and he's got a lot of things to say if you look at his old work and we're going to get into it. because. welcome to front running 43 of x. prize was stacey however as we count down. and intrigue at the election this

week we're going to do a very close examination just something called the you be stacy universal basic income max that is free money every month a $1000.00 for you to rip up every month for your performance art for example joining us to discuss universal basic income we have sinclair skinner marshall our back and josh universal basic income has smashed onto the stage with andrew yang whatever he was asked should we be in the middle east fighting for the oil universal basic income is the answer whatever the question was universal basic income was his answer this idea of giving free money it's kind of based off of the notion that well the fed gave free money to the banks to bail them out $14.00 trillion dollars why not give us a trillion dollars a year in free money josh many think that's why i think you know i think that's where it starts is is this sort of you know justice and thinking about money as this obstruct thing that that central banks can print with there's no consequences

for debt and so why not why not distribute this way is what it comes down to also you know i pay taxes presumably to get something in exchange i get the infrastructure i get the place i get the sanitation i get the military and it's an abstract process and it goes through the matrix of politics. why can't i just pay my taxes and get a dividend back i can make an investment in any other enterprise i get yang calls that are freedom dividend should be being paid dividends for mind vestment in america the enterprise again i think it comes back to this it's as much about justice as economics and so it's i think this is risen and you know regardless if the economy is growing you know we should know the share of the distributions just off so we need to figure out how to redistribute it better and to yang argues we need u.b.i. because of course he is from silicon valley and he sees everything through

a silicon valley lens he sees that automation is going to displace all these jobs some numbers show up to $30000000.00 over the next 10 years are going to be lost to automation in america others like dean baker will say that in fact it's our trade deals where we're losing jobs which one of those do you think is true and is free money every month is a dividend the answer 1st of all it breaks the nexus that you establish between your taxes and getting something in return which of these are terrible idea i think it's socially corrosive it basically doesn't solve the underlying problem which dean baker describes in part it's a palliative to allow so they can tell the 1000000000 is basically to carry on as things are going and you'd redistribute a little bit to the peasants to keep them happy and keep the rubles down it would be much more preferable to have a job guarantee program so that in exchange for getting a fixed wage and a series of benefits who actually put in some work which is socially useful and

contribute some to society and i think it's fundamentally more american most americans would rather work for a payment or and go from the government just received something for free there's also some externalities associated here relatively new phenomenon in terms of data so up until very recently my data the location of where i am the interactions. i have a daily basis who i talk to and communicate with that was never monetize to serve back to me in the from an industrial combine is to see in silicon valley so i have intrinsic data value that i should be monetize and should be returned to me because it's mine i own it is part of my sovereign individual senators have my data siphoned off for free and then sold back to me is not healthy the end of the day we live in a thing called a society and not everything is just a straight monetary transaction between one individual another there's got to be a broader nexus of things that keep us together and to me that takes you further

along towards the dystopian vision of h.g. wells where you have you know the the eloy living in the celestial heavens and then you've got the more logs living in the caves and then down in the darkness doing all the grubby work and then they disappear with the rest of the way to sustain the lifestyle for the rich and famous but here in america we create the constitution and the bill of rights and establish sovereign individuality and then we have the government working for us you know that's our innovation that was our disruptive technology back 200 years ago so keeping in that theme i would continue on to believe that the government is a servant of the people but i don't see why you couldn't introduce a job guarantee which would have a much more positive productive social role than just simply distributing. cocoa freedom dividend or how rand yang wants to market it so let's bring sinclair and what do you think of a job guarantee i mean a job guarantee is a better fix i think that in

