Yang vs. Sanders

[XYZ]

I have yet to watch Yang's Q&A livestream, and once I do will have better understanding of his strategy. But one important difference is that he does not see improving technology or globalization as a problem, realizing that it actually improves quality of life for Americans and the rest of the world. These things are only a problem when individual survival still depends upon maintaining employment or running a profitable business. In this sense it is the opposite of Bernie Sanders' vision of jobs for everyone.

Embracing technology, including automation, and passing on the decrease in labor needs to the general population, not just the owners of the technology. This increases freedom both in the form of receiving guaranteed income, and the freedom of time that this would provide. I didn't hear either one mention working hours yet, but an obvious consequence of UBI is that people who still need to work can afford to work less hours, not forced to conform to the 40 hour work week. As it is, Americans work the most of any developed country, and neither wages nor time off has kept up with the average increase in worker productivity.

36 minutes ago, Revolutionary Think said:

So you think that we'll go extinct because technology takes all the jobs away from us. Why can't we just rethink the economy all together and what actual value means? Why not have a world of abundance and work will be obsolete and mankind can be free to create and explore to their hearts content. It can be a renaissance of the likes we've never seen before. 

Basically this. Andrew Yang wants to re-define work, as I mentioned above and he repeats in every appearance. This isn't just empty virtue signaling, but would actually be a metric to observe how people actually spend their time. There would be less formal employment after UBI, which there would be anyway due to increased productivity/efficiency, companies needing less and less human labor. But the expectation is that it would empower Americans to "work" more than ever before, and create a net increase in human capital, a more accurate representation of national prosperity than GDP.  

 

[Revolutionary Think]

16 minutes ago, XYZ said:

This isn't just empty virtue signaling,

Right that's what I think of when I think of Bernie Sanders. I just got so frustrated when he dismissed the UBI idea and talked about the jobs guarantee. He says we need this that etc. I even remember when Leo said he'd be driven to commit suicide if he got one of those boring jobs (i.e. postal worker) where you just had to repeat the same thing everyday with no variety and/or creativity and if those are the jobs that come with the guarantee then it seems that Leo doesn't seem to give a shit about those people that'll actually end up with jobs like that because if they'd refuse those jobs they'd end up impoverished and miserable. 

[Progress]

The United States of America was founded on the principles of empowering the everyday person to truly take control of their destiny. The founders believed the people, not the government should ultimately steer the course of affairs. This general attitude has bought great wealth, freedom and prosperity. Yes, it does have its excesses which where government steps in, in times of need. It is better to teach a man to fish than to be responsible for feeding him fish everyday. Nonetheless, there are hard times, and during that hard time; someone (the government) should step in to share their store of fish for the man's time of need. In normal times, the government's function should be to train and equip fisherman. 

In a philosophical sense; it is best the people themselves solve the current issues (climate change, education, standard of living, pollution, poverty etc.), it is second best for the government to facilitate the people to solve the current issues through tax incentives, subsidies, training program, funded education etc. and it finally least desirable for the government to personally take control and make decisions fully on behalf of the people via welfare, higher taxes, federally created jobs and generally a centralized government. I will concede that this however is necessary but should be the exception not the rule. 

From a practical and efficiency perspective, it is unrealistic to expect the "best option" of the free market to solve most or all our problem. It however is highly probably and even the most efficient for the "second best" option to happen. The free market is too unorganized and generally selfish to effectively solve society's problems (although more green stage companies are appearing). In fact, the free market sometimes creates society's problems from pollution, global warming and general hedonism. When the government directly interferes however, resources can't be as micromanaged and used effectively as if they would be in the hands of free market, nor specific issues as properly handled. The issues of this is reflected in welfare exploiters, unnecessary employees and even a simple visit to the dmv will showcase the incompetence.

So what is the perfect medium? It is best that the government facilitates and sponsors companies and persons whose work seeks to solve society's current problems. America needs to facilitate green stage entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship in general if we are so worried about automation. As someone who works in an entrepreneurial incubator, I have firsthand witness of ventures and technologies there currently being developed to fight hunger, deforestation and mental illness. These companies could be the future. The reality is they lack sufficient funds to properly accelerate growth, these startups need to eat as well, so they have to work usual jobs and in general are financially insecure. I do not see how these new ventures could not solve America's issue if the government just had a proper program funding entrepreneurship focused on key issues. These ventures as they are a smaller entity would be able to not only more effectively allocate resource, but focus resources on issues that an otherwise bureaucratic government would not realize. Furthermore, ventures are a lot more flexible than government and are able to fail and move forward from their mistakes extremely fast compared to the government. These ventures create jobs that are needed not mass bureaucracy that hires tons of unnecessary employees simply because they are not bound by market competition and yet can hyper focus and solve current issues. If a venture underperforms in solving an issue(after a selected period), simply divert funds to the thousands of startups who may perform better. 

