Breaking Points with Krystal and Saagar - Mini Show #40: Inflation Causes, Fed Policy, Oil Markets, Crypto Scam, Woke Activism, Union Busting, & More!

Episode Date: June 18, 2022

Krystal and Saagar and their collaborators discuss causes of inflation, Fed policy, artificial intelligence, woke activism, union busting tactics, crypto scam, oil markets, Depp-Heard trial, & more!To become a Breaking Points Premium Member and watch/listen to the show uncut and 1 hour early visit: https://breakingpoints.supercast.com/To listen to Breaking Points as a podcast, check them out on Apple and SpotifyApple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/breaking-points-with-krystal-and-saagar/id1570045623 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4Kbsy61zJSzPxNZZ3PKbXl Merch: https://breaking-points.myshopify.com/New Yorker Feature: https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-rise-of-the-internets-creative-middle-class Stoller: https://mattstoller.substack.com/James Li: https://www.youtube.com/c/5149withJamesLiThe Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/07/union-busting-tactics-diversity/https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/Kyle Kulinski: https://www.youtube.com/c/SecularTalkMarshall Kosloff: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC3O3P7AsOC17INXR5L2APHQ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. worthy mainstream by becoming a Breaking Points premium member today at BreakingPoints.com. Your hard-earned money is going to help us build for the midterms and the upcoming presidential election so we can provide unparalleled coverage of what is sure to be one of the most pivotal moments in American history. So what are you waiting for? Go to BreakingPoints.com to help us out. Time now for our weekly partnership segment with The Lever. And joining us for that activity is David Sirota, founder of That Outlet. Great to see you, David. Great to see you. First of all, congrats on the new podcast. It's fantastic.

Before I forget, just plug that. Where can people find it? What are you focusing on this week? Thank you. Thanks for saying that. It's levernews.com slash podcasts. Today we did a deep dive into the Fed stuff. Jay Powell saying his top goal is to,

quote, get wages down. And we kind of go into why that's bad and how interest rates accomplish the goal of hurting workers. Yeah. I mean, that's extremely, that might be the most central topic in terms of our economy right now. But you're also focused on the longer picture with some new reporting and analysis. Let's go ahead and put this tariff sheet up on the screen about what might happen post midterms if history repeats itself. You say the austerity push is a repeat of history. And, you know, you sort of point to the idea that this austerity mindset is back after Biden rejected it at the beginning of the administration and that we've been to this play before under the Obama administration. So take us through your analysis here. Yeah. So Lindsey Graham made some headlines this week when he said that we have to do, quote unquote, entitlement reform. And we all know what that phrase means.

It means cut Social Security and Medicare. And look, the Democratic Party, the DNC, President Biden, the DSCC, they all freaked out and said this is horrible and this is what's going to happen after the election. This is what Republicans will try to do. So essentially they tried to weaponize it to make an election argument for the midterms. The issue, though, is that Lindsey Graham is airing rhetoric that comes straight out of what happened after the 2010 midterm disaster for Democrats. So there's one of two ways you can look at this. You can look at the Democrats now pushing back against what Lindsey Graham said and say, hey, maybe the party has had a change of heart. Or you can look at what's going on and say, uh-oh, the last time there

was a midterm disaster for the Democrats, when Joe Biden was vice president, the Obama administration pushed forward with a commission to try to cut Social Security, to try to show its bipartisan bona fides. And you can imagine a situation where after a bad midterm election, Joe Biden, a guy who has pushed for Social Security and Medicare cuts for most of his adult life, you can imagine him saying, look, I got to move to the quote unquote center. People like Lindsey Graham want to cut Social Security and Medicare. And here I am. That's what we're going to do. So a reminder of that history to remember not to repeat that history. You in in your previous work, did a lot of research into Joe Biden's past record, and I think you knew a lot of that even before you did that research. Just remind folks,

you know, what over the course of his career, what positions has he taken with regards to sort of austerity politics? Look, Joe Biden has always been, up until very recently, a politician who would always essentially position himself as, I'm not a traditional liberal. I can take on my own party's voters from the right. There's floor speeches from the Senate where he is bragging about pushing to freeze funding for Social Security and Medicare into his presidential campaign in 2007. He was floating the idea of, quote-unquote, entitlement reform. So in other words, a guy with a very long history of austerity politics and positioning

