Just had a great interview with Andrew Yang. I learned so much. We spoke about the campaign. Things I had no idea about. Things I had never heard him say before and I listened to every single podcast and interview that Andrew Yang's done and I've never heard him say some of these things. We spoke about the UBI, particularly how a UBI would work in today's world. We spoke about police reform, politics reform, economic reform, education. Is he going to run in 2024 and all the ups and downs along the way during this campaign and the career and so on?
So here it goes. I'll listen to Andrew Yang. So Jay, you want to start recording? Thank you, Jay.
那就开始吧,我会听安德鲁·杨的。那么,杰伊,你想开始录制吗?谢谢你,杰伊。
So Andrew, that was a good, you called Jay by his first name. I like the kind of instinctive persuasion techniques. It always is endearing to call people by their name. Oh, thank you. I appreciate it. Jay, I'm kidding. Listen, we're both computer science majors who took different directions in their career and actually that was the first thing I wanted to ask you about, which is before we get into all the UBI automation, presidential campaign. Why'd you quit being a lawyer? And I get it, but why'd you do it and did that was everybody upset at you?
My parents were not happy, but I left for two reasons. Number one, someone told me a while ago that if you are working someplace, you should try and find the person whose life you want. And there was not someone in that farm where I was like, ooh, I really want to be that person, not a knock on them, but that just wasn't an aspiration. And the second thing is the work made me feel like I was becoming a negative person, where if you're a good lawyer, you're always thinking about the worst that can happen. And that was a depressing way to spend your time. It's like, what's the shittiest thing that can happen to these deal parties? And I thought I'd rather try and make something positive happen than catalog negative possibilities. And so those two things drove me out in about five months.
And so when you were thinking about running for president, was there someone running, or was there a president whose life you wanted to be like?
当你考虑竞选总统时,当时有人在竞选或者有一位总统的生活方式是你所向往的吗?
That's a great question. I'm not sure there was like a role model in that sense. I mean, I was driven to run for president, in part because I felt like there was a real need for a different set of ideas or solutions. And I thought that I had a chance to advance them. And I was unfortunately confident that no one currently in the political universe was going to advance them. So it really was like an entrepreneur in a startup where you see a gap in the market, and then you want to try and fill it. I saw a gap in the ideas market, and I wanted to fill it. And running for president seemed like the most effective way. But I confess, I can't really think of someone I was trying to model or pattern myself after.
So when you were talking to friends, family, supporters about making the decision to run, I'm sure a lot of people said, Andrew, what the hell are you doing? Like there's no way you're going to win. No one has ever won with this sort of blah, blah, blah, whatever reasons they had. How did you kind of internally get yourself ready so that you could take a run seriously?
Yeah, well, it really was again like a startup where it was almost levels where I never had this conversation where it's like, oh, are you ready to be president, like scrutinized in the public or whatnot? Because that was just so distant. Like if that was letter T or U in the alphabet, I was like, look, I'm at letter A, let me just try and get to letter B or C. Which is I think the way most startups operate because initially of so many problems to solve. To me, it was always about the next series of letters than it was that I'm going to be president. Because realistically, it's not like I thought that there was a 51% chance of my becoming president in 2020. If you sat me down and thought what the chances were, I'd be like, well, it's unlikely. So the biggest thing I had to prepare myself really was for a lot of rejection and a lot of time away from my family and on the road in New Hampshire, Iowa or other places. And it felt like a startup where it's like, okay, one thing I thought was better than most startups is and you've done a lot of them yourself, James, is that when you start a company, you have no idea what the time frame is going to be really. And so you can say, hey, I'm trying to get this done, but you know, you might be in it for five, 10 years, more longer. Whereas running for president, I said, okay, I know when the primary is, I know when the election is. So I need to gear myself up for, let's call it two and a half years of pounding the pavement and kicking ass and making the case and trying to get people on board.
And so that's that that was actually comforting to me because I was like, frankly, if you're an entrepreneur and I could say this to you, James, it's like, could you do just about anything under the sun for two and a half years if you knew that that was the time frame?
I don't know actually two and a half years does feel like a long time to brutalize yourself in in the public, in the media, in, you know, with people who are trying to just tear you down every single day or build you up because there's also a lot of, you had a lot of excited supporters, including me for a good chunk of that.
So, five, man, thank you. Yeah, I five. It was zoom. It was probably more than I reckoned on in terms of the brutality. But in day one, when it was like, can you check your personal needs at the door for like, you know, a couple of years for the sake of Western civilization, and, you know, I felt like I could. Now, it turns out that the process is more human than you might have thought.
So like in month 18, when you're, you know, shivering in, you know, Iowa, no one showing up then, you know, like, you know, like it's not always easy. But to your point, though, the Yang Yang always kept me going because, you know, like when you get out there and there were people excited to see you, it's incredibly invigorating. And like I'm still grateful for it.
Yeah, no, the, I want to talk about the Yang Yang in a second. But, and of course, I'm going to always repeat, I'm going to talk about the issues, particularly since some of these issues that you brought up in the campaign have accelerated so fast, obviously, that they, they, they, they're extremely fascinating in the world we're heading into.
But was there a moment when you were like depressed? Like you mentioned shivering by yourself in Iowa, where you were like, what the hell did I think I was doing?
你有没有感到过压抑或者沮丧啊?比如你提到在爱荷华州瑟瑟发抖时,会不会觉得自己在干嘛啊?
