Andrew Yang - Freedom Dividend Is Capitalism/Purpose

All right guys, this is going to be my axe workout, non-weight workout.

Let's see if I can get this in the camera here. I don't have a tripod out here. A little workout going here. Done. We—

Hey, you all, welcome back to the channel. And today I want to talk to you all about purpose, purpose in your job and work, your careers, the concepts and ideas that we hand over to ideas of these jobs and careers being a part of who we are. And how to view that going forward into a world that's going to be automated away and a lot of robotics technology and understanding where purpose fits into this and maybe some of the misconceptions where we put purpose, right? Um, and we also want to talk about why the Freedom Dividend is capitalism, right? I think this is very important because I, I think, uh, there's still not quite a bit of putting this together and clarifying, uh, exactly what this is, right? So, uh, you know, I remember having conversations with my grandparents and family members, um, about a time when, um, you know, basically like how we get to see in this video. This is a video of me, uh, out on my ranch, um, chopping wood. And, uh, you know, I'm out there chopping wood, you know, it's mostly for exercise, you know, at this point in time. But there was a time when this was a necessity, you know, necessary for survival, right? Because, you know, you needed it for your heating sources. You needed it to stay warm, to survive winter. And you needed it for heating, for cooking, and, you know, wood-burning stoves and the like. And, you know, this was the life of my grandparents, right? Um, and so technology now has it to where we can, you know, we don't have to do that job anymore. Uh, we have to— we can go out and we can, or we can just go to the central air unit and hit on, and, uh, we might not even have to walk to the central air unit. You know, Google has, uh, you know, Alexa and voice-activated temperature control, so I imagine you can just sit, you know, in the house and just, you know, turn it on by voice command. Um, and I say all that to say that there was a purpose— or I'm sorry, there was a time where, uh, people and their families, uh, you know, keeping that, uh, house warm and keeping, uh, food on the table in order, you know, using that, that heating source, that necessary heating source for survival, that energy source Uh, was a daily task and job, you know. You know, chopping wood's not easy. It is a job. It is a— it is a task, right? But the people who would do that, you know, you go back generations ago, you even go back, uh, hundreds of years ago, thousands of years ago, where they— you had to actually physically go out and do this job, you know. The people who did those things Um, you know, the idea that they no longer, uh, have to do those things and don't do those things for the most part didn't take away their purpose, right? They didn't lose purpose. Um, they didn't lose purpose, uh, for that. The, the, you know, the idea of purpose, it switched, right? Uh, you know Body movements. Let's, let's just think about this for a moment. Body movements, repetitive tasks, right, don't give you purpose, right? If you think they do, then it, you know, it might be time for you to kind of step up, take a step back and spend a little bit of time with yourself and, and try to, you know, understand where purpose comes from, you know. But, you know, you're getting up and going to, you know, a job daily and doing those repetitive tasks. You know, they, uh, you know, they're— now I do understand that a lot of people get joy out of their work, right? Um, I, I try to stay with jobs and tasks that, uh, I enjoy doing, and, and so I understand that. Uh, and, and I think in an idea you can still do many of those jobs and tasks, much like, uh You know, like I go out and I chop firewood and a variety of things like that. I do it for exercise as well. But, you know, and the idea that I'm still doing that even though I could just, you know, turn on heating, right? Central air units and a variety of things, uh, still doing that. Um, and, uh, it doesn't interfere, it doesn't disturb that purpose, right? Um, You know, I love the Joe Rogan podcast, his, his channel. But, and Joe Rogan, um, has been very good for the Andrew Yang campaign. He had him on the show and, uh, Andrew Yang got a lot of recognition, uh, from, uh, that show, right? Um, and so thankful that Joe Rogan had Andrew Yang on the show. And from what I can see and understand, Joe Rogan, uh, is a pretty big supporter of Andrew Yang. I think he has some concerns about it, but for the most part, I would say Joe Rogan's on board with Andrew Yang and he goes to bat for him, you know, when he has the opportunity. They had Abby Martin on the show the other day and she was talking about, uh, uh, you know, this, um, I believe she brought up automation or something like that. And she was saying like how nobody's, you know, talking about her doing it. Joe Rogan came in and said, oh no, no, Andrew Yang's doing it right. And, uh, you know, you kind of like, uh, compare that to what you might get with something like NBC or CNN and all these major networks. Uh, with weirdly and oddly enough, the exception of Fox News that did have Andrew Yang on and they gave him a great chance to talk about it. But many of these other networks have, um, you know, you know, every chance they got tried to silence the idea or downplay them in some way. And we got to see that in the NBC debates. You know, some of the same people who really understand and know Andrew Yang's policies because they've talked to him. As a matter of fact, a few days earlier, Chuck Todd, who was one of the debate moderators who fully understood Andrew Yang, didn't, you