WBD421 Audio Transcription
The Future of Politics & Bitcoin with Andrew Yang
Interview date: Monday 8th November
Note: the following is a transcription of my interview with Andrew Yang. I have reviewed the transcription but if you find any mistakes, please feel free to email me. You can listen to the original recording here.
In this interview, I talk to Andrew, author of ‘The War on Normal People’ (2018), ‘Forward’ (2021), and leader of the Forward Party, about his 2020 Presidential run and his current mission to bring about genuine political competition. We then discuss what such competition would enable: reasoned debate about big ideas such as Universal Basic Income, health reform, and Bitcoin.
“Politicians are creatures of the market. What market are they responding to? There are political incentives, donors, the media...we have to create our own political incentives, the donors, and the media to stand up for Bitcoin and progress, otherwise we’re going to end up on the cutting room floor.”
— Andrew Yang
Interview Transcription
Peter McCormack: Andrew Yang, hello, welcome. Welcome to What Bitcoin Did. How are you?
Andrew Yang: Peter, it's great to be here. The question really is, what didn't Bitcoin do; am I right?
Peter McCormack: It did everything, man.
Andrew Yang: It certainly ran the gamut from 1 penny to $62,000 or whatever it is!
Peter McCormack: Are you a hodler, have you got Bitcoin?
Andrew Yang: So, I can talk about this a little bit. I'm a huge cryptocurrency booster, I think most people know that, but I never wanted anyone to think it was because of my own monetary self-interest. So, I didn't want to be a holder, an investor, because then everyone's like, "Oh, no wonder he's trying to --"
Peter McCormack: Pump his bags.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, and make the regulations more sensible, to the extent there are regulations, which now obviously it's pretty limited. So, I have not. I have been a cryptocurrency investor through funds and instruments, but I haven't actually bought any, because I wanted to seem clean, clean as a whistle.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, I had a long conversation with a chap named Parker Lewis down in Texas, because I was thinking the same, of getting rid of my Bitcoin at one point, because I said, "Can I be objective; somebody who interviews people and covers the subject by holding Bitcoin?" He's like, "No, you need to hold it".
Andrew Yang: You would need to hold it, and I'm sure you're fucking glad you have held it, that you didn't do this, "Oh, I'm such a principled journalist, I will now relinquish my holdings". Thank fucking God you didn't do that, brother!
Peter McCormack: No, man, listen, I fucked up like everyone does with Bitcoin. I've fucked up so many times. I would have so much more money if I'd have got this right. But listen, great to see you, great to talk to you. I've wanted to talk to you for a long time, and somebody got in touch recently and said, "Why haven't you talked to Andrew Yang?" I'm like, "I'm trying to, I want to", and here we are.
There are two main things I want to talk to you about, or three things. I want to talk to you about the Forward Party, because as somebody from the UK, I'm used to a political system with multiple parties.
Andrew Yang: You're used to a political system that makes sense; what's that?
Peter McCormack: Well, makes sense? Makes a bit more sense.
Andrew Yang: Makes more sense, I'll give that back!
Peter McCormack: More sense; it still doesn't make sense, but I'm used to that. But as somebody who travels and loves this country, I've been here 70 times, I've been to New York 30 times, I really like it. I could happily live here, and I feel like most of the problems I see are not caused by the people, it's by the politics and the media.
Andrew Yang: Wow!
Peter McCormack: Yeah, kind of obvious.
Andrew Yang: Well said! Yeah, if you just look around and you have conversations, you're like, "Nice place, nice people, let's do it". Then, as soon as you actually stick your nose into what's going on with the politics and the media, you're like, "Woah, what's going on?!"
Peter McCormack: But I do want to talk to you about UBI; I'm not 100% convinced either way the bitcoiners don't like it. They think in a Bitcoin world, it can't work. But I'm interested to hear about it. I recently interviewed Aarika Rhodes, who's running for Congress in California.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, she's a friend.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, friend of yours, big supporter of the ideas behind UBI. And I also do want to talk to you about Bitcoin specifically and regulations, because you know what, I always thought the US would ban this, they wouldn't allow this to happen, and it's happening. We are seeing various politicians, senators, people in Congress who support Bitcoin, or even wider crypto. I'm focused on Bitcoin, I don't care for crypto, so they're all the things I want to talk to you about.
But, let's start talking about the Forward Party. You've been through a process where you've tried to become President. You ran for the Presidency. What's that like as an experience to go through? What did you learn most from that?
Andrew Yang: Well, thanks for asking. I write about this a fair amount in my new book, Forward, because I wanted to share my journey with people, because it's not every day you run for President. Someone described it as, "An outsider with an insider's point of view", because I definitely was a political outsider, just kind of showed up. I remember when I tried to figure out if I could run for President, it turns out there are only two rules: natural-born US citizen and aged 35 years or older. So, if that describes you, you too could run for President.
Peter McCormack: You have to be over 35?
Andrew Yang: Yes.
Peter McCormack: I didn't know that.
Andrew Yang: There's an age limit.
Peter McCormack: Why does that exist?
Andrew Yang: Search me, man. Founding Fathers, Constitution, but those are the only two rules. And if you think about it, it's kind of interesting what is not on the list. It's not, "I'm a public office holder, I'm --"
Peter McCormack: Too old?
Andrew Yang: Woah! No, I think a lot of people listening to this probably agree with you. The US is getting a little bit long in the tooth in terms of leadership and they don't understand cryptocurrency for shit as a result; not to say if they were younger, it would be better, because they'd at least have peers who'd be, "Yo, what are you doing?"
So, I ran for President, because I was deeply concerned that our economy is transforming in fundamental ways, and no one seems to get it in DC. So, I was like, "Look, I can advance an understanding of automation and technology's impact. I can advance Universal Basic Income", and I learnt a ton running for President. It was fucking weird, a lot of it.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, I bet.
Andrew Yang: In order to compete, you had to become a bit of a performer, a bit of a robot. And, I'm an entrepreneur, an operator, so the way I interacted with the world for the last number of years is, okay, just do whatever the organisation needs. I ran a company, ran an education company, it was like, "Okay, what does the company need me to do?"
So, in this case, running for President, it's like, "Okay, what does the organisation, ie my presidential campaign, need me to do?" It's like, you need to try and get millions of people excited. And you're like, "Okay, how the hell do you do that?" So, then you spend some time on social media, you put out different messages. In my case, I think people got to know me in different ways and then got excited about me because I was an outsider; they were just sick of politics as usual.
Peter McCormack: Well, it's the same old people running again with the same old messages, nothing seems to change.
