Andrew Yang and the False Promises of More Government Power

Andrew Yang
Wealth is productivity.

People are productive if allowed to be because they want to take care of themselves, be independent and wealthy. 
Government disincentivises productivity through taxation and regulation. When you are productive, they tax more of your wealth. When you want to act independently, you are regulated. 
 
Government makes it more difficult to take care of yourself so you vote for more government to take care of you. 
Yang Gang

Andrew Yang’s explanation of the “Freedom Dividend” as non-inflationary on Rogan was not convincing to me, because he was talking about the size of the macro economy… like 20 trillion.

He said adding a trillions into that economy would be unnoticeable as far as creating inflation, but many of those trillions in our economy are locked into the financial sector as digital trades, not real money that will every be liquid or will ever be used for day-to-day expenses.
 
If we did have that much liquid money injected into the real economy the results would be instant inflation by any historical example, or even by common sense understanding of supply and demand.
 
$1000 would be instantly worthless and his re-election campaign would have be to raise it to $2000… or $5000.
 
Calling it the Freedom Dividend, is the first lie. Marketing. Spin.
 
They could call it People’s Quantitative Easing, or UBI, but it’s all just Helicopter Money and socialism. It’s all on the road to a failed economy that requires total government control (Communism) to solve it.
Not to mention that the automation apocalypse might be coming, but gradually over many decades.
 
The dude sounds to me like a total liar, a snake oil salesman, and pied piper for the financially illiterate. He’s like Bernie 2.0, all empty promises and suspect motivations.
The real causes of American’s decreasing quality of life are
  • “free-trade” deals,
  • unchecked illegal immigration,
  •  government over-taxation and regulation of people and small businesses in favor of multinational corporations and billionaires.

The New Zeroes

by The Zman  
“There’s a pretty good real world example of this. The government decided to do something to help working class people get into college. Since many need remedial help, before taking on college work, the scheme was to offer a subsidy to be used for community colleges. The students would use the money to prep for college then head off to a four year university, presumably using loans and aid at that level. The result, however, was the community colleges just raised their tuition by about 65% of the subsidy.
The Universal Basic Income would most likely follow the same pattern. By guaranteeing that no one would earn less than some amount, in lieu of traditional welfare payments, the absolute floor becomes the subsidy level. In effect, the new zero becomes the subsidy so all other wages would be based off that, as the price of goods and services would correspondingly adjust. It is really no different than printing up money and dropping it from helicopters into the ghetto. The UBI would be as inflationary as debasing the currency.”

Capitalism is the Only Free System. Governments are the Only Real Problem

Capitalism is nothing but trading goods and services.
Crony Capitalism is when the government has been co-opted by powerful interests to create a rigged capitalist system.
Governments are now the tools of these powerful interests whose goals are to farm our wealth and control us, like a revenue stream.
Government has no right to take people’s stuff or own their labor and socialism is a step in the wrong direction, towards more control by the powerful interests that control government. 

Socialism is like the DMV controlling your existence

Name the State

Jeffrey A. Tucker
THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2019

The tendency toward loss of political control has inspired new, more extreme, and more obscurantist forms of selling state control to us. As the dynamics of public vs. private continue to shift, we can look forward to ever more obfuscation about the reality of displacing market forces. But once you see what’s going on, you can’t unsee it. The most effective path toward helping others to see is simple: name the state.

The bitter truth about most public policies being sold by the political class is that they give them more power to control our lives.

Read More: https://www.aier.org/article/name-state

Capitalism (aka Self-Ownership) Is the Only Moral Economic System


04/05/2019

In capitalism (which is actually inconsistent with the government- created or enabled crony capitalism we see all around us), even those who would be tyrants, if given the opportunity, must focus their efforts on providing willing service to others to induce their voluntary cooperation. In contrast, the drive for power that animates these politicians who condemn a capitalism they plainly don’t comprehend would increasingly turn others into their unwilling servants.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/capitalism-aka-self-ownership-only-moral-economic-system

Socialized Healthcare Systems Reduce Quality and Increase Wait Times

Wait Times in Canadian Healthcare

Socialized Medicine Means Crushing Taxes And Denied Care

Alex Lekas
FEBRUARY 4, 2019

David Ruiz is being starved to death — in a hospital. In the United States. The 32-year old member of a Native American tribe has been in a coma since suffering a stroke on New Year’s Eve. Ruiz is on a ventilator. His sister says the man is responsive to external stimuli, but the hospital staff has cut off food and water after declaring him brain dead.