a day. exploited labor if you had the government set a real floor of that was and actually train folks to build the way we need to build just like you know which i would the new deal and. you know my background is engineering but you know creating dams infrastructure. you know civil engineering were. bigots you know additional road work so you dealing with different various skill sets but everybody's very valuable you can't you talk about civil engineering with actually the person laying down as fall preparing the ground and all these things are stepping stones to actually building a labor that's really more satisfying i think even in the eighty's when we looked at how we automated so many things on the assembly line people saying people are going to lose jobs well the jobs are very repetitive you know we really were talking about ergonomics you would have all these problems with different body parts because you're doing horrible work i don't think that's really you know the optimal use of human beings anyway so what i'm learning in this series front

running is that the economy is becoming more skewed toward financialization and that those banks that have access to 0 percent credit for example dominate overwhelmingly in the society and that the need for labor as such as a concept is known is becoming obsolete and if the economy is monetize this extent and it's all about access to cheap money and if i don't have access to 0 percent interest rate or negative interest rates then i'm at a disadvantage in an asymmetric war of what these banks the way to right that wrong is give me a cut just like in alaska they get a cut of the oil revenue why can i as a citizen get a cut of wall street's revenue that they are generating for them sud think that is ation which are sending distilled different you don't have to do that in talking about the federal guarantee jobs that there's not just one magic bullet you could actually come up with some of the top of these baby bonds talking about ways we could access capital and capitalism capital is important so we could actually have programs that actually help folks who want to do that but when you give everybody

a $1000.00 i'm a poor person i'm going to consume that and then you're rich you're going to invest that where equity the wealth the spirit is going to grow because you're you're not using your money to consume you're literally buying more crazy things and then my landlord knowing that i got a $1000.00 you just go raise my rent so then you got to inflation going on in there so i think now. if you're tom reparations and you're saying that we're going to repair and just weren't talking about reparations bring the players in and actually talk about how the check based on some real inequities that need to be repaired so we can move on there's an inheritance that i've been denied in the capitals deciding this was socialism that i still do and if we can reconcile that i think again we're talking my equity we're talking about a capitalist society i'm old money it should have interest the crew to it and then we can start talking about building a country together not just off my back and then say don't worry about the labor and work that you invested it would just move on to really good point because

preparation is for the 1st time actually a presidential candidate level issue that we're seeing many of the democratic candidates talking about reparations what do you think in terms of this is this a legitimate issue and. it's a legitimate is and the other point that sinclair makes is the right one look reparations deals with a fundamental injustice you had a group of people that were literally stolen from their homes in slave through no choice of their own they were put in this country and the most horrific conditions were imposed on them and we've never really addressed that issue on asli as and i'm glad we're talking about it now but you know hopefully it will go beyond the top but it it's it talks about establishing a new foundation instead of just simply dealing with the seas and and the existing pathologies on filling and slave by the data that's being kind of keeping me in this case where i can escape because it's being monetizes served back to me in the form of the ads this continuation hasn't gone away could we address them on the

front end i think we don't hold these people accountable and how they extract that like we will make it seem like what they're doing is ok and then is not until it negatively impacts and then we now want to address what they did in the beginning there should be rules that prevent these folks from taking our data the way they're extracting it this. that there should be some type of process that collectively agree you don't do this with my data just like i go into a store people don't do certain things to me why because there are rules of engagement i think we will allow this to be a while that everybody signs the terms of incandescent who actually reads the mail that's that's that's what n.g.'s idea is a data driven and a robot truck miles so he saying that this is going to happening inevitably why not just like to have value added tax take it and give it i don't think that everyone i think we need to say no we have to have someone to step in and say we did technology is always ahead of regulation so we're clear on that. now that we see what you're doing to our population you're not going to do it anymore is

unacceptable now the europeans have come up with some things where they let you take it then they're supposed to disappear in a couple months i'm saying on the front end you're not allowed to do these things and that signing that little paper we know that's a hustle yes well let's not act like this really we need someone to come in and protect this funding we're covering this shift generationally from the boomers. and we do see a lot of more woke like these ideas that they're ready to give their used reparations back and it is a sort of time to move to that sort of thing like but what is that number or what is the reparations number like is it a trillion dollars is attention. 17 trillion it's a lot of money and then what do you think as a banker about that i mean i guess that is the tough thing right we are blending 2 issues i mean at the end of the day it is a distribution problem in our economy but we're blending again the justice issue with the actually are we getting wealthier so so when we talk about about you know jobs and programs that are productive critical infrastructure that's more of an

