My flagship proposals, we give every american one thousand dollars a month free and clear. If you know you have a little bit more freedom from scarcity, then you can start making moves towards the sort of work that you want for yourself that you value that you would find fulfilling and exciting hello and welcome to the Sunday special we're joined this week by Andrew Yang author of the book, the war on normal people. I can't wait to get to my conversation with Andrew, but first can you believe it's already April. Time has a habit of getting away, but if you have a mortgage or kids or anyone depending on your income, you're going to have to spend some of the time getting life insurance if you need life insurance, but you I want to spend a lot of time, comparing it. You should give policy genius a try policy this is the easy way to buy life insurance online. In just two minutes you can compare, quotes from the top insurers and find your best price. Once you apply. The policy genius team will handle all the paperwork and red tape, no commissions, no hidden fees, just more time saved for you and policy genius doesn't just make life insurance easy

they also make it easy to find the right home insurance or auto insurance or disability insurance. There one stop shop for financial protection, so if you need life insurance, but you're short on time, head on over to policy genius, dot com and compare quotes, how's. Your genius is easy. It saves you money and not to belabor the point, but it is indeed fast. Policy genius spend less time comparing life insurance more time doing literally anything else. It's the responsible you're an adult, don't take care your family I know you don't think die tomorrow, but the fact is you don't know and that's why you ought to be checking out policy genius right now. It's not gonna cost you a lot of time and you'll be doing something valuable for yourself and your family policy genius spend less time comparing life insurance time doing literally anything else on planet earth policy, genius, dot, com, that's policy, genius! dot com go check it out right now. I Andrew thanks, so much for coming by the show really appreciate it. It's great to be here thanks for having me well. First of all, I just have to thank you again for coming on the show, because we've invited a lot of folks on the left, particularly members of the democrat Nick Party who are running for president you're, the only

person is accepted thus far, and so we appreciate the conversation. It really does mean a lot to me that you would come on and I'm sure that you will. Slings and arrows for it. Well I can set a trend like I hope, I'm the first, but not the last. So let's start with this, where what prompted you to run for president, where you, where you coming from? What's what's your backstory for folks who don't know you s o! I certainly was not one of these kids who grew up thinking. They were gonna run for president. I was born in upstate New York. My parents are immigrants from Taiwan. They met in graduate school at Uc Berkeley, so my father was an engineer for G and IBM. He generated sixty nine. U S, patents over his career, uh and being an academic sort of the family business. My dad's professor now my brother is a professor

my grandfather was a professor. So I, like you, went to law school hi, I I we went to. They are state economics and local science in college. You know what to do so in the law school and then his love for five on happy months and then left to start in ill fated, dot com in the first bubble. But then I've been bitten by the bug and said this is much better than being on happy lawyer, and so I worked at a health care software company and then I became the head of an education company that grew to become number one in the. U S and was acquired by a public company, two thousand and nine? So at this point my you know career going really well, but it was the wake of the financial crisis and I thought that we had all of these whiz kids heading to Wall Street and Mackenzie, ah, and not enough starting generated businesses in places like Detroit or Cleveland or Baltimore of St Louis. So I quit my job. I started an organization called venture for America that helped create several one thousand jobs in those cities and another dozen cities or so

in the US, and the reason I'm running for president is that when you spend time in the Midwest and the south, you see the aftermath of the fact that we automated away four million manufacturing jobs in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Iowa, all the swing states that Trump needed to win and did win, and I'm running for president to wake up America to the fact that it does not immigrants that are causing economic problems. It is the fact that we're going through the greatest economic and technological transformation in the history of the country, it's called the fourth industrial revolution, and we need to progress to the next stage of capitalism in order for our country prosper in an age where art visual intelligence and self driving cars and trucks will become real. Now you talk a lot in the book. There are normal people about these people who are in the middle of the country and whose talents are sort of being left behind their jobs or sort of being left behind. Do you think that the Democratic Party has proper spoken to a lot of those people, there's a feeling that President Trump one specifically because the Democratic Party largely forgot about those folks, well

to me, there is a very powerful central economic narrative where, if you look at the voting district data, there is literally a straight line up between the adoption of industrial automation into an area in the movement towards Donald Trump, and so to me, Democrats need is trying to dress that set of problems and if they fail in that, then then then they're not to solve the problems I got on from elected like Donald Trump, is not himself well. He he is to me a manifestation of this greater economic mega trend and it's up to the Democratic Party, in my opinion, to help America now the gate. This wave, as opposed to focusing too much on Donald Trump who to me, is a symptom. You know, there's been a lot of talk about the the effect of automation and some folks. I've talked to is sitting in your chair have suggested so to automation, including restriction of automation itself. Tucker Carlson suggested, on my show, for example, that he wanted to actually legislate away self driving trucks, you don't make any of those sorts of sweeping pronouncements about limiting technology. Really in your

no I'm very pro progress. Genuine generally, you know, I think there might be isolated instances where you need to at least try and buy some time. Because- and you know I talk about truckers- a fair amount of my book- where being a truck driver common job in twenty nine states, three and one slash two: one million truck drivers. Ninety four percent men average age, forty nine now, and so, if you can foresee that you might displace ten tens or hundreds of one thousand of these truck drivers over a particular period of time. You might want to slow that down, because you might need to buy yourself time. Thio help assimilate that adjustment, but, generally speaking, trying to uh just like stop automation. Is a loser over time, because you might even be able to like stick your finger in one part of the dam, but then something else is going to break anyway. It's like you know like. If we tried to automate away to say, hey you can automate truck truck driving. There would be some other part of the economy where you look at it and say

Well, I guess we're going to automate away the warehouse workers when automated way the dock workers, like you, can't stop it all. So, with all of that said, you know, the solutions that you propose are pretty big government solutions you're a guy who obviously worked in the private sector. He ran a charity, those specifically designed for helping people in in the sector. Why do you think that stuff is is insufficient? Why isn't that that that should just be about private charity, for example? It's been my proposal is that There needs to be a lot more upswing in private charity that we need to encourage people to leave some of these dying towns. You seem to suggest that these people should essentially be able to stay in the in towns and the government should take care of them there? Well, I think I think there are several several paths forward, but we have to choose one and in a way to figure out together. It's like what is the path forward for many many Americans, and the reason why I'm confident that we need to go bigger is that I was one of the most celebrated social entrepreneurs of the last number of years where I started

this multi million dollar organization venture for America. You know movie made about us honored by the White House, and I realized that our efforts, as much as I was proud of them, were like pouring water into a bathtub as a giant hole ripped in the bottom. Just the scale is all wrong where, if you look at the the numbers, we're looking at three to four times the level of labor force displacement as the first industrial revolution, or the industrial pollution at the turn of the century. And so, if you say, hey charities are gonna, have the land attorneys don't have the skill to address needs this big, and I know this because I've worked in that space and I'm you know but hung out with the heads of foundations, and just the scale is wrong for the Copa changes. Just talk about the crisis itself, so that the book in the first half is is rather dystopian about kind of it's just scrip of the economy, particularly in certain parts, and you do make sort of a bifurcation between big cities where you say the economy is growing and some of the outlying rural areas, where you say that it's not growing. What about the argument

that the economy seems to be doing pretty well, that every time there's a technological change. Historically, there's been worker displacement that there will be people left behind, because that's just the nature of creative destruction, but new jobs will be created in ways that we can't foresee right now. What makes you think that this time is sort of the cataclysm? Well, we won percent create many many new jobs that we can't predict. The issue is that they're going to be for different people in different places with different skills, then the people that are going to lose, their jobs like are going be able to take advantage of, and so, if you look at a couple of big historical references, number one, the industrial revolution which people generally refer to and say: hey we've been through this before the industrial revolution at the turn of the century, included mass riots that killed dozens of America, can cause billions of dollars worth of damage. We now have labor day is a national holiday because of those riots we implemented universal high school in nineteen eleven in part as a response to these problems.

