/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16576120]

Has anyone read it?

[Anonymous No.16576137]

>>16576120
Landlord: Noticed that you got an extra $1000 a month ay? Nice, nice. Anyway, forgot to mention, rents going up, about $1000 a month more. Okay, thanks, see you soon.

[Anonymous No.16576211]

>>16576120
By normal people does he mean whites? If not I don’t care.

[Anonymous No.16576346]

>>16576137
>landlords are going to more than double the rent in lower end apartaments

[Anonymous No.16576362]

>>16576211
He means blacks, unironically

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7crf0mzhws

[Anonymous No.16576369]

>normal people
>isn't white

[Anonymous No.16576400]

>>16576346
what's going to stop them?

[Anonymous No.16576410]

>>16576400
I'll more than double it -$1 and attract all the serfs to my land

[Anonymous No.16576477]

>>16576410
In the new Socialist Republic of America all housing will be free.
The evils of imperial capitalist piggus will be scoured away by the magic of Carl Marx.
Money will simply be given to those who ask for it, but nobody will ask for anything cause we'll already have everything we want.
Also everyone will get to practice all their religions but won't enforce any of the parts that kill the other religions.
Also everyone will be engendered except gays who may identify as their chosen gender so that they can have homosexual relations in peace.
Also marriage will be allowed between anything and everything except bigots who will be tolerated as long as they keep their free speech to themselves.

[Anonymous No.16576523]

>>16576400
believe it or not, landlords dont just charge tge maximum they think people can pay, they have to compete with eachother and so rent usually ends up being the minimum they can charge while covering taxes, repair and mortgage, saving money for when some tenants inevitably cause more damage than the deposit covers, and makinn enough of a profit to make it more worthwile than just investing the startup costs in the stock market. sure rent would rise a little bit with ubi but if somebody tried to raise it by any significant portion of the existing rent then more people would try owning property and undercutting eachother.

[Anonymous No.16576610]

>>16576120
I have OP. I thought it was quite good. His arguments are fairly sound for most things, and while I'm not necessarily all the way sold on UBI, he seems to have a much deeper understanding of average Americans than most politicians.

[Anonymous No.16576657]

From reading the book you’d think he actually cares about the country and dared to challenge the status quo. But whatever good intentions he may have had were discarded as soon as he got a whiff of power, and he was assimilated into the party machinery, like a harmless simulacrum of genuine dissent.

[Anonymous No.16576675]

>>16576120
>Reading a book written by an ugly chink.

ngmi.

[Anonymous No.16576697]

>>16576657
This. His intentions seemed noble, but he's already being subverted by the larger system.

[Anonymous No.16576715]

>>16576120
I hope we can get a yang politician in my lifetime, I don't care about money as long as I can afford food, shelter, gym, reading and a bit of video games. Fuck wagecuckery, let's offload that shit to robots.

[Anonymous No.16576749]

>>16576657
Seems like a DNC lapdog to trick the naive futurist I fucking love science voting demographic into thinking that because the Dems are at least willing to platform a guy who supports UBI they must be the progressive party. Yikes. They’ll give you you’re UBI in 50 years when automation makes their mullato morlocks redundant and uppity.

[Anonymous No.16576754]

He's the only candidate of the past two elections aware of the fact that the remainder of the 21st century is going to go to hell and that we might need some seemingly unorthodox ideas to prevent the US from imploding

[Anonymous No.16576773]

>>16576120
Andrew Yang was supposed to have a debate with Antony Sameroff, who is the author of Universal Basic Income (for and against). Check it out

[Anonymous No.16577008]

>>16576754
>unorthodox ideas to prevent the US from imploding

The only way that's going to happen is if we severely restrict immigration, which probably won't happen.

[Anonymous No.16577091]

>>16576137
Thats not at all how it would work

[Anonymous No.16577472]

>>16576137
Okay I'm your last tenet and I'm moving to the apartments over there then.

[Anonymous No.16577480]

>>16577472
>tenet

[Anonymous No.16577494]

>>16577480
How's the movie? I'm a Nolan fan but not much of a fan of niggers

[Anonymous No.16577517]

Discussing economics with capitalists or socialists is like discussing quantum mechanics with a lentil.

[Anonymous No.16577523]

>>16576137
>this dead meme
This shit has already been long debunked. But there are other reasons to be skeptical of UBI.

[Anonymous No.16577559]

>>16576362
Oh no! He accidentally gave $1000 to a white person at 5:48

[Anonymous No.16577770]

>>16577523
Source? You’re saying this like its common knowledge. It seems logical that overall prices would raise to match UBI

[Anonymous No.16577793]

>>16577494
It was okay. Like a lamer Inception with an even more convoluted premise full of constant exposition but none of the interesting psychoanalytic pseudery to make up about dreams and post on your blog.
Denzel's son is on screen constantly but acting more like a wet towel than a nigger.

[Anonymous No.16577829]

>>16577770
Prices of what? If competition was maintained and most things were still just pulling a modest profit above their expenses, anybody who said "customers make more now so they should pay me more" would lose out to people who don't raise their prices. That's a big "if," but it's valid.
Prices would only go up if expenses did significantly from something like sharply increased taxes, which might have been required to make UBI happen, but I vaguely remember he had a half-assed plan that would just cut spending from elsewhere and maybe reduce tax cuts to the wealthy or something.

[Anonymous No.16578594]

>>16576523
>having a mortgage on a rental
Mental midget financial planning move.

[Anonymous No.16578662]

>>16576657
What would have satisfied you? Bernie endorsed Biden and didn't even get any worthwhile leverage on policy out of it, and that's the guy who came in second place. Yang got 1% of the vote in Iowa and New Hampshire. At least Yang has been using Humanity Forward to run people against establishment candidates.

[Anonymous No.16578666]

>>16578594
Wrong. I own three rental properties, two of which are paid off, all bought through mortgage. Being leveraged literally has no consequences if you can actually make a return on your investment.

[Anonymous No.16578704]

Does anyone know how this guy did so bad in Iowa? Didn't he campaign like crazy and go on a ton of bus tours and shit? He did way more than the other candidates and thought he would get #1 in Iowa. I thought he would do well too as did many others, but he ended up doing horribly and dropped out as a result.

What the hell happened?