Andrew Yang: And it's all fucking poll-tested and the rest of it, and consultant-vetted, where it turns out there's this entire political industrial complex that descends on campaigns and it's like, "Okay, here's what you say, here's how you say it, etc", and that's why the candidates seem like automatons.
Peter McCormack: But the idea of running for President and then actually getting into the process must have been a really fucking surreal experience at times. You must have been in some surreal places to be like, "What the fuck is happening here?"
Andrew Yang: The weirdest thing is to do with the media, where you go into the spin room after a presidential debate, and holy cow; it's like hundreds of cameras, just sticking your face and microphones, and then they just try to grab you as you're walking around. I mean, the spin room, even the name says it all. That was surreal.
It was surreal where I'd have a random interaction with a voter and then it would make national news. It's like, "What? Who cared about that?" Sometimes good, sometimes not so good. The beginning of the campaign in some ways was the most enjoyable and the most pure, because it was just a start-up, just a bunch of people, not even a big bunch, like half a dozen people, generally young. I was the oldest person in the room. And we were just, "We're running for President, what do we do today?"
No one was paying any attention, so it got more surreal throughout 2019 when I started making national debate stages, but before then, it was a start-up where you had a goal. The goal was, at that time, get 65,000 individual donors and 1% in polling support so you make the presidential debate stage. And then it became 2% and 100,000 donors, and then it became 3% and 150 -- you know, it just kept on going.
But at first, it was, "Let's try and get on that debate stage", so it felt like familiar start-up process for a while, and then it got fucking weird after that!
Peter McCormack: But you got on the debate stage. You were up there, people liked you.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, that was probably the most surreal when I got on the presidential debate stage, then went to the spin room, then walked off and then talked to my family. And my wife said it best, because I'm married, and she said, "I can't believe I'm married to that guy that's on TV!" and then I've got friends call me and text me and congratulate me in different ways.
My first debate was not my best, and then the second debate and then the third debate, made seven debate stages, ended up on all the major talk shows and everything else. So, there was like a growth process for me, where I compared myself to essentially a media athlete, where you have to develop in certain ways when someone just sticks a mic in your face.
Peter McCormack: When you go into this, obviously your goal is to become President. But do you also consider the point you might just be a running mate, and that's okay?
Andrew Yang: I'll be honest, I did not expect to be President of the United States, but when a journalist asks you, you have to say, "Of course I'm serious". But what I would say to most of those interviewers was, "Look, there are multiple ways to win". I wanted to advance a vision. I believe that poverty is going to make more and more Americans literally crazy until we start killing each other; I think that's the way it's going to go. So, I was trying to prevent that, and that was the mission.
I'm not sure if people can tell listening to me, but it's not like I'm some lunatic who was, "I'm going to be President of the United States someday", from age 17. I still don't particularly care. I'm an entrepreneur who just wants to solve problems. And unfortunately, and you and I share this, the problems in the US are getting worse around us, you can tell. Now, there are segments of American society that are doing just fine, but there are a lot that aren't. The politics and media are completely dysfunctional.
So, I saw the scene and was like, "Okay, the biggest problems require our government to get its act together. It's not going to get its act together, how do I change that? Run for President, hope to help it get its act together". I did not win, fine, but I'm still, even now, trying to help America get its act together, by helping advance and evolve its politics along the lines of what you described, which is that if you look at the UK, it has five political parties, Germany has seven political parties.
These are much more sensible, rational systems than a two-party system, which by the way, would be a waking nightmare for any of the Founding Fathers, because if you look at the Constitution, there's nothing about any political parties. George Washington was anti-partisan; John Adams said, "Two parties would be an evil".
Peter McCormack: But here we are!
Andrew Yang: So, we have a dysfunctional system that does not make any sense, and I think bitcoiners can relate to this, because you look up and think, "There are a lot of things that don't make sense", and cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin in particular, is a way to try and invent a new system that in some ways, is much more rational, much more sensible.
So, I think our politics needs the same thing, and that's what the Forward Party is trying to make happen. The way the Forward Party is going to try and make it happen is through a process to open primaries and ranked-choice voting, which would diminish the duopoly very, very significantly and improve our legislators' incentives.
So, there are 24 states around the country that allow for ballot initiatives like this. One state, Alaska, has already done it. So, this is the key lever that we can pull to make our politics more rational. It requires a popular movement, and I certainly hope that people in the Bitcoin community feel like this is positive; in part because, if our politics advance, then maybe our legislators would not destroy the Bitcoin or cryptocurrency communities in the way that, unfortunately right now, we all know is a possibility.
Peter McCormack: Well, one thing that's come up in quite a few conversations I have within the Bitcoin community is that there's this broad support for Bitcoin, certainly amongst Republicans; Senator Lummis in Wyoming, and even Ted Cruz now in Texas. We would hate for Bitcoin to become a partisan issue, because Bitcoin is a tool, it's a financial sovereignty. We would hate for it to become something that's just seen as a Republican issue, because then it becomes demonised and for all the wrong reasons.
I'm not going to pretend to understand US politics like you. I'm merely an observer, I come to the US and I love it here, and this trip, I've been to New Hampshire, New York, Florida, Texas, Los Angeles. I've been to Cincinnati, Kentucky, I've been everywhere; and everywhere I go, it doesn't matter whether it's red or blue, I have a great time, everyone's nice, everyone's decent.
Andrew Yang: It's true, man, I've had the same experience. People are good people here.
Peter McCormack: You put on the news and whether it's Fox or MSNBC, or whatever channel it is, it's all bullshit. And you go onto social media and it's all bullshit. But you sit people down, and people are just reasonable. And, I feel like politics and the media has been gamed for financial incentives to stoke division, and it's horrible, it's just shit.
Andrew Yang: There's a significant part of my book that breaks down the dynamics you're describing, and yes, it is being gamed for financial reasons on both sides. Polarisation is at record highs. It's why we feel so negatively about the prospect of people somehow coming together in the future, because they're getting rewarded for being more unreasonable and polarising.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, and it's sad. And the COVID lens, I don't really want to talk to you about COVID today, but the COVID lens is really interesting, because it's just an example of how everything becomes politicised here in the US. If you go to the UK, whether you want to be vaccinated or wear a mask, it's got nothing to do with whether you're Conservative or Labour, it's just personal opinion. We don't have that polarisation around every topic that you have here.
I don't know how it's fixed; hopefully you have a solution to it. But I don't know how it's fixed. All I know is it's just not working. It's really hard to watch, as somebody who's a fan of the US.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, it's rough that everything has been politicised in this way. It's part of this polarisation dynamic where, if you had a more multi-polar system, then it would not be this extreme or ridiculous. And to your point about Bitcoin, I agree that you don't want it to become politicised. I'm going to just break it down in a very, very simple way for folks.