And Bain and Mckinsey Project that this time is going to be three to four times faster and large other than that in terms of displacement and conflict number, two I studied economics in college and according to economic theory, if you were to automate away four million manufacturing jobs, which we did, those workers would move, get retrained, rescaled find new, higher productivity jobs and all would be well

but when I dug into the numbers it turns out that almost half of those workers left the workforce and never worked again and of that group about half filed for disability. And then you saw a surge in substance, abuse and drug overdoses and suicides. None of which were in my economics, textbook, it didn't say, hey like workers, are going to go home file for disability and start dying at record levels. So if you look at that fact, pattern- and you say: ok, that's what happened when four million manufacturing workers lost their jobs. That's actually a much better sign of. What's going to happen when the three one slash two million truck Hers and the two and one slash two one million call center workers in the over ten million retail workers suffer from the same sort of displacement. Now the conservative counter argument it's some of what you're talking about would be right. All these people went on disability, but the

we were able to meaning that a lot of people were able to find a social safety net they've been reliant on that social safety net that hasn't actually rebuilt the forms of social capital necessary to have functioning societies. You've seen people who are supported by the government, largely who are still getting addicted to drugs. People who are committing suicide at record rates were staying unemployed for here- is at the time and were staying in towns where presumably they really shouldn't be staying. I mean there are seven million unfilled jobs, apparently in the United States right now, and there are a lot of people who are out of work and people, as you mentioned in the book, are basically staying where they are, is the incentive structure may be misaligned because of government intervention into the system. You know it's a very interesting question and one of the things that I found worrisome in the date was that Americans are my greeting between states at Multi decade, lows, which is a terrible time for dynamism, and I love dynamism yeah. I think people should be moving forward for work, it's very good, economically and culturally. It's it's a something very optimistic about. Moving to

to another state for a new job, and so I would love to help more Americans do just that and one of my policy proposals that we pay moving expenses for Americans want to move because tier point there, a lot of Americans who are stuck in place, because they're underwater and a mortgage there costs associated with the move that they can't manage. But a lot of them are also in place because they have families, and so it's tough. If you're going through a hard time, I am and then you have like the only people that you're close to in your life for a living in that same town and then you're like hey guys, I'm a leave to move to the big city. You know you're asking people in some ways to to sacrifice what little you can rely upon in their lives yeah I mean- and I think that that's sort of where I am in the sense that I wonder if this is more of a out in american mentality shift. That has to happen as opposed to government interventionism. So maybe we, need to reinstall the sort of pioneer ethos that supposedly animated the United States in the first place, this idea, okay, you do have to pick up and you do have to move, and you do have to make difficult decisions to better

your economic life and do you ever worry that the description of the upcoming economic catastrophe is actually disincentivizing p from from going out and and trying to forge. Fourth, because I do think that how people think has a major impact on on how they decide to embrace the job market. Well, you know, like you, say. You know, I mean factor very stubborn things, and so you know like I'm convinced that were let's say, for example, thirty, of american malls going to close in the next four years and working in retail is most common in America? I mean those are objective. Facts like Amazon, sucking up another twenty billion dollars in commerce every year, and so saying hey this is happening. I don't think that necessarily is going to freeze people in place, like the hope is that we can galvanize energy around folks trying to improve their situation.

Tianshan adopting real solutions, but I couldn't agree with you more that there is a mindset that we would love to have more Americans inhabit, and what I'm going to suggest is that there's something very optimistic and confident about that pioneer those that you describe, which is like hey, I mean just like go and we're going to make it happen, I'm going to farm in some undiscovered frontier and like going to create a better life for ourselves that is not happening for a lot of Americans. The question is: how do we get them from where they are now. To that point I want to you about your perspective on jobs, because it seems like you, have an interesting view of jobs. On the one hand, you say that people obviously need them They need them for a sense of meaning. On the other hand, you seem to suggest that those jobs aren't forthcoming anytime soon. So do you think that it's the jobs that provide meaning or the check that provides meaning that at one point in your book, for example, you specifically criticize this this exact bifurcation, you basically say that there are two:

the opposition alleges page one hundred and eighty two to completely additional ideas that many people seem to hold simultaneously. First is vital and the core of human experience. Second, no one will want to work if they don't have to well. Where do you stand on Do you think that work is vital and people are going to work, or do you think that work? not vital, and that this whole can sort of be filled by the government paying for it? So I assume that you believe work is vital when you talk a lot about it in the book and you're, opposing that to the idea that people won't work. If they don't have to buy your knowledge in a lot of people are going to work. I mean your your. Your basic government proposals involve a lot of paying people, whether they're, working or not. Obviously, with the goal of that create more work, because I'm I'm very much in the work is vital camp and that's not just my thinking about it. That's just in the data where, if you look at what happens to idle men in particular, we spent a lot of time on the computer playing video games and doing other things. We volunteer less than employed men, even though we have more time

are drinking and substance abuse tends to go up and over time there, some anti social patterns that developed an idle man to a higher degree than women, and so that's just data. And so, if you look at that, you say okay, this actually is pretty consistent. My intuition that work is incredibly important and vital and provide structure, purpose, fulfillment, meaning social structures to numb to people every day, and so the question is: how do we create more her things like that now to me, the best path to create that is to put economic resources into peoples hands in the form of freedom, dividend of one thousand dollars a month, which would then allow more people to do this sort of work that either they to do or that their community has a need for, and the goal is to create jobs and put in one thousand bucks a month into peoples. Hands would create at least two million new jobs just because the buying power would just go right back into local businesses and communities. Now all that being said, I do think, are

definition, our notion of work should evolve and one example I use my wife is at home and we're talking about our families. My wife is at home with our two young boys, one of whom is autistic and right now she works very hard. I mean she, you know like she. Works harder than than I do wasn't. You know I mean I'm running for president and she's working harder, but the mark I used to work at zero society in some ways. You know minimizes the value of that work. And so to me we should broaden the net definitions of work to include being a parent or caregiver, but also arts, creativity, entrepreneurship, journalism, things that We know people, coaching volunteering, civic engagement, people, things that we know people want to do more of, but that right now, society will systematic other they undervalue or not, not have any monetary value. So I want to ask you about the location of meaning. So I've heard, as I say,

