President Yang's Yin: the UBI Freedom Dividend and Humane Capitalism

With all of these candidates promising to give out free goodie bags, looks like 2020 is shaping up to be the ultimate "bread and circus" election for proletarii like me! Perhaps it finally is the "season" for the martyred Roman Catholic Saint Sir Thomas More, if he wasn't being sarcastic when he wrote "Utopia".
It has been reported that in the last debate Yang got the least amount of time, yet got the best response from social media.

The following is a positive interview with CNN's Cuomo:

Yet, MSNBC's Chris Hayes got pretty snarky, in a subtle casuistic fashion. Perhaps one could claim that this was deliberately being a straw man for Wang to demolish?

Based upon the last Democratic rigged 'debate' Yang got the least time, yet seems to have scored the biggest boost from social media. He has risen to 4% in the polls, and about to pass the sinking Senator Harris.

I am posting the following on this thread, because it is under the same general theme of reforming Capitalism as consistent with the UBI. Billionaire Nick Hanauer delivers a message to his fellow plutocrats that we can't continue with Capitalism under the same misguided premises that, as is, must inevitably lead to the excessive concentration of wealth.

so what is wrong with public transportation? like self driving cars, buses, trains?
"they" have control and you don't
(and about 100 other youtube videos)
check out how the government uses it to control the people

so what is wrong with public UBI?
(those who) LORD(over you) Giveth, Will be the ones who will use it to control you by threatening to take it away
if you are arrested or have a low "social score" will that affect your checks?
anyone who thinks that would never happen................

also, Yang and the Silicon Valley techocrats think this view is inevitable
but it doesn't have to be
Hi Duane

Everything we do, or don't do, as individuals or as societies has trade-offs right?

Yang is stating that the UBI MUST come with NO strings attached, other than if you are already getting equivalent benefits (not including Social Security for one). That is, that such a benefit must be universally thought of as an individual's birthright as a member of society. Hence, there is no social stigma that can attach. As such, there are many existing aid programs that people might opt out of, in favor of the UBI, as these existing programs have such constant surveillance reporting and such.

It's perfectly natural to expect that anyone proposing such as this might have ulterior bait and switch motives. But don't we have this problem constantly? My daddy went to war and fought for our Freedom, .... but did he really do the latter? My daddy did NOT know where the Nazis were getting their funds from.

In the larger context Yang is saying that we need to massively retool our relationships and mindsets to the social order. This is why I suggest that we reimpose slavery, making both robots and corporations our slaves. The latter require undoing what the Supreme Court did in the late 19th century by making corporations literal supercitizens. And in doing so, we can still let individuals, companies, and corporation profit, only all of us have subordinate benefits. Of which, such as the UBI allow for a trickle-up economy that benefits even the rich.

To resist such is really defending the retrograde, traditional crony benefits engrained in the Bible. First, as the inherited benefits of the nobility and royalty (with presumed merits, frequently not borne out (pun intended)), and then followed up by the various disproportional benefits of the crony capitalist system that incestuously evolved out of the prior. As I have explained elsewhere, this is why, when you look under the rug of Libertarianism and such as Ayn Rand, one will find such as the Crypto-Monarchists (aka traditionalist Catholics) employing their various egalitarian freedom rhetoric, all the while knowing that the system does not provide anything near to equal opportunity and access to success.

Since Roman times we've let people create the legal fiction of a 'corporate' entity under rather surprisingly little burdens, under the rationale that their economic activities will benefit society at least indirectly if not directly. All well and fine, however, such mechanisms allow for massive imbalances in social equity to accrue, sooner or later. The former serfs cum factory workers thus found that the only option for them was to organize to attempt achieving a balance. This at the cost of blood and lives, as the 'police' (and the military) almost always answer to where the money is concentrated. And today, since Reagan's changes, the Democrat elites, at least, have placed themselves firmly at the beck and call of corporate interests. Just like we have been discussing on other threads about the confusion and conflation of the terms Christian and Chrestian and similar, the term Liberal, which once applied 'most' American Fathers, is treated as a pejorative by the 'Right', which is being cleverly steered by the Crypto-Monarchists.

People are talking about banning things like automation, so as to protect workers from doing such mind numbing things like installing nuts and bolts or preparing basic legal documentation, etc.. The problem is, other societies will not take this approach and they will do better. So, as Yang says, we should embrace our new slaves (who will 'love' their burdens) and all profit from it, however you best see fit. So make this a Constitutional requirement.