There were some depressing times on the trail for sure. The, a couple that call that I recall the early days of the campaign were very, very hard because I declared an early 2018 and there was zero attention being paid to the 2020 race in 2018.
So I would go out there and I would literally show up to a coffee shop in New Hampshire and there'd be like one person there for my event or, you know, I'd, I'd go to a fair in Iowa and there's no one knew who the heck I was and just no one cared about a race that was, you know, a year and a half or two years away. So, so those were very difficult times.
I, you know, some people I'm close to, like didn't support the campaign and so you're like really and you can kind of see it where like if your friend runs for president and you just don't think it's realistic, like many of my friends just got on board and said, okay, Andrew, I think you're crazy, but let's go. And then some others did not get on board and that's like hard to take, you know, as a human.
So, so I think the early days were very hard. So anyone who supported me early on, thank you, thank you, thank you. And then there were some challenging periods like in the middle where I felt like I was like letting folks down somehow. You just get just get so charged up that like if you feel like the campaign's not poised to accomplish its goals, like it's actually really hard sometimes and down the stretch I felt that sometimes.
Well, and it's interesting because I feel like you mentioned before there was this, there was this gaping hole in the market of ideas and I like the way you express that because in a sense you were running two campaigns in parallel.
One was a campaign for yourself to be president and that goes through the same rules that everyone else is going through at that time. And the other was of course the campaign for expressing this idea, UBI, which is an old idea but you expressed it very uniquely and getting public recognition that this is something that society needs.
And I think while the presidential campaign might not have worked out this time, maybe it will in the future, I do feel you, and I'm curious if you think you feel you did this, I feel you succeeded in gaining a huge recognition for the concept of UBI.
Now, that's one thing I'm so grateful for that I feel like we mainstream universal basic income right when the country needed it. And I'm optimistic that we're going to see more cash programs get implemented in real life in the days ahead.
The fact that now, no, 13 mayors around the country are calling for universal basic income is enormous because you know that group is going to grow very, very quickly. I mean, if you're a mayor looking around at the problems you see today in your community, you have to look up and say, look, this is like beyond my community's ability to address on our own, you know, like we need to think differently.
So that 13 mayors is going to become 30 and then 300. Hopefully, we'll see universal basic income implemented in the US sooner rather than later. And I do feel like my campaign will have played a role.
So you know, something that makes me so excited, it's why I ran is that if you legitimately think that you're making a decision and busting your tail for a couple of years, could help accelerate the end of poverty in your country, then you have to do it. You know, and I had this instinct where I was like, I think I can accelerate the end of poverty. And we're not there yet, but we're getting closer.
Yeah. And you know, it's interesting because of everybody's been saying and I agree with this, that since the pandemic began, and particularly since the economic lockdown began, every part of society is getting accelerated. So if thing, if Walmart was going to automate five years from now, they're automating one year from now. If you were going to get divorced 10 years from now, you're getting divorced right after these lockdowns are over. Like, and the same thing with the discussion of UBI and the big question that people approached with you was, how would you afford this?
Now we know the answer. We could kind of afford anything right now. Like we just printed, you know, trillions of dollars, both for stimulus and for federal reserve actions. And when I ask the federal reserve about this or people in the federal reserve, the reality is there's so much demand for the US dollar that we could borrow this money for a very long time. And that includes for potentially a UBI as the second stage of the stimulus.
And do you think maybe the introduction of UBI in society might be a part of a stimulus package? Because clearly we can afford it now. No one's asking that question anymore. The last number I saw was that 81% of Americans favor cash relief as part of the stimulus. Now in a sensible democracy, that would mean it would become part of the stimulus bill. But just the fact that everyone wants it, including I think it's 68% of Republicans want it. I'm optimistic there'll be some cash component of this bill. I'm hopeful that it includes recurring payments and that it's not just another one time thing. But we're going to at least see one time payment as part of the next stimulus, I believe.
And so I agree with you. I think part of the, maybe the first stimulus, it's hard to judge or not judge or whatever. But it seems like if there's a second stimulus package, just giving money to corporations doesn't necessarily get the money in the economy. It doesn't increase what's called the velocity of money, which is what we desperately need. But if you give money directly to the people who spend it, that will get into the economy.
And I, you know, just for the heck of it, I wrote to people I knew in the administration about the same thing you've been talking about, Congressman Tim Ryan's been talking about. And I suggested why not at least a six month UBI to get the money directly into the economy. And the response I got back in general was, one of people lose the incentive to work, which I thought was ridiculous. But how do you respond to that?
Part of the problem right now, James, is that a lot of the benefits are tied to unemployment. And so you do have Americans right now who are getting paid a significant amount of money. And if they were to start working, then they would lose that money. So part of the structure really is that if you put this money into people's hands, but they get it, regardless of whether they take that extra shift or start working a bunch of hours. That would be actually a very big differentiation.
So that's a feature of our current unemployment benefit system. Rit large, I think that concern is pretty dumb. Just in that right now, the goal, like you said, is just to get money back into the economy. And you're not going to be putting so much money into people's hands that they're not going to want to work. But the problem is that right now, if you're a laid off bartender or airline attendant or security guard, who's hiring? It's like, what really is an alternative where you're like, oh, I don't want to get these people money because they might not want to go out and get a job.
