Podcast: Andrew Yang Shows His Work

Transcript

Listen: Last year, no one knew his name. Today the Yang Gang is growing as fast as his campaign is raising money. But when it comes to his flagship policy proposal, do the numbers add up? Ian Bremmer interviews Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, and the two talk about universal basic income, technology, foreign policy, and why Yang isn't thrilled about Mike Bloomberg entering the race.

TRANSCRIPT: Andrew Yang Shows His Work

Andrew Yang:

What I'm saying to Americans around the country is that technology is the oil of the 21st century. Our data is now worth more than oil, and we're not seeing any of that value.

Ian Bremmer:

What would you do with a thousand extra dollars a month? Would you pay off your credit card debt? Would you boost your 401k? How about a trip to Vegas? Hello and welcome to the GZERO World Podcast. I'm Ian Bremmer. You knew that. This is the place to hear extended interviews with the world leaders, newsmakers, and experts I feature on my public television show every week. Today I'm talking with a presidential candidate who's almost single-handedly brought universal basic income into the American zeitgeist, Andrew Yang. I'll ask him why he thinks UBI is needed now more than ever, where it's been tried before, and how he plans to pay for it. The son of Taiwanese immigrants, New Yorker, and former tech exec has made that proposal his signature platform in his run for president.

Andrew Yang:

Under my plan, every American adult will receive $1,000 a month free and clear, paid for by a new tax on the companies that benefit most from automation.

Ian Bremmer:

And the concept is gaining momentum. 48% of Americans support a universal basic income, that's up from just 12% a decade ago, but this idea or some version of it isn't exactly new, nor is it exclusively democratic. Let's rewind about 50 years. Richard Nixon's plan in 1969 offered a basic income to poor families, and his proposal even passed the House, only to be later trapped in the Senate. Since then, the idea could take hold in only a few smaller programs, notably Alaska. There, since 1982, an oil trust fund offers residents an annual stipend. Then in 2016, the idea as a national concept surfaced again. Hillary Clinton, not exactly Richard Nixon, and her team contemplated using it in her bid for the presidency. Ultimately, it proved too complicated, and by complicated, I mean expensive. Various estimates placed the cost at well over $3 trillion a year, or roughly one fifth of America's GDP.

Ian Bremmer:

How that tab would be paid isn't fully clear. It's also not clear whether it would supplement existing welfare programs or just replace them, and don't forget taxes. UBI's proponents like Andrew Yang, however, say a flurry of new entrepreneurism would unleash a torrent of economic growth that would help offset costs. It would unshackle America's labor force, while also serving as counterweight to jobs loss brought on by automation and artificial intelligence, and that last point is of growing concern. Just Google, "Will machines?" and see what you get. Researchers are divided on the extent of potential job loss and the impact on wages, but some estimates place nearly half of America's occupations at risk of automation within 20 years. How society addresses that still isn't clear, but what is clear is that the future of work is going to need a plan. So let's get to it. Here's my interview with presidential candidate Andrew Yang.

Announcer:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of service, safety, and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.

Ian Bremmer:

Andrew Yang for president. I think that's how I introduce you. Good to see you.

Andrew Yang:

Sure. Andrew Yang.

Ian Bremmer:

Yeah.

Andrew Yang:

Running for President 2020.

Ian Bremmer:

Very good. You're the guy that is talking about technology.

Andrew Yang:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

I mean, among other things and other candidates are not. Universal basic income, though, I've seen you talk about it a lot. Why do you think, not why is that your issue, but why do you think it's not other people's issues?

Andrew Yang:

Most of the other candidates are from an era where technology was not the driving force, that was transforming the economy and the way it is now, and so if you've been in DC for 20, 30 years, having your emails read to you, you might not understand what's happening with AI and software and autonomous vehicles that's around the corner, so we have to speed DC up. DC has something of a lag time when it comes to technology issues of, let's call it 20 to 30 years, and this is going from inconvenient to catastrophic, and that's one reason I'm running for president.

Ian Bremmer:

And we see a lot of CEOs out there that are saying that, "Hey, I mean, yes, jobs are going to be displaced, but an awful lot more jobs are being created."

Aaron Levie:

In many respects, we're going to create far more jobs in new industries and in new areas that we can't yet foresee than the ones that we reduce.

Ian Bremmer:

Indeed, every time we've had an industrial revolution in the past, ultimately we get to a better place. Do you think ultimately we get to a better place here and it's just a question of smoothing the dip?

