Andrew Yang | The Ben Shapiro Show Sunday Special Ep. 45

my flagship proposals we give every American a thousand dollars a month Korean clear if you know you have a little bit more freedom from scarcity then you can start making moves towards the sort of work that you want for yourself that you value that you would find fulfilling and exciting hello and welcome to the sunday special we're joined this week by Andrew yang author of the book the war on normal people I can't wait to get to my conversation with Andrew but first can you believe it's already April time has a habit of getting away but if you have a mortgage or kids or anyone depending on your income you're gonna have to spend some of that time getting life insurance if you need life insurance but you don't want to spend a lot of time comparing it you should give policy genius a try policy genius is the easy way to buy life insurance online in just two minutes you can compare quotes from the top insurers and find your best price once you apply the policy genius team will handle all the paperwork and red tape no Commission's no hidden fees just more time saved for you and policy genius doesn't just make life insurance easy they also make it easy to find the right home insurance or auto insurance or disability insurance their one-stop shop for financial protection so if you need life insurance but you're short on time head on over to policy genius comm and compare quotes how genius is easy it saves you money and not to belabor the point but it is indeed fast policy genius spend less time comparing life insurance more time doing literally anything else it's the responsible thing to do you're an adult gotta take care of your family I know you don't think you're gonna die tomorrow but the fact is you don't know and that's why you ought to be checking out policy genius right now it's not gonna cost you a lot of time and you'll be doing something valuable for yourself and your family policy genius spend less time comparing life insurance more time doing literally anything else on planet earth policy genius.com that's policy genius calm go check it out right now hi Andrew thanks so much for coming by the show really appreciate it oh it's great to be here thanks for having me well first of all I just have to thank you again for coming on the show because we've invited a lot of folks on the left particularly members of the Democratic Party who are running for president you're the only person who's accepted thus far and so we appreciate the conversation it really does mean a lot to me that you would come on and I'm sure that you will get some slings and arrows for it well I hope I can set a trend like I hope I'm the first but not the last so let's start with this where what prompted you to run for president where are you where are you coming from what's what's your backstory for folks who don't know you so I certainly was not one of these kids who grew up thinking they were going to run for president I was born in upstate New York my parents are immigrants from Taiwan they met in graduate school at UC Berkeley so my father was an engineer for GE and IBM he generated 69 US patents over his career and being an academic is sort of the family business my dad's a professor in my brother is a professor and my grandfather was a professor so I like you went to law school I went to you know I started economics in political science in college do you know what to do so I went to law school and then practice law for five unhappy months and then left to start in ill-fated calm in the first bubble but then I have been bitten by the bug and said this is much better than being an unhappy lawyer and so I worked at a healthcare software company and then I became the head of an education company that grew to become number one in the US and was acquired by a public company in 2009 so at this point my you know career was going really well but it was the wake of the financial crisis and I thought that we had all of these whiz kids heading to Wall Street and McKinsey and not enough starting generative businesses and places like Detroit or Cleveland or Baltimore or st. Louis so I quit my job I started an organization called venture for America that helped create several thousand jobs in those cities and another dozen cities or so around the u.s. and the reason I'm running for president is that when you spend time in the Midwest in the south you see the aftermath of the fact that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs in Michigan Ohio Pennsylvania Wisconsin Missouri Iowa all the swing states that Trump needed to win and did win and so I'm running for president to wake up America to the fact that it is not immigrants that are causing economic problems it is the fact that we're going through the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of the country it's called the fourth Industrial Revolution and we need to progress to the next stage of capitalism in order for our country to prosper and in age where artificial intelligence and self-driving cars and trucks will become real now you talk a lot in the book there are normal people about these people who are in the middle of the country and whose talents are sort of being left behind their jobs or sort of being left behind do you think that the Democratic Party has properly spoken to a lot of those people there's a feeling that President Trump one specifically because the Democratic Party largely forgot about those folks well to me there's a very powerful central economic narrative where if you look at the voting district data there's literally a straight line up between the adoption of industrial automation in an area and the movement towards Donald Trump and so to me Democrats need to try and address that set of problems if they fail in that then then they're not trying to solve the problems I got Donald Trump elected like Donald Trump is not himself well he's to me a manifestation of this greater economic mega trend and it's up to the Democratic Party in my opinion to help America navigate this wave as opposed to focusing too much Donald Trump who to me is a symptom now there's been a lot of talk about the the effective automation and some folks have talked to you know sitting in your chair have suggested solutions to automation including restriction of automation itself Tucker Carlson suggested on my show for example that he wanted to actually legislate away self-driving trucks you don't make any of those sorts of sweeping pronouncements about limiting technology really in your book no I'm very Pro Progress genuine generally you know I think there might be isolated instances where you need to at least try and buy some time because and I you know I talk about truckers a fair amount in my book where being a truck driver is the most common job in 29 states three and a half million truck drivers ninety four percent men average age 49 now and so if you can foresee that you might displace ten tens or hundreds of thousands of these truck drivers over a particular period of time you might want to slow that down because you might need to buy yourself time to help assimilate that adjustment but generally speaking trying to just like stop automation is a loser over time because you might even be able to like stick your finger in one part of the dam but then something else is gonna break anyway it's like you know like if we tried to automate a way to say hey you can't automate truck truck driving then there would be some other part of the economy where you'd look at it and say well I guess we're gonna automate away the warehouse workers when automated way the dock workers like you can't stop at all so with all of that said you know the solutions that you propose are pretty big government solutions you're a guy who obviously worked in the private sector and you ran a charity that was specifically designed for helping people in in the sector why do you think that stuff is is insufficient why isn't it that that it should just be about private charity for example it's been my proposal is that there needs to be a lot more upswing and private charity that we need to encourage people to leave some of these dying towns you seem to suggest that these people should essentially be able to stay in these dying towns and that government should take care of them there well I think I think there are several paths forward but we have to choose one and we have to figure out together it's like what is the path forward for many many Americans and the reason why I am confident that we need to go bigger is that I was one of the most celebrated social entrepreneurs of the last number of years where I started this multi-million dollar organization venture for America you know movie made about us honored by the White House and I realized that our efforts as much as I was proud of them were like pouring water into a bathtub as a giant hole ripped in the bottom just the scale is all wrong where if you look at the numbers we're looking at three to four times the level of labor force displacement as the first Industrial Revolution or the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the century and so if you say hey charities are gonna handle that like charities don't have the scale to address needs this big and I know this because I've worked in that space and I you know hung out with the heads of foundations and just the scale is wrong for the scope of the changes let's talk about the crisis itself so the the book in period of the first half is is rather dystopian about kind of its description of the economy particularly in certain parts and you do make sort of a bifurcation between big cities where you say the economy is growing and some of the outlying rural areas where you say that it's not growing what about the argument that the economy seems to be doing pretty well that every time there's a technological change historically there's been worker displacement that there will be people left behind because that's just the nature of creative destruction but that new jobs will be created in ways that we can't foresee right now what makes you think that this time is sort of the Cataclysm well we 100% create many many new jobs that we can't predict and the issue is that they're going to be for different people in different places with different skills than the people that are going to lose their jobs like are gonna be able to take advantage of and so if you look at a couple of big historical references number one the Industrial Revolution which people generally refer to and say hey we've been through this before the Industrial Revolution at the turn of the century included mass riots that killed dozens of Americans and caused billions of dollars worth of damage