And, if you don't like a self-driving auto don't get one. I do see utility in retaining a traditional vehicle, and many see that such as families would retain one, while employing self-driving vehicles, owned variously for other needs.

Capitalist competition will force companies to eliminate most truck drivers, and we'll all be better off for it. Computers, while not perfect, don't get sleepy, or need drugs, or make rash judgement errors. If you live in even a small city, you can see how smart phones have lowered the quality of human drivers collectively. And some people could never drive well (for various reasons) in any case.

(those who) LORD(over you) Giveth, Will be the ones who will use it to control you by threatening to take it away

The religious Patriots (the only kind in their minds) love to "LORD it over us" by how much they revere Life, but they have no regard for what happens after a sacred baby pops out of the birth canal. For them, it is rather Survival of God's Chosen Du Jour, not Survival of the Fittest. And, sardonically, God's Chosen Du Jour has little if any moral bearing.

So, if someone threatens to take away your, or anyone else's, UBI, then upon due process they should become traditional outlaws, and you are authorized to hunt them down ... for a bounty of course.

BTW, allowing ourselves new robo and corporate slaves will make the Second Amendment properly justified again, as it was passed to allow slaveowners of yore to protect themselves from uppity slaves.
UBI, equivalent to the old age pension, should be for those unable to work. Everyone else should be in payed work most of the time, and proper adequately waged work should be there all the time for people to take advantage of it. If you just have UBI it will encourage welfare dependency, especially with the lack of genuine well-paid jobs around to provide an alternative by building a "nest-egg". Rather, UBI will actually only create inflation - just as is being done with QE (quantitative easing) as Max Keiser says. I.e. inflated asset (house) prices then burst financial bubbles which benefit only the very rich.

The rest of us are to be wasted by the elites - this is why they had the Counterculture of Sex'n'Drugs'n'R&R, to dumb down the masses in order to render them incapable of understanding the bigger issues. And buy them off with a UBI pittance in lieu of proper well-paid jobs.

And so HK has to plough more money into more rail passenger transport, simply to get people to work. and help end the demonstrations. Remember that the total length of private vehicles in HK is greater than the total lengths of the roads!

Yours faithfully
Last edited:
It would clearly behoove you to divorce yourself from such outdated binary thinking. You sound like a typical right-wing reactionary. Oh I forgot, you are an admitted fascist.

You also have a very dim view of humanity and individuals' potential for growth, in this case, once freed from the mental constraints of the financial desperation of being at the bottom of the economic barrel.

What well-paid jobs? Where do you think well-paid jobs come from, that they grow on trees? You honestly think you're going to stick a gun to employer's heads and make them create well-paid jobs for employees they don't want?

Instead, Yang correctly discusses that what is essentially trickle-up economics will provide a massive injection of capital where it is actually needed, including providing income to mothers and househusbands (which I know makes you crypto-papists vomit) by recognizing parenting as a good vocation.

Such economics are a dynamic and not a static construct. What you apparently don't understand is that Yang proposes to pay for the UBI without inflationary means, through various sources, including taking away existing monitored benefits from those who want to opt into a non-monitored system based upon equal rights. Instead you favor fascist politicians being able to continue to demonize the 'unworthy' in your eyes. As the one video indicated the military veteran used his equivalent of the UBI to enable himself to feel comfortable making a business decision that he would not have considered otherwise ... because he would not be able to risk not feeding his family.

Such, would enable millions of people to become creative in creating and exploiting economic opportunities for themselves rather than be dependant on the forced largess of unhappy employers or a government dole from a government that we apparently do not own. I am saying that we need to assert ownership of the government which your Church has been running all along via your Freemason and Catholic elites.

Why are you lying that there will only be the UBI (more binary thinking)?
You also have a very dim view of humanity and individuals' potential for growth, in this case, once freed from the mental constraints of the financial desperation of being at the bottom of the economic barrel.

I guess I share a little bit of this conservative anxiety. The human species evolved on the African savannah, and was honed in the challenging environment of the ice age. Our ancient ancestors must have worked hard every day, hunting and gathering and fighting for survival. I'm not sure how well most people will respond in an environment where all the basic needs are supplied by robotics, and there's no need to do anything. Some might rise to the opportunity and become great artistic creators or innovators. But others might fall into all kinds of mischief.

Not to mention the concerns I've already mentioned, and which haven't really been addressed here in the thread: that in view of onrushing problems of resource depletion, environmental destruction, global warming, encroaching fascism and war, that this UBI concept is just a Utopian pipe dream.
But others might fall into all kinds of mischief.
So .... under today's and yesterday's retrograde systems some people did not fall into all kinds of mischief?

