In this YouTube monologue, the speaker discusses Andrew Yang’s proposal that families receive more than $20,000 in stimulus payments. He breaks down the math, noting that a $2 trillion stimulus divided among roughly 145 million eligible Americans yields about $13,000 per person, or over $26,000 for a two‑person household—amounts he argues could be “game‑changing.” The speaker critiques the current U.S. approach of routing stimulus through agencies, loans, and businesses, arguing that bureaucratic hurdles and mismanagement (citing Small Business Administration loan delays and the 2008 bank bailouts) have limited effectiveness. He contends that direct cash to households would be the most efficient way to stimulate the economy because consumers would spend the money, thereby supporting businesses indirectly. The speaker also reflects on Yang’s broader message that social data is the “oil of the 21st century,” expressing disappointment that the Yang Gang movement has lost momentum. He promotes a personal project, BitcoinMYK.com, a blockchain‑based, free, global universal basic income platform that aligns with Yang’s “Humanity First” principles, and ends with a standard call‑to‑action for likes and subscriptions.
Chapters
Welcome back to the channel. I hope you're all having a nice day, staying safe amongst this global pandemic. And so today we want to speak a little bit about Andrew Yang. Andrew Yang spoke about the stimulus package being too little and spoke about how, um, families, uh, should be receiving something like over $20,000 per family. I believe that's what he said on, on one of his recent interviews. Um, so I did the math a little bit and wasn't exactly sure what numbers, um, was being used here, but if you take about $2 trillion and you divide it amongst the 145 million eligible Americans for the stimulus package, it comes up to something like $13,000 per person. Now, if you got a household with someone in it other than yourself, that's, that's like over $26,000. That, that can be game-changing. You know, imagine households with $26,000. You know, that would allow some, if they're not already homeowners, to become homeowners. It would allow for a great many deal of things. And the one thing that the federal government can do very well is direct payments to people. Where it seems to be a hang-up and a problem with the federal government is when they send them to, through agencies or businesses in this kind of a relational way of trying to do this trickle-down thing. And where these businesses and different entities receive money, loan programs as it were, and this is somehow supposed to stimulate the economy. Uh, the problem is, as we've seen, We couldn't even get out of the gate before we ran into businesses that really didn't qualify getting more of the stimulus funds than they should have gotten. People who were eligible for business loans with the Small Business Administration, as it were, not being able to get the loans because of so many hurdles in the bureaucracy of how to do this. So the very thing that the stimulus package was designed to, to help fix, uh, is not happening. And it's been a total roller coaster, uh, with, with these businesses and eligible qualifying people. to go through these administrations. Um, getting a direct payment to people is the easiest thing to do. Another thing I don't quite understand about it is, um, when we speak about businesses and businesses being in trouble or somebody who has a business is in trouble, well, that doesn't it logically follow that if more consumers have more money in their hands that the thing they're going to probably end up doing is spending that money in that business. I don't quite understand why the scenario or the solution is always get it to the business to manage the funds. There have been many cases where businesses get funds and they don't do a great job. It's been cases where businesses have received funds through federal, federal emergencies and crisis. And their funds were mismanaged, right? So this stimulus from the federal government directly to business doesn't always pan out good. I think a better approach is like how Andrew Yang speaks about it, just putting the money directly in Americans' hands. And then all these big businesses and corporations people, you know, speak about providing all the jobs and doing all these various things. The consumer will put the money back into those businesses. That's where they're going to spend it anyway. And so it's still going to circulate right back through the economy. Uh, to have the funds hung up through this circus of trying to go through all these, uh, uh, difficult to understand process about how to get the money, right? And if you qualify or not, And to have these agencies, banks, loan companies sitting on the money, uh, isn't helping anybody, right? What, what would have made more sense is just like how Andrew Yang's speaking about it. You take these qualifying Americans and you send out a one-time huge payment to them. Now, a payment that large in the direct hands of, uh, an American family that could last for years, right? They could live off that for years. It's going to be the most effective and cheapest way to deal with the problem. It's probably going to be the most bang for the buck, best investment of the dollar, for lack of a better word, as to say it reaching American citizens this way is going to do a much better job of if it's mismanaged by some business or that and the other. You know, very reminiscent if you go back to the, uh, early days of, um, of the 2008, uh, scandal, I call it, um, where they had to bail out these banks. And when the banks got the money, they weren't loaning the money out, they were instead paying employee bonuses, right? Um, it just doesn't make sense for those of us who are diehard against getting money directly into people's hands to— for— in order for them to put back in the economy. Um, do these people not understand or see the many troubles, what has happened with many businesses and entities getting this money directly? Right. Hasn't worked out very well. Hasn't worked out very well. Right. Um, so what do you think about that? Do you think that a great portion of these funds— I've heard some crazy numbers like the $2 trillion could balloon to something like $6 trillion. Um, I'm not quite sure, you know, uh, you know, if any of that's the case. But, um, even with this $2 trillion, yes, it came to something like over $13,000 per person. And if you're in a household of 2 people, that's over $26,000, right? For the, for the qualifying Americans, which is 145 million. Um, but what do you think? Do you think it will work out better had it just went directly in people's hands? Uh, much like how Andrew spoke about how universal base income would actually stimulate the economy, put more money back into the economy, which all of this has turned out to be the case. Because if that type of approach, uh, wasn't, uh, one that many economists felt would work, do we think the federal government would be doing it, right? So obviously people believe that using terms like stimulus to stimulate the economy that this is something that's workable and can help solve many of the issues, address many of the issues there. Before I get out of here real quick, I wanna talk about something else Andrew Yang said. He talked about how social data was the oil of the 21st century. And since Andrew Yang has suspended his campaign, stopped it. Uh, many of us, uh, in the Yang Gang, I feel like some of us have kind of, uh, got a bit, uh, lukewarm here, right? We, we've lost our edge, so to speak. And Yang Gang was such a large movement, such a big movement. Um, you know, I just can't see why it couldn't keep going and expand in many, many more areas. And when Andrew speaks about something like social media, the oil of the 21st century, that our data is worth something, that we're worth something, you know, why not did the Yang Gang create something that, um, you know, uh, can use that energy, can use that, um, that situation and, and be one that's quite beneficial with the power of the Yang Gang? And so, uh, I haven't seen that happen. I'm very surprised I haven't seen it happen, although of the large social impact of the Yang Gang. But I can say this real quick, a project I'm involved with, BitcoinMYK.com, has latched on to many of the principles of Andrew Yang's Humanity First Universal Basic Income project. And we'd love to have you all try it out. See if you like it, see if it's something that benefits you. Um, and we will leave a link in the description so you can try it out absolutely free. It is a universal basic income program that uses blockchain technology. Uh, it is global and it is 100% free for you. You can get real money today and start using it, moving it, spending it So, uh, something we're very proud to be a part of, uh, and, uh, would love to have y'all come over. But that's all I want to say in this video. If you like content like this, don't forget to like and subscribe. And until next time, take care.
