2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Trump vs. ?

Who is the best choice for President of the United States in 2020?


  • Total voters
    1,079

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
Before it is too late. I watched Yang, Tulsi and Bernie on Seth Rogan couple of weeks ago.
This is my impression:
Yang - He'd probably be a cool guy to talk to, but he lives in a bubble. The problem with the Universal Basic Income is that it assumes that everyone will spend their new money the same way as a wealthy asian family would, rather than buying drugs or gamble it away.
Tulsi - She went off a rant against the Military Industrial Complex that is a lesser evil compared to other, larger mega corporations that have too much control in the government and treat their employees/customers like shit. Still the most professional sounding of the three.
Bernie - The guy has absolutely no idea how the economy works. It is genuinely a terrifying idea giving him the position to have any effect on it. The worse thing is that Bernie acts like small businesses do not exist, only giant corporations (and even those are the easy boogiman variety, he won't mention media mega corporations).
 

MaoBigDong

Pamela Swain Gave Me Ass Cancer
kiwifarms.net
The dems don't give a shit about Tulsi. They've branded her as a traitor of the highest degree for voting Present on the articles of impeachment.

Also, if you've got some links showing these idiots tearing each other apart, I could use a good laugh.
God I nearly forgot about the “present” debacle, what a troll on the dems lmfao. Didn’t manage to get many good screenies from last night so I suppose you’ll just have to trust me unfortunately, but this was trending last night in the top 5...
9FA8DC50-2C75-45C2-AEAD-2C2616B76D2A.jpeg


As if Trump hasn’t been saying the fake news shit for years. They all knew it but didn’t want to believe it because they were bashing Trump instead of coming at Bern for a rumor that he said a woman can’t win the presidency. Now that dems can see the clear bias they’re coming out in folds to inadvertently support Trump. The cognitive dissonance is fucking astounding. I’ve seen quite a few Trumpers come out and say this to them but I haven’t seen any legitimate responses yet.
 

spiritofamermaid

#savebensolo #fucksw9 #bendemption #reylo
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
I think the reason the Farms seems right-leaning on a cursory glance is because of how bat-shit insane the left has gotten over the years. I've seen plenty of users openly identifying as left-wing or liberal, yet still take part in bashing the current state of the left. It might also be because it goes against the grain of hyper political correctness that has infested all forms of media as of late. There exist threads on here mocking Nazis and other right-wing 'tards, but they don't see as much activity as the ones mocking left-wing 'tards. Why? Because what are we supposed to say? "Wow, Nazis sure are bad people." Wow! What a revolutionary thought! No one's ever made that observation before!

I will agree that this place has been far more mature and less circle-jerky than most other places to discuss politics, though. You're right on the money there.
In fact, you could probably say that if the Farms were around during the Moral Majority days, with those people having the same online presence as the lunatic left (which might be another strike against having more right-wing lolcows) you'd see the same activity in their threads. After all, even though it was before my time the Manosphere was apparently a very popular thing.

Which is weird, since she was one of the first politicians to come out saying IMPEACH after Trump was elected (it's in the TDS thread, when I get back from work I'll update this with the post link).
 

StarkRavingMad

kiwifarms.net
Before it is too late. I watched Yang, Tulsi and Bernie on Seth Rogan couple of weeks ago.
This is my impression:
Yang - He'd probably be a cool guy to talk to, but he lives in a bubble. The problem with the Universal Basic Income is that it assumes that everyone will spend their new money the same way as a wealthy asian family would, rather than buying drugs or gamble it away.
Tulsi - She went off a rant against the Military Industrial Complex that is a lesser evil compared to other, larger mega corporations that have too much control in the government and treat their employees/customers like shit. Still the most professional sounding of the three.
Bernie - The guy has absolutely no idea how the economy works. It is genuinely a terrifying idea giving him the position to have any effect on it. The worse thing is that Bernie acts like small businesses do not exist, only giant corporations (and even those are the easy boogiman variety, he won't mention media mega corporations).
I don't like Yang or Gabbard's stances/opinions/plans on a lot of things ... But I find them to be the most reasonable of the Democrat candidates by far. Yang actually made a great point a handful of months ago about student loan debt. He said that it's amazing how no politicians are placing any sort of responsibility on the universities themselves and that they should do their fair share in fixing the problem ... To which I say "Thank you! Somebody finally said it!" In my opinion, that's probably THE best point that any of the Democrat candidates have made in this entire election cycle thus far.

Bernie's economic proposals are downright frightening. And his international/defense proposals are just as frightening. If Bernie were able to successfully implement what he wanted to, we'd go broke before his term was up. The trajectory would be so alarmingly fast, and that's because nobody around the world would be footing any sort of bill for us. Europe's trajectory has been a slower one, as the U.S. has been footing some of the bills for them, let's be real. If we were to implement full-on socialism, we'd fall hard fast.
 

Judge Holden

Corpsefucker
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
In fact, you could probably say that if the Farms were around during the Moral Majority days, with those people having the same online presence as the lunatic left (which might be another strike against having more right-wing lolcows) you'd see the same activity in their threads. After all, even though it was before my time the Manosphere was apparently a very popular thing.
Yeah, my shitposting evolution started with spectating and occasionally engaging in autistic I HAVE AUTISM PLEASE LAUGH AT ME antics in the great internet backlash of 2005-2009 against the fundies, from creationists to unironic jesusland specimens and a whole gamut of hard right tradcons who were busy trying to impose their disingenuous dogma upon everyone else or just generally being obnoxious assholes.

