A right wing economist makes his case | The Gray Area

00:59:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frq1MfPQn50

Résumé

TLDRIn this episode of The Gray Area, Sean interviews economist Orin Cass, who discusses the rise of economic populism on the right and its implications for American conservatism. Cass critiques the focus on consumption as a measure of success, arguing that it does not lead to true human flourishing. He emphasizes the need for a conservative approach that prioritizes family, community, and a productive economy. The conversation also touches on globalization, financialization, and the future of work, with Cass advocating for policies that support American manufacturing and good jobs. He acknowledges the complexities of gender equity in the workforce and expresses a willingness to collaborate with Democrats on shared goals that benefit working-class people.

A retenir

  • 📈 Economic populism is rising on the right.
  • 🏠 Focusing solely on consumption does not lead to happiness.
  • 🤝 A cohesive society requires a shared vision of the good life.
  • 💼 The future of work will look different in a service economy.
  • 🌍 Globalization has impacted American manufacturing negatively.
  • 👨‍👩‍👧‍👦 Supporting families should be a priority in policy.
  • 📊 The child tax credit is gaining traction among conservatives.
  • 🔄 Collaboration with Democrats is possible on shared goals.
  • 📉 Productivity in manufacturing has been declining.
  • 🛠️ A healthy economy should provide diverse pathways to fulfillment.

Chronologie

  • 00:00:00 - 00:05:00

    Sean introduces Orin Cass, an economist and founder of American Compass, discussing economic populism on the right and its implications for American conservatism.

  • 00:05:00 - 00:10:00

    Orin Cass reflects on a quote from his 2018 writing, emphasizing that the focus on consumption as a measure of success has not led to happiness or flourishing in American life.

  • 00:10:00 - 00:15:00

    Cass argues that while material living standards have increased, they do not correlate with human flourishing, strong families, or healthy political systems, prompting a need to reassess economic goals.

  • 00:15:00 - 00:20:00

    He discusses the historical context of American conservatism, noting the coalition formed during the Reagan era that prioritized free-market ideology, often at odds with traditional conservative values.

  • 00:20:00 - 00:25:00

    Cass distinguishes his vision of conservatism from leftist ideologies, asserting that conservatives can advocate for family and community values while still supporting market-based solutions.

  • 00:25:00 - 00:30:00

    He acknowledges the overlap between left and right on certain values but emphasizes the distinct trade-offs and policy approaches that differentiate conservative and progressive views.

  • 00:30:00 - 00:35:00

    Cass outlines his conservative project, focusing on macroeconomic policies that align private and public incentives to create a more productive economy.

  • 00:35:00 - 00:40:00

    He critiques globalization and financialization for undermining domestic manufacturing and argues for industrial policy to support American jobs and investment.

  • 00:40:00 - 00:45:00

    Cass addresses the challenges of transitioning to a more balanced economy, acknowledging potential short-term pain but emphasizing long-term benefits for workers and families.

  • 00:45:00 - 00:50:00

    He discusses the importance of a cohesive moral vision in politics, arguing that a healthy society requires debate and resolution of differing views on the good life.

  • 00:50:00 - 00:59:23

    Finally, Cass expresses optimism about the Republican Party's shift towards economic populism, citing changes in personnel and policy priorities, while also acknowledging the need for bipartisan cooperation on issues affecting working-class Americans.

Afficher plus

Carte mentale

Vidéo Q&R

  • Who is Orin Cass?

    Orin Cass is an economist and the founder of the think tank American Compass.

  • What is the main topic of discussion in this episode?

    The rise of economic populism on the right and its implications for American conservatism.

  • What does Orin Cass argue about consumption?

    Cass argues that focusing solely on consumption as a measure of success does not lead to human flourishing or a strong economy.

  • How does Cass view the current state of American conservatism?

    He believes there is a significant shift happening within the Republican party towards a more populist and worker-focused agenda.

  • What are some key issues Cass addresses regarding the economy?

    He discusses globalization, financialization, and the need for industrial policy to support American manufacturing.

  • What does Cass say about the future of work?

    He acknowledges that the economy will look different in the future, emphasizing the importance of adapting to new realities while still supporting good jobs.

  • How does Cass respond to concerns about gender equity in the workforce?

    He argues for the importance of choice in family and work arrangements, suggesting that a healthy economy should allow for diverse pathways to fulfillment.

  • What is Cass's stance on collaboration with Democrats?

    He expresses openness to working with Democrats on shared goals, particularly those that benefit working-class people.

  • What does Cass believe is necessary for a healthy society?

    He believes a cohesive society requires a shared vision of the good life and the ability to debate and resolve differences.

  • What is the significance of the child tax credit in conservative policy?

    Cass notes that the child tax credit has become a top priority for conservatives, reflecting a shift towards supporting families.