It's like, do you foresee, are creating tens of millions of jobs, like four folks who've just been furloughed or laid off in the next six months? I certainly don't. No, I think we're seeing, like, particularly in New York City and other major cities, but across the country, you're going to see something like 50% of storefronts at a business. It's like 15 million employees, 20 million employees. And nobody wakes up today and says, boy, I can't wait to start a pizza restaurant in New York City once things open up again. So I don't know what's going to replace that. There's going to be, it's unpredictable. It's unpredictable because it's not going to happen.
You even have a company like Google that's still minting money with a hiring freeze. So we have to face facts that 42% of the jobs that we're losing are gone forever. And 42% of, let's call it, 30 to 40 million. I mean, you're looking at something like twice the impact of the Great Recession in perpetuity. That's devastating. That's a catastrophe. And that's where we are.
We've managed to stop the bleeding with the first stimulus package, but it's evaporating. The unemployment benefits are running out. And so we need something of the same scale in magnitude. Or else we're going to see indescribable despair and suffering in the United States. Massiveictions, people on the streets, lines for miles for food, kitchens, like you name it. And so the real thing about the end of the world is that the power of the New York Grizzly scenario you can imagine is going to come to pass the United States of America unless Congress annexed meaningful relief.
我们已经通过第一个刺激计划成功止住了出血,但是它正在消失。失业救济已经耗尽。因此,我们需要一项相同规模的措施。否则,我们将在美国看到难以形容的绝望和痛苦。大规模的贫困、无家可归者、排队排了好几英里买食物、厨房里忙忙碌碌,等等,你可以想象的New York Grizzly场景的力量就要在美国实现,除非国会批准有意义的救济措施。
So I can't tell if you were just describing the next dystopian movie or what you actually think is going to really happen. Like, what's the odds? It's something like that really happens. Because to be honest, I'm nervous about it. A lot of people are nervous about that.
But any sensible economist is recommending, which is direct cash relief, some form of cushion for folks who've lost their jobs and relief to states because the last thing you want is states laying off hundreds of thousands of workers around the country because they're all have budget shortfalls, which they do right now.
I mean, if you're a state, like you've seen your tax revenue plummet, you have a balanced budget amendments. You're not allowed to run a deficit. So what the hell do you do? You turn around and being like, I guess we're going to like fire thousands of workers. During a pandemic went theoretically, you might need some of those workers to do something, like trace contacts or teach or whatever the heck, under the sun. I mean, you probably need more of it, not less.
So those are the three things that are no brainers. And there are a lot of other things that you could make a very good argument for on top of them. But we need to be like your friends. I mean, we need to be aggressive about this where the danger is doing too little, not too much.
Yeah, I agree. And again, part of it, part of the initial criticisms were, oh, there might be hyperinflation or there might be, you know, how does the government pay for it? You can't just print money forever. Yeah, you're not seeing any of it. Yeah, actually, there's deflation. Like whenever you get an email that says, oh, it's a 40% off on shirts today only, that's actually the new price. It's not really a sale. Like things are down, prices are down. And printing money hasn't changed that. Yeah, we're in danger of hitting a deflationary cycle. And so putting money into people's hands would be an excellent idea. Like I think the inflation counterargument is really based more on like a knee jerk reflex around giving money to people than it is grounded in fact, because if you just look at the facts, like we're facing the opposite danger.
Yeah, and so I think one of the things that impressed, like, and I've seen you mention this on other podcasts, like you mentioned this on the Sam Harris podcast recently, where, but I'll repeat it, your audience, your fans, the Yang gang, they were more obsessed, like they were, they finitically supported your, your candidacy, your ideas and so on. More than any other candidate, I think there was even polls where, you know, people would always had you as they were obsessively interested in you winning the people who supported you.
And what do you think was there was something about your authenticity I felt, something separated you out from the other presidential candidates at the time. And I know I appreciate it in the debates. Your authenticity kind of like you had a quirkiness, you had a humor. There was, you know, you're at point, at one point you said, you know, I'm Asian, so I know, I know a lot of doctors and, you know, stuff like that where I was like, people were just like struck for a second and they were like, hey, he's not, he's a presidential candidate. He's not supposed to talk like that. And people appreciated it. What do you think it was that, that, you know, was it a hurdle to have that voice? Was it the fact that you didn't have a political background? And maybe there's a naive question. I don't know, but I've been curious.
I'm grateful to everyone who supported the campaign, including you. And I think they saw in me someone they could relate to who was running for president, not because it was like the next step in some career plan or whatnot or like part of like the like the childhood ambition. But genuinely, this wants to solve problems and improve things.
And I think for many people, there's like this real recognition that our career politicians and political systems have not been addressing the challenges of our time. And that if someone who just stood up and said, look, we should do things differently. Like a lot of people got excited about it. And I'm glad they saw that in me because it genuinely was not some like a grand plan or lifelong ambition. I mean, I'm just someone who sees that we can do things a lot better. We can do a lot better.
I mean, it's really unfortunate how dark things are getting in part because we haven't had the right leadership. Yeah, and so I have to ask one more campaign thing. And then I really want to get into some of these issues. But I'm fascinated by the narratives of all the candidates in the campaign. And in your debate, you always expressed very well about UBI and the issues around it.
Was there any point in the debates where you felt outclassed in some way like, oh, this person and these people are somehow playing the nuances a little better than I am in the debates. Where did you feel challenged almost in a game like fashion during the campaign?