The question of denying nutrition and hydration has been subject to good-faith ethical debate among care providers for some time. But it is usually connected to clearly defined end of life circumstances like cancer or dementia, and is often a byproduct of the will of individual patients: those who consciously refuse food and water, and whose medical powers of attorney proscribe life-saving measures.

In this case, the patient cannot actively refuse. His family wants Ruiz fed and hydrated, but hospital officials have made a unilateral decision. This relegates Ruiz to no more than an actuarial concern, a built-in feature of socialized medicine, one of several points conspicuously avoided when discussing the efficacy of a government-run system.

Socialized Medicine Must Ration Care

First among those points is that a Congress with 3 percent of members who are health professionals lacks the institutional knowledge needed to run a nationwide system. Second is the reality of doing so. While the left often bleats about the disconnect between the United States and other industrialized nations in providing health care, those champions of medical equity nearly never mention the taxes necessary for getting there. American politicians have not suggested revising our tax structure to mirror any in Europe. Instead, they wave off the costs as something “the rich” will pay for, which is mathematically impossible.

Despite tax rates of roughly 40 percent at all levels of income and national sales taxes (the value-added tax, or VAT) of 20 to 25 percent, as well as massive taxes on gasoline and other goods, the cost of “free” is quite expensive — not that many European countries haven’t tried grabbing as much revenue as possible. The result? The old adage about other people’s money is playing out in hospitals across the continent. When those tax rates are not enough, then what? Factor in an aging population and the problem is not one of providing care, it’s one of math.

We’re a society in which roughly half the population has no federal tax liability and 20 percent of wage-earners pay nearly 90 percent of federal income taxes. At some point, it is worth asking how much of one person’s money is another person entitled to receive? But no one on the left is asking. If anything, the question is dismissed as irrelevant. Instead, advocates go the emotional route, beating the drum of health care at the expense of others as some inalienable right. That’s now how it works.

Read More:

http://thefederalist.com/2019/02/04/socialized-medicine-means-crushing-taxes-denied-care/

Political Correctness Mixed w/ Government-run Healthcare and Censorship/Unpersoning

Ashton Birdie Alex Jones Deplatformed UnPersoned

Socialism and Political Correctness are a Dangerous Mix

Unfortunately instead of working to depoliticize tech, it’s far more likely that we will see increased politicization of other vital parts of American life – and perhaps none is more dangerous than that applied to healthcare.

While it is easy to mock the economic illiteracy of politicians like Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, there is no question that her brand of democratic socialism is growing in popularity – and not just on the left. It’s worth remembering that only a few years ago candidate Donald Trump gave his own endorsement to a healthcare vision similar to that held by AOC and Bernie Sanders.

Consider the troubling potential of a progressive government that drops all pretense of valuing free speech, and then giving that government complete control of the healthcare system.

While this perhaps sounds like the makings of an outlandish dystopian novel, imagine the sort of policies we’ve already seen come from the executive branch. Under the Obama Administration, we saw the use of the IRSDepartment of Homeland Security, and even intelligence agencies to target and punish political opponents. Meanwhile, the progressive left has increasingly identified those who believe the “wrong ideas” – such as skeptics of anthropogenic climate change – as dangerous threats guilty of the crimes equivalent to murder.

In an age where a new generation of doctors increasingly rejects the Hippocratic oath, a government take over of medical care – as the honest advocates of “Medicare for All” propose – could inevitably lead to politicized regulators making life and death decisions for Americans.

Now does this mean I think it’s likely that a President Ocasio-Cortez would instruct a “political death panel” to not provide Alex Jones with life saving treatment? Not necessarily. The issue, however, is that the greater control the state has on medicine, the more decisions are influenced by the concerns of government, rather than the needs of patients. In such a dark timeline, if socialized healthcare forced America to face the sort of medical rationing that Britain’s prized National Health Service has been reduced to, it would be fair to wonder if Gavin McInnes would receive the same sort of treatment as an Ezra Klein.

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0?utm_source=samizdat&utm_medium=partner&utm_campaign=free

The State Is Influencing Big Tech’s “Unpersoning” — Now Imagine If It Takes Over Healthcare


12/11/2018

let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

First let’s consider some of the overlooked causes behind the increased censorship from Silicon Valley.