Andrew Yang:

Well, the best studies I've seen say that this industrial revolution, this fourth industrial revolution, is going to be two to three times more dramatic than the industrial revolution at the turn of the century. And that first industrial revolution included mass riots that killed dozens of Americans, caused billions of dollars worth of damage. We have Labor Day as a holiday because of these riots. We implemented universal high school in 1911, in part, as a response. If this is going to be two to three times more dramatic, then you would expect, unfortunately, a lot of disorder and possibly even violence, and then you would expect a very dramatic response.

Ian Bremmer:

Your solution, or part of your solution, is universal basic income, every American. You call it a freedom dividend.

Andrew Yang:

Yes, because it tests better.

Ian Bremmer:

And you know what tests better because that was actually your previous incarnation, right?

Andrew Yang:

Well, yeah. We just tested out a series of descriptors and labels for universal basic income, and the freedom dividend was the most popular.

Ian Bremmer:

So, crowdsourced, thousand dollars a month, every American gets it.

Andrew Yang:

Yes, that's right.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, you've said as well that in states around the country, truckers, drivers, most common job getting displaced real fast. How does a thousand dollars replace that job? How does it help them?

Andrew Yang:

Well, a thousand dollars a month would be a game changer for millions of Americans. Right now, 78% of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. Almost half can't afford an unexpected $400 bill, so with this freedom dividend, you have this money coming in, you build up a little bit of a cushion, and then if your job does disappear, you have a runway to start making changes. It's not an existential threat. You're not going to go home and say, "How am I going to pay next month's rent?" Instead, you have a bit of a cushion and then this thousand dollars a month coming in after you lose your job, which will help point you in the right direction.

Ian Bremmer:

Alaska's had a form of universal basic income for a long time now.

Andrew Yang:

Yeah, the petroleum dividend, it was passed in the 1980s and it's immensely popular to this day. Every Alaskan is getting between one and $2,000 a year funded by oil money and what I'm saying to Americans around the country is that technology is the oil of the 21st century. Our data is now worth more than oil, and we're not seeing any of that value.

Ian Bremmer:

We're also running a trillion dollar deficit now. The economy is softening a little bit. If you were president in 2021, you'd be facing the largest deficit in American history at a time when everyone in Congress would be saying, "We've got to belt tighten." And yet, we're talking, your principle, your signature plan would cost trillions of dollars. How do we deal with that?

Andrew Yang:

I've run businesses and organizations before, and you look at both revenue and expenses. We have a massive revenue problem in this country, where trillion dollar tech companies like Amazon are paying literally zero in federal taxes. If we give the American people our fair share of every Amazon sale, every Google search, every Facebook ad, every robot truck mile, eventually every AI unit of work, then we can generate hundreds of billions of new revenue very, very quickly. It helps make the freedom dividend eminently affordable, particularly when after this money comes into our hands, it's going to grow the economy further because we're going to spend it in our main street businesses, on car repairs, daycare, little league signups, and things that will help create more jobs and opportunities where we work and live.

Ian Bremmer:

And if Elizabeth Warren gets president, billionaires are going to be very unhappy. If Andrew Yang becomes president, are tech companies going to be very unhappy?

Andrew Yang:

Well, if you dig into who's supporting my campaign, I've been endorsed by Elon Musk and Jack Dorsey and Sam Altman and some of the biggest leaders in technology today, in large part because they don't think that society, where people feel like they're being left behind, is good for innovation. The biggest employers of people who've contributed to my campaign are Amazon, Google, and the US Army, give you a sense. There are many, many people who work in technology who know full well that these changes are coming, they're going to be devastating, and that we need to do more for the American people.

Ian Bremmer:

Now, you don't suggest breaking up any of these companies, Facebook, for example. They are monopolies in their spaces. Does it concern you the level of influence and power pricing, power leverage, that gives these companies as a consequence?

Andrew Yang:

Well, what's funny, Ian, is that the reason why they haven't had any anti-trust cases brought against them is that it's not a pricing issue in the traditional sense.

Ian Bremmer:

Because it's free.

Andrew Yang:

It's free, right-

Ian Bremmer:

It's just your data.

Andrew Yang:

... and so we need a new framework. Now, I do think that in some instances we should have the tech companies divest parts of themselves or prevent them from acquiring certain other types of businesses, but I don't believe that competition will somehow solve all of these problems, because if you were to break Amazon up into four mini Amazons, it would not revive malls and main street businesses around the country, and a lot of these tech businesses tend to consolidate around one or two winners.