Voir plus de résumés vidéo

Accédez instantanément à des résumés vidéo gratuits sur YouTube grâce à l'IA !
Sous-titres
en
Défilement automatique:
  • 00:00:00
    Hey, I'm Sean, host of The Gray Area.
  • 00:00:02
    For the show this week, I talked to Orin
  • 00:00:04
    Cass. He's an economist and the founder
  • 00:00:07
    of the think tank American Compass. We
  • 00:00:10
    discuss the rise of economic populism on
  • 00:00:13
    the right and what it means or what it
  • 00:00:15
    might mean for the future of American
  • 00:00:17
    conservatism. I hope you enjoy it. Orin
  • 00:00:20
    Cass, welcome to the show. Oh, thank you
  • 00:00:22
    for having me. But I want to start with
  • 00:00:24
    a quote from something you actually
  • 00:00:26
    wrote in 2018 because I think it does
  • 00:00:31
    sum up what's motivating your whole
  • 00:00:35
    political project. You write, "Our
  • 00:00:37
    political economy has relied upon the
  • 00:00:39
    insidious metaphor of the economic pie,
  • 00:00:42
    which measures success by the amount of
  • 00:00:44
    GDP available to every American for
  • 00:00:47
    consumption. But the things America
  • 00:00:49
    thought she wanted have not made her
  • 00:00:52
    happy.
  • 00:00:54
    But let's start there. What does that
  • 00:00:55
    mean? What did we think we wanted and
  • 00:00:58
    why hasn't it made us happy?
  • 00:01:02
    Well, you're very perceptive to start
  • 00:01:04
    there. It's funny. We we were just
  • 00:01:06
    putting together this this new book
  • 00:01:07
    called The New Conservatives. That's
  • 00:01:09
    sort of an anthology of of everything
  • 00:01:11
    we've been doing at American Compass
  • 00:01:12
    over the last 5 years. And I actually
  • 00:01:14
    went back and and grabbed that essay and
  • 00:01:16
    made it a prologue to the book. Um
  • 00:01:19
    because exactly as you said it it is
  • 00:01:21
    sort of a starting point certainly for
  • 00:01:23
    the way I think about a lot of this and
  • 00:01:27
    you know I think in my mind what we what
  • 00:01:30
    we saw go wrong in in our economics and
  • 00:01:33
    and our politics is uh that that we did
  • 00:01:37
    come to think of of sort of consumption
  • 00:01:40
    as the end unto itself. Um and you know
  • 00:01:43
    to be clear like I I love consumption as
  • 00:01:45
    as much as the next guy. I think I'm I'm
  • 00:01:47
    not saying we should we should go back
  • 00:01:48
    and live in log cabins. Um but I think
  • 00:01:51
    we assumed that as as long as we were
  • 00:01:53
    increasing consumption, as long as
  • 00:01:55
    material living standards were rising,
  • 00:01:58
    everybody would be happy and and we
  • 00:01:59
    could declare success. And and it's
  • 00:02:01
    important to say in in in economics from
  • 00:02:03
    a formal perspective, that is in fact
  • 00:02:05
    how our economic models operate.
  • 00:02:07
    Economists will tell you their
  • 00:02:09
    assumption is that the goal of the
  • 00:02:11
    economic system is to maximize
  • 00:02:13
    consumption. And and so that's where
  • 00:02:15
    that economic pie metaphor comes from.
  • 00:02:17
    And it's something that was so widely
  • 00:02:19
    embraced across the political spectrum,
  • 00:02:22
    uh across sort of the the intellectual
  • 00:02:24
    spectrum, I would say, was this idea
  • 00:02:26
    that as long as you're you're growing
  • 00:02:28
    the economy, you're growing
  • 00:02:29
    GDP. You don't really have to worry too
  • 00:02:32
    much about what's in the pie or where
  • 00:02:34
    it's coming from, you can always sort of
  • 00:02:37
    then chop it up and make sure everybody
  • 00:02:39
    has lots of pie. And and I think it's
  • 00:02:42
    important to say that that and this is
  • 00:02:43
    the point that that we sort of got what
  • 00:02:45
    we thought we wanted. It it's important
  • 00:02:47
    to say that that worked that that for
  • 00:02:49
    all of the problems we have in this
  • 00:02:51
    country, if you're if you're only
  • 00:02:53
    looking at material living standards, if
  • 00:02:55
    you're asking how much stuff people
  • 00:02:56
    have, uh how big their houses are,
  • 00:02:59
    whether they're air conditioned, even
  • 00:03:00
    how much healthcare they consume, really
  • 00:03:03
    at every socioeconomic level,
  • 00:03:05
    consumption is up. We we we did that.
  • 00:03:08
    And yet I think it's also very obvious
  • 00:03:10
    that that did not achieve what we were
  • 00:03:12
    trying to achieve. That that did not
  • 00:03:14
    necessarily correspond to human
  • 00:03:16
    flourishing. Uh that that that did not
  • 00:03:19
    correspond to a strengthening economy
  • 00:03:21
    over time. That it it certainly did not
  • 00:03:23
    correspond to strengthening families and
  • 00:03:25
    communities. And ultimately it didn't
  • 00:03:27
    correspond to a a strong and healthy
  • 00:03:29
    political system or democracy. And so
  • 00:03:32
    there's then obviously a lot of to to
  • 00:03:35
    talk about in terms of okay well why
  • 00:03:36
    isn't that right? Why did it go wrong?
  • 00:03:38
    What do you do about it? But as a
  • 00:03:40
    starting point, I think it's important
  • 00:03:41
    to
  • 00:03:42
    recognize how much sort of debate or
  • 00:03:44
    confusion there is still about that
  • 00:03:46
    basic point. There are still a lot of
  • 00:03:48
    people right now, this month, looking
  • 00:03:50
    around and writing about, hey, wait a
  • 00:03:52
    minute, people people have more stuff
  • 00:03:54
    than ever. This has been successful. It
  • 00:03:57
    makes no sense that that anybody's
  • 00:03:58
    upset. So, just to be as clear as
  • 00:04:01
    possible, when you say we didn't achieve
  • 00:04:03
    what we wanted to achieve, you mean it
  • 00:04:05
    didn't make us happy. It didn't it
  • 00:04:07
    didn't allow us to live flourishing,
  • 00:04:09
    fulfilling lives.
  • 00:04:12
    That's right. And and I think, you know,
  • 00:04:14
    I don't love the term happy. Uh I I
  • 00:04:16
    think a lot of happiness studies kind of
  • 00:04:18
    get very um very sloppy very quickly. I
  • 00:04:22
    I do think though that there's a way in
  • 00:04:24
    which we can define the the ends that
  • 00:04:27
    we're trying to achieve. And you know, I
  • 00:04:29
    think actually an interesting sort of
  • 00:04:31
    element of of disagreement within our
  • 00:04:33
    politics that's that's quite natural and
  • 00:04:35
    healthy is is it is contested what are
  • 00:04:38
    the ends that that we're trying to
  • 00:04:39
    achieve. But to to the extent that we
  • 00:04:42
    that we can agree on certain basic
  • 00:04:44
    things like I think we probably want to
  • 00:04:46
    see uh a situation where you know people
  • 00:04:50
    are are building lives that allow them
  • 00:04:52
    to support themselves and their families
  • 00:04:55
    that provide a stable environment for
  • 00:04:57
    raising kids who are then able to go on
  • 00:04:59
    and do those same things that we see
  • 00:05:01
    their health improving that we see life
  • 00:05:04
    expectancy rising. uh that you know
  • 00:05:07
    ultimately in in the macro economy we we
  • 00:05:09
    see investment and innovation and growth
  • 00:05:11
    and progress. Um, you know, all of those
  • 00:05:15
    things are are very different from just
  • 00:05:17
    how big is your TV. And I think there
  • 00:05:20
    was an assumption that it would just all
  • 00:05:22
    be correlated. And and you still see
  • 00:05:24
    this point being made that well, you
  • 00:05:25
    know, rising GDP is correlated with all
  • 00:05:27
    these other things. So just focus on
  • 00:05:29
    rising GDP. And it's it's certainly
  • 00:05:32
    true. You'd rather be a rich country
  • 00:05:34
    than a poor country. But but there's an
  • 00:05:36
    awful lot of texture and variation
  • 00:05:38
    therein. And I think if you look at the
  • 00:05:41
    trajectory that the United States is on
  • 00:05:43
    and and has been for the last 20 or 25
  • 00:05:46
    years, what you see is sort of a real
  • 00:05:50
    decline in a lot of these capacities.
  • 00:05:52
    Whether you're looking in economic terms
  • 00:05:54
    at at investment and growth and
  • 00:05:56
    innovation and productivity, or you're
  • 00:05:58
    looking in more social terms at at
  • 00:06:01
    families and communities and life
  • 00:06:03
    expectancy. And pretty much however you
  • 00:06:05
    measure it, the that rising consumption
  • 00:06:07
    did not ultimately correspond with the
  • 00:06:10
    with the actual ends that I think we we
  • 00:06:13
    for the most part want to focus
  • 00:06:15
    on. That has definitely been the
  • 00:06:18
    trajectory to use your word. And the
  • 00:06:21
    strange thing for someone like me is
  • 00:06:24
    that American conservatism, certainly in
  • 00:06:27
    my lifetime, has
  • 00:06:29
    largely existed to reinforce the
  • 00:06:32
    ideology you're rejecting here. And I'm
  • 00:06:36
    happy to see that pivot. But why do you
  • 00:06:38
    think the political right has been blind
  • 00:06:41
    for so long to the things you're
  • 00:06:43
    correctly, in my opinion, fighting for
  • 00:06:46
    now?
  • 00:06:48
    I I think there's a very interesting
  • 00:06:49
    pivot point that you see uh essentially
  • 00:06:52
    around the time of of the Reagan
  • 00:06:54
    revolution and and if you think about
  • 00:06:56
    the coalition that that Reagan
  • 00:06:58
    assembled, it it had these different
  • 00:07:00
    elements. It it had the the social
  • 00:07:03
    conservatives who I would say are sort
  • 00:07:04
    of most closely aligned to a a sort of
  • 00:07:08
    fundamentally conservative outlook on on
  • 00:07:10
    a lot of these questions. But then it
  • 00:07:12
    brought to that also the the very
  • 00:07:15
    libertarian
  • 00:07:17
    uh free market folks on on the economic
  • 00:07:20
    side and then also the kind of quite
  • 00:07:22
    aggressive interventionist foreign
  • 00:07:24
    policy hawks and and what all these
  • 00:07:26
    folks had in common was they they really
  • 00:07:28
    hated communism and and really wanted to
  • 00:07:31
    win the cold war and and saw that as
  • 00:07:33
    sort of the existential crisis and test.
  • 00:07:36
    But what happened partly as a result is
  • 00:07:37
    that I think you know within that
  • 00:07:39
    coalition a very libertarian free market
  • 00:07:42
    mindset was then imposed on on the
  • 00:07:45
    economic policy of the right of center
  • 00:07:47
    even where that was was very much in
  • 00:07:49
    tension with a lot of other conservative
  • 00:07:51
    values and and you saw people writing
  • 00:07:53
    about that at at the time from both
  • 00:07:54
    sides you know from one side Friedrich
  • 00:07:57
    Hayek who is sort of one of the ultimate
  • 00:08:01
    uh sort of carriers of this this free
  • 00:08:03
    market ideology he has a very famous
  • 00:08:06
    essay that's literally titled why I am
  • 00:08:08
    not a conservative uh emphasizing that
  • 00:08:10
    his you know what he calls faith in in
  • 00:08:13
    markets to sort of solve problems and
  • 00:08:15