This was the era* of the Westboro Baptist Church, VenomFangX, Ted Haggard and a bunch other christfags who got exposed as homos or sickfucks, and every other shade of shitbag scumsucking asshole hiding behind an ideology to justify their despicable words and actions. Heck if you look at the early trolling of chris chan you will notice a lot of people being unironically critical of his racism and homophobia instead of cackling it up like they would today.

Hell if you look at early kiwifarms, you will notice the general spirit of anti dumbass-right pervades a hell of a lot of threads in a way that just aint seen today, because back in 2013 none of us could have guessed how the dumb and hateful shit we were seeing from the right would become utterly eclipsed by the rapidly growing SJW/corporate woke schtick.

* Incidentally, even back then actual neo nazis were mostly ignored and regarded as absolutely pathetic jokes with zero chance of success by everyone, which is why if you look at old footage of neo nazi rallies from this era you will notice its just them and a handful of bored/high students laughing and calling them names from the sidelines. Funny how things change when the narrative requires an big scary boogieman to flail at
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
I don't like Yang or Gabbard's stances/opinions/plans on a lot of things ... But I find them to be the most reasonable of the Democrat candidates by far. Yang actually made a great point a handful of months ago about student loan debt. He said that it's amazing how no politicians are placing any sort of responsibility on the universities themselves and that they should do their fair share in fixing the problem ... To which I say "Thank you! Somebody finally said it!" In my opinion, that's probably THE best point that any of the Democrat candidates have made in this entire election cycle thus far.

Bernie's economic proposals are downright frightening. And his international/defense proposals are just as frightening. If Bernie were able to successfully implement what he wanted to, we'd go broke before his term was up. The trajectory would be so alarmingly fast, and that's because nobody around the world would be footing any sort of bill for us. Europe's trajectory has been a slower one, as the U.S. has been footing some of the bills for them, let's be real. If we were to implement full-on socialism, we'd fall hard fast.
While the universities are undoubtably at fault for pushing prices up, they did it because there were people stupid enough to go into debt for shitty degrees. Anyways, I doubt the universities have a real way of solving the crisis outside of massive lay offs to reduce operating prices for students currently studying (and nothing for those who already finished), which will probably piss off lefties. In the end the people who need to handle the debt are the students and the only thing the government should do is make sure the banks aren't creating a new bubble (or more likely, trying to reduce the explosion when the bubble will inevitably burst).

A major problem with stuff like Bernie's universal healthcare is that it is based on the european model. Except the europeans had, until recent years, very productive, healthy and work efficent society that had a sane amount of kids. This is the only real situation socialist policies work without a massive debt. While the USA has no shortage of people that are completely unproductive and/or deathfats and/or useless workers and/or have too many kids.
 

heyitsmike

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
kiwifarms.net
I don't like Yang or Gabbard's stances/opinions/plans on a lot of things ... But I find them to be the most reasonable of the Democrat candidates by far. Yang actually made a great point a handful of months ago about student loan debt. He said that it's amazing how no politicians are placing any sort of responsibility on the universities themselves and that they should do their fair share in fixing the problem ... To which I say "Thank you! Somebody finally said it!" In my opinion, that's probably THE best point that any of the Democrat candidates have made in this entire election cycle thus far.
Anyways, I doubt the universities have a real way of solving the crisis outside of massive lay offs to reduce operating prices for students
The way the universities should have to deal with it is through their endowments. The money went to the universities. So it makes no sense to shake down taxpayers for it. Shake down the universities, that's where the money is. While they're not supposed to touch the principal, that restriction doesn't bind other parties, including the state from seizing it.

Tulsi, while crazy policy wise, did seem semi sane and not an American hater. But when she came out with her dumb take that we are to blame for Iran shooting down a plane leaving from their own capital, I was like, 'Nope, she's just as crazy.'

Yang did make another good point recently re Biden and the learn to code gaffe. He said generally the only people saying miners should learn to code are neither miners nor coders.
 

wtfNeedSignUp

kiwifarms.net
The way the universities should have to deal with it is through their endowments. The money went to the universities. So it makes no sense to shake down taxpayers for it. Shake down the universities, that's where the money is. While they're not supposed to touch the principal, that restriction doesn't bind other parties, including the state from seizing it.

Yang did make another good point recently re Biden and the learn to code gaffe. He said generally the only people saying miners should learn to code are neither miners nor coders.
I doubt a lot of universities keep a sizable part of their income to the point it can put a dent in the debt (also there's the question of how should they spread the payment for it). It is far likelier the various parties there pocketed the extra money and the rest was spent on diversity hires and useless projects.

I'll add to Yang's saying that not an insignificant amount of people that learned to code still don't know how to code well.
 

MaoBigDong

Pamela Swain Gave Me Ass Cancer
kiwifarms.net
The way the universities should have to deal with it is through their endowments. The money went to the universities.

