Blockchain is gaining more traction in the US Presidential race...

I don't know about you, but I was super surprised when Trump was elected to the President of the United States position. I had been reading a lot of Scott Adam's blog... who raised lots of really good points about Trump's master negotiator and persuasion techniques throughout the campaign, but I didn't think the US could get past his non-politician status and the continuous stream of controversies.

In the end Scott Adam's was right and I was wrong.

I think (but I don't honestly know) that Trump's success can come down to 2 main points:

1.) The people wanted dramatic change
2.) He was an absolute expert at getting in the news every day

While I'm happy to chat about it, I don't think many people would disagree with the above points.

I am curious though, is how the American population feel about the rate of dramatic change in the last 3 years, and if they're happy with the type of change. I've read a lot about how the tariff war with China has negatively affected companies in the midwest, but I don't honestly know the actual impact, the numbers impacted or the general feeling about this.

If Andrew Yang were to be successful in the Presidential race, it would be a wild swing in the complete opposite direction, which is actually not that far-fetched. I think that political landscapes are actually way more prone to wild swings than finding equilibrium in the middle.

Source

There are similarities between the two... Trump wanted to drain the swamp, ie, change politics in the US, and Yang wants to provide each American over the age of 18 years old $1000 a month, ie, change the US. That's pretty much the end of the similarities though, where Trump was inflammatory and controversial, Yang seems calm and intelligent. So... probs no chance really.

However, the proposed $1000 a month could be absolutely life-changing for millions of Americans, and could legitimately reduce crime, domestic abuse and obviously poverty.

It's called the Freedom Dividend or similar, but it's Universal Basic Income in premise. I've thought a lot about this concept and I actually really like it.

The lazy argument to UBI is that prices will rise to match... but that's not how capitalism works. Companies will still need to compete with each other to grab their piece of that $1000, and they'll compete on price just like they always have.

Australia had a one time Recession Stimulus Package, where everyone got a one time payment of $900... and I can tell you from experience that lots and lots of people spent way more than $900, it felt like Christmas to everyone and the economy as a whole benefited. This is another reason why UBI can make sense to the US. More people spending money is better for everyone.

Another argument to UBI is that 'crackheads' (ie, people suffering debilitating drug addiction) don't deserve $1000 a month to buy more drugs with... and while I can absolutely guarantee that some people will buy drugs, I'd also have to question the percentages we're dealing with. How many Americans would spend their Freedom Dividend on illegal drugs, and how many would spend it on food for their families, medicine, rent, text books, etc? It just doesn't make sense to refuse to help a hundred million people because a hundred thousand don't use it in the way you'd want them to.

Automation is already hitting the midwest hard. So many manufacturing jobs have just disappeared... the older employees were forced to retire earlier than they planned, and the younger guys are mostly on disability. It's just not possible to retrain everyone to become software engineers. Hell, I've been trying to teach myself Javascript and it's crazy hard. Tech is so monstrously complicated these days. Tech companies just don't need the huge manpower than manufacturing did.

Manufacturing has been hit hard... transport is going to hit really soon and retail will be next. Increasing the minimum wage does help, but it also speeds up the incentive for companies to automate to reduce their headcount. A UBI situation will take some of the strain off the people in these industries... also the fight for minimum wage increases tends not to include carers, which is an area that isn't likely to ever be automated but rarely pays enough to live on.

Andrew Yang has mainly targeted Amazon and the other tech companies to help pay for the Freedom Dividend... and I think this is the right move. Amazon itself has been amazing at decimating the retail sector. They are a platform that goods are sold on, but they also use the data they collect to determine what they can manufacture themselves (Amazon Basics for example). They aren't really a monopoly because they run across sectors, they are simply a force. They'll lose money to grab market share... and then push up the prices when they have no competition.

Amazon pays $0 in taxes.

Obviously, lots of big companies do whatever it takes to minimise their tax exposure. Amazon goes through Ireland and also continuously reinvests any profits, Facebook relies heavily on stock options to pay it's staff, which basically transfers it's tax burden onto it's staff. You get the idea. These companies are racking in so much money from Americans and the rest of the world, but the public doesn't benefit at all. A normal brick and mortar store pays all sorts of taxes and council rates, and everyone in it's community benefits from that.

Andrew Yang's plan is to basically increase the big tech companies cost of business. It doesn't matter where they are technically located, they would pay tax on the internet traffic they produce, for example, basically they'd pay council rates, but in the digital realm instead of a physical location... or robot miles would be taxed. Those taxed dollars would then be passed on to the American people to help them deal with the huge incoming job losses to technology and automation. Automation is still going to be cheaper for companies, but at least with this plan, not only are the few privileged shareholders going to win out.

Automation is an interesting thought project for me... I'm sure it'll never get this far, but if millions of Americans lose their jobs to automation, who is going to buy the products that were produced by that automation?

The other reason to be excited about someone like Andrew Yang is that he understands blockchain and cryptocurrency, he wants to "“create clear guidelines in the digital asset world so that businesses and individuals can invest and innovate in the area without fear of a regulatory shift." which could be absolutely huge. I think we can all agree that most politicians don't understand blockchain technology, which is far enough, I barely understand it and I love it... and we can probably agree that a lot of politicians are funded by the very people that blockchain seeks to replace and break the monopolies of.

I do think Andrew Yang doesn't have a huge chance... he's not spouting fear or insulting anyone, he's bringing reasonable ideas that the activated public don't care enough about, but I love that he's in the conversation.

Source