[Anonymous No.16578735]

>>16578704
Have you seen what his Iowa team looked like?

[Anonymous No.16578753]

>>16578735
No. Can you elaborate?

[Anonymous No.16578759]

>>16578704
the media treated him like a joke candidate despite polling higher than Cory Booker and Beto O'Rourke who the media treated as "serious," and he had zero name recognition (boomers are the ones who show up to primaries and they don't know who Joe Rogan is)

the media handpicked Pete Buttigieg as the chosen one before Bidenmageddon in South Carolina and progressives went all in on Bernie

Yang frequently had the lowest speaking time in all the debates he was in

most voters have been brainwashed to think the person they like the most can't actually win

[Anonymous No.16578764]

>>16578704
The game was rigged from the start.

[Anonymous No.16578775]

>>16578759
>>16578764
I know this much, the Yang media blackout and so on. But I'm talking about Iowa specifically. With all of the tours he went on there, way more than the other candidates, wouldn't he have gotten more popular?

[Anonymous No.16578808]

>>16578775
Until he's popular enough for an uprising at a primary, he's not getting in

[Anonymous No.16579781]

>>16578753
Let me get on my desktop and show you his team leaders

[Anonymous No.16579855]

>>16578753
This guy was the head volunteer in Iowa. He quit his job and moved to Iowa for 6 months to campaign for Andrew, for free. After Andrew lost, he made a post on Reddit whining about a bunch of shit. Imagine you're a boomer in Iowa and this thing knocks at your door to tell you about Yang's UBI. Would you take it seriously?

[Anonymous No.16579870]

>>16579855
another volunteer proudly posted this as an example of being in the Yang Gang

[Anonymous No.16579872]

>>16576477
Its sad and funny because this is the vision most zoomer leftists have for america

[Anonymous No.16579880]

>>16577829
IIRC Yang claimed that cutting all current welfare programs and replacing them with UBI would actually be a net surplus. Whether that's actually true idk since I'm not a burger.

[Anonymous No.16579912]

>>16579880
Funnily enough, this is why a number of democrats disliked him. Even though UBI would actually give the average welfare recipient more control over their lives and more overall money than current social programs, cutting the current welfare bloat is apparently evil.

[Anonymous No.16579922]

>>16579870
He has good taste in beer. He looks like he missed his calling as a medieval monk in a brewery desu

[Anonymous No.16579926]

>>16579912
My problem was that he said he'd fund UBI by taxing Facebook, Amazon, etc. Those companies have paid $0 in tax for many years. What makes him think he can get those Jews to pay up?

[Anonymous No.16579939]

>>16578594
Clearly you're not Australian

[Anonymous No.16579949]

>>16577517
What 'economics' do you subscribe to then?

[Anonymous No.16579996]

>>16577829
>If competition was maintained

The fuck is this supposed to mean? Landlords don't 'compete' with each other the same way manufacturers of mass produced goods do. If one dude rents a house cheaply, then that just means there's one house paying less rent, the rest of the houses could still charge whatever they want as long as other people are willing to pay unless they can somehow magically create a surplus of housing on desirable land now.

[Anonymous No.16580011]

>>16577559
That kid seemed totally unphased lol

[Anonymous No.16580098]

>>16576211
I read it, he spends an entire mini chapter defining what "normal" even is in America lol.

It's just a pitch book to Joe Rogan normies for UBI. Doesn't get into any philosophical arguments liek it being the final Neoliberal stage of Material Equity etc /Investing the Future meme book/..

Shame he turned into a typical DNC grifter after tasting those Biden bucks.

[Anonymous No.16580111]

Who should I write in when I go vote? Kanye?

[Anonymous No.16580127]

>>16580098
He's needs a lot of money to pay for his clinically autistic son's medical bills

[Anonymous No.16580135]

>>16579926
His plan was a VAT I believe, followed by threats of anti-trust suits if they didn't end up paying.

[Anonymous No.16580147]

>>16579996
>>16576137
People have some flexibility where they rent, and the incentive to rent somewhere cheaper increases when you can save $1000/mo by moving. If my rent instantly went up by $1000 a month I'd probably go live in the library and keep my yangbucks.

[Anonymous No.16580159]

>>16580135
The socialist and left leaning politicians in Europe have been trying that for years with little to mixed success, and they're actually dedicated to the cause of taxing large companies. Seems like a pipe dream.

My personal theory is that Yang looks at his retarded son and is worried that he'll never be able to get a job and provide for himself. His wife is a homemaker, zero income, so if he's dead, that's it, his family is on the street. That's why he's so obsessed with free money for the rest of their lives. It's the only way his kid will survive

[Anonymous No.16580172]

>>16580127
He messed up big time bringing his wife on the campaign trail ngl. Then trying to spin his wife's sexual harassment "coming out" into some type of "event". idk i wanted free money man.

[Anonymous No.16580214]

>>16580172
She was easy on the eyes and I bet she kept his spirits high while she was with him.

I don't think he cares about the $1000 a month anymore. If Biden wins, he's guaranteed a Cabinet job for at least 4 years, which is plenty of opportunity to siphon away enough money to pay for son's trust fund and clear the way for his relatives and son to work in government

[Anonymous No.16580238]

>>16580098
>Doesn't get into any philosophical arguments liek it being the final Neoliberal stage of Material Equity etc /Investing the Future meme book/..losophical arguments
so he doesn't engage in any sophistry? sounds worthwhile

[Anonymous No.16580273]

>>16580214
dam can't believe I wasted all that time in ms paint shilling for him. At least Kanye can afford his own propaganda.

[Anonymous No.16580709]

How on earth does he think he will pay for this?

[Anonymous No.16580715]

>>16580709
>>16579880

[Anonymous No.16580741]

>>16576369
underrated

jokes aside, the existence of this book being written by an Asian about the american collective shows that normal is long gone.

[Anonymous No.16580758]

>>16580741
America never had a normal, Asians in America is also nothing new.

[Anonymous No.16580805]

>>16577091
It's literally how it currently works. As soon as there's any increase in wages rent goes up, then people blame wypipu for 'gentrifying' the neighborhood.

[Anonymous No.16580876]

>>16580805
That's on a neighborhood basis, not from some kind of nationwide increase in wealth

[Anonymous No.16580877]

>>16580758
> america has always been a nation of immigrants!

ok retard, obviously chinese people have lived here since at least the 1840s. let me clarify for your smooth brain.