    and self-regulate was was very much at
  • 00:08:18
    odds with how conservatives looked at
  • 00:08:20
    the world and and from the flip side you
  • 00:08:22
    had a lot of conservatives folks like uh
  • 00:08:24
    you know uh Roger Scrutin and uh Yilval
  • 00:08:27
    Levin more recently pointing out the
  • 00:08:29
    ways that you know certainly
  • 00:08:31
    conservatives like markets they they
  • 00:08:33
    prefer markets as a way of ordering the
  • 00:08:35
    economy to to other options. But
  • 00:08:38
    recognizing that markets are very much
  • 00:08:40
    in tension with other values like family
  • 00:08:42
    and community and and in some cases
  • 00:08:44
    markets even actively can can undermine
  • 00:08:47
    or erode the strength of those other
  • 00:08:49
    institutions. Markets are also dependent
  • 00:08:52
    on institutions. If you want markets to
  • 00:08:54
    work well, uh you actually need
  • 00:08:56
    constraints. You need institutional
  • 00:08:58
    supports. And so that tension was was
  • 00:09:00
    always present. I think the the
  • 00:09:02
    coalition made a lot of sense in the
  • 00:09:04
    context of winning the cold war. Uh it
  • 00:09:06
    made a lot of sense in a context where
  • 00:09:08
    where markets, you know, in the middle
  • 00:09:10
    to late 20th century really did seem to
  • 00:09:12
    be delivering on a lot of the things
  • 00:09:14
    that conservatives really cared about.
  • 00:09:16
    Uh but then I think that it sort of
  • 00:09:18
    reached its expiration date and and just
  • 00:09:20
    kind of lived on by
  • 00:09:22
    inertia into the 2000s into this era of
  • 00:09:25
    kind of radical embrace of free trade
  • 00:09:28
    even with communist China and cutting
  • 00:09:31
    taxes even in the face of big deficits.
  • 00:09:33
    In what sense is this vision of yours
  • 00:09:36
    conservative? Because I can imagine a
  • 00:09:39
    skeptical leftist listening to this or
  • 00:09:43
    reading your work and thinking this is
  • 00:09:45
    just a rebranded democratic socialism.
  • 00:09:48
    Like why is that wrong? What is that
  • 00:09:51
    missing?
  • 00:09:53
    Well, I think there's there's a a real
  • 00:09:55
    disconnect both on the on the ends and
  • 00:09:57
    on the means. I think there's a very
  • 00:10:00
    healthy contestation over what are the
  • 00:10:02
    appropriate ends that that we're
  • 00:10:04
    actually building toward. And I think
  • 00:10:06
    what you're seeing conservatives now
  • 00:10:08
    coming back to finally actually
  • 00:10:10
    articulating a lot more effectively is a
  • 00:10:13
    set of actual value judgments about what
  • 00:10:15
    we do think the good life consists of
  • 00:10:17
    what we do think is necessary for human
  • 00:10:19
    flourishing uh in a way that
  • 00:10:21
    libertarians are are entirely unwilling
  • 00:10:23
    to right for for libertarians it's sort
  • 00:10:25
    of liberty and the market are the end
  • 00:10:26
    unto itself and and whatever comes out
  • 00:10:28
    of that that nothing else to say about
  • 00:10:31
    it. Um, I think if you look at, you
  • 00:10:33
    know, certainly my own view and and what
  • 00:10:35
    you see conservatives focusing on, I I
  • 00:10:38
    think there is a set of value judgments
  • 00:10:41
    and and preferences for uh, you know, in
  • 00:10:45
    many respects quite traditional
  • 00:10:47
    formations at the family level, at the
  • 00:10:49
    community level. Uh, saying that, you
  • 00:10:52
    know, it is not merely a valueneutral
  • 00:10:54
    choice. Would you rather, you know, get
  • 00:10:56
    married and have kids or spend more
  • 00:10:58
    money on vacations in Greece? that it it
  • 00:11:00
    is actually appropriate and and
  • 00:11:02
    necessary for the good society to say no
  • 00:11:05
    no no one of these things is better than
  • 00:11:06
    the other uh and and more important and
  • 00:11:09
    and should be valued more highly. Um,
  • 00:11:12
    you know, I think at the at the national
  • 00:11:14
    level, you're also seeing the it in in
  • 00:11:16
    what is a much more robust nationalism
  • 00:11:18
    on on the right of center where I think
  • 00:11:20
    conservatives recognize the the
  • 00:11:23
    importance of the nation and and sort of
  • 00:11:25
    solidarity within the nation um to
  • 00:11:29
    functioning markets to a functioning
  • 00:11:31
    society uh in a way that at least the
  • 00:11:33
    modern left tends tends to resist in a
  • 00:11:36
    lot of cases. Well, look, I mean, I'm
  • 00:11:39
    certainly not here to speak for the
  • 00:11:41
    political left. My my own my own views
  • 00:11:43
    are, I think, a little more complicated
  • 00:11:46
    than than, you know, neat distinctions
  • 00:11:48
    will allow for, but and part of the
  • 00:11:50
    issue here, right, is there is no
  • 00:11:52
    monolithic left or monolithic right,
  • 00:11:54
    right? I mean, it's it's not as though
  • 00:11:56
    it's that it's that neat. Um, but I I I
  • 00:11:59
    I would say I do think there's a deep
  • 00:12:01
    tradition of left-wing thought that
  • 00:12:04
    prioritizes community and connection and
  • 00:12:07
    advocates for justice and fairness
  • 00:12:09
    precisely because it promotes social
  • 00:12:12
    stability. And this is indeed a major
  • 00:12:14
    leftist criticism of right-wing
  • 00:12:16
    libertarianism. Um, I I think there is
  • 00:12:19
    more overlap on some of these ends than
  • 00:12:21
    you might uh than you might think or or
  • 00:12:24
    or than what your comments might imply
  • 00:12:27
    just now. Well, I look, I certainly
  • 00:12:30
    don't disagree that there's there's
  • 00:12:32
    overlap. Um, and and I think even if you
  • 00:12:35
    sort of think of the a prior version of
  • 00:12:37
    of the right and left, you could say the
  • 00:12:39
    same thing. Well, you know, everybody is
  • 00:12:41
    sort of focusing on growth and and
  • 00:12:44
    prosperity and and so forth. there's
  • 00:12:47
    there's always plenty of overlap and and
  • 00:12:48
    it's a good thing that there's
  • 00:12:50
    agreement. Um you you wouldn't want to
  • 00:12:53
    have sort of two political traditions
  • 00:12:55
    that literally aren't agreeing on or or
  • 00:12:58
    speaking to each other about anything at
  • 00:12:59
    all. But I I do think to sort of answer
  • 00:13:02
    the question that you you started with,
  • 00:13:05
    there are very distinct tradeoffs and
  • 00:13:08
    and points of conflict between these
  • 00:13:10
    world views. And again, I don't think
  • 00:13:13
    that's a a bad thing. I think you want
  • 00:13:15
    to have different perspectives, but you
  • 00:13:18
    know, when I hear people sort of ask
  • 00:13:19
    like, well, how are the things you're
  • 00:13:21
    talking about, not just what the what
  • 00:13:22
    the left wants? I I think the answer is,
  • 00:13:25
    well, there's there's clear clearly
  • 00:13:28
    quite a lot of space between the things
  • 00:13:30
    we're talking about and and certainly
  • 00:13:32
    what the modern political left is uh is
  • 00:13:35
    spending its time on. Um, and then I
  • 00:13:38
    think the the the other piece is that
  • 00:13:40
    then I think you see a lot of
  • 00:13:42
    distinction in in terms of the means and
  • 00:13:44
    and the kinds of of policy approaches
  • 00:13:47
    that uh conservatives are more inclined
  • 00:13:51
    to partly based on sort of their view of
  • 00:13:53
    of what is and is not likely to work and
  • 00:13:55
    partly based on uh sort of principles
  • 00:13:59
    around the the role of government and so
  • 00:14:01
    forth. And you know, the way I always
  • 00:14:03
    put it is that I think if if you if you
  • 00:14:05
    imagine the libertarians as the group
  • 00:14:07
    that are kind of just trusting the
  • 00:14:09
    market and and assuming that well,
  • 00:14:10
    whatever the market delivers is going to
  • 00:14:12
    work. I think what my perception
  • 00:14:15
    certainly is that you are tend to hear
  • 00:14:17
    from the left is much more a skepticism
  • 00:14:19
    that
  • 00:14:20
    markets can work that that markets can
  • 00:14:23
    do these things or should do these
  • 00:14:25
    things and and therefore a preference
  • 00:14:27
    for um a a much larger role for the
  • 00:14:31
    state in in in addressing these various
  • 00:14:34
    challenges and solving these problems.
  • 00:14:36
    And it seems to me that the the
  • 00:14:37
    conservative view is is more one that
  • 00:14:39
    you know markets are not going to of
  • 00:14:41
    their own accord automatically do all of
  • 00:14:43
    these things, but but that markets
  • 00:14:46
    properly constrained and and chneled can
  • 00:14:49
    do a lot of them. And and that there are
  • 00:14:50
    a lot of reasons we prefer market-based
  • 00:14:53
    solutions uh to state-based solutions.
  • 00:14:56
    And so as we think about trying to
  • 00:14:57
    address a lot of these problems, we're
  • 00:14:59
    much more inclined to ask, okay, you
  • 00:15:02
    know, what would it take? what
  • 00:15:03
    institutions, what constraints do we
  • 00:15:05
    need? And so I think as a result, you're
  • 00:15:07
    seeing now in the kinds of things
  • 00:15:09
    conservatives are focused on somewhat
  • 00:15:13
    kind of
  • 00:15:14
    counterintuitively a lot more
  • 00:15:16
    interventions in the market intended to
  • 00:15:20
    hopefully get markets doing the kinds of
  • 00:15:23
    things we want to see them doing.
  • 00:15:24
    Whereas I think the agenda from the left
  • 00:15:26
    tends much more to be about what are the
  • 00:15:29
    things that that the the state is going
  • 00:15:31
    to do essentially because the market
  • 00:15:33
    will not.
  • 00:15:35
    Yeah. I mean I I look there's certainly
  • 00:15:36
    a contingent on the left that just says
  • 00:15:38
    capitalism is bad as though that's an
  • 00:15:40
    answer to all their problems. I I'm not
  • 00:15:42
    one of those people. Um but you know I
  • 00:15:44
    do think there's a tendency to speak
  • 00:15:46
    about capitalism as though it's just an
  • 00:15:49
    economic system when in fact it's also
  • 00:15:51
    an ideology. It's also a a political
  • 00:15:53
    morality with its own values. And you
  • 00:15:55
    know, we can value family and community
  • 00:15:57
    and these sorts of things, but
  • 00:15:58
    capitalism values profit and expansion
  • 00:16:01
    and competition. And these sets of
  • 00:16:03
    values are often in conflict. And you
  • 00:16:06
    know, the the position of a lot of
  • 00:16:07
    people on the left is not all that
  • 00:16:08
    different from yours, which is the
  • 00:16:10
    market itself isn't the problem. The
  • 00:16:12
    unfettered market is the problem. There
  • 00:16:14
    needs to be guard rails. Um, and that,
  • 00:16:17
    you know, that role is best filled by
  • 00:16:19
    the state. But that seems to be your
  • 00:16:20
    position. No. Well, so you know, I think
  • 00:16:24
    it it's maybe helpful to kind of get
  • 00:16:25
    concrete and think about different kind
  • 00:16:28
    of policy areas and what the
  • 00:16:30
    implications of it would be. I think you
  • 00:16:32