Under the fascist (neo-fuedal) system Mr. Badley (like Capitalism) wishes to enforce, the majority of humans are born into absolute or literal poverty and must scratch and claw their way out, and/or wear the rose-colored lens that comes from having parents and such that afford them access to better outcomes. Why incentivize citizens to engage in mischief? The reason this is done is that it enhances the power of the 'priestly' class and their associated elites, that they are necessary to provide proper shepherding that only they can do (for a huge profit), even admitting all along that they are not perfect.

I know, you'll claim that Donald Trump was made a millionaire by the age of 8, and look what kind of mischief he has caused. But Yang is not talking about $125K per year from birth.

Instead, the Freedom Dividend starts at age 18, right when proper girls should be getting pregnant and raising our future nomadic shepherds that will prevent and reverse desertification via proper grazing techniques honed through hundreds of thousands of years of tribal wisdom, as Mr. Savory says. And then, we can all continue to enjoy juicy, real hamburgers instead of fake meat hamburgers.

No, Yang is talking about making revolutionary changes in the way we value ourselves in economic terms. Similarly, we could adopt the changes that Michael Moore discussed in Where to Invade Next, such as the Finnish education reform (an American idea too good for American sensibilities) that allows children to enjoy education, instead of turning off and getting into mischief.
You‘be hit the nail on the head here. Under UBI, the sorts of opportunities for mischief formerly enjoyed only by the upper classes, will now be open to everyone. If one Donald Trump is trouble, imagine what a billion of them will do.

Savory’s method is a modern scientific discovery. Tribal wisdom has nothing to do with it. And there’s no need for human beings in the Savory system. Robotic shepherds or live wolves could keep the herds moving.
You‘be hit the nail on the head here. Under UBI, the sorts of opportunities for mischief formerly enjoyed only by the upper classes, will now be open to everyone. If one Donald Trump is trouble, imagine what a billion of them will do.
Why do you and Claude want to condemn everyone for the sake of the psychopathic few? Why can't we have a few crumbs, that would allow us to consider taking risks?
Savory’s method is a modern scientific discovery. Tribal wisdom has nothing to do with it. And there’s no need for human beings in the Savory system. Robotic shepherds or live wolves could keep the herds moving.
I just watched a video of Savory saying that the nomadic tribes had it right, whether they knew the underlying reasons or not. And that, until he figured out that he and 'modern science' had completely botched it, thousands of elephants and 200K Navajo sheep were slaughtered and desertification was dramatically increased in the misunderstood process.

Bring on the robotic shepherds and wolves. BTW, real wolves are very nice once you get to know them, and vice versa.

Literal sheep saving the metaphorical sheep:

Why do you and Claude want to condemn everyone for the sake of the psychopathic few? Why can't we have a few crumbs, that would allow us to consider taking risks?

Why not a right to work, or a right to low interest loans, or freely available scholarships for all sorts of artistic work of any kind whatsoever? I mean, if we're assuming that some benevolent entity has very large resources available to enable risk-taking.

I don't see that you've addressed the concern that a UBI could dramatically reduce incentives to work, and especially unpleasant work, to the point where important tasks don't get done. If Yang wins the primary, I'm sure Donald Trump will mention this question.

I think I've also mentioned already on this thread, that UBI needs to be implemented on a worldwide basis. Otherwise, it's just one more manifestation of American Privilege.

Miss Kitty says I'm consistently and irritatingly argumentative. It might be an Asperger symptom.

I'm not as completely down on the idea of UBI as you might think from my posts. I'm trying to imagine some way you could try it on a small scale as an experiment, to see how it really turns out.

I just watched a video of Savory saying that the nomadic tribes had it right, whether they knew the underlying reasons or not.

At about 30:00, Savory says:

"We'd had ten thousand years of extremely knowledgeable people, who had developed the breeds of sheep, goats, cattle, horses, chickens; all the stuff we use today. They had sat around their campfires. They had incredible knowledge built up over centuries. They knew their land. They knew their relationship to the land. But they caused the great man-made deserts. So, herding the animals wasn't good enough. They've been doing that for 10,000 years. They're still doing it. And the deserts are expanding. Then we'd had a hundred years of modern range science: fencing, grazing systems, rotational grazing. And that had accelerated the desertification."

But here's a paper that says traditional pastoral animal husbandry was indeed a highly sustainable lifestyle.

