Andrew Yang's policies as a "moral capitalist" do not match up to another moral capitalist known as FDR and the New Deal

In order to know where you're going, you have to know where you've been. Andrew Yang is a libertarian Democratic candidate who has garnered a lot of support with libertarians and conservatives for a "refreshing" view of capitalism and its pitfalls.

For me, I view him as the new Ron Paul. Others might see differently, but that's okay.

The question for people to support him is to begin to look at his policies and see what he's going to do. With a libertarian bent to him and a more employer oriented position, I began to question what he'd truly do for the working class. So for me, I had to compare him to another "moral capitalist" who was very oriented in capitalism.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president from 1933 - 1945. He died in office. I don't want to eulogize the man. He was a eugenist among other horrible things, but the point is that the policies passed under his presidency are to be scrutinized and understood as the lay of the land. FDR was greatly influenced by John Maynard Keynes and was pushed by socialists, communists, and unions to save capitalism.

As shown elsewhere the strategy of the Democrats of the time was to ease tension on the need to revolt with popular reforms. So the legislation of the New Deal was molded by the need to save capitalism from itself.

So Yang has some big shoes to fill. His 3 major policies are UBI, Medicare for all, and Human Centered capitalism or "moral capitalism". On all 3 and all other policies, he falls far from the standard which is the New Deal. What were some of the policies of the New Deal? New Balance explains:

Government Economy Act - March 20: The Act cut the pay of government and military employees by 15 percent. It cut government spending by 25 percent. The $1 billion saved went to finance New Deal programs.

Side note: Don't ever say we can't cut the military budget.

Glass-Steagall Banking Act - June 16: This law separated investment banking from retail banking. It prevented retail banks from using depositors' funds for risky investments. It gave the regulation of retail banks to the Federal Reserve, prohibited bank sales of securities, and created the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The act was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.

National Labor Relations Act /Wagner Act - July: This law protected the rights of employees to organize and address working conditions, with or without a union, and created the National Labor Relations Board.

Now this begs the question: Will Yang support unions that prevent profits in capitalism? He claims he's going to empower MMA fighters, while ignoring the fact that most MMA fighters want to unionize or that the UFC has a stranglehold on labor.

Going to the policies, Yang gives a lot more questions than answers He claims to want to fight "fake news." When the largest producer is the corporate media through the CIA, it truly begs the question on if he'll get to the problem or help exacerbate it. He wants to support the arts while those arts have been privatized for decades

His economy says not one word about unions.

His education says not one word about adjuncts and student labor or cooperative colleges.

He wants nuclear energy when climate change will make that into a new Chernobyl.

His foreign policy ignores that America overthrows governments around the world

The government issues ignore that the FBI, CIA, and NSA will be active under his administration.

Yang's immigration policies don't touch the fact that employers can continue to take advantage of workers through lowered wages and using the labor of immigrants to fill their coffers over the employer themselves. The harsher reality is that America overthrowing Honduras and Haitian governments causes migration to America to use the poorer citizens for labor here. This isn't new it's just a reiteration of history.

Under the new majority, the chairmanship of the House Committee on Immigration and Naturalization passed to Albert Johnson of Washington, a newspaper owner and fervent supporter of the anti-immigrant movement. In his new post, Johnson, who wrote in one editorial that “the greatest menace to the Republic today is the open door it affords to the ignorant hordes from Eastern and Southern Europe,” set about creating a completely new immigration system. Under his plan, immigrants would be admitted on the basis of country-by-country quotas that heavily favored northern Europeans, while drastically reducing immigration from less favored European countries. (Asians were already banned under previous legislation.)

The Legal/Justice aspect is a joke. Cops have cameras now. That won't change their killing stats which are an amalgamation of race, class, and poverty.

Until Yang locks up bankers for failing the economy, he's blowing smoke.

Overall, Yang's policies won't transform America, it won't affect most seniors and workers. It will be stagnant and stale similar to Obama's policies. In short, Yang is an Obama technocrat who wants to go a bit more worker oriented than Obama. He has no policy positions that are favorable to the working class (since he wants to have UBI take over for Social Security) and pays lip service to policies that benefit the public.

Yang won't save capitalism from itself. He ends up incredibly short on these aspects. His entire policy approach is a piecemeal solution to a systemic problem. He benefits employers over employees. And that's what should be understood with libertarian candidates.