    know one really clear example is when we
  • 00:16:34
    think about you know okay to the extent
  • 00:16:37
    that we've seen really significant wage
  • 00:16:38
    stagnation for for you know the median
  • 00:16:41
    worker for the working class you know
  • 00:16:44
    what are the solutions to that problem
  • 00:16:47
    what are the sources of that problem and
  • 00:16:50
    I I do think it's fair to say that a lot
  • 00:16:52
    of the folks on on the left certainly
  • 00:16:54
    the what what what what I hear them
  • 00:16:57
    saying is a critique is essentially that
  • 00:16:59
    well this is what capitalism does
  • 00:17:02
    capitalism generates sort of returns for
  • 00:17:07
    capital and um in many ways is is
  • 00:17:10
    designed and intended to um either
  • 00:17:14
    outright exploit labor or certainly
  • 00:17:16
    leave labor in a weakened position. Uh
  • 00:17:20
    and that is what it does. No, I mean I
  • 00:17:24
    don't want to get too far a field here
  • 00:17:25
    again. No, this is you're making my
  • 00:17:26
    point for me that that you just take for
  • 00:17:28
    granted. Well, of course that's the
  • 00:17:29
    case. And it seems to me that that's not
  • 00:17:32
    the case at all. That that capitalism in
  • 00:17:35
    in the abstract is a system that works
  • 00:17:38
    only if both labor and capital are
  • 00:17:42
    working productively. And the extent to
  • 00:17:44
    which either benefits or doesn't, it
  • 00:17:47
    seems to me is a function that of the
  • 00:17:49
    relative power that they have within
  • 00:17:51
    that market. Uh and if you have a
  • 00:17:54
    situation where capital is is highly
  • 00:17:58
    dependent on uh labor to generate profit
  • 00:18:02
    and uh workers have power to demand
  • 00:18:06
    better conditions and in fact the the
  • 00:18:10
    strategy that is going to generate the
  • 00:18:11
    most profit is one that requires
  • 00:18:13
    actually investing on in workers and
  • 00:18:15
    improving their productivity. It seems
  • 00:18:17
    to me you can you can have a a very
  • 00:18:19
    productive system that that works out
  • 00:18:21
    very well for workers as well. I mean,
  • 00:18:24
    there are many different ways to do
  • 00:18:25
    capitalism, right? Um, in the right
  • 00:18:27
    system with with the right guard rails,
  • 00:18:30
    it's clearly the most successful
  • 00:18:32
    economic system invented in the history
  • 00:18:34
    of the species. I I wouldn't deny that
  • 00:18:36
    at all, which is why I'm not a let's
  • 00:18:37
    abolish capitalism person. I'm not that
  • 00:18:40
    at all, just to be clear. No. And and I
  • 00:18:43
    don't think most people certainly on the
  • 00:18:44
    American left are let's abolish
  • 00:18:46
    capitalism people. I do think they tend
  • 00:18:49
    to uh assume that capitalism as
  • 00:18:53
    operating in the market is not going to
  • 00:18:56
    generate especially good outcomes for
  • 00:18:58
    workers and that the way to address that
  • 00:19:00
    therefore is for instance through more
  • 00:19:03
    taxation and
  • 00:19:04
    redistribution. Um, and I think one
  • 00:19:07
    problem certainly with with the left in
  • 00:19:09
    America today is that there are just a
  • 00:19:12
    number of other values that are placed
  • 00:19:14
    above outcomes for workers. Uh,
  • 00:19:17
    obviously the importance of addressing
  • 00:19:20
    climate change gets much higher
  • 00:19:22
    priority. Um, the approach to
  • 00:19:24
    immigration and frankly a refusal to
  • 00:19:27
    enforce immigration law has taken much
  • 00:19:29
    higher priority. Um, I think, you know,
  • 00:19:33
    at at this point, certainly in the way
  • 00:19:35
    that we operate our education system and
  • 00:19:37
    put it basically all of our eggs on the
  • 00:19:40
    on the traditional higher education
  • 00:19:42
    basket has the same effect. And so, you
  • 00:19:46
    know, I I think at the end of the day,
  • 00:19:48
    politics on all sides, it comes down to
  • 00:19:50
    trade-offs. I think it's very easy to
  • 00:19:52
    sort of declare that we like all the
  • 00:19:54
    good things and don't like all the bad
  • 00:19:56
    things, but what what our politics comes
  • 00:20:00
    down to is how we weigh those different
  • 00:20:02
    values and what trade-offs we're willing
  • 00:20:04
    to accept. And I think what you're
  • 00:20:07
    seeing today is that conservatives where
  • 00:20:10
    certainly they have not done a good job
  • 00:20:11
    of this in the past are starting to lean
  • 00:20:15
    much further into asking what can we do
  • 00:20:17
    that are going to boost the prospects
  • 00:20:19
    for workers that are going to boost um
  • 00:20:22
    the the prospects for for family
  • 00:20:24
    formation at the expense of other things
  • 00:20:26
    we might like too. Whereas on the left,
  • 00:20:29
    I just I frankly and and I think this is
  • 00:20:32
    very obvious certainly in the rhetoric
  • 00:20:33
    of the Democratic party. Uh there is
  • 00:20:36
    there is another set of things that that
  • 00:20:38
    tends to command top
  • 00:20:42
    priority. Support for the show comes
  • 00:20:44
    from Shopify. Starting a business is all
  • 00:20:46
    about turning your ideas into reality.
  • 00:20:49
    And to see it through, you need the
  • 00:20:51
    right tools. Tools like Shopify. Shopify
  • 00:20:55
    is a commerce platform behind millions
  • 00:20:57
    of businesses around the world. And they
  • 00:20:59
    say 10% of all e-commerce in the US from
  • 00:21:03
    household names like Mattel and Gym
  • 00:21:06
    Shark to brands just getting started
  • 00:21:08
    like Dr. Shaun Illings Drillings and
  • 00:21:10
    Fillings and the Gray Area Soul Patch
  • 00:21:13
    die for hip cats who want to look as
  • 00:21:15
    young as they feel. Shopify's design
  • 00:21:18
    studio lets you build a big beautiful
  • 00:21:20
    online store that matches your brand
  • 00:21:22
    style. You can also use their AI tools
  • 00:21:25
    to step up your content creation. Plus,
  • 00:21:27
    you can easily create email and social
  • 00:21:29
    media campaigns to meet your customers
  • 00:21:31
    wherever they are. If you're ready to
  • 00:21:33
    sell, you can be ready for Shopify. You
  • 00:21:36
    can turn your big business idea into
  • 00:21:38
    reality with Shopify on your side. You
  • 00:21:40
    can sign up for your $1 per month trial
  • 00:21:43
    period and start selling today at
  • 00:21:46
    shopify.com/vox. Go to shopify.com/vox.
  • 00:21:54
    shopify.com. Let's move away from this a
  • 00:21:56
    little bit. uh cuz I'm not a member of
  • 00:21:58
    the Democratic party and I'm also not a
  • 00:22:00
    representative or spokesman for for the
  • 00:22:02
    left and I don't want to get too bogged
  • 00:22:04
    down on on some of these these things
  • 00:22:06
    because I actually think
  • 00:22:08
    the the contestation between some of
  • 00:22:11
    these value judgments is I think a big
  • 00:22:13
    sticking point and and I want to get
  • 00:22:15
    there and I think the best way to get
  • 00:22:16
    there is to talk about what your
  • 00:22:21
    conservative alternative actually looks
  • 00:22:23
    like. what you want to do differently
  • 00:22:27
    now that we have the diagnosis, right?
  • 00:22:28
    This is the problem. These are the
  • 00:22:29
    problems you're reacting against. What
  • 00:22:31
    is it that you want to do to fix this?
  • 00:22:34
    What does your conservative project look
  • 00:22:36
    like?
  • 00:22:38
    Well, I there are lots of things. And I
  • 00:22:41
    think, you know, generally speaking,
  • 00:22:43
    when we think about it, we break it into
  • 00:22:45
    kind of two big buckets. One that is
  • 00:22:47
    focused on on a lot of these broader
  • 00:22:49
    macroeconomic
  • 00:22:51
    issues. You know, how is the economy
  • 00:22:53
    functioning? what are the incentives in
  • 00:22:55
    markets? Uh and and then the other one
  • 00:22:58
    is is the much more kind of micro
  • 00:23:00
    economic issues that that are focused
  • 00:23:02
    much more on you know what are the
  • 00:23:04
    supporting institutions that that are
  • 00:23:06
    helping people to succeed in these
  • 00:23:08
    markets. Um and and so I guess you know
  • 00:23:11
    we we can talk through both of them. If
  • 00:23:13
    I were to start on on kind of the the
  • 00:23:15
    the market side and and the question of
  • 00:23:17
    sort of how do we actually get back to
  • 00:23:19
    productive
  • 00:23:20
    markets where we start from certainly is
  • 00:23:22
    and you know going all the way back to
  • 00:23:24
    Adam Smith and you he has this concept
  • 00:23:26
    of the invisible hand and it's it's I
  • 00:23:28
    think actually a very unfortunate
  • 00:23:30
    metaphor because it sounds magical right
  • 00:23:33
    like oh an invisible hand that that
  • 00:23:35
    sounds like like just that takes care of
  • 00:23:37
    everything and if you actually look he
  • 00:23:39
    only uses the term once in the wealth of
  • 00:23:41
    nations he uses the term once and he
  • 00:23:42
    uses it in a paragraph that actually is
  • 00:23:45
    about all of the requirements if what
  • 00:23:48
    you need if you want the invisible hand
  • 00:23:50
    to work and and what he says is first of
  • 00:23:52
    all you need people he's assuming that
  • 00:23:54
    that people are going to prefer domestic
  • 00:23:56
    to foreign investment. Uh and he's
  • 00:23:59
    assuming that the thing that is going to
  • 00:24:01
    generate the most profit is expanding
  • 00:24:03
    output and employing as many people as
  • 00:24:05
    possible.
  • 00:24:07
    And his point is if those two things are
  • 00:24:10
    true, if people who are trying to make a
  • 00:24:12
    a lot of money a want to do that
  • 00:24:15
    domestically and b want to do that by
  • 00:24:17
    investing in growth and employment, then
  • 00:24:21
    people pursuing their own interest will
  • 00:24:23
    also advance the public interest. It's I
  • 00:24:26
    I think that's true. It but it's it's
  • 00:24:29
    not magic. It's almost a truism. And
  • 00:24:32
    what it gives you, I think, is still
  • 00:24:34
    even today a very helpful roadmap to
  • 00:24:37
    thinking about markets, which is to
  • 00:24:38
    recognize that the whole project here is
  • 00:24:41
    to align private and public incentives.
  • 00:24:44
    And if the things that are going to earn
  • 00:24:46
    people a lot of money are also things
  • 00:24:48
    that are going to be good for workers,
  • 00:24:49
    good for the country, then the system
  • 00:24:52
    will work really well. And so the
  • 00:24:53
    question is, what are the policies you
  • 00:24:55
    need? I totally agree with that. If I'm
  • 00:24:56
    a leftist, I'm an Adam Smith leftist. I
  • 00:24:59
    think the theory of moral sentiments is
  • 00:25:01
    just as important in the book as the
  • 00:25:02
    wealth of nations.
  • 00:25:04
    Right. But well to be clear and like
  • 00:25:07
    also love the theory of moral
  • 00:25:08
    sentiments. This is even just within the
  • 00:25:09
    wealth of nations. This is what he's
  • 00:25:11