I think there's a point where the populist left sort of meets the populist right, and the suggestion is that if we structure the economy in certain ways that this will provide more jobs and that the jobs are what are going to provide meaning, but you also suggest that you know the freedom dividend well, it may create more jobs, sort of an ancillary benefit. There are a lot of people who are not going to be able to work we're going to be on the freedom dividend who are going to receiving you buy. In fact, you buy studies, don't show increased employment in landing study at best they show even employment or declines in employment in the areas in which they are tried so well, and then you sort of suggest that people will be define, meaning and all the other things we're talking about volunteering and community in art, but we're not seeing that with disability, so people are depending on disability, they're, not engaging more in art making or learning to play violin or volunteering more there. Age, more with video games. You talk about, or drug use or or in some cases they become suicidal we're seeing family breakdown with. All of that. So what makes you think the freedom dividend is going to have a different effect on human being

bigger than, for example, current government welfare systems have yes so three things. The first is that Money does not somehow convey meaning. You know the best can do is maybe provide circumstances that help people find a path towards some work that they find fulfill the second thing is, I have a friend whose sister is on disability and she's afraid to volunteer in her community, because she's afraid she'd be noticed as able bodied and thus lose her benefits, and so this freedom dividend would be unconditional and free and clear, and so that person would be volunteering and would not have any fear that you know our benefits. Gonna be taken away. The third thing is that there's something very, very important about conceiving your of your self is either able or disabled, and so, if you were literally getting a check for being disabled, your two ideas of your

our one, I'm genuinely disabled, which, and most people do have some kind of genuine element. You know physical or mental four, two, I'm I'm defrauding our society and I'm actually totally fine, and I'm gonna suggest that most people will fall in the bucket number, one that it's like a rare person who, just like I'm one hundred percent fine, and that is to say, there's a disability check, I'm getting is just me being completely fabricating some condition. And so, if you invert that mentality- and you say hey- you are not disabled. You are fine, you're, a citizen of the richest, most advanced country in the history of the world and you're. Getting this cash and it's going to be years, no matter what, because it's yours and you deserve it, then that would be more constructive in terms of pushing more people in things that they feel good about that society would feel good about. Then, if we say hey, there's something wrong with you when we're going to give you this cash in order to survive. So with all of that said, is your proposal for essentially virtual basic income, the freedom didn't. Do you see that as substituting

for the vast agglomeration of welfare state policies we currently have, which was sort of Milton Friedman's proposal. You it as another dividend, on top of whatever is being paid, we're already paying tens of thousands of dollars per household in poverty in the United States in welfare. Yes, so my plan, the freedom dividend would be opt in, but if you opt in, then you will forego benefits from the existing programs. And so, if you are currently receiving more than one thousand dollars in benefits, then you look at this and say: hey like I'm not going to do anything in my life is going to be as it is. If you decide to opt in for the freedom dividend and might be very appealing, because it's uh and there's no administration know case manager, so one thousand dollars cash can do whatever you want, then you forgo your current enrollment and so what what you'd see is you'd see? We would think, the role the enrollment in the one hundred and twenty six or so different welfare programs that we have and then over time those enrollments would go down, which is very much the goal, because the

the current programs? No one loves them, and they do have many unfortunate incentives attached to them where, if you do better than you get less, and so many people are under reporting how they're doing or or constructing a world where they're maximizing the benefits. When we talk about the cost of this thing, and you talk about in the book. There are normal people you talk about, it will cost, maybe one dollar and thirty cents trillion a year that would be. In addition to current budgeting, presumably you know honestly, that's that's, obviously a lot of spending off the top, but beyond that it does the question is too. Would this be limited in any way, because every government program is Ronald Reagan, said basically has a bill of the mortal life and if it were to start at one thousand dollars, month, inflation adjusted. How quickly does this become? somebody saying you know what it really ought to be three thousand dollars a month, because that's a popular pitch, everybody gets more free money, Where is the logical limit on and how do we limit that from just eating the rest of government? ' 'cause entitlement programs obviously are running, dragon? Now? They obviously represent two slash three of the federal bud,

adding another massive entitlement program on top that doesn't have a limiting principle. How do we limit that? So it doesn't become the over arcing goal of government and actually put too much of a press on the capitalist system. Yes, so the first is. I would disagree with the characterization of a dividend as an entitlement program and there's one state. That's had a dividend for thirty seven years and that state is Alaska, which is deep. Red was passed by a republican governor and he said look. Would you rather get the money? The government is just gonna screw it up or you the Alaska people and then Alaskan said us, and he said I thought you'd say that and then and now everyone in Alaska, I guess between one and two thousand dollars a year. No questions asked is created, thousands of jobs, improve children's health and nutrition. It's decreased income, inequality and here's the kicker, it's wildly popular in a deep red state that hates taxes because they see it's like this one of the few things the government gets right like I actually get this dividend. It's great. I look forward to it it's real. I can spend it

kids get it like life is better as a result, and so like it, it's different from an entitlement in both its structure and the way it's utilized. So that's that's a big picture number one. Two is right now, you're right about the fact that our entitlement programs are being ever higher in terms of both proportion of the federal budget and the enrollments there right now, more Americans on disability then work in construction as one example, and these trends are not going to abate they're actually going to accelerate. So the question is whether we're going to try and restructure those programs to something that we can all embracing get excited about. That will actually help american families and communities strong. Instead of waiting for more and more people to get debilitated by, for example, automation. Wave, that's going to displace the significant proportion of the people that hold the most common jobs in the economy, which were in the midst of right now and so the

question is, do you wait and say: ok, like I guess, we're going have more and more people qualifying for these welfare programs that have very negative incentives attached to them or are we? to own the reality and say: look we get it we're going to have this dividend and then we're going to reverse the incentives of those programs over time. Now to your question, like whether there's a logical limit, the reason why one thousand dollars a month is so magical is that it's enough to make a huge difference in the lives of individuals and families. It's gonna help children's health and graduation rates and mental health. You know, kids will have a real chance. Toe to learn will reduce domestic violence, This will reduce hospital visits, but it's not enough to be a labor replacement because, twelve thousand dollars is below the US poverty line of twelve thousand seven hundred dollars, and so people are still gonna have to work to prosper and have a life that anyone's is going to be excited about

so my goal would be to put in this thousand dollar dividend and then keep it at that level. But it's going to be up to you know, and this is a big leap, but we have to trust that future legislators legislatures will be responsible with the fact that I'd like to that. Well, but it. But again you can look at something a lot like Alaska we've had over thirty seven years and they've picked it to a particular resource, and so what what I'm suggesting is? What is the resource that we should take this too and the resource we should take? This, too, is technology where we have artificially tell a jance and self driving cars and trucks coming and Amazon this trillion dollar tech company. That's sucking up twenty million dollars in Commerson, causing thirty percent of malls and stores to close. They paid zero and federal taxes last year, and so what I'm going around saying is like that's, not their fault, it's their job to pay as little tax possible, but that means we've done a bad job, designing a system if Amazon's paying less in federal taxes than you are, or you know he

