Author Topic: Andrew Yang  (Read 12269 times)

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4735
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #80 on: November 26, 2019, 09:25:10 PM »
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom


Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #81 on: November 27, 2019, 07:13:34 AM »
I am not sure they UBI is the way to go but perhaps there is a way to find out. The US has a great advantage that with its size and diversity within 50 states a lot of economic experiments take place or could be designed to find out what works and what doesn’t. I could imaging like distributing $1000 randomly (via lottery?) in one group and comparing it to a control group that gets nothing  could give some insights. Of course  it’s not that same thing than giving UBI to everyone, but I bet one could get some insight. Or one could give UBI to a local cluster like a village.

I think a lot of changes should be tested in a small scale, before getting widely implemented. I think experimental economists and sociologists could deign many smart experiments that give us a lot of idea what works and what the effects might be.

I mean California tried single pay healthcare and it failed before it even got out of the gate. Silicon Valley is a primary "target fund" through vat taxes for many of the proposed policies (ubi etc.) So if California can't do it on their own how can we expect to do it at scale? It can be debated that they could have pushed forward with the plan and consolidated the funding channels. But it was quite clear it was going to be very very expensive.

Nell-e

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #82 on: November 27, 2019, 10:10:47 PM »
I hate to beat a dead horse but nobody has responded to concerns about growing populist sentiment.  We have an immature narcissist who controls the nukes because of populism.  Trump probably would have lost in 2016 to a Democratic socialist (who wants to ban billionaires) had Clinton not rigged the Dem primary.  Populism is going to get worse at these levels of wealth inequality.  Am I the only one concerned about this?

I support UBI because I can't think of a better method to help the working class in the swing states.  Their communities are poor and there's no free market incentive for any corporation to set up shop. There's no money to be made hence no jobs, the population gets older, young people move out, residents get poorer, and the towns keep deteriorating.  Even if you're ok with letting those towns completely disintegrate, we still have the electoral college framework and the remaining citizens still have the power to vote and they'll become even more receptive to candidates with more radical messages.

If there's a way to break this cycle, I would love to hear it.
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

@LC Thanks for acknowledging the growing threat of populism.  Not sure why everyone else is avoiding the subject like the plague.

Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #83 on: November 28, 2019, 07:58:07 AM »
...
@LC Thanks for acknowledging the growing threat of populism.  Not sure why everyone else is avoiding the subject like the plague.
After all, this is not a Politics Board and I suspect that the motivation for most to come here is to make money, a motive which, by itself, is not a bad thing. But I would be careful with generalizations. Civic engagement can take many forms.

Anyways, your political inputs are thought-provoking and your reference to the plague made me think of a book The Plague, which I read a while back. If you haven't read it already, you may find it interesting. Camus tended to underline the absurdity of situations but I guess he could be labeled as an uncomfortable optimist. In The Plague novel, a form of populist and hysteric upheaval takes place with, initially, a collective denial and a focus on individualistic issues. However, the selfish obsession eventually gives way to an acknowledgment for the need to develop collective responsibility and, in the end, the populace goes back to its normal routine, almost as if nothing happened. In the concluding section, the narrator comes forward and suggests that there is more to praise than to condemn in humans.

Happy Thanksgiving and I wish {at least} universal and basic happiness to all during those turbulent times.

Nell-e

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #84 on: December 18, 2019, 02:45:28 PM »
I thought of a more straightforward (and hopefully more convincing) way to express my support of UBI.  In short, 10 to 20 years from now I don’t want to find that the U.S. has devolved into conditions present in countries like India, China, Mexico, or South Africa which result from wealth inequality. 

In India, 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%.  The richest family lives in a billion dollar house while millions live in open sewer slums.  India also has the most people living in modern slavery.  In China, scamming and counterfeiting are commonplace.  People go to such extremes such as flinging themselves in front of cars to extort a payoff.  In Mexico, average people are kidnapped and held for ransom.  In South Africa, armed robberies and car jackings are so prevalent that even the wealthiest citizens fear for their safety.  As an example, a celebrity athlete mistakenly shot his model girlfriend because he was paranoid about intruders. 

I support UBI to avoid the further erosion of civility. Recently, a poor inner-city 14 year old is suspected to have stabbed a female college student in a robbery gone bad in greater NYC.  The victim was originally from Charlottesville, Virginia.  These are real costs measured in human life not dollars which hopefully most citizens won’t experience directly but the probabilities will rise if conditions worsen.

