 So let's say we get the freedom dividend going and we're giving everyone $1,000 a month. The freedom dividend is the UBI. That's what he's calling it. He's like a good politician. He polled and the freedom dividend polled best. It polled best by the way among Republicans. They love the word freedom and he's attracting certain Republican support. I see we've got some Andrew Yang supporters on my chat. That's great. Thanks for joining us. We'll see if you still like your candidate after we dissect what he has to say. Explain that maybe a little more in case anyone doesn't know. Yeah, I should get into that. But I'll finish this thought and we'll get into it. But if we're giving people $1,000 a month, is that going to solve that issue even? If we keep going into the future, 50 years, 100 years, how many jobs are left? Well, this is the fundamental reinvention that's in many ways at the heart of my campaign. So right now our economy revolves around these ideas of capital efficiency where the market says if you're an accountant, you're worth $75,000. By the way, what he means by capital efficiency is how much value do you create? So he says today jobs revolve around this idea of value creation. You're an accountant, you create value for people in doing their books, let's say, then they pay you based on the value you add to them, how efficient you offer their capital. And this is what he's criticizing. And he says all these jobs are based on, he calls the capital efficiency because that makes it seem financial and kind of nasty and maybe bad. But what he's really talking about is value creation. And he's saying there's a problem. And the problem he's identified is true. 46,000. And what I'm saying right now is, look, technology is going to come that's going to do the job of the accountant and the truck driver. And then what is their new market worth going to be? That's right. So technology is going to come in and we're going to have driverless trucks one day. We're going to have, you know, software that does accounting, I hope. I mean, that would be fantastic. Save me a lot of money. And we're going to have radiologists that are going to be replaced. And what are people going to do? They're going to be no jobs in the economy. Now, what's amazing to me about this whole line of argument is this is, they all think they've invented it. They think this is new. Robots are going to take everybody's jobs and that has never happened before. Robots are going to take anybody's jobs and such. It's never happened before. We can't imagine a world in which people have other jobs. Their jobs are going to be taken by robots. And they ignore the last 250 years. Say ignore the agricultural revolution 250 years ago. 90% of us were farmers. Today, less than 1% of us are farmers. There's more food in the world today than ever before. And yet at 1% of us in the United States in the world, the percentage is higher. But it's shrinking dramatically over time. And yet people are working. There's no shortage of jobs. Certainly not on a global scale. There are more jobs today than they ever have been in all of human history. But suddenly this is new. Wait, robots are going to take our jobs. What are people going to do? And they can't imagine the new jobs that will be created. Yeah, it's hard to imagine those new jobs. I can't imagine them either. But if you study history just a little bit, what about the sewing machines, the first excuse for the Luddites to burn down factories claiming they would take all the jobs away? What about the assembly line by Ford? And what has happened to the standard of living quality of life and the quality of the jobs we have? The quality of the jobs we have? The fact is that labor participation rates in the world globally have never been higher than they are today. Globally, more people are working in productive activities for trade than in any point in all of human history. I'm not talking about unemployment numbers. I'm talking about the number of people working in a job that produces value to be traded. Never in all of human history have we come close to the number or the percentage of people working. Now in the United States, labor participation rates are low for a variety of reasons. But globally, this is a global issue, not a US issue. We can talk about why they're low in the US and it has nothing to do with technology and everything to do with education, welfare, and all Andrew Yang UBI is going to do is increase the labor, decrease the labor participation rate, going to reduce the incentive to go into the labor force. I love it when all the Andrew Yang people are coming to my chat and all they do is add homonyms. They don't argue. They just say, oh, that's nonsense. Well, what did I say? That's nonsense. Give me one fact that is nonsense. The fact is more people are working today for value creating jobs in spite of the fact that we have more and more technology. The fact is that all those people who used to work in agriculture do not work in agriculture anymore and yet they have jobs. The fact is that while we don't have as many manufacturing jobs today, we have masses of numbers of computer programming jobs that are far better and far better paying. The fact is that if not for regulations and controls and taxes and the distortion that the government creates in our economy, we would have millions and millions and millions of additionally good paying jobs in the U.S. But globally, there's no disputes. I mean, you've got tens of millions of people in China working in productive trade related activities