If we are to progress as a society, we must relinquish the old order of jobs which are mind dumbing and not in tune with self-actualization. Automation/Innovation is a friend! not an enemy if we just treat her the way she was meant to be viewed. Automation and innovation is how society will free up time to pursue passions, study the universe, explore the universe, create, live and love life. In the constant breakthroughs in innovation, society must provide first a cushion and tend a way for the individual to not only rebound but be rebirthed in society. In this case, the freedom dividend is a perfect way to do both. If one loses say an assembly line job, the dividend is able to provide some income for a transitioning phase in life. If one is smart enough, they would've even saved the dividends from the past years. Using the dividend funds, the individual now can use those funds to be rebirthed, they can become an artist, start a business, retire, travel the world, work in a charity etc. This is because even having a simple part time job would create a semi-comfortable standard of living. In this sense, the dividend is both the emergency fund and the seed funding for a new life. 

It is further easier and rightfully to rally support for the freedom dividend as if we are to think of a large part of American Government as a company, the stockholders should be paid; especially in the wealthiest government in the history of the world. Yes, I'm aware that the government is not a company, however the reality is business comprises a huge part of it and the people should act accordingly. Furthermore, instead of welfare where the government seizes one's assets and redistributes at its discretion; the reverse happens; the people are given a boast in their personal freedom. As an economist knows, resources are more efficiently allocated the smaller the entity. After all how would the government know if you needed a new art studio? paying your grandmother's medical bills? groceries? etc. etc. Let us not forget the indirect sponsorships for the arts, the gradual dissolving of the student debt crisis, the rise of entrepreneurship, the rise of spirituality, financial stability, freedom and yes, self-actualization. 

Will the freedom dividend be costly to us? Not as costly as not having it. There are already people drowning in medical and especially student debt. By simply "cancelling" debt, it may cause a massive economic crisis. Money is not standing water and by just obliterating over 1 trillion in funds will cause ripples across several industries. The debt crisis alone is enough reason have the freedom dividend. Furthermore, as the money is sent directly to the people, the economy will grow from all that spending but more importantly, the standard of living will dramatically improve. This is because, although the current economy is growing, much of the funds moved around are from large corporations will have much less effects on the standard of living. The freedom dividend also provides a discount on its own price tag due to the rise in the economy and the taxes collected from the use of the dividend. The freedom dividend would also dramatically cut current welfare spending by the government. The money can also largely be obtained by forcing companies dodging taxes by a VAT tax. 

In summary I believe the government needs to solve current issues through the people and not above them. In funding innovative and eco-friendly startups, the government would not only encourage innovation in general but allow other-wised weak organizations to be able to compete with the established companies. There could further be company taxes for harmful actives such as carbon emission. This trend would force even established companies to innovate not for profit but for people. This method could be used for any market from mental health, healthcare, education etc. The pharmaceuticals monopolies could be severely damaged by simply funding new pharmaceuticals startups. Furthermore, in the philosophy of equipping and training people; government should not freely allow students to take as many loans as possible but further fund the already highly effective state school models (which are up to 60% cheaper than private colleges). The entrepreneurship and education programs would cause massive dominos of solutions to fall across the nation alone. This in combination with the freedom dividend would open up a truly financially stable, innovative, healthy and actualizing society. 

This is why I endorse Andrew Yang who understands that entrepreneurship and a freedom dividend would cause massive ripples across the nation. Furthermore, he is one of few candidates who can truly rally the right and the left. It can be observed that Andrew Yang is potentially a yellow stage person due to his wholistic view of society compared to Bernie who seems to lack more of an understanding of stage orange with its own set of benefits and costs.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Progress

[Anderz]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

UBI is not going to automatically solve the technology problem. If robots are doing all the work for mankind, mankind has become redundant and will go extinct.

Ray Kurzweil has the optimistic view that technology will be integrated gradually with us humans so we will experience the progress as something taken for granted in everyday life. For example smartphones have changed a lot in society and that is already within a decade. And even with the progress accelerating (which Kurzweil has shown it has done throughout history) we will continue to adapt very quickly and use its benefits.