Every country has minorities living in their, but they generally don't hold powers of national influence and nobody would mistake them for the core ethnos of the country. This man is writing a book analyzing what had happened to the common man in america, you might say the body of america. Until 40 years ago nobody would construe this as anything but white people and perhaps african americans.

[Anonymous No.16580879]

>>16576120
Why do socialists always portray economic inequality as some sort of war waged on the poor? People are not equally intelligent, their circumstances and opportunities are not equal, and neither is the amount and quality of their work, so it's completely natural that over time wealth will accumulate in the hands of a minority. It has always been like this and always will be.
I agree that redistribution of wealth is necessary to prevent a slow descent into feudalism and to keep class mobility alive, but you're never going to get any postive, non-violent political momentum if you keep portraying successful people as evil and "not paying their fair share", whatever the fuck that is.

[Anonymous No.16580911]

>>16576477
>>16579872
Holy shit, imagine actually being retarded enough to believe any of this true.

[Anonymous No.16580956]

>>16580879
>Why do socialists always portray economic inequality as some sort of war waged on the poor?
>their circumstances and opportunities are not equal
You literally answered your own question, genius. Wealth inequality prevents poor people from being to pursue any kind of meaningful work because they don't have the opportunities to enter those fields in the first place. Rich people do, so they just get richer.

[Anonymous No.16580979]

>>16580956
I'm saying it shouldn't be portayed as a "war". The rich aren't actively trying to keep poor people down; inequality is a natural consequence of the unequal abilities and circumstances of human beings.

[Anonymous No.16580982]

>>16576120
I respect Yang for the brazen and blatant way his election strategy was to just bribe everyone in the country with money. It's pretty funny when you think about it.

[Anonymous No.16580991]

I watched an interview with Yang once and I was blown away when he was asked a question abut surging white nationalism on the right and he responded by talking about how white supremacist tend to come from areas of low economic struggle and they feel the world is living them behind. I have never heard a politician talked about it like that and was seriously impressed.

[Anonymous No.16581019]

>>16580877
No, what I'm talking about is the fact that America and what it means to be American has never been set in stone. Even when JFK (we all would agree he's white) became president it was still a bit controversial having an Irish Catholic representing America, but no wipipo advocate of the past 30 years would think twice about a Catholic speaking on behalf of "normal" Americans because nobody gives a fuck about religion anymore, the same can be said about race. In short stop being a hysterical faggot

[Anonymous No.16581022]

I read it not too long ago. It's actually not bad and he makes some fair points in a lot of things but some of his solutions are a bit overly optimistic and only been tested in very small scales like his idea for social credits and the only example he gave is some small town in Vermont that does it.

[Anonymous No.16581114]

>>16580979
>The rich aren't actively trying to keep poor people down;

[Anonymous No.16581126]

>>16581114
>no argument

[Anonymous No.16582745]

>>16576120
Does he not like Sally Rooney? Seems excessive...

[Anonymous No.16583209]

>>16580879
This is true within a capitalist country but globally it literally has been a war on the poor. Countless coups and destabilization of countries with even slightly leftist tendencies (almost all of south and central America, the congo, Iran, Burkina Faso..), even those with democratically elected leaders, have kept poor people poor and ripe for exploitation by western and now Eastern capitalists.

[Anonymous No.16584283]

>>16576137
Why doesnt this apply to literally any other generalized change in income?

[Anonymous No.16584704]

>>16576697
>he's already being subverted by the larger system.
how so, what is he up to these days? I don't follow politics but i guessed he would basically disappear after failing to get nominated and get his message out (which is his book)

[Anonymous No.16584719]

>>16578759
>most voters have been brainwashed to think the person they like the most can't actually win
this is a nice way of putting it

[Anonymous No.16585051]

>>16576657
This. He got got.

[Anonymous No.16585114]

>>16584704
After Yang quit the Democratic primary, he made a speech saying that he would always fight for UBI and he would only support candidates who also supported UBI. One month later, he endorsed Biden, despite Biden not supporting UBI. Since then, he's been a standard Democratic shill

He had a few embarrassing mishaps such as when Biden announced that he would pick a woman to be his VP, and Andrew expressed his sadness because he thought that Biden told him that he'd be his VP. Then during the official Democratic nomination, Yang whined that he wasn't allowed to give a speech when all these other people were allowed to give speeches. Out of pity, they let him give a speech

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HO7Yjgj3fGg

[Anonymous No.16585145]

>>16584704
He went full shill. First, he bent the knee and endorsed Biden. Then he did a comedy sketch at the DNC with Julia Louis-Dreyfus where he attempted to woke-scold people into supporting Biden. And his Twitter feed went from railing against the establishment to parroting Democrat talking points.

[Anonymous No.16585155]

I listened to his other book "Smart people should build things" and it was a super condescending thing about how rich kids from Yale and
Harvard should leverage their connection to start a new crop of megacorporations rather than take jobs with McKinnsey and Goldman Sachs. The guy clearly views people from non-elite colleges as nothing more than children/chuds who need to be provided for by a class of elite meritocrats.

[Anonymous No.16585159]

>>16585145
Can you blame him? He couldn't live off of Patreon bucks from his YangGang simps forever

[Anonymous No.16585175]

>>16585159
He's hoping to be appointed to something like Chairman of Gibs Oversight in the new administration.

[Anonymous No.16585339]

>>16585114
He always said he was going to support whoever was the nominee, and you can't just single out Yang when Bernie, Tulsi, and warren did the exact same thing. Yang clearly wants to run in 2024 and this is part of the price of not being completely buttfucked by the media.

[Anonymous No.16585561]

>>16580911
Being raised on twitter, tumblr, and the butchered version of socialism academics and ecelebs feed you will make you think like leftist zoomers do

[Anonymous No.16585609]

>>16576137
>having literally no understanding of the concept of competitive prices in a free market

[Anonymous No.16585615]

>>16576400
The only way they could do that is if they had a monopoly on housing. Otherwise anyone else will just build a new building and undercut those rental prices

[Anonymous No.16585621]

>>16585114
Not at all surprising

[Anonymous No.16585622]

How about this one?