Yang did make another good point recently re Biden and the learn to code gaffe. He said generally the only people saying miners should learn to code are neither miners nor coders.
Yang is actually the smartest out of all the dems on the university issue, IMO. He argues that we shouldn’t make college free but force them to cut back their costs by eliminating admin jobs and if they don’t like it - cut back gov funding. Dude’s also a serious proponent for trade school and entrepreneurship, arguing that his UBI policy (whether you like the idea in general or not) would give people the opportunity to pay for starting a business or learning a trade. I believe he gets into it a bit heavier in the 2nd H3 podcast that he did (don’t get me started on Ethan, though, lmfao). You can tell he’s really done the research on this stuff by the numbers he pulls up about underemployment and dropout rates.

Klobuchar was arguing the same last night in her “we’re going to have a shortage of plumbers” line, so it looks like some of these ideas might be trickling up into the more “mainstream” politicians. I hope Bern wakes up and gets the picture, because I agree his policies would be disastrous for our current economy, and his followers lap his shit up as if it’s genius. If even dumbass moderates like Biden and Booty Judge are starting to be concerned about this but Bern isn’t, you know there’s a problem with his line of thinking (as if there wasn’t anyway).
 

Syaoran Li

Beware The Walkin' Dude
kiwifarms.net
My biggest problem with Yang is his staunch anti-gun policies and I'm also a bit skeptical of UBI, especially on a national scale.

Other than his anti-2A stances, I actually think Yang is pretty decent and is my second favorite of the Democrats after Tulsi Gabbard. Honestly, Tulsi is the only Democrat in the 2020 race that I'd definitely vote for instead of Trump, although I wouldn't mind backing Yang if he were to scale back some of the gun control rhetoric.

However, the DNC and the Bernie crowd are both doing everything in their power to lock both of them out of the race, so I think we'll have to wait until 2024 before they can make a serious bid for the presidency. A second term of Trump will be the kick in the balls that the Democrats need and in 2024, everyone will be on an even playing field if Trump wins 2020.

Elections usually favor the incumbent, especially at the federal level. The last time we had a one-term president was Bush Sr., and he was basically a third term of Reagan in all but name. The last time we had a one-term president that wasn't just continuing the policies and doctrines of his predecessor was Jimmy Carter.
 

MaoBigDong

Pamela Swain Gave Me Ass Cancer
kiwifarms.net
My biggest problem with Yang is his staunch anti-gun policies and I'm also a bit skeptical of UBI, especially on a national scale.

Other than his anti-2A stances, I actually think Yang is pretty decent and is my second favorite of the Democrats after Tulsi Gabbard. Honestly, Tulsi is the only Democrat in the 2020 race that I'd definitely vote for instead of Trump, although I wouldn't mind backing Yang if he were to scale back some of the gun control rhetoric.
I actually have to say I agree with this, but at the same time I find it hard to find a candidate that is pro 2A in the dems at all. This is one of the few issues that the dems need to smarten up on. I’m actually apathetic to the automatic weapon ban, and think that there should be safety training in place whether in the form of bringing back shooting classes in schools or allowing people to opt in to free safety training after buying, but the almost authoritarian licensing system that they seemingly all want to implement completely defeats the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It’s sad to see someone who wants to solve the problems of gun violence such as mental illness and drug abuse get it so wrong on this part of the issue.
 

Harvey Danger

getting tired of this whole internet thing
kiwifarms.net
While the universities are undoubtably at fault for pushing prices up, they did it because there were people stupid enough to go into debt for shitty degrees. Anyways, I doubt the universities have a real way of solving the crisis outside of massive lay offs to reduce operating prices for students currently studying (and nothing for those who already finished), which will probably piss off lefties. In the end the people who need to handle the debt are the students and the only thing the government should do is make sure the banks aren't creating a new bubble (or more likely, trying to reduce the explosion when the bubble will inevitably burst).
Depends on what problem you're trying to solve.

Current stock of student debt: not much universities can do, except maybe get sued and pay out. But, to be very blunt, there is no reason current student debt holders should have their obligations forgiven. They have no excuse.

Future student debt: force universities to be the direct lender for 75-90% of their students' loan packages. If they think their degrees are so valuable it makes for guaranteed payback, force them to pledge their own money to that gamble. No selling the loans afterwards, or doing CDS-like financialization.

Rising tuition costs: brutally slash the number of majors offered at universities. Look at the degrees which have the highest default rate, or lowest salaries post-graduation, and end those majors. Then cut the departments responsible for them.

(The real cost savings are going to come from not growing the class sizes, and avoiding new buildings. But that's hard to regulate.)

Of course none of the above really matters to the Democrats on stage, because they are 100% invested in treating education as a human right, as a social welfare policy, and as a tool for indoctrination.

The second you suggest we restrict the number of degrees that can be given out, they will howl about how education is the primary way for "marginalized people" to better their lives. And they didn't spend 60 years conquering academia just to let future generations slip by without getting 4+ years of leftist ideology crammed down their throats.
 

MrJokerRager

I like me some nice big boobs
kiwifarms.net


A subterranean, subliminal rumble is building across America, although large populations in the West and Northeast seem deaf to it. At first blush, American politics might seem polarized, breaking neatly along left and right political fault lines. But even a cursory look at the 2020 presidential race presents a very different picture. Eighty percent of the American public is fed up and prefers candidates who are well outside the traditional political ruling class, be it left or right.