I mean. I wonder if that's true, though, because the fact is that we focused a lot on production, but we we focus very little in this conversation on consumption, and the fact is that when we talk about sort of this healthy on past, where everybody was employed and people in manufacturing and Sorry were employed, like you describe at one point then 1870s and read, because I think it's sort of telling it interesting. You say some x: common problems existed. Growth was uneven and inflation periodically high, which might be mild understatement in the seventies were not great, economically, but income. The quality was low, jobs provided benefits and mainstream businesses were the drivers of the economy. There are only free television networks and in my house we watch them on tv with an antenna that we fiddled with. To make the picture clear. Now, I'm not in logic, for a time where I had three channels on the tv where I had to fiddle with the antenna, there are obviously benefits and drawbacks to the economy. But the fact is that people are living significantly better on the average in the United States than they were in the 1970s, if only from the ability to consume more, I mean the fact is that we

we, everybody has a microwave. Everybody has a cell phone. Everybody has a car everybody. I mean we're talking poverty line. Folks have these things. So when we talk about what Amazon is not paying the fact is that Amazon not only is one of the bigger employers in the country, but Bazan is making legitimately millions of lives better on the consumption side. So are we focusing too much on the production side as opposed to the consumption side, especially considering that the number of people who are affected by consumption is one hundred percent, and the number of people who are affected by lack of of production are are significantly well you know it's it's one of the things that I say in the book, which is that if you have like this focus on consumption, I got a cheap stuff. An access data to apps on your smartphone are great, but they don't substitute for having a functioning mainstream. Or a job to go to, and so it's true that there are winners and losers in this economy. Unfor Only right now the losers are

outnumber the winners significantly by at least some measurements, and you by the seventies. To now income growth has stagnated for many Americans from the seventies to now in real terms, and the last three years we've seen this declining life expectancy, that's hand in hand with a surgeon suicides in drug overdoses, which is a sign that at least some Americans are experiencing below the lack of productive opportunity. Much more sharply than having access to cheap consumer goods can can somehow make up. For my, I think, that's how this is true, for a for a subset of the population is also for that for a hundred percent of the population, the consumer, because he's stuff yeah yeah, I mean it was a huge seven, pretty fantastic and great stuff in and if the I Ubi is that raising living tender down in generalized level results in better outcomes in in a variety of areas, then one of the ways to do that is to continue to provide that cheap stuff, and so there there is a balance here. I would assume I I like cheap stuff

So let's talk about your view of capitalism, because I think that there's there's something interesting there, so You talk about what you call human capitalism, the idea of changing our notion of capitalism where Essentia, essentially it changes how we see the market, you talk, you say, human capitalism would have a few. Tenants one humanity is more important than money to the? U set up an economy is each person, not each dollar and three markets exist. Serve our common goals and values. I'm sort of an abstract in a vacuum, I agree with a lot of the stuff. Obviously I mean I have kids. I have parents or humans matter more than money and if you ask me to sell my truck, Obviously the answer is no. I like my kids C, although it depends on the day it is if you're asking you know the units of an economy dollars versus verse, people there. I start to have a little more trouble just on the economic level, because what I'm actually paying for is a skill set, not a person. Obviously the value of each human being is infinite, but the value of human beings labor is certainly not then, when you say, markets exist serve our common goals and eyes. This is what it's really interesting, 'cause

As I mentioned, I mentioned Tucker 'cause. I think that you and Tucker Carlson are on the same page with regard to some of this stuff, so Bernie Sanders for that matter. The idea that markets exist to serve people, I think, is something with which I disagree and I'll explain when when we talk about markets, my view of the market is essentially a recognition that my labor belongs to make a free market is just my liver, belongs to me in the same way. That free speech is my viewpoint, belongs to me. You can't say that the markets exist to serve our common goals anymore than you say, that free speech exist to serve our common goals. Free speech is just a recognition that I, as an individual human being have worth, and so free markets are there. Thing is a recognition that I, as an individual human being. My labor has worth so the idea that the market is just something that is an institution that we have come up with together and then we play with I'm not sure. That's an disk option of what markets actually represent? There's an underlying value to Hugh in labor, that is not just a common system. We all decided to come up with one it's just a recognition that I can.

Yeah, my labor and you can buy my labor is: is that wrong? Well that. So to me that the fundamental shift that we have to start getting our arms around is that certain people's law labor is not going to be worth enough for them to make the kind of living that is required for them to to live, what they would consider a good life. And so, if you look at uh look. A truck driver is an example, because I use them because they're the most like clear. So you have three slash. Two. One million truckers making about forty six thousand dollars here and and that it's a punishing job there behind the wheel of this truck for a PTA fourteen hours a day and they're away from their families for days a week, um and the rest of it, but their market value with the market of their their time behind the wheel. You know it's about forty six thousand dollars a year now, if five to ten years,

So now, my friends in Silicon Valley come up with trucks that can largely drive themselves and then we're going to go to that truck driver and say: hey, turns out your market value like your time behind the wheel, not forty, six thousand anymore. It's twenty! Six, zero, it's like what you know, whatever the the number is, and so there is like a like a change building up in our economy that the freedom to trade, your labor for money, to make a good living for yourself like that's actually going to end up breaking down in more and more situations where that truck driver, it's not no less willing to trade his time I mean he still wants to do it, but then the freight company is going to be like turns out. Your time is not worth what it was, and it's not just that It could be a radiologist who makes hundreds of one thousand dollars and they interpret radiation. Film say I'm very willing to do this. Like I like getting paid hundreds of one thousand dollars, then we say hey now: they I can see tumors, you can't can refer to mill million the films, not thousands can see shades of.