There are of course dangers, such as classified AI development in military projects, but Kurzweil pointed out that even the invention of using fire was a double-edged sword. And my view is that evolution is pulled by an intelligent universe and not some random process, so there will be no terminators or any Skynet. Although it will require vigilance and international regulations and agreements probably, to prevent AI from becoming dangerous. 

And I think of a UBI as a temporary transition tool, not as something we will be stuck with further into the future. Check out the Zeitgeist movement for ideas about how to transcend the need for money in society.

[Progress]

@Revolutionary Think I agree, who is to say mankind has to "work" to survive. Can we not rule the world on the backs of automation? "Work" would simply turn into well a form of self actualization. The arts would be pursued, music, film, comedy and painting. Traveling would be rapidly grown. Parents would have time to spend with family. People could focus on mental health issues. They could even pursue the sciences simply due to having the time and financial stability to do so. "Work" for humans at least would become more conscious. It would turn into a passion economy and from this era's perspective, a paradise on earth. Isn't this the society that Actualized.org dreams of?

[Revolutionary Think]

@Progress agreed. 

[TheAvatarState]

4 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

You are the one stuck on this idea of automation, which is an ideology you absorbed from Yang.

So mind your projections.

This does put a smile on my face.

A simple way to figure out who's projecting who is to analyze the flow of conversation. 

I brought it up by saying Bernie wasn't aware of automation and had no plans for it. You responded by saying it was overblown (without reasons or data points). I refuted by saying it was a big deal and you should look into it, while providing real world examples. And finally, you told me I was projecting. 

The trickery of projection is that it makes you perceive the other as projecting, precisely because other people are mirrors. Be mindful that this could be a possibility. You are not above it, nor am I. So how do I know that I'm not the one projecting in this case? You might be inclined to say it's a tricky epistemological question. But it's actually possible to know.

1st, it's important to analyze the comment which elicited the response of claiming projection. That's the mirror. All my points were grounded in real world examples you couldn't refute. I gathered that you hadn't done a serious inquiry into the matter, and INVITED you to do it. People who project don't invite growth or learning experiences, that's a key insight. 

2nd, it's what you said along with the claim of projection that tells the story, so let's observe that comment. You said UBI won't solve our automation problems. This is a straw man (a form of projection), because at no point did I say UBI was an automation fix. So you either didn't read my comment or you chose not to listen, both of which are signs of ideology.

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Automation is one issue out of dozens. It is not the top issue and America should not be governed by what Rust-Belt states personally want.

Textbook example of muddying the waters. I owe you for that one Leo, thank you! This allows you to hand wave me away, justifiably to your ego.  

Rust-belt is an obviously negative term used here to divide yourself from it. This. Is. Ego. I'm sorry Leo. You are connected to the rust belt. Of the 4 million manufacturing workers who lost their jobs mostly due to automation, half filed for disability, and drug overdoses and suicides spiked. And you hand wave that away? Where's your compassion? 

It is often the case, not always, that the first person to say projection is in fact projecting. Reality is a mirror. I've learned that calling out people's projections at face value is not very constructive (because it invites further reflection bounces/mirroring) and is often a mask of something deeper within yourself. 

I hope you look there. Please take care, we will always love and support you. I've learned an ungodly (or is it Godly? ) amount from you. 

Expect yourself to deny everything I said here or wave it away. I believe there's an opportunity for growth here cause I've already had mine.

[TheAvatarState]

5 hours ago, Progress said:

@Revolutionary Think I agree, who is to say mankind has to "work" to survive. Can we not rule the world on the backs of automation? "Work" would simply turn into well a form of self actualization. The arts would be pursued, music, film, comedy and painting. Traveling would be rapidly grown. Parents would have time to spend with family. People could focus on mental health issues. They could even pursue the sciences simply due to having the time and financial stability to do so. "Work" for humans at least would become more conscious. It would turn into a passion economy and from this era's perspective, a paradise on earth. Isn't this the society that Actualized.org dreams of?

Yes! That's the vision, and it's definitely doable. I'd even venture to say it's inevitable. But there's an easy way and a hard way. It could be accomplished in 200 years, or it could take 2000... The way things are headed right now, machines and AI will be used by governments and corporations to enslave us without recourse. It's already happening in dark ways, such as in China with facial recognition marketing and AI focus headbands for schoolchildren. Without drastic countermeasures, it will continue to accelerate in that direction. We are on a pretty dark path unless we collectively wake the fuck up on an unprecedented scale. 

[Anderz]

37 minutes ago, TheAvatarState said:

It could be accomplished in 200 years, or it could take 2000...