While Republican politicians relish in collecting cheap soundbites railing against the censorship practices of widely despised tech executives, few are willing to point out the obvious influence of government in Big Tech’s growing hostility to free speech.

For example, just recently Facebook announced it was following the lead of Tumblr by cracking down on “sexualized content” on its platform. While both decisions were widely ridiculed by users and pundits alike, largely ignored was the role that recent Congressional laws aimed at cracking down on sex trafficking played in sparking the new policy. Similarly, “anti-hate speech” laws from Europe had very real consequences for American social media users as mechanisms designed to police speech oversees are inevitably used to manage content throughout their global communities.

While tech censorship began with isolated bans on individual social media platforms, it has evolved over time into a far more sinister crackdown of modern-day thought criminals. Alex Jones, for example, saw multiple social media accounts closed in a coordinated campaign earlier this year in what’s been likened to a modern version of Orwell’s “unpersoning.” Increasingly we are seeing financial services platforms, such as PayPal and Patreon, become another particularly effective form of censorship for those found guilty of violating the norms of political correctness.

The traditional libertarian response to these issues is to simply build another platform, but that seems increasingly impotent in the face of the union between Big Tech and state.

Gab, for example, is a product that arose in direct response to increased censorship on Twitter. The app has found itself deplatformed from both major phone app stores, even before user Robert Barnes killed 11 people at a Pennsylvania synagogue earlier this year and heightened law enforcement’s attention to the site. It’s worth noting that Facebook, a prolific donor to America’s political class, did not receive similar treatment when it was used to broadcast torture and murder. Similarly, cryptocurrency exchanges have faced backlash from government officialstraditional financial services companies, and tech companies in their effort to build alternatives to state-controlled financial networks.

Of course the answer to this new era of Big Brother (Sister?) isn’t government regulation, as many on the populist right advocate. The history of government involvement in communication platforms has been one of increased censorship. Instead, the best way to confront the Silicon Valley’s censorship is to recognize the inherently perverse influence of government and pursue a separation of tech and state. For example, attack all forms of state privileges enjoyed by companies that don’t recognize freedom of speech: such as government contracts, and liability waivers. Additionally, allow private citizens to sue when companies violate their terms of service or mislabel themselves as “open platforms.”

Read More: https://mises.org/wire/state-influencing-big-techs-unpersoning-imagine-if-it-take-overs-healthcare-0

Socialized Healthcare in Socialist Sweden?

swedish women

Sweden is not a socialist country. They are more of a free market economy than the US.
They pay very high taxes to provide each other with healthcare, public benefits and an unemployment safety net. (However, the provided healthcare also comes with long wait times that American’s would find disconcerting. )
Still, this system worked in Sweden because it was one of the  wealthiest countries in the mid 20th century and had a very small, homogenized population. Sweden’s population was 7 million in the 50’s.
Since their country’s wealth creation slowed and their demographics changed from immigration they have been rolling back the socialized benefits.
When you compare the size Sweden’s population, currently around 10 million, with the US population of around 325 million, it’s hard to imagine how people believe we can simply create a system like Sweden’s in the US.

Is Sweden Socialist? No, but…

Jon Henschen  March 05, 2018

…The glory days for Sweden economically took place prior to the 1960s,  when they had a free economy, low regulation and lots of wealth. Between 1870 and 1950, Sweden had the highest per capita income growth in the world and became one of the richest countries, behind only Switzerland, the U.S., and Denmark.

In the 1960s, Sweden started to redistribute wealth, which brought wealth creation to a halt. By the mid-1990s, the country had growing economic problems because it continued to redistribute wealth it wasn’t creating. It was at this juncture that many of the wealthy (ABBA band members included) and entrepreneurs were leaving Sweden. In 1994, Sweden began implementing the following measures designed to reverse this trend:

  • Reduce Regulation
  • Reduce Government Spending
  • Reform their Welfare Programs
  • Shrink their Government

Sweden has continued on this path for the last 24 years, which has brought them a modest rate of growth, but not nearly as robust as pre-60s levels due to government taxation remaining high.