that didn't work. They were farmers just 20, 30 years ago. That's true in India. That's true in Thailand. That's true in South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore. Just the sheer number of people working in productive trade related activities is mind-boggling as compared to any other time in human history. And yet we're worried that robots are going to take out, yeah, you should be worried about robots taking your job. But in aggregate, I am willing to bet my entire net worth that in 50 years, there will be more jobs, more work to do than there is today. More people working in productive activities than there are today. So I know you guys are asking a lot of questions. We'll get to them. I really am trying to get through this interview with Yang because he brings up a lot of important issues. This job's all going to go away. It's probably the most important one. You've got Elon Musk behind this. You've got a bunch of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. You've got Yuval Haravi, who I did a video about a week ago, really pushing this idea. But it's really a lack of understanding of history, a lack of understanding of economics, a lack of understanding of human nature, a lack of understanding of human need. And history proves it wrong. Technology creates more jobs than it destroys, always and everywhere, and always has been and always will be. Here we go. Not what it was. It's sort of unclear what the new value is. So we're in the midst of the greatest economic transformation in human history. And we need to start finding new pursuits and jobs and ways to value our own time. That's all true. I agree with that completely. We need to start finding new pursuits, new jobs. We need to think about whether our job is going to be eliminated by a computer, by a robot, and retraining ourselves and thinking about the kind of jobs that will not be taken by computers and orienting our training towards those kind of jobs. That is definitely something that we, as individuals, need to do. One of the examples I use that my wife is at home with our two boys, one of him has autism and the market values her work at zero. But yeah, if your wife is at home, her market value is zero. Well, not really. Is her market value at zero? Where is she getting her market value from? Who is she producing value for? Well, she's producing value for your kids who are not in a position to pay for their value. And she's producing value for you, Andrew Lang, so you can run around the country earning for president. And what does she get in exchange for the value she's producing for you? Well, half of your income, half of the income you're producing. So you're producing income for both of you. And that value is in exchange for her raising kids. But raising kids does not produce value for other people, so other people don't pay her to do it. Now, his solution ultimately, I think, although he never actually says it, is the government should pay her. Society somehow should pay her. But how does that actually work? And how does society place a value on raising kids? How do we measure that? Where's the price mechanism to tell us this is a value or not? Do we vote on it? Where does the money for the government to pay every person out there who's raising kids come from? How do you do all that? He never explains that because there is no way to do it. And he has no explanation for it. Millions of women around the country in the same boat where we're like, your times were zero. And we all know that the works. I guess now her time is worth $1,000 a month, which is the UBI. Some of the hardest and most importantly, anyone that, yeah, you know, you have a two month old, you're like, holy crap, this is the hardest job I've ever done. That's the hard with capitalism though, right? Because they don't produce. Yeah, we don't get paid for how hard the work we do is. We get paid for our productive wheel. We get paid for how much value we create for other people. We don't get paid for how hard the work is. We get paid when we can differentiate ourselves from other people, where the work we do is unique, where the work we do is value creating. You don't get paid for working hard. Nobody cares if you work hard. What they care about is how much you produce. Like tangible, I guess, they don't produce to the economy in a touchable way, right? It's an tangible asset. And so in a way, we have to transform what we think of as tangible value. So if you make another human being stronger and healthier, that's actually, that's good. Yeah, immensely valuable. Yeah, but this is the question. Who is the we? Who is the we who is going to transform what we think is tangible? And who gets to decide that the beauty of capitalism, the beauty of free markets is in a sense, nobody decides. We each decide for ourselves what we think is tangible, what we're willing to pay for. And then we go out, then we trade with other people freely without coercion, without forcing anybody. But each individual under capitalism is not forced to make any kind of decision about what he views as tangible or not. What Andrew Yang and really all status of central planners want to do is tell us what we should view as tangible. Tell us, you know, what we should value and therefore what we should pay for. So like, so Andrew is unfortunately like every other central planner, he wants planner, he wants to impose his values, his views, his standards on all of us. And that's the negation of freedom. That's the essence of what freedom isn't. Freedom is you choosing what you value, not