In economic terms, I think of UBI as a necessary tax to maintain poor rural and inner city areas to avoid negative externalities.  Simply, UBI is paid to keep the entire neighborhood from going to hell.  Off the top of my head, here’s a partial list of externalities which in my subjective view are influenced by wealth inequality and populism.

    • Idiotic, corrupt, narcissistic, criminal, and/or murderous leaders are swept into power by angry mobs– [fill in the blank with examples throughout different time periods and geography].
    • The worst examples in human cost include WW2 and the Stalin and Mao regimes.  Over 70 million died in WW2 and tens of millions died under both Stalin and Mao.
    • I don’t think our current situation is anywhere as dire as the stated examples because people aren’t starving but they are a frame of reference for what is possible when social cohesion disintegrates.
    • Presently, we have Trump.  IMO his worst effects are perpetrating lies and normalizing the mentality that winning is the only goal and that cheating is ok as long as you don’t get caught.  You could go on and on about all of Trump’s downsides that are impossible to quantify.
    • Deterioration of public discourse and the absurdity of alternative facts
    • Current and potential stupid/counterproductive policies
        ◦ [fill in the blank]
        ◦ I put the $15 min wage in this category.
        ◦ Potential dumb policies include but not limited to -  Building a wall and having Mexico pay for it, Federal Jobs Guarantee, Wealth Tax, Reparations for slavery, etc.  Even the mention of reparations raises expectations of future stupid policies.
    • Declining life expectancy.  Record levels of suicides, depression, stress, mental illness.
    • The opioid epidemic.
    • Mass shootings.  Duck and cover drills that stress out parents/children but haven’t saved lives. 
    • Metal detectors everywhere.  Longer wait times at public events, airports etc because of metal detectors and getting frisked. 
    • Deterioration of our environment i.e. lead in drinking water
    • Neglected infrastructure where there are more potholes that lead to more vehicle repairs.
    • Political gridlock, bureaucracy, corruption
    • A dumber population causing things like measles to return because idiots think vaccines cause autism. 
    • A dumb electorate that elects dumb congress people across the political spectrum.
    • A society where frivolous lawsuits and scamming exist so average people need to buy Umbrella Insurance policies.
    • You get the point. Extreme wealth inequality causes difficult to quantify externalities for everyone that don’t remain contained to poor areas.


Thought experiment:  What if the poorest counties of Mississippi, Alabama, and New Mexico deteriorate into the complete lawlessness found in 3rd world countries by 2030? Let’s say things get so bad that gangs start hijacking vehicles carrying anything of value and carjackings occur more regularly.  What will happen to the cost of shipping and how will that percolate through the greater economy?  In a country where there are already 390 million guns in circulation how much more security will be needed in public places?  What would the effects be on general and mental health?  Ultimately, what would be the cost in human lives?

If you think I’m being overly dramatic, is it really that difficult to imagine Rodney-King magnitude riots during the next recession?  Or more frequent Oklahoma City bombings?  Also ask: Is it more likely in 10 years that the poorest communities will have their downtowns revitalized or that those communities will continue to decline into shantytowns?

Bottomline, I think people who have the “moochers don’t deserve UBI” mentality are missing the big picture.  If poor areas keep deteriorating then we will ALL pay a bigger HUMAN cost.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 02:54:09 AM by Nell-e »

Packer16

  • Lifetime Member
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3179
  • Go Riders Go! Go Pack Go!
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #85 on: December 18, 2019, 05:40:54 PM »
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer   

Spekulatius

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4942
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2019, 06:12:59 PM »
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer

Unfortunately , election of Supreme Court judges can be done my a simple majority, which imo is a big flaw in the constitution. Germany has a 2/3 supermajority , which means consensus is necessary. This prevents any party hacks from getting into a position.
Life is too short for cheap beer and wine.

LC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4735
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #87 on: December 18, 2019, 06:28:09 PM »
Few things:
-Democrats only addressing symptoms and not root causes, republicans instead profiting off root causes.
-Electoral college is outdated - we are no longer an agrarian economy.
-UBI I sadly support. Sadly in that it should not be needed, but as you mention it is becoming more needed daily. I see this as a failure of government.

I think you are missing an important aspect of the electoral college.  The electoral college (like other mechanisms such as the filibuster & a supermajority to amend the constitution) ensure that governance is by a super majority.  This requires convincing more than a party of individuals to support a measure but a bi-partisan coalition to legislate and administrate.  IMO I think this is one of the hidden genius of the founders.