economic i totally agree with by the way by the way that's a that's a better way to go about it i think but there's also a deep underlying sense of injustice in what you know what we thought was a more invisible hand free market economy you know. you know the winners rise of the top and and so we're actually struggling with 2 issues here one is an economic issue. but we are not growing the pie so we're distributing it more and more without growing at so so we have both a justice issue as well as an economic issue to deal with i think that's really well put because you see that in the political space itself between the 2 parties in d.c. the viciousness for that shrinking pie is very vicious and playing out in this hyper partisanship there is no discussion of growing the pie it is becoming a question of redistribution and so one party is saying we're happy with the existing system we don't want to do anything about it the other the other party is saying well there are problems and let's redistribute from the winners to the

losers without actually trying to do something which fundamentally restructures the economy in a way that creates more when it's right well speaking of eating pies we've got a pie eating contest coming up right after the break right here in front running 2020 don't go away. the wisdom is the application of practical knowledge you know group or your ways in novel contexts maybe you learn a particular scenario could be in a class could be brilliant and you encounter that exact same scenario knowing what to do is just memory that's not wisdom that's not learning it's just memorizing some wisdom comes when you are facing a brain new context and you can draw upon tools you've learned in other contexts

systematically to know what to do. you are no offense but you no longer a young woman in fact you're wonderful. last living survivors of the nazi ellis asked i'm aware of it. all you like. then forget. auschwitz was really like to be inhaled because he would never believe it want to go to as a copy of a course for 32 years of growth and he could prevent it all seems so logical for hire because i was. right when i get out on the farm saw you don't want to take my song to the next place and hopefully bless my heart hurts.

so what we've got to do is identify the threats that we have it's crazy confrontation let it be an arms race off and spearing dramatic development the only posts really i'm going to resist i don't see how that strategy will be successful very critical time time to sit down and talk. welcome back to front running 2020 i've asked ever in this episode or looking to be a universal basic income statement but i want to take it from a different angle and that would be the right wing angle because of course this proposal universe of basic income is being proposed by the left but way back decades ago it was frederick himself who is basically the grandfather of this whole

deregulation and then the road to serfdom and an inspiration for ronald reagan and margaret thatcher his notion on why we should have something similar to a universal basic income that the government should provide a certain minimum income he said for everyone a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself this he said would provide freedom from coercion by employers so if we have a jobs market the employer always has more leverage because you need the money you need to feed yourself you need to house yourself and your family so his notion was that it provides a more equal market there between employee and employer and this is going back to what he said about the jobs if you have a guaranteed level of jobs it really does make you know ridnour it makes the floor

a better floor so right now your choice is nothing if you're unemployed or slave wages will suppose you have a 3rd option actual meaningful way that allowed you to really do something amazing for society you know maybe is daycare babies building roads babysitting to our elderly how do we get the best piggy back the growing of the pie is that we can't just have 4 white guys figure everything out we've got a world full of whole bunch of people i was able to make some money so now my creativity is high so i can actually start talking about something called bitcoin. why because literally i've met all these other things because i was able to do so i'm very average but if other people had that opportunity we would grow the pie because these brains are what we're missing we're actually creating right well look at the brain trust that you find and something like and see what's as a huge side and people have access to a world market making little home craft and things and people are making tons of