At this point, the Democratic Party is the party of the fading establishment. And then, the Republican Party has been overtaken by anti-institutionalist zeal. So then, if you just use that as your framework, then you think, "Okay, I can see why Republicans are more generally down with Bitcoin, whereas the Democrats will be more sceptical or negative". And, we have to try and prevent that, where Bitcoin's concerned, because you don't want it to become a political football, and you want to help Democrats, who are at least punitively pro-innovation and development to understand that, like you said, Bitcoin's a tool.
Peter McCormack: So, what's involved in creating a new party, and I'm assuming people have attempted to do this before and obviously, it hasn't worked? What's involved in creating a new party and in doing this, are you essentially running for President again?
Andrew Yang: Good questions. I'll answer directly what it takes to start a political party in the United States of America. So, you have to get recognised by a federal agency, called the FEC, I think it stands for Federal Election Commission, or something like that, to say you're a political party. There's a test, so you have to have chapters in various states; you have to have people who are running, at least, for some office; you need to have meetings. It's sort of fun.
So, right now, we're on that path to start getting recognised as a political party, and the reason why third parties have not taken off is because the mechanics prevent it. Right now, 62% of Americans actually want an alternative to the duopoly, but if you try and vote in your local election, the odds are very high that you can only meaningfully participate as either a Democrat or a Republican, because of closed-party primaries. So, that is the shift we have to make.
Peter McCormack: What does that mean, "closed-party primaries"?
Andrew Yang: Sure. So, I'll use New York City as an example; I ran for mayor here. Democrats vastly outnumber anyone else here. So, there's a Democratic primary in June and in order to participate, you need to have been a registered Democrat since February. So, if someone showed up and said, "I'd like to support Yang", you can't do it unless you're a registered Democrat from four months ago.
So, in point of fact, the Democrats essentially control who's going to win, not just that primary, but because Democrats outnumber everyone else here. So, significantly, that person will almost certainly win the general race. So, that dynamic extends throughout the country. 83% of congressional seats, for example, are in very blue or very red areas. So, if you win your party's primary, then you win the general.
So, the people who have control over who will emerge, it's all partisans who are already registered in a particular party. So, if you're a new person running as a Forwardist, or a Libertarian, or whatever, you will almost certainly have no chance to win. This is why, and I'm just going to guess, that a lot of people listening to this are Libertarians, and you look around and you're like, "Where are the Libertarian elected officials?" "Well, the duopoly essentially prevents it".
That's what the Forward Party is trying to change. And, anyone who's an experienced Libertarian is totally down with this, because they're like, "Oh, we wanted to do this for years", which is you want to break up this party primary that controls everything early on, and turn it into an open primary, where the top five candidates get through. And if you had the top five candidates, then you'd have a Libertarian, you'd have a Forwardist, you'd have someone else, where it's not just always a Republican or Democrat. But until you make that mechanic shift, you will almost certainly never have a chance to compete. And, that's what the duopoly is using to suppress everyone else.
It's really messed up when you reflect on it for a minute. It's like, "Hey, 62% of us want an alternative", but the duopoly sets up the elections to make it next to impossible. And if you look again, not in the Constitution, the two parties came into existence years and decades later, and then they set this up at the state level. It's all made-up bullshit essentially. The fact that it's a closed-party primary, it's just the parties made these rules up to try and suppress competition, if this sounds familiar to anyone.
So, the key mission of the Forward Party is to enable genuine competition politically. And, I'm going to suggest to people listening to this that this is going to be good for Bitcoin in a couple of ways. Number one, if you're the Democrats and you're just competing against the Republicans, then this can become a political issue. But if you have, say, the Forward Party that comes in and we're like, "Hey, we're pro-Bitcoin, we're pro-cryptocurrency", then all of a sudden, there's actually more viable competition, where Democrats are like, "Oh, God, are we really going to be the anti-crypto party?"
The second thing, and this is key for you all, Bitcoin right now is a, whatever, $1.5 trillion ecosystem. Ordinarily, if you have an industry anywhere near that scale, you know what you have? Fucking lobbyists. And you know how --
Peter McCormack: It is starting to happen.
Andrew Yang: I know, it is starting to happen. And I'm happy to say, I started an organisation that has lobbyists who are working on a number of issues in Congress, and this is one of them. So, we're aligned, the Forward Party's aligned, if you want to help us, but you need some freaking lobbyists. And my organisation, Humanity Forward, has hired, at this point, dozens of lobbyists, who worked on Capitol Hill and know their way around, but you can see this with every other major industry.
Why does pharma have its way? Because they hire a truck ton of lobbyists and they get in there and use their resources. Right now, the Bitcoin community's a little bit behind the curve, although I know it's speeding up very, very quickly, and I'd like to help make that happen, through both Humanity Forward and the Forward Party, where if we get the resources, then we can actually plug in.
I've seen how effective it is lobbying on Capitol Hill; that shit works. I mean, you've seen it with Senator Lummis, you've seen it with some different senators. Now, we need to get some Democratic senators on board, we need some Democratic legislators to see the light, but we're here to help.
Peter McCormack: Funding this, though, must be costing a lot of money. Are you taking donors who would normally be funding Democratic politicians, Republican politicians to do this, because I can't imagine this is cheap?
Andrew Yang: We want to build a popular movement, purely of the people, and so we're taking individual donations from just Americans who just think shit isn't working and they want it to work better. Now, to your question, it's like, "Hey, can we compete and contend with the Republican and Democratic machines and infrastructures?" We're going to find out. I mean, I think if enough of us get together, then sure we can compete, because they're so rickety and no one likes them. But they do have billions of dollars in resources, and we're going to have to try and rival that.
So, here's my vision. I want people to get into this. So, here's this duopoly, it's terrible, but you can't make it go away unless you change the mechanics, so we need to change the mechanics. Now, that's going to require a popular movement, it's going to require resources and money, so can we get the resources from the people? Let's find out, forwardparty.com, if anyone wants to lend a hand. And then, we'll also build, and you'll love this, because this is up your alley, Peter; we also need to build up a parallel media infrastructure to rival the corporate media that is on both sides.
Peter McCormack: We do.
Andrew Yang: We have to build this whole new system, both politically, financially, which is what you all are about, and then with the media and messaging.
Peter McCormack: But you don't want to have a new media arm that's co-opted by the Forward Party, almost like this decentralised media of people that you can rely on, like you were on Rogan and people trust him, and I have this. All these decentralised platforms, these independents, I think, are going to be the people that are interested in this.
