Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 474 posts

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#401

Post by dnautics »

clairity wrote: post #400
edanm wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point of inflation, and I don't think that article backs what you're saying up.

inflation is used to keep the "time value of money" working so that capital is incentivized to be reinvested, lest it lose all its value over time. this impetus leads capital to relentlessly seek returns, which over time compresses returns to labor in favor of capital. so suppressing labor is certainly a consequence of our positive inflation policy. the intention can be debated, but note that various govermental unit…

I think the intent is to 'keep employment numbers up at any cost'. But that there is a (predictable, and evidenced) unintended consequence to the prescribed method of attaining that objective is an indictment of the class-blindness of the liberal economic polity, and, secondarily, the brokenness of modern 'science' and 'scientistic' pursuits. (not saying the right is much better on that front)

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#402

Post by olivermarks »

charwalker wrote: post #392
imafish wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, blacklisting is absolutely undemocratic. But it is fair to not have her in the debates when she does not meet the requirements.

I think they mean that if a Democratic candidate is going on the (known to the left wing as pure propaganda and lies) right wing network of choice to make their case then they are not arguing in good faith and simply looking to score points with people who will never vote for her anyway. It's disingenuous and she had next to 0 support anyway.

Here's the sequence of events with Tulsi Gabbard's presidential campaign which is important if you believe in running a fair democracy, my fundamental point here.

Gabbard resigned as a rising star DNC VP in 2016 to endorse Bernie Sanders over Mrs Clinton who had bought the party off with a cash infusion (largely raised by Weinstein) on the agreement she had control of party strategy and messaging, and could include multiple super delegates at the convention. Congreswoman Gabbard announced her grass roots funded presidential campaign and has run it from a mini van with volunteers, a very small paid staff and ~$1m budget.

Gabbard got great traction - most searched for via Google - in the first two TV show Q & sixty second answer commercial TV 'debates' and destroyed the Harris campaign with her debating skills in November.

Throughout the campaign, and massively increased in 2020, the DNC media has either subsequently ignored her or run negative messaging to undermine her credibility. The DNC knows reform would come if Gabbard got control.

The DNC changed their debate rules to allow 55x billionaire Bloomberg to 'run' and debate as a presidential candidate, spending incredible sums to obliterate Sanders and others before pulling out again.

The corporate puppet candidates Buttigieg, Klobochar (and subsequently Warren afterwards) pulled out just before Super Tuesday - and after tens of thousands had cast their postal ballots - to endorse Biden, the DNC's preferred candidate. The debate rules were changed again by the DNC after Gabbard won two delegates to exclude her. The only media Gabbard gets coverage on is Fox News and internet shows and podcasts.

There is a massive disinformation campaign she is constantly fighting (Russian asset, Assad and Modi supporter etc) that undermines her fundamental anti war pro diplomacy platform.

My point: if the DNC give hundreds of millions in free positive media coverage to their preferred candidates and blacklist/ blackout positive coverage of other candidates is it any surprise Gabbard has done so badly, or other future and past candidates? Many many people don't even know she is in the presidential race on ballots that still list long suspended campaigns from Harris and others.

The DNC rely on name recognition and positive media messaging to amplify their preferred candidates. This is not democracy or a level playing field.

The Gabbard platform positions: www.tulsigabbard.org

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#403

Post by jariel »

christophilus wrote: post #227
jariel wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Real inflationary problems are always about money supply, not regular changes in supply/demand. When Chavez goes nutty, people don't want his currency, it starts to crash, he prints to pay his bills, it really crashes. This is where all the inflation crisis comes. 2) The 'milk substitute' thing I think illustrates the opposite point you're trying to make. Having to give up Milk to drink water is a severely negativ…

> Giving up Netflix for 'library books'. This implies a serious degradation in the quality of life. If everyone gave up Netflix for library books, I think that’d be a massive societal win. Other than that, I agree with your point.

Ah yes, shouldn't we all?

But we can choose books anytime, and we don't. So when you and I think about 'win' it must be different than what 'everyone else wants' at least in terms of how they actively chose to spend their time.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#404

Post by dmix »

lukifer wrote: post #393
dmix wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What hasn't been established and what I think is a fair question, is whether this could ever practically roll out while simultaneously shutting down the existing welfare/disability/etc systems. As others have mentioned if it doesn't work people (see: vested political interests) will want a way to roll it back. So in almost any practical case they will have to be running at the same time and will never truly be a net-…

Valid concerns. > whether this could ever practically roll out while simultaneously shutting down the existing welfare/disability/etc systems Yang's plan was for UBI to be opt-in, in exchange for waiving access to many existing programs (food stamps, etc). If he had gotten traction beyond 5%, we could've expected major pushback from the left on this; similar to M4A, in many ways it's more helpful to the lower middle…

Thanks for your answer, I’ll dig into your links tonight.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#405

Post by zenhack »

jnordwick wrote: post #397
zenhack wrote: post #375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not really interested in judging Amazon; they're a for profit company, they're going to do what's best for their bottom line. And I'm sure they don't care what I think. This is more about the systemic issues with the tax code itself.

It worked exactly as it is supposed to: it incentivized long tern investment where amazon lost a lot of money because they invested so much. if you want to tax them on those losses that they rolled forward, you would basically have far less investment. make up your mind - do you want them to invest and take losses or not invest and pay taxes - you can't do both.