Andrew Yang:

One of the things I say to people is that no one wants to use the fourth or fifth best navigation app. That would be cruel and unusual punishment. You'd be like, "Get me back on the one that works the best," so instead of thinking competition is always going to solve the problems, we need to actually hone in on what the real problems are and try and solve for those.

Andrew Yang:

And in some cases, that will be breaking up the tech companies, but in other cases, it would be actually working with them to try and iron out some of the problems. Now, I'm a parent and parents are deeply concerned about the fact that we're seeing record high levels of depression and anxiety among children because of social media use and smartphone adoption, so breaking up the tech companies doesn't help solve that problem. We have to actually get into the guts of these apps and devices to see how we can make our kids stronger and healthier.

Ian Bremmer:

Instagram is getting rid of likes, at least in a few countries they're testing it out. Would you like to see that, but not like it, globally, or how about Twitter? I mean, clearly these algorithms are problematic. Give me a couple suggestions of what they should do.

Andrew Yang:

I would create a new department of the attention economy because in the 21st century, our attention is, in some ways, the new currency. Getting rid of likes could be one design choice, but there are many, many others because these social media companies are designed to try and optimize their engagement and thus, their financial return, and they don't have any counterweights that take into account our kids' mental health or our wellbeing.

Ian Bremmer:

A couple quick global questions. I mean, if you were president, what's the basics of the Yang doctrine, because you have to have one.

Andrew Yang:

The Yang doctrine is number one, to end the forever wars. We've been in a constant state of armed conflict for 18 plus years and that's not the way our constitution is designed. Our constitution says that it's for Congress to authorize the use of force and it should not be for Congress to abdicate that authority, give it to the executive branch, and then wash their hands of it for a couple of decades. Now, when we do put our soldiers into harm's way, to me, there's a three part test that I would adopt. Number one, it needs to meet a very clear American national interest or avert a humanitarian catastrophe. Number two, we need to have a defined timeline and not an open-ended commitment, where we can look our troops in the eyes and say, "You'll be here for this length of time to accomplish the mission." And number three, we need partners and allies that are willing to join us in the mission. If these three things are in place, then I would consider military intervention.

Ian Bremmer:

What do you think is the greatest threat to American national security today?

Andrew Yang:

I believe the greatest national security threat is climate change, and we're already seeing the impact, in terms of migrant crises around the world, that in many cases are leading to populist movements that are threatening democracies throughout the western world. Climate change is the biggest existential threat to our way of life, that I believe is being compounded by the automation of the most common jobs in America. The other threats I'm most concerned about are artificial intelligence and cybersecurity, loose nuclear material, military drones, and non-state actors. I believe that the 21st century threats are going to look very different than the 20th century threats, and we need a different approach.

Ian Bremmer:

Yang's president, we return to the Paris Climate deal?

Andrew Yang:

Oh, yes. Pulling out was a mistake. If anything, we need to go even further than the Paris Accords lays out, in terms of moving towards renewable energy sources, and having greater accountability because the Paris Accords actually don't have a lot in terms of accountability if you fail to meet the goals.

Ian Bremmer:

Most of the world's... the largest piece of the world's emissions today comes from China, almost three times what comes from the United States.

Andrew Yang:

Yes.

Ian Bremmer:

If you're America, how do you respond to that? How do you help make this a global response?

Andrew Yang:

We need to try and change the incentives for the developing world, for African nations. Right now, China's exporting coal burning power plants to these African governments and the African government's not that concerned about emissions or the global impact. They just want energy.

Ian Bremmer:

They just need the energy.

Andrew Yang:

Yeah, so we have to get in there and say, "Look, instead of these coal burning power plants, here are solar panels and we're going to subsidize them and make it so that this is a compelling proposition for you on the economics, on the numbers."

Ian Bremmer:

So, foreign policy is a big piece of this?

Andrew Yang:

Yeah, very much so.

Ian Bremmer:

What's the single biggest mistake in foreign policy that Trump has made so far?

Andrew Yang:

I don't think it was a mistake for Donald Trump to meet with Kim Jong Un and North Korea, but I think it was a massive lost opportunity not to get more for the fact that he was willing to sit down with him. I believe that's something we're going to regret for quite some time.

Ian Bremmer:

Of the promises President Trump has made when he was running for office, the one that he most clearly has not made progress towards is draining the swamp. Indeed, one could argue that the capture of, by special interest of regulatory policy in the US, is only greater today than it was when he ran. How do you think about that issue?

