I like Andrew yang but the way he's going about it is wrong.
1.the source of revenue can not be the sales tax
2.there must be price controls for housing
Do this and you can give people and a means to support themselves by working. Which some people currently can't. I think it's fair.
Bureacracy is a maze of government on how to spend the money.
This is giving people money and could be done with a computer.
But even now you're just delaying things, you already suggested price controls.
Capitalism is too dumb to survive and will collapse. All Yang does is delay this.
money has become a meme that doesn't represent anything real
Well during the guilded age some corporations became giants and Roosevelt split them and then it collapsed and FDR stepped in.
Capitalism is like a house that needs mantainance.
But in 1930 rent was 10% of your income and now it's 30% and any additional income landlords will take, and any price controls they will ignore. There is no solution, Yang is sitting at the side of the stadium as libs kill each other and telling them to follow rules.
They can't ignore price controls unless they want to get sued.
Landlords do not care about survival. They want to die anyway and lawsuits make no difference. Then even if the tenants win the property they can just countersue and drag it into the mud.
Yang ideology only makes sense as a rhetorical point, like if landlords ignore the law, then you can kill cops. If you're trying to use it to actually preserve capitalism it will just lead to endless bureaucracy and collapse.
There is no solution, only delaying the collapse of Capitalism from peak oil in 1mo.
Salaries haven't kept up with every other expense.
I think we're not going to do any of that.
What is harming the jobs of the poor and uneducated? Automation by corporations. Tax tech or corporate profits.
well black people don't create their own businesses and I don't know a lot about mexicans but they probably don't either
immigration
It is obviously wrong to claim immigration lowers wages a meaningful amount. The actual reason is you'll die in 1mo from peak oil. But as you are mentally retarded you will disagree.
UBI beyond maybe a very low level will fuck with the economy and cause inflation. It's better to have public housing, food stamps and a program that hooks you up with a full time job.
Lack of unionization. Taxing them will just incentivise them to cut expenses with automation even more. A union can just strike when there is even a whiff of automation taking place and prevent it.
The cost of Andrew Yangs proposal was 3 trillion per year. 4 trillion plus 3 trillion that'd be 7 trillion of 21 trillion or 33% of GDP.
That'd be the oecd average. I think.
>a program that hooks you up with a full time job.
How is a guaranteed jobs program going to find everyone full time productive work where the market can't?
by legislating it??
All the idiotic replies to this thread and everyone ignores landlords will just ignore your rules and capitalism will collapse anyway.
they won't though
its called a works program
They are already evicting illegal. Yang does nothing, just bureaucracy.
yeah people commit crimes that doesn't somehow mean generally speaking these things don't work
It does. Even if you arrested every landlord they'd complain about muh classicide.
Ok that's a good name for the scheme. Now how will it provide everyone who wants one a full time job doing something economically useful?
yes
>It does. Even if you arrested every landlord they'd complain about muh classicide.
every land lord doesn't illegally evict though so you're point is retarded
20% of evictions are illegal so basically all of them. Yang ideology is pure bureaucracy.
>20% is basically 100%
i do believe you are retarded
your anecdote is irrelevant
You're a perfect example of Yang ideology, a bunch of low effort posts to delay the collapse of capitalism. It's obvious all his arguments are just reforms and everyone will ignore them and kill each other.
you haven't provided any significant counter
The counter is they are too dumb to follow the rules now and more rules means more dumb. Every second Yang wastes, more Cops are physically annihilated.
sorry but:
people break laws is not an argument against laws
The moratorium had no effect on evictions because they ignored it. If the simplest possible law is useless how would Yang work?
but that isn't true
It is true. If your argument hinges on that claim it collapses.
ok prove it
Eviction lab data. It's on google. Moratorium did nothing.
ok post the evidence then
I feel no need as your thread is already destroyed.
no my thread but its clear you're resorting to lying lmao
Then post the data, or allow your thread to annihilate. Or are you too dumb to read?
burden of proof is on you
cope
You got destroyed at last. Mortarorium failed. All Yang seeks to do is add bureaucracy. Landlords will kill each other.
and you still can't prove retarded claims
He's a ranting schizo who got lost on the way to /misc/, you're wasting your time
Well my parents are landlord and they think there is a problem too. Well I don't know how they'd feel about rent control. But like I said it could still be profitable even with rent control. The first thing landlords would do if everybody got $1000 well it's raise rent by a thousand dollars.
>by legislating it??
How do you legislate productive jobs into existence?
There are plenty of productive jobs in existence that nobody wants because capitaltrannies make them part time/temp garbage so they dont have to give benefits. This is the so called worker shortage you keep hearing about. Ban temp work and these turn into normal full time positions.