Andrew Yang: 100%. So, my thesis is that in the new world, people don't trust institutions, people just trust people. They'll trust you, Peter, they'll trust Rich, they'll trust Joe Rogan, they'll trust Sam Harris, let's say. And so, one of my goals is to build a constellation of trusted voices and have it start to rival the traditional players; because, if we wait for the traditional players, we'll be waiting too long.
Peter McCormack: I mean, it already is. The big fight Rogan had this last couple of weeks with CNN, I think, proves that people distrust CNN and they trust Rogan; not everyone, but I think the swing is starting to happen.
Andrew Yang: It's starting to happen among young people. But here's where politics comes back into it, Peter --
Peter McCormack: The boomers.
Andrew Yang: -- so, it turns out that the relationship with the news media is highly party-dependent. What do I mean? Democrats, 69% have a high trust in media; Republicans, 15%, very, very different; Independents 36%, somewhere in between. So, if you use as the simplest framing, but I like simple framing, CNN versus Rogan, you're really looking at Democrats versus Independents and Republicans.
Peter McCormack: Interesting.
Andrew Yang: Now, Independents and Republicans certainly outnumber everyone else by a lot. The self-identification goes something like 44% Independent, 28% Democrat and then something like 26% Republican.
Peter McCormack: So, what is success for you, if you look in, I don't know, one, two, three, four years; is it by winning a seat, getting somebody in the Senate, getting somebody in Congress? If you've just got one person in, do you prove the thesis and continue?
Andrew Yang: Well, in this system, it would be an enormous victory to win, for example, one Senate seat. Can we win one Senate seat, 22 November? Yes, we can. So, one of the things that I want to point out to people is, if you listen to what I'm saying right now, there's this vast unaffiliated political group. It's aligned with Libertarians, it's centrist, as I believe that you describe yourself, and this body tends not to be as organised. It's one of the things that has the capacity to fuck us, honestly. If the reasonable, untapped middle were to coalesce, then we win, we transform everything.
Now, you don't need 51% of people in this middle, though that is mathematically what it could add up to. If you get about 10% of us super animated and energised, is that going to be enough in the way of energy and resources to help tip our Senate race to an aligned Independent? I believe it is. Can we win a number of congressional seats? I believe we can. Can we win a few local races? Yes. Can you maybe get some of these states to adopt open primaries and ranked-choice voting via a ballot initiative also next November?
Peter McCormack: What's ranked-choice voting?
Andrew Yang: So, ranked-choice voting, so the framework I'm describing is that you get rid of party primaries, and then anyone can run under any party. Now, you want a certain number of candidates to come through to the general election, so let's call it five, which is what we're proposing and fighting for.
Now, if you have five candidates come through, but let's say two of them are Democrats, one's Republican, one's a Libertarian, one's a Forwardist, then the two Democrats cannibalise each other and then everyone gets mad, or two Republicans cannibalise each other, or whatever. So, you use something called ranked-choice voting, which is a voting system where you get to rank up to five candidates in order, one, two, three, four, five; or, you can just vote for one person and walk out. But the system enables you not to have any spoiler effect, because the winner has to get 50.1% of people's first-placed votes, and then the weakest candidate, then their second-placed votes go up to the first place, and you continue to process until someone wins a majority.
So, you need to do this if you're going to have five candidates of different parties, because it prevents someone from getting super mad that there are two people from the same party in that race.
Peter McCormack: It doesn't seem there would be any interest to change that system from the people within though?
Andrew Yang: Yeah, you notice that? That's one of the reasons why we've got to do this. Okay, so here's my argument for why it will happen, despite what Peter just said. (1) it has already happened in one state, Alaska made this change last year; (2) there are 24 states that allow you to do this via ballot initiative. So, if you went to the average person in Utah, Missouri or Massachusetts and said, "Hey, would you like to have more say over who represents you, and not make it just the province of the parties?" a lot of people would be like, "Yeah, that sounds good to me". Then say, "Well, if you make this switch, then we can do that".
So, this is the task of the Forward Party, is to activate this energy. Because, anyone looking at it would be like, "Of course I prefer that. Why would I want the parties to have a stranglehold on everything?" Everyone hates that shit, but we all allow it, because we've been sedated and duped into thinking this is a law of nature, when it's not; it's just made-up bullshit, like a lot of other things. So, that is the challenge.
Is it easy? No, it's very hard. Is it achievable though? Yes. So, if you have these 24 states, let's say I had an unlimited amount of money, it doesn't even need to be unlimited. Let's call it $100 million. You run these ballot initiatives in multiple states, call it ten states. Maybe you win five. You win five, that's a game-changer, because plus Alaska, that would be six, then all of a sudden, you'd have a bunch of legislators who have better incentives, because they have to appeal to 50.1% of us, instead of just the 10% to 20% hyper-partisans. Do you think that might be good for Bitcoin? Think about this for a second.
If you have people, legislators, who are trying to please 50.1% of the population, then they'll be a lot more inclined to be, "Oh, there are some people that hold Bitcoin in my district. I don't want to shit on them". But if I'm just answering to the 10% to 20% most hyper-partisan Democrats, who are by the way the most establishment-y, that's a different equation, right! You can see in the 50.1% version, they might be like, "Oh, maybe I shouldn't kill this freaking thing". Whereas, if they're just talking to the establishment types, then maybe they will.
Peter McCormack: Are you running yourself in the primaries next year, as the Forward Party, in a particular seat?
Andrew Yang: So, for 2022, my job is to elevate other candidates and try and make sure that some of these goals get achieved.
Peter McCormack: But you seem like the easy win, because you already have the platform, people know you, people trust you. People might be, "Yeah, I would vote for Andrew, I would vote for another party".
Andrew Yang: I'm going to do everything I can to elevate the Forward Party. I mean, it's a big job. So, nothing's off the table. I'm an entrepreneur. I mean, just like I said, you just do whatever the organisation needs.
Peter McCormack: Are you still working while you're doing this as well?
Andrew Yang: Well, this is my work now, because it's kind of a big job. I'm fortunate enough where enough people support me where I can do this as a job, and not have my wife leave me, or any of that jazz. So, yeah, I mean it's a lot of work, but someone's got to do it, right. I mean, there are a lot of people who are listening to this too that I think are just, "Oh, thank God someone normal is trying to make some changes in the system", because it's not going to come from within the machine, so that's that.
Peter McCormack: Well, I didn't agree with the approach, but when Bret Weinstein was looking at doing something different last year, I think it was last year?