I felt challenged just in that. It felt like you were in a theater production or like a stage play and then like no one informed you where moderators were part of it too. It's like everyone you get there and then everyone has these freaking roles that they're playing. And I'm like, you know, I consider myself like a fairly normal human.
So I was like, okay, like what's going on? Like did I not get the scripts of the stage note? So that adaptation took me some time. So I certainly never felt outclassed in terms of like someone's access to information or argumentation. But I felt like people were further along on a curve of of an artifice almost or like the ability to project a certain thing in like a simulated manner.
I was just figuring out like that like the first of it I went to one of the candidates was backstage like like practicing lines. And it reminded me of like a high school play, you know, I looked around him and was like, holy shit. I should write a book about that like all the behind the scenes stuff like that. You know, I'm writing some thoughts down. You know, that will include probably some of these these anecdotes. So I mean, you know, nothing imminent. But like I do want to try and catalog something.
You know, there was one point where the moderators were asking Bernie Sanders about his policies on student loans and student loan wiping them out and stuff. And I knew you had such a great, you have such a great stance on this. You had such a great opinion on it, which you've written about it was on your website. You talked about on Joe Rogan. I was literally crying like Andrew interrupt Bernie Sanders right here. This is the thing to do. Get this out and you didn't do it. I was so disappointed.
Thank you James. Yeah, that was like the top part of the dynamic because you're there. And I had points of view on a lot of things. But the dynamic of that environment and the moderators and the stages that you feel like, like you're going to be a real asshole if you butt in more than let's call it like once. And so it was like a constant judgment call being like, Hey, is this going to be the time? Because you did very much feel like like they like they did not necessarily want to pass you the baton.
You know, it's like if you say something, then they're just going to move on as quickly as possible. And so that was like a tough environment that way. But I felt similarly a lot of the time where, you know, like where there was something being discussed and I thought I had like a frankly a better answer. And it maybe it's on me that I didn't butt in more often for sure.
Well, obviously, you know, you have many future chances to butt in on these things. So we all can hope. But you know, big, a big part of the impetus for your UBI was your fears of automation and automation taking jobs from Americans. Clearly now automation is happening and everything's going to get automated and nobody's, nobody's slowing it down now. Now, nor should they, there's a lot of reasons they're, they're automating, you know, for social distancing reasons, for medical reasons, for productivity reasons while the economy is uncertain.
And obviously it's not even the big problem anymore because so many people lost their jobs due to the pandemic and so on. But what's your view now on automation? Has it shifted a little? How does it relate now to UBI?
Well, like you said earlier, we're just accelerating the automation in many of these jobs. And if you just look at yourself at this point, if you don't see a human, you're excited. It's like value ad, you know, like there, there was an argument against automation that I always thought was dumb where people were like, oh, people just love other people. Like, you know, like you don't want it to be done by a robot. Like you'd rather be done by a person. And I was always like, really? And now we're seeing that you really would prefer it to be automated and not have a human, even touch it or like have to see it or exchange air with the human, which is very sad.
But no, it's taking what might have taken 10 years and it's happening in 10 weeks. I mean, it's going to be a nightmare for many, many people. Many firms are doubling down on things that they had on the drawing board, really. Like they look at it. I think I saw a recent poll as by one of the big consulting firms and they said that something like half of them are speeding up their automation investments.
But let's look at like a past woman in history, like the development of the ATM machine. Everyone was worried, oh my gosh, a million bank tellers are going to lose their jobs. And instead, profits increased so much that now there's a bank branch on every single corner and there's more tellers and bank employees higher than ever. Could that be the case? Like you mentioned like the truck driving industry often in the campaign.
If there's automated driving on the highways, that means more products delivering to the cities, you still need drivers in the final mile because there's no self-driving in cities. I mean, we're probably very far away from that still. Yeah, it is case by case. The problem really with the arguments are that like you can find a case like bank tellers where there was like a growth opportunity and then you found other more value added things for the workers to do.
But then there are other settings where you're just going to get rid of the workers. So can you cherry pick and find a setting where it's one of the other? Sure. Most of the time it's going to be really complicated. The trucking example you used, are you still going to need drivers in the last mile? Yes. Like could you potentially need more drivers in the last mile? Yes. Is that going to get counterbalanced by the long haul? It's like well, the long haul has been a lot more time than in the last mile. Or you're going to have the driver sleeping in the truck and not driving, but you're still going to need a person there. Maybe for a number of reasons. Would you then need to compensate that person differently, almost certainly yes?
So there are different variables in any of these. You can't make a growth generalization one way or the other except the generalization you can make is that businesses are going to do everything they can to maximize their bottom line. And that at least in some of these cases, you're not going to find another job at this person to do that's higher value add.
You know, an example that most people can understand. Let's say you're Walmart. Let's say you have hundreds of stores in the US. Let's say you make self-check out the norm and you get rid of like, you know, a dozen cash years per location. Are you going to do like the bank teller, like example, and open a bunch of new Walmarts? Like no. Like, are you going to find a new role for all of the cash years? It's like, well, like what would you have them do? And then you look around the rest of the store and you're like, well, maybe they can shelve and it's like, well, maybe they can clean. And so in some cases, there might be something for them to do. But at some point, you're going to cut some people.