There are things labor can be applied to which which can provide just as much or more value as a retail worker but aren't profitable because they can't be commodified in a way that produces large profit margins
Examples:
>Building public transit infrastructure and employing staff to maintain it
>Building public housing and employing staff to maintain it
>Building power plants that don't use fossil fuels
>Officers in/around public transit that make people feel safe while riding
>Street/park cleaners
>Event coordinators for public spaces
The capitalist versions which are built according to consumer demand are much less efficient and/or lower quality and often rely on government subsidy anyways
>Gasoline-based cars riding on low-density roads and turnpikes which cost several dollars per mile
>Luxury condos and single family houses that only middle class or landlords can afford, which raises rents for poor people
>Natural gas plants where the cost of producing electricity goes up and down radically based on market speculators and global events that may have nothing to do with your country
>No public safety because free rider problem
>Buses that clog roads and cause traffic
>$20 a head pay-to-enter fairs with overpriced food
The idea that you are going to say the entire society should be profit-based when so much of the negative shit we have right now comes from profit-seeking at other people's expense is insane. We all went through our libertarian phase but when you interact with reality more you will realize how rarely anyone will actually disrupt and improve a profitable system. Most businesses would much rather make a system/product/service worse for you if it marginally increases their profits than to rock the boat.
Capitalism was never profitable.
That's a bad argument because the dividends would have been much more valuable adjusted for inflation at the time they were paid out than they are when the new shares were issue and also due to the opportunity cost that cash could have been used for, for other investments at the time.
Yes that's my point, capitalism is absurdly unprofitable.
Taxes are a loss on the system. The positive is in healthcare. So excluding government sectors capitalism will always be severely negative sum.
No, what I'm saying is that a $1000 dividend payment in 1960 is has the same value adjusted for inflation as $10,000 today. So to say that the cumulative dividends of Exxon only produced $200B which is the same as a 1999 share issue, therefore it was never profitable is very incorrect.
The cumulative value adjusted for inflation that Exxon would have returned over it's history far exceeds $200B and is more likely at least 10x that much, if not more.
On top of that, when dividend payments are made to shareholders, they can use that cash to re-invest in another business which compounds the returns on investments.
Dividends being re-invested in XOM over the past 27 years resulted in a 1.63% additional profit per year for the investor compared to holding cash.
>Taxes are a loss on the system. The positive is in healthcare. So excluding government sectors capitalism will always be severely negative sum.
I don't know how you would conclude this, sounds ridiculous.
If you're too dumb to understand it try this.
Monetary base grew 30x since 1980. Exxon grew 20x.
Anyone who held any stock will lose money.
The monetary base can grow without inflation picking up. Even under a gold standard there is monetary expansion because there's a demand for it.
You're calling me dumb but you seem to have no deep understanding of finance
You're too dumb to understand you're losing money.
If you held any stock in 1980 you would lose to inflation. You are mentally retarded and will disagree. I say you are mentally retarded because you can't do 1st grade arithmetic.
So if I bought $1000 worth of the S&P 500 in 1980 and had the fund re-invest the dividends, you believe I would have something worth less than it was worth in 1980 adjusted for inflation, is that right?
Yes. Adjusted for growth of the monetary base.
Spy was 100 in 1980. Monetary base grew 30x so it should be 3000. It's actually 2700 in 2018. With a small bubble now.
The dividends are inadequate to cover taxes and without taxes all your healthcare holdings would collapse. Capitalism double counts money because healthcare creates gdp by taxing and re spending it.
Ok. So monetary base increases 30x so 30k. Then you picked the wrong year and are mentally retarded.
I think your brain is just broken from predicting something and it not turning out to be true.
You have a toe-deep upstanding of finance & economics - probably because you are listening to retards.
Here's a 400x return since 1960.
Monetary base was 50b in 1960.
Now 5t.
Price sales ratio was 1x vs 3x.
You lose money. Now keep acting retarded because you literally are a mentally retarded toddler.
M2 is 20 trillion. If everyone sold their stock they would have that. The stock and bond market is 60 trillion.
A car in 1960 cost a thousand dollars. Now it costs 100k.
In 1960 the m2 was 600 billion. That's 600 million cars. Today it's 200 million cars.
Lets be real here, you don't even believe what you wrote and are just coping
>A new car is $100k bro
lmao
Even if it's 30k it still loses. Capitalism is literally retardation.
The only thing that's retarded is you
Unable to cope with being wrong
>Promoting luddites
So you prefer people working like slaves for peanuts?
Until automation can be rolled out in a responsible way that wont create mass unemployment and poverty, yes
>Until automation can be rolled out in a responsible way that wont create mass unemployment and poverty, yes
Automation has been getting slowly rolled out over since the industrial revolution.
I don't understand why Andre Yang believes there is gonna be a sudden mass lay off again. Most of the automation has happened and everything hasn't fallen apart.
Just wealth getting funneled.
It's the governments collusion with corporate that has lead us here so trusting them to fix it is retarded.