know, didn't have questions for him and didn't, you know, and understands his policy. But you know, again, playing to that, that's another video. But the point, the point we're making is that, uh, or let me get back to Joe Rogan. The reason I brought Joe Rogan up, Joe Rogan talks a lot about the idea that it could, you know, in relation to Andrew Yang's policies, that, you know, people need purpose, they need to be able to do something, right? There's a lot of things we can do in the world, and, and I love Joe Rogan, but I think the confusion he's making is that Somehow purpose translates to the job market, which it doesn't. You know, we know that's not true. Um, and so as technology has moved in and people have no longer had to do certain tasks, uh, it hasn't, uh, robbed them of purpose, right? Or it doesn't have to. Um, And again, you know, I, I think that, uh, um, uh, we really need that broader— explore what purpose is. I think that might be a type of, uh, uh, misunderstanding of purpose right now. It's true we can make our own purposes and choose our own purposes, but just like in the way we can create that with our minds and make our own purpose and choose our own purposes, Uh, it also then would translate, we can make up more purposes, right? This is, this is not at the necessity level, you know, uh, in that way. Um, so purpose is not related to tasks you go out and do every day, right? You know, purpose is, you know, for me, is what affects the well-being of society overall.

right?

Where you can go in your communities and neighborhoods and everybody is healthy and everybody's all right and everybody's fine. To me, that's more important than people going out and doing repetitive tasks every day. Right. And the Freedom Dividend, uh, helps us to do that. Um, and so, uh, you know, we talked about the fourth industrial revolution, uh, you know, uh, a few things that I want to, you know, get back to the real quick to the $1,000 per month. It's a lot of double talk about that because Where I get confused about how a lot of people comment on it and the purpose idea of, oh, you know, people aren't going to be doing anything, they're just going to be sitting around all day, uh, doing nothing, not, you know, working. Well, you know, again, $1,000 is supplemental income. It's not enough income to stop everybody from working. Some people will, but for the most part, I think more people will continue to work. And so, you know, I think it's very important that we clarify that, that, and not double-talk that, because it's a lot of double-talk. It's like, oh, it's all this free money and nobody's doing anything. Then it's not enough money. So which one is it, right? Is it too much? Is it, is it enough money to stop people working, or is it not? So when Andrew talks about things like the Fourth Industrial Revolution, there will be tasks, there will be jobs. You know, some, some, uh, reports have said that there won't be all these manufacturing jobs and a variety of things like that as the robots and automation will take them over. But there will be jobs like Zumba instructors, right? And there'll be limited capacity jobs. But here's the thing, let's think about this for a moment. If you're going to be a Zumba instructor, right, uh, nothing wrong with being a Zumba instructor. Report was saying that it just probably wouldn't be enough job openings for Zumba instructors to fill that gap for, you know, people who would, you know, be, uh, wouldn't have that, you know, job and work available. So they have to get something like the Freedom Dividend. But if you're— if you could— if you consider something like being a Zoom instructor a job and a career and things like that, why can't we then adapt and move to other ideas that are just as valid then as being a job? You know, what is a job? What is work? We need to clearly define what that is. What is work? If it's productive to somebody It should be class as work, right? Uh, if it's valuable to somebody and it's a task, it should be class as work. So if you're a parent, if you're a parent, uh, you know, I would say that's probably the hardest job ever that you're ever gonna do. It's one of the hardest, it's one of the, uh, most important too, and it should be one of the most purposeful. So when Joe Rogan talks about people looking for purpose, you know, Joe Rogan has a I think a pretty good sizable family at home. I'm not 100% sure, but I think he does from what I've heard other people say. And, you know, Joe— I'm sure Joe Rogan is busy doing his podcast. And within his family, you know, as most parents— I'm not a parent, but I've heard parents say things like, uh, you know, they're not perfect and they wish they had more time with their family and children, and they, they wish they could have done something different in their parenting for the children. So if that's the case, why not spend— it's a lot of parents in the country— why not spend a lot of that time looking for purpose and, um, placing it over to work? Why not spend a lot of time working on your family, right? Being the best parents, harvesting and raising the best generation of people we can, right? Go out and have a family. That's a job. That's a good purpose, right? You know, if that is your— is that— if that's a big problem and issue to you, right? And there's many other things you can do, as many arts and music and things you can seek that can inspire the world creativity, creativity, creatively, create in a creative way. Wow, I can't speak today. Um, and so, uh, you know, uh, you know, people listen to music and they look at art, they get inspired to go out and create something that makes the world a better place, right? So as many, uh, uh, you know, things we consider work, as many ideas that can be part of our purpose. And