[Anonymous No.16585628]

>>16577517
>"both sides are retarded"
>doesn't add anything to the discussion
You are the embodiment of a meme

[Anonymous No.16585638]

>>16579880
The bottom line cost of UBI in the USA is about $3 trillion per year. The current welfare spending is about $1 trillion per year. If you implement a Value Added Tax, close some financial loop holes, and shuffle a few other programs, then UBI is affordable.

[Anonymous No.16585654]

>>16585339
>you can't just single out Yang when Bernie, Tulsi, and warren did the exact same thing
to be fair our expectations were higher of Yang because he was not the Establishment and we had some hope that he would stay that way

i guess we wouldn't even be talking about him if he really did stay true to his values, it's either be absorbed or be a non entity in the US

[Anonymous No.16585658]

>>16580979
JP Morgan Chase just admitted to a massive scheme of market manipulation stretching back 8 years. Not to mention the housing crash of 2008 which was a result of a conscious plan to trick people into mortgages they couldn't afford in order to make a quick buck off of them and leave them penniless and destitute.

Those in power have always looked for ways to exploit the less powerful, and with the destruction of unions and the opening up of the global labor market, the ladder to move up the socioeconomic hierarchy has effectively been removed.

[Anonymous No.16585663]

>>16576369
>Han Chinese phenotype literally the most average in the world
>not normal
When will Americans realize their country isn't the whole world? Before it's too late, I'd wager.

[Anonymous No.16585666]

>>16576120
Fuck neoliberals.

[Anonymous No.16585682]

>>16580979
Have you been watching the government spending over this pandemic? Business interests get taken care of immediately resulting in the most wealthy people actually becoming MORE wealthy (look up the net worth of the top 400 Americans, it's grown a ton since March). Meanwhile they still can't pass a stimulus bill for average citizens resulting in a massive loss of income and a decline of wealth for something like the bottom 80% of the population. This is class warfare waged by the wealthy through self interest and a disregard for everyone else. It's actually a form of socializing losses to the people while monopolizing both the profits and the government assistance.

[Anonymous No.16585689]

>>16585638
How does this even make sense? We can barely afford welfare as it is. How can a new type of welfare that costs 3 times as much be considered affordable

[Anonymous No.16585711]

>>16585689
What makes you say we can barely afford it? The economic activity in the USA is something like $22 trillion per year. Most of that activity is due to technological advancements which are a product of societal progress (the labor of countless generations before us and which should not be leveraged to enrich only a select few) and as such deserve to be taxed highly in order to ensure the healthiest society possible.

[Anonymous No.16585724]

>>16576137
Which is why we have to organise the tenants.

[Anonymous No.16585839]

>>16585682
it's deliberate

more than half of the local businesses in my area have shut down permanently while all the megacorps are still operational

[Anonymous No.16585850]

>>16585689
You're thinking too linearly. The UBI would not just vanish down a hole. It would boost consumer spending, allow people to make self-advancing financial decisions, and in put more money into circulation in the economy. The outstanding consumer debt would start to decrease, improving the health of the country's overall debt profile.

And the notion that there "is no money" is a lie. The government just has different priorities and listens only to its masters in banking and finance. Whenever they need money, they get it, often trillions in bailout funds. Not everything has to be paid up front, by restructuring the government's finances it could run a reasonable deficit while boosting the economy's overall strength. If the economy is growing, the deficit means less. Also, at least according to Yang's proposal, for people on social security the UBI would be presented as a replacement option, not as an additional benefit. You would accept SS or the UBI, not both.

[Anonymous No.16585861]

>>16585839
It's amazing how the pandemic has been leveraged so ruthlessly by corporate interests to accelerate their avarice in claiming more and more of the market share away from small businesses.

[Anonymous No.16585907]

>>16585850
It's just a shame the establishment is so entrenched that nothing changes. Biden's campaign has already stated "the pantry is bare" and the whole democratic process has proven that candidates like Yang or Sanders get railroaded while Wall Street darlings like Biden get propped up, and outside challengers like Trump talk a big game but then just take care of their wealthy corporate friends anyway. The people have been systematically shut out of the government process, and the future is looking pretty grim.

[Anonymous No.16585997]

>>16585711
Yeah we have so much money for welfare. That's why the government is so blase about giving everyone lots of stimulus checks for the pandemic. Money for everyone whooo

[Anonymous No.16586030]

>>16585997
>That's why the government is so blase about giving everyone lots of stimulus checks for the pandemic
The funny part is, they are if it's megacorporations ($2 trillion business bailout in MARCH, see how quick they are when the lobbyists come a calling?)

[Anonymous No.16586062]

>>16586030
Yeah, even the great corporations got one bailout back in MARCH. The money is running out and now they're laying off people. Do you see a second stimulus

[Anonymous No.16586101]

>>16585907
Democracies in decline tend to behave this way. The current situation in the US directly parallels the decay of the Ancien Regime in pre-revolutionary France. That doesn't mean a revolution is in the works, just that revolutionary conditions are ripe. We live in a system where 50 of the richest people can make billions in days while millions get nothing but a one time $1200 payment while the economy rots to its core.

It's a shame how Marxist rhetoric has monopolized the concept of revolution, meaning that the only conceivable radical change is through a marxist framework which the majority of Americans tacitly oppose. Not all revolutions are of a marxist character, yet marxism has retroactively interpreted all revolutions as only explainable in terms of its theory of class struggle. The thing is, there is no class struggle here, no political consciousness that views things in terms of it. Sanders is the one and only voice in the American political establishment who vaguely addresses these issues, and he is absurdly considered a fringe actor. There is a directly traceable etiology to the progression of this disease, but American political language is--by design--not equipped to speak to it.

That is why a civil war about completely invented and fabricated "culture war" issues is a more conceivable possibility than a revolutionary war. The elites know that even if Americans kill each other on the streets en mass over imaginary ideals they will still come out on top.

[Anonymous No.16586105]

>>16586062
>the money is running out
Lmao if you think this. The U.S. government has a functionally infinite supply of money at its disposal.

[Anonymous No.16586119]

>>16586105
Amazing. Someone who actually believes the printer go brrrr meme is a documentary

[Anonymous No.16586123]

>>16586105
pretty much this, America could build a wall around whole country ignore world without anything bad happening

[Anonymous No.16586164]

>>16586119
I'm right.