They are invisible to human eye. You lose your time. All of a sudden goes from worth, under a thousand dollars to let's call it- you know like half that are zero or whatever the number. So I I ii, I think that it worked for a long time when the average American could show up and say, if I willing to work hard, I've got a strong back. Like you know, I can make a decent living for myself. My family, like it wasn't the seventies. Where I showed up even in manufacturing plant. I may be able to provide a middle class life for myself and my family, but then, if that stops working, then we need to start thinking differently about how the labor market functions. So, if we've moved beyond sort of the concept of free markets, as places where we can alienate labor, because some people are not capable of alienating their labor. Their labor is just not worth. Anything, then is the idea that the collective owns the labor of everybody and gets to redistribute the product of that labor. Is that what we're talking about here? Because- territory. No, I agree with that and that's actually the outcome we have to avoid if at all possible,

and this is one reason why my flagship proposals we give every american one thousand dollars a month free and clear, and that doesn't somehow usurp your labor your time that actually, if anything, liberates your your labor, your that. If you know you have a little bit more freedom from scarcity, then you can start making moves towards the sort of work that you want for yourself, that you value that you would find fulfilling and exciting, So one of the things that you talk about- and I think this is- is interesting because you are obviously a big believer in the ability of people to make choices with their own money, and this is why I believe in the Freedom dividend is the idea, I'm giving you the cash it's your decision, what to do with it at one point in the book you talk about the idea that folks, who are poor in the United States are actually good with money that that, essentially, that they are are going to be responsible with the money that they have. You say on page one hundred and eighty five, the idea that poor people will be irresponsible with their money and squander it seems to be a product of deep seated biases rather than emblematic of the truth- and you do this-

sort of broader attack on the meritocratic idea in which you say well, you know this completely a meritocracy. Obviously there's some people who are born into situations. They can't control you don't always control your level of merit that sort of a meritocratic myth- and this is a position that by people including Ross dude that is sort of a more populist conservative at the New York Times wonder, however, if if that's true and the reason that I say that is because if you look at the spending habits of lower lower down on the income chain. Those spending habits don't tend to be more frugal than or at the upper levels of the income chain, at least not until those people at the upper levels are pretty secure in being at the upper levels. You see conspicuous consumption, among people who are earning an insane amount of money because they can afford it, but the way that those people largely became people who can afford to do. That is a certain level of frugality. I take, for example, the buying of every ticket, so the lowest income households in the United States on average spend for twelve dollars annually on lottery tickets, almost three in ten Americans in the lowest in

come bracket paid play the lottery once a week. Now we know just statistically is flushing money down the toilet. It's complete waste of time. There's no to do that- and I understand people do this out of despair, but that doesn't change the economic truth, which is that people may not make good decisions, with their money, which is one of the reasons we have programs like social security. We don't trust you to keep your own money and put in, 401k account. We believe that you're going to take that money and blow it on whatever you're going to blow it on. Are you worried that we grant Ubi and then people just don't spend it on health insurance or they don't spend it on saving for the future. Instead, they just spend it on whatever they're going to spend it on, provides a temporary boost for the economy and we're back in the same position, because people at lower levels, at least people who tend to stay at lower levels, people who are permanently poor in the United States, don't tend to make great decisions with their money. Are you concerned about that? Yeah? It's uh Concern for sure, and one of the things that that drives me is

there's been a lot of research over the fact that, if you're poor, if you're stressed out about your month to month bills, it actually consumes a lot of your mental bandwidth, and it reduces your decision. Making ability reduces your functional intelligence by thirteen IQ points or one standard deviation, and so, if you get the boot off of someone's throat and say, look you're going to be hear your kids going to be here all will be. Well, then there are incentives to save will hopefully be higher. Now, I'm not now enough to think that, like everyone is going to go and do exactly what you know, I would see as like optimally responsible with their money. But big Jerry to return to original point. I think it's their money like. I think that if you're a citizen and shareholder of this country you know we can easily afford a dividend of one thousand dollars a month and if you make a bad decision or decision, I would consider like pour in January. You know maybe make a better deal and in February, maybe make a decision to March. But it's going to be up to you. It's going to be

You know your life, your choices, and I certainly do not think that the government saying like hey, we think you should just use the money on this, or that, like would be, be a better way to go. That's a pretty libertarian idea! Actually, so that doesn't seem to fit necessarily within sort of the democratic belief that the Democratic Party side, that when money is signed to you, that we have to kind of stand guard over the money There a lot of libertarians believe in Ubi, and they have some sort of libertarian view, which is do you do with it, what you want? You live with the consequences, and obviously that comes with with downpipes from. I think that the left wing point of view you know. I think many Americans have lost confidence, that what we need is another program where someone comes in and says hey, you know what we think is best for you. This so you know. I mean I I think many Americans are gonna, be very excited about being able to make their own decisions on this. So, let's talk about the cost side of this, so you proposed

value added tax. You point out that in Europe there is value added tax, which is essentially a consumption tax you? You want to add that on top of the income tax and the business tax, as opposed to replacing it? If we're talking about replacing it, I'm on board with you man, I am totally for a vat replacing whatever income tax system. We have right now. Where do you think the breaking point isn't as far as how my the system can support. In terms of taxation right now we're living pretty have a Leon Debt, obviously, and adding a bunch of new costs in the of you be? I owe or quashing economic growth to a certain extent because, as you increase the tax rate, a certain point and had a breaking point, I didn't: where do you think the tax the ideal tax realize you're you're setting taxes? How does the idea, tax system work. Well, I agree with you that, ideally, we are not taxing labor in the same what we do now, because you wanted tax things you need more of, and in my mean we need as much work and work like arrangement as possible.

And so ideally, you would find ways to tax things that are not labor arrangements, and so we You say like hey, if you like swap out. You know Saturday CUP titles, for, like I consumption tax you're on board. That to me should be the long term vision. The question is how you get from here to there and so the way I would start is by implementing this value added tax that path european levels quite modest, but it would help capture some of the gains that Amazon and these other mega tech companies are experiencing and return those gains tow the american people and some of it will float back upto. You know Jeff and Jeff and Amazon again because you just buy it extra toaster- but you know you're like a lot of it- will go to your local restaurants in the mechanic in the tutoring service. In the hardware store- and you know- it'll help replenish the main street economy and create jobs, but there is to me like a movement in that direction, we need to get to 'cause right now, we're just axing in my opinion, or were texting highly and efficiently.

And you look around in the way that we're trying to address this is like hey. It's like there's like this high marginal tax rate. I try and explain to people all the time. Look: Jeff Basals, where the one hundred and sixty billion dollars- and most of that is on stock and it went from zero to being worth one hundred and sixty million dollars and he's way too smart to have a taxable event like I can ratchet up their marginal x rate, very, very high, and it's not going to help anything. Is this exactly by the way? What what was in the nineteen fifties when people say that there is a ninety one top tax tax bracket? The nineteen fifties. No one paid that percentage, because there were a bunch of loopholes in the law that allowed people to escape, paying that percentage. The effective marginal tax bracket at that point was effectively the same as it is today. People are basically the same amount of taxes. Yeah, like people are very, very smart they're. Very, very you worked with a lot of those people. Right I mean this is tax avoidance is, is a strategy and people people will do that. Some of our smartest friends and law school like helping people right, Texas, right now, of course, so so it and by the way, what what one of the things that's fun about talking to you hey is that you and I have very some

backgrounds, and I work for a law firm for legitimately ten months- and I was like I can't do this- I'm out. There's just no way to do this on. Ask you one more question about you it's more of a general question. They don't get to some of your other proposals because one of the things that so fascinating about your candidates, is that you have proposals from here to your policy heavy duty, so I final question, which is how much can money actually do? I wrote an entire book which right now is doing very well the right side of history in which I talk about, I think the lack of meaning and purpose in people's law. And I wonder whether signing a check is going to actually a levy get that in any real way. It seems, like there's, been a loss of social capital and social fabric that can't necessarily be filled with a government program. And that, no matter what government program we propose, if that social capital is not restored through certain basic beliefs in in fundamental principles of the country, certain freedoms in certain beliefs in community, and the kind of charitable organization that you are the head of that it's going to be very difficult for people to.