I thought it odd in 2016 when not a few Americans voiced the view that their first choice for president was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) — but their second choice might be Donald Trump. After three years of President Trump, it’s becoming clear: Americans are solidly rejecting the ruling class, be it the Northeast liberal “establishment,” the mainstream media, or the Hollywood elite. And Trump, Sanders and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), leaders of the not-traditional-ruling-class show, represent 80 percent of the voters.

Ricky Gervais, this year’s Golden Globes host, caused gasps after calling out Hollywood hypocrisy, including flying in on their private jets in order to bemoan climate change. He said in response to the visibly annoyed audience, “I don't care, l really don’t care.” Most of America got the joke, but Hollywood missed it.

Trump, Warren, Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) could have not said it better. They are all cut from the same political cloth. They are all outsiders. They all ignore the admonitions of the cultural and political elite, and they command 80 percent of the public vote. Trump and Sanders are the most interesting of the lot.

Sanders has put forward a $50 trillion plan for “social justice.” It simply doesn’t matter to his fans that his ideas would push most Americans above a 50 percent tax rate (his programs would consume over 50 percent of all U.S. gross national product and many companies would be failing under his massive corporate taxes — that means huge new taxes for everyone else). It simply doesn’t matter to his fans that his tax plan would lead to capital flight at a level that would crater the U.S. economy within a couple of years, leading to massive unemployment, social unrest, skyrocketing food and consumer goods prices, and extreme hardship for the poor.

Nor does it matter to his fans that “Medicare for All” would so fully over-extend the American health care system that it would be “Medicare for none.” It doesn't matter to his fans that no Congress would pass his policies. And, if one did, it doesn’t matter to his fans that Sanders would not live long enough to put the police state in place needed to contain the social uprising his programs would cause. It doesn’t matter because Sanders is not speaking to the poor that he pretends to represent; he is speaking to the relatively comfortable young and ambitious, who are seeking to enter an increasingly complex world and looking for enough anarchy to create an opening for new opportunities while feeling they’re doing good at the same time. Neither he nor they care that the cultural elite is telling them none of this will work.

Trump doesn’t care, either. In a spasm of marketing genius, he created the MAGA cap, knowing full well that it would be a political lightning rod, just like his tweets, and be widely ridiculed and attacked by the political and cultural elite. That is the point, because nothing puts a stronger spotlight on the intolerance and corruption of the establishment left than the American media encouraging and cheering on public shaming and outright violence against anyone daring to support Trump or wear a cap seeking a return to American greatness.

Even though the economy has been booming, unemployment is at record lows, wages are rising, there are strong new trade agreements, U.S. and NATO defense forces are much stronger, our enemies appear more off-balance and less ready to seriously challenge us, the media and establishment left still insist upon ridicule and public flogging of those who support those clear signs of progress.

A large portion of the country sees that and is appalled. And revulsion toward the establishment left is why the failed “investigation” by former special counsel Robert Mueller became a political fiasco, why the Trump “impeachment” is becoming a political fiasco, and why the media and political uproar over killing the most dangerous terrorist in the world, Iranian General Qassem Soleimani, is a fiasco. The votes on Trump’s Iran policy came in on Jan. 8, the day after the media were busy stirring up threats of war with Iran, a national draft and violations of law by the president. The stock market shot up 200 points. Investors didn’t care what the media and establishment politicians were spewing; they really didn’t care.

The bottom line is that this is the year of the political outsider. Someone in diametric opposition to the political and cultural elite will be the next president. The B-hive of former vice president Joe Biden, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, and former South Bend, Ind., mayor Pete Buttigieg thinks the sweet spot is closer to the middle, but that is a miscalculation. Each of them will simply come across as “Establishment Hillary-light,” and Trump, governing as an effective moderate, already controls a lot of the middle.

In November, the nation is probably going to say: “I don’t care what the media and cultural elite think,” and quietly elect one of the deplorable outsiders.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In the lead-up to the Iowa caucuses, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is arguing that he is the Democratic candidate most likely to beat President Trump. He has touted his electability in speeches and interviews and on social media, and his campaign has said it welcomes a debate on electability.

We should have that debate, because the fact is that the United States has never elected anyone as president who is as far left as Sanders. The only modern Democratic nominees approaching Sanders’s ideological views were former vice president Walter Mondale in 1984 and then-Sen. George McGovern in 1972. Together, they won a scant 30 electoral college votes and lost the popular vote by a combined 35 million votes. Mondale’s wipe-out was the biggest electoral college loss in U.S. history.

For those who say these landslide races were ages ago, and that Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan, fair enough. How about December 2019? That is when Sanders clone Jeremy Corbyn got routed by Trump clone Boris Johnson in the British parliamentary elections, sending the Labour Party to what some said was its worst defeat in more than 80 years. Corbyn, who Sanders predicted would lead his party to a resounding victory and “should be a lesson for the Democratic Party,” tanked. He “literally repelled voters,” former Labour MP David Milliband wrote after the debacle.

For Sanders to have a chance of winning, let alone proving to be the most electable as he claims, Americans would suddenly have to become comfortable with socialism. That would be quite a change, since, as of three months ago, socialism was viewed negatively in the United States by a 13-percentage-point margin (55 percent negative, 42 percent positive), according to the Pew Research Center.

Sanders’s team says that no matter who is nominated, Republicans will smear that Democrat with the “socialism” label. That’s whistling past the graveyard. Democrats have easily batted this spurious charge aside, because they ran on a mainstream progressive agenda. Sanders won’t and can’t. He has embraced the socialist label his entire political life, and his agenda, as he likes to point out, is far beyond anything Democrats have proposed on the national stage.

The centerpiece of that agenda is Medicare-for-all, a politically toxic proposal that represents the only way Democrats could fumble away their health-care advantage over Trump. Democrats’ pledge to preserve and expand on President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act was a decisive factor in flipping the House from red to blue in 2018. Sanders would do the opposite, ditching Obamacare in favor of his single-payer, government-run proposal. This plan has steadily lost popularity over the past year and fares particularly poorly in the make-or-break “Blue Wall” states.

Electability matters down the ballot as well. If Sanders is the nominee, he will face the spectacle of Democrats in swing states and districts running from his agenda, not toward it. To date, Sanders does not have a single endorsement from a lawmaker on the Democrats’ Frontline list — the House Democrats facing tough races, many in districts Trump won in 2016. That is not an accident.

The Sanders agenda won’t sell there, and elected Democrats running for their political lives in these critical states and districts will sprint from a set of plans that costs between $60 trillion (the cautious estimate) and $97 trillion (the estimate Republicans will use) over the next decade. These Democrats will balk at an agenda that doubles the size of government. They will say no to the middle-class tax increases already being proposed by Sanders and the massive deficits he could create because his tax plans cover only a sliver of his costs.

In 2017, Sanders wrote in the New York Times that, to win in 2018, Democrats should run on an agenda that was unapologetically far to the left. Led by then-Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), they did exactly the opposite. When the dust settled on Democrats’ landslide victory, Sanders’s political organization could not claim a single flipped seat in the House, while the moderate New Democrat Coalition claimed 31 of the net 40 red-to-blue wins.

Sanders is truly an authentic politician. That helps explain why some early national polls show him competitive in a head-to-head race against Trump. But at about this time in 1984, a Gallup poll had Mondale in a dead heat with Ronald Reagan. Eleven months later, after Mondale’s agenda was fully litigated, Reagan won 59 percent to 41 percent.

Let’s be clear: Sanders is not only far less electable against Trump than is Joe Biden, but he’s also less electable than Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), former mayors Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg, and just about anyone else who qualifies for a debate stage or is registering in national polls. Of course, loyal Democrats, including us, would absolutely vote for Sanders against Trump. But the Sanders agenda won’t stand up to scrutiny for a lot of people who are open to ousting him. That’s the definition of unelectable.
 

ditto

I need love as much as I need salt
kiwifarms.net
Bernie's economic proposals are going to be a really hard sell to the people who have benefitted from Trump's Presidency so far.
Good times can also breeding complacency, especially with a strong president who makes it look easy and fun.

With a hot economy making everyone feel richer, why not vote the young, sexy candidate to enact Green New Society 2.0? In a decade we're minting Whip Inflation Now buttons and taking a second mortgage on our pet rocks.
 

Chive Turkey

kiwifarms.net
My biggest problem with Yang is his staunch anti-gun policies and I'm also a bit skeptical of UBI, especially on a national scale.
Some guy did a video on why Yang's UBI proposal wouldn't work and it's pretty :informative:


tl;dw UBI would naturally increase prices in accordance with this massive increase in consumption, and thanks to Yang's VAT proposal. A lot of low income people would just opt out of the labour market entirely, as leisure time is preferable to doing a shit job. This would affect businesses in turn. The middle class would be worst off, as they'll still have to do their jobs while dealing with inflated prices. The system would therefore help to create and benefit an unemployed underclass on the backs of everyone else in the economy.

Imo something like Friedman's Negative Income Tax would achieve the same goals of UBI without all the drawbacks. There's no real reason to add a shit ton more of state bureaucracy and meddling when just scrapping it entirely in certain areas solves the same problems as efficiently.
 
Last edited:

MaoBigDong

Pamela Swain Gave Me Ass Cancer
kiwifarms.net
Some guy did a video on why Yang's UBI proposal wouldn't work and it's pretty :informative:


tl;dw UBI would naturally increase prices in accordance with this massive increase in consumption, and thanks to Yang's VAT proposal. A lot of low income people would just opt out of the labour market entirely, as leisure time is preferable to doing a shit job. This would affect businesses in turn. The middle class would be worst off, as they'll still have to do their jobs while dealing with inflated prices. The system would therefore help to create and benefit an unemployed underclass on the backs of everyone else in the economy.

Imo something like Friedman's Negative Income Tax would achieve the same goals of UBI without all the drawbacks. There's no real reason to add a shit ton more of state bureaucracy and meddling when just scrapping it entirely in certain areas solves the same problems as efficiently.
Gosh, I hate to be on the defensive in a situation like this haha, but since I guess I'm the resident Yang Shill now I'll do my part and drop this time-stamped link of Greg Mankiw endorsing Yang's plan: https://youtu.be/HDKfdmbCuvw?t=31615

IMO, capitalism is about competition anyway, and competing companies can't raise their prices exponentially unless they have an utter monopoly, or else someone will come in and snatch up their business by slashing costs. This is exactly what companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart are doing to small businesses in our towns right now anyway because they can afford to outsource our labor, yet again putting us into a position with less jobs and no money. As I've said before Yang also theorizes that if you put this 1k in the hands of the people (and there are a couple of different factors hinging on this, lmk if you want me to go more in depth) they'll go out and start businesses themselves, incentivizing more competition. Yes, you're correct in saying that this is passing a 10% VAT tax onto the people for large transactions (he's said numerous times this can be scaled back/nonexistant on necessities like food and diapers and bumped up for corporations buying the tech that's taking our jobs). We already have sales tax anyway, though. I personally don't see why that's any different, and instead of going to an inept government it just goes right back into our hands to spend how we want. I would be in favor of paying 2 bucks more on a 20 dollar non-necessity purchase if it means I get 1k a month to spend on that purchase or save for my passion projects and giving back to my podunk town.

