Andrew Yang - 60% Of Americans Can't Afford $1000 Emergency

Hey you, welcome back to the channel and I hope y'all are having a great weekend. So I wanted to, uh, talk today about a very alarming study that, um, I found comparable in, in several other reports. This one comes from BuzzFeed, but I found them from reports conducted, um, by several independent studies that lineup to be about the same thing. And that report suggests that only about 4 out of 10 Americans would be able to pay an unplanned expense of $1,000 from their savings. In fact, it's even more alarming than that. Some reports similar suggest this is only like $500. It's only like 4 in 10 that can pay a $500 expense, right? So let's talk about that for a moment, and, and let's try to really put this in perspective and in a very logical sense, because, um, you know, there is something fundamentally wrong, uh, when American citizens who work every day, uh, many in a professional capacity Uh, because if you have over 60% of Americans who can't afford to pay, you're actually starting to go into the middle class, the upper middle class who can't pay. Uh, also bear in mind that there are the 400 wealthiest Americans in the world own over half of all the wealth in the country. Now, Without getting too deep into economic models, you know, it's been this constant concern about this capitalism versus socialism and what's best for the economy, what's best for the country. And we've sat and we've tried to figure out what would be appropriate, looking at several models of socialism that have failed. And many of us have come to the conclusion that we need some form of capitalism. Now, whereas I agree we need some form of capitalism, what has become quite apparent is what we call capitalism, I don't believe is the capitalism that we're looking at, uh, or that, uh, we should be considering. Uh, I believe that we're involved in the United States right now with one of the most dangerous ideas of capitalism that exists, and that is a type of capitalism that is merged with crony capitalism and corporatism. And I think a lot of confusion is we actually start to buy into the idea that, uh, people who work hard, uh, versus, uh, the— within this system are going to fare better and be better for the economy, uh, without changing many of the fundamental, uh, outside factors affecting the working-class Americans, the middle-class Americans. And because we're not addressing that, we're not addressing the core problem, and we're beginning to overlap ideas that don't necessarily make the economy better. Um, So I think it's fair to say that any economist in the world looking at numbers like these, you know, would come to the conclusion that, uh, right, this is not the best model. Um, and then some would say, well, socialism would be as bad. Well, maybe in certain instances. It would depend on the type of socialism. If you're looking at a type of socialism like maybe what Bernie Sanders has proposed with Democratic socialism, um, then, uh, that's it. That could actually, uh, we don't really know, but it could actually end up being possible better than this type of capitalism system we're living under now, where, uh, so many Americans don't even have $1,000 in savings, maybe not even $500, right? Now, if we don't believe there's something fundamentally wrong with an economic system like that, uh, then I think we really need to do a little bit more research and look into the comparisons between statistics like this and what you get in some of the most severe economies in the world. These similar symptoms to what you get in dual economies, these very similar systems to where you get where you have this this great division in, um, wealth between people, um, and to the point where it is so imbalanced, uh, that it just doesn't start to make any sense economically. In a good, healthy economy, you want a strong middle class, right? Not a shrinking one, not a suffering one, not one that doesn't even have $1,000 in the bank or can't get to it. You want one that's as strong as possible. And these indications to me, no way at all show that that's the case in the American economy. Now, the proposal to just start taxing the rich to balance it out, uh, in my opinion, is not the answer either. However, there might be somewhere in the middle you can look, and there might be some fundamental, uh, economic theories you can apply that might, uh, solve that problem. Now, in a case like Andrew Yang, where he talks about capitalism that doesn't start at zero, that might very well be a good solution to dealing with a problem like that. It works fundamentally different from what you get with just go to those richest 400 Americans and just start taking and taxing and taxing and taxing until you try to get equal it out, right? There are dangers with that, right? There's the incentive balance danger to that. Now, I don't buy into that idea that this would make people— would take away incentive from people to begin, to continue it, to advance. I mean, because then I would want data like, what number is enough to stop incentive, right? You know, if If you