Meaning, even if they're, making a little more money, because the fact is we're the wealthiest country in the history of the world. People are exorbitantly wealthy, the poorest among us I mean the rich would have been clamoring in eighteen, eighty or for that matter, one thousand. Nine hundred and twenty to live like the poorest among us live now so is there can we feel what is effectively a spiritual hole with a government program? This is to me the generational challenge that we're facing is: how do you create more community ties and structure and purpose and fulfillment and pass forward for Americans who feel this central void in their lives and, of course, like one thousand bucks a month does not fill that void, but and here's to me the path forward, is, if you take a town in Missouri with fifty thousand adults and they're struggling with that sense of purpose, and then you say: hey Good NEWS now, there's there are fifty million dollars in your community every month? So what happens to that money? Some of it goes into local businesses. There's a person there. He wanted to start a bakery. The bakery

dumb idea. But now the bakery is a good idea yeah. He then he starts it. Then he hires a couple of people and then people like his his big goods and then some of that money goes into religious institutions. Some of that money goes into non profit. Some of that money goes into arts organizations and cultural organizations, and then you end up giving people an opportunity to at least start to address that new sense of structure and purpose and full and meaning by making it so that everyone feels like they have some value that are going to die like that. You know, like their kids, have a future and then putting at least the beginning of some resource into their hands to try and rebuild, and maybe for some of them, it's like hey. Now, I'm gonna leave town like like that could be the way like I'm to rebuild, but that TIM, he is the generational challenge. How do you restore that sense of self worth and social capital and the rest of it So it's not like money does that. But what money he does do? Is it money helps create the conditions where we can at least start to try and address that

challenge. Ok. So now I want to race through some of the policy proposal and get one out of the way immediately, because people think the reason you came on here was to discuss circumcision, which was not the reason you came on the show and not the reason. I asked you on the show. So your position, circumcision, your anti circumcision, but you are not in favor of banning it- is that correct yeah. That's certainly right. I mean um uh. You know I two young boys and well. You know when the first was born. My wife, dug into the various and of reasons for certain sizing, your your, your kids and and she was unconvinced of- and she convinced me to be- I'm convinced so we say, but I've attended my my friends press for their their son, and you know it's up to parents on what they want to do, and certainly for any like religious or call. The reason why people should should be free to it to a doctor. They want their self serve on local because it you know that there's some, the medical evidence is at best conflicting. Sometimes it's trendy. Sometimes it's not there's talk about. You know you're the prevention of now: cancer urinary tract infection and stuff, but you know the fact is that as long

not looking to ban it. I don't care right, your personal come. It is your perspective five and I have to say how taken aback. I was at what thingy, became, I mean you know I mean this is this is stupidity of the internet? Now let me ask you about that, because the stupidity of the internet is truly astonishing. If you look at your and the on line, and you look at the media cover it. They cover it not as just a mainstream canned to see of ideas, but it's something we weird and curious, because you have a lot of young white men who followed bill online and because you speak about the middle of the country. That largely has not been talk about. There's a lot of focus right now in the Democratic Party on the problems, racism or sexism or bigotry and you've talked about some of those things. But you've talked more about the fact that there is essentially an underclass of well many of whom are white living in the middle of country in an area where technology is eliminating their jobs and the media

thus limit have thus labeled you some sort of near all right er? Where do you think this is coming from? You know uh? I mean like uh: I think that we need to start just tryingto have like uh, honest conversations about the problems on the ground in this country, and certainly that's my goal as a candidate um I'm not quite sure where, like I've been frankly a little bit surprised by the sponsor. I don't quite fit the description, but you know what I'm I'm happy to say that now were rising to appoint some pulling at three percent and where we're raising you know, hundreds of thousand dollars per per week and everything else that the mainstream media will now have to reckon with this set of ideas, but I agree with you that The media response to us has been curious, Third point: I'm about to become much more mainstream. I believe- and you know it's, but it's been an education for me.

Ok, so I want to ask you about your perspective on health care. So you talk in your book. The war on normal people. You talk about what you would do with the health care. Sis can you recommend a single payer healthcare system? Obviously, I'm a massive opponent of a single payer, healthcare system that is acknowledging the problems- that employment based health care system that something both of us agree on and I would prefer a system where people are effectively paying for their own health care, so they can actually see the cost of what it is that they are consuming, and then we can, for coalitions as we do and associations to to help defray the cost for people who have pre existing conditions and all the rest you meant a single payer health care system. Why do you think that's the best option? Well, I think you and I might have had similar experiences where, if you run a small company, you know your you see that our current employment based system is a real weight on the economy where it makes it harder to hire people that makes it harder to treat someone as a full time employee, because you have these incentive to treat them as a contractor.

It makes it harder to start a business and makes it hard to change jobs. It's like this massive source of friction, and so the question is: how do you separate healthcare from your employment situa is right now you can imagine how many more entrepreneurs are being the US if they didn't have to stress out about health care for themselves their families. I mean there'll, be many many more people starting businesses. Now I agree with you that there has to be some kind of skin in the game like it can't be that if you just show up it's like always cost free, because you know there's some people that are hyper contracts like a lot of treatment, so there should be some sort of individual skin. The game that said, I feel that health care is an environment where the market is going to be an imperfect solution, because one you get very cost insensitive. If you have a serious illness or your loved one is seriously ill choose like the pricing is very confusing and opaque. You know and then you're relying upon specialists for various pieces of information, say: oh you need this. You don't need that,

and so it's not like, like the same sort of market as many many other consumer goods or experiences where you can trust that, like you know, you're going to say, like hey, I I'm educated on what that product means for me, so I think that we need to try and get the cost down and right now we're living in the worst of all worlds, where we're spending twice as much on our health, CARE's, other societies toe worse results on, and it's a massive impediment to our economy and hiring and dynamism s. So I I just think that, having a robust public option, you can improve the access, bring down the costs just because we're saddled with this in friendly and efficient system right now, so that they're a couple of points to be made in defense of the american healthcare system. You know putting aside the employment basis, which I think is deep. The wrong and and was initiated in response to actually wage controls in the nineteen forties and the one of the things to be said is that when it comes to five your cancer survival rates, the United States still ranks number one.