somebody else choosing for you what you should value. Just right now, our economic statistics don't value that appropriately. Or investing in your and having a happy, healthy family is good for society. Yes. And so this is the great opportunity. Because what is good for society mean good for human society? Now, being healthy and raising a happy family is good for you. And yeah, other people benefit from it as well. But are they gonna pay you so you raise a happy family? And if you don't, they don't pay you, you don't raise a happy family? It's never explained what exactly he is talking about this. Where technology is going to end up assuming more and more work is that we have to rethink and broaden what we think of as work. And then we have to come up with different and better ways of valuing our own time. Because if we play out the capital efficiency race, we lose at an epic level. This is this is the the led lights argument that we lose. No, we don't lose. If you pay out the capital efficiency, which is just mean the value creation, the productivity enhancing that the freedom to pursue your own values to create your own values and then to trade, we all win and very nature of that system is win win. And the whole idea that robots to overtake us and just take it over is it's just science fiction nonsense. It's just so beyond reasonable. I want to ask you first of all, why why do you think all these mass shootings are happening? What happened? Sorry, this happens to me when I do this stuff. You're that's actually that's good immensely valuable. So if you were to say how many of you get excited if you were to make your community stronger mentally healthier, people would be like, Oh, that would be tremendous. It's just most people don't have the opportunity to do that kind of work. Well, but how do you do that kind of work? And who gets to pay you for that kind of work? And where does the funds come to make you that kind of work? Again, centrally planned, government is paying you. And again, the UBI is not enough to pay you. His idea of $1,000 a month is not enough to pay you. So he never actually articulates how this mechanism works of everybody doing what they want to do, everybody doing these societally valuable activities. How does it work? We understand how socialism works or doesn't as the case may be. We understand that capitalism works. How does this new thing work? Blank out no explanation. This is the big chance we have and we have to take it because if we stay on this road too long, GDP and capital efficiency are going to send us flying off a cliff. And one of the things I say to people is like, look, self-driving trucks will be great for GDP. You're going to save tens of billions of dollars. It's going to be terrible for the three and a half million truck drivers. Is it really? I mean, again, this is the lack of imagination was automation and farming terrible for the people who lost jobs and farming? No. It actually increased the standard of living. They went to the cities, got better jobs, lived better life, healthier lives and had a much higher standard of living because of the automation that drove them out. Yes, they lost their jobs too bad. Go find another job. And it's exactly what happened to manufacturing workers. Where are all the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs in the 1980s? Well, they got retrained. They're doing something else and where are their kids? They're kids in Silicon Valley programming. And their standard of living all went up. But the only way to move forward, the only way to advance is through what Schumteter, the economy is Schumteter called creative destruction. Yes, industries go out of business. New industries arise. Some jobs disappear. Other jobs get created. But the idea that we're heading towards some cliff where all jobs go away is just another form of the Armageddon mentality that unfortunately too many human beings have. You know, we're all going to die from global warming in 12 years. We're all going to, oh, global warming is irreversible within 12 years and the end of the world is nine. Oh, you know, God is pissed off at us. He's going to destroy us at the center of the millennium. Or whatever it happens to be, there's always somebody yelling from the hilltops, the world is going to end. Millennial cults are part of our lives. Yes, Uber drivers won't have a job in 20 years. Truck drivers won't have jobs in 20 years. And you know what? They'll be new, better, more exciting, more interesting, better paying jobs available. I don't know where. If I knew where, I'd be super rich. But if you look at history, that has always been the case. And where else do we have to learn than from history and economic theory? And economic theory here is simple. Human needs are infinite. There is no, there's no limit to what we as human beings need and want. And while robots can create certain things, there's always going to be things that robots can't yet do. And a lot of those have to do with human interaction. A lot of that has to do with creativity. A lot of that has to do with things like making us laugh. There'll be more entertainers. There'll be more comedians. There'll be more personal assistants. I don't know. But I'd like to give the example. 