Andrew Yang is the Ron Paul of 2020


So this piece of human garbage has found a clever way to say:

  1. I am a victim too.

  2. White people are responsible for New Zealand shootings.


He said that 3 months ago (Relevant starts at 7:20)

There’s nothing more offensive about that comment than Trump’s Mexican rapist speech. He’s simply mentioning a concern he sees potentially unfolding. Note he mentioned the Synagogue (not Mosque) shooting. Yeah, I can imagine in a time of heightened ethnic strife that Chinese Americans could find themselves in a similar situation that American Jews face today. Not sure how that’s far fetched.

Would you say it’s impossible that Chinese Americans could ever find themselves the target of a terrorist attack based on ethnicity?


In America? Possibly from the far left at some future date.


I thought that was the current system…?


Kind of notice that when you don’t like a discussion, you try to self-destruct it, rather than contribute.

I don’t know of everything involved, I’m speaking to why others are trying it. If you have a critique, feel free to add.


Oh no, not another Ron Paul thread…

Oh wait, not Ron Paul. This guy is nothing like Ron Paul, at least from what I’ve seen so far, and I don’t mean that in a good way.

Usually I don’t look to RP as a good example. You’ll have to excuse me whilst I ponder the enormity of that statement.

Yang is just another socialist.
Anti Gun? Yep
Tax the rich? Yep
Free caca? Yep
Increase the role of gov’t? Yep

Not even going to waste any more time on thinking about him.


I’m referring to his impact on presidential politics - not policy similarities. Ron Paul’s run, made Trump possible. Ron Paul ran as an anti-Bush, anti-war Republican. That was too shocking for Republicans to handle in 2008. He ran stronger in 2012 than in 2008 because the shock wore off. He was never close to winning in either race, but Republican voters warmed up to several of his positions over time.

Yang is going to have a similar impact on Democratic politics. The freedom dividend spearheads the idea of UBI, which is ultimately the only solution going forward. Somebody has to be the one to present the idea.

Yang is providing a roadmap for UBI, and economically viable green energy. Two things Democrats will need to run on in 2024+, but two things they’re terrible at right now. The top of the Democratic ticket will be running on UBI no later than 2028, and most likely in 2024


Trouble is, we haven’t had a successful test run of a UBI.

Alaska isn’t giving people enough money to live on; it’s only enough to make a payment on something or go for a vacation in the winter.

Equally, it’s highly problematic as to how you scale the idea to a national level. There’s no one thing you could use to pay for this; and administrative dynamics over a population of 320 million, is far different than one of less than 10 million, or 700,000.

I’m not writing it off, but we need a prototype. We may even need States to be the ones who run it.

Equally, Execution > simply having a good idea. We need to figure out what that is, before we even think of putting up a Federal version.


What in the HELL is “UBI?”


Universal basic income. Star Trek-ish economy. Wealth redistribution. Caca really.

Everyone makes (at least) this much money, guaranteed by the gov’t. I mean, by the taxpayers.

Sorry, I didn’t explain what it does:
The gov’t sends every resident a check to insure you have a basic income of a set amount of money, which is what the gov’t feels is the minimum income a person needs to subsist.

So, if Big Daddy feels that every resident should make at least $20,000 a year at a minimum to live, every resident would collect a check from Big Daddy monthly to equal that amount yearly.

So, if you make $15,000 a year at your job sweeping movie theaters, you would get a $5000 stipend from the gov’t to get you to the UBI.

The other method of implementation would see every resident get a check of the same amount, no matter your income.


UBI is just another expansion of the Welfare State, Yang is just another Communist pushing the cart through the bad idea jungle of Socialism.

And I am still laughing at the idea that Ron Paul made Trump possible :slight_smile:


Seems like Ross Perot would be a more accurate theory, but still wouldn’t be right.

It was purely the level of disgust the party members have with the establiment figure heads.


Appreciate it. It’s a term I’ve seen, but didn’t know what it meant. WHEN are these socialist morons EVER going to understand that the government CANNOT give you anything of any value that they haven’t first taken away by force or threat of force from someone else??? The government doesn’t really “own” anything except some real estate and it only has “value” when it’s SOLD to someone else. “Free phones” are BOUGHT by the government from the manufacturers with cash they’ve taken from YOU in the form of taxes so they are only “free” to those who receive them. They COST everyone who pays taxes whether or not those taxpayers have any desire to provide phones to anyone else. Just another example of petty government bureaucrats and leftist politicians deciding FOR everyone else what is “good” for us whether or not we may agree and whether or not we wish to spend our own money in that manner.


UBI is a pipe dream that will never “work.” Why? Because it doubles down on the same old denial underlying Democrat and Republican fiscal policy, that we live in a world without scarcity and we can simply will universal prosperity into existence with a pen and a vote. Heck, the Democrats have even stopped pretending that stuff costs something. Production will fall, prices will rocket, etc. and so forth.

And Republicans will have their own alternative version of it by 2028. And they’ll be calling it “free market” and “capitalist.” I guarantee that someday, I’ll be arguing with Republicans on this subject. It’s just a matter of time. That’s what 2016 taught me.