make— not if you— if there's a possibility you can make $999 million per year and every dollar after that you're getting like taxed 90% on that or 100% on that or whatever, or 99% on that, whatever the case may be, will that stop people from trying to make $999 million? I don't think so. So the idea that billionaires, people getting near trillions of dollars, that if they're taxed then they will, that will break the system down. I don't necessarily buy into that. However, I do at a very core level understand the principle of that, buy into the principle of that. And would rather another approach be taken similar to what Andrew Yang is doing, where I look at what Andrew Yang is doing. And I want to be clear about this is that when you start to tax big corporations, right, especially those who use, uh, robotics and automotons and automation and a variety of things like that, Uh, I look at that no different as if you were taxing workers, right? If you were giving a tax to all those workers, that is fundamentally different than taxing, uh, or targeting certain groups, uh, certain entities, because that's very similar to what we have now with our workers, right? If I came to your business and I said that none of your workers should be taxed, but you should be taxed, right? You would, you know, you would think that a problem, right? You would say, well, you know, no, we understand why workers are taxed in America. But if then you had a company full of robot, um, uh, let's say humanoid-like robots working, right? What would be the difference then in taxing those humanoid robots? So the point I'm making is that, uh, you know, The way that we're looking at this as far as, uh, the economy getting better or dangers of the Freedom Dividend and it harming us in some way, I think we're looking at that from the wrong lens. I think we should look— be looking at it as the best way to solve this problem of why 60% of Americans can't have— don't have $1,000 they can get to. All right, because that's basically what it's saying. They all, all of the Americans who are able to meet emergencies, how are they doing it? They're doing that by loan and debt, right? And that's certainly not, um, being able to afford an emergency, right? You're borrowing to afford an emergency. That means you don't have the money, so you got to go, uh, get the money from somewhere else, money that you do not have. Uh, that's a severe problem. That's a severe problem. That is a sign of an approach to an economy that we're trying to perpetuate on that does not work, right? And I'm sorry, people try to say it does work or to get worse. It's already worse. It's already, it's already bad, right? It's already is, is about as bad as it can get in those certain circumstances. These are all the symptoms of what you will have moving into a bad economy. right? Or in an economy that is not good, but, uh, that is kind of under some type of idea propaganda of that it is good. Um, and I'm sure anybody who would logically deduce this and look at this would come to a very similar solution or, or, or, um, uh, come to a very similar idea, right? Um, so how do we solve this? Well, if you agree with Andrew Yang's idea of, uh, ideas like the Freedom Dividend, taxing these robots, growing the economy by stimulating it through buying power that you will now have, uh, circulating the money through velocity of money and making an opportunity for people to get now an extra dollar in their pockets to grow that dollar to $2 and $4 and $8 and $16. If you believe in theories like that that have been proven to work and have worked, uh, throughout the course of economies, then you would agree that the Freedom Dividend is probably going to be the best way to go forward in an idea like that. Again, I don't think it's any denying that this is not an idea economy that works, right? Can we at least agree on that if nothing else? Uh, the next part I will move to is with over— with just 400 people owning over half of all the wealth in the country, which is a very dangerous economic model as well, because you're essentially saying that, uh, this is very, very, very small percentage. It feels like a dual economy. It's very, very, very— tenth of a percent of, of the economy that owns over half of the wealth is locked up, and that money is not circulating Um, uh, it doesn't have the velocity of money and circulation that it would have if maybe there were— it was more like, uh, around, uh, you know, 45% to 80%, uh, of Americans owned all of that half of overall wealth, right? You know, as opposed to decimals and decimals of a percent. All right. Um, the next part it concerns me great is that, uh, looking at numbers like this and then you still have people not addressing this. Who are these people? And forgive me, but this would suggest to me that a lot of people who come in our threads and they are against ideas like the Freedom Dividend ideas that don't tax the wealthy, uh, directly, don't punish the, the, the, the wealthy directly, but instead targets robotics and automation, inanimate objects that take human labor, uh, and tax them much more