people without doctors, as everything would have been stolen by government officials. I believe that government and the free market need to hold each other accountable. How this is done, I'm not 100% sure.  As for proof, I need look no further than my own country. If you live in the United States or Europe, perhaps your relationship is a bit different. All that I'm looking for is accountability when things go wrong.

 

1 hour ago, Bas said:

Again I apologise for the curt response earlier, still all the assumptions you made you can check for yourself. That's why I called you lazy, you also didn't read the Wiki link I gave you or else you wouldn't have these questions. The way the USA is doing healthcare results in higher government spending, is at the same time more expensive for its citizens, and the quality isn't better (often slightly worse) all compared to North European countries. Put policies and big societal problems side to side with those of the USA.

I don't see where I defended US healthcare. If you can point me to where I did, I'd be most appreciative. I was speaking of a theoretical idea regarding UBI in my first post, which your link does not address in the slightest. But call me lazy if you want, that's your right. I am perhaps taking a more meta view on this issue, as I don't have the luxury of having an innate trust of government.

[Bas]

@StephenK Seems we have a bigass misunderstanding here;) This thread started off being about Andrew Yang in context of the 2020 presidential elections in the USA. I commented specifically about Yang's UBI plan related to the problems of USA politics today. None of this applies to developing countries.

So to cover it briefly yes, I'm currently living in Germany. I have some strives with the governments I'm subject to (I move around quite a bit), and a lot can be said and should be said about the EU. But I'm certainly massively privileged when I compare the circumstances I grew up in to those of most people on this planet, and certainly to you, I'm sorry to say.

African (economic) development is not something I'm much informed in at the moment, growth is also massively divided among countries. Though in general UN statistics show that massive growth is taking place, and more is on the way, so it should certainly be interesting. If you feel like sharing your personal insights in a different thread, that should be something to look forward to!

Edited September 26, 2019 by Bas

[Average Investor]

I don't think the average person would use the $1,000 a month wisely even if it were passed. Since this is what most of the campaign is based around I think it is the most important piece. 

I think people just need more access to health insurance, education, and housing. Giving someone money is really not going to fix the issue. You ever see what a lottery winner does with their money? Someone who did nothing for the money is usually going to spend it faster and waste it. I say this and $1,000 would be enough to improve my life. But I don't see it doing much for society. 

I feel like there would be repercussions of this money being added. As well as the fact it pushes society closer and closer to not having to work. $1,000 a month is a great amount to live on if you just do drugs and live on the streets. Or if I had a family of 4 making $4,000 a month we could not have to work again depending on what quality of living you want. I think this would increase the downward spiral of society.  Why would someone look for advancements and improvements? Less creation of of ideas and work. 

There is already a good chunk of safety nets, but the issue is usually lack of funding for programs that can give good resources to people. I think it is better to put the money into the resources that people can use to help get themselves on track. 

I actually like his out of the box thinking I just believe we need a different approach. 

[StephenK]

@Bas Yes, I think I veered off the topic with my first post and I spoke about UBI as a general concept and as a result we started speaking past each other because we were discussing fundamentally different issues. I'll try stick to the topic in future as to not cause confusion  ?

[Justincredible76]

@Average Investor i like the way you approach your ideas. And i think that a part of having a successful ubi would probably be to incentivize people to find a purpose. Many people do silly stuff like abuse drugs and alcohol because they have no life purpose right? If we can somehow incentivize people to find their own passions, interests, and relationships, then i think ubi would be an essential for assisting everyone in that. Then of course the question becomes, how can we do that?

[Average Investor]

@Justincredible76 Thank you. If I were getting $1,000 a month I would be putting it towards a real estate business or my own personal business. I would see probably increased competition raising the price of the real estate. Which would raise the price of it. Supply and demand would have changes in a lot of markets I assume. My primary business would probably be booming if people had more money to spend.  If all else failed I would just stick it into a roth IRA every month into the S&P 500 every month. I'm not so sure it would work as smooth as he presents, but there is no way to see it. 

I think by simply just meeting their base needs will help them get the point of gaining a purpose. Stable housing, food, healthcare, and relationships would go a long way in society. Even the money could be spent on getting people more information, or better programs in school to help with this stuff. 

[Leo Gura]

Free healthcare is exactly like free school.

Contemplate why public schools are good.

[Moreira]

On 26/9/2019 at 9:47 AM, StephenK said:

@Bas I wonder if UBI could be partitioned so that 20% can only be redeemable for food, 25% only redeemable for education etc, and we use the current education budget to fund that 25% of UBI required for education. This would allow parents to be forced to invest in education, but at a private institution of their choice. Hopefully the free market will fight to lower education prices. I'm no economist, so I'm sure there are holes in my plan that I cant see.  

So your plan is to force people spend their UBI in whatever you want? very intelligent

There is people who never needs healthcare, there is people who grow their own food, and ones who are autodidact. If they dont spend in it they dont got UBI? this is kinda dictatorial