    actually talking about. And so I think
  • 00:25:14
    it's then very straightforward to
  • 00:25:16
    actually look out across the last, you
  • 00:25:18
    know, 30 years and say, okay, well, what
  • 00:25:20
    are the ways that sort of broke? What
  • 00:25:22
    are the ways that the ways to make a lot
  • 00:25:24
    of money are no longer the ways, you
  • 00:25:27
    know, things that actually we think are
  • 00:25:28
    going to be good for the economy, good
  • 00:25:30
    for workers, good for the nation? One
  • 00:25:32
    obvious one in my mind is globalization.
  • 00:25:35
    That the moment we released the
  • 00:25:36
    constraint on there is an advantage in
  • 00:25:39
    investing domestically and said actually
  • 00:25:41
    if there's more money to be made
  • 00:25:43
    shutting down your factory and opening
  • 00:25:44
    one in China, have at it. we we entirely
  • 00:25:48
    lose the right to expect that markets
  • 00:25:49
    are actually going to deliver on the
  • 00:25:51
    things we care about. Uh I think a
  • 00:25:54
    second one is is what we call
  • 00:25:56
    financialization which refers to just
  • 00:25:58
    the sort of metastasizing role that that
  • 00:26:00
    financial markets play in our economy.
  • 00:26:03
    Uh to be clear financial markets are
  • 00:26:05
    very important. The idea of allocating
  • 00:26:07
    capital efficiently is is vital to
  • 00:26:09
    capitalism obviously. But what our
  • 00:26:11
    financial markets have become is sort of
  • 00:26:13
    an end unto themselves where the most
  • 00:26:15
    money to be made in our economy is made
  • 00:26:19
    essentially trading piles of assets
  • 00:26:21
    around in circles doing financial
  • 00:26:22
    engineering figuring out ways to get
  • 00:26:25
    more cash out of existing operations
  • 00:26:28
    uh ideally while cutting them down in a
  • 00:26:30
    lot of cases. And so again, if if you
  • 00:26:34
    say, well, the the place where the top
  • 00:26:36
    students from the top business schools
  • 00:26:38
    are going to go and for that matter, the
  • 00:26:40
    top engineering students from the top
  • 00:26:41
    engineering schools is not to starting
  • 00:26:44
    new businesses and creating new products
  • 00:26:46
    and making people more productive. It's
  • 00:26:48
    to starting hedge funds and seeing who
  • 00:26:50
    can set up their office closest to the
  • 00:26:52
    trading floor to frontr run each other
  • 00:26:54
    by a millisecond in their trades.
  • 00:26:57
    you lose the right to expect that people
  • 00:26:59
    pursuing profit is is going to generate
  • 00:27:01
    good outcomes to the economy. Um the the
  • 00:27:04
    third area I would mention here is and
  • 00:27:06
    and this is one where I think there's
  • 00:27:07
    certainly a lot of interesting overlap
  • 00:27:09
    with the left is is the idea of
  • 00:27:10
    industrial policy and just the
  • 00:27:12
    recognition that you know the way that
  • 00:27:14
    the economy has evolved is is one in
  • 00:27:18
    which generally speaking sort of making
  • 00:27:20
    big capital investments in physical
  • 00:27:23
    assets that take a long time to pay off
  • 00:27:25
    has become a lot less attractive than
  • 00:27:28
    like raising venture capital money to
  • 00:27:30
    make an app.
  • 00:27:32
    And the fact that there's a higher
  • 00:27:34
    return on capital making the app has no
  • 00:27:38
    correlation to which activity is
  • 00:27:39
    actually more useful to the society. And
  • 00:27:42
    so if we actually think that that making
  • 00:27:44
    things matters, if we want to do more
  • 00:27:46
    manufacturing, if we want to have those
  • 00:27:48
    kinds of jobs, um you are going to have
  • 00:27:51
    to have some sort of of policy that
  • 00:27:55
    actually either rewards that kind of
  • 00:27:58
    investment or or discourages the other
  • 00:28:00
    kind of investment. Well, this gets at a
  • 00:28:02
    a question I have and I know it's a
  • 00:28:03
    question a lot of people have because
  • 00:28:06
    one thing you notice when you listen to
  • 00:28:07
    a lot of economic populists on the right
  • 00:28:09
    is when they talk about the kind of
  • 00:28:12
    world they want to live in, they usually
  • 00:28:13
    point to that mid-century economy where
  • 00:28:16
    there were all these manufacturing jobs
  • 00:28:18
    and that was the foundation of the
  • 00:28:19
    economy, but that world is gone. And I'm
  • 00:28:23
    not saying there aren't industrial
  • 00:28:24
    policies that can improve the situation,
  • 00:28:26
    but we're not going back to that world.
  • 00:28:29
    We're not undoing globalization. So,
  • 00:28:32
    it's not clear to me what the 21st
  • 00:28:34
    century version of this economy looks
  • 00:28:37
    like. What does it orbit around? We're
  • 00:28:38
    talking about the world of AI and the
  • 00:28:40
    internet. It's a service economy. We're
  • 00:28:42
    not all going to be working on assembly
  • 00:28:44
    lines in Detroit or Cleveland, right?
  • 00:28:46
    So, what are we going to do?
  • 00:28:49
    Well, I I feel like you sort of just
  • 00:28:51
    strung together a lot of assertions
  • 00:28:53
    there. Some of which I agree with
  • 00:28:54
    entirely and and some of which I don't
  • 00:28:56
    think follow at all. And so just to try
  • 00:29:00
    to sort of untangle those a little bit,
  • 00:29:03
    you you're certainly right that the
  • 00:29:05
    modern economy and the economy of the
  • 00:29:07
    future is going to look very different
  • 00:29:08
    from the economy of what is, you know,
  • 00:29:11
    increasingly a century ago. Um the kinds
  • 00:29:13
    of jobs are going to be very different.
  • 00:29:15
    It's going to be a relatively more
  • 00:29:17
    services focused economy.
  • 00:29:20
    That doesn't at all mean that there is
  • 00:29:23
    no undoing of globalization or or
  • 00:29:26
    certainly scaling back the excesses of
  • 00:29:29
    globalization. Uh it doesn't mean that
  • 00:29:31
    we can't have a much healthier
  • 00:29:33
    industrial economy with more of those
  • 00:29:35
    kinds of good jobs. It doesn't mean that
  • 00:29:38
    those kinds of jobs aren't still very
  • 00:29:40
    important to the foundation of of local
  • 00:29:43
    economies and and the health of those
  • 00:29:44
    service economies. So, the reason that
  • 00:29:47
    our manufacturing sector has atrophied
  • 00:29:49
    the way it is is not because we've
  • 00:29:50
    become a services-based economy and
  • 00:29:52
    people don't want a lot more
  • 00:29:54
    manufactured stuff. It's because we
  • 00:29:56
    embraced a policy approach that said,
  • 00:29:58
    "Well, we're just not going to make the
  • 00:29:59
    stuff." And the second reason that's
  • 00:30:02
    really important to focus on is because
  • 00:30:04
    it's really important to remember that
  • 00:30:05
    the theory of globalization was not and
  • 00:30:07
    the theory of trade generally going all
  • 00:30:09
    the way back to Adam Smith is not we
  • 00:30:12
    stop making stuff, someone else makes
  • 00:30:14
    the stuff instead. The theory is
  • 00:30:16
    supposed to be and this is implicit
  • 00:30:18
    right in the word trade. We will make
  • 00:30:20
    some things that we are best at making
  • 00:30:22
    and others will make things that they
  • 00:30:23
    are best making and we will trade the
  • 00:30:25
    things we make best for the things they
  • 00:30:26
    make best. And if that had happened and
  • 00:30:29
    to the extent that that does happen, I
  • 00:30:32
    think trade can be fantastic. But what
  • 00:30:35
    we've gotten instead and where
  • 00:30:37
    globalization has gone wrong is this
  • 00:30:39
    model that simply says we will not make
  • 00:30:41
    any of this stuff. And by the way, we
  • 00:30:44
    don't get the stuff imported for free.
  • 00:30:47
    What we send back is assets. We send
  • 00:30:49
    back the future claims on our economy in
  • 00:30:51
    the form of debt, in the form of equity,
  • 00:30:53
    in the form of real estate. And so, you
  • 00:30:54
    know, Warren Buffett made this point
  • 00:30:56
    back when we were first starting to do
  • 00:30:58
    this in the early 2000s that this was
  • 00:31:00
    doubly foolish. We were both hollowing
  • 00:31:02
    out our capacity today and mortgaging
  • 00:31:05
    the farm for the future. And so, you
  • 00:31:09
    know, I' I've now sort of gone on a bit
  • 00:31:11
    in an attempt to kind of untangle the
  • 00:31:13
    things you were saying, but I would kind
  • 00:31:14
    of play that back to you and say like,
  • 00:31:16
    is any part of that wrong? Does any part
  • 00:31:18
    of that not seem, you know, consistent
  • 00:31:21
    with how you would think about it?
  • 00:31:22
    Because if if that is right, then the
  • 00:31:24
    whole like, well, we're not going to
  • 00:31:25
    reverse globalization, it's a services
  • 00:31:27
    economy, is is just sort of a
  • 00:31:29
    nonsequittor. It it doesn't speak to the
  • 00:31:31
    problems we have or or the solutions we
  • 00:31:33
    have available. No, I was just saying I
  • 00:31:36
    I just don't know what that world is
  • 00:31:39
    going to look like. I'm not saying that
  • 00:31:40
    that we can't have a better economy
  • 00:31:42
    without, you know, recapitulating the,
  • 00:31:45
    you know, the the economy of the 1950s
  • 00:31:48
    and60s or whatever. It's just it's just
  • 00:31:50
    going to look very different. That's
  • 00:31:52
    absolutely. But why? It doesn't seem to
  • 00:31:54
    me to be hard to envision. I mean, we we
  • 00:31:57
    know all sorts of stuff that we make. We
  • 00:31:59
    know stuff lots of other really
  • 00:32:00
    developed economies make. I mean put
  • 00:32:02
    China to the side as as a sort of
  • 00:32:05
    relative to the size of their economy we
  • 00:32:07
    have almost as big a trade deficit with
  • 00:32:08
    Germany right I mean we see you know in
  • 00:32:11
    a Germany Korea Taiwan we see you know
  • 00:32:16
    highly developed economies with very
  • 00:32:18
    high levels of productivity with very
  • 00:32:20
    good jobs in their manufacturing sectors
  • 00:32:23
    um that don't run massive trade deficits
  • 00:32:25
    that in fact run trade surpluses and and
  • 00:32:28
    I don't think anybody's saying well the
  • 00:32:29
    US has to kind of become an exportled
  • 00:32:31
    economy and you know run giant
  • 00:32:33
    surpluses. The question is why can't we
  • 00:32:35
    at least fix that deficit? Why can't we
  • 00:32:39
    either make more of the stuff that we
  • 00:32:40
    consume here or be making stuff for
  • 00:32:43
    export to trade for more of the stuff
  • 00:32:45
    that we import? The burden of proof is
  • 00:32:47
    almost in the wrong place. The the
  • 00:32:49
    better question would be why on earth
  • 00:32:50
    isn't that what's happening and why
  • 00:32:52
    shouldn't that happen? What is the price
  • 00:32:54
    of that? How much pain do we have to
  • 00:32:56
    suffer to to bridge from this world to
  • 00:32:59
    that world? I mean, do you think that
  • 00:33:02
    Americans
  • 00:33:03
    simply need to consume fewer goods at
  • 00:33:06