we now have Labor Day as a national holiday because of those riots we implemented universal high school in 1911 and part as a response to these problems and pain and McKinsey project that this time is going to be three to four times faster and larger than that Industrial Revolution in terms of displacement workers so even if you just rely upon history you would expect a lot of violence and tumult and conflict number two I studied economics in college and according to economic theory if you were to automate away four million manufacturing jobs which we did those workers would move get retrained rescaled find new higher productivity jobs and all would be well but when I dug into the numbers it turns out that almost half of those workers left the workforce and never worked again and of that group about half fob for disability and then you saw a surge in substance abuse and drug overdoses and suicides none of which were in my economics textbook it didn't say hey like workers aren't gonna go home for disability and start dying at record levels so if you look at that fact pattern you say okay that's what happened when four million manufacturing workers lost their jobs that's actually a much better sign of what's going to happen when the three and a half million truckers and the two and a half million call center worker isn't the over ten million retail workers suffer from the same sort of displacement know the conservative counter-argument to some of what you're talking about it would be right all these people went on disability but they were able to meaning that a lot of people were able to find a social safety net they've been reliant on that social safety net that hasn't actually rebuilt the forms of social capital necessary to have functioning societies you've seen people who are supported by the government largely who are still getting addicted to drugs people who are in court committing suicide at record rates who are staying unemployed for years at a time and who are staying in towns where presumably they really shouldn't be staying I mean there are seven million unfilled jobs apparently in the United States right now and there are a lot of people who are out of work and people as you mentioned in the book are basically staying where they are is the incentive structure may be misaligned because of government intervention into the system you know it's a very interesting question and one of the things that I found worrisome in the data was that Americans are migrating between states at multi-decade lows which is a terrible sign for dynamism and I love dynamism I mean I think people should be moving for for work it's very good economically and culturally it's something very optimistic about moving to some to another state for a new job and so I would love to help more Americans do just that and one my policy proposals that we pay moving expenses for Americans who want to move because to your point there are a lot of Americans who are stuck in place because they're underwater and a mortgage there are costs associated with a move that they can't manage but a lot of them are also in place because they have families and so it's tough if you're going through a hard time and then you have like the only people that you're close to in your life are living in that same town and then you're like hey guys I'm going to leave to move to the big city you know you're asking people in some ways to sacrifice what little they can rely upon in their lives I mean and I think that that's sort of where I am in the sense that I wonder if this is more about an American mentality shift that has to happen as opposed to government intervention ISM so maybe we need to reinstall the sort of pioneer ethos that supposedly animated the United States in the first place this idea okay you do have to pick up and you do have to move and you do have to make difficult decisions to better your economic life and do you ever worry that the description of the upcoming economic catastrophe is actually disincentivizing people from from going out and trying to forge forth because I do think that how people think has a major impact on how they decide to embrace the job market well you know like you say you know I mean facts are very stubborn things and so you know like I'm convinced that we're let's say for example 30 percent of American malls are gonna close in the next four years and working in retail the most common job in America I mean those are objective facts like Amazon sucking up another twenty billion dollars in commerce every year and so saying hey this is happening I don't think that necessarily is going to freeze people in place like the hope is that we can galvanize energy around folks trying to improve their situations and adopting real solutions but I couldn't agree with you more that there is a mindset that we would love to have more Americans inhabit and and what I'm going to suggest is that there's something very optimistic and confident about that pioneer ethos that you describe which is like hey I'm just like go and we're gonna make it happen I'm gonna farm you know and some undiscovered frontier and like we're gonna create a better life for ourselves and that is not happening for a lot of Americans so the question is how do we get them from where they are now the to that point I want to ask you about your perspective on jobs because it seems like you have an interesting view of jobs on the one hand you say that people obviously need them they need them for a sense of meaning on the other hand you seem to suggest that those jobs aren't forthcoming anytime soon so do you think that it's the jobs that provide meaning or the check that provides meaning they at one point in your book for example you specifically criticize this this exact bifurcation you you basically say that there are two completely oppositional ideas page 182 to completely oppositional ideas that many people seem to hold simultaneously first work is vital and the core of human experience second no one will want to work if they don't have to well where do you stand on that do you think that work is vital and people are going to work or do you think that work is not vital and that this whole can sort of be filled by the government paying for it so I assume that you you believe work is vital I mean you talk a lot about it in the book and you're you're you know opposing that to the idea that people won't work if they don't have to but you're acknowledging a lot of people aren't going to work I mean your basic government proposals involve a lot of paying people whether they're working or not obviously with the goal that we create more work because I'm very much in the work is a vital camp and that's not just my thinking about it that's just in the data where if you look at what happens to idle men in particular we spend a lot of time on the computer playing video games and doing other things we volunteer less than employed men even though we have more time our drinking and substance abuse tends to go up and over time there are some antisocial patterns that develop in idle men to a higher degree than women and so that's just data and so if you look at that you say okay this actually is pretty consistent with my intuition that work is incredibly important and vital it provides structure purpose fulfillment meaning social structures to them to people every day and so the question is how do we create more things like that now to me the best path to create that is to put economic resources into people's hands in the form of a freedom dividend of $1,000 a month which would then allow more people to do the sort of work that either they want to do or that their community has a need for and the goal is to create jobs and putting a thousand bucks a month into people's hands would create at least two million new jobs just because the buying power would just go right back into local businesses and communities now all that being said I do think our definition our notion of work should evolve and one example I use my wife is at home we're talking about our families my wife is at home with our two young boys one of whom is autistic and right now she works very hard I mean she you know like she works harder than than I do as Nina you know I mean I'm running for president and she's working harder but the market values her work at zero society in some ways you know minimizes the value of that work and so to me we should broaden the net definitions of work to include being a parent or caregiver but also arts creativity entrepreneurship journalism things that we know people coaching volunteering civic engagement people things that we know people want to do more of but that right now society will systematically either under value or not provide not have any monetary value so I want to ask you about the location of meaning so I've heard as I say I think there's a point where the populist left sort of meets the populist right and the suggestion is that if we structure the economy in certain ways that this will provide more jobs and that the jobs are what are going to provide meaning but you also suggest that you know the freedom dividend well it may create more jobs as a sort of an ancillary benefit there are a lot of people who are not going to be able to work we're going to be on the the freedom dividend who are going to be receiving ubi in fact ubi studies don't show increased employment in virtually any study at best they show even employment or declines in employment in the areas in which they are tried so we're and then you sort of suggest that people will be able to find meaning and all the other things you're talking about volunteering and community and art but we're not seeing that with disability so people are dependent on disability they're not engaging more in art making or learning to play violin or volunteering more they're engaging more with video games as you talked about or drug use or in some cases they become suicidal we're seeing family breakdown with all of that so what makes you think the freedom dividend is going to have a different effect on human behavior than for example current government welfare systems have yes so three things the first is that money does not somehow convey meaning and you know the best it can do is maybe provide circumstances that people find a path towards the some work that they find fulfilling the second thing is I have a friend whose sisters on disability and she's afraid to volunteer in her community because she's afraid she'd be noticed as able-bodied and thus lose her benefits and so this freedom dividend would be unconditional and free and clear and so that person would be volunteering and would not have any fear that you know her benefits gonna be taken