Many view Sweden as socialist. However, the country is, in fact, very pro-capitalism, but does it with redistribution through taxes. Personal income is taxed at a rate of 61.85 percent, plus a 7 percent social security tax rate for employees. On top of these taxes, Sweden also has a 25 percent consumption tax. For these sacrifices of financial freedom, this is what Sweden offers their citizens in benefits:

  • Pension
  • Health care
  • Unemployment Insurance
  • Education through Ph.D. Level
  • Child Day Care
  • Very generous leaves of absence from work with benefits including: education up to 6 months, starting your own company up to 6 months off, parental leave up to 16 months with 80 percent of your pay during time off
  • 16 public holidays (10 of these holidays are Christian-based, even though just five percent of the population are regular church attendees).

Read More: https://fee.org/articles/is-sweden-socialist-no-but/?fbclid=IwAR3ZfsRN7w9v_bq2Hw9oSq4Pd_i759PQZsQlzAXUVMDGrDxypy_ZvCMedDY

Sweden: The Rorschach Nation

…Johan Norberg says. “Sweden was the place where the government tried out on a large scale the most generous welfare-state socialism imaginable. But this was a parenthesis, one episode in Sweden’s history. Sweden was already rich when this happened. It was one of the richest countries on the planet, and it had an open economy, with about the U.S. level of taxes. And that is the precise moment in time when Sweden began to lag behind, the period when Sweden began to fail. It needed a terrible crisis in the 1990s. Since then, Sweden has begun to reform: pension reform, school vouchers, tax cuts, abolishing taxes on inheritances and gifts, and more. That’s the thing that people on the left misunderstand.”

There’s a different rightward perspective on Sweden: “Give us some of that.” Conservatives may not be excited about Sweden’s tax burden or the scale of its welfare state, but they are rightly impressed with the effectiveness and transparency of Sweden’s institutions, with its sober attitude toward public debt, its free trade, its flexible labor markets, its lack of corruption, the security of its people’s property rights, and much more. They conclude that the variable isn’t that Sweden has a larger public sector but that it has a more honest and effective one, that it thrives not because it has high taxes but because it spends them more wisely and more honestly. The conservatives at the Heritage Foundation rate Sweden’s economy as very free — more free than the American economy on some measures — and suggest that its path of reform since its economic crisis in the Nineties contains lessons for our own less sprawling but at least equally dysfunctional welfare state.

Sweden’s Reputation As A Welfare State Is In Trouble

www.investors.com 5/11/2012
Sweden has a reputation as the prototypical cradle-to-grave socialist European nation, and the political left has long yearned for America to be more like the Scandinavian nation.

But it’s looking through a smudged window. With little notice, Sweden has changed.

The turnaround has been driven in no small part by the election of Fredrik Reinfeldt as prime minister in 2006. He took office in October of that year and by January of 2007, tax-cutting had begun. The Reinfeldt government also cut welfare spending — a form of austerity — and began to deregulate the economy.

That doesn’t sound like the Sweden that American Democrats hold up as the standard.

But as Finance Minister Anders Borg told the Spectator, the Reinfeldt government was simply continuing the last 20 years of reform.

Far from hurting Sweden’s economy, the changes have improved it. And they’ll likely help to protect it from the 0.3% economic decline now forecast for the euro zone in 2012.

Sweden fell into recession in 2008 and 2009, as did many developed nations. But it’s pulled strongly out of the decline, posting GDP gains of 6.1% in 2010 and 3.9% last year, when it ranked at the top in Europe’s list of fastest-growing economies.

U.S. growth over those same two years under Barack Obama’s Keynesian stewardship? It was less than half of Sweden’s — 3% in 2010 and an anemic 1.7% in 2011.

While the U.S. continues to struggle with its jobs problem — unemployment is at 8.1% here — Sweden’s jobless rate has fallen to 7.5%.

Not perfect, but 7.5% is far below the euro zone average of 10.2% and significantly lower than the rates in Spain (21.7%), Portugal (12.9%) and the United Kingdom (8%), countries that Borg noted were “were arguing for large temporary stimulus.”

Under Borg, Sweden handled the downturn in the most un-European way. “While most countries in Europe borrowed massively, Borg did not. Since becoming Sweden’s finance minister, his mission has been to pare back government. His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut,” Fraser Nelson wrote last month in the Spectator.

Read More: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/swedish-model-brings-economic-growth/?fbclid=IwAR3S1Eui5aKJO2wC-vS8IG_Z7qVwwyiRmb6CnCr26lazyPqW6m8VEOBbd7U