    higher prices so long as those goods are
  • 00:33:09
    made in America? I mean, do we just have
  • 00:33:11
    to take a little bit of economic pain as
  • 00:33:14
    we undergo this transition? I I do think
  • 00:33:17
    there will be economic pain in the
  • 00:33:19
    transition and and so I don't want to
  • 00:33:20
    minimize that and and we can come back
  • 00:33:22
    to what what that looks like. I do think
  • 00:33:25
    it's important to say that as a
  • 00:33:27
    long-term matter, this is better. You
  • 00:33:30
    one of the most shocking statistics that
  • 00:33:32
    that I always highlight for folks is
  • 00:33:34
    that it's not just that productivity
  • 00:33:35
    growth is slowing in
  • 00:33:38
    manufacturing. Productivity growth in
  • 00:33:39
    our manufacturing sector has actually
  • 00:33:41
    been negative for a decade. We've lit
  • 00:33:44
    we've literally been getting worse at
  • 00:33:46
    making things. You need more American
  • 00:33:47
    labor in a factory today than you did a
  • 00:33:49
    decade ago for comparable output. that
  • 00:33:52
    that shouldn't be possible in a
  • 00:33:53
    capitalist economy. That's crazy. And so
  • 00:33:56
    the alternative, you know, people look
  • 00:33:58
    at that and they say like, "Oh, well,
  • 00:33:59
    we're really bad at manufacturing. If
  • 00:34:01
    you like insisted on doing a lot of
  • 00:34:02
    that, that would be really painful." But
  • 00:34:05
    but that's a bizarre static analysis. If
  • 00:34:08
    if we actually made this a priority and
  • 00:34:10
    we're investing in it and and committing
  • 00:34:13
    to to building that sector, that's not
  • 00:34:15
    what investment and and productivity in
  • 00:34:17
    the sector would look like at all. And
  • 00:34:20
    so I think we should have a a lot of,
  • 00:34:22
    you know, on one hand confidence that
  • 00:34:24
    that a a more balanced economy would be
  • 00:34:27
    a stronger one in the long run. And we
  • 00:34:30
    should also be really focused on the
  • 00:34:33
    costs that we're bearing now, right?
  • 00:34:36
    Because it's not like, well, by doing
  • 00:34:38
    things this way, everything's awesome.
  • 00:34:40
    By by doing things this way, we do have
  • 00:34:42
    a lot of cheap stuff. But I would
  • 00:34:44
    suggest that that actually it's right
  • 00:34:46
    now that the American people are bearing
  • 00:34:48
    a lot of economic costs of bad choices.
  • 00:34:52
    Let me interject there a little bit. I
  • 00:34:53
    don't think people like that trade-off.
  • 00:34:55
    I I I just want to be as concrete as
  • 00:34:57
    possible. I don't want to talk about the
  • 00:34:58
    economic pain in abstract terms. Like
  • 00:35:01
    what kind of pain are we talking about?
  • 00:35:03
    For how long? On whose shoulders will it
  • 00:35:06
    fall? And this this element of sacrifice
  • 00:35:09
    here, right? If if we're going to ask
  • 00:35:10
    people uh to give up certain
  • 00:35:12
    conveniences, certain comforts, certain
  • 00:35:15
    privileges in some
  • 00:35:18
    case for the sake of some greater good,
  • 00:35:20
    what is that greater good? What is that
  • 00:35:23
    shared purpose?
  • 00:35:26
    the greater good and and the shared
  • 00:35:28
    purpose is a stronger economy that is on
  • 00:35:32
    a better trajectory and providing better
  • 00:35:34
    opportunities for people to have good
  • 00:35:37
    jobs that allow them to support families
  • 00:35:39
    and that is distributing prosperity more
  • 00:35:42
    widely across the country.
  • 00:35:45
    Um in terms of the sort of upfront cost
  • 00:35:49
    that we're asking to get there, I I
  • 00:35:52
    think there are a couple of things. I
  • 00:35:54
    think one is that in the short run some
  • 00:35:56
    things are going to be more expensive
  • 00:35:58
    because we have lost the ability to make
  • 00:36:01
    them and if we want to start making them
  • 00:36:04
    again we're we're going to have to go
  • 00:36:06
    through them some growing pains and
  • 00:36:07
    figure out how to do that. Um I think
  • 00:36:10
    the other piece is that you know when
  • 00:36:11
    you think about the the imbalances
  • 00:36:14
    broadly there's actually a really
  • 00:36:16
    interesting linkage in a sense between
  • 00:36:17
    our our trade deficit and our budget
  • 00:36:19
    deficit. Um there doesn't have to be you
  • 00:36:23
    you can have one in deficit and one in
  • 00:36:25
    surplus. But but in practice what we
  • 00:36:28
    have and what we see in both of those is
  • 00:36:30
    that we are operating on an economic
  • 00:36:32
    model where we consume more than we're
  • 00:36:34
    able to
  • 00:36:35
    produce and making up the difference
  • 00:36:38
    with borrowing. And does that feel very
  • 00:36:41
    good while you're doing it? Sure. Is is
  • 00:36:44
    there some pain associated with saying,
  • 00:36:46
    "Wow, that's a really bad idea for the
  • 00:36:48
    long run. We should probably stop that."
  • 00:36:51
    Yes, but that's also a really really
  • 00:36:54
    important and necessary choice to make.
  • 00:36:57
    And in terms of how you address it, I
  • 00:37:00
    think a lot of the commentary tends to
  • 00:37:02
    assume, oh well, to address that, you're
  • 00:37:04
    just going to have to consume less. And
  • 00:37:06
    that's not actually true. In in many
  • 00:37:08
    ways, the way you address it is by
  • 00:37:10
    producing more. And so I think you know
  • 00:37:14
    what we are looking at is probably a 5
  • 00:37:16
    to 10 year period in in which we have
  • 00:37:19
    some adjustment costs in the economy
  • 00:37:21
    where we have higher costs of some
  • 00:37:23
    things um where we're needing to direct
  • 00:37:26
    relatively more resources to actual
  • 00:37:29
    investment. Um but that's not actually
  • 00:37:33
    all that different from the kinds of
  • 00:37:36
    economic choices we make all the time.
  • 00:37:38
    if you'll allow me to just get a little
  • 00:37:41
    big picture for a second. Um, you know,
  • 00:37:44
    there is a pluralist critique of this,
  • 00:37:46
    right? And and that critique
  • 00:37:49
    is maybe maybe critique isn't the right
  • 00:37:51
    word. Maybe challenge is a better
  • 00:37:54
    one. But in a diverse liberal society,
  • 00:37:57
    it it is hard to build policy around a
  • 00:37:59
    moral vision of, to use your phrase, you
  • 00:38:01
    know, the the good life because people
  • 00:38:03
    don't agree on what that is. That's sort
  • 00:38:05
    of a foundational premise of liberalism.
  • 00:38:08
    um you know, how seriously do you take
  • 00:38:10
    those sorts of objections? Do you take
  • 00:38:13
    them seriously at all? You know, I guess
  • 00:38:15
    what I'm really wondering, and I'm and
  • 00:38:17
    I'm asking in the spirit of curiosity,
  • 00:38:19
    not skepticism, is if your political vi
  • 00:38:22
    your political vision depends on a kind
  • 00:38:24
    of
  • 00:38:25
    cultural cohesion that doesn't exist or
  • 00:38:29
    maybe it did exist at some point, but no
  • 00:38:32
    longer does.
  • 00:38:34
    I I think as a descriptive matter that's
  • 00:38:36
    that's exactly right and and in my mind
  • 00:38:40
    actually speaks very articulately to the
  • 00:38:43
    the point I was trying to make back at
  • 00:38:46
    the start of the conversation about what
  • 00:38:47
    I see as a real distinction between
  • 00:38:49
    where conservatives are right now and
  • 00:38:52
    where progressives are.
  • 00:38:54
    Conservatives in fact believe that not
  • 00:38:57
    just that it's a good idea to have such
  • 00:39:00
    a vision uh but that is in fact
  • 00:39:02
    indispensable that that it is it is impo
  • 00:39:05
    impossible to actually imagine you're
  • 00:39:08
    going to have a cohesive and functioning
  • 00:39:10
    society where people aren't willing to
  • 00:39:14
    um debate and ultimately
  • 00:39:18
    resolve those kinds of issues. I would
  • 00:39:22
    dispute a little bit that it's
  • 00:39:23
    inconsistent with pluralism.
  • 00:39:26
    Um, you know, one thing that's
  • 00:39:27
    interesting the in in my 2018 book that
  • 00:39:30
    that that place you started with the
  • 00:39:32
    working hypothesis was sort of um based
  • 00:39:34
    on the the the exact concept I describe
  • 00:39:37
    that that I think we're trying to get to
  • 00:39:38
    is what I call productive pluralism
  • 00:39:41
    which is a a recognition that it's
  • 00:39:43
    incredibly important for people to be
  • 00:39:47
    able to play a productive and
  • 00:39:48
    contributing role not not just for the
  • 00:39:50
    society but for themselves but that
  • 00:39:53
    they're going to have a lot of different
  • 00:39:54
    ways they want to do that they're going
  • 00:39:56
    to have a lot of different aptitudes and
  • 00:39:58
    abilities and they're going to be in a
  • 00:39:59
    lot of different places. And one of the
  • 00:40:02
    things that the market unfettered does
  • 00:40:04
    so poorly in its pursuit of efficiency
  • 00:40:07
    is it tends to crush that pluralism and
  • 00:40:09
    it tends to push toward specialization
  • 00:40:11
    in particular functions uh and and not
  • 00:40:14
    take at all seriously the way that that
  • 00:40:16
    does not align well with people want. So
  • 00:40:19
    I think you can you can have a pluralist
  • 00:40:21
    vision and recognize that people are
  • 00:40:24
    going to want to fulfill their the good
  • 00:40:26
    life in various ways but actually have
  • 00:40:29
    in fact that pluralism be a substantive
  • 00:40:32
    commitment. Say that if if you want to
  • 00:40:34
    have a healthy society it has to be one
  • 00:40:36
    that does provide lots of different
  • 00:40:39
    pathways to a good life. And that that's
  • 00:40:42
    exactly where we're failing right now.
  • 00:40:44
    and and that if we want to support that
  • 00:40:46
    pluralism, we have to be willing to in
  • 00:40:48
    in a sense intervene in and shape
  • 00:40:51
    markets to uphold
  • 00:40:54
    it. I take those points.
  • 00:40:58
    Um, let me try to be a little more
  • 00:41:00
    precise with what I was saying because
  • 00:41:03
    I'm I I'm with you on this basic claim
  • 00:41:07
    that libertarian types and the more
  • 00:41:11
    we'll call them technocratic liberals
  • 00:41:14
    can sometimes reduce people to mere
  • 00:41:17
    economic actors. And I think both of us
  • 00:41:20
    think that human beings are more than
  • 00:41:22
    that. That there's more to flourishing
  • 00:41:24
    than material comforts.
  • 00:41:26
    I think what I'm trying to foreground
  • 00:41:28
    here
  • 00:41:29
    is the challenges of going beyond that
  • 00:41:32
    and and talking about sustaining the
  • 00:41:33
    good life um because of these these
  • 00:41:36
    differences and and to be as as concrete
  • 00:41:39
    as possible I'll just as I was saying
  • 00:41:41
    earlier I mean a lot of what you hear
  • 00:41:43
    from conservative economic populist
  • 00:41:45
    people like Senator Josh Holly is that
  • 00:41:48
    we want to revive that that mid-century
  • 00:41:50
    economy where where men had livable