Packer

The Electoral College guarantees no such thing. It is the Twelfth Amendment which defines the process for electing a President. Briefly scoped:

The Twelfth Amendment requires the House of Representatives to go into session immediately to vote for a president if no candidate for president receives a majority of the electoral votes (since 1964, 270 of the 538 electoral votes).

In this event, the House of Representatives is limited to choosing from among the three candidates who received the most electoral votes for president. Each state delegation votes en bloc — each delegation having a single vote; the District of Columbia does not get to vote. A candidate must receive an absolute majority of state delegation votes (i.e., at present, a minimum of 26 votes) in order for that candidate to become the president-elect. Additionally, delegations from at least two thirds of all the states must be present for voting to take place. The House continues balloting until it elects a president.


This Amendment can just as easily be extended to a popular vote as it was extended to the EC vote.

The Electoral College is a means of distributing votes to States rather than Individuals, essentially rewarding geographic capital rather than human capital. And there are other inherent discriminations towards populous States within the EC process (related to how Representatives are divided) but this is getting into minutiae.

Personally I believe it is to our nation's peril for not changing our system of election to reflect changes within our society. And we are seeing such perils in modern metrics (income inequality) and even metrics traditionally applied to the third world: infant mortality, maternal mortality, child mortality rates.
"Lethargy bordering on sloth remains the cornerstone of our investment style."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
brk.b | goog | irm | lyv | net | nlsn | pm | ssd | t | tfsl | v | wfc | xom

Cigarbutt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2413
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #88 on: December 18, 2019, 08:18:31 PM »
^The issue of the Electoral College is perhaps emblematic of the challenge ahead.

A majority of citizens would prefer direct representation over the Electoral College but the elected class knows better. And the bipartisan coalition dynamics tainted with populism has meant that within this majority point of view, there is also growing divisiveness as to the outcome for the College with one end of the spectrum increasing its support to reform it and the other end of the spectrum increasing its support to maintain it.

Then people wonder why the ordinary citizen feels the disconnect, why the newer generation questions the capitalism model and are more and more confortable with reforms that would impose forced redistribution and why impeachment procedures are the new normal.


Castanza

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1264
Re: Andrew Yang
« Reply #89 on: December 19, 2019, 07:52:54 AM »
I don't think the EC is the issue that should be focused on. I think it works pretty much as intended (no perfect but good). The primary issue is why have we allowed the power of the executive branch to balloon so much? Why does a single position (President) currently have so much power? It was never intended to be this way. The individuals who have been in charge of protecting the constitution over the past 100 years have been extremely neglectful when it comes to enforcing the restriction of powers of the executive branch. There is a reason it has become our largest branch of government (which it was never intended to be).

That being said I think popular vote is a bad path to go down. It allows for mob rule in most cases. Not in all cases as seen in the GWB election where he won the popular vote without winning any major metropolitan areas. The notion that urban cities would rule the country are not entirely true, but the idea that there would be no leverage is also unfounded. It's difficult to have a system that works perfectly every election cycle. That's why imo the best approach is to reduce the power of the govt which helps to flatten the defects in the election processes.

I have always admired the executive branch of Switzerland. They basically have seven presidents and each is in control of a department within the executive branch. They have a very effective system which decentralizes the power but also gives citizens a very effective way of petitioning government on proposed laws and changes.

@LC when you talk about things like infant mortality one needs to be very careful about the definition of infant mortality. The US for example registers any baby that shows signs of life. Many countries don't include infants under 500g who are also not at least 22 weeks along in their gestation period. I'm not saying the rate in the US is the lowest, but if you were to compare apples to apples it would be much more inline with "modern countries" than you are portraying. What is interesting is that advances in prenatal and post natal care are actually increasing the numbers in infant mortality (specifically when comparing to the definition being used to report). If you look at Canada in the early 2000's you saw a spike in the infant mortality rate. This can party be attributed to fertility programs which increase the number of twins being born (which are much higher risk for death). Advances in technology also made it possible to deliver premature babies at a higher rate. This flooded the "live birth" statistics with much higher risk babies thus increasing the infant mortality number.

Same thing can be said about suicides (comparing suicide by gun vs suicide in general) Japan has an overall higher suicide rate than the US per 100k yet they have basically zero suicide by gun and zero gun deaths in general. Same with the definition of "mass shootings".

Moral of the story is definitions and how countries report on said definitions matters. Especially when comparing them against each other in an attempt to sway policy.