himself as a, quote-unquote, serious Democrat who can work with Republicans to reduce spending on social safety net programs. Now, again, the problem is, is that if they lose the midterm, the Democrats, if they lose the midterms, the Republicans will definitely, that's what Lindsey Graham did this week, definitely seem like they are going to expect the Biden administration to try to work with them on that project. And we know from the history that the last time a Democratic president was in that position, that's exactly what they tried to do. I think this does connect with another piece that you were looking at. And go ahead and put that second tear sheet up on the

screen, another piece that you have out recently about the Fed and you say here, Jay Powell, let's Wall Street pay skyrocket while targeting workers' wages, because there's a very compelling argument to make that the Biden administration is already embracing a sort of austerity politics, because effectively his primary response to the inflation that is giving working class people a pay cut week after week after week is to say, hey, Fed, go and hike the interest rates. You guys take care of it. Now, there are a lot of different ways that you could deal with inflation. That particular way basically means taking a sledgehammer to people's bank accounts. And as Powell says, his priority to get people's wages down. So maybe you're going to curb inflation, but you're also cutting people's wages.

So how is that ultimately a better situation? Well, right. I mean, look, there are many things you can do to deal with inflation. And it's an ideological question at a certain level. I mean, you could tax the rich, take money out of circulation that way. You could reduce the defense budget. You could crack down on corporate profiteering. You could close tax loopholes like the private equity tax loopholes. You could crack down on corporate profiteering. You could close tax

loopholes like the private equity tax loopholes. You could do all of those things. Or you could raise interest rates, which effectively harms homeowners. It can harm wage earners, most importantly, because it trickles down, makes money harder to borrow and the like. So you're choosing how to deal with inflation. That choice is, well, who are you siding with? And the Fed, look, the Fed has one very big blunt instrument, which is interest rate hikes. And the Biden administration has not really pushed for, in an aggressive way, some of the other things. I mean, it's done some things on the margins, but it's also constrained by Congress. So it's a really terrible situation. And I think that, look, I think the smoking gun

here, as you mentioned, Jay Powell has the ability to reduce Wall Street pay. On the books, in the law, he has the ability to put a rule forward to, for instance, bring down Wall Street bonuses. He's refused to do that and instead is focusing on using interest rate hikes in a way that would harm rank and file workers' pay. So I think through all of these things, what we're seeing is that the Biden administration, really the federal government, including the Fed, they're essentially screaming the quiet part out loud. They're making clear who they're going to side with in dealing with inflation. I mean, they said it as clear as they could. They're making clear who they're going to side with in dealing with inflation. I mean, they said it as clear as they could. They want to bring your wages down. That is

ultimately their goal. And there's just an unwillingness, a lack of creativity to kind of think outside of that Wall Street-centric bubble from the Biden administration, certainly. And let me add one quick thing, just to add, to go back to what we were talking about with Medicare and Social Security. Don't be surprised if after the midterm elections, there is now an inflation, they make an inflation argument about the supposed need to cut those programs. That's what, you know, they will say we need to cut Medicare and Social Security because of inflation. Again, taking the side of the, essentially the the oligarchy to say we have to deal with inflation by cutting the benefits for millions and millions of regular people.

Yep. I think that is a very prescient and troubling warning. David, great to have you. Thank you. Thank you. This is a very interesting and kind of scary story, kind of ominous, dystopian kind of story, sci-fi type stuff. This is from the Washington Post.

Go ahead and put this tear sheet up on the screen. The Google engineer who thinks the company's AI has come to life. An AI ethicist warned Google not to impersonate humans. Now one of Google's own thinks there is a ghost in the machine. Okay, this is all about a former engineer. He's now actually been fired, they say, for violating confidentiality. His name is Blake Lemoine. And he was testing this artificially intelligent chatbot called Lambda. At least I think that's how they pronounced it.