I just thought that was very important because a lot of people get this idea with the Freedom Dividend, people just gonna be laying around, sitting around doing nothing all day and just going into this state of atrophy, which is not true. That's not going to happen. You know, people don't just sit around. People are going to still create. People are still going to build, people are still going to dream, and people are still going to set out to make their environment and their worlds better. So now let's get over quick to, uh, to the freedom dividend is capitalism, right? This idea that is socialism, socialism is a false narrative, and I'm going to explain to you why. First, we just look at some some simple evidence that the idea of the Freedom Dividend, Universal Basic Income, to many historians and economists are looked at as capitalists, right? A lot of Republicans and conservatives, that's why a lot of them find it so much easier to accept Andrew Yang's plan, uh, over many Democratic plans, because they know at the root level they're very capitalistic ideas within that, uh, that are more removed from, uh, more socialistic ideas that you get with bigger governments. And we're going to go into that a little bit. So these people that, uh, say, oh, it's free handouts and so— and socialism, I used to think these people were Republicans or conservatives, but I'm gonna tell you something, they may not be that. They may be some type of interesting enough, oddly enough, Democrat. I know a lot of people might be shocked by that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they might be some of that because they certainly aren't conservatives necessarily. You don't find a whole lot of conservatives speaking out against universal basic income, right? In the beginning, they— some of them tried to, but then some of their biggest, uh, leaders and their, their biggest proponents, uh, people like Ben Shapiro, On the Tucker Carlson Show, you know, he talked with Andrew Yang. Fox News has had him on there a lot. Do you really think— excuse me— do you really think Fox News would have Andrew Yang on there as many times as they had him talking about universal basic income and the Freedom Dividends and automation if they didn't think it somehow served their ideas? You know, it's a principle that is Uh, very capital— capitalistic, right? It's, it's, it's linked in capitalism. We're going to go into that a little bit and clear up some of the misconceptions. Andrew Yang explains it as capitalism that doesn't start at zero, right? And I think that's a great way of describing it, uh, because in economics, the best side— the best economies exist with good distribution. If you're a rich person, it doesn't matter if it's your money and you made every money in society. It doesn't matter if you were one entity I mean, every dollar in the country without being distributed, that dollar around to the population, uh, that's a bad economy, right? So you got to have good distribution in that, in that idea. Now, where it becomes so much capitalist in a government-like setting is one big issue is that when we pay all these tax dollars to, um, the government. And the government, it generally consists like this: there's a minority group, right? There's a very small group to spend in all our tax dollars, and they're not spending them how we'd spend them, right? So what do you call it when a small group of people in a government, which has now become a big government because they have control of all your tax dollars, and they're spending this money the way they want, right? Do you know what type of regimes and, uh, governments, uh, mirror that? Socialist governments, right? Remember what they are. They're large governments, right, with all the control of all the cap— the capital and production, um, like what you get in communism. And they're spending the resources of the, of the country and, and, and, and, like, right, and they are giving, uh, amounts back to the people, but they're making all the decisions on how to, how to spend that money, right? Um, now where the Freedom Dividend, uh, is not set up that way, it's supplemental, right? You're not getting, you know, uh, you know, uh, even distribution of goods and services, uh, to the level of like that, you know, that works in in that idea. But what you are getting is you're getting a dividend, right? Which is very capitalistic, uh, from the resources of the, of the country. In this, in this case, it would be the VAT tax, which is Amazon paying its fair taxes and companies and corporations like it paying its fair share of taxes. But here's the difference, and here's the big kicker, and this is what makes it so, so much capitalistic. Instead of giving it over to the government to spend how they see fit, why don't you just give it to the people? Since it's the government for the people, by the people, you let them spend the tax dollars. That's very capitalistic, right? That's not big government either. So we're controlling the money, we're spending the tax dollars, right? Because it belongs to the people. We're spending the tax dollars back into the economy, right? We're not part of some government corruption where they're taking all this money and giving tax breaks, which essentially taking the money and divvying it up to certain groups of their friends or the people they want to pick, right? Because that's what our tax system does. With the Freedom Dividend, you give all the tax money back to the people, right, with the VAT, and We spend it. That's as capitalistic as you could get, buddy. You know, we spend it back into the economy. So, you know, I think it's a big misconception about it's socialism. It's not socialism, right? Because another thing, you know, it's not socialism. It goes to the rich, it