When you remove homicide in car accident, the United States still has the longest life expectancy. Yes were expensive, but if you look at us on a per gdp per capita GDP basis, we're, not all that far out of the realm of possibility, because the fact is that we're very, very wealthy country people are choosing to spend we develop more than half of all new medical patents. So there's some upsides to the fact that we have a market in healthcare, and one thing I do want to say is: I would not like I'm not for a system where where somehow eliminating private insurers, where there would be these gold plated, concierge private health plans. That would still have massive financial incentives and resources for various forms of inner and the rest of it. So what what there's? There's? One point in the book where you were you talk about doctors, and in this I took a look: personally in the sense that, as I've mentioned many times, my wife is a doctor. Gone through one million years of training at this point she. Finally, what kind of doctor is she the family, medicine, Doc and she will be finished her? Yes, she will be finishing her residency, this upcoming June and lit, early since we're dating she's been on this path. Right once we got married when she was

you're in college and then she a couple of years working then she went to medical school and now medical school and I'm doing the residency. I'm doing the math we married years exactly almost eleven years in July, so well done so she's been doing for a very long time- and you talk in the book about, This idea we're going to have to shift how doctors think of doing their jobs and you sort of suggest that doctors It have to become more altruistic that, instead of seeing this profession as way of making money, they're going to have to see it as just you'll make some money, but you won't make enormous money. The fact is that you're not going to get people to go through a ten to twelve years system of education. If you're telling him, on the other end, they're going to get paid like postal postal workers and certainly not postal workers, but one hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year. I mean the fact is that, thank God, I've been able to pay for my wife's education, this whole way. But if we had not, then she was working below minimum wage for in her residency

because she's working hours and hours and hours and fifty grand a year she's working legitimately one thousand eight hundred and ninety hours a week. And then she has most of her colleagues have hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical school debt and they're going to have to pay all of that off it seems to me that if we have a supply and demand problem, we need to increase the supply doctors in the way to do. That is to actually incentivize people to join the medical profession, not by telling them that they need to be paid less in the name of altruism. But they need to be paid more for through through transparency and pricing and being able to decide their own standards. Have you seen why are supply of doctors is constrained lemon? Yes, amazing people, people don't want to deal with the administration. They don't want to deal with the insurance, but it's because the doctors in the medical, so one it's incredibly licensing as well. Yes, it's incredibly expensive to educate a doctor, and the supply has been constrained for years, even as many many communities have become, what's called primary care.

Deserts, because when someone- and that's one reason why I'm congratulating your wife on being a family medicine doctor- is that when she's in training, she's racking up all this debt and then she's like wait a minute. If I specialize in search, things I'll get paid a lot more than if I become a primary care doctor and if I live someplace where they can like afford to pay me more than I live better than if I go to some room. Community or small town or something where maybe they don't, I have a doctor like me: maybe they could really use a doctor like me, but my life going to be harder, I'm going to get paid less, etc. So, right now to me you are one hundred percent right. Then we need to increase the supply, but it's not a compensation issue. We just need to increase the supply, because, right now the doctors and the medical schools have not created new pasta, train doc,

and that's been a problem for years and decades. Well, it's certainly true that we have to deregulate a lot of medical licensing, so your libertarian. On that one too, I mean it's, like all of you know, having nurse practitioners being able to do more things to be either good. Thank yes, I would take really when we get really good a I- and this is something the doctors have fought- is that if, if you were to say to a doctor or the doctor's lobby group. It's like hey, there's a primary care in desert like we need to send someone over there and they need to be able to treat patients. Doctors been, you know, needs to be an MD and then you're like, but wait. There's no empty, their lily lily and none of you wants to move there, and so we need to make it so that nurse Missioners can do more, and this is particularly true. When we're going to have a I that can at least help diagnose the significant proportion of conditions and recommend treatment? And then you can always refer to a doctor. If it's, you know

If it's helpful, I mean we are in on this, but I think the question is when it comes to Medicare, for all the truth is that fewer people are going in the medical profession. They're choosing to be lawyers are choosing to be a businessman specifically because they don't want to, deal with the hassle of the government, there lots of doctors increasingly, who won't even take Medicare they'd, rather take private insurance, because the Medicare Anb reimbursement rates are sixty percent I and you are mandated to get to a certain number of patients. In many cases, if you work in one of these hospitals to ship so right now the double whammy going on, and so what you're suggesting is like? Hey it's because of low reimbursement rates, which is certainly an issue, but the other issue that the tendon, which is at least as important, is just the amount of bureaucracy and paperwork in in ministry Qinan like these doctors, I'm friends with, because I'm asian I have a lot of doctor friends where they say it's, like I'd, love to be just actually be seeing a patient, but instead for every you know, like

minutes. I spend with a patient like I'm spending, or one of my staff is spending. You know four minutes on like documentation or administration or Bill a lot of medical liability. A lot of that has to do do as well with with regulation of these insurance companies and lack of transparency, because the truth is it you, walk into a doctor's office right now and you ask a doctor how much it actually cost they have no idea they wanted a minute to the insurance company. A lot of this seems like regulatory problems to me, not necessarily to be cured by the collective bargaining of Medicare. Well, we've created this incredibly busy in team labyrinth, and so the question is how How do you clean it up and how do you free up doctors to actually focus on patients and care rather than billing codes and paperwork, and that is the path that we have to take now. They're different, you know, like people can can have

approaches. But that is to me where we, let me hang up totally agree and and to me that the most obvious example of of the free market work is concierge Karen you're, starting to see this rise using apps that are designed to have doctors just arrive at your door. The doctor comes to you in many cases so, and it seems to me that that you know will will differ on this, but it seems the free market. You're free markets actually do apply and obtain in the vast majority of cases when it comes to health care, just like they do any Nelson, declaring something not a good, doesn't make it more plentiful and more robust yeah. So let me just say that I think bureaucracy is the enemy and my goal. To to diminish it, not elevated, ok! So let's talk for a second about summer the other proposal. Some of them, I think, are fun. I totally agree with you. The NCAA should pay athletes. Frankly, I think that we should stop college athletics altogether. I will say right in the middle of March madness. I don't even care man, because the fact is that, if you're going to college- and you are going to a top college- not to actually get a degree but we're going to basically bring you here for years- You have to try out for the NBA and then there make millions of dollars off totally on board with that one. Let's talk about the

a new deal. So you are you say you're a line and with the with a green which deal which part of it, I the not for unable for unable and unwilling to killing the farting cows um. I'm for the fact that climate change is a. It is a growing threat where the last four years, when the for warmest years recorded human history and that are projections about what's going to happen on Ford's they're getting steadily worse. And so the question is: is there something that we can do about it? And this is a space where the government to me he has to play a key role, because the financial incentives right now are towards forms of energy that you know are just more developed and more economically advantageous at this point. So if someone