like we tax workers. Uh, those people who are against the Freedom Dividend, who, uh, come in the room and, and, and who have ideas against policies like this, Um, it, it begs the question to me that are we even voting in our best interest? Because that means more than likely the people who are against Andrew Yang's Freedom Dividend are people who fit these very demographics, right? If over 60% of Americans cannot afford a $1,000 emergency without ease of credit, right, without getting some type of credit to to, to, to, uh, help them out in that issue. In other words, they don't have it. Then aren't they voting in their— not in their best interest, right? And that is a very, uh— I, I've met people like that who've done that. I've spoken with and met many Americans who vote against their own best interest, and I can only come up with two ideas why that is. Either A, it is a form of ignorance, meaning that they do not understand the policies enough or what's going on in the economy enough, or it is, um, a sickness, an illness, you know, if you would. And I don't mean to be impolite, but that is kind of some of the ideas of what happens when you do things that more harm you than help you, right? There is a type of, uh, uh, of, of, uh, um, illness in association with that. And with the people who are doing it and don't know it, then there's a type of ignorance in association with that, right? Um, now this is not saying that Andrew Yang's, uh, idea will work like clockwork, that it will be perfect. No, not at all. I'm not suggesting that at all. Right? We don't really know 100% until we have the data. But what I can tell you is this: any— in the concept of you don't have money, so the idea is to go take it from the working people who do, and that'd be your only concept. And then your idea to that be, oh, it won't hurt you that much, just shave off a little bit. And you keep on with a concept like that, you keep on going with a concept like that, on and on and on. You know what that's called? You know what that becomes? You know what the idea of that is? Theft, right? That's what it sounds like to me. It sounds like theft. Anytime you go and you take from a group that works hard and earns, and for whatever reason, whether it be, uh, your fault or not, you take money from them, that is a form of theft, right? And this is something that the Democratic Party concept-wise always fails at because they don't quite get it and understand it. Now, in Andrew Yang's idea, not only does Andrew Yang not punish the economy through a forced minimum wage, not only does he punish the wealthy through a wealth tax and just the concept of we're just going to take this money from you because you make more than us and that sounds like a good idea to us, that does not solve the fundamental problem of why there is no money and no jobs in the first place, right? But when we talk about, uh, an issue from the standpoint Andrew Yang talks about, that is something fundamentally different because you're talking about super AI and advanced technology that can do jobs, just about every human job, or will be able to in the next 10 to 30 years better than any human being. and you're not taxing those robots, but you tax human beings when they work. Those are, those are fundamentally different ideas. That's not about taking money and giving it to people who don't deserve it and taking money from, uh, that is about these entities have usurped jobs and they should be taxed. That, that, that is a moral and valid argument. I think taxing these robots, taxing this automation and using some of that to, uh, contribute to the well-being of society, uh, in a way that under the Constitution I think satisfies the idea of well-being. But it also solves the problem of how are you going to train all these people into new, uh, job, um, areas under the assumption that they have a, uh, the ability to learn new jobs. In some cases, 40, 50-year-old people, uh, that, um, you know, are now displaced and you're saying things like they can become computer programmers, it just makes zero sense, right? But again, that is still something fundamentally different than saying these robot entities took our work, thus they should be taxed as entities, as people, just like, uh, we were taxed as people, just like corporations can be taxed as a person, right? That is something fundamentally different than Uh, just, uh, solving a problem by just going, okay, the money's over here that somebody else worked hard and earned. Let's take that money and put it over here. That solves the problem. Brush your hands off, we're done. That is a ridiculous notion. It does not get to the, uh, the core of why the system is not working in the first place. But you know what else doesn't get to the root of why the system's not working in the first place? Perpetuating and pushing forward with the same ideas in the same way forward that has brought about this system of where only, uh, 40% of Americans can go and get that $1,000 out of the bank for an emergency, uh, and most of the country cannot, right? Another thing, who does this 40%— a lot of this 