away the third thing is that there's something very very important about conceiving yourself yourself is either able or disabled and so if you are literally getting a check for being disabled your two ideas of yourself are one I'm genuinely disabled which and most people do have some kind of genuine ailment you know physical or mental or - I'm defrauding our society and I'm actually totally fine and I'm gonna suggest that most people will fall into bucket number one that it's like a rare person who's just like I am a hundred percent fine there's a disability check I'm getting is just me being completely fabricating some-some condition and so if you invert that mentality and you say hey you are not disabled you are fine you're a citizen of the richest most advanced country in the history of the world and you you're getting this cash and it's gonna be yours no matter what because it's yours and you deserve it then that would be more constructive in terms of pushing more people into things that they'd feel good about that society would feel good about then if we say hey there's something wrong with you and we're gonna give you this cash in order to survive so with all that said is your proposal for essentially universal basic income the freedom dividend do you see that as substituting for the vast agglomeration of welfare state policies we currently have which was sort of Milton Friedman's proposal or do you see it as another dividend on top of whatever is being paid we're already paying tens of thousands of dollars per household in poverty in the United States in in welfare yes so my plan the freedom dividend would be opt in but if you opt in then you will forego benefits from the existing programs and so if you are currently receiving more than a thousand dollars in benefits then you look at this and say hey like I'm not going to do anything and my life is going to be as it is if you decide to opt in for the freedom dividend and might be very appealing because it's unconditional there's no administration no case manager $1,000 cash you can do whatever you want then you forego your current enrollment and so what what you'd see is you'd see we would shrink the role the enrollment in the 126 or so different welfare programs that we have and then over time those enrollments would go down which is very much the goal because the current programs no one loves them and they do have many unfortunate incentives attached to them where if you do better then you get less and so many people are under reporting how they're doing or or constructing a world where they are maximizing their benefits so when we talk about the cost of this thing and you talk about in the book the more on normal people you talk about it'll cost maybe 1.3 trillion dollars a year that would be in addition to current budgeting presumably you know honestly that's that's obviously a lot of spending off the top but beyond that it does raise the question as to would this be limited in any way because every government program as Ronald Reagan said basically has a bill of the mortal life and if it were to start at $1,000 a month inflation adjusted how quickly does this become somebody saying you know it really ought to be $3,000 a month because that's a popular pitch everybody gets more free money where's the logical limit on that and how do we limit that from just eating the rest of government because entitlement programs obviously are running us ragged now they obviously represent two-thirds of the federal budget adding another massive entitlement program on top that doesn't have a limiting principle how do we limit that so it doesn't become the overarching goal of government and actually put too much of a press on on the capitalist system yes so the first thing is I would disagree with the characterization of a dividend as an entitlement program and there's one state that's had a dividend for 37 years and that state is Alaska which is deep-red was passed by a Republican governor and he said look who would you rather get the money the government who's just gonna screw it up or you the Alaskan people and the Alaskans said us and he said I thought you'd say that and then and now everyone in Alaska gets between one in two thousand dollars a year no questions asked it's created thousands of jobs improved children's health and nutrition its decreased income inequality and here's the kicker it's wildly popular in a deep red state that hates taxes because they see it's like this is one of the few things the government gets right like I actually get this dividend it's great I look forward to it I it's real I can spend it my kids get it like life is better as a result and so like it's different from an entitlement in both its structure and the way it's utilized so that's that's a big picture number one number two is right now you're right about the fact that our entitlement programs are creeping ever higher in terms of both proportion of the federal budget and the enrollments we're there right now more Americans on disability than work in construction as one example and these trends are not going to abate they're actually going to accelerate so the question is whether we're going to try and restructure those programs to something that we can all embrace and get excited about that will actually help keep American families and communities strong instead of waiting for more and more people to get debilitated by for example an automation wave that's going to displace the significant proportion of the people that hold the most common jobs in the economy which we're in the midst of right now and so the question is do you wait and say okay like I guess we're gonna have more and more people qualifying for these welfare programs that have very negative incentives attached to them or are we going to own the reality and say look we get it we're going to have this dividend and then we're going to reverse the incentives of those programs over time now to your question about like whether there's a logical limit the reason why a thousand dollars a month is so magical is that it's enough to make a huge difference in the lives of individuals and families it's gonna help children's health and graduation rates and mental health and you know kids will have a real chance to to learn will reduce domestic violence will reduce hospital visits but it's not enough to be a labor replacement because $12,000 is below the u.s. poverty line of twelve thousand seven hundred dollars and so people are still gonna have to work to prosper and have a life that anyone's going to be excited about so my goal would be to put in this thousand now I did it end and then keep it at that level but it's going to be up to you you know and this is a big leap but we have to trust that future legislative legislators will be responsible for the fact that yeah good luck to that well but again you can look at something a lot like Alaska they've had over 37 years and they've pegged it to a particular resource and so what I'm suggesting is what is the resource that we should peg this to and the resource we should peg this to is technology where we have artificial intelligence and self-driving cars and trucks coming in Amazon this trillion-dollar tech company that's sucking up 20 billion dollars in commerce and causing 30% of malls and stores to close they paid zero in federal taxes last year and so what I'm going around saying is like look that's not their fault it's their job to pay as little tax as possible but that means we've done a bad job designing a system if Amazon's paying less than federal taxes than you are or you know he is that we focused a lot on production but we very focus very little in this conversation on consumption and the fact is that you know when we talk about sort of this Halcyon past where everybody was employed and people in manufacturing industry were employed like you described at one point in the 1970s and I read because I think it's it's sort of telling it interesting you say some economic problems existed growth was uneven an inflation periodically high which might be a mild understatement I mean the 70s were not great economically but income inequality was low jobs provided benefits and mainstream businesses were the drivers of the economy there were only three television networks and in my house we watched them on a TV with an antenna that we fiddled with to make the picture clearer now I'm not nostalgic for a time where I had three channels on a TV where I had to fiddle with the antenna there are obviously benefits and drawbacks to the economy but the fact is that people are living significantly better on the average in the United States than they were in the 1970s if only from the ability to consume more I mean the fact is that we we everybody has a microwave everybody has a cell phone everybody has a car everybody we're talking poverty line folks have these things so when we talk about what Amazon is not paying the fact is that Amazon not only is one of the bigger employers in the country but Amazon is making legitimately millions of lives better on the consumption side so are we focusing too much on the production side as opposed to the consumption side especially considering that the number of people who are affected by consumption is 100% and the number of people who are affected by lacks of production jobs are significantly lower than that well you know it's one of the things that I say in the book which is that if you have like this focus on consumption like cheap stuff and access to apps on your smartphone are great but they don't substitute for having a functioning Main Street or a job to goto and so it's true that there are winners and losers in this economy unfortunately right now the losers are outnumber the winners significantly by these some measurements and we talked about the 70s to now income growth has stagnated for many Americans from the 70s to now in real terms and the last three years we've seen this declining life expectancy that's hand-in-hand with a surgeon suicides and drug overdoses which is a sign that at least some Americans are experiencing the lack of productive opportunity much more sharply than having access to cheap consumer goods can can somehow make up for well I think that's obviously true for a subset of the population it is also true that for a hundred percent of the population the consumer we got cheap stuff yeah I mean coops that mean it's pretty fantastic and great stuff and if the idea of ubi is that raising living standards on a generalized level results in in better outcomes in a variety of areas then one of the ways to do that is to continue to provide that cheap stuff and so there there is a balance here I would assume I I like cheap stuff so let's talk about your view of capitalism because I think that there's there's something interesting there so you talk about what you call human capitalism the the idea of changing our notion of capitalism where we're essentially it changes how we see the market you talk you say human capitalism would have a few core tenets one humanity is more important than money to the unit of an economy is each person not each dollar and three markets exist to serve our common goals and values one sort of an abstract in a vacuum I agree with a lot of that stuff obviously I mean I have kids I have parents alright humans matter more than money and if you asked me to sell my child obviously the answer is no I like my kids so you although it depends on the day if you're asking you know the units of an economy dollars versus versus people there I start to have a little more trouble just on the economic level because what I'm actually paying for is a skill set not a person obviously the value of each human being is infinite but the value of these human beings labor is certainly not and then when you say markets exist to serve our common goals and values this is what it's really interesting because as I mentioned mentioned Tucker because I think that you and Tucker Carlson are on the same page with regard to to some of the stuff so Bernie Sanders for that matter the idea that markets exist to serve people I think is something with which I disagree and I'll explain when when we talk about markets my view of a market is essentially a recognition that my labor belongs to me a free market is just my labor belongs to me in the same way that free speech is my viewpoint belongs to me you can't say that the market exists to serve our common goals any more than you say the free speech exists to serve our common goals free speech is just a recognition that I as an individual human being have Worth and so free markets are the same thing as a recognition that I is an individual human being my labor has worth so the idea that the market is just something that is an institution that we have come up with together and then we play with I'm not sure that's an accurate description of what markets actually represent there's an underlying value to human labor that is not just a common system we all decided to come up with one day it's just a recognition that I can alien at my labor and you can buy my labor is that wrong well that so to me the the fundamental shift that we have to start getting our arms around is that certain people's labor is not going to be worth enough for them to make the kind of living that is required for them to live what they would consider a good life and so if you look at look at truck drivers as an example because I use them as because they're the most like clear so you have three half billion truckers making about forty six thousand dollars a year and and that it's a punishing job they're behind the wheel of this truck for up to 14 hours a day and they're away from their families four days a week and the rest of it but their market value with the market of their their time behind the wheel you know it's about forty six thousand dollars a year now if five to ten years from now my friends in Silicon Valley come up with trucks that can largely drive themselves and then you were gonna go to that truck driver and say hey turns out your market value like you're time behind the wheel it's not 46,000 anymore it's twenty six it's zero it's like what you know whatever that the number is and so there's like a like a change building up in our economy that the freedom to trade your labor for money to make a good living for yourself it like that's actually going to end up breaking down in more and more situations where that truck driver is not no less willing to trade his time I mean he's still to do it but then the the freight company's gonna be like turns out your times not worth what it was and it's not just the trucker it could be a radiologist who makes hundreds of thousand dollars and they interpret radiation films say I'm very willing to do this like I like getting paid hundreds of thousand dollars then we say hey turns out that a I can see tumors you can't can refer to millions of films not thousands can see shades of gray they're invisible to human eye you lose your time all of a sudden goes from worth $100,000 to let's call it you know like half that or zero or whatever the number is and so I I think that it worked for a long time when the average American could show up and say if I'm willing to work hard I've got a strong back like you know I can make a decent living for myself my family like it was in the seventies where if I showed up even to a manufacturing plant I may be able to provide a middle-class life for myself and my family but then if that stops working then we need to start thinking differently about how the labor market functions so if we've moved beyond sort of the concept of free markets as places where it can alienate labor because some people are not capable of alienating their labor their labor is just not worth anything then is the idea that the collective owns the labor of everybody and gets to redistribute the products of that labor is that what we're talking about here because the dicey territory no and I I agree with that and that's actually the outcome we have to avoid if at all possible and this is one reason why my flagship proposals we give every American a thousand dollars a month free and clear and that doesn't somehow usurp your labor your time that actually if anything liberates your your labor your time that if you know you have a little bit more freedom from scarcity then you can start making moves towards the sort of work that you want for yourself that you value that you would find fulfilling and exciting so one of the things that you talk about and I think this is is interesting because you are obviously a big believer in the ability of people to make choices with their own money and this is why you believe in the freedom dividend is the idea I'm giving you the cash it's your decision what to do with it at one point in the book you talked about the idea that folks who are poorer in the United States are actually good with money that essentially that they are going to be responsible with the money that they have you say on page 185 the idea that poor people will be irresponsible with their money and squander it seems to be a product of deep-seated bias rather than emblematic of the truth and you do this an internal broader attack on the meritocratic idea in which you say well you know this isn't completely a meritocracy obviously there are some people who are born into situations they can't control you know always control your own level of merit that sort of a meritocratic myth and this is a position that's held by people including Ross doodad who's sort of a more populist conservative at the new york times i wonder however if if that's true and the reason that I say that is because if you look at the spending habits of people who are lower down on the income chain those spending habits don't tend to be more frugal than people who are at the upper levels of the income chain at least not until those people at the upper levels are pretty secure in being at the upper levels you see conspicuous consumption among people who are earning in insane amounts of money because they can afford it but the way that those people largely became people who can afford to do that is a certain level of frugality I take for example the buying of lottery tickets so the lowest income households in the United States on average spend four hundred and twelve dollars annually on lottery tickets almost three in ten Americans in the lowest income bracket paid to play the lottery once a week now we know just statistically this is flushing your money down the toilet it's complete waste of time there's no reason to do that and I understand people do this out of despair but that doesn't change the economic truth which is that people may not make good decisions with their money which is one of the reasons we have programs like Social Security we don't trust you to keep your own money and put it in a 401k account we believe that you're gonna take that money and blow it on whatever you're gonna blow it on are you worried that that we grant ubi and then people just don't spend it on health insurance or they don't spend it on saving for the future instead they just spend it on whatever they're going to spend it on it provides a temporary boost for the economy and we're back in the same position because people at lower levels at least people who tend to stay at lower levels people who are permanently poor in the United States don't tend to make great decisions with their money are you concerned about that yeah it's a concern for sure and one of the things that that drives me is that there's been a lot of research over the fact that if you're poor if you're stressed out about your month-to-month bills it actually consumes a lot of your mental bandwidth and it reduces your decision-making ability reduces your functional intelligence by 13 IQ points or one standard deviation and so if you get the boot off of someone's throat and say look you're going to here your kid's gonna be here all be well then like their incentives to save will hopefully be higher now I'm not naive enough to think that like everyone's gonna go and like do exactly what you know I would see as like optimally responsible with with their money but big picture to return to your original point I think it's their money like I think that if you're a citizen and shareholder of this country you know and we can easily afford a dividend of $1,000 a month and if you make a bad decision or a decision I would consider like poor in January you know maybe make a better decision in February maybe make a decision to March but it's going to be up to you it's going to be you know your life your choices and I certainly do not think that the government saying like hey we think you should just use the money on this or that like would be a better way to go there's a pretty libertarian idea actually so that doesn't seem to fit necessarily wholly within sort of the Democratic belief that manemma chronic party side that when money is signed to you that we we have to kind of stand guard over the money there are a lot of libertarians who believe in ubi and they have the same core sort of libertarian view which is your money you do with it what you want you live with the consequences obviously that comes with with downsides from I I think the the left-wing point of view well you know I think many Americans have lost confidence that what we need is another program where someone comes in and says hey you know