Best products from r/politicsdebate

We found 6 comments on r/politicsdebate discussing the most recommended products. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 6 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

Top comments mentioning products on r/politicsdebate:

u/HunterIV4 · 3 pointsr/politicsdebate

>Andrew Yang ( r/YangForPresidentHQ) is proposing a universal basic income of $1000/month for each US citizen 18+. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal supports a federal jobs guarantee.

Unsurprisingly, offering to give people free stuff is popular in democratic systems as a way to get you elected.

>Could both be done? Neither? Why or why not?

Both can be done. The question isn't whether or not either is possible, the question is whether or not they are good ideas.

And the answer, in both cases, is "no."

But why? Let's look at them individually. We'll start with UBI.

There are a couple of "pros" with UBI. First, if you like government redistribution, UBI offers this. Second, and more importantly, it eliminates a lot of the built-in problems with welfare.

Let's examine those problems and see how UBI compares. The first problem with welfare is state dependency; if people can rely on the government, they often do. While most people eventually get off welfare, the millions of people who don't often end up permanently dependent on it. This is harmful to society, but more importantly, it's harmful to the people dependent. UBI, unfortunately, does little to address this issue. It's the "mother's basement" problem; as long as your mom is willing to pay you to sit on your fat ass and play video games, you're willing to put up with her nagging you about it. If she kicks your ass out, now you must develop skills, which eventually makes you a better and more independent person.

The second problem is incentives. One of the strongest arguments against welfare from a utilitarian perspective is that it creates socially harmful outcomes based on the criteria to receive it. For example, single motherhood rates have increased among Americans since the 1960s welfare expansion, often dramatically depending on the demographic (black Americans went from a roughly 25% single motherhood rate to nearly 75% today, for example). While this is unlikely to be entirely due to welfare, it's almost certainly a major factor. UBI actually helps with this; in some ways, UBI has better incentives, such as living together with others giving an economic advantage, and all work income being a direct increase to your overall income. It still creates negative incentives, such as allowing people to avoid work altogether, but it's better than the current system.

The final problem is administrative costs. Depending on the program, millions of dollars are spent on the administrative infrastructure supporting welfare. To be fair, it's a small percent of welfare spending (we spend a lot on welfare), but welfare still requires a significant administrative burden. UBI, on the other hand, vastly reduces this cost; since it's mostly a cash transfer with (typically) generous or easily obtainable criteria (no house visits, for example), the administrative necessity is greatly decreased. Still, this is an overall minor gain, usually offset by the significant increase in overall spending (UBI is more expensive than more selective welfare systems in general).

There are other issues, but that covers the main ones. If you want the best argument I've seen in favor of UBI, I suggest Charles Murray's In Our Hands. The problem is that UBI works best in the absence of other welfare. Unfortunately, it's unlikely we'll roll back our welfare state, and welfare in combination with UBI is not even in the realm of affordable. So we can only do it by bankrupting ourselves in short order.

As for AOC's GND, the whole thing is stupid and anyone taking it seriously should be ashamed of themselves. The end.

I'm kidding. Mostly. But federal jobs guarantees are things that socialist countries tend to do, which then inflates the government into unsustainability. The most corrupt systems are places where the people are in positions where they cannot be fired. Frankly, I'd rather have UBI and pay people not to inflate our government any more, as someone sitting on their ass at home is at least not fucking up actual work.

To be fair to AOC, this is arguably the least dumb thing in a document that wants to renovate every building in the U.S., replace airplanes with trains, eliminate cows, eliminate internal combustion engines, and transition to 100% renewable energy sources without using any nuclear power. The whole thing is fair candidate for r/nottheonion, although frankly The Onion tends to produce more believable content.

Jobs guarantees aren't all that popular, even in socialist countries. I could only find a few examples, and even those are very limited. I've seen no real evidence they work. Most of the arguments in favor of it talk about Marxist power dynamics rather than, well, facts and data. If you like Marxism, I guess this could be an appealing idea, but for most people the empirical data of what happens when you start giving the government control over the economy is all too clear about why this is a bad, bad idea.

Maybe there's a good argument for it that I missed; I've seen a good one for UBI, but I haven't researched this one as much. My gut instinct is that it's bad, and since it's being pushed by AOC I almost want to dismiss it for that reason alone. But just because she's an idiot doesn't mean the idea necessarily is, so I'm only going to go as far as my initial research.

u/fcburdman · 1 pointr/politicsdebate

Pick up this book if you like reading, the economy, ethics, any combination of the former. In essence, the book says how greater equality makes societies stronger. In ALL aspects, culturally, mentally, AND economically. It basically discusses how with the ever increasing wage gape in our society, there has been a paralleled increasing inequality. And the moral implications, therefore, of an economic system should be to promote equality.

No, it is not a book that argues in favor of wealth distribution or any other sort of socialist undertones one may have take away from what I just described. The book is supported by decades of research and statistics that support a clear message: Inequality and the economy are indisputably and intricately linked. Improve one. Improve the other.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/politicsdebate

Any person that watches The Union: The Business Behind Getting High and still doesn't think weed should be legal... should probably be removed from society for being stupid.

Buy it here: