Thanks,
Jason and Lene.
One area of
my background and knowledge that is woefully inadequate is
macro-economics and governmental policy. So, I am outside my
wheelhouse in analyzing those things. I did worry about a
number of things with UBI, including inflation. And I was
arguing with my brother about why income should be
contingent and incentivized in a particular direction. I too
felt the VAT was not the right idea, as it clearly was a
neoliberal frame on domains that needed to be protected from
being economically incentivized. (We don’t want to pay
people for being good and caring).
That said, I
shared the podcast and was excited about it because at the
VALUES level, he had, IMO, the right kind of “sensibility”.
That is, he positioned himself to be outside the traditional
political fray and polarization (he has some T shirts on
Humanity First, and Not Left or Right But Forward), was
someone who both appreciated what capitalism has
accomplished and recognized that we need to consider
ourselves in late stage capitalism, was concerned about the
environment but was not an eco-moralist, saw the need for
altering our social values and creating a much more workable
safety net, but did not villainize people (wall street
barons, white working class poor) that the left often does.
Jason, can
you share links about the Federal Job Guarantee? That sounds
interesting.
Best,
Gregg
From: tree of knowledge system
discussion <[log in to unmask]>
On Behalf Of Lene Rachel Andersen - Nordic
Bildung / Fremvirke
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 5:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: podcast with Andrew Yang
Haven't had time to listen to the podcast but love to
discover another UBI opponent!
I am convinced that UBI is one of the worst ideas ever.
Now I have to listen to the podcast... :-D
Best,
Lene
On 07-10-2019 23:02, nysa71 wrote:
I
am thoroughly opposed to Yang based on just his awful
UBI and VAT ideas alone. Basically, it's just
neoliberalism dressed up as progressivism, and is
nothing but a Trojan Horse that'll ultimately hurt the
poor and working class.
A standalone UBI would most certainly be inflationary,
which hurts the poor the most. But he proposes
tethering the UBI to a VAT which, (besides being a
bureaucratic nightmare), is ultimately regressive,
since such a tax would be passed onto consumers by
embedding it within the final price of goods.
So essentially, the poor will end up paying for the
UBI with the UBI.
On top of that, Yang's proposal will ultimately be
used as a justification for cutting other
social programs, (e.g., Social Security, SNAP, etc.)
I 100% support the Federal Job Guarantee as an
alternative --- a much a more solid macroeconomic
proposal. A full employment program. Federally funded,
but locally managed. Since dollars are added to the
economy coupled with real output, there's minimal
inflationary risk. And it's a counter-cyclical,
automatic stabilizer, (as opposed to the UBI, a
pro-cyclical, automatic de-stabilizer).
Yang's ideas aren't just wrong. They're dangerous.
~ Jason Bessey
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the
TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################