Andrew Yang: Yeah, 2020, I remember.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, and it seemed interesting. Somebody was saying, "Look, this is broken, let's do something different". I mean, I think a third party was needed, not really their idea, but I think a lot of people will support this. This political fight feels like a red herring, it doesn't feel like the rally to the ground.
Andrew Yang: We're being duped, we're being set up. It's going to lead to violence. It's really tragic and terrible.
Peter McCormack: Well, it already has in some ways.
Andrew Yang: It already has, yeah. We can see it, the dynamics. I mean, it's the market. The market's setting us against each other.
Peter McCormack: So, policy-wise, where is the Forward Party, and do you see yourself as a party in the centre, are you more left than the Democrats; where do you see yourself?
Andrew Yang: Well first, I think we have to try and rid ourselves of the ideological buckets, because that's also a media creation; the media's always just trying to set us up in the that way.
Peter McCormack: Great, good.
Andrew Yang: The Forward Party's main goal is just to make the system work. So, people who are libertarian or socialist, or whatever the fuck, everyone should be on board trying to make these changes, just so the system is more responsive to anyone that's not a Democrat or a Republican. So, that's our primary mission, so I'm trying to focus on that.
There are people who agree or disagree with me on various things. I mean, if you looked at my presidential platform, you'll probably be able to get a sense of where I stand. But I'm at a point now where I think that nothing will work and nothing will matter, unless we actually get into the guts of the problem. So, if someone disagrees with me on a particular issue, I'll be like, "Look, can we agree on that"; I'm kind of a practical dude that way.
I think that everything else should be kind of secondary, or wait for a little while until we fix this.
Peter McCormack: Well, let's talk about the UBI thing, because that's the main issue I think people know you for. It's a big topic you talked about. I listened to you talk to Rogan about it. I'm not a libertarian. I like a lot of what libertarians stand for. I'm a reluctant believer in democracy, with all its flaws.
Andrew Yang: We've got to believe in it, man, or else what's the alternative? Well, I know what the alternative sort of is; that's cool! There are a couple of alternatives, I guess.
Peter McCormack: In the UK, I'm considered a conservative. All my conservative friends here think I'm progressive and a liberal. I'm kind of politically homeless, but I'm interested in all different ideas.
Andrew Yang: Politically homeless people are probably forwardist, but continue.
Peter McCormack: Well, but this idea of UBI, I'm like, okay, I need to hear about it, I need you to explain it to me, I want to talk it through with you, because I can see functional reasons for having it. I mean, all the different social programmes we have in the UK, the bureaucracy around them is ridiculous, and they're constantly changing and tweaking, and we have these huge government departments.
When somebody says the idea of scrap it all, we'll just have one payment that everyone receives and that would reduce costs, I'm like, "Okay, that makes sense". But then sometimes the economics of the entire programme don't seem to work for me. I just wanted to hear from you. You obviously believe there's a big issue coming with automation, what that's going to cause to the different markets that it affects; also, this growing wealth divide. Talk to me about it, because this seems to be the biggest issue that you focus on.
Andrew Yang: I ran for President, because I believe that our economy is transforming before our eyes, and a lot of people are not going to fare well as a result. So, you have to look at it and say, what do you do at scale? The talking points, which are bullshit, are around retraining people, which doesn't work.
Peter McCormack: Government retraining programmes always fail.
Andrew Yang: Yeah. It's the kind of thing where it's like, "Oh, we're retraining everyone", it's like, "Oh, okay". But then, if you go to the community, which I have, no one's getting retrained. They're more likely to go home and drink themselves to death, or have something negative happen; that's much more normal.
So, if you push that aside for a moment and you say, "Okay, what can you actually do to help people meaningfully transition?" and one of the things that the government can actually deliver on in real life is putting some money into people's hands. I mean, we're seeing that in different ways. So that, to me, was the best, most sensible approach. I'm not a huge fan of bureaucracy, people can probably sense that. Right now, a lot of these government programmes are administered in a way that's really punitive and dehumanising. They just treat you like a rat in a maze.
I talk to people who are on these programmes, and they live in constant fear and anxiety of missing a meeting, or having a form not filled out right and losing their benefits. It's a terrible way to live. So, I believe it would be much better economically, socially and culturally if we just said, "Look, you're a human being. Here's a straight cash payment". Oh, and by the way, that money would end up flowing back into their local economy, it would help small businesses grow. It would lead to people becoming more entrepreneurial and creative and risk-taking. So, I thought this was the best approach.
Peter McCormack: So, the people I've spoken to about it and, like I say, I'm not an expert, I actually spoke to a guy yesterday who thinks it's great. He said, "Let's do this, let's create a new programme, let's test it out". But the people I spoke to who are critical of it say, "The potential disincentive to work" which, everything I'm going to say, you would have heard it before, but let's go through it today. And also, it still, as a programme itself, would cost trillions to implement and we're already in a position now where there's high inflation, probably much higher than quoted. Does this just add to the inflation problems we have already?
Let's deal with them both. The disincentive to work; how do you feel about that one? You obviously disagree.
Andrew Yang: Well, right now, we have the most powerful disincentive to work, which is we give you cash and say, "If you start working, we'll take the money away". That's like every unemployment programme we have. I talk to 26-year-olds who say to me, "Look, I'm making whatever, $500 a week not working, which is not quite what I was making working, but not that far from it. So, I'm going to wait until these benefits run out before I start looking for work", and I hear this and say, "That's perfectly reasonable and rational".
Now, if they were getting a certain amount of money and they could keep it, and if they started working it would be stacked on top, would they start looking? They'd at least be more open to it, you know what I mean? You don't want to reward people for not working, which is what we do a lot right now. And to people who are imaging the situation in a green field, I mean the fact is right now, millions of Americans are getting money that gets taken away from them if they start working.
So, if you're worried about this disincentive to work, it's like --
Peter McCormack: That already exists.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, it already exists. It's very much baked into the system. So, that's one of the things that I saw a lot on the trail, and also said very consistently to people, "Look, it's already out there", in the worst way possible, by the way. You have people who are disabled, who are afraid to volunteer at their local church or non-profit, because they're afraid someone will think that they're abled and then take the money away, shit like that. So, I think we can all agree that person should just go volunteer at the church and --
Peter McCormack: Contributions aside, yeah.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, I mean that's better, it would just be better. Now, to the inflation issue, we're pumping a lot of money into the economy, but not through people. If you look at the CARES Act, the $2.2 trillion that went out, 83% of it went to institutions, and maybe 17% went to people. So, the money's out there, but it's not actually making anyone's life that much better. It's going to banks and airlines and other actors.