Also hell yeah, leisure time is preferable to doing a shit job. I don't wanna get too crazy here by saying that a lot of people could do what they like with their time if they had an extra 1k in their pocket, but the whole "Humanity First" slogan of his is about measuring our value as humans and not what we're worth in sense of GDP. To be fair you're correct in assuming that a lot of people would not be valuable to a labour market, but there are a lot of people working their asses off right now that aren't valuable to a labour market either if you really think about it. Stay at home moms could actually become a thing again, hell even stay at home wives could. People could start sending their kids to daycare instead of leaving them with the crack addicted neighbor. Personally I'd love it if my wife were able to just stay home and cook and clean but sadly that's not a reality right now lmfao, we both work our butts off to make ends meet and our jobs are easily replaceable. Yeah, there will be a few bad eggs just like there are a few bad eggs on the tugboat right now, but as a majority Americans are stupid hard workers and I don't think that work ethic or drive for the American Dream will just disappear over night if you give everyone some money.

Got a little off-topic there, excuse my au.tism. I'll try to reign it in with this, so bear with me. These thoughts all hinge on the idea of trickle up economics, the exact opposite of what Friedman argued, so I can see where your point of contention is if you agree with Keynesian economics. I know people have various opinions on whether Keynes or Hayek were correct to this day, so I'll just present my opinion/rebuttal and let anyone come to their own conclusions on this matter. Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
 

Chive Turkey

kiwifarms.net
Gosh, I hate to be on the defensive in a situation like this haha, but since I guess I'm the resident Yang Shill now I'll do my part and drop this time-stamped link of Greg Mankiw endorsing Yang's plan: https://youtu.be/HDKfdmbCuvw?t=31615
Interesting lecture. I'll take the time to listen to it in full, but in the meantime I do have some comments on your reply:
IMO, capitalism is about competition anyway, and competing companies can't raise their prices exponentially unless they have an utter monopoly, or else someone will come in and snatch up their business by slashing costs.
It wouldn't so much be a case of a single company raising prices and then getting outcompeted by others that don't, but rather a situation in which all companies will try to find a way to keep the money rolling in. A VAT of any kind will cut into the profits of any major company, and UBI will make it harder and more expensive for them to find employees. They'll either have to raise wages considerably to attract employees, or have to invest more in automation when that proves to be unworkable (ironically turning UBI into a self-fulfilling prophecy). The easiest way for them to make up for that lost income is to raise prices. You're right in saying that such a thing would normally be potentially suicidal, but UBI would very likely make the vast majority of people more likely to buy more. The increased demand alone would justify higher pricing, and consumers would probably not recoil as hard at that now that they have hundreds of essentially free neetbux to spend.
This is exactly what companies like Amazon and Wal-Mart are doing to small businesses in our towns right now anyway because they can afford to outsource our labor, yet again putting us into a position with less jobs and no money.
I don't think UBI will help in this regard. Whatever government policy negatively affects megacorps will hit small businesses ten times as hard, and this isn't any different. Wall-Mart has the funds to raise wages/automate, a family business will have to invest their entire Freedom Dividend just to entice people to work there and likely still go under.
As I've said before Yang also theorizes that if you put this 1k in the hands of the people (and there are a couple of different factors hinging on this, lmk if you want me to go more in depth) they'll go out and start businesses themselves, incentivizing more competition.
This seems doubtful. Just a plumbing business requires thousands of dollars of investments to get off the ground, and the UBI would be a decent but not massive supplement on the average plumber's income. For larger start-ups it's value would diminish, or even become counterproductive if it does becomes harder and more expensive to hire staff. The vast, vast majority of people will use their dividend in a more subtle way: consuming more (luxury) products, rent and paying off debt.
Yes, you're correct in saying that this is passing a 10% VAT tax onto the people for large transactions (he's said numerous times this can be scaled back/nonexistant on necessities like food and diapers and bumped up for corporations buying the tech that's taking our jobs).
That's reasonable and could work. I still feel obligated to warn you burgers that VAT is like crack cocaine for governments, once they get a taste of it they'll only want more and more. It's income tax on steroids.
We already have sales tax anyway, though. I personally don't see why that's any different
There is a difference. As I understand it, sales taxes is only levied on the final transaction to the end consumer by the retailer (which confused and enraged my foreign brain when I arrived at an American cash register for the first time), while VAT is applied to every step in the supply chain. i.e. manufacturers and suppliers pay VAT on their purchases before their product ever hits the shelves, and then that gets VAT'd as well.
I would be in favor of paying 2 bucks more on a 20 dollar non-necessity puchase if it means I get 1k a month to spend on that purchase or save for my passion projects and giving back to my podunk town.
I'm inclined to agree. But my fear is that the mark-ups (both public and private) on products and transactions might become so egregious that you're spending pretty much all of your yangbux on them, and having 1000 dollars in the bank has become functionally identical to having zero.
Also hell yeah, leisure time is preferable to doing a shit job. I don't wanna get too crazy here by saying that a lot of people could do what they like with their time if they had an extra 1k in their pocket, but the whole "Humanity First" slogan of his is about measuring our value as humans and not what we're worth in sense of GDP. To be fair you're correct in assuming that a lot of people would not be valuable to a labour market, but there are a lot of people working their asses off right now that aren't valuable to a labour market either if you really think about it. Stay at home moms could actually become a thing again, hell even stay at home wives could. People could start sending their kids to daycare instead of leaving them with the crack addicted neighbor. Personally I'd love it if my wife were able to just stay home and cook and clean but sadly that's not a reality right now lmfao, we both work our butts off to make ends meet and our jobs are easily replaceable. Yeah, there will be a few bad eggs just like there are a few bad eggs on the tugboat right now, but as a majority Americans are stupid hard workers and I don't think that work ethic or drive for the American Dream will just disappear over night if you give everyone some money.
The sad thing is that a lot of jobs (the vast majority, likely) aren't being done because they're fun or fulfilling, but they have to be done; both from the perspective of the employee who just needs income, and the wider body of people. Society needs janitors and fruit-pickers and the like, and the main motivation for people to take up those professions is because they'd be fucking homeless and starving if they didn't.
Got a little off-topic there, excuse my au.tism.
I don't think this subject is that off-topic. It's a flagship policy of a presidential candidate and one of the few interesting and novel ideas that has entered American politics during this election cycle. As long as we don't drift off too much, I don't see a problem with some light discussion on the merits of UBI, even if Yang is extremely unlikely to become the nominee. He's at least brought some mainstream attention on ideas that definitely deserve some consideration, and hopefully that at least will trickle up a bit to the suits. Despite my reservations, I'd certainly rather see it tried out than the half-baked Bolshevik 'eat the rich' schemes that are being trotted out by some of his peers. Those are just rank demagoguery and guaranteed to bankrupt us all.
I'll try to reign it in with this, so bear with me. These thoughts all hinge on the idea of trickle up economics, the exact opposite of what Friedman argued, so I can see where your point of contention is if you agree with Keynesian economics. I know people have various opinions on whether Keynes or Hayek were correct to this day, so I'll just present my opinion/rebuttal and let anyone come to their own conclusions on this matter. Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents.
I try not to think of economics in that way, as both the Keynesian and Austrian schools have valid points. Aggressively cheerleading economists has always struck me as peak autism, considering the entire discipline is basically a form of haruspicy that happens to employ quadratic equations.
 