They'll just print money like Biden did without fixing the core issues and make things worse
>Most of the automation has happened and everything hasn't fallen apart.
Wrong. Literally no job is safe from automation, especially with the leaps and bounds we've made with machine learning. Even artists aren't safe (see DALLE 2 and the like)
Automation is literally retards. 90% of jobs are service jobs that are pointless. Automation means they just stop doing the job and capitalism collapses. You'll die of peak oil in 1mo.
>2.there must be price controls for housing
yeah when construction slows because of capped profits will be great for people who need housing.
at least there will be less competition for the land lords I guess
>Do this and you can give people and a means to support themselves by working. Which some people currently can't. I think it's fair.
people can already support themselves by working whats the issue?
Well yes building of housing will slow but
either way the price controls can still be set so building houses is profitable...
>people can already support themselves by working whats the issue?
Can all the people support themselves by working?
McDonald's nets 2.7 million dollars a year on average pays it's employees less than $33,000 a year. Well I don't think the average McDonalds worker earns $2,700 a month... Let me do the math
>either way the price controls can still be set so building houses is profitable...
never said building won't be profitable. What was said was building will slow due to a cap on profits
>Can all the people support themselves by working?
everyone who works can support themselves yes.
>McDonald's nets 2.7 million dollars a year on average pays it's employees less than $33,000 a year
ok cute factoid but does that counter anything or are you just whining?
>Well I don't think the average McDonalds worker earns $2,700 a month... Let me do the math
what does making $2,700 have to do with anything?
Well it says that the average McDonalds worker earns $11 an hour.
$11*40*4=1760
An efficiency in Miami which is one room is $1400 a month
Or $21,120 a year..
Well picture the rent is lowered and they get an additional $1000 a month
Well that'd be more fair
why would you live in Miami if you work at mcdonalds?
Why would you work at miami mcdonalds and not live in miami
I wouldn't
next
I think the sentiment is nationwide since I think anti work is a nationwide... Sentiment
ok and?
retard
why would you live in Miami if you work at mcdonalds?
Well mark Cuban seems to think there's an issue with income inequality. This is what I think. But you have to start with the basis that there is a problem in the first place.
Watching this rn
https://desuarchive.org/his/search/text/You%27ll%20die%20of%20peak%20oil%20in%201mo/
It's already almost been a month since you first said this. You'll have a lot of explaining to do in October.
The first one there is aug3
Sep3caust
Well you might say Bernie and the like but he wanted to spend too much.
Healthcare can wait but the most pressing problems ought to be sorted out first and I think it's a pressing problem and that is working people being fairly compensated. I don't understand what the green deal has to do with that.
Sometimes problems unravel all at once like it happened in Chile and that is the worst outcome. I don't know how much time there's left but there's a limited amount of time for this to get sorted out.
green new deal is just a liberal way to fund gender studies in pakistan while making people think its pro environment
I will say this though. I suspect the drug cartel is behind socialism in Latin America. They have close ties to the Mexican government and they might have access to their coffers with which they can use to further spread socialism.
In Chile they're talking about making a separate area for indigenous people. Well that'd be territory for the drug cartel. Would it be in their best interest for the US to become socialist though?
Maybe then they'd get access to their coffers as well.
It is not in China's interest to rock the boat and China wouldn't allow Russia to rock the boat.
Well revolt is an art what works somewhere doesn't work somewhere else. In Chile they started burning property. In the us that wouldn't work. In the us whatever spark would have to be very violent and people getting killed and stuff. But not a lone nut but multiple people targeting people that nobody likes. Say a group stormed black rock and Goldman Sachs and started killing everyone. That would escalate. Or say lolberts started killing people who work in the federal reserve that would escalate too...
Anyways yeah ubi and rent control yep. Avoid all the nasty stuff and such.
>I don't understand what the green deal has to do with that.
Liberal policymakers are out of ideas
They don't want outright socialist policies but what's happening right now isn't working well so their alternative is to blow up the budget with these expensive & unrealistic quasi-market policies where most of the money gets siphoned off to fraud and business interests and the impacts they have are marginal.
To sustainably fix the problems in the US you need to build more public transit and public housing and freight infrastructure, electrify those railways, and switch baseload power to hydroelectric and nuclear power.
Fossil fuels and cars are too resource-intensive to continue to be the default for the majority of the population.
>Look up Andrew Yang
>Assume it's going to be a half asiatic or some shit
>Turns out to be a fullblooded asiatic from Taiwan living in New York
Kek
>Look up his politics
>Huge fan of Zionism
>Barely any israelite in New York is voting for him
Kek
>Supports Western colonialism
>Barely any White supremacist is voting for him
Kek
If there was no money printing everyone's money would be worth more. But there'd also be less investing and less jobs. But it could be done away with.
Creating jobs works too. I haven't done the math but I think ubi ends up being cheaper anyways. What are you going to make windmills anyways?