40% represents that those wealthy people we're talking about as well. But, uh, these numbers are just, uh, um, ridiculous. And, and, and I can tell you right now, I believe them 100%, 110%. And I'm sure if many of you all would look in your bank accounts and when things come up and emergencies come up and you just don't have the, uh, savings, uh, I'm sure many of you will agree as well that the numbers are correct. So Andrew Yang, the Freedom Dividend, you know, to me that seems to speak and more so solve the problem than any other policies out there because the problem's not going to be in education. It's not going to be in free college. It's not going to be in, uh, um, uh, after-school programs, right? It may not even necessarily be in paying teachers more because we're moving into an area where these robots will be smarter and more efficient and better than human beings can be. And it's already happening now. And, and, um, I think that's another problem. I think many of us are behind in technology. You know, I, I happen to, um, study and research and deal with technology every day, so I stay pretty much, uh, up to, up to speed. what's happening with technology. Uh, and you know, because of that, it's easy for me to see what's happening and go, well, you know, this won't go on like this for the next few years. And that changes everything. But if you're not accustomed to that and you, you know, and it surprises you, uh, that there's super intelligent, uh, AI and applications that can, uh, do jobs better than you can. then I would imagine you wouldn't feel that there is need for alarm, right? But I can tell you that it is, and it's coming sooner than later. Uh, and we have to be prepared for that, not unprepared for that. Um, yeah, this is, this is, uh, not good. And, uh, we aren't, we are not, uh, um, voting in our own best interest. Another thing about direct cash to an economy, a direct cash injection stimulus to the economy, uh, when you factor everything I've said up to now, that's going to provide a much more, uh, uh, better result. Kind of compare it to oral medication versus, uh, intravenous, uh, medication, right? What, what happens when you have to get a shot, right? Well, a lot of times doctors have come to the conclusion that it's going to be more efficient to give you that shot. It's going to deliver the medication in a more potent way to where it needs to get and, and make your body feel better. Whereas oral medication, there's going to be the breakdown in the stomach and, and it's going to have to be sent to wherever it needs to get to. And, um, you know, that might not be the best move for your body. It might not be the healthiest move for your body. We're— we need direct cash now into the economy. It's, you know, jobs, trying to retrain people to work, uh, and hope that they could compete with a robot that they probably will not be able to compete with, uh, uh, is, is, is too dangerous at this point in time. It is not going to be a solution Right? Uh, it's not going to be a solution, uh, in Andrew Yang's model, uh, from the data I've picked up and from what I see. Uh, I don't— I wouldn't see it as a long-term solution, right? You trying to educate people, uh, in a way to compete, but there's not going to be anybody to compete against. These robots are going to be not only smarter, but they're going to be self-replicating. right? Some people are saying that this new next technological revolution is right on the doorstep here, uh, is going to be mankind's last invention. You know, meaning we're not going to, uh, need to invent anything else. The robot's going to be smart enough, and it's happening all around us. All you need to do is do some research, some Google searches, and you come to the conclusion that this is happening. And again, even if you don't come to that conclusion, you come to this conclusion where most Americans still can't afford an emergency, right? Um, and how are you going to change that? What, what's on the horizon with the policies we have that are going to change, uh, that verdict, right? It hasn't changed it yet. Trump hasn't changed that verdict, right? And so What are we going to do about that? So it's just something to think about. I love to hear you guys' opinions about this, about does this sound like a good economy to you? Does this even sound like a good economic system at all to you, right? With numbers like this, let us know in the comments section. Also, don't forget our own Universal Basic Income project using some of the most advanced technology available in the world right now. That is blockchain technology to move our value from place to place through our own attention value network, uh, using, uh, ideas like Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin to move our own universal cryptocurrency token. So you can sign up for that absolutely free. Get money that is exchangeable to your own dollars in your native lands absolutely free. Absolutely free. Absolutely free. But that's all I got to say in this video. If you like content like this, don't forget to like, subscribe, and until next time, take care.