Last edited:

MaoBigDong

Pamela Swain Gave Me Ass Cancer
kiwifarms.net
Interesting lecture. I'll take the time to listen to it in full, but in the meantime I do have some comments on your reply:
It wouldn't so much be a case of a single company raising prices and then getting outcompeted by others that don't, but rather a situation in which all companies will try to find a way to keep the money rolling in. A VAT of any kind will cut into the profits of any major company, and UBI will make it harder and more expensive for them to find employees. They'll either have to raise wages considerably to attract employees, or have to invest more in automation when that proves to be unworkable (ironically turning UBI into a self-fulfilling prophecy). The easiest way for them to make up for that lost income is to raise prices. You're right in saying that such a thing would normally be potentially suicidal, but UBI would very likely make the vast majority of people more likely to buy more. The increased demand alone would justify higher pricing, and consumers would probably not recoil as hard at that now that they have hundreds of essentially free neetbux to spend.
I don't think UBI will help in this regard. Whatever government policy negatively affects megacorps will hit small businesses ten times as hard, and this isn't any different. Wall-Mart has the funds to raise wages/automate, a family business will have to invest their entire Freedom Dividend just to entice people to work there and likely still go under.
This seems doubtful. Just a plumbing business requires thousands of dollars of investments to get off the ground, and the UBI would be a decent but not massive supplement on the average plumber's income. For larger start-ups it's value would diminish, or even become counterproductive if it does becomes harder and more expensive to hire staff. The vast, vast majority of people will use their dividend in a more subtle way: consuming more (luxury) products, rent and paying off debt.
That's reasonable and could work. I still feel obligated to warn you burgers that VAT is like crack cocaine for governments, once they get a taste of it they'll only want more and more. It's income tax on steroids.
There is a difference. As I understand it, sales taxes is only levied on the final transaction to the end consumer by the retailer (which confused and enraged my foreign brain when I arrived at an American cash register for the first time), while VAT is applied to every step in the supply chain. i.e. manufacturers and suppliers pay VAT on their purchases before their product ever hits the shelves, and then that gets VAT'd as well.
I'm inclined to agree. But my fear is that the mark-ups (both public and private) on products and transactions might become so egregious that you're spending pretty much all of your yangbux on them, and having 1000 dollars in the bank has become functionally identical to having zero.

The sad thing is that a lot of jobs (the vast majority, likely) aren't being done because they're fun or fulfilling, but they have to be done; both from the perspective of the employee who just needs income, and the wider body of people. Society needs janitors and fruit-pickers and the like, and the main motivation for people to take up those professions is because they'd be fucking homeless and starving if they didn't.

