Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're links are to tidbits that point to people who seem to be desperate at trying to find something 'bad' to hang on Yang. A couple of PowerPoint slide(s) had his company logo on them? Okay ... some one messed up ... as to Yang accepting finance contributions for speaking engagements (aka a Hilary Clinton thing to do) I'll wait that one out for the fat lady to sing.
^Find me a quote or anything remotely similar. ^
As for as concentrated power he address that here and I had posted this in an earlier post.
Q: How's your campaign changing the conversation about money and politics potentially as a positive thing, if you believe that; secondly how do you think at the core of it your ideology around money and capitalism differs from maybe some of your opponents like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren?
A: I like that question a lot ... 'Most of us agree at this point money and corporate money has over run our political system and so most people are looking for away to solve for that <snip> it's not a rules problem, it's a power problem'.
If you listened to the video of Yang speaking in the above (eggs) post, then you may get a general idea of what the tech companies are doing (data mining) with your data. Just because some of the things he talks about have a libertarian ring to them, does not make them in any way a libertarian view, so perhaps that is why you believe him to be visioning through a distorted libertarian lens. The only thing he talks about that is remotely close is the utilizing the UBI in the possible reduction to eventually eliminating welfare programs. That is the only area I see where a libertarian could get behind.
And he does this by imposing a VAT ... ? Then recirculating that money into the economy? PS: not through banks, but through individuals ...
You may not remember or know of Maw Bell and what happened with that. btw: the result, the phone operator job the one where a person dialed 0 and could get a person on the line --- those jobs across the country were still lost in the end due to automation. (and eventually the cell phone, but that's decades later)
So there you see the Sherman AntiTrust Act in operation. It split up Ma Bell into a bunch of little companies and guess what happens to AT&T --- come on in the water's fine.
So Warren's solution for the big tech companies like Google and to Amazon is to utilize the Sherman AntiTrust and break the companies up into smaller companies. How does that help save jobs? or increase employment opportunities? And trust it won't hurt Google or Amazon any more than it hurt AT&T's monopoly except for the visual, it isn't one but many.
"Sanders, the self-professed democratic socialist, sees the key solution as the expansion of the state. His trademark proposals — Medicare-for-all, free college, a federal jobs guarantee — all involve the government providing services directly to the citizenry. Warren, the self-professed progressive populist, sees the key solution as the use of the state to diffuse concentrated economic power. Her trademark proposals — a greatly invigorated anti-trust regime, replacing shareholder capitalism with a system of co-determination, and a progressive wealth tax — all involve using the government to cut private interests down to size and make them more responsive to stakeholders in the society at large.
<snip>
But both imagine a world still anchored by work, and getting workers a fair share."
ahh, I think I've been over all this already, Like in my last post.
One thing I'll point out is you confuse data sharing and campaign donations with concentrated power; the three things are different.
When I talk about large pools of liquidity I'm talking about how capital is managed from a few central pressure points on the economy and the credit system which keeps lower scale capital on a tight leash.
Whenever Yang is approached with talks of decentralization he gets nervous because its counter intuitive as far as his plans to make a society dependent on corporate profit; if the latter is to be achieved controlling labor migration, land pricing, and supply chain is needed by the private sector and a few government agencies.
Its how we run our domestic economy today but more extreme. Again I talked about this in my last post, but in short we have a consumer economy that is reliant on companies mandating productive labor and regulating where people live. High land costs due to concentration in work opportunities and investment speculation require people to partake in the credit/banking system which tethers their domestic activities to paying off interest which then adds 10 more blockers to their life style (job choice, commute, car ownership, and the need for medical care).
The top down control model is more efficient than a decentralized country where labor is mandated by social needs of a community; global thinking corporations or investors are better able to manage wide swaths of capital and produce high quantities of wealth by collectivizing the labor force, equalizing their intra-person status, and building a mobilize force that needs direction.
You can read about the Lycurgus or Henry Ford or Joseph Stalin, the idea is the same throughout all of history. Large scale equality of a class of people that can be motivated under the vision of one smaller group/person is the most effective mode of wealth creation.
Yang looks at large corporations as a tool to create a domestic fund to transition people with 'unproductive labor' (determine by the markets, not by some naturalistic force) into an environment that can either be intuitive towards large capital (solving urbanization problems through storing people in boxes) or consumer focuses: giving unproductive people money to invest in the market or spend on consumer goods to stimulate the bottom line of corporate America.
Normal welfare, despite all its problems, can be tied down to public services, UBI just allows for that money to be funneled back into the market. And it has nothing to do with freedom as long as Yang's investor friends control the direction of the market.
I don't know if Yang thinks money in politics is bad, but he understands why the silicon valley elite and wall street love him, he offers them a way forward that doesn't involve them losing wealth.