I suppose it might “work” for someone, the party in power.

Of course, we already have it in a concept that got going with Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan with the EIC. The idea is that it’s preferable to dedicated overspending with food stamps or power or whatever. IT’s a small version of it that is part of our existing welfare state.


There are basically three scenarios that will play out over the next 50 years. One is UBI where the existing middle class is basically replaced with a welfare state. The second is a two tiered economy with a gilded class owning most important things, and a huge underclass basically functioning in an anarcho-communist society where they trade largely worthless services. The last is mass extinction. I can’t promise UBI will be what happens. I suspect, that the ruling class will prefer to designate it and keep control, than gamble on the other two options. UBI gives the ruling class even more power than they currently possess. That has a lot of appeal.

I think you’re misunderstanding Yang’s idea here. He’s not suggesting this will bring prosperity. He’s suggesting it will stave off rioting, chaos and a descent into anarchy when the worker based economy of 2020 virtually disappears within a few decades. This is not about everyone being wealthy. It’s praying that people who can’t get a job in any capacity regardless of how solid their work ethic is, will turn to charity work, and PornHub and NOT to rifles and French Revolution 2.0. Starving homeless people are a lot more likely to cause problems than fat bored people. Yang’s goal here(long-term) is to prevent huge portions(possibly a majority) of Americans from becoming desperate for their very survival.

UBI won’t be pitched that way, but that’s the underlying premise - much like food stamps. The idea was that the cost of welfare was less than the cost of crime. Crime rates have steadily fallen since food stamp budgets soared, so it’s not necessarily a bad theory(obviously plenty of other factors may explain it). And that was in a time when most people on food stamps could have found work. Soon, you may have a situation where most people can’t find an employer any more. Perhaps an Etsy based economy will be fine. Anarcho communists certainly think it would. I actually don’t know.

I suspect all of the fat activism/normalization being pushed recently is to exactly this end. If all poor people are obese, the odds of serious riots are virtually zero. As long as food and housing is provided, there won’t be trouble. They’ll just stay in their space and delve into 30 years of Netflix backlogs until they die. There will be no riots so long as their basic food needs are met and they have distractions.


Let’s ask the Romans how well bread and circuses staved off unrest. How many Caesars and would be Caesars capitalized on the frustrations of the masses? Not that I think it won’t be tried, mind. Rome, too, was a republic, until the popular clamor of the dissatisfied masses undid it.


Interesting, you have consistently defended AS’s support of subsidizing just one part of the labor market (illegal aliens) while claiming that great free market economic minds would be on his side if alive today; then here you are predicticting that you will be opposing “Republicans” in a short time over their desire to embrace UBI?

What will be the catalyst that occurs which changes me into a Welfare State proponent and you into a Free Market Capitalist?


And to the thread in general, in 2017 the average starting salary of a college graduate with a bachelor’s degree was $50,000 ; a decent plumber, electrician or mechanic can hit $75,000 to 6 figures pretty easily.

And there is a massive shortage of plumbers, electricians, mechanics and most general trade laborers while a college degree is good for little more than bagging groceries right now.

This fantasy that robotics are going to render those without a college degree unemployable is just whistling through the graveyard by the “higher education industry”, it is the college educated who are becoming increasingly useless to society as the credibility of their “for sale to the highest bidder” degrees that consist of little more than Leftist indoctrination become known to everyone.

The Left want to expand the Welfare State specifically BECAUSE they see a future where they are the ones who have no economic place and nobody will pay for their indoctrination palaces; that is why they want to increase subsidized illegal immigrant labor and get the rest of the ever more empowered middle class on the dole and dependent on government.

Free, self sufficient people don’t vote for Welfare State Democrats; and the Democrats know this better than anyone.

Robotics will never work in any labor environment that deals with frequent anomalies, they work great in controlled environments with no anomalies but they cannot thrive in any environment that requires regular adaptation to inconsistent variables.

Yang is just a another flat earth liberal who places his religion above reality.


You’re conflating Obama and Bernie Sander’s view with Yang’s. Yang specifically says that college is not the answer, and that skilled trades are the best short-term hedge against robotics. He specifically said that we shouldn’t have anywhere near 1/3 of people in college. Probably no more than 10-15%, and we need far more people in skilled trades like welding and carpentry.

But, there isn’t enough need for electricians and plumbers to fill the void of 20 million retail workers and 30 million office workers. And he’s actually said that office jobs will get hit even harder in the next 20 years, because manufacturing and other trades have been losing jobs for years. Bookkeepers, legal clerks, billing, claims, radiology, are all slated for a near-term death.

His point is that everyone - the educated and non-educated will get hit hard.


RET I never said this, and I’m reacting to something you said.

You said, because we have welfare, we get to set tight limits on legal labor for our own good.

I’m saying that’s false; both because countries with both more immigration and more welfare do better than we do, and because it attacks the wrong thing.

A conservative attacks the government largess; attacking immigration itself is an attack on human liberty.