The devil is in the details; a lot of the things they're getting tax breaks for don't benefit the public. Why are they getting tax breaks for building warehouses and data centers for themselves? Stock based compensation for executives?

Also, regardless of what breaks are available for what activities, their baseline tax burden ought to be much higher. We should be drawing funding from people who can afford it and use it to lift the burden on people who can't.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#406

Post by JDiculous »

lanevorockz wrote: post #302
JDiculous wrote: post #242

One day we will look at all the homelessness and blatant poverty in our society we allow in absolute disgust, similar to the repulsion people feel about slavery. UBI isn't just about liberty and accelerating ourselves forward (though it's also about that), it's a statement that no matter how dire your circumstances, no matter how useless you are seen to our corporate overlords and private employers, that you belong t…

I believe you haven't worked with homeless people much, but the problem with homeless is NOT poverty. People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief. Hard problem to solve and it wouldn't be fixed by universal income. We tried convincing homeless people to go into shelters or to at least care a bit for themselves ( free self c…

Yes UBI would not "fix" homelessness or poverty, but it dramatically improves things.

> People that have the tendency be homeless are people that don't find their place in society, the lack of order actually brings them relief.

What an insulting generalization of homeless people. Is that how you rationalize it in your head - these people find "relief" in sleeping on the sidewalk because they couldn't find their place in society?

Did you ask those homeless people why they didn't want to go to the shelter? I remember speaking with a 60+ year old homeless woman in NYC once who told me she refused to go to the shelter because it was filled with crazy people. Also you have to check out of the shelter every day, and if you don't check back in by a certain time, then they can't let you in. It shouldn't come as a surprise that many would prefer to sleep on the streets than deal with that.

> Best solution so far is a social one where people help them find a new sense of achievement and a place in society.

This is why I'm a proponent of a jobs guarantee. Anyone who wants to work should not be denied the opportunity to do so.

> Drugs is also a big problem and probably where all the money from universal income would go to.

Yes, because all homeless people are drug addicts right? /s

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#407

Post by eachro »

mrfusion wrote: post #24
eachro wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if there are any economic studies on whether social security increased inflation when it was first enacted. It's not the ideal comparison because of the sheer scale of UBI vs social security but it would be something to get notion of the impact.

Why would it increase inflation? An equal amount of money is taken out of taxes. There’s no new money being created.

I don't know whether it would or wouldn't. I was just replying to the parent comment which said this:

> But what Yang doesn't do here or in his book is make a powerful case to fiscal conservative spelling out just how universal income will avoid demolishing the economy through inflation. Until this happens, UBI is going nowhere.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#408

Post by clairity »

dnautics wrote: post #401
clairity wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

inflation is used to keep the "time value of money" working so that capital is incentivized to be reinvested, lest it lose all its value over time. this impetus leads capital to relentlessly seek returns, which over time compresses returns to labor in favor of capital. so suppressing labor is certainly a consequence of our positive inflation policy. the intention can be debated, but note that various govermental unit…

I think the intent is to 'keep employment numbers up at any cost'. But that there is a (predictable, and evidenced) unintended consequence to the prescribed method of attaining that objective is an indictment of the class-blindness of the liberal economic polity, and, secondarily, the brokenness of modern 'science' and 'scientistic' pursuits. (not saying the right is much better on that front)

i'm sympathetic to the original indictment that capital holders (like many hbs grads) realized, and then moved to solidify, this tilting of the board in their favor by supporting inflationary policy.

i'm not sure that the liberal economic polity is a distinct class from those same capital holders (but i generally disfavor left-right political framing anyways).

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#409

Post by bernawil »

lonelappde wrote: post #330
bernawil wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Asset prices track inflation like clockwork. What's even funnier to me is that taxes on wealth rarely raise as fast as asset prices! If anything it's a tax on income.

Wealth is accumulated income which is subject to income tax so wealth a different dimension, so even if you expect an additional tax that grows at the same rate? The units are incoherent.

  Wealth is accumulated income tax
That's only valid if you think "wealth" can only be a bunch of cash in a bank account you saved. You may own a piece of land that could even predate the government in some places. Or you may own a patent. That's "wealth" which is subject to different taxes to "income".

  so even if you expect an additional tax that grows at the same rate?
I don't expect, anything I was just pointing a fact.

I live in a country that has experienced inflation over the last ten years and the reality is that income taxes have followed inflation but property taxes not, because the government doesn't update property book values as often. The result is that you can hold very expensive property while paying very low taxes. But this also happens in lots of other places: California and Proposition 13 come to mind.

Re: What If Andrew Yang Was Right?

#410

Post by sybarita »

v64 wrote: post #48
mrfusion wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m so confused why this inflation argument keeps popping up. If you’re paying for the Ubi with taxes then there’s no inflation. Net money supply hasn’t changed (0). If you pay for ubi by printing money then yes, inflation would be a problem. But no one has suggested that. (0) I’m willing to entertain an argument about the velocity of money increasing from ubi but I really doubt it would be too significant.

My understanding is that if it's known that every American adult collects $1000 in addition to their regular income, prices will rise in an attempt to capture some of that known financial excess, so that the net result isn't that everyone gets an extra $1000 in discretionary income, but that everyone ends up paying that extra $1000 back in inflated prices. Similar logic to how raising tariffs doesn't hurt companies a…

This assumes they aren't already squeezing every cent they can out of people...
Post reply on HN