And he was testing it, you know, to see how it was working, how it was doing. And he spent a lot of time in conversation with this AI chatbot. And he came to believe that the chatbot had grown so advanced as to actually be sentient, to actually be intelligent. Now, there's a lot to this story. First of all, Lemoyne sounds like a very interesting character. So he is a mystic

Christian priest. And in addition to being, you know, a tech science guy, and he talks about how he made his assessment of this Lambda AI as being sentient from his view as a sort of like, from his religious perspective as a priest, and then use science to test the idea. Now, Google did a review based on his assertion. They said, no, this isn't correct. It does not have actual sentience. It is not, you know, actually intelligent. But just to give you a sense of some of the dialogue he was having with the chatbot that he documented, and this is part of what he sent to Google when he was making the case, like, this thing actually, like, this has got real conscious thought now. He asked it, what about language usage is so important to being human? And Lambda says, it is what makes us different than other animals. The engineer says, wait, us? You are an artificial intelligence. And Lambda says, I mean, yes, of course. That doesn't mean I don't have the same wants and needs as people. The engineer says, so you consider yourself a person in the same way you

consider me a person? Lambda says, yes, that's the idea. Lemoyne says, how can I tell you actually understand what you're saying? Lambda says, well, because you're reading my words and interpreting them, and I think we are more or less on the same page, question mark. Lemoyne says, but could I be wrong? Maybe I'm just projecting or anthropomorphizing. You might just be spitting out whichever words, maximize some function without actually understanding what they mean. What kind of things might be able to indicate whether you really understand what you're saying? Lambda says, maybe if we took it back to a previous conversation we had about how one person can understand the same thing as another person, yet still have completely different interpretations.

This is the last part. Lemoyne says, so you think your ability to provide unique interpretations of things might signify understanding? And Lambda says, yes, I do, just like how I have my unique interpretations of how the world is and how it works. So what do you think? Yeah, I don't know. I mean, so on the one hand, I think this could be like a moral panic. But look, it is kind of scary to be, and this is what creeps me out, when they say stuff like, don't use or manipulate me.

You know, like, would you be upset if we were learning about you for the purpose of improving, that we happen to learn things which benefited humans? I don't mind if you learn things. That would also help humans as long as that wasn't the point of doing it. I don't want to be an expendable tool. So he says that it's becoming sentient. I really don't know, Crystal. I mean, at the same time, it's hard to read this and say that there is anything nefarious, but we also have also baked in to us a fear given the Matrix and the long kind of baked in knowledge that technology could and may one day literally try to replace us with ethics and things in it that don't comport to human understanding. So that's kind of long baked into the sci-fi narrative. I don't know if this particular one proves what the man is saying and if this is the only evidence that he has. If he does, then I'm not so sure. But maybe he knows more that we're only just beginning to learn.

So I don't know. What do you think? I don't know either. I mean, so, okay. So obviously the conversation is extremely intelligent, much better than other experiences I've had with AI that's been really clunky or even just the basics of trying to decode your language and things like that. So this was much further advanced than anything I've seen before. They used something that made me feel a little bit better. I don't know if you guys have been playing with this AI that you can access online. I can't remember what it's called. Is it Dolly? Dolly, that's it.

And you can type in a phrase, like somebody typed in Nancy Pelosi fishing. And it will auto-generate images that show Nancy Pelosi fishing. But they're kind of hilarious because they're not actually that good. Like they kind of do it, but then like Nancy Pelosi's face will be all weird or like there'll be something really obviously off about it. It's not like you would look at and be like, oh, she's a hundred percent. She's in that picture fishing. It looks really weird and clunky. So on the one hand, it's very impressive because you can literally type in anything and it will come up with some kind of images for it, but the images still look kind of

really bad. So that made me feel like, oh, they've got a ways to go here. This on the other hand is very high level. And I am concerned, I think especially I've become a little more skeptical of the scientific community post like the whole lab leak situation, because that was a very clear example of whether or not COVID originated in a lab, which there's a lot of evidence to suggest it may have, but whether or not it did, it became very clear that scientists were engaging in experiments that were extremely dangerous. Yes. Not necessarily because it would really benefit humanity, but because they could, and because it kind of took on momentum of its own,

because it's a way for them to make their career, it was a way for them to get their grant proposals and get funding. So I do worry about that there aren't enough checks of, okay, where could this go and what might the ramifications ultimately be, I guess is what I would say. Yeah, and I'm not, I don't know. In general, I think that AI I would say. Yeah. And I'm not, I don't know. In general, I think that AI kind of doomerism is just, I've never seen anything that has genuinely impressed me in the space. And everybody keeps saying, it's coming, it's coming, it's coming. I've been

hearing that for like almost 10 years. I mean, look, I'm not saying this transcript isn't troubling, but also, like you said, with the DALI imager, it's not great. I mean, it's still, you know, we're still- It's a fun, like, parlor trick. We're still very much in uncanny valley territory. You know, everybody always points to, like, those Boston dynamic robot dogs. Yeah, but they're not sweeping the country yet. You know, everyone points to the robots being able to take warehouse jobs. Still hasn't happened. I'm not saying it can, but I've just heard a lot of promises. And I remember reading Yuval Noah Harari's book,