So like the fact that your, like a lot of the arguments around this struck me as always very undisciplined. And it's one of the problems, James, is that as a country, we're really data shy and argument heavy. It's like people will just. That's for sure. Yeah. People will just say, like, oh, but there is this example and like, you know, like you're wrong, I'm right. And it's like, well, it's actually a pretty complicated question. We should probably like go to the numbers on this one and figure it out. And if you look at the numbers, like there are studies coming out now that say, hey, for every robot that you implement in an area, like you're going to lose, you know, like X number of jobs. And so people are studying and finding that the impact is real.
So you know, this was one thing you mentioned in the campaign and I was always a little confused about, but this is my own ignorance. When the unemployment rate was low, you were saying, that's because many people, and I agree with it, many people just drop out of the workforce so they're not, their numbers are not showing up.
And this is going to be the stupidest question. But when someone drops out of the workforce, where do they go? Don't they still need to work or make money or what happens to these people?
So the labor force participation rate has been dropping for years in the US. Precrisis it was maybe 62%. Last I looked at, it's down into the 50s now. So you ask a very excellent question. It's like, what the hell happens to the person who drops out of the workforce?
So if you are a young man, the most likely scenarios you live with your parents in the basement. And then you play video games and you're out of the workforce if you stop looking. That's actually you. I've got five children, that's definitely true. So that's very normal. I think what I saw was something like one out of six men of prime working ages in that situation right now.
If you are a former manufacturing worker, then you applied for disability and something like 20% of working age people in some counties in the US are on disability. So if you used to be in that job, then the job is appears and you say, I'm disabled.
And then the government says, OK, here's like 1100 a month, but you can't work ever again. And so when I talked to folks on disability, they said to me, it's like, I'd like to volunteer on the side, but I'm scared I'll lose my disability. So that's one of the worst situations of all worlds where it's like, well, let me get this straight. We're giving the person money. And now they can't even volunteer because you can imagine someone being disabled, like two disabled for like a rigorous 40-hour manufacturing job, but maybe they can volunteer at the local shelter a little bit.
Or even squashes entrepreneurship, you're not allowed to start anything if you're on disability. You can't get medication if you need it, if you start a business. And that's a UBI. I do agree. UBI, even bigger than 1,000 a month, 2,000 a month, UBI would go a long way to solving a lot of those issues.
In terms of, right now, obviously, we're in the middle of all these protests. It's the tragedy of George Floyd. But I just want to throw in another data point. And this is going to be a very complicated one, so you can't simplify it too much. But when the economy is in a rough patch, historically, a lot of people did, went back to school.
And then you're out of the workforce. And in theory, you're like, oh, this is exciting because you're getting trained and equipped and better educated. But in real life, some of these degrees are expensive. You might not get the job you want. At the very extreme, you have these for-profit chains that are trying to gouge you. And there are very, very dark stories where you have institutions like praying on vets or praying on a population that they think they can get money from and the person.
So when people go back to school, they also drop out of the workforce. So this is a great point. It leads to two questions. One is, what do you think of Google's recent announcement last week? They have these three different certification programs. I believe they're running it through Coursera.
Do we see some sort of corporate education complex that starts to develop that reduces the cost of having sufficient enough education to get a good job? You're going to see a whole lot more of that. You know, and I had a conversation with a guy named Scott Galloway, you probably know. He's been on my podcast three or four times. Yeah.
He talks about how tech is going to go on education and healthcare because they need growth. And that's where you get it. And education is a very high-margin business. And if you look at what people are paying for on education, a lot of it is around the credentialing and the network on the higher ability. It's not necessarily that they're getting learning that's not available elsewhere.
So you can replace the credentialing and higher ability into some extent of the network. And it's credible, which if you're a tech company, it's the most credible because frankly, the reason why anyone would want to get some awesome degree is to work at Google. So if Google's somehow offering certification, you're like, ooh, this could be my entry into working there.
So if you have that kind of cache A in the ability to offer credentialing, then you can compete very effectively because you don't cost 60,000 a year. You don't necessarily require a residential experience. And for these colleges, they're stuck because they're looking up saying, hey, classes are going to be, be a Zoom, but you still owe $60,000.
And then families are looking up being like, wait, what just happened? Like, how did that work? Right, so there's got to be a change.
然后家庭会想,等一下,刚才发生了什么?那是怎么回事?所以必须进行改变。
Yeah, this is a tough part about a lot of these things, James. And this is one errand thinking that a lot of people make in the US in particular, where you think to yourself, like, oh, this doesn't make sense.
So it will change. Like what's happening in the United States is a lot of shit that doesn't make sense, just sticks around.
所以它会改变的。就像在美国发生的很多不合理的事情一样,它们就是一直存在的。
Like give me an example of what?
比如,请给我一个例子?
So let's say I'm a parent. You have five kids. So you know this better than I do. But let's say I'm a parent. My kid's about to go to college. And then you look up and you're like, wow, college is 60,000. And it was only like 20,000. And we're like, when I went, I went on 25,000 or whatever the number was.
So then do you turn to your kid and be like, hey, guess what? You're not going to college? Like probably not. You're like, all right. I guess this is the way it goes down. So then the government has said, don't worry about it. We'll give you loans. So you're up to 1.6 trillion in student loan debt.
And people just felt like they had no choice but to pay. Same thing in healthcare, where our health insurance rates go up and up to the sky. And then at some point, does someone say, well, you know, like, I'm going to stop? It's like, well, no, I don't have a choice. I need to get a healthcare coverage.