what we think is best for you this so you know I mean I like I think many Americans are gonna be very excited about not being able to make their own decisions on this so let's talk about the the cost side of this you proposed a value at attacks you point out that Europe there is value added tax which is essentially a consumption tax you you want to add that on top of the income tax and the business tax as opposed to replacing it if we were talking about replacing it I'm on board with you man I'm totally for a VAT replacing whatever income tax system we have right now where do you think the breaking point is as far as how much the system can support in terms of taxation right now we're living pretty heavily on debt obviously yeah and adding a bunch of new costs in the form of you bi or quashing economic growth to a certain extent because as you increase the tax rate a certain point you're gonna hit a breaking point where do you think the tax the ideal tax realized you're setting the taxes how does the ideal tax system work well I agree with you that ideally we are not taxing labor in the same way we do now because you don't want to tax things you need more of and in my opinion we need as much work and work like arrangement as possible and so ideally you would find ways to tax things that are not labor arrangements and so when you say like hey if you like swap out you know you go to Isis for like consumption tax you're on board that to me should be the long term vision the question is how you get from here to there and so the way I would start is by implementing this value-added tax that path the European level is quite modest but it would help capture some of the gains that Amazon and these other mega tech companies are experiencing and return those gains to the American people and some of it will float back up to you know Jeff in it and Jeff and Amazon again because you'll just buy an extra toaster but you know you like a lot of it will go to your local restaurants and the mechanic and the tutoring service and the hardware store and you know it'll help replenish that the Main Street economy and create jobs but there is to me like a movement in that direction that we need to get to because right now we're just taxing in my opinion or we're taxing highly and efficiently and you look around and the the way that we're trying to address this is like hey you know it's like there's like this high marginal tax rate I try to explain to people all the time look Jeff Bezos is worth 160 billion dollars and most of that is Amazon stock and it went from zero dough being worth 160 million dollars and he's way too smart to have a taxable event like I can ratchet up the marginal tax rate very very high and it's not gonna help anything this is exactly by the way what was in the 1950s when people say that there was a 91 top tax tax bracket in the nineteen fifties no one paid that percentage because there were a bunch of loopholes in the law that allowed people to escape paying that percentage the effective marginal tax bracket at that point was effectively the same as it is today people are paying basically the same amount of taxes yeah like people are very very smart they're very very a lot of those people right I mean that this is tax avoidance is is a strategy and people people will do that some of our smartest friends in law school like or help people avoid taxes right now of course so and by the way one of the things that's fun about talking to you is that you and I have very similar backgrounds worked for a law firm for legitimately ten months I was like I can't do this I am out there's just no way to do this I don't ask you one more question about you be items more of a general question they don't get to some of your other proposals because one of the things that's so fascinating about your candidacy is that you have proposals from here up to your a policy heavy dude so on you bi final question which is how much can money actually do I wrote an entire book which right now is doing very well the right side of history in which I talked about I think the the the lack of meaning and purpose in people's lives and I wonder whether signing a check is going to actually alleviate that in any real way it seems like there's been a loss of social capital and social fabric they can't necessarily be filled with a government program and that no matter what government program we propose if that social capital is not restored through certain basic beliefs in fundamental principles of the country certain freedoms and certain beliefs and community and and the kind of charitable organization that you are the head of that it's going to be very difficult for people to find meaning even if they're making a little more money because the fact is we're the wealthiest country in the history of the world people are exorbitantly wealthy the poorest among us I mean the rich would have been clamoring in 1880 or for that matter in 1920 to live like the poorest among us live now so is there can we fill what is effectively a spiritual hole with a government program this is to me the generational challenge that we're facing is how do you create more community ties and structure and purpose and fulfillment and pass forward for Americans who feel this central void in their lives and of course like a thousand bucks a month does not fill that void but and here's to me that the path forward is if you take a town in Missouri with 50,000 adults and they're struggling with that sense of purpose and then you say hey good news now there's another 50 million dollars in your community every month so what happens to that money some of it goes into local businesses there's a person there who wanted to start a bakery and the bakery was a dumb idea but now the bakery is a good idea yeah then he starts it then he hires a couple of people and then people like his baked goods and then some of that money goes into religious institutions some of that money goes into nonprofits some of that money goes into arts organizations and cultural organizations and then you end up giving people an opportunity to be start to address that new sense of structure and purpose and fulfillment and meaning by making it so that everyone feels like they have some value that aren't gonna die like that you know like their kids have a future and then putting at least the beginning of some resources into their hands to try and rebuild and maybe for some of them it's like hey now I'm going to leave this town like like that could be the way like I'm gonna rebuild but that to me is the generational challenge how do you restore that sense of self-worth and social capital and the rest of it so it's not like money does that but what money does do is that money helps create the conditions where we can at least start to try and address that central challenge okay so now I want to race through some of the policy proposals own get one out of the way immediately because people think the reason you came on here was to discuss circumcision which was not the reason you came on the show and not the reason I asked you on the show so your position on circumcision your anti circumcision but you are not in favor of banning it is that correct yeah that's totally right I mean um you know I've two young boys and you know when the first was born my wife dug into various you know reasons for circumcising you at your there are kids and then she was unconvinced and then she convinced me to be unconvinced so we say but I've attended my friend's bris for their their son and you know it's up to parents what they want to do and certainly for any like a religious or cultural reason like people should should be free to to adopt or they want for their children so fine recall I think because you know there's some the medical evidence is at best conflicting sometimes it's trendy sometimes it's not there's talk about you know you're the prevention of penile cancer you're an area tract infection and stuff but you know the fact is that as long as you're not looking to ban it I don't care right your perspective on it is your perspective five and I have to say how taken aback I was at what a thing it became you know let me ask you about that because the stupidity of the Internet is truly astonishing if you look at your candidacy online and you look how the media cover it they cover it not as just a mainstream candidacy of ideas but as something weird and curious because you have a lot of particularly young white men who follow you online and because you speak about the middle of the country that largely has not been talked about there's a lot of focus right now in the Democratic Party on the problems of races or sexism or bigotry and you've talked about some of those things but you've talked more about the fact that there's essentially an underclass of people many of whom are white living in the middle of the country in an area where technology is eliminating their jobs and the media have thus limited have thus labelled you some sort of near alt writer where do you think this is coming from you know mean like I think that we need to start just trying to have like honest conversations about the problems on the ground in this country and certainly that's my goal as a candidate I'm not quite sure where like I've been frankly a little bit surprised by the odds don't quite fit the description but you know I'm happy to say that now we're rising to a point because I'm pulling at 3% and we're raising you know hundreds of thousand dollars per week and everything else that the mainstream media will now have to reckon with this set of ideas but I agree with you that the the media response to us has been curious I'm about to become much more mainstream I believe and I you know it's but it's been an education for me okay so I want to ask you about your perspective on healthcare so you talk in your book the the war on normal people you talk about what you would do with the healthcare system and you recommend a single-payer health care system obviously I'm a massive opponents of a single-payer health care system that is acknowledging the problems in our employment-based health care system that's something I think both of us agree on and I'd prefer a system where people are effectively paying for their own health care so that they can actually see the cost of what it is that they are consuming and then we can form coalition's as we do and associations to to help defray the cost for people who have pre-existing conditions and all the rest you recommend a single-payer health care system why do you think that's the best option well I think you and I might have had similar experiences where if you run a small company you know you're you see that our current employment based