money doing that and look at where you've got music and artists who have access to world markets we have more independently financed and funded successful musicians than ever in history i think having a basic income. as described by our high act gives that floor for people to just explore their own inner creativity and in a way that voids the pitfalls of being slat out broke i'm in the emergency room now i owe the man $100000.00 i think we agree on the end point of what it does to have that floor and open up creativity and get away from subsistence the problem is how do we get to that point do we need a big central entity to suck it back up and then push it back down and i think technology is getting better to be able to make that you know just even from payment systems to make that but beyond like an old sons of some a check in the many old you know i think we can do it with block change and something like that you know i think it's a lot easier to redistribute but i still go back i agree with what the jobs you know i think i think having having

a job guarantee without income rather than just being a pure social safety net of just free money it's a it's a floor and it doesn't have to come from the top it will be funded from the top of course because it has the government the federal government is the funding mechanism is the issuer of the currency but it can be administered privately locally you can do it from the top down so how is this different than in they provided a jobs guarantee and the economy went bust the risk is that you have a you can create a slave type of system but you can easily graft don't. and you can take a whole 'd host of programs that we have today social welfare programs and not necessarily replace them but simply but give a living wage a sinclair was discussing along with benefits such as adequate health care provision and you're not fundamentally changing the operations of the economy except that you you're introducing the equivalent of an employment buffer stocks so that you know when times are tough in the private sector you have a buffer stuff that collects that underutilized surplus of labor and allows them to

stay in the working in the employer market and then transition back to a private sector job when things are getting better again but what i would argue is in some ways that that is sort of happening as long as it's a government funded one as well as i do it growing you more and more of you going to do it or which then again gets back into central planning and import output models we don't. get to central and i disagree it has to come the funding has to come from the gulf and there is no other mechanism that can realistically create it doesn't have to be administered by the government but ultimately it has to be and where it could be things that the private sector can get the the return on investment as quickly so these long term infrastructure projects are projects that people like you have i'm trying to make some money i need to my shareholders want to see me get results and we're building some covert or some like means that would run off water it may not be something that i would take as a private sector but the government work with private sector and hire people to actually build even the think your senior citizens that really has

a quality here that no 1 may be be willing to do in another way but this is we're americans like there's to me we should care more about the quality of life of our people and i think if you had a minimum. income eat a lot of people and help senior citizens because that's why no then why not like that is it next is directly by the job guaranteed because i are trying to get into central planning to josh bolten and i don't answer that and i wouldn't be awful in that regard i have a story here about the richmond fed. set the economy and because all these youngsters are talking about universal basic income the top down approach is they're jumping in and this is the sort of dystopian soviet like future they see for us so the richmond fed finds that it would be optimal to continue to concentrate knowledge workers specialized khalid's like new york city like san francisco these booming innovative thinking class sort of cities where hillary

called the winner is the winners that voted for her and the rest of the country they're the deplorable is right the losers of globalization and what the richmond fed says is that the government should subsidize these people these less educated people to live in less productive cities and then give them a u.b.i. like cut of the agglomeration bonus it's fancy words but it but basically it's a it's a payoff to sustain the existing system which creates a problem in the 1st place so i don't see how that can advance prison system too they've sent you to say that's very 5 like this but you have but that's according to your logic where you simply say well you don't want to have a centrally administered system which you get through a job i would argue that if you just simply say well you just handed a $1000.00 a month they could do whatever the hell they want with the you know you're perpetuating a serf like economy that you got today so why is that. an economy that rewards kleptocracy trenched elec are only that has access to unlimited trillions and

0 percent of what they are on a universal basic income right now it's called quantitative easing and they have created an ecological hole no raynor president. crater entrenched poverty there's nothing there to hold on as something universal about that and it's not how is it not universal it's every single banker in america gets. the money we're all prisoners i mean you know look they don't and that's what the point is you do want to. be universal but you want to be consistent with broader public per purpose and what your describing. according to the mandarins who run the government programs out in a world war to come up tucker out of her 3 decades let's talk about the last 3 decades because people are to judge i think it's like a young millennia old who was offering a lot of old thinking that all men are going to be alone that that's right and his idea is of course well all these jobs are getting lost and in fact he mentioned