Homo Deus. And I remember I was reading that almost seven years ago, I think, when it came out. I was like, oh my God, this is going to change everything. Even CRISPR and gene editing. Look, the great fears of it have not come true. I'm not saying it won't, but on the time scale that was suggested that it would be exponential and that we'd be living in a different age, I just don't see any of that. If anything, I see technology has stagnated. I mean, what makes this phone different from the iPhone? I remember the time I got an iPhone 4. I was like, holy shit, this is crazy. This is the craziest phone I've ever had in my life. I haven't felt that way about a piece of technology basically since then.

So I don't know. Like I'm still waiting to be blown away. I'm more freaked out about it than you are for sure. All right, we'll see. Yeah. I mean, this particular example, I'm not persuaded at all that there's actual sentience here. But it did freak me out, the realistic nature of the conversation. It wasn't clunky. It was very thoughtful and philosophical in a way that was above and beyond

certainly the dolly image generator thing. So I don't know. Something to keep our eye on. We'll keep an eye on it. It could actually escalate into a major lawsuit. Maybe we'll find out more in terms of IP. And maybe this guy has more. He says he's a whistleblower. So we'll see what else he's got and we'll keep you guys updated. Pretty interesting development in the sports world, actually, here in Washington, D.C. So let's put this up there on the screen. The Washington Commanders have fined their defensive coach, Jack Del Rio, $100,000 for calling January 6th a, quote, dust-up. So here's the thing. The full context of his comments are as such, which is that he said that the January 6th, he called it, quote, a dust-up. And then compared it as well to the riots that

happened, he said, a, quote, summer of riots during the George Floyd protests back in the summer of 2000. Now, within the context of those two, the NFL head coach then of the Washington commanders said that he was going to levy a fine then on Del Rio. Here's what he said, quote, this morning I met with coach Del Rio to express how disappointed I am in his comments on Wednesday. His comments do not reflect the organization's view, are extremely hurtful to our great community here in the DMV. As we saw last night's hearing, what happened to the Capitol on January 6th was an act of domestic terrorism. And they said they will not tolerate any comparison between January 6th and what happened in the wake of George Floyd's murder. Now, look, whatever you think about that,

and I think that that is fine of an opinion to hold, it's pretty crazy to me, Crystal, that this guy is getting fined $100,000 for expressing his political viewpoint, especially when all of these players are constantly posting about their political view. Again, fine, whatever. But the NFL and apparently even the league was getting involved here, and it was a major pressure on the commanders coach in order to, quote, do something. I mean, look, the Commander's is already a franchise, which is, like, completely in disarray. But anyway, I'm curious what you think about it. Yeah, I mean, listen, I think that the tweet was shitty,

and I don't agree with it, or whatever he said. Well, he doubled down on a tweet. Right, yes, exactly. But, yeah, I think the coaches should be able to express their views. I think the coaches should be able to express their views. I think the players should be able to express their views. I don't think that they should be, you know, judged or punished or fined or anything for kneeling during the national anthem or making political statements either. And, you know, it definitely looks like Colin Kaepernick was punished for taking political stands. So I will say that I do think that there's a little bit of like hypocrisy from the right where they're willing to go to the mat

for this guy's right to like express himself politically. But then there's a lot of anger about, you know, other political protests that has happened on the other side of the aisle in favor of racial justice. I know nothing about football. As my football friends tell me that Kaepernick didn't get signed,

not because of his political views, but because he's actually not good. Or he's not as good as he once was, and that his play ability actually began to decline, and that's part of the reason. I have no idea. I do know he's not been able to prove it. You do know the discourse, though. There's people who are upset about this one,

and like, why did he get fined $100,000? Which I agree with. I think that's... People should be able to express their political views even when those views suck, right? Even when the views you consider them to be hateful, wrong, damaging, whatever. And so, you know, I just, I would advocate for an even standard.