[Anonymous No.16586210]

>>16586105
This. We will borrow into perpetuity

[Anonymous No.16586229]

>>16586101
> there is no class struggle here
I was about to reply saying there is transparently a class issue in the USA but I realized that you were simply saying nobody is fighting on those issues (Bernie being the weak exception). I am inclined to agree with Marx about revolutions being in response to class struggle, though. The French revolution was a clear response to the first and second estate bleeding the third estate dry, the Russian revolution was a response to the Tsar letting people starve and running the country into the ground (I am aware that he saw the writing on the wall and was trying to turn things around but it was too little, too late); the American revolution, one could say, was some wealthy people establishing their own nation where only landowners could so much as vote, but even then the promise of a free society attracted countless poor people from Europe and its colonies.

[Anonymous No.16586241]

>>16586101
You know I had a similar thought while reading Capital, that Marx's ideas are well grounded, yet the over all phenomenon of "Marxism" has done immeasurable damage, not just in those specific regimes which adopted it, but to the idea of working towards a better deal for workers. I'm not sure what you meant about there being no class struggle, even Adam Smith points out that the interests of businesses are in opposition to that of customers and that there are all kinds of contrivances on the part of industry owners/leaders to artificially raise prices and to keep wages as low as possible (an example Smith used was mandatory lengths of apprenticeship to force the number of "masters" to be low and thus to maintain a more advantageous position for said "masters")

[Anonymous No.16586288]

>>16586119
You might be retarded

[Anonymous No.16586294]

>>16586229
I'm not really advocating for a rejection of the marxist causal explanation for revolutions, so much as that, not all revolutions result in or have the goal of establishing communism. Certainly this is not true of the French or American revolutions, which were driven by democratic or nationalist motives. Communism was an anachronism at that time. The point is that not all revolutions are motivated by communism. And if there is to be one in America, the realpolitik take on the situation is that a communist revolution would be unmarketable.

>>16586241
>I'm not sure what you meant about there being no class struggle
I may not have worded it precisely. I meant there was no consciousness of class struggle. There is, instead, conveniently all these identity politics divisions and conflicts, which are not based on class. Americans accept the way their economy functions as some unquestionable, perfect system, despite all the corruption, cheating, and class-based repression (deunionization, price gouging on medication costs, the fraudulent and exploitative "gig economy", and much more). These are not viewed as a unified strategy of class repression. There is no conscious class struggle, in the sense that the working class is organized in its aims to oppose the ruling class. American workers are conveniently atomized and told to view their struggles as personal rather than political.

[Anonymous No.16586322]

>>16577770
>it seems logical
>seems
>logical
>economics are intuitive!
So, in other words, you have an even more tenuous argument that the person you're demanding evidence from?

[Anonymous No.16586334]

>>16586322
logic bad
free money good

[Anonymous No.16586376]

>>16577770
The only way you can maintain inflated profits is to sabotage competition. In a free market, if prices of everything went up after UBI, it would open huge avenues of opportunity for new businesses to undercut these new high costs, and soon prices would revert back to reasonable levels.

Right now, you could open up a sandwich shop, but you'd likely not be able to compete with the streamlined model of, say, Subway. If Subway doubled their prices, suddenly your new startup sandwich shop would be able to compete, and perhaps even undercut Subway. Subway would then have to either accept that your shop is taking a small (but presumably growing) share of their market, or they would lower their prices as to maintain their market share. Prices are dictated largely by cost + profits which the market tolerates. If profits become too inflated, a new business comes along willing to take less profit in order to take away those customers.

[Anonymous No.16586403]

>>16586334
Learn how economic forces work before you make a fool of yourself. You can't just double your prices and maintain your business model. Someone will undercut you until you lower your prices

[Anonymous No.16586435]

40% of Americans can't cover an unexpected bill of $400. That is nearly half of the people in the country. A UBI would handle that. Within the present coordinates of the political economy, it's hard to see how this issue will self-correct. Despite propaganda about Trump's pre-covid economic growth, this fact still persisted. Given the drastic inequalities in the economy, no conventional form of economic growth will rectify this. All those gains will be captured by the wealthiest.

[Anonymous No.16586610]

>>16576137

It's almost like we should just have regulations that don't let landlords do things like this

[Anonymous No.16586685]

>>16576137
I like how flagrant it is now that people just acknowledge things like rent aren't a fair exchange of value. How can the product/service of renting a living space double in cost with no change to the actual thing being purchased? Opponents of UBI just openly argue that the whole thing was always a scam and people only pay because it's a kind of unspoken monopoly among landlords to maintain inflated prices.

Luckily I live in a country which puts a cap on rent increases, so rent cannot increase by more than 3% in a year.

[Anonymous No.16586973]

>>16586376
Subway™ produces sandwiches though. Landlords produce nothing: they hold property rights over land, but they don't produce any goods or services with their capital.
There is barely any competition between landlords because living space is a basic human need based on mostly immutable spatial factors, while Subway™ sandwiches are immediately consumable goods not inherently essential to the reproduction of human life, since you can replace them with rice and beans to fulfill the basic human need for food. Subway™ needs to make their sandwiches more attractive compared to the other competitive food sellers selling rice and beans, to justify their prices.
Rents are akin to taxes under feudalism. Landlords raise the rents in trendy places and might lower them in abandoned ones (but generally don't), but in the end, they are not under the same pressure as real capitalists, who deal with perishable goods and services. The worst is that most of them are cucked by banks.

[Anonymous No.16587032]

>>16585663
Retarded post. Yang is specifically talking about normal people in America.

[Anonymous No.16587045]

>>16586119
It is reality. The government has been doing it for its own debt budget for decades.

[Anonymous No.16587055]

>>16586973
That's a fair point, however, with UBI, people would have more freedom to move to lower rent areas, increasing incentive to build housing in places other than where it's trendy to live or where jobs are. Ultimately, the problem you highlight will still exist, but a UBI would give renters more freedom and choice and go at least some way towards redressing this power imbalance

[Anonymous No.16587177]

>>16587055
Sure, it might be better than nothing for a while, but I think the real solution is to massively reduce work hours, reach full employment that way, finally enjoy the fruits of automation, and give the finger to the feudalistic landlords. UBI is ultimately a superficial solution to the problem of technological unemployment of a society that refuses to confront itself with the question of production: what are we producing, and for what?