system is a real weight on the economy where it makes it harder to hire people it makes it harder to treat someone as a full-time employee because you have these inside of to treat them as a contractor it makes it harder to start a business and makes it harder to change jobs it's like this massive source of friction and so the question is how do you separate health care from your employment situation is right now you can imagine how many more entrepreneurs there'd be in the US if they didn't have to stress out about health care for themselves their families I mean there'd be many many more people starting businesses now I agree with you that there has to be some kind of skin in the game like it can't be that if you just show up it's like always cost-free because you know there are some people that are hypochondriac so like consume a lot of treatment so there should be some sort of individual skin the game that's said I feel that health care is an environment where the market is going to be an imperfect solution because one you get very cost insensitive if you have a serious illness or your loved one is seriously ill - it's like the pricing is very confusing and opaque you know and then you're relying upon specialists for various pieces of information to say oh you need this you don't need that and so it's not like like the same sort of market as many many other consumer goods or experiences where you can trust that like you know you're going to say like hey I'm educated on what that product means for me so I think that we need to try and get the cost down and right now we're living in the worst of all worlds where we're spending twice as much in our health care as other societies - worse results and it's a massive impediment to our economy and hiring and dynamism so I just think that having a robust public option you can improve the access bring down the costs just because we're saddled with this incredibly inefficient system right now so there are a couple of points to be made in defense of the American healthcare system you know putting aside the employment basis which i think is deeply wrong and was initiated in response to actually wage controls in the 1940s and that one of the things to be said is that when it comes to five-year cancer survival rates the United States still ranks number one when you remove homicide and car accident the United States still has the longest life expectancy yes we're expensive but if you look at us on a per GDP per capita GDP basis we're actually not all that far out of the realm of possibility because the fact is that we're a very wealthy country people are choosing to spend we do develop more than half of all new medical patents so there's some upsides so the fact that we have a market in healthcare and one thing I do want to say is I would not it like I'm not for a system where we're somehow eliminating private insurers where there would be these gold-plated concierge probably private health plans that would still have massive financial incentives and resources for various forms of innovation in the rest of it so let there one point in the book where he where you talk about doctors and this I took a little personally in the sense that as I've mentioned many times my wife is a doctor she's gone through 1 million years of training at this she find looking what kind of doctor she's a family medicine doc and she will assure her yes she'll be finishing her residency this upcoming June and literally since we were dating she's been on this path right she wants it we got married when she was a junior in college and then she did a couple of years working in a lab and then she went to medical school and now she's in residency I'm doing the math I'm doing the math we met Rob years exactly almost 11 years in July so well done so she's been doing this for a very long time and you talk in the book about this idea that we're gonna have to shift how doctors think of doing their jobs and you sort of suggest that doctors are gonna have to become more altruistic than instead of seeing this profession as a way of making money they're gonna have to see it as just you'll make some money but you won't make enormous money the fact is that you're not going to get people to go through a 10 to 12 year system of education if you're telling them on the other end they're gonna get paid like postal postal workers absolutely not a postal workers but $150,000 a year I mean the fact is that thank god I've been able to pay for my wife's education this whole way but if we had not then she was working below minimum wage for in her residency because she's working hours and hours and hours and even that's 50 grand a year she's working legitimately eighteen ninety hours a week and then she has most of her colleagues have hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school debt and they're gonna have to pay all of that off it seems to me that if we have a supply and demand problem we need to increase the supply of doctors and the way to do that is to actually incentivize people to join the medical profession not by telling them that they need to be paid less in the name of altruism but they need to be paid more for through through transparency and pricing and being able to decide their own standards well have you seen why our supply of doctors is constrained I mean yes I mean people people don't want to deal with the administration they don't want to deal with the insurance it's because the the doctors and the medical so one it's kind of a medical licensing as well yes yes it's incredibly expensive to educate a doctor and the supply has been constrained for years even as many many communities have become what's called primary care deserts because when someone and there's one reason why I'm congratulating your wife on being a family medicine doctor is that what she's in training she's racking up all this debt and then she's like wait a minute if I specialize in certain things I'll get paid a lot more than if I become a primary care doctor and if I live someplace where they can you know like afford to pay me more than I live better than if I go to some rural community or a small town or something where maybe they don't have a doctor like me maybe they could really use a doctor like me but you know my life is gonna be harder I'm gonna get paid less etc so right now to me you are 100% right that we need to increase the supply but it's not a compensation issue we just need to increase the supply because right now the doctors and the medical schools have not created new paths to train doctors and that's been a problem for years and decades well it's certainly true that we have to deregulate a lot of medical licensing so you're a libertarian on that one too I mean it sounds like well you know having nurse practitioners being able to do more things would be a very good thing yes particularly when we get really good AI and this is something the doctors have fought is that if you were to say to a doctor or the doctors lobby group it's like hey there's a primary care like we need to send someone over there and they need to be able to treat patients doctors been like no you know needs to be an MD right and then you're like but wait there's no MD there literally and none of you wants to move there and so we need to make it so that nurse practitioners can do more and this is particularly true when we're going to have AI that can at least help diagnose a significant proportion of conditions and recommend treatment and then you can always refer to a doctor if it's you know if it's helpful we add all this but I think the question is when it comes to Medicare for all the truth is that fewer people are going into the medical profession they're choosing people to be lawyers they're choosing to be a businessmen specifically because they don't want to deal with the hassle of the government there are lots of doctors increasingly who won't even take Medicare they'd rather take private insurance because the Medicare and reimbursement rates are 60% and you are mandated to get through a certain number of patients in many cases if you're working one of these hospitals to shift so right now there's a double whammy going on and so what you're suggesting is like hey it's because of low reimbursement rates which is certainly an issue but the other issue that's a tendon which is at least as important is just the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork and administration and like oh these doctors I'm friends with because I'm Asian I have a lot of doctor friends where where they say it's like I'd love to be just actually be seeing a patient but instead for every you know like ten minutes I spend with a patient like I'm spending or one of my staffers is spending you know four minutes on like documentation or administration or billing a lot of that has to do medical liability yeah a lot of that has to do as well with with regulation of these insurance companies and lack of transparency because the truth is if you walk into a doctor's office right now and you ask a doctor how much an x-ray cost they have no idea they don't admit it to the insurance company yes a lot of this seems like regulatory problems to me not necessarily to be cured by the collective-bargaining of Medicare well we've created this incredibly like Byzantine labyrinth yeah and so the question is how do you clean it up and how do you free up doctors to actually focus on patients and care rather than billing codes and paperwork and that is the path that we have to take now they're different you know like people can can have different approaches but that is to me where we can go totally agree and to me that the most obvious example of the free market at work is concierge care and you're starting to see this rise you're seeing apps that are designed to have doctors just arrive at your door the doctor comes to you in many cases so it seems to me that that you know will differ on this but it seems the free market your free markets actually do apply and obtained in the vast majority of cases when it comes to healthcare just like they do anything else in declaring something not a good doesn't make it more plentiful or more robust yes so let me just say that I think bureaucracy is the enemy and my goal would be to diminish it not elevate it okay so let's talk for a second about some of the other proposals some of them I think are fun I totally agree with you the n-c-double-a should pay athletes frankly I think that we should stop college athletics altogether which I will say right in the middle of March Madness I don't even care man because the fact is that if you're going to college and you're going to a top college not to actually get a degree but we're gonna basically bring