If you look at what's happening in terms of inflation, a lot of that is centred on three areas, or historically; I mean, right now, it's kind of everywhere because it's supply chain issues. But historically, it's been education, healthcare and housing. Those markets are just distinct in that they just think you have no choice but to pay. There's not competition in the same way there is for this laptop, or your shirt, or whatever. There, you notice prices actually are pretty manageable; you sort of come down for the quality.
So, if you look at them in turn: education, they just raise the prices every year, and then you pass it through to the government or in loans, which is why we have, by the way, $1.6 trillion in school loans, so it's a messed-up system. Healthcare: similar, where you pass it through to insurance carriers, and their prices just go up and up to the Moon, and everyone is crying about it, because it doesn't make any sense. So, these are areas where it hasn't related to the fact that people had buying power. It's not like college got more expensive because everyone had lots of money for it; it's just people felt they had to borrow more. And then housing: it's dependent in a large part on zoning regs and various communities.
So, the point I'm making is that most of the most egregious inflation is not because of buying power in people's hands; it's because of dysfunctional marketplaces. So, if you put money into people's hands, it actually helps manage those cost increases and makes the market more competitive, because people will actually be able to participate in different ways. So, you wouldn't see a lot of the consumer staples shoot up in price as a result; you haven't seen it now. To the extent that it's happening now is because of supply chain issues that hopefully, God willing, are not permanent.
Peter McCormack: Yeah, interesting you should make that point, because my understanding, basic understanding, of inflation is that if we increase the money supply -- I mean, there are supply chain issues, which are leading to price increases at the moment. We're seeing that especially in the UK. But we are also seeing big problems in the energy sector in the UK. But my understanding is, if you continually increase the money supply, you will always see inflation. And my understanding of UBI is that it would still cost trillions to do. What percentage of GDP would it --
Andrew Yang: You can do it in different ways. The costs would be in the low trillions, shall we say. But the thing again I want to emphasise is that we're already pumping this money into the system, it's just not going through anyone's hands. We printed $4 trillion for the Wall Street bailout; CARES act is $2.2 trillion; that was before the Rescue Plan, which was another $1.2 trillion. We're already pumping the money into the system, we're just doing it really, really inefficiently and ineffectively, in my opinion.
Peter McCormack: But isn't the answer to try and get to a situation where we aren't pumping trillions and trillions more in, because of the impact that's having; and that, if you were to move to a UBI system, there is a risk that it's a continuation? Because, I mean the US didn't used to pump this much. If we go even back to 2008, what was it, like about $1 trillion that was pumped in in the Housing Crisis, I think? I think it was about then.
Andrew Yang: So, that was an $800 billion stimulus package during that time, but there was also $4 trillion printed for the banks.
Peter McCormack: Shouldn't the Fed be getting back to a point where it runs a deficit and a surplus, depending on the economic situation, try and have a more stable currency?
Andrew Yang: Ideally, our goal should be not to be in an environment where everyone assumes a certain level of inflation. And again, if you look at all of the sources of inflation historically, in my mind it's been a massive government failure that we've allowed education and healthcare, in particular, to rise to the Moon. If you have technology and innovation, a lot of things should be getting cheaper, but we make it such that that's the opposite of the model. I was talking to Jeff Booth about it.
Peter McCormack: Jeff Booth, I was just about to say, "Have you spoken to Jeff Booth?" because I see him tomorrow.
Andrew Yang: Yes, and he's very smart and right that we need to be enabling deflation in more of these areas. So, take education just as an example. Can we imagine cheaper, more effective ways to deliver education to people? Of course we can, anyone listening to this can. The problem is that that competition hasn't been allowed to take place, because we are deeply subsidising current legacy providers.
So, if you were to make big moves in that direction, you could attack inflation where it is in the economy, and that's what I think we should be doing at a much, much higher level.
Peter McCormack: What would you do with healthcare, because that's what freaks me out most about this country? If I was to come and live here --
Andrew Yang: Which you should. Let's all welcome Peter to the US of A, yeah!
Peter McCormack: Let me in!
Andrew Yang: Some people listening to this are like, "Boo!"
Peter McCormack: Yeah, "Piss off!"
Andrew Yang: Still, Andrew Yang is still an America booster, what can I say?
Peter McCormack: Yeah, come on, help me get a green card.
Andrew Yang: If I were President, man, I would fucking sort that shit immediately. Like bang! I'd have a dude with me, I'd be like, "Give Peter a green card", it would be like, "Bang!"
Peter McCormack: I'd be chatting to my brother, I'd be like, "I'm just going to call up the President. We've got this shit covered".
Andrew Yang: "Get President Yang on the phone!"
Peter McCormack: Yeah, "Get Yang on the phone", come on!
Andrew Yang: I kid you all not, President Yang would have a green card guy and then anyone really awesome that we know is awesome, we'd be like, "This person definitely deserves a green card, because you can fucking tell".
Peter McCormack: You think I'm awesome, yeah?
Andrew Yang: You can tell within ten seconds if someone should get a green card. I have friends who are awesome Canadians who have a hard time staying here. I'm like, "This is the dumbest shit I've ever seen. This person just clearly makes everything better, and it takes ten seconds for any sane person to see that. President Yang's green card guy, give this awesome Canadian a green card", and then we just continue that process.
Peter McCormack: And this British guy, and get some awesome tea here as well, because the tea here's fucking terrible, I'm telling you; it's terrible.
Andrew Yang: I'm sorry; I believe you!
Peter McCormack: Everything else is great! I forgot where I was going with that. Oh, healthcare. Because, in the UK, we have the NHS, which my libertarian friends here hate, because they're like, "It's a socialist system", and I always try and explain to them, it's like, "Yeah, it is, but anyone, at any point, heart attack, broken leg, they can get seen, they can get treated, they don't have a bill that might hit them that decimates their economic position for years, maybe decades. And do you know what, even if you don't like the wait lists, if you're moderate income, you can go private. It's £150 a month and you have full cover, including cancer care. You can go to private doctors now, £50 for an appointment". I quite like our system.
Now, our medicine isn't as advanced as the US. If you have serious childhood cancers, most of the time, you're fundraising to come here to be treated, because the level of treatment you can get here is a lot better. But the healthcare system here freaks me out; it's the one thing that does. It feels messy. Where do you stand on this?
Andrew Yang: What? You do not think that the US healthcare system is the "best in the world"?! I should stop laughing.
Peter McCormack: I mean, on certain aspects it is.
Andrew Yang: No, we're the best in the world if you just looked at total dollars spent.
Peter McCormack: Of course.