No, that's precisely the underestimation of exponential progress that I mentioned even experts do. We are used to think linearly yet when it comes to technological progress and indeed even evolution itself, it's more like this:

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history." - https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

[Apparition of Jack]

Machines won't achieve true AI so long as scientists and technicians cling to the materialist paradigm 

[tenta]

Bernie would tax billionaires a ton, while Yang wouldn't

[TheAvatarState]

9 minutes ago, Anderz said:

No, that's precisely the underestimation of exponential progress that I mentioned even experts do. We are used to think linearly yet when it comes to technological progress and indeed even evolution itself, it's more like this:

"An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense “intuitive linear” view. So we won’t experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century — it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at today’s rate). The “returns,” such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. There’s even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity — technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history." - https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

I see what you're saying. , the Utopia you described above can only be achieved through the raising of human consciousness. Technological progress is just technology. Has it REALLY improved our lives? Yeah you can buy a Twinkie at a convenience store and go to a modern hospital (because of the Twinkie), but think about it... Isn't technology just used as an extension of our own consciousness? Depression, suicide, cancer, obesity, etc are at all time highs. Technology can amplify good and evil. And the only way we use it in a good way is by using it consciously. Mankind is still in the fucking dark ages. We are literally Monkeys with cool gadgets. For every penecillin there's an oxycontin. 

So it's both a technology AND human problem. I think we are pretty close to having the technology and resources to cover everyone's basic survival needs to the end of time, with ever increasing standard of living. But the human problem will take much longer. We aren't developed enough to overcome the greed, theft, and tribalism in order to distribute the bounty evenly. Not to mention sustainably...

About your singularity point. General artificial intelligence, as it's called, will never happen. AI will soon be better than us at everything... Except deciding what to do. Real intelligence is a-mechanical. A neural network can learn how to play chess by playing itself, but it had to be taught the rules of the game. Therefore, technology will always be an extension of the current human condition. This is a fascinating topic. Thank you for sharing!

[Revolutionary Think]

3 hours ago, TheAvatarState said:

Where's your compassion? 

I have to agree with him here Leo. I remember when I put on this forum several times how annoyed I was of not being able to find a job. I was frustrated and annoyed that it seemed no matter what I did I just wasn't getting my foot in the door and people were shunning me. I don't come from a "rust belt" state I live in California. All the time I put how frustrated I was at my jobless situation it felt like I was not getting empathy just being told "it's OK you have no right to complain just try harder" that's a terrible response! I'm just letting you know this so you can understand what a big deal joblessness and feeling you have nothing to do actually is. Even with a job you want that job to provide you with a sense of fulfillment and purpose instead of just feeling like a mindless drone and Yang seems to be the best one who understand that and it seems to me Sanders doesn't. 

[Anderz]

@TheAvatarState I agree that technology alone is insufficient. Previously I thought a technological singularity would solve everything, but then I started to think about the level of consciousness. I agree that we need to develop higher levels of social development (such as Spiral Dynamics second tier) along with immensely powerful technology.

As for artificial intelligence always being mechanical, I believe we will have general artificial intelligence fairly soon. Yes, today AI is still narrow, yet general algorithms I think are fairly easy to develop with simple rules where the AI learns by itself in rich environments and simulations, similar to how a human baby learns through experience.

Edited October 19, 2019 by Anderz

[Progress]

2 hours ago, tenta said:

Bernie would tax billionaires a ton, while Yang wouldn't

I never understood this vendetta against the rich. It seems to be born out of jealousy and corrupts into a form of thievery. For billionaires to become and maintain their money, they have to provide value to society. Whether that's building Microsoft, Apple, or simply investing into the stock market; money is moving throughout the economy. When money is in the economy, one person's dollar is likely shared with five other people. This example better explains it: Billionaire->Company Stock->Employee->Employees purchases(insurance, groceries, rent etc) -> Other companies receiving money from purchases -> Stockholder of other companies -> etc. (Along every step, money is being taxed!) Contrary to popular belief, billionaires don't hoard absurd amounts of cash, in fact there literally isn't even enough cash for them to hoard. Cash is actually mostly used by the lower rungs of society for daily use. When one says billionaire, it doesn't mean they own a billionaire dollars, it means they own a billion in assets. Of course there's no true way to calculate how much a company stock is truly worth, a property, or bonds. These are always fluctuating. Even money sitting in the bank is 90% put into the economy as the bank invests and therefore stimulates the economy.