you here for a year so that you can have a tryout for the NBA and then they're gonna make millions of dollars off you totally on board with that one let's talk about the green new deal so you are you say you're aligned and on board with the green new deal which part of it I assume not the part for unable and unwilling to work in killing the farting cows I'm for the fact that climate change is a is a growing threat where the last four years have been the four warmest years and recorded human history and that our projections about what's going to happen unfortunately are getting steadily worse and so the question is is there something that we can do about it and this is a space where the government to me has to play a key role because the financial incentives right now are towards forms of energy that that you know are just more developed and more economically advantageous at this point so if someone says hey we need to move dramatically in a direction towards renewable energy like I applaud that vision because I think that is where we need to go the way I disagree with some people some other people on this is that we sometimes pretend that the United States is somehow 100 percent of global emissions we're about 15 percent and so even if we were to go whole hog we would probably diminish the rate incremental e and so I'm for trying to address and mitigate the worst effects of a warming planet with the recognition that it's probably going to happen whether we move towards renewable sources of energy or not so this is hilarious because you and I aren't exactly the same page on this also you've endorsed nuclear power for example or many of your colleagues have to have I don't even know how it's possible to say that you want to reduce global warming but you're also against nuclear power that just seems completely mad to me yeah I mean nuclear has to be a big part of the the solution if you're gonna head in this direction okay so let's talk also about it this is what one of the things I really enjoy about your candidacy is that you you do have so many ideas and some of them are really kind of heterodox so you want to revive earmarks and you talk about reviving earmarks it's actually something that it's a third rail of politics you're not allowed to say that you're in favor of earmarks but the truth is that the death of earmarks has actually led to budget impasses because people have no incentive to freaking bargain with anymore it's like you know I show up in your office I'm like hey we got to make a deal like what are you gonna do for me it's like I can't do anything it's saying that's no way to get anything done yeah so and that's it that's a practical policy one of the areas were where I do wonder about the practicality of is you say that you're in favor of a four week paid leave policy for all full-time workers and you say it's a mandatory four week paid leave policy so can you explain what you mean by that well so I think it was a you know it's like there were projections that our work weeks we get shorter and shorter overtime as became more octave and people were projecting like a 15 hour work week but unfortunately other direction and studies and studies have shown that it's not necessarily that our productivity is in lockstep with the amount of time we spend and so I think that a certain amount of time off and I would exempt various small businesses and the rest of it that you know that that it might somehow be disruptive to your operations but generally speaking I think time off is good for people it's good for organizations it's good for processes like when I ran a company I would tell people to take time off and they would never do it and they wouldn't do it because I wasn't doing it and then when I realized okay I get it I need to do it and then you will do it and then lo and behold you know I think like I'd come back refreshed and with like a different outlook or new ideas and the same would happen for them and so to me you know it's a good way for an organization to have to like evolve and adapt so that it's not like you have to be on the like firing line at the front line all the time I mean listen I very much love to take four weeks of vacation this year I highly doubt that I will despite the Jewish holidays I guess my question is whenever you have the government sort of just creating goods isn't that a damper on the economy and also aren't you gonna get the same thing that you have with the tax code where basically businesses just hire part-time workers businesses just decide that they're going to hire independent contractors they're not subject to to such regulations you know again I mean we'd have exemptions for people so I'm sure that in your case if you do not want to take four weeks I'm sure you would not what can I say yeah so you know like the goal is not somehow make it harder for businesses to operate and I understand that the margins it might seem like that that's the case like it to me it actually helps make organizations more sustainable and somewhat more organic so one of the other things that you've talked about is getting the government involved and sort of how we consume information so you've talked about the Department of the attention economy which would basically the government policing the amount of time on social media you know I don't necessarily time but also just the way the social media apps are designed because like one of my friends Tristan Harris who worked on it it's like look we're just we have brilliant engineers turning these supercomputers into slot machines they're hip sizing teenage girls and like making everyone depressed you know and that's where their financial incentives are so it's not just time on the app it's actually the way the object design Mindy do you fear that giving the government that kind of power leads to the the power of censorship obviously there been a lot of complaints from the right from people who are heterodox politically that the social media companies are cracking down in particular political points of view putting the government in charge of of this sort of stuff can easily slide over into government censorship where they say that they are policing the form of the app but in reality what they're actually policing is the the form of consumption of content you do worry about that you know like I feel like those concerns are somewhat less pressing than they were at a time when when we had limited means of accessing information or consuming information like if you have intention if you if you were like a just like snapchats design algorithms where it's like hey you know like stop pinging the the teenage kid all the time like I'm optimistic that that would not necessarily curb people's access to quality political information one of the things that you've talked about if I'm not mistaken is you've talked about sort of a kind of regulation of the news media where the government police is the sort of information being distributed as news that's where I start to get a really frightened because the fact is that the government in the business of news yeah whether you are a fan of Trump or not a fan of Trump if you are on the right you're afraid of Barack Obama doing missed you if you're on the Left are afraid of Donald Trump doing this to you how exactly do you restrict the powers of government when it comes to intervention and that sort of stuff well so I was looking at some of the models abroad because right right now we're in a bit of a mess in terms of our information consumption there are very powerful market dynamics where if I'm a well if I'm like a you know a media company I figure out ooh if I cater to getting like you know the most extreme 30 percent like excited I think that's actually better for my business than being more like moderate it's like it's like click bait but click bait across information silos and so I looked at what some other countries have done and that if someone has like demonstrably false information then you come and say look like that was actually like you know like fabricated and then just opted to issue an apology or there's some kind of process but we're at a point now where we legitimately have a hard time agreeing on facts and we have at least some four and actors that are taking advantage of like this soft underbelly to sort of gin up various like groups against each other and make it so that people can't even trust what they're seeing and this is before deep fakes and the rest of it arrive where literally they could show you and I like do it doing something and then it's like well it must be real because the internet so so it's a mess and it's the situation where you have to look at it with like a you know perspective and say okay it's a mess and that's gonna get Messier like what are possible ways out of this and at least to me they're like you know the government may have a role to play in saying this is fake this is fraudulent this is from a foreign actor this is like not is not true in the absence of any sort of action in that that direction then we're in for an even worse environment in terms of polarization in my opinion I mean to me the obviously there are the responses that the government empowering them to determine what is true and false sometimes shades over into an opinion on a fact and the government decides that this is what politifact does to us on a regular basis and it gets into a little bit of dangerous territory in a second I want to ask you about race I have one final question for you which is where do we stand racially in the country but if you want to hear Andrew Yang's answer you actually have to be a daily wire subscriber to subscribe head on over to daily we're calm click Subscribe you can hear the end of our conversation over there well thank you so much for stopping by it really means a lot I think it's a great discussion I'm sure that our listeners are gonna have a lot of thoughts in response if people want to give to your campaign they can check out away yang 2020 calm yes yeah in 2020 calm or just Google Andrew yang but would certainly love to have everyone's help and support in this campaign is we're gonna make history together we're gonna bring the revolution of reason to the American people it's not left or right it's forward well thank you so much I really appreciate Andrew thanks for stopping by thank you Ben spanner pleasure [Music] the men Shapiro shows Sunday special is produced by Jonathan hey executive producer Jeremy boring associate producer Mathis Kluber edited by Donovan Fowler audio is mixed by Dylan Kate's hair and makeup is by Joshua alvera title graphics by Cynthia and Kula the Ben Shapiro shows Sunday special is a daily wire production copyright daily wire 20 19 [Music]