20 years ago, if you drove around America, once in a while you'd see a nail salon, primarily in an upper middle class or high class neighborhood where rich people would go and have their nails done. Like 20, 30 years ago, nobody got their nails done. It was an exclusive thing of the rich. Today, in California, there's not a strip mall that doesn't have a nail salon. Thousands and thousands and thousands of women in California work doing whatever they do in a nail salon, never being in one. And I don't know what they do. But manicures, pedicures, thousands and thousands. Now, if you'd ask me, what are all these Asian immigrants going to do? I mean, most of them are Vietnamese women in California, Southern California, at least. What are they going to do when they come here? They're not enough jobs. Nobody would have imagined this would be a job. So I don't know what the jobs of the future are going to be. Manual or non-manual. All I know is that history suggests and economic theory, markets suggest that given the needs of human being always expand, always grow. We always want more need, more desire, more people are going to have to produce and people have individuals have this amazing ability to create stuff that nobody else could have imagined is possible. And they're going to have to have people are going to have to do that. We're going to have many more entrepreneurs because to actually bring your idea into reality will become cheaper and cheaper and cheaper because you'll have machines doing it. So many people who today are workers are going to become entrepreneurs. And there's just an ever increasing number of opportunities, of jobs, of wealth for people to act, for people to access. So now I don't buy any of this. Seven million Americans are working truck stops and hotels and diners around the country waiting for the truckers to get out and have a meal. What did all those people do before they were trucks? Oh, they were farmers. So you guys run a business and so you have measurements, you look at all the time. It's around like how engaged viewers are, like how many people are clicking on things. We need the right measurements for our society. We made up GDP. Who is we? I don't need the right measurements for society. I don't give a damn about the right measurements for society. The only measurements, the only measurements that I care about are my own well-being. Am I happy? Am I not? Is my bank account growing or is it shrinking? Can I afford the stuff that I want or can't I? How much time am I spending with my kids and my job or with my wife or the different? Those are the measures that matter. Society, who cares about the measures of society? I don't, for that matter, don't really care about GDP. I care about my GDP. I care about how much wealth I have. I don't care that much about what, how much wealth you have. Now I want to be in a place that's healthy and growing and the economy is growing and people are flourishing and people are succeeding because that's more fun to live in a place like that. But society measurements of well-being are bogus because there is no such thing as societal measures of well-being. Only individuals have well-being. Society is just a collection of individuals and different individuals in different phases of their life have different measures of well-being. When you're young, the measures of well-being are different than when you're older. When you're poor, your measures of well-being are different than when you're wealthy. So we want to aggregate all this and somehow have a central plan and have a measure of well-being? No, the only measure of well-being that the government should concern itself is how free are its citizens? How well are the rights, the freedoms of its citizens protected? And the measures of well-being for that are things like how much crime is there? The measures of well-being for that are, you know, how much regulations and controls are there? That's the only measure of well-being that the government needs to be following. To what extent, to what extent are people free to pursue their own values? Free of what? Free of coercion, free of force, free of coercion from the government. And if the government identifies somewhere where it's coercing people and interfering in their freedoms, interfering in their lives, it should stop due with the laws, regulations, controls. And if other people interfering in my freedoms, then the government should arrest them. That's it. But there are no other societal measures of well-being. Only individuals can feel well-being. Years ago, and even the inventor said this is a terrible measurement of national well-being, we should never use it as that. That was 100 years ago. And so here we are just still following it 100 years later being like, oh, GDP is going to tell us how we're doing. By the way, I did a whole talk on, you can find it on my YouTube channel about collectivism and economics, which talks about GDP and all these economic measures of well-being. And yeah, they're all collectivistic nonsense. I'm not for measuring well-being in any kind of collectivistic way. And I'm certainly not for measuring it in GDP. Most economic numbers are driven by a collectivistic view of the world, rather than an individualist view of the world, which just looks at individuals free and individuals, individuals, do they have the freedom, the ability to pursue the happiness? That's it. We need to evolve. Do you have an idea for what that new metric might look like? I mean, what is it? Yes, I do. So I call it the American scorecard. And it keeps GDP as one data point, but it integrates health and life expectancy, mental health and freedom from substance abuse, childhood education and success rates, environmental quality. And we have numbers for these things. And so we can integrate them into our economic measurements. And then at the state of