HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

It was a poor joke making a critique of the Medium post.

> It does make me more interested in hearing what Yang has to say because it seems honest and like a statement from someone who hasn't been doing political activism for years.

Lots of people suggest the Joe Rogan podcast [0], but that is old, things have changed in his campaign, and it is long. I rather like the Now This interview [1] (30 mins). Others like the Iowa Town Hall[2] (hour).

The reasons I personally like Yang are #1, climate (I'm a scientist myself and work in labs with many climate scientists. I don't think his plan is going to solve everything, but I like it more than the other candidates. It is clear to me he has talked to experts), #2 I think he's trying to answer an important question that I've been curious about for a long time "How do we transition into a post scarcity society". Or specifically "how do you transition into an economy where you do not need a large number of workers. What do you do if 10% of your population is unemployable, not because of lack of skills, but because lack of demand?" It is the reason I am interested in UBI in the first place (where I've read a lot about here on HN). So I rather like his talk about changing the rules of the economy and making them human-centric. I do personally see a drastically changing economy and society, and I think he is asking the right questions about it. I have also seen him change positions after talking to experts, which I think is an essential quality in a president (though I know changing positions on a topic is often seen as negative in a political climate).

If you do want to learn more about him I highly suggest posting in the subreddit [3]. It is __extremely__ active and people really do want to answer every question you might have. It is a welcoming community and I do think feels different from other political subreddits.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6Ct-lC8lGg

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8la_6gtnKA

[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/YangForPresidentHQ/

A public jobs/infrastructure program would work something like this: various states would lobby for money to spend in their states, $billions in large contracts would be awarded to politically connected corporations that would bill at $100/hr keep a large percentage and subcontract the work at $40/hr to smaller businesses that in turn would keep a percentage and hire people to do the work for $15/hr. That is trickle down economics.

If instead you distributed the $billions to every citizen in the country, the vast majority of the money would be spent in local economies on things like day care, car or home repair, taking your kids in for dental cleaning. That is a trickle up economy.

I too reasoned that UBI was liberal social nonsense. But I've been following Andrew Yang's presidential campaign and his justifications make sense from a capitalist point of view. As Yang points out - this is capitalism that doesn't start at zero. It has benefits. Check out his long interviews on Youtube. The Joe Rogan interview is a good place to start https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8. If you don't have the time check out his talk with the AARP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXQ3DEFI1eg or the AFL-CIO https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlt3nyZdnmI

⬐ maerF0x0

> the vast majority of the money would be spent in local economies

Or on amazon which is pretty much a front for sending money to China.

That is candidate Andrew Yang's proposal. 120K to every American over 10 years. You should checkout his proposals. There are long form interviews on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

⬐ IXxXI

Social security in the united states is on the brink of failing. The problem with UBI has to do with it being virtually identical to social security while doing nothing to fix any of the intrinsic issues present in the structure of state big spending programs.

⬐ bitlax

So how does this work? If Joe Rogan is a "gateway to the alt-right" are you allowed to watch episodes where his guests are liberals or does that normalize his other stuff?

⬐ finnthehuman

“Joe isn't a bad guy. He genuinely wants to understand the world, and talks to everyone he can find in an attempt to do so. He's just a little too gullible and not quite introspective or rational enough to notice when the guest with the persuasive personality is saying crazy things. For example, he thinks LSD gives you dolphin telepathy.”

(Stolen from reddit. On mobile, can’t link.)

⬐ gamechangr

Rogan doesn't describe himself as "alt-right".

Joe Rogan -Wikipedia says: He has "mostly libertarian views" and describes himself as "pretty liberal" and "supports gay marriage".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Rogan

Full paragraph here:

"Rogan is not affiliated with any political party but was described as having mostly libertarian views.[67] He has described himself as being "pretty liberal" and supports gay marriage, gay rights, women's rights, recreational drug use, universal healthcare, and universal basic income, while also supporting the Second Amendment[68"

⬐ eesmith

And you regard this as strong counter-evidence to the claim about being a 'gateway to the alt-right'?

First, 'libertarian' and 'right' are pretty compatible. See, for example, David Koch. At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koch you'll see he also "considers himself a social liberal,[20] supporting women's right to choose,[21] gay rights, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.[2][22] He opposes the war on drugs."

He's also a global warming denialist and major funder of many conservative and Republican causes and candidates.

Second, libertarianism is one gateway for the alt-right. I'll quote from the Wikipedia entry for alt-right, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right :

> There were also links between the American libertarian movement and the alt-right, despite libertarianism's general repudiation of identity politics.[55] Many senior alt-rightists previously considered themselves libertarians,[56] and the libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard has been cited as a particular link between the two movements due to his staunch anti-egalitarianism and support for ideas about differing IQ levels among racial groups. ...