Channel: The Daily Wire

Views: 2,694,914

Rating: 4.8916626 out of 5

Keywords: Daily Wire, Sunday Special, Yang, Andrew Yang, Ben Shapiro, Industrial Revolution, Work, Freedom, Dividend, UBI, Disabled, Welfare, Truckers, Labor, Good Life, Money, Mental Energy, Circumcision, Intactivist, Doctors, Compensation, Regulation, Green New Deal, Climate Change, Autism, GND, Democrats, Liberals, Left, Sunday, Special, Andrew, Ben, Shapiro, Republican, Republicans, Dems

Id: -DHuRTvzMFw

Length: 65min 3sec (3903 seconds)

Published: Sun Apr 07 2019

Reddit Comments

[u/_conservatarian_]

Gives me some hope, seeing two guys from opposite ideological sides, sit down and honestly discuss and pursue ideas for the betterment of the country.

[u/Rumble59cum]

Finally some honest conversation on both sides. I may not like Yang but I’m proud of both of these men.

[u/mllrwd]

Finally a respectful conversation between people with opposite politics. An attempt to find common ground. This episode was a breath of fresh air.

[u/84_Tigers]

I like Andrew Yang. If even I don’t like his ideas, he at least has demonstrated that he can support them with actual research. He seems like a sharp dude.

[u/Hutchcha]

I wish Ben would have asked about a negative income tax as an alternative to the UBI. Milton Friedman used to talk about it when asked about UBI based welfare. Another question is how would UBI effect prices, would giving everyone $1000 a month not increase the quantity of money?