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.
Thanks, I saw that one -- the problem for Yang 2020 is that while 92 to 94 percent of the electorate would benefit tremendously from The Freedom Dividend, only some 16% (projected to be about 25% this cycle) of Democrat voters in Iowa actually bother caucusing...and Andrew lacks name recognition.
Looking forward to Boomer Gang in Iowa -- as well as Zoomer Gang (and Millennials and Gen Xers, too) -- providing a surprise next February.
That's just it, not many Caucus in Iowa because it's a lengthy process so it's not going to take much to get 15% and guess what, YangGang are the most fired up IMO. You can't buy passion and that's what Andrew Yang has.
We got him a plane banner fly over LA for 2 hours and made Jeff Bezos/Amazon pay for it. We've raised money by using Robinhood and it cost us nothing. You think getting a bunch of Iowa YangGang to sit and caucus for hours will be hard? I fully expect Iowa YangGang to bring the passion and get others to join them.
Also watching him signing into the ballot for New Hampshire, you can feel the love. This man is authentic AF. He will be the next president.
Back when my children were little I had medicare, (divorced, father did not provide healthcare) I took my daughter in for a medical issue. The attending Dr. noticed (not what we were there for) that her hands were small. They wanted me to take her over to the hospital to have an X-ray done of her hands so as to determine whether or not she was dwarfed. (not taking into account mom is standing there at 5' and 98 lbs) It was nonsense and I didn't do it. What they saw was medicare $$$. Now look at a practice(s) [habit] on a larger scale, within the system, that has nothing to do with the recipient but a lot to do with costs of medical. (there were more situations where as I connected the dots, but that is the only dot my memory has left to reflect on)
The food stamp division use to pass out what was looked at as funny money. When a person went to a grocery store and paid their bill, it was something that would pop for every one around to see --- poor person, funny money. Because of that it was recognized do to pride that many people lived without food, due to the embarrassment at the check out counters of the grocery store. (i worked for Transactive corp who had the contract for the EBT project, but the project I worked on was a different contract, same programming though; same Verfone box)
The welfare department came up with the idea of the EBT card, as it acted much the same and the look of a credit card. With the idea that perhaps they could then reach more of the targeted recipients. While that may have worked some what, there are still those that will not, due to a variety of reasons, reach out to the government for assistance. One major reason ... the government [big brother] is going to track the person receiving the benefits and they will get, very intrusive. Some people would rather just starve, than to be hooked into that system.
What is the source? Something you said in another post:
In searching for the 'one source' on my own:
"The world we’ve become accustomed to will not exist without supply chains. And further, the world is a mechanism for providing humanity with the resources we need to survive on Earth. We know this to be true -- “when supply chains function, societies thrive”.
<snip>
Supply chains are to human civilization what oxygen is to life; When they work well, no one notices them. It is only when they start to fail that we realize there’s a problem."
Its a problem when a vast amount of the people in the society that could be utilized to build it are trapped living underneath a cardboard box.
The roaring 20's production was great and the people trusted their government. The Great Depression changed all that.
You interpreted what I said wrong; made me go back and look. Bitcoin is to the 21st century what Green Backs were to the 19th century --- untaxed means in the transfer of service and goods.
For the first paragraph, and maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't all manipulation by private hospitals towards insurance be at risk? If you have insurance, they're going to try to get you to pay more, that's true with private insurance as well as anything UBI can fix up.
For the second, this is a problem with our society that can be resolved by changing our economic system. We value wealth in this country because its correlated with success. The answer is to change our society to value comradery through cooperation. Changing property laws and creating more collective institutions and localizing populations is a start.
Anyways isn't this all on the end of the user? In india its implied government corruption leads to a lack of funds, not that people are too afraid/don't know how to use it.
The supply chain stuff is nonsense, yes its brought us excessive wealth but its also overpowered private capital and made it so that all laborers are under control of the 'market'.
Decentralizing the market and fracturing the supply chain will lead to less wealth, but it will promote individual liberty and cooperation since people will need to pool together capital for larger projects.
As to who controls it? That's a circular question. The Markets control the Markets. That's the problem. Its one pool of liquidity that is affect by all the decision of large owners of capital. Everything affects everything.
You're bit on the roaring 20s seems to reinforce my point; trust in institutions is a bad thing. UBI based off of your sources makes economic conformity easier, just like in the 1920s.
Greenback was a fiat currency.
As for the last post, Yang cares about how they use our data, he doesn't care about big tech owning the platforms we use and distributing the output. He wants to change corporate responsibilities, not their power.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
For the first paragraph, and maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't all manipulation by private hospitals towards insurance be at risk? If you have insurance, they're going to try to get you to pay more, that's true with private insurance as well as anything UBI can fix up.