I don't think this subject is that off-topic. It's a flagship policy of a presidential candidate and one of the few interesting and novel ideas that has entered American politics during this election cycle. As long as we don't drift off too much, I don't see a problem with some light discussion on the merits of UBI, even if Yang is extremely unlikely to become the nominee. He's at least brought some mainstream attention on ideas that definitely deserve some consideration, and hopefully that at least will trickle up a bit to the suits. Despite my reservations, I'd certainly rather see it tried out than the half-baked Bolshevik 'eat the rich' schemes that are being trotted out by some of his peers. Those are just rank demagoguery and guaranteed to bankrupt us all.
I try not to think of economics in that way, as both the Keynesian and Austrian schools have valid points. Aggressively cheerleading economists has always struck me as peak autism, considering the entire discipline is basically a form of haruspicy that happens to employ quadratic equations.
Apologizing for crap formatting ahead of time, on mobile at the moment.

I agree that UBI would cut into corporate profits because that’s kind of the point. Instead of lobbing a wealth tax against large corporations, which has been ultimately unsuccessful in European countries, the VAT would take what the company should be paying in taxes but isn’t in a way that there are no loopholes. Bernie’s plan of “taxing the wealthy” is nice in spirit, but we already tax the wealthy and they’re still paying nothing.

I do worry that this could potentially raise costs for the consumer in the end, but I feel like that could also bring people to go to the local businesses that are largely producing their own products, such as local farmers and manufacturers who wouldn’t have to pay VAT on products that they’re making in house. While this probably isn’t a majority of small businesses it still adds a good chunk of change back into a rural economy and as someone who lives in predominantly farm land it would make me extremely happy to see some of the poorer rural areas (esp. small towns with populations less than 1k) around my town get that stimulus. Just driving through a lot of these areas you can physically see that most of these family owned farms are in shambles and the farmland is being rented out to larger farms to make ends meet.

I’m not sure what you mean by companies having a harder time finding employees due to UBI, could you elaborate further on that? I know the whole “everyone is lazy” argument but I honestly think that’s kind of a cop out and dishonest to the millions of Americans who aren’t living entirely on the government dole and are still still struggling despite having multiple jobs, working odd hours, and picking up shifts whenever they can.
The problem with the effects being felt on lots of small businesses who don’t manufacture their products in house is a valid concern, however. I haven’t delved too deep into this on the farms but I am employed by a local business in my community that has been in our town for upwards of half a century. We buy our products straight from china, no joke. There are a select few products that we source from US trade shows and South America, but the majority of our products are from china. The VAT would hit us hard there, but that’s because this business isn’t investing in our town and is looking to maximize profits. Ironically enough, this business is in serious debt and floundering for several reasons, but the major one is that they prioritize profits over the local economy. I’ve seen the profit margin of this business firsthand, and we pay pennies on the dollar for items we’re marking up at nearly 200% profit margins. Perhaps I’m jaded because I’ve seen how this specific business has run, but it seems like most of the other businesses in town are actually seeing an economic boom compared to where we are. Our boss is in his 70s, has a PhD, and probably won’t retire because he chose to run a business that frankly, he doesn’t have a clue how to run.

I think we need to get over the idea that anyone and everyone should own a business because frankly that’s not the case. If you don’t know how to account for bottom line business expenses such as employee wages, total taxes being paid at year end (this includes VAT for countries who have implemented it), and stocking product I hate to say it but you probably shouldn’t own a business. I guess I would argue that while this can hurt small businesses, it’s the same argument that’s being used against raising federal minimum wage, and making workplace insurance a mandatory option at full time work. If you can’t compete that’s just business. There will be other companies that will be innovative enough to fill the hole you left behind, and there will be companies that can do this more successfully than you.

As far as being able to start a business, however, it takes some sort of money to do that as it is anyway, whether funded through a business loan, the government, or completely by yourself. This would give a jump-start to those that have the aptitude to use the money wisely, whether by saving it up themselves or putting a down payment on the expenses necessary. I’m not sure if you’re operating under the assumption that they would be footing the bill with UBI monthly rather than saving up money from their job along with UBI long term, but this is what the point you’re trying to get across seems like, feel free to update me on that as well.

As a final note that I’m not really sure where to put, I just saw this argument being proposed recently and found it interesting. Companies don’t know how much UBI you’re going to spend vs how much you’re going to save. People’s spending habits are vastly different and while some people may be willing to shell out a couple hundred for weed and beer if they get UBI another family might be willing to save that money up. Companies may base prices off of total regional spending power, but as a whole they don’t say “Hey, we know that American guy right over there is making at least $7.25 an hour, we should base our prices around what he has in his pockets right now” because salaries/hourly pay are so vastly different between various industries in every city that it wouldn’t make sense. It’s better to stick with figures that have continued to make you profits, with incremental changes for inflation than to go out on a whim and increase or decrease prices based on whatever metric you feel like because you want to make money. I’ve seen this firsthand, because as I said earlier the local business I work at is failing due to not understanding this. On top of that typically the large businesses that are dictating average market prices have large teams of economists and accountants to tell them whether raising/lowering prices is good idea or not.

Anyway, it’s nice to have a political debate about the issues that doesn’t devolve into a shouting match. I appreciate the time you took to put out your answers, they made me legitimately think for a good while to come up with some answers.
 
Tags
None