  • 00:41:52
    wages and upward mobility lots of
  • 00:41:54
    factory jobs and they were able to
  • 00:41:56
    support families on one income and there
  • 00:41:59
    was a lot of good in that world. But
  • 00:42:02
    it's also
  • 00:42:03
    true that there was a price for that
  • 00:42:05
    arrangement as you know right women had
  • 00:42:08
    less autonomy. They were reduced to to
  • 00:42:10
    parenting and and nothing else. Plenty
  • 00:42:12
    of people don't think raising a family
  • 00:42:13
    is the highest good. And we can agree or
  • 00:42:15
    disagree on that. I mean I'm a father.
  • 00:42:18
    Uh the point is that that's a choice
  • 00:42:20
    that we can all make in a free
  • 00:42:22
    pluralistic liberal society. So, when
  • 00:42:24
    you talk about supporting families or
  • 00:42:26
    promoting a more meaningful form of
  • 00:42:28
    life, I'm just wondering how you you
  • 00:42:30
    think about these kinds of differences
  • 00:42:31
    in terms of of what we're organizing the
  • 00:42:33
    economy around who it's really for. Um,
  • 00:42:36
    and how do you respond to people who who
  • 00:42:38
    don't want to go back to that world, who
  • 00:42:39
    worry that holding up that period of
  • 00:42:41
    American life, as many do, as the
  • 00:42:43
    shining example means a return to a time
  • 00:42:45
    where women didn't have careers, didn't
  • 00:42:47
    have financial freedom. I'm not saying
  • 00:42:49
    that this is what you want, but I am
  • 00:42:52
    asking can we regain the good things
  • 00:42:55
    about that period without those
  • 00:42:59
    unacceptable costs, if that makes sense.
  • 00:43:02
    It's a it's a very good question and I
  • 00:43:04
    think your point about sort of raising a
  • 00:43:07
    family on one income is a great place to
  • 00:43:10
    start in thinking about it because the
  • 00:43:14
    idea that we should have an economy in
  • 00:43:16
    which it is not just sort of
  • 00:43:19
    hypothetically feasible but in fact the
  • 00:43:21
    the norm and expectation that you can
  • 00:43:24
    raise a family on one income in a sense
  • 00:43:26
    that that is our definition of a healthy
  • 00:43:28
    economy seems to me an an an incred
  • 00:43:31
    incredibly important principle and one
  • 00:43:34
    that I'm I'm interested to kind of dig
  • 00:43:37
    into a little bit like would you want to
  • 00:43:39
    I mean you specifically but would would
  • 00:43:41
    one want to resist that because I guess
  • 00:43:44
    it's it's possible to say no we actively
  • 00:43:48
    prefer an economy where that's not a
  • 00:43:51
    norm or
  • 00:43:52
    expectation because that's the way to
  • 00:43:54
    ensure that you have gender equity in
  • 00:43:57
    the
  • 00:43:58
    workplace. I guess you could say that,
  • 00:44:02
    but going back to your point about
  • 00:44:03
    pluralism, that's an extraordinary ree
  • 00:44:07
    rejection of pluralism in favor of of a
  • 00:44:11
    market imposed form of constraint that
  • 00:44:13
    forces people into one arrangement that
  • 00:44:16
    by the way the vast majority of people,
  • 00:44:18
    men and women across the political
  • 00:44:20
    spectrum say they don't
  • 00:44:22
    like. Now, it's very possible that
  • 00:44:25
    whereas you can support a family on one
  • 00:44:28
    income, you still choose to have a
  • 00:44:29
    second person
  • 00:44:31
    working, but choose is the key word
  • 00:44:33
    there. And I think this really gets in
  • 00:44:36
    many ways to the exact heart of the
  • 00:44:38
    struggle that a lot of folks on the left
  • 00:44:39
    are having right now is that if you
  • 00:44:42
    assert that, you say, uh, I want that to
  • 00:44:45
    be a genuine
  • 00:44:47
    choice. And I think people on the left
  • 00:44:49
    get very nervous about that. They say,
  • 00:44:52
    "Oh, but but what if people make the
  • 00:44:54
    wrong choice or what if there are other
  • 00:44:56
    social and cultural pressures such that
  • 00:44:59
    they don't have the freedom they should
  • 00:45:01
    with the payout of that being therefore
  • 00:45:04
    let's just have no choice at all."
  • 00:45:06
    And so I think this is what's so
  • 00:45:09
    interesting about this is that it I
  • 00:45:11
    think it it does make a lot of this very
  • 00:45:15
    concrete. But it also to some extent
  • 00:45:17
    answers your question. Is it plausible
  • 00:45:20
    in our modern politics to make these
  • 00:45:22
    kinds of claims and be successful?
  • 00:45:25
    Because the reality is that this claim
  • 00:45:27
    is an an 8020 claim in our politics. Um,
  • 00:45:33
    a lot of normative claims like these are
  • 00:45:36
    ones that people overwhelmingly do want
  • 00:45:39
    to hear and agree with and believe in.
  • 00:45:42
    And I think one of the things that that
  • 00:45:45
    you're seeing conservatives feel toward,
  • 00:45:48
    and plenty are not getting it right at
  • 00:45:49
    all, but some are really starting to get
  • 00:45:52
    it right, is that when they when they
  • 00:45:54
    find that set of claims and and and
  • 00:45:57
    believe in them and want to build an
  • 00:45:58
    agenda around
  • 00:46:00
    it, do you lose some sort of highly
  • 00:46:04
    educated, urban, upper class uh people?
  • 00:46:08
    Yes. But you probably add five or 10
  • 00:46:12
    workingclass people across ethnicities
  • 00:46:14
    for every one person you lose. And so
  • 00:46:17
    one of my great hopes for American
  • 00:46:19
    politics is that making these kinds of
  • 00:46:20
    claims and advancing these arguments in
  • 00:46:23
    ways that align with what really I would
  • 00:46:26
    say the the majority of of Americans do
  • 00:46:28
    want is the dominant strategy from a
  • 00:46:31
    game theory perspective. And to the
  • 00:46:34
    extent that politicians see that, to the
  • 00:46:37
    extent that intellectual leaders see
  • 00:46:38
    that, I I think it will push things in a
  • 00:46:41
    very constructive direction. I want to
  • 00:46:43
    pivot and I do want to talk about what's
  • 00:46:45
    happening now politically and get a
  • 00:46:48
    sense of whether you think the
  • 00:46:49
    Republican party and the conservative
  • 00:46:51
    movement more generally is
  • 00:46:54
    bending in your direction. Um, first of
  • 00:46:58
    all, I should ask, are you involved in
  • 00:47:00
    any official capacity with the Trump
  • 00:47:02
    administration? Are you advising them?
  • 00:47:04
    Do you have a an actual role? No, no,
  • 00:47:07
    I'm I'm full-time chief economist at a
  • 00:47:11
    at a 501c3 nonprofit. And so, obviously
  • 00:47:14
    in that role, we provide political
  • 00:47:16
    advice and and well, policy advice to
  • 00:47:18
    anyone who will listen. Um, but we we
  • 00:47:20
    don't have any formal affiliation with
  • 00:47:22
    with the administration. Who are you
  • 00:47:24
    advising in the administration? Whose
  • 00:47:26
    ears do you have? I'm just curious. Oh,
  • 00:47:27
    anyone who will listen to us, but we we
  • 00:47:30
    never comment on on private
  • 00:47:32
    conversations.
  • 00:47:35
    Okay. Part of the case you're making is
  • 00:47:38
    that there there is this like ongoing
  • 00:47:39
    paradigm shift within American
  • 00:47:42
    conservatism. I I don't really believe
  • 00:47:45
    that. I'm not sold on that. I might be
  • 00:47:47
    wrong. Maybe you'll convince me. But
  • 00:47:50
    when you look at what this
  • 00:47:51
    administration is doing on the policy
  • 00:47:53
    front, do you like it? Do do you think
  • 00:47:56
    Trump is moving us closer to your
  • 00:47:59
    desired world?
  • 00:48:02
    I think we're definitely moving in the
  • 00:48:03
    right direction. Um, you know, we could
  • 00:48:06
    dive into the specifics across policy
  • 00:48:08
    areas or even within a policy area. I
  • 00:48:10
    mean, just just on tariffs alone, spend
  • 00:48:13
    a tremendous amount of time sort of
  • 00:48:15
    emphasizing the the ways that I think
  • 00:48:17
    the problems that they're addressing,
  • 00:48:18
    the direction they're trying to go is
  • 00:48:21
    the right one on the specifics of how
  • 00:48:24
    things are timed and what the levels are
  • 00:48:26
    and and so forth. You know, what legal
  • 00:48:27
    authorities you use for what. I have
  • 00:48:30
    have all sorts of thoughts on on how it
  • 00:48:32
    might be done better. Uh I also think
  • 00:48:34
    we've seen some very good course
  • 00:48:36
    corrections and and it's getting better.
  • 00:48:39
    But broadly speaking to your your
  • 00:48:41
    question about the direction that things
  • 00:48:43
    are headed, I I think it's it's it's
  • 00:48:46
    extraordinarily clear to me that the the
  • 00:48:49
    Republican party and the conservative
  • 00:48:50
    movement are are shifting quite
  • 00:48:54
    dramatically in this direction.
  • 00:48:57
    And you know, one way to look at that is
  • 00:49:00
    is in terms of personnel. I mean, Trump
  • 00:49:02
    has obviously been something of a
  • 00:49:03
    constant over the last decade in
  • 00:49:06
    Republican politics, but the the
  • 00:49:08
    distance from Mike Pence to JD Vance is
  • 00:49:11
    pretty dramatic. Uh the the distance
  • 00:49:13
    from Rex Tillerson to Marco Rubio is
  • 00:49:16
    pretty dramatic. that the distance from
  • 00:49:18
    uh the the various secretaries of labor
  • 00:49:21
    in the first term to a secretary of
  • 00:49:23
    labor recommended by the teamsters is
  • 00:49:26
    pretty dramatic. Hold on. I I got to
  • 00:49:28
    pause you there because I have to ask is
  • 00:49:31
    it really rhetorically? Yes. But
  • 00:49:34
    substantively is it? I mean the reason
  • 00:49:36
    why it's hard for me to take this
  • 00:49:38
    iteration of the GOP seriously. I mean,
  • 00:49:42
    you can just look at this the big
  • 00:49:43
    beautiful domestic policy
  • 00:49:45
    bill they just passed. I mean, it it is
  • 00:49:48
    the same old Republican party, you know,
  • 00:49:50
    that it is jammed up with a bunch of
  • 00:49:52
    stuff that reflects conventional
  • 00:49:55
    conservative priorities. It's not doing
  • 00:49:57
    a whole lot to help workingass people.
  • 00:49:59
    It is it is more tax cuts offset by more
  • 00:50:02
    cuts to Medicaid and food stamps, which
  • 00:50:04
    low-income people depend on. And the net
  • 00:50:07
    result as always will be more upward re
  • 00:50:11
    redistribution of wealth and on top of
  • 00:50:14
    that another three four five trillion
  • 00:50:17
    dollars tacked onto the deficit just for
  • 00:50:20
    good
  • 00:50:21
    measure. How am I how can you look at
  • 00:50:24
    that and feel like the GOP is genuinely
  • 00:50:28
    pivoting in your direction?
  • 00:50:32
    Well, I've been extremely critical
  • 00:50:34
    particularly of the of the deficit
  • 00:50:36
    element of the of the big beautiful bill
  • 00:50:39
    because I think it if if one is going to
  • 00:50:41
    be a fiscal conservative, one has to not
  • 00:50:44
    be adding to deficits right now. But I I
  • 00:50:48
    do think there's a way in which a lot of
  • 00:50:50
    the sort of efforts to argue that things