...numerous pastoral cultures (e.g., Rashayada Bedouin of the Sudan, Mongolian and Chinese herdsman, and Pyrenean herders; Figure 1) have subsisted on rangelands for thousands of years despite various hardships and challenges. Indeed, the degraded landscapes observed today are considered a relatively recent phenomenon that has accelerated during the latter parts of the 20th and current centuries...

I'm also a little puzzled that Savory's concern about desertification doesn't match this NASA study mentioned by Freeman Dyson on the other thread:

A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions.

At the moment I'm not understanding how Savory and this NASA study could both be right. To the extent there's any contradiction, I'd put my money on Savory.
The greening is caused by the UBI, paid in mole units of CO2 to the vegetation, thus proving that the UBI works.

The greening that NASA is talking about is not a reversal of desertification, but rather the existing vegetation is happier from the increased CO2, which it and we should be. So we need Savory's method, increased CO2, and the UBI.

Where I live used to be wild grasslands with large herds of antelope, that is until the railroad came. The antelope refused to cross the railroad tracks to migrate and thus died. Now the grasslands are desert, some turned back into agriculture watered from depleting underground aquifers.
The following is an excerpt from an article claiming that MMAC is about as contentious as the claim for MMCC being made by President Yang. Is the MSM secretly in the tank for Yang, despite constantly deleting him from the polls and such? Maddow just interviewed Yang on foreign policy.

Despite the writer's valid reservations, Yang is saying that we should embrace automation and its increased productivity, and that all of us should benefit from that (and from all the public investment that enabled all the underlying technology and infrastructure, and ...). And that we should all be better off with trillion dollar trickle-up economics, and the consequent re-circulation of those funds in communities that need it. People at the bottom of the financial spectrum must necessarily spend such funds, while at the same time having the jackboots of the capitalists and fascists taken off their throats, preventing them from making moves to improve their conditions.

In other words, fix Capitalism, don't destroy it as the crypto-monarchist fascists desire. If Neoliberalism, aka Socialism for rich Capitalists, worked so well for them, then let's apply the same formula for the those at the other end of the spectrum. Prime the Dump as well as the Pump.

BTW, MMAC is Man-Made Automation Change.

Following the debate, a “fact check” by the AP claimed that Yang was right and Warren wrong. “Economists mostly blame [manufacturing] job losses on automation and robots, not trade deals,” it stated. But this was incorrect. No such consensus exists, and if anything, the evidence heavily suggests that trade has been the bigger culprit in recent decades. All of which points to a broader issue: Yang’s schtick about techno doom may be well-intentioned, but it is largely premised on BS, and is adding to the widespread confusion about the impact of automation on the economy.
Yang is not pulling his ideas out of thin air. Economists have been debating whether automation or trade is more responsible for the long-term decline of U.S. factory work for a while, and it’s possible to find experts on both sides of the issue. After remaining steady for years, the total number of U.S. manufacturing jobs suddenly plummeted in the early 2000s—from more than 17 million in 2000 to under 14 million in 2007. (The great recession saw around 2.2 million more vanish, though they’ve bounced back a bit since.) This all coincided with China’s entry into the World Trade Organization and rapid transformation into an industrial powerhouse, which led many to assume that offshoring had caused America’s rapid industrial decline. But some economists disagreed. They pointed out that while the number of manufacturing workers had crashed, factory output was still rising, which suggested that technological advances like industrial robots were just making things much more productive and efficient. In 2015, economists from Ball State University suggested that around 87 percent of manufacturing job losses between 2000 and 2010 were due to improved productivity from automation, and just 13 percent were due to trade, claims that later appeared in the New York Times. So when Yang says that the “reason Donald Trump was elected was that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin,” he’s just echoing stuff that’s been printed in the paper of record. ...
Jimmy Dore discusses DemExit in this video. Starting at 15:25 he says that Tulsi Gabbard is still running, while Andrew Yang has dropped out. Earlier in the race, Yang promised that he would endorse any candidate who picked up his UBI initiative. So now Tulsi has come out in favor of the UBI concept, but Yang asked his supporters to get behind Joe Biden anyhow.

Yes, I've been remiss in discussing former President Yang's downfall. He had once said that Biden approached him, that Yang's ideas were interesting, so maybe Biden made some kind of deal to entice him to drop out and endorse.

Sine Trump has been making nonsensical Covid-19 economic stimulus proposals, like giving payroll tax breaks to people who are no longer earning a payroll, others, like Bloomberg, have stated that we should just give everybody a roll, essentially a UBI.