> After Spencer was fired from The American Conservative, in 2008 he became managing director of Taki Theodoracopulos's right-wing website Taki's Magazine.[73][74] The website initially contained contributions largely from paleoconservatives and libertarians, but under Spencer also gave space to white nationalists like Taylor.[75] In 2009, Spencer used the term "alternative right" in the title of an article by white nationalist Kevin DeAnna;[76][77] by 2010, Spencer had moved fully from paleoconservatism to white nationalism. ...

> It was on websites like 4chan and Reddit that the term gained wider usage, and in 2015 began to grow in popularity.[91] Although there had previously been a strong left-libertarian contingent to these online spaces, there was a gradual rightward turn in chan culture centred on 4chan's politics board, /pol/.

Of course "libertarian" does not mean "alt-right", and "not all libertarians." But the topic here was one of gateway to the alt-right.

Since there is a notable connection between libertarian views and the progression towards alt-right, pointing out that someone has libertarian views is not counter-evidence.

⬐ gamechangr

Good point on libertarian views having some overlap with a progression towards alt-right and/or not being counter evidence.

Would 'supports gay marriage" be evidence? That seems far from 'alt-right' to me... is that fair?

⬐ eesmith

No? I mean, it seems that you are asking me if there's a litmus test that if someone (honestly) is in support of gay marriage therefore they and their actions cannot reasonably be interpreted providing a gateway towards accepting alt-right ideas?

The Wikipedia page points out "On social issues like attitudes to homosexuality and abortion, the alt-right is divided ... Some on the alt-right consider homosexuality to be immoral and a threat to the survival of the white race ... Others adopt a more tolerant stance and have praised gay white nationalists" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alt-right

So, if 0.5% of alt-right, and 2% of alt-lite are in favor of gay marriage (numbers I pulled out of my ass), then clearly it's not conclusive evidence.

However, since I believe David Koch supports gay marriage based on his libertarian beliefs, and he supports efforts that unfairly make it harder for black people to vote, and he support 'stand your ground' which have make it easier for white people to kill black people - both efforts which I believe are generally supported by the alt-right - then I've already given an example of how "supports gay marriage" is not clear evidence of not being a gateway.

⬐ gamechangr

I appreciate the wiki link. I hear even Sweden is "the gateway to the Alt-right" these days...https://www.salon.com/2017/06/02/sweden-is-the-gateway-to-th...

With Rogan -"supports gay marriage" doesn't sound "alt-right does it?

⬐ asdf9240

He may be liberal or not, that is irrelevant. OP said was that he was a gateway to the alt-right, not alt-right himself.

⬐ gamechangr

So is Sweden apparently...

https://www.salon.com/2017/06/02/sweden-is-the-gateway-to-th...

⬐ anbop

Even allowing this link on this website is pretty close to hate speech.

⬐ howNearHowFar

I almost considered not posting this, knowing the the mobile ISP ban will default this to flagged/dead, but someone will probably still read it.

I used to think HN carried informed, objective opinions of the world it collectively inhabited. Between this and today's 60+ reply 8ch.net warrant thread, I no longer see it in such a light.

5 years ago, HN wouldn't foment bile with obnoxious absurdities, downvote and hellban frivolously. Now it's a different story, and it's not The Internet that has changed. Things haven't changed that much.

⬐ PostOnce

I take it we're hating on the man and not the content of any particular podcast?

I've listened to the podcast repeatedly (Dan Carlin was a guest, that's how I found it), there's nothing alt-right about it, just right/conservative on issues of guns/hunting/gender, but not on issues of finance, for example. I guess "pro speech" is "alt right now". The guests are wide-ranging; some right, some alt-right, some far left.

⬐ anbop

Yeah, I don’t use /s tags, because I like to use the downvote count as a sort of inverse metric.

⬐ s_Hogg

I dunno he had an episode with Alex Jones that basically didn't press him on anything and gave him a really soft ride. I think that's the sort of thing people are alluding to when they call him a breadcrumb-dropper.

Just because the guests aren't uniformly Alex Jones and co doesn't mean that that claim can't be true, in my opinion.

⬐ cco

If you can watch that episode and not be laughing your head off you are taking life far too seriously.

⬐ throwaway66666

What? Is he alt-right? I thought he's actually liberal leaning.

Many of his episodes is about drugs and his experiences with psychedelics, which would make most conservative folks suspicious. Can you post something that elaborates into those claims?

⬐ stebenCwowduhhh

It's because of the Steven Crowder episodes (especially #1071) where they watch hidden camera videos of transgender activists portrayed in bad light. [1]

In those videos there seem to be some opportunists operating what could be viewed as a "grooming pedophile" mentality towards gender identity politics.

Between that, and playing nice with Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro and other right-of-center pundits/intellectuals/scholars or whatever, it's a bridge to far for counter-extremists. Joe Rogan also generally professes a dim view toward ANTIFA activism.