  • 00:50:53
    are not changing in the Republican party
  • 00:50:57
    strike me as I I think they are very
  • 00:50:59
    useful sort of political talking points
  • 00:51:02
    if one wants to score points about
  • 00:51:04
    what's happening sort of on the surface
  • 00:51:07
    at this moment. But I think they
  • 00:51:09
    honestly just do a real disservice to
  • 00:51:12
    people who are are sort of trying to
  • 00:51:14
    understand where things are going. And
  • 00:51:16
    elected political leaders are always
  • 00:51:19
    going to be the lagging indicator of
  • 00:51:21
    what's happening uh in any political
  • 00:51:24
    party or political movement. They are by
  • 00:51:26
    definition going to be the oldest, the
  • 00:51:28
    ones who have been around the longest,
  • 00:51:29
    the ones who have sort of most built
  • 00:51:32
    their careers and ideologies and
  • 00:51:34
    relationships around what was happening
  • 00:51:36
    20 or 30 years ago.
  • 00:51:38
    And so if one wants to know what is
  • 00:51:41
    passing in Congress today, then yes, you
  • 00:51:43
    count the votes of the people in
  • 00:51:45
    Congress today. If you want to know what
  • 00:51:47
    is actually moving within a party or
  • 00:51:49
    what's going to happen over a 10 or 15
  • 00:51:51
    year period, uh counting the votes
  • 00:51:54
    today, I think is it's just not what
  • 00:51:57
    what someone in good faith trying to
  • 00:51:59
    understand the direction would do. Okay,
  • 00:52:03
    look, I I am trying to understand in
  • 00:52:04
    good faith. I don't I promise you. So I
  • 00:52:07
    am asking you if if if not on the basis
  • 00:52:09
    of what they're actually doing then on
  • 00:52:11
    what basis can we assess and make
  • 00:52:13
    judgments about the direction they're
  • 00:52:16
    going. I'm just looking at what's
  • 00:52:17
    actually happening. Right. But my point
  • 00:52:19
    is that even when you're asking sort of
  • 00:52:20
    in terms of what they're actually doing,
  • 00:52:22
    right? You picked the sort of one
  • 00:52:24
    element of it that is the sort of most
  • 00:52:27
    obviously kind of legacy element among
  • 00:52:30
    other things. what it mostly is is a
  • 00:52:32
    direct effort to extend the thing that
  • 00:52:35
    that they did in
  • 00:52:38
    2017. And so even if you look just, you
  • 00:52:40
    know, in in terms of policy, I mean,
  • 00:52:43
    obviously you have everything that's
  • 00:52:44
    going on on trade, right?
  • 00:52:47
    Like let's not forget the the entire
  • 00:52:49
    trade agenda not not only in the sort of
  • 00:52:52
    substance of it but but also the
  • 00:52:54
    messaging of it and the fact that you
  • 00:52:56
    have political leaders out there saying
  • 00:52:59
    the American dream isn't cheap stuff and
  • 00:53:04
    yes some things are going to be more
  • 00:53:06
    expensive and here's why we think that's
  • 00:53:09
    worth it. That's that's an it seems to
  • 00:53:12
    me extraordinary sea change in uh both
  • 00:53:16
    kind of broadly speaking economic
  • 00:53:18
    thinking. The tariff regime, the trade
  • 00:53:20
    war, that that's that is a a genuine
  • 00:53:22
    shift. No doubt about it. So I'm not
  • 00:53:24
    it's not entirely clear to me how that's
  • 00:53:26
    a boon for for poor and working-class
  • 00:53:29
    people at at the moment. But I may not
  • 00:53:32
    be seeing the whole picture. I'm not
  • 00:53:34
    Look, there's a very interesting
  • 00:53:35
    economic debate to be had about whether
  • 00:53:38
    it will work. I obviously have very one,
  • 00:53:40
    you know, one very strong view. It's
  • 00:53:41
    it's a debate, but in terms of what
  • 00:53:43
    they're trying to do, it it seems pretty
  • 00:53:45
    clear to me that what they are trying to
  • 00:53:48
    do is quite explicitly focused on the
  • 00:53:52
    economic interests of workers. I don't
  • 00:53:54
    think there's any way you can make the
  • 00:53:56
    case that like, well, really what this
  • 00:53:58
    trade war is is like, you know, upward
  • 00:54:01
    distribution of redistribution of wealth
  • 00:54:02
    or good for Wall Street and
  • 00:54:04
    multinational corporations. I I don't
  • 00:54:06
    think that's a plausible I'd be
  • 00:54:07
    interested if anyone has even attempted
  • 00:54:09
    to make that claim, but I I don't think
  • 00:54:12
    that's that's right. Um, you know, I
  • 00:54:16
    think another very interesting area I I
  • 00:54:18
    mentioned some of the things that are um
  • 00:54:20
    going on on the labor front, one really
  • 00:54:23
    interesting effort that's underway and
  • 00:54:24
    and Josh Holly is is the leader of it.
  • 00:54:27
    Um, but Bernie Moreno's new senator from
  • 00:54:29
    Ohio is is the co-sponsor of it. They've
  • 00:54:31
    actually taken the PROACT, right, which
  • 00:54:34
    is like the ultimate kind of Dem wish
  • 00:54:36
    list of of labor reforms, and they've
  • 00:54:39
    just chopped it up and they've said,
  • 00:54:41
    "Look, some of these we actually think
  • 00:54:42
    are perfectly legitimate and good ideas.
  • 00:54:44
    Others of these we don't agree with, and
  • 00:54:46
    we're going to start advancing the ones
  • 00:54:47
    we think are good ideas." So you now
  • 00:54:50
    have uh a labor bill co-sponsored by by
  • 00:54:53
    Holly and Mareno and with a lot of other
  • 00:54:55
    support uh that would in fact force uh
  • 00:54:59
    cor you know employers and and workers
  • 00:55:02
    to reach a first contract that if if the
  • 00:55:05
    negotiations stall it goes to
  • 00:55:06
    arbitration and you get a first
  • 00:55:08
    contract. That's a a dramatic shift in
  • 00:55:13
    how you would see the Republican party.
  • 00:55:14
    I think you're seeing the same thing to
  • 00:55:17
    a snim in the financial sector. There
  • 00:55:19
    was a great example recently where
  • 00:55:22
    private equity firm that had had uh
  • 00:55:24
    bought out a bunch of paper plants was
  • 00:55:26
    trying to shut down the paper plant in
  • 00:55:28
    in Ohio.
  • 00:55:30
    uh and and you you know literally had
  • 00:55:33
    the Republican politicians out there at
  • 00:55:35
    the rally with the union leaders
  • 00:55:38
    uh sort of forcing a a change and a
  • 00:55:42
    commitment to at least keep the plant
  • 00:55:44
    open for the rest of the year and try to
  • 00:55:45
    find a a transaction that would keep it
  • 00:55:48
    open afterward.
  • 00:55:50
    um on family policy. You see, you know,
  • 00:55:52
    in 2017, you had Marco Rubio and Mike
  • 00:55:55
    Lee had to threaten to tank the entire
  • 00:55:57
    tax cut bill uh to get an expanded child
  • 00:56:00
    tax credit in it. Now, it is an
  • 00:56:03
    uncontroversial top priority that the
  • 00:56:06
    child tax credit is not only kept at
  • 00:56:08
    that level, but expanded further. Um and
  • 00:56:11
    so even at the level of like what is
  • 00:56:13
    happening
  • 00:56:14
    legislation, it's clear that this is a a
  • 00:56:17
    very different party from 2017. If you
  • 00:56:20
    look at who Trump has appointed, it's a
  • 00:56:22
    very different set of appointments. If
  • 00:56:24
    you look at the critical mass and and
  • 00:56:25
    and sort of center of gravity among the
  • 00:56:29
    younger elected officials, the people
  • 00:56:30
    coming into the Senate, um it's a a
  • 00:56:34
    completely different set of priorities
  • 00:56:37
    and uh policies from those who have been
  • 00:56:39
    there for a long time. Yeah, look, I I'm
  • 00:56:42
    with you. I I'm not convinced that the
  • 00:56:44
    DNA of the party has changed, but I will
  • 00:56:45
    grant that there are indications that
  • 00:56:48
    that there has been a shift. I I don't
  • 00:56:49
    know what it's going to amount to
  • 00:56:50
    materially down the road, but I will
  • 00:56:53
    grant you that there there are some
  • 00:56:54
    things that are very different compared
  • 00:56:57
    to the party of Mitt Romney. Um I I I
  • 00:57:01
    think Trump has cultivated a very unique
  • 00:57:04
    coalition. Certainly more much more
  • 00:57:07
    workingass than the pre-Trump Republican
  • 00:57:10
    party. And I don't know how much of that
  • 00:57:11
    coalition is a function of Trump and how
  • 00:57:13
    much of that coalition will will fade
  • 00:57:16
    when he fades. I have no idea. I'm not
  • 00:57:18
    making any predictions on that. I'm just
  • 00:57:19
    I'm just speculating. But I mean, I will
  • 00:57:21
    ask I mean I again hypothetically if the
  • 00:57:24
    the Republican party does prove an
  • 00:57:26
    unreliable vehicle for your movement,
  • 00:57:30
    can you see a world in which you're
  • 00:57:32
    working with Democrats? There does seem
  • 00:57:35
    to be a lot of space for common cause.
  • 00:57:37
    We do work with some Democrats. Okay. I
  • 00:57:39
    think there are Democrats who are um
  • 00:57:42
    doing very good and interesting work. We
  • 00:57:45
    recently had uh Congressman Jared Golden
  • 00:57:47
    from Maine on on the American Compass
  • 00:57:49
    podcast because he is the sponsor of the
  • 00:57:52
    10% global tariff legislation in
  • 00:57:55
    Congress. And so, you know, one thing I
  • 00:57:58
    always emphasize is that I think a
  • 00:58:00
    healthy American politics is not one
  • 00:58:02
    where one party gets everything right
  • 00:58:04
    and dominates and heads to 100% of of
  • 00:58:08
    the vote and the other one collapses
  • 00:58:09
    into irrelevance. It's one where we
  • 00:58:11
    actually have two healthy political
  • 00:58:13
    parties that are both focused on on the
  • 00:58:16
    concerns and priorities of of the
  • 00:58:18
    typical American and and are then
  • 00:58:21
    contesting a lot of these very
  • 00:58:22
    legitimate disagreements about ends and
  • 00:58:25
    means. But based on what is happening in
  • 00:58:28
    in American politics today and and based
  • 00:58:31
    on again not just sort of superficial
  • 00:58:33
    incentives but the very real fundamental
  • 00:58:36
    differences between conservativism and
  • 00:58:39
    progressivism, I would expect that that
  • 00:58:42
    this is going to have the most success
  • 00:58:44
    and and salience uh and and overlap in
  • 00:58:47
    thinking on the right of center. Well,
  • 00:58:50
    look, you may be right. I I don't know.
  • 00:58:53
    Um, in some ways I hope you're more
  • 00:58:56
    right than wrong because I don't really
  • 00:58:58
    care who gets us there. I think a
  • 00:59:00
    politics that converges more on the
  • 00:59:03
    interest of of
  • 00:59:05
    workingclass people is a good thing. I
  • 00:59:08
    know we're out of time. Um, so we can
  • 00:59:12
    leave it right there. Uh, Orin Cass,
  • 00:59:14
    this was fun and you're a good sport.
  • 00:59:16
    Uh, and and it was a pleasure to have
  • 00:59:18
    this dialogue. You are as well. This was
  • 00:59:20
    a lot of fun. Thank you for having me.
Tags
  • Orin Cass
  • economic populism
  • American conservatism
  • consumption
  • human flourishing
  • globalization
  • financialization
  • industrial policy
  • child tax credit
  • working-class