the union every year as president, I will actually present the scorecard and say, as an example, eight Americans are dying of drug overdoses every hour. That's terrible and unconscionable. So we're going to get that down by 50% of it. We're going to get that down by 50% over the next few years, by limiting somebody's freedom, by taking stuff away from somebody, because we don't actually care about individual freedom. We don't actually care about individual rights. What we care about is the social metrics. And then if we have to sacrifice some, I talked about this, about this idea of sacrifice, when I criticized socialism yesterday, if we have to sacrifice some for the benefit of others, so be it. But we got our metrics down. We got the number we were going for. This is cool, right? Tell us freedom. Tell us what's really important. Tell us what the job the government is actually supposed to do. That's unimportant. A few years and here's how we're going to do it. And then if individuals or companies or organizations put resources to work to move society in that direction, then they actually get rewarded economically. Because right now the problem is that only economic awards cut in this direction. And then all of the helping people of awards cut the other directions. Now, by the way, some of you on the chat, I tracked the chat a little bit, so there's a bunch of you who are new. Let me just be clear. I am not arguing in support of the existing system. The existing system we have in the United States is not capitalism, it's cronyism. The existing system we have in the United States is a mixed economy. There's no capitalism in the US. The existing system in the United States has politicians from left and right who are ignorant of the principles on which this country was founded and are the principles of economics and political theory that could make it great again. A president is, in my view, an incompetent buffoon but so are the Democrats. So don't argue with me that the status quo is lousy. Yeah, I agree with the status quo is lousy. But Andrew Young, Andrew Yang's policies are basically to increasing all the bad things that exist in our world today. Increase the statism, increase government control, increase government oversight of our life. We have parameters over all these kind of things that relate to our life and then the government is going to step in and manipulate us to do what Andrew wants us to do rather than leaving us free, rather than leaving us free to live our lives as we see fit, which is not to stay today. So what would an incentive look like for, let's say, Amazon to how could Amazon contribute, for example, to an issue like that? How can Amazon contribute? Now, think about that. Think about the question and think about the answer. How can Amazon contribute? Really? I don't know about you, but Amazon has contributed enormous amount to my life already. Why doesn't it contribute anymore? It's changed my life dramatically for the better. The things I can do online today because of Amazon is unbelievable, unbelievable. I'm being compared to Infowars. Have I stated any conspiracy theories here? The difference between me and Infowars is I actually advocate for truth and freedom and rights, but you can't tell the difference. That's truly what's shocking is that you can't tell the difference. What is Amazon? I mean, Infowars hates Amazon, just like the Trump hates Amazon and Bernie hates Amazon and Andrew Yang hates Amazon. Every single mainstream politician in the world today hates Amazon. I love Amazon. I think Amazon is God's gift to mankind. It's not God because God doesn't exist, but it's Jeff Bezos' gift to mankind. Amazon has changed our lives. It's made our life richer, better. I mean, I don't go to the mall to shop, which gives me more time to do this fun stuff that I enjoy doing. I don't have to go drive and be in traffic and walk around a stupid mall and do all the stupid things that people do in malls. I hate malls. I hate shopping. I go online, look for the stuff I need, buy the stuff I need, and it shows up by my door sometimes the next day. Actually, when I was in California, it shows up the same day. I mean, wow, shockingly amazing. Same day. Think about all the jobs that the delivery, think of all the jobs in the warehouses, think of all the jobs of the companies that make the stuff that Amazon sells. Amazon is the most heroic company, most company that has changed our life more than probably any other country company in the world. And yet we demonized them. Why? Because they haven't paid their taxes. Who cares? They've made my life so much better. I don't resent them. I think they're fantastic because they benefited my life and your life as individuals. Yeah, some jobs are getting automated away and other jobs will come and replace them because jobs are being automated away since the beginning of the industrial revolution. We've been automating away jobs for 230 years, literally 230 years of automating jobs away and still more people today work than ever in all of human history in productive activities for trade. What we need today, what I called a new intellectual would be any man or woman who is willing to think. Meaning any man or woman who knows that man's life must be guided by reason, by the intellect, not by feelings, wishes, whims or mystic revelations. Any man or woman who values his life and who does not want to give in to today's cult of despair, cynicism and impotence and does not intend to give up the world to the dark ages and to the role of the collectivist growth.