To some, that makes Joe Rogan worse than a "do nothing centrist" because he offers a preferential platform, while operating a moderate semi-centrist facade, in the far-left's view.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PS_XL1tBnWw

⬐ thrower123

Alt-right is a term devoid of meaning, it has been abused so badly and so often. No one can agree on what it means, so it cannot be parsed as anything more than "those people I don't like, who entertain bad thoughts."

⬐ perilunar

I don't think it's devoid of meaning, but its use is telling. It's usually used to refer to libertarians and classical liberals by those who don't understand them, i.e. it's often a sign of ignorance. Sometimes it's used deliberately as a smear to suggest people are fascists or neo-nazis.

⬐ bitlax

I think the whole thing is asinine. Just wondering what the rules are this week.

⬐ PostOnce

What I don't get about Yang's pitch is that $1,000/mo is sold as a basic income. In what part of America can $1,000 pay for rent/food/power? Why bother calling it a basic income and not just a universal tax credit or something, if it isn't in fact a basic income (which means enough to survive on)?

⬐ mac01021

It seems like he may have switched more recently to calling it "the freedom dividend", rather than UBI. I'm not sure how consistently, though.

Also, in most of the USA, $1,000 is enough for rent, food, and power, at least with a flatmate taking on half of the rent.

⬐ gamechangr

He does in fact do just that. He calls it " A freedom dividend"

https://www.yang2020.com/policies/the-freedom-dividend/

Yang doesn't mean for it to be enough to survive on. He means it to be enough to "supplement people to get out of a scarcity mentality".

⬐ toomuchtodo

That’s the US poverty line for a single person. It can be done. It’s not comfy, but it can be done.

⬐ derrick_jensen

You can live pretty comfortably off of $1000 a month (as a single person) in the Midwest. If you are in some sort of relationship, you have an effective $2k (not including the savings from not having to pay for rent again). If you need more money, save some money up over time and put it into a mutual fund or another financial device.

This might be good point to mention the only 2020 presidential candidate who is talking about how UBI could address this seemingly inevitable future that is closer than we think.

Andrew Yang. See his discussion with students at Georgetown Univ. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tuJ0phjFys

or for a longer exposition of his ideas see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

⬐ TaylorAlexander

UBI represents a continuation of capitalism where the machinery of our world is still under elite control. I’d rather see a candidate that will provide seed funding for cooperatives. Way more liberatory than cash handouts from our rulers.

⬐ krapp

Isn't seed funding for cooperatives also basically a cash handout from our rulers?

⬐ TaylorAlexander

Yes, though much more directed than UBI. Credit Unions are well positioned to provide loans for coops. The government could provide some backing for those loans to stimulate growth. That’s way, way less intervention than a UBI.

I was listening to Presidential candidate Andrew Yang in his podcast with Joe Rogan. His plans, since there's a lot of avoidance, is to attempt a different route called a "value added" tax where there's a tax for trucking mileage and online transactions. He mentioned other countries to both of these, but don't remember which he mentioned off the top of my head.

Here's the podcast for those interested, there's a lot of other interesting discussions here that are related to this topic, such as automation and basic income. https://youtu.be/cTsEzmFamZ8?t=843

⬐ thoughtstheseus

A VAT tax makes a lot of sense. It would reduce the incentive for large market quasi-monopoly seeking companies to optimize for no profits to avoid taxes. The current dynamic is- why pay taxes when you can spend it to expand your market share?

⬐ Mirioron

VAT in European countries is often the highest or the second highest revenue stream. The downside is that it's usually a flat tax and it disproportionately affects poor people.

⬐ T2_t2

Except Digital sales take place in no-man's land, and are hard to tax. A federal tax hits Amazon, but would it hit Alibaba? The specifics are what make these ideas so difficult.

⬐ hanniabu

I think that's pretty simple. If the purchaser in this country, tax them for that sale.

⬐ adventured

VAT taxes are extraordinarily regressive. Next to lowering taxes on the rich, it's among the worst possible options.

Increasing the income tax and taxing capital gains at regular income rates, along with bolstering estate taxes on the rich, are the ideal near-term solutions to the US budget problem. The US still has a lot of slack taxing capacity on the wealthy. That should be maxed out long before we look at a VAT.

⬐ hanniabu

Can you expand on why you think it's regressive?

> That should be maxed out long before we look at a VAT.

This is relative. The US government sucks at being efficient.

⬐ scooble

Not the person you asked, but as I understand it, poor people spend a higher percentage of their income on goods and services (because they have less left over after paying for basic necessities). So a higher percentage of their income is lost on VAT than a richer person. This makes it a much less progressive taxation method than e.g. Income tax.

⬐ Apocryphon

What if they're only imposed on corporations?

⬐ amanaplanacanal

Regressive taxes can be fine, as long as you balance them with transfer payments so that the poor don't end up paying more.

They might even make the economy more efficient. I'll leave that argument to the economists, though.

⬐ magduf

I think you also need to have tax breaks on certain things, for instance groceries and non-luxury clothing. Many high-tax, high-CoL states here in the US are like this, so that poorer people don't pay so much for essentials.