The Alaska Permanent Fund and Andrew Yang’s Universal Basic Income Are Not The Same Things
The first thing to understand is The Alaska Permanent Fund fluctuates, it’s not a guaranteed $1000 per month, also it’s an annual payment that’s gone as high as $2,072.00 which obviously whereas Andrew Yang want’s to pay every American $12,000 per year!
A Critical Look at Andrew Yang’s “Freedom Dividend” Proposal
Andrew Yang’s proposed Universal Basic Income (UBI), branded as the “Freedom Dividend,” is frequently compared to the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation (APFC), which provides fluctuating dividend payments to Alaskan residents based on the state’s oil revenues. However, by Yang’s own explanation, his version of a dividend would be fixed—$1,000 per month, per adult—regardless of economic conditions. This raises significant concerns about its sustainability and economic logic.
Unlike true dividends, which reflect underlying market performance or asset-based income, Yang’s proposed payments are not tied to any revenue-generating asset or market variable. This detachment from economic fundamentals makes the proposal more akin to a government entitlement program than a traditional dividend. While the idea of a guaranteed income may appeal to voters, especially in times of economic uncertainty, the fixed nature of the payout could create serious financial instability in the long run.
One major issue is the lack of regional cost-of-living adjustments. The United States is economically diverse, and each state has varying expenses for housing, transportation, and essential services. This reality is already reflected in state-by-state differences in minimum wage laws. Yang’s UBI proposal, however, offers a flat amount across the board—raising questions about fairness, effectiveness, and economic efficiency. A $1,000 monthly payment may go further in rural Mississippi than it would in San Francisco or New York City.
Another concern is the potential risk of inflation. If the U.S. government becomes legally or politically bound to distribute $12,000 annually to every adult regardless of fiscal conditions, it may face extreme pressure to increase deficit spending in times of economic downturn. Without a clear funding mechanism tied to productive output or market resilience, such a program could ultimately contribute to inflationary pressures—or worse, hyperinflation—if monetary policy tools like interest rate adjustments become ineffective or politically constrained.
This scenario mirrors, in part, the economic collapse of Venezuela, where sustained government spending, unlinked to real productivity or revenue streams, played a role in triggering runaway inflation. Yang’s plan lacks a built-in mechanism for reducing or suspending payments during economic contractions, which is precisely why genuine dividend models fluctuate—they reflect real economic conditions and resource availability.
Finally, it is worth scrutinizing how the proposal is being marketed. Yang frequently references his Asian heritage with the slogan “I’m Asian, so I know a lot of math,” which some have interpreted as an appeal to racial stereotypes rather than a demonstration of substantive economic reasoning. While messaging plays a role in modern campaigning, voters should be asking more technical and policy-focused questions about the long-term viability of his plan.
In conclusion, while the concept of a Universal Basic Income is not without merit and deserves serious discussion, Andrew Yang’s specific implementation raises significant red flags. A fixed “dividend” untethered from economic fundamentals, lacking regional flexibility, and vulnerable to fiscal strain could pose more risks than benefits. The United States must carefully evaluate such proposals—not just for their surface-level appeal, but for their structural integrity and long-term economic consequences.
Consider making Jesus Christ your Lord and Savior today. In Him, there is clarity, truth, and a firm foundation that no political platform can provide.
