Tuesday, March 26, 2019

Richard Feloni - The entrepreneur who says there's a 'war on normal people' is running for president on a platform of giving nearly every American $1,000 each month

Who wants libertarianism when you can have this? All paid for with VAT, but the tax won't put prices up, says Andrew Lang, as the new automation and robotization will bring prices down.

  • Andrew Yang is an entrepreneur who is running for president of the United States, with a long-shot campaign built primarily upon universal basic income.
  • His new book, "The War on Normal People," argues that a massive loss of jobs within the next 10-15 years is unavoidable.
  • He advocates for a $1,000 monthly universal basic income for all Americans ages 18-64, funded by a value-added tax, to assist them through the transition.
Andrew Yang has spent the last 18 years in the startup world.
Most recently, he is the founder of Venture for America, a nonprofit that puts new college graduates in new businesses in emerging American cities. His experiences have led him to one major conclusion: Millions of Americans stand to lose their jobs in the next 10-15 years, and the transition to a new world of automation is going to be painful.
It's why he's not only advocating for a universal basic income (UBI), but is running for president of the United States on a platform built on that movement. He's running as a Democrat, and while he's a long-shot candidate, he believes strongly enough in what he considers to be the necessity of a UBI to dedicate himself to the journey.
In his new book "The War on Normal People," he made clear that his plan is about an evolution of American capitalism rather than a replacement. "I'm no fan of big government," he wrote. "I have sat in Washington, DC, conference rooms and filled out forms and realize the limitations of what even well-intended public officials can do."
At the same time, he told Business Insider, "Corporations can't be expected to solve all of society's problems. That's not their role." That is, he does not see anything wrong with engineers working on technology that will replace workers with services that will benefit consumers — but this should not happen without a counterbalance.
Business Insider.


Noah Way said...

Yang has a nice idea (human capital) but is clueless from his lofty billionaire perch. Properly done BIG would eliminate Social Security and most if not all welfare programs. Thus arbitrarily limiting it to age 64 is absurd, especially when many retirees don't even get $1,000. Aside from the fact that paying for it is not an issue under MMT.

Konrad said...

"Aside from the fact that paying for it is not an issue under MMT."

Yes. The VAT tax thing is unnecessary and problematic. Who will pay it? And yes, politicians would use a BIG as a pretext to eliminate all other social programs. Also, without bank reform, most of that that $1,000 a month would be sucked way as debt payments, medical payments, etc. I agree with a BIG, but money alone is not the answer.

I’ve been watching Yang for a couple of months. His heart seems to be in the right place, but he needs to think his platform through a bit more.

I agree with Yang that there is a “war on average people,” and that robots, AI, and automation in general will continue to eliminate jobs.

Noah Way said...

VAT is essentially a consumption tax and as such is desperately required. An society built on ever-increasing consumption is suicidal.

Kaivey said...

We have to keep buying and selling stuff to each other otherwise we haven't got a job. There must be a better way.

In the 50's they saw how automation and technology taking hold, and so they asked, shall we reduce the working week, or leave it how it is and let everyone get richer and buy more? They went for the latter as this made the rich wealthier.

As a person who loves his leisure time, I felt that decision was a real shame.

GLH said...

The problem with a VAT is that it comes out of the real economy and will drain currency from the real economy. I know that a federal tax doesn't pay for anything but if you are going to say that you need a tax to pay for something then it is the financial economy that should be taxed.

Noah Way said...

VAT is a behavior tax. An economic society built on consumption is cancerous. VAT is a throttle on consumption. It's just like the tax on cigarettes.

If we don't abandoned the practice of mining every corner of the environment for financial profit, there will be no environment left to mine let alone provide a functioning habitat for humanity. The most obvious and direct metaphor here is 'shitting the bed'.

GLH said...

Take money out of the real economy with a VAT and people will just go further into debt in order to live by borrowing from the financial sector. With such a plan the rich get richer and the rest of us get poorer. Any new taxes should be on the financial sector and the rich. As far as the environment there will come a time when people will realize that the market will not cure our problems and they will pass laws to prevent environmental degradation.