For the second, this is a problem with our society that can be resolved by changing our economic system. We value wealth in this country because its correlated with success. The answer is to change our society to value comradery through cooperation. Changing property laws and creating more collective institutions and localizing populations is a start.
Anyways isn't this all on the end of the user? In india its implied government corruption leads to a lack of funds, not that people are too afraid/don't know how to use it.
The supply chain stuff is nonsense, yes its brought us excessive wealth but its also overpowered private capital and made it so that all laborers are under control of the 'market'.
Decentralizing the market and fracturing the supply chain will lead to less wealth, but it will promote individual liberty and cooperation since people will need to pool together capital for larger projects.
As to who controls it? That's a circular question. The Markets control the Markets. That's the problem. Its one pool of liquidity that is affect by all the decision of large owners of capital. Everything affects everything.
You're bit on the roaring 20s seems to reinforce my point; trust in institutions is a bad thing. UBI based off of your sources makes economic conformity easier, just like in the 1920s.
Greenback was a fiat currency.
As for the last post, Yang cares about how they use our data, he doesn't care about big tech owning the platforms we use and distributing the output. He wants to change corporate responsibilities, not their power.
Quote:
For the first paragraph, and maybe I misunderstood, but wouldn't all manipulation by private hospitals towards insurance be at risk? If you have insurance, they're going to try to get you to pay more, that's true with private insurance as well as anything UBI can fix up.
True on the manipulation, but in private insurance people get upset with the insurance company. In welfare subsidies no one gets upset with the medical personnel, they get upset with the people on the program.
Quote:
For the second, this is a problem with our society that can be resolved by changing our economic system. We value wealth in this country because its correlated with success. The answer is to change our society to value comradery through cooperation. Changing property laws and creating more collective institutions and localizing populations is a start.
"We have to rewrite the rules of the 21st century, where they work for us." ~ Andrew Yang ~
Quote:
Anyways isn't this all on the end of the user? In india its implied government corruption leads to a lack of funds, not that people are too afraid/don't know how to use it.
Was I talking about India?
Quote:
The supply chain stuff is nonsense, yes its brought us excessive wealth but its also overpowered private capital and made it so that all laborers are under control of the 'market'.
I'm not sure it is possible for one to get their goods to market without a supply chain.
From my link:
"Supply chains play two critical functions:
First, they enable the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers.
Second, they facilitate the transfer of information about the movement of goods and services between every entity that is part of the supply chain network."
Quote:
Decentralizing the market and fracturing the supply chain will lead to less wealth, but it will promote individual liberty and cooperation since people will need to pool together capital for larger projects.
Then you have automation making it easier to get those goods through the supply chain with out a person over seeing it each step of the way ...
"Andrew Yang: ... capitalism is not designed to optimize our well-being. It’s designed to optimize for capital efficiency. And so if technology comes along that can do work cheaper and better than we can, then capitalism loves it.
<snip>
Andrew Yang: As you suggested, I’m a capitalist. I’m a fan, you know? There’s nothing more powerful than markets at optimizing where we put resources, and that includes people as well as capital. At the same time, you’re going to see these global capital flows also change as advanced technology comes on online. And you’re seeing not just the mechanization of American work but you’re now starting to see it applied in other parts of the world. So this is an American problem but it’s also a global problem. It’s a human problem.
Quote:
You're bit on the roaring 20s seems to reinforce my point; trust in institutions is a bad thing. UBI based off of your sources makes economic conformity easier, just like in the 1920s.
Before the Great Depression people trusted their government and production was great. Seeing one of the effects of the pilot UBI in Finland was a restoration in government trust ... We're Americans not Finlanders, we are producers/builders ... one of the reasons we don't trust our government is they never really help and they are not that great at solving problems. Creating them, yes ... maybe UBI is the catalyst to take us to the same production rates of the roaring 20s. [that of course is speculation]
Quote:
Greenback was a fiat currency.
What does that have to do with the price of beans in China?
Quote:
As for the last post, Yang cares about how they use our data, he doesn't care about big tech owning the platforms we use and distributing the output. He wants to change corporate responsibilities, not their power.
You're right. He just wants them held accountable.
True on the manipulation, but in private insurance people get upset with the insurance company. In welfare subsidies no one gets upset with the medical personnel, they get upset with the people on the program.
"We have to rewrite the rules of the 21st century, where they work for us." ~ Andrew Yang ~
Was I talking about India?
I'm not sure it is possible for one to get their goods to market without a supply chain.
From my link:
"Supply chains play two critical functions:
First, they enable the flow of goods and services from producers to consumers.
Second, they facilitate the transfer of information about the movement of goods and services between every entity that is part of the supply chain network."
Then you have automation making it easier to get those goods through the supply chain with out a person over seeing it each step of the way ...
"Andrew Yang: ... capitalism is not designed to optimize our well-being. It’s designed to optimize for capital efficiency. And so if technology comes along that can do work cheaper and better than we can, then capitalism loves it.
