Yeah, he's fairly popular out here. By far the most 2020 bumper-stickers, etc, in San Francisco anyway. Probably a tech bro type phenomenon, but it's real enough. Harris is a popular-enough senator here, but that's it. LOL @ Steyer @ 1% on his home turf. Needs to withdraw yesterday.
@BruceAndre too I’ve been backreading a bit and would be happy to discuss what I think about inflation with y’all if you’re still interested. Cliff notes 1) just cause everyone is getting money doesn’t mean they will spend it. 2) even if everyone did spend it it doesn’t mean that prices would go up. That depends on the level of competition . McDonald’s isn’t going to all of a sudden start charging 10 bucks for a burger because if they do ... whataburger will be happy to charge 8 and steal customers . 3) inflation by itself isn’t bad , it depends on the level . The fed has actually been trying to get inflation UP , and pumped in 4 trillion dollars with quantitative easing and that didn’t bring up rates much at all . The UBI isn’t going to give everyone an extra 1000 dollars purchasing power every month . I’m sure the prices of some goods will go up , the question is are you able to make yourself better off because of it . I’m fairly convinced of yes .
You've been out in NoCal too long if you consider the average tech cubicle drone to be "normal people".
Nearly crapped myself when I saw this. It's a tremendous accomplishment. However, the survey is of less than 500 voters, so I will temper my enthusiasm for now. BUT it's important to remember California moved its primary date up so it is *much* more important than in years past. A strong showing there could vault any stalled campaign all the way to the convention. Given that we're not printing new money I'd say it is on the doubters to prove this will cause inflation, not the other way around. The most plausible unintended consequence I can foresee is minor inflation in rural and poor areas (because the proportionate income increase will be much larger than in sub & urban areas), although that will be accompanied by a big jump in standard of living too, so it's a wash.
I think this is fairly accurate. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/09/andrew-yang-consummate-outsider/598288/
RIP to Yangs support on ClutchFans lmao. What would likely affect the price, potentially more then a carbon/methane tax, is if we stopped subsidizing the growth of cow feed too. I wouldn't single out animal agriculture, but I definitely would include it with a general carbon tax on all industry.
what if we start fining people based on how much methane they emit? I'm down with that. I have some stinky work colleagues. (You have no idea what's it like, working with scientists. Nose pickers, poor bathers, farters... all your stereotypes are for real.)
Yup . But for real , if we DO care about the climate we will have go make tough choices about our consumption. Maybe start off with a lower carbon tax rate for beef given it’s something people eat a lot of.
climate change is a busybody do-gooder's wet dream gives them a pretense to control nearly every aspect of our lives
Beef isn't healthy. US beef consumption has decreased by about 1/5(!) since around 2000... the trend continue. I think meat producer only account for about 3% of emission in the US (15% worldwide). Here in the US, it doesn't need to be a major focus - yes, it can be part of the overall carbon tax, allowing the market dynamic to work it's magic. But it's shouldn't be that big of a focus here in the US. Politically, if you are smart IMO and want to get things done for climate change, this is something you want to punt on. The ROI isn't good. Focusing on energy is a much better ROI - which also affect meat production impact on emission.