Rather it makes them socially responsible for people left behind, and gives them a parental role in dividing capital to keep the population engaged in market positive activity. That's not far from the idea of the aristocracy and land holding class.
As for radical, yeah he is radical. He wants to hand over the keys to big business and move them out of the way so investors can create large fleets of automated forces and government bureaucracy can be cut down. I don't know what he thinks will happen when he cuts government services and expects the private industry to pick up the slack, but its obvious his "forward mentality" is just submission to a future technocracy.
Actual his theories on private investors pouring money into R&D for robotics is wrong, but you'll have to read my last post to understand why.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
ahh, I think I've been over all this already, Like in my last post.
One thing I'll point out is you confuse data sharing and campaign donations with concentrated power; the three things are different.
When I talk about large pools of liquidity I'm talking about how capital is managed from a few central pressure points on the economy and the credit system which keeps lower scale capital on a tight leash.
Whenever Yang is approached with talks of decentralization he gets nervous because its counter intuitive as far as his plans to make a society dependent on corporate profit; if the latter is to be achieved controlling labor migration, land pricing, and supply chain is needed by the private sector and a few government agencies.
Its how we run our domestic economy today but more extreme. Again I talked about this in my last post, but in short we have a consumer economy that is reliant on companies mandating productive labor and regulating where people live. High land costs due to concentration in work opportunities and investment speculation require people to partake in the credit/banking system which tethers their domestic activities to paying off interest which then adds 10 more blockers to their life style (job choice, commute, car ownership, and the need for medical care).
The top down control model is more efficient than a decentralized country where labor is mandated by social needs of a community; global thinking corporations or investors are better able to manage wide swaths of capital and produce high quantities of wealth by collectivizing the labor force, equalizing their intra-person status, and building a mobilize force that needs direction.
You can read about the Lycurgus or Henry Ford or Joseph Stalin, the idea is the same throughout all of history. Large scale equality of a class of people that can be motivated under the vision of one smaller group/person is the most effective mode of wealth creation.
Yang looks at large corporations as a tool to create a domestic fund to transition people with 'unproductive labor' (determine by the markets, not by some naturalistic force) into an environment that can either be intuitive towards large capital (solving urbanization problems through storing people in boxes) or consumer focuses: giving unproductive people money to invest in the market or spend on consumer goods to stimulate the bottom line of corporate America.
Normal welfare, despite all its problems, can be tied down to public services, UBI just allows for that money to be funneled back into the market. And it has nothing to do with freedom as long as Yang's investor friends control the direction of the market.
I don't know if Yang thinks money in politics is bad, but he understands why the silicon valley elite and wall street love him, he offers them a way forward that doesn't involve them losing wealth.
Rather it makes them socially responsible for people left behind, and gives them a parental role in dividing capital to keep the population engaged in market positive activity. That's not far from the idea of the aristocracy and land holding class.
As for radical, yeah he is radical. He wants to hand over the keys to big business and move them out of the way so investors can create large fleets of automated forces and government bureaucracy can be cut down. I don't know what he thinks will happen when he cuts government services and expects the private industry to pick up the slack, but its obvious his "forward mentality" is just submission to a future technocracy.
Actual his theories on private investors pouring money into R&D for robotics is wrong, but you'll have to read my last post to understand why.
Quote:
Whenever Yang is approached with talks of decentralization
"Focusing purely on tweets related to blockchain and cryptocurrency, Yang has garnered 75 percent of the interaction total, proving his effectiveness at capturing the attention of decentralized tech fans."
Quote:
Normal welfare, despite all its problems, can be tied down to public services, UBI just allows for that money to be funneled back into the market. And it has nothing to do with freedom as long as Yang's investor friends control the direction of the market.
One thing I'll point out is you confuse data sharing and campaign donations with concentrated power; the three things are different.
The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year — the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people. The poor people don't run things; they don't stand a chance, unless the top 1% percent will see them as having any value other than a monetary one. (view why would you oppose ubi) btw: it is not in the best interest of the top 1% to do anything any different than what they are doing already ... however, Henry Ford did increase employee wages, so that his employees could afford to buy his product. Now there's a thought.
PS: “The truth is if you had the blockchain and other technologies fully revved up, you’d be disintermediating accounting firms, law firms, and financial institutions,” Yang said, “and those institutions really control much of the American system, where no one wants to let anything out that would disrupt their revenue streams.”
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-05-2019 at 12:00 PM..
"Focusing purely on tweets related to blockchain and cryptocurrency, Yang has garnered 75 percent of the interaction total, proving his effectiveness at capturing the attention of decentralized tech fans."
The combined fortunes of the world's 26 richest individuals reached $1.4 trillion last year — the same amount as the total wealth of the 3.8 billion poorest people. The poor people don't run things; they don't stand a chance, unless the top 1% percent will see them as having any value other than a monetary one. (view why would you oppose ubi) btw: it is not in the best interest of the top 1% to do anything any different than what they are doing already ... however, Henry Ford did increase employee wages, so that his employees could afford to buy his product. Now there's a thought.
PS: “The truth is if you had the blockchain and other technologies fully revved up, you’d be disintermediating accounting firms, law firms, and financial institutions,” Yang said, “and those institutions really control much of the American system, where no one wants to let anything out that would disrupt their revenue streams.”
Firstly I'm not watching a 32 minute long video, but if the answer is real and tangible, you can give me a quick summary of what the video is arguing.
Secondly blockchain and other forward technologies are investment opportunities, not alternatives to our monetary system.
As explained our monetary system exists to guarantee stability, fluctuating bitcoin doesn't do that; Silicon Valley likes it because it is another scheme to overcharge investors with hype.
So it won't actually decentralize capital because it won't be any replacement for real value (gold, fiat money, real-estate, etc.)
Yang knows he can't decentralize wealth into small holders/businesses because he needs mass automation to oversee his corporate parentalism.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 26 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,590,375 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Firstly I'm not watching a 32 minute long video, but if the answer is real and tangible, you can give me a quick summary of what the video is arguing.
Secondly blockchain and other forward technologies are investment opportunities, not alternatives to our monetary system.
As explained our monetary system exists to guarantee stability, fluctuating bitcoin doesn't do that; Silicon Valley likes it because it is another scheme to overcharge investors with hype.
So it won't actually decentralize capital because it won't be any replacement for real value (gold, fiat money, real-estate, etc.)
Yang knows he can't decentralize wealth into small holders/businesses because he needs mass automation to oversee his corporate parentalism.
Quote:
Firstly I'm not watching a 32 minute long video
That is why some people will never know anything ... just saying. But I will show you an article that is part of that which was discussed (SOAS; Guy Standing) within their conversation, much of which stemmed on how people are valued around the world (GDP) and in what sense. (GDP is an ineffective measuring tool)
To preface this: the people in India are/were given food vouchers (as was talked about in the event video session) as part of their government welfare program and the people would sell their food vouchers for 50 cents on the dollar so as they could purchase items food vouchers would not allow, like clothing. Since then they have launched a pilot ubi
"Asked to comment, Davala provided the following statement: “We went back after four years to the same village that received Basic Income for a year in 2012. It was heartening to see that some of the effects still continued when we compared with the situation in the control village. So, what does that show? That unconditional basic income payments have a deeper psychological impact, and that even when they are given for a short period like a year, they do leave a lasting positive impact. They provide people with a sense of economic security. This is a very valuable insight for us and policy makers.”"
Quote:
Yang knows he can't decentralize wealth into small holders/businesses because he needs mass automation to oversee his corporate parentalism.
What I see in a comment like this, is that you see Andrew Yang as the driving force or a driving force for automation. That is a lot of power for one little dude to (wield) posses and makes me call into question one's senility.
Human Capital and Andrew Yang go hand in hand. I first knew of Andrew Yang many years back when I came across the Basic Income Earth Network web site and he was nothing more than a thought and a placement article on that site.
When his plan in part involves taping into the (data finance market, the other video you won't watch) automation tech companies, so as to fund giving every adult age 18 - 65 $1,000 a month, how is it you see that as his knowing he can not decentralize wealth into small holders and he knows it and it is a ploy to build tech companies? In other words, do you have something tangible to back that up and to be honest, it is much better to back it up with the words from the horse's mouth ...
btw: He does have plans for Bitcoin and I'm not so sure Silicone Valley is going to appreciate it if he become POTUS and pulls it off. That is another wait and see as it may never take place.
Quote:
blockchain and other forward technologies are investment opportunities, not alternatives to our monetary system.
Tell that to the people who are utilizing it for purchasing power.
Last edited by Ellis Bell; 11-05-2019 at 06:02 PM..
There is something I see that seems to be different in most of his speaking engagements; of course I haven't really followed the others, but look at where he is standing, do you see it?
I don't have the time to respond to each post separately so I'll just give out a general response to these series of claims.
LOL despite not having the time, you've regurgitated a lot of the misinformation about Andrew that's been passed around since March.
I also don't have the time to rebut you point for point -- especially since you'll just ignore my reply claiming you've no time (and then throw up another wall of text, surely) -- so suffice it to say, as I've already done, you're just stitching various misinformation together, as if ad-libbing a misunderstanding that you then blame on Andrew.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