that from 2000 to 2010 for every job that was lost a trade there were 6 jobs lost because of automation but what we should do is retrain people and help them conquer the spiritual challenges that come from being unemployed because training with no job sucks so if you actually o.j.t. some bio and a job training. center where you're literally training and doing this incredible thing and that takes a lot of that anxiety because you get this new training and what do you do with it you just stay employed for unemployed for a while but if you could actually get a job that's guaranteed and you're actually you know being productive i think it does answer that question of how do you move folks but this is not the 1st time again i said in the eighty's and ninety's we kicked a lot of folks off the similar line to do something else and we need to do a better job of that we have this this narrative of technological in a bit in

a bit of a debility which seems to destroy was towards automation and most more unemployment we had constant innovation throat history and it hasn't led to but by the logic of the the that the techno the techno determinist we should eventually just have a whole bunch of people engaged had leisure and just have 5 or 6 robots that's never happened like we're going to get to a 30 hour we're going to every generation painless and that now would have been you know the euthanasia of the rentiers and what he meant but with not the wealth creators but the wealth extract is that's what he was talking about the. you would get to a point in society where you wouldn't have the need for private wealth extractors that was that was the point he was trying to make but we've never had the issue of artificial intelligence we're actually now everyone can range and again it's a sentience technological force that is actively pushing us off the grid every generation has this fear of robots taking over i mean that's what 2001 a space odyssey was all about and and how being be able to shut us down and take

over everything it's the ultimate dystopian nightmare it's suits the purposes of the ruling class to to put that narrative out there but it's not necessarily the case that it will inevitably lead to that kind of dysfunction out of the disagree because we've seen around like you're about to mark official intelligence and automation and robot trading are now greater than 90 percent of all the trading they do most of the financial journalism the financial journalism read by robots and forms robots are lost what a trait they change prices which is reported and recorded by artificial and robotic you don't always go back and forth at a site you'll decide you're going to be pushed off you know our own plot it that's one of the one of the problems we also like to project recent trends with you know reason see bias and we're going to go i mean one thing that's actually a very big issue you know because we're all we're using this this is this big you know scary thing that's coming but moore's law is sort of slowing down like we and if you talk to people really in deep learning we're nowhere close to being efficient we're not we're not creating anything new so we're using this as this big

big scary you know you know thing that's out there to says she cheats something politically but i'm not even sure if that's the right the right endpoint so you know i guess you know going back to you know keeping it simple and letting letting the economy figure that out is 11 important thing and also a story one important is we're also talking about federal right we're spending a lot of time thinking about federal money because that's where you get very cheap that a lot of these issues could be dealt with much better if we had better local funding and local is. he's figuring out where to fix problems and you know factory closes and and so we have tracked it all away by sucking all of the money up into the center and then we need these experts to try to figure out on a massive scale that's very complex we need to figure out ways to get things done locally again i think that's been done locally but you have to fund them directly poke that nationally because we don't have municipalities and states issuing currency so it has to be done at the national level that's funding it doesn't mean

it has to be centralized planning that's just the reality right well we've got to go flash round sinclair you happen or won't happen or haven't marshall won't happen bad idea josh will happen that idea well that's going to if there's. one thing to keep in mind that the last guy do have basic and common sense science in any show they say $44000.00 think about that and so next time. the. little boy is no.

good. you know what is. the way i. am going to believe little.

sleep. 4 and i don't bother to listen to. libya peace talks involving the warring sides on world leaders wrapped up in fielding a new mechanism for ensuring hostilities to resume. under the stories that shapes the week that falls russia gets a new prime minister president putin proposes giving parliament greater powers and i believe the west sees it as a power grab. but then confirms donald trump threatens the terrorist phone call make a little bit didn't visit those itself from the iran nuclear deal germany the u.k. and france this week triggered emotion that could lead to the agreement collapse.