[Anonymous No.16587278]

>>16576137
you're right anon, the ones with a monopoly over something that is necessary to even live have infinite power, and we should do something about that

[Anonymous No.16587343]

>>16587177
How do you suppose to enforce the reduction of hours? Also, what incentive would people have for getting training for certain jobs knowing that such restrictions are in place? And the cost of training more people so they can all work less introduces inefficiencies, not to mention that it's unlikely to actually raise wages at all.

Don't get me wrong, UBI has some problems, but your suggestion is wildly more unworkable.

[Anonymous No.16587536]

>>16576137
I don't understand how anyone having that option doesn't move back with their parents after a few months of renting and realizing how retarded that is.

[Anonymous No.16587626]

>>16587343
>How do you suppose to enforce the reduction of hours?
The law. In France they didn't have to do much on that front when they imposed the 35-hour workweek in the 90s, before it got dismantled by neoliberals. If plebs would be woke, they could also strike until their demands are met. Prisons could also work in last resort, if you feel like a Stalinist.

>What incentive would people have for getting training for certain jobs knowing that such restrictions are in place?
I don't understand. Training for what?
If a job is unappealing, like garbage collection, pay the plebs more, it won't hurt, and automate that stuff as soon as possible.
If it's fancy stuff, it is more attractive by the virtue of not being literally picking trash, and of course, you could give them a superior stipend as well.

>The cost of training more people so they can all work less introduces inefficiencies
The cost of what? Are you an American? The real cost of putting someone knowledgeable into a room explaining other people how to do some stuff is almost nil, as long as you do not need immediately perishable training materials, like in a chemistry class. Even then, automation produce so much shit so easily, this is not that much of a problem.
Remember, free time for everyone means everyone have more time to learn useful things after work. Moe anime is getting old after a while.

>It's unlikely to actually raise wages at all.
If wages are too low, nobody can buy anything. It sucks for capitalists who would have to lower their prices to sell anything, but it's not my problem, because I'm not a capitalist. If they can't survive neither a little work hour reduction, nor a little flu virus, they don't deserve to remain on the market.

I'm not saying we should go from a 40 hour workweek to 8 hours, but we could definitely go from 40h to 32h -> 24h -> 16h -> 12h -> 8h -> 4h -> 0h.
The abolition of wageslavery is my goal. Wage labor didn't exist before modernity, and I don't see any reason why it should still exist in the future.
In any case, if it seems to unrealistic for you right now, it might not seem so once UBI will reach its limits, and climate change will become increasingly intense. All the bullshit jobs we are working at are the direct cause of climate change, and they will need to go sooner or latter, once coastal cities will be flooded and so on...

[Anonymous No.16587655]

>>16584704
he's a CNN talking head shill.

[Anonymous No.16587682]

>>16586973
>but they don't produce any goods or services with their capital.
They're legally obligated to service properties and keep them in livable condition.
This is a major factor in how housing has become so expensive, there are innumerable things that have to be done so that a property can be legally rented out.

[Anonymous No.16587689]

>>16587626
>Wage labor didn't exist before modernity, and I don't see any reason why it should still exist in the future.


It's so strange how many people perceive the current state of affairs to be 'freedom'. Like, plenty of people earn far more than enough to cover their actual material expenses, but keep constantly working purely because employers, both individually and collectively, would judge them for either "not putting in the work" or question "why were you not employed for X amount of time", demanding your work history have minimal gaps etc. which wouldn't have been an issue at most other times given you could could show your ability to do the work.

[Anonymous No.16587695]

>>16576137
>kill landlord
>take property as your own
>???

[Anonymous No.16587700]

>>16579939
Was about to say lol

[Anonymous No.16587702]

>>16578666
>Being leveraged literally has no consequences
>satan get
checks out

[Anonymous No.16587721]

>>16585615
>anyone else will just build a new building
If only you knew how bad things really are.

[Anonymous No.16587753]

>>16587626
I don't think you really understand market forces. If wages are low, capitalists simply create products geared towards other bourgeoisie instead.

Also, the more free time people have, it effectively means the supply of labor is much higher, meaning the cost of buying that labor is much lower. As more jobs are automated, those workers are pushed into other industries, so instead of a standard amount of garbage collectors, there would then be way more garbage collectors, and thus, the wage would drop as to only hire the workers willing to take the lower wage.

The current model means that all the gains of automation are held by the owners of capital, and workers receive none of those monetary gains. At best, they have available to them certain products which are cheaper, but this is very different from monetary gain. At the end of the day, people require a minimum subsistence to survive, and while advances in technology can lower those costs, there needs to be a mechanism where by the actual production created by technology is distributed to everyone (at least a small portion to everyone), because the avenues for people to exchange their labor for that subsistence are closing.

I'm not sure what you even intend as an end goal post-wages. People require food and houses. And if they do not own the means by which those things are created, why would the owners of those things grant them to people without extracting labor or something else from them? And if those means are owned by everyone, it raises a whole host of problems associated with such organizations which we could discuss further if that was what you meant

[Anonymous No.16587765]

>>16587682
Are you a landlord or do you know any landlords? It's one of the most profitable uses of capital, even taking into account the responsibilities legally required of said landlords. The profit margin is so high it's literally referred to as a "passive income"

[Anonymous No.16587777]

I don't care about your silly reasons for and against UBI. One man brings up his study why UBI turns everyone into a lazy vegetable, another shows how UBI will usher in a new golden age of prosperity and productivity. None of them have explained why/how the government has the responsibility of providing you with an income, that's your job, not Uncle Sam's. No constitutional document, no serious philosophical argument, no Bible verse can be presented to support the government giving you money simply because you exist.