So it's one reason why things have become miserable for so many Americans is that you think shit is going to self correct in a lot of spaces. But actually people can just get away with it for a long time. It's true in government too. Your government can screw up something royally and then you can't just turn to another government. So you have these massive inefficiencies that are built up over time and you can't get rid of them. Like that's where it is.
So if you have Google entering the market, that is a very positive development in some respects, it will increase competitive pressures on some of the weaker schools. But the strong schools will just keep on getting away with it.
So I want to get into what's going on with the protests, police reform, you know, tragically, you know, everything that's happened in the past few months that, you know, maybe the lockdown was sort of the fire where that gas was thrown on. Now everybody's erupted into these protests. In some cases, even, you know, more aggressive protests, your president say, what's a solution?
I know, you know, there's solutions ranging from, you know, how you deal with the officers to maybe, you know, different types of weapons. What what are you looking at?
我知道,你知道,有各种解决方法,比如你如何处理警官,或者使用不同类型的武器,你在看什么?
You have to do a lot of things. I mean, when I looked at what's going on, police brutality as the data guy, I was like, okay, what are the measurements you can have for this problem?
So issue number one, how many people are killed by police every year? Turns out the best you can do is an estimate, which itself is very dark and scary because legally, this is supposed to report this stuff. But instead you have compiled news reports that say reliably, we can say a thousand people plus get killed by police officers every year.
That's a baseline. Like, isn't possibly more than that. Yes. Okay. So that sounds pretty bad. Like three Americans a day are just getting shot by a police officer somewhere.
The second thing is like, can you measure police brutality? And it turns out that we're paying out over a billion dollars a year in successful civil judgments against police departments around the country. And they have a very high legal standard to clear, even in civil suits.
Can you imagine trying to sue a cop for some fucked up shit they did and then winning? Like, a lot of things have to go pretty well for you in the sense that you must have some real damage, witnesses, video, like something because you know that police departments very well-lawored and you're going to have a very high legal standard to get through.
So in New York alone, NYPD pays out hundreds of millions in civil suits for police. I think on your website you mentioned about over 700 million, which surprised me. Yeah. And one year it was like, it was in that ballpark and you're just like, what the heck is going on?
So you're looking at over a billion dollars in civil suits successful per year. So what is the actual scope of the harm? Some multiple of that. You're looking at billions of dollars in police misconduct a year.
And then you look and say, okay, how is this being addressed or enforced? And the truth is that if you're a local district attorney, the last thing you want to do is mess with your local police department.
You're working with them every single day to make cases. Like, you're not going to turn around and try and stick it to them. So which is one reason why someone like Kamala Harris who was a district attorney was like, hey, you need someone else. Because the district attorney cannot turn it.
So you also have these union rules that are very, very powerful. So you can see the scope of the damage is significant. And it makes sense that we would not be addressing it locally. Like, it's structural. So to address it, you would have to take a shot at it with like a whole series of measures.
Now a couple of them are technological that your fans would probably like. Like, should you have body cams on everyone that it is paid for like nationally. So it's not on like, you know, it's not a cost burden for communities. Yes. Should you invest in nonlethal weaponry? And I'm a geek. So this was exciting. But like, it's actually the case that you should have.
So right now you have a taser has limitations. And taser, I'll say allegedly, I mean, I've seen, we've all seen videos. It's not nonlethal. Yeah. Like, taser can be very dangerous in some circumstances. But there are a lot of situations where like the taser is not the right use case. Like, for example, when someone's like running away from you and they're beyond a certain range, then the taser's not going to reach them. So the next thing you have is a firearm.
And so we saw this case in Atlanta where the man was running away and then the cops shot him in the back. And so like, could you use some new nonlethal weapon? Like, and this is going to sound very like running managed. But like there is like a company that makes like these bolas that you could like shoot at someone running away from you and it like wraps them up and like, you know, like, like screws them up enough so that they're going to trip and fall and then you can like catch up to them. Yeah, that's the bowl of rap by rap technologies.
Yeah. Stuff like that, it's like, is that worth at least investing in and trying to figure out whether there is some intermediate level of force that a police officer could use that's not lethal weapon? Yes. Should you be investing in crisis workers and mental health workers who can respond to calls that maybe don't warrant like someone carrying a gun because one scourge in many of these communities is drug addiction.
So you have these drug addicts who are struggling like families call and then a lot of the times the cop that shows up, you know, or there are circumstances where I think the number is like a third of people who are killed by police have severe mental illness. And you can imagine a police officer showing up to someone who's mentally ill and is not listening to commands. And so the police officer is like stop, stop or I'll shoot and then eventually they shoot them. And so you can send someone who's like a trained mental health worker, crisis counselor, instead of like an armed police officer or maybe they both go or some combination. But you need to invest in resources to that effect.
In my mind, there should be some Department of Justice dedicated task force around police misconduct. So then you can take the pressure off of local DAs to confront police officers because then if you have like an independent entity that's actually investigating and it's been proven to work when you have consent decrees out of the Department of Justice when they investigate police departments that it does reduce police violence.
The problem is that those DOJ actions are very, very rare and far between and they require not just like one cop screws up, but they need evidence of essentially a system wide practice that raises the misconduct to a point where it's unconstitutional like in the community. So it's not just like, hey, a cop did something reprehensible. It's like Department wide, there's a problem. And then and these consent decrees and the DOJ actions take years to execute.