<snip>
Andrew Yang: As you suggested, I’m a capitalist. I’m a fan, you know? There’s nothing more powerful than markets at optimizing where we put resources, and that includes people as well as capital. At the same time, you’re going to see these global capital flows also change as advanced technology comes on online. And you’re seeing not just the mechanization of American work but you’re now starting to see it applied in other parts of the world. So this is an American problem but it’s also a global problem. It’s a human problem.
Before the Great Depression people trusted their government and production was great. Seeing one of the effects of the pilot UBI in Finland was a restoration in government trust ... We're Americans not Finlanders, we are producers/builders ... one of the reasons we don't trust our government is they never really help and they are not that great at solving problems. Creating them, yes ... maybe UBI is the catalyst to take us to the same production rates of the roaring 20s. [that of course is speculation]
What does that have to do with the price of beans in China?
You're right. He just wants them held accountable.
1. I think the answer would be to fix hospital management/monopoly; insurance is only half the problem. And UBI doesn't offer to afford insurance so its no replacement for a medicare plan.
2. We were talking about India's UBI program, and how its success has no bearing on UBI in the United States
3. Supply chains are what make a global economy. Actually Supply chains in a general term have existed even during the Feudal period; trade created tiers products have to go through until they reached their completed forms.
I'm not against the conception of supply chains, just the massive global ones that are dominated by large capital. Fracturing supply chains means decentralizing them and giving local producers a larger market of their domestic population; it would also allow for more subsistence labor even though the market considers that 'inefficient'.
Automation is irrelevant to the scale of production and cross border trade. Think of it this way, the reason trucking jobs have a shortage of labor isn't because middle america has a tradition of truck drivers, but because the market determines that labor is the only profitable one. And those people need wages to pay off the credit/loan system and property taxes.
In fact Yang is incorrect about his fears of automation; not only are they not happening at the rate he predicts, the shortage in trucking workers leads to (as of now) more opportunity. People want to stay and live with their families, not drive 24 hours cross country.
What we need to change is a.) large capital that creates a unified market were all jobs across the country are decided by spreadsheets in executive boards. b.) Change the consumer first economy; instead of consumption deciding labor, let individual communities build stable socially important work that drive consumption. It will have the added affect of combating excessive materialism and marketing propaganda.
4. All your sources have pointed to are Finland and India. The second you have (i think) conceded is a different situation than America, and now you're saying Finland is also fundamentally different from America. In that case neither are good arguments for UBI here.
5. The prices of goods are relative to stable currencies. Fiat currencies have stability whereas block-chain has no centralized backing which means it fluctuates based on usage. If that was an actual monetary system used inflation will explode at random and stored wealth will disappear in a day. Its not a viable option as an alternate money and therefore can't decentralized wealth; all its used for is as an investment opportunity like the stock market.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
1. I think the answer would be to fix hospital management/monopoly; insurance is only half the problem. And UBI doesn't offer to afford insurance so its no replacement for a medicare plan.
2. We were talking about India's UBI program, and how its success has no bearing on UBI in the United States
3. Supply chains are what make a global economy. Actually Supply chains in a general term have existed even during the Feudal period; trade created tiers products have to go through until they reached their completed forms.
I'm not against the conception of supply chains, just the massive global ones that are dominated by large capital. Fracturing supply chains means decentralizing them and giving local producers a larger market of their domestic population; it would also allow for more subsistence labor even though the market considers that 'inefficient'.
Automation is irrelevant to the scale of production and cross border trade. Think of it this way, the reason trucking jobs have a shortage of labor isn't because middle america has a tradition of truck drivers, but because the market determines that labor is the only profitable one. And those people need wages to pay off the credit/loan system and property taxes.
In fact Yang is incorrect about his fears of automation; not only are they not happening at the rate he predicts, the shortage in trucking workers leads to (as of now) more opportunity. People want to stay and live with their families, not drive 24 hours cross country.
What we need to change is a.) large capital that creates a unified market were all jobs across the country are decided by spreadsheets in executive boards. b.) Change the consumer first economy; instead of consumption deciding labor, let individual communities build stable socially important work that drive consumption. It will have the added affect of combating excessive materialism and marketing propaganda.
4. All your sources have pointed to are Finland and India. The second you have (i think) conceded is a different situation than America, and now you're saying Finland is also fundamentally different from America. In that case neither are good arguments for UBI here.
5. The prices of goods are relative to stable currencies. Fiat currencies have stability whereas block-chain has no centralized backing which means it fluctuates based on usage. If that was an actual monetary system used inflation will explode at random and stored wealth will disappear in a day. Its not a viable option as an alternate money and therefore can't decentralized wealth; all its used for is as an investment opportunity like the stock market.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 27 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winterfall8324
Thank You, I'm glad we see eye to eye.
I didn't mean to give to you that impression.
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.