[Anonymous No.16587808]

>>16587777
The social contract does. The project of civilization is a collaboration by all citizens, yet 90%+ of the benefits are currently being monopolized. Either the work put in by countless generations raises the standard of living for future generations, or there will be a revolution. The point here is, why are a select few allowed to leverage ownership of land and the means of production in order to extort labor out of workers at a price below what it naturally would be in a state of true freedom on the part of the workers? A government's responsibility is to advocate in the interests of it's citizens, yet the corrupting influence of corporations have subverted this to such a degree posters like yourself can't understand why we wouldn't want to just continue in a neoliberal corporate hellscape where everyone is exploited just so Jeff Bezos can add another $100 billion to his net worth

[Anonymous No.16587879]

>>16587753
I'm sorry anon, I live in Europe and need to get a bit of sleep before I go back to work tomorrow, so I cannot respond in detail, but I will think about the implications of your post and your account of market dynamics because it could potentially enlighten weaknesses in my personal political framework.
I will just reply with a short post from my favorite Marxist blogger, which kinda addresses the problem at hand: https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/pro-tip-communists-dont-care-about-how-communist-production-will-be-organized/

[Anonymous No.16587894]

>>16587753
I'm sorry anon, I live in Europe and need to get a bit of sleep before I go back to work tomorrow, so I cannot respond in detail, but I will think about the implications of your post and your account of market dynamics because it could potentially shed some light onto weaknesses in my personal political framework.
I will just reply with a short post from my favorite Marxist blogger, which kinda addresses the problem at hand: https://therealmovement.wordpress.com/2017/08/25/pro-tip-communists-dont-care-about-how-communist-production-will-be-organized/

[Anonymous No.16587915]

>>16587894
Sleep well friend, I think we both strive for a better organization of the economy, so in that way we are both of the same spirit. I'll read the post you linked and hopefully it will help to shore up my own understanding. Cheers.

[Anonymous No.16587959]

>>16586973
>Landlords produce nothing: they hold property rights over land, but they don't produce any goods or services with their capital.
landlords produce the commodity of providing people with housing without having to undertake the financial investment of a mortgage. landlords also have to invest labor in their land by upkeep of the land and housing.

also, the difference between federal taxation and paying rent is the fact that federal taxation usually takes money (by coercion) to fund many things an individual would not fund voluntarily such as a big military budget, the war on drugs, etc. please learn some basic fucking economics, rentoid.

[Anonymous No.16588094]

here's a simple way to fix the renting problem: reduce zoning regulations and property taxes. if zoning laws are decreased, more houses are built, so the supply goes up, and the cost goes down.

but then we have too many NIMBY retards and zoomer progressives complaining about MUH GENTRIFICATION

[Anonymous No.16588127]

>>16588094
What incentive do land owners have to apply those tax cuts to lowering rents? Rents are an established amount that people are currently paying, any new building would just hard line rents at the current going rate, and any building that was being constructed that threatened this hard line would be bought out by interested parties seeking to keep rents high. There has always been either an implicit or an explicit conspiracy against the public regarding such things, hell, even Adam Smith pointed that out 250+ years ago

[Anonymous No.16588172]

>>16588127
Adam Smith and David Ricardo also pointed out how cancerous the idea of renting is. Land is finite (usable land at least. No one want to live in a fucking desert or swamp). Why should people pay just to EXIST on a specific point in space and time? Sounds very Jewish to me.

[Anonymous No.16588213]

>>16588172
True, rent-seeking is a plight on society

[Anonymous No.16588227]

>>16588172
True, rent-seeking is a blight on society

[Anonymous No.16588333]

>>16586229
Revolutionary class consciousness is literally nonexistent in America. And even so there is such a high level of dissonance between even “real leftists” and the working class here. America is simply too diverse and politically divided to allow for any sort of class struggle. The most prominent issue is this retarded culture war right vs left garbage that gets drummed up. If there is socialism it will be of some strange Marcusean variety. The blue collar working class certainly don’t see themselves as a moving force.

[Anonymous No.16588369]

>>16588094
This is an attractive idea but in many places housing is expensive because of the network effect of many highly skilled people living in one place. If we build 10% more housing in the Bay Area, talent could become even more concentrated there, and it might make 15% more people want to live there. We could try demolishing housing instead to force techies to spread out to other cities.

[Anonymous No.16589391]

>>16581019
It's not set in stone in any part of the world. I dont understand why white countries have this ridiculous standard set on them.
Everyone agrees Japan is a country for ethnically japanese people even though it's not written on their constitution or whatever. Likewise Iran for Iranians and so on and so forth. It's only a problem when you start to suggest a white majority country belongs to whites. What's the thought process here?
It's probably something ridiculous like if whites are racially aware then that will lead to a 1930s germany scenario so we have to deny even the concept of a nationstate.

[Anonymous No.16589492]

>>16577008
you know that immigrant labour is keeping your economy on life support right?

[Anonymous No.16589941]

Is it true that Yang wants the people from the elite universities to be the ones in charge?
There was a discussion about that on 4chan a some months ago but I cannot find it anymore.

[Anonymous No.16590058]

>>16576477
Here's an anon who has stopped talking to real people since 2016. How many piss bottles do you own?

[Anonymous No.16590062]

>>16580979
>the rich aren't actively trying to keep poor people down
You know that you stop being rich if everybody else is also rich, right?

[Anonymous No.16590173]

>>16589941
Isn't that the entire philosophy of his company, Venture for America

[Anonymous No.16591386]

>>16576137
Murderer: "Oh I see this landlord has significantly increased his income. Let's kill him and take his money."

[Anonymous No.16591431]

>>16590058
>IS NOT REAL! IS NOT REAL!
Deny all you want, you will be impaled on a telephone pole

[Anonymous No.16591482]

>>16587536
My parents are dead

[Anonymous No.16591511]

>>16577523
your mom's pussy has been debunked

[Anonymous No.16591577]

>>16587777
No more jobs because of robots, Cletus.

[Anonymous No.16591586]

>>16576137
Economic Illiterate.

[Anonymous No.16592972]

>>16587777
It's the government's job to ensure the market stays free, but in the modern day, corporate abuse of the market is standard operation practice. Just look at what JP Morgan Chase admitted to with the market manipulation of metals. They got found out and government actually fined them but.... a paltry sum that was likely a tiny fraction of the profits they made from the scheme. If the market is being abused to serve a select few, it's the governments responsibility to enforce the principle that the market must serve the consumers. After all, the sole purpose of production is consumption

[Anonymous No.16593001]

>>16586685
>How can the product/service of renting a living space double in cost with no change to the actual thing being purchased?

Do you understand how demand works?
You clearly don't, because you think price controls are a good thing.