Andrew Yang:

Well, right now, Americans look up and despair that our government has been overrun by corporate interests and corporate money will find its way back in, even if we manage to successfully overturn Citizens United. So there are two things I'm championing. Number one, we have to have democracy dollars in our own hands, a hundred dollars that each voter can contribute to a candidate or a campaign, and this would allow us to wash out the lobbyist cash by a factor of eight to one. Right now, unfortunately, money's on one side and the people are on the other. We have to unify people and the money.

Andrew Yang:

Number two, we have to distribute the swamp, where right now we have so many agencies and government employees in DC, it's one of the most expensive areas in the country. We need to have some of those agencies relocate to other parts of the country where the cost would be lower, but also the economic activity would be a massive boost in those communities and the regulators and the government employees would be much more in touch with the people because instead of living in the DC bubble, they'd be living in the Midwest or the South or someplace where they would actually be able to touch the issues in the people that they're meant to be addressing.

Ian Bremmer:

Let's get to the race. Most recently, yet another entrant, yet another New Yorker, Mike Bloomberg, former mayor, saying he is probably in the race. You've said that you don't know how much money can actually do in this race. How do you think about him joining the merry band? What was your immediate reaction when you heard the news? Your immediate reaction was ...

Andrew Yang:

Was "No way." But then I thought, "Well, let me figure out what his path would look like." I think his path is going to be to advertise very heavily in some of the bigger Super Tuesday states. It seems like he's going to skip the first four states and he's going to have an unmistakable presence because I think he's going to end up changing the cost of advertising for the entire campaign. He's got so much in the way of resources to bring to the table. I do think he's going to have a hard time breaking out past a certain ceiling, and I think it's also very hard to replace thousands and thousands of in-person voter interactions with ad buys, having done this now for over a year and a half myself.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. Quick lightning round from you. First, are you on TikTok?

Andrew Yang:

Sort of. I think my team's doing something with TikTok, but I'm not personally on it.

Ian Bremmer:

You are not personally on it. If elected president, would you play Dungeon Dragons in the White House?

Andrew Yang:

I would for special occasions, if there were kids around, because who doesn't love Dungeons and Dragons?

Ian Bremmer:

When's the last time you rolled a D20?

Andrew Yang:

I rolled a D20 just the other day because my four-year-old son brought home a 20 sided dice. I have no idea where he got it, but I clutched it excitedly, and I said, "Ooh, let me roll this."

Ian Bremmer:

Saving throw, you made it?

Andrew Yang:

I did make the saving throw.

Ian Bremmer:

Have you ever used the self-checkout line at a grocery store?

Andrew Yang:

Of course. I use it, oh, probably weekly, and I'm terrible at it every time.

Ian Bremmer:

What's your beef with circumcision? Pardon that?

Andrew Yang:

No, please. The health benefits are very unclear and the cost to the infants, and in some cases, lifelong impacts can be significant. I mean, I just think it should be up to the parents and that we shouldn't have doctors pushing something that may or may not be beneficial.

Ian Bremmer:

What Democratic rival would you most like to have a beer with?

Andrew Yang:

I'd most like to have a beer with Joe Biden because he just seems like a really good drinking buddy.

Ian Bremmer:

As a Taiwanese American, what is your position on stinky tofu?

Andrew Yang:

I am pro stinky tofu. I think it is delicious.

Ian Bremmer:

Okay. How much longer do you think you're going to be able to keep on biking to work? I saw you this morning bring your bike in. You don't live far from here. It's easy, but at some point, right?

Andrew Yang:

I believe I'll be able to ride my bike indefinitely because it's very hard to intercept a bicyclist. And by the time someone recognizes me, which does happen on occasion, I'm already past them. I'll be biking forever, Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

I like it. If you were stuck on an elevator with Donald Trump, what's the first thing you'd say?

Andrew Yang:

I'd say, "Hey, Donald, looking forward to beating you at the ballot box in 2020."

Ian Bremmer:

Does he have a nickname for you yet?

Andrew Yang:

We've been hypothesizing as to what his nickname for me would be, and we came up with Comrade Yang because it's a little racist, it's a little communist. That's our guess. That's what we have the money on here in the headquarters.

Ian Bremmer:

Andrew Yang, comrade to all Americans, good to be with you. Thank you very much.

Andrew Yang:

Thank you, Ian.

Ian Bremmer:

That's our show this week. We'll be right back here next week same place, same time, unless you're watching on social media, in which case is wherever you happen to be. Don't miss it. In the meantime, check us out at gzeromedia.com.

Announcer:

The GZERO World Podcast is brought to you by our founding sponsor, First Republic. First Republic, a private bank and wealth management company, understands the value of service, safety, and stability in today's uncertain world. Visit firstrepublic.com to learn more.