What about hedonistic billionaires? They usually die out within a generation or so. The way the rich stay rich is by using maybe 5% of their wealth on themselves meanwhile 95% is used to grow their assets and therefore the economy. This is why the Vanderbilts' wealth died out so quickly and why lottery winners go broke in several years. Finance is a skill and it provides value to the world and for those that don't, they are punished for it. Unless money is unjustly earned (Corruption, unethical company tactics, society damage, crime etc), those who call for wealth to simply be seized are thieves in my eyes. Did these people not justly provide value to the world? Then it is at their discretion to use rightfully acquired funds. Why must we as a society punish those that are successful?

Do you know why the government allows companies to be taxed, after expenses and not simply based on income? Its quite simply, by being taxed after expenses, the companies rather than let the profit be taxed, reinvest in themselves. This means they buy new equipment, land, new stocks, new employees etc. The point is the money is redirected into the economy and they are taxed on their purchases. Its a win-win situation, the company has less direct money on hand but increases their assets while the government gets taxes from their purchases meanwhile stimulating the economy (Reference: One persons dollar is actually five peoples). 

That being said, billionaires and companies who dodge and loophole around taxes should be rightfully taxed and even indirectly punished for dodging taxes. Those taxes could fund the freedom dividend and give, not to the government and its incompetence financial freedom but the people. 

I am a huge supporter for financial literacy , both in personal lives and overall society as I am seeing too many people without basic knowledge of economics support disastrous policies that sound nice. Finance and Economics is not what it seems when one takes a closer look.

[tenta]

5 minutes ago, Progress said:

I never understood this vendetta against the rich. It seems to be born out of jealousy and corrupts into a form of thievery.

You don't actually fully own your money, so if you have people's very hard work go to fueling your greed because you want to pay zero taxes, despite getting so much money you could never spend it, you are the parasite. It's not thievery because that's how money works, and giving the money (UBI, free college etc.) to the people would be trickle up economics, which lifts people up and goes back into the economy, giving control back to them, which is hard to disagree with because a ton of the time people who have the same IQ or lower IQ than you are earning more money than you are

[Progress]

@tenta Why yes I do think the rich should pay their fair rate of taxes(30-40% tax rate) but to me Bernie seems to suggest an almost obliteration of wealthy people in society(50-80% tax rate). If you read my response, I mentioned how the rich don't actually own that much money outright. They own stocks, land, bonds etc. The money is already flowing in the economy. If the money is being justly earned and justly taxed, who are we to steal it, it is not our right to decide what our neighbor does with his property? Success and value generation should ultimately be rewarded, not punished. 

[Forestluv]

43 minutes ago, Progress said:

If the money is being justly earned and justly taxed, who are we to steal it, it is not our right to decide what our neighbor does with his property? Success and value generation should ultimately be rewarded, not punished. 

Those are huge assumptions.

If the bank robber justly earned his money, who are we to steal it? Success should be rewarded, not punished. 

Relative lenses of perception act as filters. “Justly”, “success” and “value” are highly relative lenses that bend perception. 

Unquestioned assumptions allow for paradigm lock. 

[Progress]

42 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Those are huge assumptions.

If the bank robber justly earned his money, who are we to steal it? Success should be rewarded, not punished. 

Relative lenses of perception act as filters. “Justly”, “success” and “value” are highly relative lenses that bend perception. 

Unquestioned assumptions lead to paradigm lock. 

So some instances I listed earlier what aren't "justly" earned income would be corruption, unethical business practices, crime, tax dodging and bank robbery would probably be considered unjustly earned. Companies should be punished based on the severity of their unethical actions for example, Nike having shoes made by near slave labour. The government should add a specific tax to punish them for the unethical behavior (although in this case, it was the market that punished them as Nike was forced to achieve better conditions or face negative publicity). Another example would be the Investment banks during the 2008 crash, they should've been broken up and their high officials severely fined. (Of course that never happened)

Success in this case= Providing economic value that is in this case, not by unethical means.

Value- This is purposely vague as providing value, in this case to the market can be vastly different. The only current measurement is in income. Of course a lot of factors come into the measure of income; management, product, marketing and purpose. In general those who receive money, are providing a product/service that the market demands. Value of course, can't be truly measured but at the very least, receiving money for services is an indicator of value generation. 

Edited October 19, 2019 by Progress

[Forestluv]

@Progress You describe reasonable, logical definitions of “just”, “success”, “ethical” and “value”. . .  I’ve also heard reasonable perspectives that are somewhat different than yours. For example, I lived in a poor village of Honduras for a while and they had a different perspective than yours. 

I think your perspective is grounded and makes some good points. Yet there are also other ways of looking at it that also make some good points. For example, you suggest a vendetta against the super rich based on jealousy. There are other dynamics occurring as well. . .