Andrew Yang: We're one of the worst if you're talking about actual ease of use, or navigating the bureaucracy, or the principal agent problem, or anything else. So, I think most people know this. If you have means, you'll be fine in the US, so that's one thing you can count on about America, is that if you have money, you can figure it out; though it is a little bit more painful to figure it out than you'd like.
Peter McCormack: That's kind of the case anyway. If you've got the money anywhere. It's the people who are lowest in society that don't; how do we protect those?
Andrew Yang: Totally agree. So, I'm a market guy, I think a lot of people know that, but healthcare is not something that you should allow just someone to go into the market, because there's an information asymmetry. Sometimes, you're literally in a failed state of mind, because you got clonked in the head, or you're about to die, or whatever it is, and someone runs over to you. It's like, you're not exactly like an efficient marketplace rational actor at that moment.
So, there are a number of reasons why you don't want to make healthcare purely just let-the-consumer-figure-it-out marketplace. So, once you get over that hurdle, then you think, "Okay, how should we be providing this?" There should, in my opinion, be a base level of healthcare available to everyone in society. And by the way, that base layer already kind of exists. It's just called the emergency room, and it's the worst thing you want, because it's more costly, or wait until the person's already fucked up. Having ER be your primary care is hella dumb.
So, the other thing about it, and this is an emblem of the American system, I talked about this in my last book, The War on Normal People, that the healthcare industry just keeps on growing and growing. I think now it's up to something like 18% of the economy. But you know what's not changing? Our healthcare outcomes. It's just like a lot of things in American life, where it just fucking grows and grows, and it doesn't matter whether it's delivering value.
It's like all these tuition bills just grow and grow. It's like, "Did colleges get twice as good since I went? No". It's got two-and-a-half times more expensive, so it's like, "Oh, did shit get better? No, not really".
Peter McCormack: Let me give you a funny anecdote. When I come here, I always like just putting on the TV and watching the adverts, because every third advert is for some condition.
Andrew Yang: Some fucking drug.
Peter McCormack: Some drug for a condition I've never fucking heard of. Then there's like this very fast-spoken ending, which basically covers all.
Andrew Yang: "Ask your doctor about them".
Peter McCormack: Yeah, "Ask you doctor", and there might be some condition I've never heard of and, "Yeah, these are all the potential outcomes. If you've got a heart condition, you could die. If you've got this, you could die".
Andrew Yang: Yeah. You know, I used to parody those ads on the trail.
Peter McCormack: They're ridiculous. There's no incentive.
Andrew Yang: We should not have those companies have the ability to advertise on television the way they do, or the internet, and the rest of it. You know who doesn't allow it? Just about every other developed country. It does not make sense to essentially, just try and turn your population into a bunch of fearful psychosomatic types, or hypochondriacs. And, what, to make a buck?
There are a lot of really stupid things about America's healthcare system. I think if you had a base level of care, it would help rationalise things. The truth of things is that, and I described it with colleges, you've allowed this system to just go completely amok, and I have a friend who's an investor who said to me, "Andrew, if you were to rationalise what's going on in these industries, you would short a lot of these companies, because they just keep on profiteering and profiteering".
One of the things I found out when I was running for President, there's a guy named Dean Kamen, American genius, brilliant inventor, invented something called "portable dialysis", which would improve the lifestyle of a lot of people who were struggling with diabetes, etc. So, everyone used it, right, and then you kind of know how the story ends? No, because some company figured it would lose $1 billion if people didn't have to go to dialysis centres and plug in and have shitty lives. So, they managed to fight against portable dialysis. That's the kind of bullshit that's going on in the American system.
Peter McCormack: Oh, man, that's so fucked up!
Andrew Yang: I'm sorry if I unsold Peter on coming to America.
Peter McCormack: No, do you know what, there's a lot of love about coming to America. For me, as somebody who runs a business, I find people want you to succeed here, they really do, and they'll get behind you. Things happen fast and quick here, and you make a call and someone wants to meet and it just happens.
Andrew Yang: Andrew Yang just appears.
Peter McCormack: Out of nowhere, out of the elevator. So, there's a lot I like, but also it just feels like the US has really got to this broken point, and I bring it back to the money, obviously, because of Bitcoin; but where the big pots of money are, that's where everything goes a bit skew-y. There's corruption or misaligned incentives, and that's the bit that I feel like the politics should be fixing, that's the bit the politicians should be fixing, but some of them seem to be benefitting from this as well.
Andrew Yang: Yeah, that's a pretty good summary. I think you understand what's going on pretty well. So I do, again, want to point out where we need to go, because I'm a doer, I'm a solutions-oriented person. Let's say again you have a $1.5 trillion asset class, or community, or industry in the form of Bitcoin, and then you have politicians who don't understand it, are looking up being like, "Oh, what are we going to do?" Some of them have banks whispering in their ear being like, "Kill it, get rid of the fucking thing"; some Treasury officials being like, "Kill it, get rid of it, we hate it".
Peter McCormack: Brad Sherman!
Andrew Yang: Yeah. And then you have some other legislators who are just trying to figure it out and get into it. What we have to do is we have to make the case for them, "Look, this is good for innovation, good for jobs, good for progress, good for value creation", and we have to avoid it becoming a political football, we have to make it so it isn't just the red/blue dynamic where the Republicans and like, "Yeah!" and the Democrats are like, "Kill it!" which is the natural place it will go, because of this kind of pro-establishment, anti-establishment dynamic that I described.
So, we have to run, not walk, to try to make the case to a handful of Democratic legislators that, "Look, this is pro-civilisation, this is going to help solve lots of problems. Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Will there be some reasonable, middle-ground approach? Let's go there. Don't come in, guns blazing, and be like, 'Fuck You'; don't do anything. But just come and say let's take a reasonable middle-ground approach that doesn't end up pushing this industry offshore, pushing this community offshore", that's the danger.
That's a language that can win, but we have to take that case to them as quickly as possible, because they could wake up tomorrow and do something stupid, we all know that, so we have to take this case to them immediately. And the two vessels I'm going to suggest I'm working on this are the Forward Party and Humanity Forward.
Humanity Forward is the lobbying organisation that's trying to make good things happen on Capitol Hill. They employ dozens of lobbyists, you can check them out, great team. And the Forward Party is this popular political movement that will hopefully rationalise our political incentives and make it so that legislators have to answer to the broad public, as opposed to just the hyper-partisans, but it will also create a more vibrant, competitive marketplace for the Democrats in particular to say, "Look, I can't just shit on things, because there's another party that represents the future, progress, etc, that is going to paint me with a negative brush", but also bring some fucking gunpowder to the fight.
