I'm always Quixotic in the primaries, so: Andrew Yang 2020

[Recursion]

Some of you may remember me as one of the last O'Malley holdouts in 2016. (My full list of failed primary support, going back to 1988, is: Jackson, Tsongas, Bradley, Clark, Richardson, O'Malley)

Continuing, no doubt, that grand tradition, I offer for your consideration Andrew Yang.

He has what the Iowa Democratic Party has called "the most complete and thorough set of policy positions we have ever seen in a candidate". You can read about them here. Some of them are wonky and in the weeds even for me (he gave a speech today about how the NCAA needs to pay athletes, for instance). But the reason I think his candidacy is important is what is clearly his keystone policy, the one he is always asked about: Universal Basic Income, or UBI.

Andrew Yang believes that the most effective way to make sure that normal people benefit from increasing automation is to return some of the profits from that automation to everyone as a "freedom dividend" (I know, I know... though that's probably branding that could win over some Republicans and Indpendents). His plan calls for $1000 a month for all adult Americans, regardless of employment status. This is no-strings-attached, no-restrictions money, financed by a national VAT. It's a lot like the Alaskan oil fund, except that instead of being based on natural resources it's based on the US economy as a whole: tax some of its growth, and distribute that to everybody for everybody's benefit.

[redgreenandblue]

1. I saw him on Joe Rogan a few weeks ago.

I don't know where I stand on the universal basic income. I've been thinking about it for a long time.
I know that in Gemany it is a position that the left holds, but there is also a libertarian school of thought that wants to use it to replace government funded services. Interestingly, Milton Friedman was in favor of it
(https://medium.com/basic-income/why-milton-friedman-supported-a-guaranteed-income-5-reasons-da6e628f6070)
Yang seems to be echoing that a bit. Not sure whether that is a good idea.

In Germany we have publicly funded universities *and* a robust apprenticeship system. In the later you are actually working part time and earning a wage. So I'm not sure "fund colleges or vocational training" is an either or question.

What is funny is that many people that I know who went to med school are now in favor of UBI. They hate their jobs so much and say that they would cut back if they had the option.

I'm very much in favor of the social net, but I wonder what UBI would do if it was paid to everyone, not just the people who were out of work. If I had an extra 1000 a month that I didn't need I wouldn't work less. I'm guessing many people with middle class jobs would be hesitant to cut back hours (in a competitive environment, the market won't actually let you do that, regardless of what your net wage is). So much of that extra cash would probably go into the stock, real estate and collectibles market.

What I'm getting at is that if you pay UBI to people who are actually earning a wage and don't need it, you might see massive inflation. The very first thing I'd probably do with an extra 1000 is buy an appartment and rent it out, and I'm guessing millions of others would do the same, driving property prices through the roof.

I wonder if there are some studies on this.

There is also an argument that says that increasing automation makes a UBI necessary. I'm not so sure this is true. In many ways, the rise of the entertainment industry is a consequence of automation (that is were all that excess wealth generated by the machines since the industrial revolution went). I heard figures like two thirds of the economy is now entertainment related (may be wrong number). With self-driving cars and whatnot that number might go up to 95%. So in other words, instead of producing stuff people can keep themselves pretty busy making Youtube videos, appearing on reality shows and marketing fashionable gadgets to each other.

An alternative to UBI is classic Keynesianism: Taxing high income, then making sure the money goes exactly where it is needed (well funded social services, public schools etc.) and do massive infrastructure spending on top of that. Maybe a well funded Mars mission...

[Byronic]

2. Well done.

Windmills are there to be tilted at.

Andrew Yang is a thoughtful candidate who deserves a bigger platform.

[CrossingTheRubicon]

3. A VAT is regressive. It hits poor people the most. Giving everyone the same "freedom dividend"...

paid for by a VAT would re-distribute income in the direction of the wealthy.

Yang better have something better than this or he'll never crack 1%.

[Recursion]

4. And yet, all the social democracies use them

At twice the rate Yang is proposing. They work.