goes to the poor, right? And it's the American people spending the tax dollars back into the economy. In a democratic way, right? It's not corruption, it's not collusion with the government giving some of this tax money to who they want to pick as the winners, right? That's, that's capitalism, right? Capitalism isn't picking winners and losers, right? That's crony capitalism, that's corporatism, and that's what A lot of you all who come on the channel and say this won't work, this social— that's what you all are. You're people who support crony capitalism and corporatism, right? Capitalism is when people really have a more fair system where they can play on an even playing field in a business world. The Freedom Dividend is a part of a capitalistic model, right? Dividends and corporations are part of capitalistic models. Where the shares in that business, right, that corporation get a dividend. That's what we're getting as the American people, right? But it's not part of crony capitalism, what we're in now, what you get with tax breaks and what you get with, um, government officials who are corrupt and who are being bought, right? It's not corporatism where the corporations are controlling the government through government, uh, legislation, using government legislation through their influence to make the government move in a way it, it wants to move, right? And, and in that way usurping money from the American people back to them through the back door. That's not capitalism. The closest thing to capitalism in all these ideas is the Freedom Dividend, right? So I just wanted to clear that up this morning. This beautiful weekend morning. I'd love to hear you guys' thoughts and opinions on it. But that's all I got to say in this video. Oh, I will say that, uh, just, you know, to speak on the debate again real quick, that polling data that's been released, uh, that show Andrew Yang polling at about 1.3%, shows him now polling at about 1.2%. So, um, you know, was kind of right any idea that I, you know, I didn't think that this hurt Andrew Yang that much because, uh, or helped him. You know, it really didn't do anything because his Andrew Yang's base is pretty much, uh, you know, I already knew that everybody who was supporting Andrew Yang, everybody who's already on Andrew Yang's ship, they're probably not getting off his ship. I'm just going to tell you that right now. So I knew that the, I knew it wouldn't hurt him too much, right? And the fact that it didn't go down much, you know, really almost showed the debates as, um, you know, according to the polling data, uh, kind of showed the debates as, uh, you know, really not having an effect on Andrew Yang at all. So again, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about that. Uh, now, uh, it did raise his Twitter followers a lot, and that is great. So here's the next part I want to say. And that is polling data, good debates, good, uh, points being made and one-liners being delivered that get people all excited about these debates. That doesn't mean zilch, nada when it comes to actually getting out there to vote, hit the voting booth, right? So here, here's my theory about the whole thing when it comes to voter turnout. Andrew Yang is going to have really good voter turnout, right? People are going to actually get up and go to the voting booth for Andrew Yang. And I think a lot of the candidates who are polling good now, you know, in the data, it's one thing to be polling good, but it's another thing to have voter turnout. And a lot of these people, I don't think they're going to have— these candidates are going to actually have the voter turnout, uh, like Andrew Yang is going to have. And, and so, uh, I, I think that's also important to consider. Also, real quick, BitcoinNYK.com, our own universal basic income program, uh, that uses blockchain technology, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum. Uh, this is real money that can be traded for currencies of your choice. It's a free program. Everybody watching the channel can join out and get this free cryptocurrency money. Uh, it's especially great for people outside of America who are involved with our, uh, who are champion people like Andrew Yang to finally make, uh, the United States of America a beacon of hope for many other countries. Because if we get the dividend working well, the Freedom Dividend, universal basic income working well in the United States, I believe it will be a model for people around the world and, and their countries may follow suit. But as of right now, that's not going to be happening for them. And, uh, we still need to win this election. But there's something we can do right now. We can join now, uh, our website that uses cryptocurrency blockchain technology, very secure technologies, totally free to you all. Free money going to individuals, uh, with this cryptocurrency that is created and generated through activity. This is what we term an activity-based economy. It's based on active— your attention. Right, activity and attention. So attention is the right word, attention-based economy, right? So paying attention to things, watching videos, going on our websites, doing a variety of things generates this cryptocurrency that you can move around the world, uh, and, uh, it definitely will help, uh, a lot of people to supplement their income, help people in developing nations, uh, to pay for grocery bills and a variety of things like that. So it's a very ambitious project, one we're very proud of. Happy about, and we think it works well with the direction of the Andrew Yang campaign. So we love for you all to join today. It's open for everybody. Start getting cryptocurrencies free today just by joining. So do it right now. 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.