If Forward Party has votes, money, etc -- politicians, and everyone should understand this; politicians are creatures of the market. What market are they responding to? Their political incentives, their donors, the media. So, what do we have to do? We have to create our own political incentives and donors and the media to stand up for Bitcoin and progress and the rest of it, or else we're going to wind up on the cutting-room floor.
Peter McCormack: It's a very American idea, Bitcoin, though; I feel it is.
Andrew Yang: It is. I mean, I guess some people would say it kind of has that John Wayne Republican --
Peter McCormack: Well, I think it's just the proof-of-work idea behind Bitcoin, I think the fact that it protects property rights, it's innovative. It just feels like a scary thing where you've got people like Janet Yellen, who want to tax billionaires and take their unrealised gains, and they want to track $600 transactions, that kind of weird dystopian stuff. But I think Bitcoin is a very American idea, and I also think geopolitically, for America to have the advantage on the global scale, it's a really important issue.
Andrew Yang: It's a very important issue.
Peter McCormack: To harm that would be damaging to the Americans.
Andrew Yang: I tweeted the other day, and people probably saw it, "If you have a trillion-dollar industry that could define the future, try not to screw it up". I mean, that's a reasonable summary. We should just try not to fuck it up.
Peter McCormack: I think I know what your problem's going to be, is that you are reasonable and rational and you're making sense!
Andrew Yang: What we have to do is activate the reasonable, rational folks who frankly, have just avoided politics like the plague, because I get it. The rational thing to do has been to avoid American politics; I get that. But we have to change that, or else again, they're going to do something stupid, and it's going to be very regrettable.
Peter McCormack: You're going to need to build a good team around you of people who share your vision, are charismatic, can get out there, can debate.
Andrew Yang: Are you nominating yourself?
Peter McCormack: I can't do it, I'm a foreigner, I'm British so we can't do it! But it's just finding those people that want to do this to put themselves out there, because I'm sure it was a bruising experience for you as well.
Andrew Yang: I mean, it's been bruising, but rewarding, gratifying, invigorating. I'm just a dude who, three years ago, no one had heard of. And now, I'm someone who can see, frankly, just how dystopian things threaten to get. And I'm also one of the handful of people who might be able to do something about it, so I'm going to do everything I can to do something about it.
One of the things that's happened to me over the last number of years, which I'm so grateful for, is that other people have said, "Yeah, I'm on board, let's do it". If Andrew Yang was still just a lone voice wandering in the wilderness, then I'm not here having this conversation with you and a lot of other things. But a lot of people are sick and tired of the bullshit and the nonsense, and they see what's happening and they're like, "We can do better than this".
It's wild how singular a figure I am in American politics, because I'm not a creature of this marketplace. The market's just creating certain types of actors and you know what I am? I'm someone who sees the need and then goes towards it and says, "Let the market form around me and this solution, because there have to be people that care enough about it to invest in it", and I've been happy that people have invested in it thus far.
Peter McCormack: Well, I think the timing's right, because US politics is in a mess. You are coming out of this whole COVID situation, which has polarised people again. There are big issues in many of the states. I mean, I think there's big issues here in New York, in San Francisco, in different parts of the US. But we're at a time where the money printer's going crazy, there's massive wealth divide. Everybody knows this bullshit now.
Andrew Yang: Everyone can see through it, yeah.
Peter McCormack: Everyone can see through it. The veil's been lifted, and you've got someone, just a person like a Rogan who can stand there and say, "I'm not going to take this bullshit". And I think people are looking for someone they can believe in, like yourself, and go, "Do you know what? I actually fucking trust you". This is something different, but it's like, how do you make this happen, how do you accelerate this?
Andrew Yang: It really comes down to enough of us getting together and saying, "Enough is enough. We can do better than this". The passive version is, "I'm going to watch Joe Rogan instead of other things", and I'm into that. I mean, I owe Joe Rogan a great deal. He helped launch my presidential campaign. But it's around enough of us taking various stands, taking action, making decisions, making investments.
It was on Joe Rogan's podcast where I said to him, "Look, if enough of us get together, we can fucking disrupt this system", and then a lot of his listeners were like, "Hell, yeah", and then they donated, whatever, $25 to my campaign, which added up to $40 million. So, I'm super grateful. We need to do it again.
Peter McCormack: Are you going back on?
Andrew Yang: I am going back on.
Peter McCormack: Good.
Andrew Yang: I don't have a date yet, but we're in touch with his people.
Peter McCormack: Well, I'd love to hear it. I think he's a brilliant interviewer. That's when I first became fully aware of you, listening to that interview, and it's been great to get you on this show. I think the bitcoiners, the ones who are politically motivated a little bit, will get behind you. Others will be, "You're just another politician". But I think the bitcoiners will get behind you, they want something different. I think just people want something different. We're all fucking fed up of this shit.
Andrew Yang: We should be fed up; this is fucking bullshit. We can all see it.
Peter McCormack: I say it like I'm an American. I'm actually a British person, and it's not so bad.
Andrew Yang: I think you might have a fresher perspective, because I'm the son of immigrants, so a lot of stuff happens where you learn things about this country growing up and you're like, "Oh, interesting". I mean, I think in some ways, you're coming at it fresh, because you are a fresh perspective.
Peter McCormack: Well, I'm coming at it as someone who travels around, and I don't stay in one state. I've been to eight states on this trip and I meet all different types of people. My experience is generally very similar. There are differences, obviously. Going to a restaurant in New York's different from going to one in Dallas, but generally speaking --
Andrew Yang: People are good people.
Peter McCormack: -- they want the same thing, they want to work hard, be paid and kind of be left alone. So, man, I think you're onto something and I appreciate you coming on my little podcast.
Andrew Yang: Of course. Huge fan of what you're doing and the community you're building. Congratulations, man.
Peter McCormack: Thank you, I appreciate it, man. Big deal. Presidential candidates and other Presidents coming on a podcast I started as a fucking joke a few years ago is surreal. But I love what you're doing, man. I wish you the best. I'm conscious of your time. How do people find out more about what you're doing; if they want to support the Forward Party, how do they do that?
Andrew Yang: Go to forwardparty.com, you can go to andrewyang.com. I have various events up at all times. The lobbying organisation is humanityforward.com. Any of those are great, but please, yeah, let's do it. Enough is enough and the future needs us to be better than this.
Peter McCormack: All right, let's go. Come on, Yang Gang, let's do it.
Andrew Yang: Let's go! Thank you, Peter.
Peter McCormack: All right, man. Cool, chill, good luck.