[Anonymous No.16593134]

>>16593001
Oh good, so someone will just undercut the cost by building more housing.... except all new buildings actually have higher rents because they're "new". The market force that regulates price does not apply when it's something as finite and vulnerable to price fixing like housing is.

[Anonymous No.16593671]

>>16585609
>implying prices wouldn't go up universally to match literally every adult receiving an extra $1,000 from the government
You're right, I'm sure there will be a really cheaper apartment complex that only raised rent by $400.

[Anonymous No.16594069]

>>16583209
That wasn't a war against poor people, it was a war against communism. It's facile to align the poor with the communists, and leftists need to stop acting like apologists for the failed soviet empire.

[Anonymous No.16594871]

>>16588094
No, the way to fix this is having the state own enough housing to influence the market prices. Some European countries do this.

You can't have UBI without many other programs to eliminate or influence markets where demand is conditioned and the typical free market mechanisms don't apply. Housing, utilities, healthcare, education. Maybe even financial services. I agree inflation wouldn't happen for most goods and services, but others would definitely get away with increasing prices and face no repercussion.

[Anonymous No.16595063]

>>16580172
>his wife's sexual harassment "coming out" into some type of "event"
What?

[Anonymous No.16595101]

>>16580991
This is the standard narrative in contemporary political science and most liberal newspapers you uninformed poobrain. We had that narrative constantly after trump/brexit, and still do

[Anonymous No.16595574]

>>16576120
>wants to increase immigration to five million Chinamen and third worlders annually

[Anonymous No.16595582]

>God splits people up
>start race mixing
>everything goes to shit

[Anonymous No.16595616]

We've had welfare for decades and all it's done is condition poor people to stay poor and leech off the federal government's tit. The real problem is the normalization of taking on debt for everything and consumers living beyond their means. Also the lack of family structures and morals. Having a bunch of kids they can't take care of because of poor decision making. A lot of poor decisions has led us up to this point. It's going to take a national self-reflection of life choices and a national decision to stop making excuses.

[Anonymous No.16595622]

>>16595616
You think you can dispose the maze of national central banks and the BIS?

[Anonymous No.16595636]

>>16595622
Sounds like excuses to me anon.

[Anonymous No.16595677]

>>16580956
Overwhelming majority of millionaires in the United States are self made.

[Anonymous No.16595690]

>>16595677
>millionaires
Contractors and frugal HVAC repairmen regularly break a million. That's not buying-politicians-tier wealth.

[Anonymous No.16595701]

>>16594871
Alaska has a UBI thats around $18k a year
What are your thoughts on the situation there?

[Anonymous No.16595710]

>>16595690
you can buy local politicians for $5000

[Anonymous No.16595716]

>>16595063
his pregnant wife was raped? fingered? by her male doctor while she was getting an ultrasound

[Anonymous No.16595721]

>>16595690
moving goalposts

[Anonymous No.16595784]

>>16576137
mao fixed this problem 70 years ago
try to keep up

[Anonymous No.16595925]

>>16595701
How is it possible for them to do that? And what are the requirements to receive that UBI?

[Anonymous No.16596146]

>>16595925
It's oil money split up among residents of Alaska.

[Anonymous No.16596162]

>>16579855
>>16579870
>math
kek

[Anonymous No.16596170]

>>16579926
>facebook, amazon etc pay $0 tax
lol is that true

[Anonymous No.16596180]

>>16596170
We're literally paying them handouts.

[Anonymous No.16596189]

>>16588369
>network effect of many highly skilled people living in one place
how does that work? cause they have more money?
a lot of google etc engineers live in trucks

[Anonymous No.16596194]

>>16596170
It's not hard for a company to avoid paying taxes, you just don't have any actual profits. As long as you reinvest all of your profit into the company, it's operating income instead. It means the owners of the company get paid nothing in profit, but they don't really mind since all they really look at is the value of their shares.

[Anonymous No.16596200]

>>16596180
what does the country get from doing that? jobs for citizens?

[Anonymous No.16596202]

>>16596200
> country
The large companies lobby (read: bribe) politicians

[Anonymous No.16596203]

>>16596200
A variety of things. The tax code is complex and full of many ways for companies to do "social good" as defined and incentivized by congress.

[Anonymous No.16596210]

>>16576211
Considering is unique concern for middle America, his awareness of the presription drug problem in interviews, and the fact that truck driver's will be most affected by automation (mostly white) he most certainly is concerned about the average or lower class white person, but of course will not make a point to explicitly highlight that since he actually wanted to win the Democratic Primary. Many have said it and its true, he would make a good republican, Trump voters with half a brain love him.

[Anonymous No.16596301]

>>16586376
>>Right now, you could open up a sandwich shop, but you'd likely not be able to compete with the streamlined model of, say, Subway. If Subway doubled their prices, suddenly your new startup sandwich shop would be able to compete, and perhaps even undercut Subway. Subway would then have to either accept that your shop is taking a small (but presumably growing) share of their market, or they would lower their prices as to maintain their market share.
no, your tiny shop will never be able to handle the surge of new customers and subway will just buy you cheaply [a fancy sum for you but nothing for subway]

[Anonymous No.16596585]

>>16596301
what?? "oh no, my business is getting too many customers, I have to close!". if thats the case, then a dozen independent sandwich shops would open, or how ever many would meet the demand. you don't seem to understand that the inflated prices by Subway would open a huge gap in the market which people could fill and make a profit. this is the mechanism that is supposed to keep prices low, if Subway bought the shops, everyone would just open shops to sell them to Subway. the market would not allow inflated prices without some mechanism to STOP other sandwich shops from opening

[Anonymous No.16596600]

>>16587959
>without having to undertake the financial investment of a mortgage
>rent costs mortgage + utilities + profit for landlord
The only reason people rent is because the properties aren't for sale. No one would choose rent over mortgage.

[Anonymous No.16596604]

>>16588094
>the supply goes up, and the cost goes up
ftfy

[Anonymous No.16596779]

>>16595616
Those poor people are no different than any other class in america who takes advantage of the system. America is one big system made up of various other systems and
if you dont take advantage of those system then your just a cuck who got memed into having integrity.

[Anonymous No.16596932]

There were post by an anon in an earlier thread about Yang, saying Yang believed in the academics of US-elite universities, such as Harvard, Yale etc. and that he wanted them to be in charge of almost everything. Is that true?