So there should be in my mind like a more immediate remedy that gets used more often because the problem of police brutality is very real by the numbers. There are other practices like banning chokeholds I think would be a good idea. Like there are other things you can do that are there's like a laundry list, demiltrising.
Like we're sending billions of dollars to police departments. And there's even an incentive James, it's interesting is that if you don't use the hardware within a year, then you're theoretically supposed to give it back. So let's say I give you like a tank. Literally, you're like, well, I got to use this tag now. My neighbors would be unhappy, but go ahead. No, literally you have tanks in police department, so 100%.
Like that the numbers there are staggering too, we're transferring tens of billions of dollars of hardware directly to police departments and it's it's arming them. In a way that makes it much more likely that they're going to use those armaments, but it also changes your orientation to that of sort of like a military outfit rather than like people who are talking directly to members of the community and serving and protecting. So you know, and all of this is kind of connected to the education, law enforcement, getting people jobs.
One issue seems to be like in a lot of states and state by state, there's all these blue collar licensing requirements. So you know, each state has different requirements if you want to be a manicurist, if you want to be whatever, all these blue collar jobs, is there an issue of just kind of like maybe we should just get rid of those licensing requirements so people could get to work? Or at a minimum, we should make them portable.
Like if you're a licensed hairdresser in Connecticut, does hair really change when you like cross the state line and get to Massachusetts? You know, what's a lot more human implorative? So I don't know, but yeah, the licensing requirements have become onerous and the most egregious example is doctors where you know, you can be licensed to practice medicine in some place and then I can't actually even use telemedicine to talk to you if you're across state lines, which on the face of it, you're like, does the human anatomy change but you're between Connecticut and Massachusetts? Does that make any sense?
And so right now, we, and this is actually like something that is a big theme of my campaign and it's something that is a real struggle because it's complicated. So in theory, licensing rules make sense. You're like, hey, I should make sure you know what you're doing before. We like put you out there. But then you end up with this bureaucratic tangle in some cases that does not make any sense.
Yeah, I just moved like 50 miles into a new state and like, now I can't apply my trade unless I go through your weird set of hoops and like pay a fee and do all the stuff. It's like, is that positive? And so right now in America, like we have like this tangled up bureaucracy that unfortunately is, in some cases insufficient, like we should have rules for some things we do not have rules for.
Like what? You know, like social media excesses and the fact that it has a negative effect on the mental health of our kids, particularly teenage girls. Should there be some kind of rules around that? Like, yeah, there probably should be. It's like, but you know, our government doesn't understand any technology issues. So it's like, yeah, like, like, it'll be okay. So that's something we should have rules for. And then there are other things that we have these rules that have become these overgrown brambles that no one really knows what the purpose is anymore and then you just have bureaucrats being like, well, you know, you broke a rule. And so you have both of those situations simultaneously.
But how would you, how would you make a change? Like if you were the president of the United States tomorrow and you could make a bunch of decisions, it still has to go, things have to go through Congress, things get bureaucratic. There's partisan issues, people fold stuff into bills.
Like it's just, there's lobbying, it just is a horrible system. That is the greatest challenge. And I'll confide in you, James. It was one of my greatest concerns while I was running for president. Because there was a period when Donna Males, like, holy cow, I could win this thing. And then my greatest fear became like, how am I going to somehow drain the swamp, conquer the bureaucracy, do all this stuff?
Because like, I'm not an idiot, like, like some other folks where you can't just go and like, will things to happen. The presidency has very massive limitations. You can't just like, wave your hand and try and override the rules and the lobbyists. Because in DC, if you have a rule set up, in many cases that rule ends up giving rise to like an entire industry or like, you know, like set up people in the rest of it.
And if you show up and you're like, how am I going to make a change? It's like, well, you just like, pull the rug out from under like these ex-thousand people and they're really upset. And so this lobbyist, who's like, like, they're waiting for you to try and knife you if you make any kind of change.
And you take that situation and multiply it times a thousand or ten thousand. Like, like, if you go to DC, it like blows your mind how much like the influence peddling industry has overrun that place. You know, I went to a senator, I went to a breakfast with a senator and there were like eight lobbyists there just like who all paid like thousand dollars to the privilege of like and the senator was there like, you need breakfast and then this went around and lobbyist one was like, so what about that orange growing rule? Like, like, it's like a whole town.
Like, not just a town, it's the richest city in our country. You know, objectively now, Washington, DC. And so one of the jokes I told on the trail, James, was like, what do they produce? And then everyone like laughter was like, what do they produce? And it's like, well, whatever they're producing, business is awfully good.
So you're right that trying to somehow pull the roots out of that bureaucracy is a massive challenge. And when you ask what Andrew Yang will do about it in real life, there's the president's seat, which I'd have certain things I would try and get done.
But the goal is it's just like any entrepreneur where you show up someplace and you say, okay, what are like the highest impact changes I can make that are actually doable and achievable that there's not some like massive set of obstacles in my way. You know, like a lot of it's like prioritization where you say, look, what is one rule like an undo that's going to really like help free up a lot of energy possibly or what's something I can fight for that like the other side has been weakening over time.
