Topic: Should Andrew Yang Give Everyone Unlimited Money? (Read 329 times)

The FED doesn't create money. They get the people to do it. All bank loans are not loans at all. They are creations of new money.

Quantum Easing isn't the FED creating new money. Rather, it is the FED allowing someone in Government to get a big, fat Government loan for Government.

My post about "giving" was in response to this one.  Sorry I did not use the quote box.  It was the post directly above mine.

It was basically a claim that people cannot just sit idle and be happy.  We obtain happiness by making ourselves useful, being needed, and producing things. 

So If I tell everyone they have to not give in order to be happy that you will actually give more?

The whole monetary concept is really dumb if you break it down and if there was an advanced alien civilization they wouldn't waste time on such stupid matters.  Point blank, the earth has more than enough resources for everyone we just have not been able to structure a capable system yet.

There are countless thousands of times I have NOT GIVEN in order to further my own happiness.

There are a few times if have given to further my own happiness.

One sort of time I never give is when someone is telling everyone they have to give to be truly happy.

Humans are generally very giving, we evolved in communities and we had to be generous and kind to others.  But now is a completely different ball game, the people in power have amassed vast amounts of wealth when they would of been the type to have been outcasts from their tribes.

Of course, unlimited access to the resource of currencies gives people tremendous freedom. But where is the guarantee that this way does not destroy the balance of the world currencies?

What if the successful chance of teaching one to fish is only 15%?
Let the rest 85% die of starvation?


Well I do think that the so-called UBI doesn't solve the problem in the end either. But I think it can at least buy sometime for the true solution before most poor turn to some other kind of socialism.

An anarcho-capitalist surely could understand state interventions are always bad, but how could you persuade others who have the right to vote?

The vast majority of people need to give in order to be truly happy.  The rare disabled/ill/elderly person who doesn't want to give anything isn't going to disrupt the entire system or radically change human nature.  You clearly have never lived in a commune. 

If we go far enough with the free money thing, it will simply turn into giving. Everybody gives of his time and talent and labor to everybody else... pure socialism. Then some of the people will decide they can get away without giving. And others who have loving hearts will give extra out of love. Next thing you know, we will be back to slaves and masters just like we have today.

People thought about having something as medium of exchange will ease the pain for traders but after the centuries bank created coloured paper and said us this can be used to buy anything but the sad truth is we trusted their words and running behind those paper.

I think giving everyone food water and shelter, and making back ups is the right play for en$laving us for the past 50 years.
Let`s just rid money altogether we will have to in the future anyways if we want to explore solar systems not of our own. We will need to calculate how much gold and other metals we have as a species to become a multi planetary species, it won`t work if the rich can just buy all the precious metals up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQQYbKT_rMg


https://twitter.com/ThugLifeBlazer/status/1162081741026320387  This is the truth here in Canada.

You basically described Trumps strategy throughout his 2016 campaign.

This is the net result of your "brilliant" idea:

Everyone becomes poor, VERY poor.

Unlimited is garbage, you still don't get it and keep repeating it like a parrot. Why, don't you come and live here so you can understand the results of "unlimited"?

The only salvageable phrase from you is this: Anyone in the FED cannot create any money.

Oh and remember about giving homes to the homeless? Guess what would happen if you give $1000 to each American... Think: they won't invest it, at least not the vast majority, especially the impoverished...

So I'll say it to you again until it enters your brain (if that doesn't work, do come and live here):

Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.

---

I agree with you here, incidentally the very same thing was proposed here, sadly with little support. This is the next best after just don't give anything to anyone AND eliminate all the programs. But if you insist in having the State spending money "for the poor" (ahem), then at least this does remove part of the corruption and bureaucracy. You see, in "theory" all the money goes to the "poor", but in reality... only a fraction makes it, and depending on country, that fraction can only be smaller (ie. less or more corrupt). It never works like socialists dream, the humans tasked to "redistribute" the wealth redistribute it a bit too much towards themselves, always... Or do a very poor job, benefiting their friends and family first, their city, party, whatever, leaving somebody behind. This is a human condition and cannot be fixed.

Why i don't believe in UBI? It doesn't level the playing field, it doesn't give people a "second chance". Those that desperately need it will spend it right away. Does that don't, will actually invest it and hopefully become richer, so at the end of the day, you did nothing. You fed a few poor for some days, and helped the rich become richer. This is very similar to inflation.

State intervention usually makes things worse, not better. Again theory and reality are worlds apart. Get a good economy running and everyone can fed by themselves. Deflation is part of the solution, read Mises and the Austrian economists for the answer.

(Well fed) socialists always have well intentions (well most always), but alas the humans don't behave as they should... "Because the system made them so", but the "New Man" proposed by Che Guevara never comes.

Eh. No.

Was more or less just trying to get the point across that this is very similar to someone like Ross Perot -- who had amazing ideas for his time, but never was able to put them to the test due to himself dropping out of the election and then getting back in late.

The reasoning behind this is due to the fact that Ross never wanted his ideas to be put the test, most likely like Yang doesn't want his to be.

Just same as how Modi said he will gove 15,00,000 rupees to each citizen on his country but still yet nothing happened after second time he become prime Minister of India.

I agree with you.  But was this an intentionally ironic sentence? lol

Doesn't sound too bad though I would want to see the elimination of all plans if this were the case, as that's the best way to fiscially go about things. I think the best way to go about medicare/mediciaid would be to up payments if someone is seriously ill or something along those lines.

Well -- the beauty of being Yang is two things.

1. He's never going to be able to win anyway, so his ideas don't really need to be put up to the test.

2. Even if he does win, none of this is going to happen. Federal, state, and local workers aren't just going to willfully lose their jobs in order to allow for a program like this to be setup. Nor is the Republican (and some parts of the Dems) be happy with this plan as well. So yeah.

He has the best of both worlds, as he can say whatever he wants and his ideas will never truly be put the test. So when he losses, he can continue to blame others because his ideas were never given a chance.

Yangs plan is to have stuff like food stamps and other welfare programs count against your $1k a month.

So if you collect $300/month in food stamps, you get $700 instead of $1k.  And if you are collecting more than $1k/month then you are not eligible for the UBI.

I don't know about medicare/medicaid though.  I don't think you can just get rid of it.  $1k/month won't be much good if you need a $35k operation to live.

It seems like his plan would be to eventually have them all phased out (other than the health stuff), but realistically that would probably take more than a single term, or even two.

One question I would like to see asked of him is what he thinks will happen if he gets elected but the Republicans maintain hold of the Senate?  Something tells me Mitch won't be very cooperative.

I think some Yang's supporters pointed out before that UBI and some welfares are not compatible.One should do an 1of2 choice.

We've had tons and tons of threads about why UBI could be vital. But the one thing that I and Theymos have said is that if you want something like UBI to flourish, and to not be a burden on the taxpayers -- YOU NEED TO REMOVE EVERY OTHER SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAM.

Everything. Medicare, Medicaid, Food stamps, housing benefits, ETC. Everything from the federal level all the way down to the local level.

If you're going to be spending this amount of money, in the ballpark of $12,000 per year per person in the US (obvious restrictions of within a certain income, and then cost of living increases and decreases)

This system can work, but everyone has to be onboard for it. As it would eliminate a large amount of government jobs that are unnecessary (think of all the people handling SS payments, medicare, housing, food stamps, etc) and replace it with a simple system with a much smaller amount of employees.