Keep in mind as you watch @MSNBC not mention his name again that @AndrewYang is only being out-polled by three of these people on stage with him, and his RCP national average puts him at 8th overall out of the 20 at the debates... /13
MSNBC: "A new qualifying poll came out from Monmouth where 2% is needed to get into the fall debates. Let's exclude @AndrewYang again, despite his getting 2% for the 4th time and becoming the 9th candidate to officially qualify for the fall debates."
MSNBC: "Okay let's make a graphic that displays all 9 of the candidates that have already qualified for the fall debates. Oh and let's use perspective to make our favorites bigger and let's put Yang on the far end. One more thing, make sure to block him. There we go…" #YangGang
MSNBC: "Hey check out the latest Economist/YouGov poll with @AndrewYang at 2%. Let's make sure and just show Booker and Gabbard at 2%. No one needs to know about this Yang guy and his damn MATH."
CNN: "We have decided that if @AndrewYang didn't exist, these would be the top 6 from the Quinnipiac poll, so despite Yang polling 3% in this poll, there is no point in displaying him in the top 6."
CNN: "Okay okay okay, everyone. Sheesh. Enough with the outrage machine. We've heard you, and so here's the top 6 candidates based on recent rolling polling average, minus @AndrewYang because we couldn't fit him into the graphic obviously."
Here's the deal about basic income and inflation: it all depends. Can UBI be inflationary? Sure, if we do it in a certain way in a certain context, but no, not in other ways and contexts. We're talking about a multivariate equation. So what are the variables? It's THREAD time! 🧵
Inflation variable 1: The amount of UBI
A $100/mo UBI is going to have a different inflationary impact than $10k/mo. The amount of UBI matters. It matters because of demand exceeding supply, but also the labor impact that can potentially reduce supply.
Poverty level is doable.
Inflation variable 2: Economic capacity
Inflation can happen when the demand for goods and services exceeds the ability to meet that demand with supply. If a country is at or over its capacity, UBI can raise prices. If there's lots of capacity, supply can meet demand. No problem
Okay, everyone, here it is. I know many of you have been curious to read my take on @sama's basic income pilot results for about two full weeks now. Here's my take.
On average, those who got basic income were two percentage points less likely to be employed and worked about 1.3 fewer hours per week. These two numbers are basically where many UBI opponents and skeptics claim with triumph that this pilot was a failure.
A weekly drop of 1.3 hours works out to about 15 min a workday. That's an extra break. On an annual basis, it's equivalent to 8 days a year. That's a week-long paid vacation. An increase of 8 days would still leave the US at the bottom of all OECD nations, behind Japan by 2 days.
Okay, I'm going to need to write a full in-depth article about this stuff, but it's already reminding me of the Finland UBI pilot and how lots of people think that failed when it didn't. It makes perfect sense to read a tweet like Noah's and think the Denver pilot failed... 🧵👇
If you look at just the right charts along with rhetoric that expresses disappointment, without reading the full reports for yourself, you can think you know all you need to know but you don't. And there are people out there who count on you not reading and understanding studies.
The Denver pilot (which is still ongoing don't forget) uses 3 groups. Group A gets $1k/mo. Group B gets $6500 in month 1 and $500/mo after that. Group C gets $50/mo. However, all groups got a phone along with a plan or a plan stipend, and all groups were connected to helpful orgs
There's something about the debate going unsaid when we argue over whether AI will replace human labor or complement it.
If replace, then basic income is definitely needed.
If complement, then it's easy to believe we own the total value of our enhanced labor. But why is that?
If my labor is enhanced by technology, such that my work as a human contributes 10% to what I produce and a machine contributes the other 90%, then why do I deserve anything more than 10%, even if I own the machine?
Now we need to ask where the machine came from...
Robots, AI, computer hardware and software, it all came from the past. Those alive today are building on what those humans no longer with us built, who themselves built on what they were given.
Government spending was invested in all of this technology to grow and accelerate it.
"People perceive national debt as a negative, Grey said. But instead, he argues, you can think of it as a savings account, because people are earning interest through the bonds that they hold."
It is a choice we make to issue Treasury securities $1 for $1 of federal spending that exceeds taxes. We don't have to do that, but it's popular because people like earning a US government guaranteed rate of interest.
The US issues USD. We choose to also issue securities that pay USD interest. Our 14th Amendment says we can't default on any of our promised payments. Just keep making the payments, and we may as well also issue a $1 trillion coin to demonstrate we don't have to issue securities.
This is good but I wish it also included how Medicare Part D doesn't even carry the same issue as the rest of Medicare because it was set up to use general revenue. It's the example that proves all that's required to "fix Social Security" is just a legislative change in wording.
If we decide to reduce Social Security payments in the future, that's a political choice. We certainly don't have to do that. We can keep making 100% of payments, and no we don't even have to lift the cap on payroll taxes. We can just spend the money.
It's really harmful how wide and how strong the myth-based belief is that the national "debt" is some big scary loan of some kind instead of being more like a savings account and how running a deficit is somehow bad regardless of what the spending is for.