This to me is one of the great challenges of our time that we have this overgrown by giant monstrosity of a bureaucracy that has lost the thread. You know, like where and the most heartbreaking example in my mind is a CDC. You know, you look up and like Trump certainly has a lot of responsibility, but you have to look at it and say like, you know, we had multiple failures at like different levels of the CDC that were driven by the fact that it's become this like kind of slow-footed bureaucracy that was not ready for a pandemic, even though that's why it theoretically even exists.
Yeah, I mean, there's the whole issue of the pandemic and the response to it, which I can't even get into. That's like a billion, a billion man hours a day are wasted on Twitter with that. But what would you do in a situation like Seattle or Portland where interactions between local government protesters which may or may not be violent or increasing in violence like in the so-called chaz, you know, kids died and just nobody was somehow paying attention or getting involved.
Like does the presidency have a role in that? Like what would how would you look at something like that? Well, if I were president, I would I think that that's so it's very important. And I think the goal should be to try and deescalate tensions, not escalate them. You know, unless like there's imminent loss of life or like massive harm being done, like you want to try and deescalate tensions and figure out what people's actual requests and demands are and then see what could help move things in a better direction.
What happened in Portland seems just reprehensible and awful where you had folks just getting thrown into arden mark bands like this stuff out of like a really bad conspiracy theory or dystopian movie that you hope wouldn't happen here in the United States. But I keep saying that all through these months and it just gets worse. But I guess that's another issue.
Oh, no, and this is one reason why my campaign did well, I think James is that like I think most people recognize that like the bullshit is now working, you know, and like a lot of folks like I realize that politicians come in and they like arguing symbols.
And that even my what I thought was just like me delivering information in a way that like just came naturally for me was like its own set of symbols. And then I'd look around being like wow, like and then this is what I was talking about before with the artifice is that if you're an experienced politician, you become really like conversant in like symbols that like work to activate a certain group of people. And like that like meanwhile the reality is degrading before our eyes, you know what I mean? It's like like where we're just like my brand of bullshit is better than your brand of bullshit. It's like okay. Meanwhile like nothing's getting done like you know like the like our society is crumbling on underneath our feet. And people are just getting increasingly fed up with it like people can see.
I mean, and I feel I feel like looking on on both sides. We do need stimulus now. We do need direct relief to citizens. I don't know if it's the president or Congress or whoever seems disconnected from reality that people are going hungry. They're food lines miles long now. It makes me angry. It breaks my heart. I'm doing everything I can to fight for stimulus money in our hands. I've been supporting local candidates with the hope that we can activate more members of Congress to get on board with it.
But it is members of Congress that are just disconnected because the need should be clear. It's crystal clear to you and me what's going on in communities around the country. The problem is that members of Congress are not really tied to their communities anymore in terms of how can they job?
Here's an idea and this solves a bunch of problems. What it's crazy. I think congressmen and congresswomen should be forced to stay in their district and never come to DC and only vote while sitting in their district. This way they can't be lobbied. It's too much traveling for the lobbyist to do. There's less backroom dealing. Every congressman just has to vote from their district. They should beam in like a Jedi council like whole of the style. That's great. It's like beam into it.
One of the most ridiculous things right now, James, is that Congress can even vote remotely. They have that as a rule. You have to look up and say how does that make any sense? There are members of Congress who think it's imperative that you physically congregate even in a pandemic in a large open room. Your suggestion is genius. I love it. If you could make it so that people were actually in their communities, they'd have a better grasp on what's happening.
One related point to this is that a lot of folks, their fondest dream is just to be in DC all the time. DC is where it's at, you feel all special and powerful and everyone sucking up to you all the time. People develop careers in DC and it shouldn't be a career town that way for our elected representatives. We should have term limits. You should go to DC, get trying to get something done and let's call it 10 or 12 years and then freaking piece out. When you come home again, that way you're more of a product of your community than you are of DC. But right now we know that more of our legislators are more products of DC than the other way around.
So final thing I have to ask is, are we going to hear your voice in 2024? Why don't you run in 2024? I'm just going to say it. I'm still as passionate as ever about the fact that we have these massive problems and we need to speed up and try and address them. And if anything, another campaign would be easier, more fun and better than the last one because we'd be starting much further down the line. So as long as the problems are there, which unfortunately I think they will be and that I think I can do something to solve them, then I'm going to keep fighting for it and that could very well include another campaign.
So people who are psyched about this campaign, please do follow me and my organization, my podcast, Yang speaks and let's keep on making the case, activate more people, solve these problems and then bring back the Yang Yang bigger, better than ever. Yeah, and the organization is humanity forward and a lot of your policies, candidates, your support, other things you're working on are there. I also highly recommend your book, The War and Normal People is a great treatise on your political philosophy and you explain things in such a succinct way. It's a great, there's a pleasure to read such a well written political book. I loved it.
And thanks for coming on the podcast, Andrew. I really appreciate it. This has been a great podcast for me and I hope you come on again at some point.
感谢你接受邀请参加播客,安德鲁。我真的很感激。这对我来说是一次很棒的播客,希望你以后还能再来。
Well, it's been a long time coming. I appreciate the heck out of you, your team, your support, James. I know you were one of the early adopters, the Yang Yang. So in my mind, my being on your podcast was always going to happen as a little bit overdue to a little longer than I'd hoped. But you were busy, you were busy writing for president. But yeah, enjoy the heck out of this conversation and yeah, keep up the awesome work. Thank you very much, Andrew, you too.