Comment by kp98 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kp98 | Hacker News Reader

I feel like there are so many holes in the UBI that Yang has offered, some extremely obvious. Reminds me of Josepf Goerbells "Big Lie," which could be summed up as

simplicity x scale of a lie == popularity + efficacy.

I do not believe the narrative Yang has spun about AI taking half of our jobs in 5 to 10 years, and I think that even minute inspection of his policies turns up a lot to be answered. Just two easy ones off the top of my head:

1) giving the freedom dividend to everyone effectively dilutes other programs. For example, my mother is on long term disability, and she receives $1200 a month. Under Yang's plan she would be competing against everyone else who just gained $1000 a month because the benefit does not stack. The same argument can be made about other single mothers who do not receive disability but other benefits.

2) He says stuff like he does not want to break up big tech because "nobody wants to use the fourth best search engine." To me this means he's not as informed as appears. The reason we would break up Google has nothing to do with Bing or DuckDuckGo and everything to do with information autocracy, influence, and monopolistic practices towards new businesses.

Anyways, I could list about 100 things wrong with his plan, and I am going to make a YouTube series on it because YouTube is obsessed with UBI; meanwhile, I do not believe his theory on AI or that we can afford his plan without increasing government debt.

1) What makes you think your mother would be "competing" against people receiving UBI? Economy is not a single sum game, and there are several studies suggesting that the boost it would give the economy would actually free up more money for social services.

2) I am not a Yang expert, and agree with you on the dangers of an information autocracy, but from what I understand he is not against breaking up big-tech, he just doesn't believe it will by itself solve the fundamental problems society currently faces with respect to tech and believes other solutions are necessary.

1) In supply limited markets like housing, especially low income housing, there's definitely competition for that limited supply. Then there is inflation in general, which will become a factor to some extent. Bertrand's trap comes into play on highly substitutable goods like apples, so there wouldn't be much competition there, but where there is inelasticity of demand you get inflation. For poor people, this manifests in decreased quality of healthcare and less housing optionality. Healthcare example going back to my mom: she needs to get an in home nurse in the next year or two, or to be put in a home, she has $1200 a month to pay for this. With Yang's plan she would be competing against people who potentially have enough saved to pay on their own, but also have a bonus $1000 a month. This ultimately shifts purchasing power away from people like my mom. Example in housing is the same, but replace a nursing home for an actual home.

2) Yang has actually been around the map on this, the first few months he was against it, lately it has been for and against? He seems uncertain, but either way I don't really appreciate the uncertainty. I do think they should be broken up, and I think Yang should be knowledgable enough of the cause effect relationship to make a decision. Another way to look at this is that the guy who is saying that AI is going to replace all our jobs doesn't seem to have a grasp on the idea of antitrust in technology. It is also a strawman representation of antitrust, no one said it will solve all our problems; antitrust is a nuanced issue that has extreme relevance today, and it takes someone who is preceptive to understand it. Yang presents himself as this preceptive person, and foretells our ruinous future with AI, yet he doesn't understand the issue.

1) That assumes these markets stay supply limited, which has often showed not to be the case. Even against all predictions. I know several nurses who would jump at the chance to leave the hospital infrastructure and help people on a more personal level if they could retain some level of financial stability. An UBI could provide that stability. It is necessary to see what makes these markets supply limited and address those issues if needed. This stands apart from the questions of UBI.

2) I find the fact that he does not have a simple answer to a complex problem a breath of fresh air in our political climate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com