says hey. We need to move dramatically in a direction towards renewable energy. Like I, I applaud that vision, because I think that is where we need to go the the way. I I disagree with some people. Some other people on this is that we sometimes but pretend that the United States is somehow a hundred percent of global emissions, so we're about fifteen percent, and so even if we were to go whole hog, we would probably diminish the rate incrementally, and so I'm for trying to address and mitigate the worst effects of a warming planet, with the recognition that it's probably going to happen, whether we move towards renewable source of energy or not so this hilarious, because you and I are exactly the same page on this- also- you have endorsed nuclear power, for example, or many of your colleagues. I don't even know how it's possible to say that you wanted to global warming but you're also against nuclear power. That just seems completely mad to me, yeah I and I'm I'm- I mean nuclear has to be a big part of the the the solution if you're in and destruction. Okay. So let's talk also about it, the what one thing is I really enjoy. Their candidacy is that you do have so many

and some of them are really kind of heterodox. So you want revive can you talk about reviving earmarks, it's actually something, it's a third rail of politics, you're not allowed to say that you're in favor of earmarks, but the truth is that the death of earmarks is actually led to budget impasse is because will have no incentive to there's nothing to freak in bargain with anymore. It's like you know. I show up in your office Ok, we gotta make a deal like. What are you going to do for me? It's like. I can't do anything. It's like there's no way to get anything done. So that's a practical policy. One of the areas where I do wonder about the practicality of is you say that you're in favor of a four week paid leave policy for all full time workers and you say it's a mandatory four week paid leave policies. Can you explain what you mean by that? Well, so I think it was. Ah you know it's like there were projections that our work weeks we get shorter and shorter over time became more productive and people were projecting. Like a fifteen hour work week, but that's going the other direction and studies

we have shown that it's not necessarily that our productivity is in lockstep step with the amount of time we spend, and so I think that is certain amount time off and exams would small various small businesses and the rest of it that you know that that it might somehow be disruptive until your operations, but, generally speaking, I think time off is good for people. It's good for organizations is good for processes like when. When I ran a company, I would tell people to take time off. And they would never do it and they wouldn't do it, because I wasn't doing it and then, when I realized ok, I get it. I need to do it and and you will do it and then one beholds. You know, I think, like I'd, come back refreshed and with like a different outlook or new ideas, and the same would happen for them. So to me you know it's a good way for an organization to have to like evolve and adapt so that it's not like you have to be on the the like,

on the front line. All the time I mean listen, I very much love to take four weeks vacation this year. I highly doubt that I will, despite the jewish holidays, my I guess my string is whenever you have the government sort of just creating goods is it that a damper on the economy and also aren't you gonna get the same thing that you have with the tax code where basically businesses just hire part time. Workers businesses just decide that they're going to hire independent contractors they're not subject to to such regulations. You know I I again, I mean what we have exemptions for people, so I'm sure that, in your case, if you do not want to take for, four weeks. I'm sure you would not have I say, so you know like that. The goal is not to somehow make it harder for businesses to operate, and I understand at the margins might seem like that. That's the case like it tied to me. It actually helps make organizations more sustainable and- and I am somewhat more organic. So what? When the things that you've talked about is getting the government involved in sort of how we consume information. So you've talked about the department of the attention economy, which would basically be governed

police in the amount of time on social media- and I don't really time but also just the way the social media apps are designed, because, like one of my friends, Tristan Harris who worked on it, it's like look. We do We have brilliant engineers. Turning these super computers into slot machines that are hypnotising teenage girls and like making everyone depressed and that's where their financial incentives are. So it's not just time on the app it's actually the way the apps are design I mean, did you fear that giving the government that kind of power leads to the power of censorship? Obviously, they've been a lot of complaints from the right from people who are heterodox politically that the social media companies are cracking down on particular political points of view. Putting the government in charge of this sort of stuff can easily slide over into government. Censorship where they say that they are policing the form of the app but in reality, but they're. Actually, policing is the form of consumption of contents. You do worry about that. You know I feel, like those concerns are somewhat less pressing than they were in a time when, when we had limited means of accessing information are consuming. Information like if you have intense, if you, if you were like a just like Snapchat, does

mine, algorithms, where it's like hey. You know like stop pinging the teenage kid all the time like I I'm optimistic that that would not necessarily curb peoples, people's access to quality, political information you know one of the things that you talked about from not mistaken. You talked about sort of a kind regulation of the news media, where the government police is the sort of information being distributed. His news, that's where I start to get really frightened, because the fact is that the government in the business of is whether you are a fan of Trump or not a fan of Trump. If you are on the right, you're afraid of Barack Obama? Doing this to appear on the left are afraid of Donald Trump doing this to you. How exactly do you restrict the powers of government when it comes to intervention in that sort of stuff? Well, so I was looking at some of the models abroad. 'cause right now we're in a bit of a mess in term,

of our information consumption. There are very powerful market dynamics where, if I'm? Ah, if I'm like a you, know a media company, I figure out who, if I cater toe to getting like you know the most extreme thirty percent, like excited that that's actually better for my business than being more like moderate, it's like it's like click bait, but Clickbait across. Information silos, and so I looked at what some other countries have done and that, if someone has like demonstrably false information, then you come and say: look like that was actually like. You know like fabricated and then just an apology or there's some kind of process, but we're at a point now, where we legitimately have a hard time, agreeing on facts and we at least some foreign actors that are taking advantage of, like this soft underbelly, to sort of gin up various like groups against each other and and make it so that people can't even trust what they're seeing and this

before deep fakes and the rest of it arrived where literally they could show you- and I, like you, know, doing something. Then it's like well. It must be really through the internet, so uh. So it's a mess and it's a situation where you have to look at it with. Like a you know, a person I can say: okay, it's a mess and it's gonna get messier like what are possible ways out of the and at least to me that, like you know the government may have a role to play. In saying this is speak. This is fraudulent. This is from a foreign actor. This is like not does not true in the absence of any sort of action in that that direction then we're in for an even worse environment in terms of polarization. In my opinion, yeah I mean it did to me the You see there are their sponsors that the government will empowering them to determine what is true and false, sometimes shades over into an opinion on a fact. The government decides it does what politic act as to it to us on a regular basis and gets into a little bit of of dangerous

territory in a second, I ask you about race. I have one final question for you, which is and we stand racially in the country. But if. Want to hear Andrew gangs answer. You actually have to be a daily wire subscriber to subscribe doverdelaware dot com click subscribe. You can hear the end of our conversation over there. Well, thank you so much for stopping by it really means a lot, I think, is a great discussion. I'm sure that our listeners are going to have a lot of thoughts in response. If people give your campaign, they can check out what Yang two thousand and twenty dot com- yes, yeah, two thousand and twenty dot com, or just Google Andrew Yang, but would certainly love to have everyone's helping support in this campaign. Is we're gonna, make history together, we're to bring the revolution of reason to the american people. It's not left or right, it's forward. Thank you

much. I really appreciate, and thanks for stopping by thank you. Benson was the Ben Shapiro, show Sunday specials produced by Jonathan, Hey executive producer, Jeremy, boring associate producer Mathis Glover edited by Donovan Valor Audio was mixed by Dylan. Cakes and make up is by just what all their title: graphics by Sylvia Angle of the bench Shapiro show Sunday Special is a daily wire production. Copyright daily wire, two thousand and nineteen