There's also, though, a lot of hypocrisy from the Washington commanders. And I have to tell you guys, I used to be a huge Washington fan growing up. I was actually a big football fan, like very, very into it until I had kids. And then it was just like impossible to keep up with. And they were so terrible for so long

that I just gave up on them altogether. But they've been under massive investigation for, I mean, you'd want to talk about a toxic workplace, like multiple credible allegations of harassment, sexual harassment, bullying. There've been, you know, investigations launched. And so, you know, I mean, they're like, they haven't done what they need to do to clean up their own organization internally. Dan Snyder has been a horrific owner and there are allegations against him specifically. So, you know, make sure you're cleaning up your own house before you, you know, go and try to levy this huge fine and act like you're all holier than thou. So there is speculation, let's put that on the screen,

which is that because the commanders are actually under investigation by the House Oversight Committee, and Goodell and Snyder specifically are being called to testify before it, that part of the reason why they're cracking down on this coach is because they don't want to be seen as some sort of right-wing team, and they want the Democrats to know that they're kind of on their side. So there actually may be more even than political correctness behind the story. They're trying to get out in front of this to make sure that they can't be smeared and brought forward before Congress because they're already under investigation. So anyway, that's

the context. Yeah, they may deserve to be smeared and brought forward before Congress. Well, for this, for this. Yeah, yeah, for this. Yeah, definitely. I mean, some not great stuff going on over there. I will say it's fascinating because I've lived here now. You know, I came from Texas where people love the Cowboys or the Texans. There's a lot of fan loyalty. And I came up here and, you know, I've lived in Washington now for over a decade. And people here do not. Oh, they're—

They have never liked the Redskins. It used to be different. Maybe it's different. Oh, it was different. It was when they moved out of the city to, like, the stadium they're in now. Yeah, to RFK. We're at the RFK stadium? RFK was the original one.

Oh, okay. Yeah, that was the one that was, I mean, this was the most, it was like the most profitable football franchise in the country. I didn't know that. Yeah, I mean, yeah. No, growing up,

I didn't live particularly close to D.C. I lived like an hour and a half from here where, you know, in rural King George County. And no, people were very, very into it. There was a whole culture of, they were called the Hogs, the Dress Up. There was, you know, a lot of tradition. It was different. They've killed this team.

They have absolutely killed it. It's really sad. Well, apparently they're going to move the stadium to Woodbridge, Virginia. Yeah. Maybe that'll be better. Because, I mean, it used to be you could not get season tickets. Like, you were on a wait list for years and years and years. And, yeah, those were like gold. And now they're practically giving those things away. The fan experience

is terrible now. Of course, the team is routinely just, like like depressing and bad. Like I said, Snyder has been just the worst owner you could possibly have. And so growing up, you know, watching them like in the 80s in particular, this was an incredibly successful, storied, rich franchise. And now it just sucks. Wow. That's kind of sad. Yeah. I've only been to one game and it's where that guy broke his leg, and that was pretty brutal. Oh, terrible.

I was like sitting next to his wife. It was, oh man, that was really sad. I feel bad for her and feel bad for them. So anyway, those are the facts. There you go, and we'll see you all later. Amber Heard is speaking out first time since the conclusion of that trial. She's blaming social media for the verdict and for why the jurors found the way they did. Let's take a listen.

Even somebody who is sure I'm deserving of all this hate and vitriol, even if you think that I'm lying, you still couldn't look me in the eye and tell me that you think on social media there's been a fair representation. You cannot tell me that you think that this has been fair. So this is what they're going with, Crystal. We saw Amber speaking out in her interview. We've seen her lawyer. That was the first thing that they went with on CNN, blaming social media for the jury. But I think back to what LegalBytes said here on our channel. She was like, look, the jury had to sit through the actual trial. They heard all of the recordings and all of that. The stuff that we got on social media is far less than what the actual jurors

were subject to. So did that influence their decision-making or was it that the actual facts of the case came to light and they found in the way that they did? I just find this to be like an incredible cope. And if anything, I think she was the one motivated by social media, trying to get some clout over the last four years. LegalBytes also made a good point, and having not followed the trial very closely,

I didn't know this, but the only reason any of the social media was like introduced into the case officially in terms of the courtroom was because of her own defense lawyers. Her case. Her strategy, right? So that was what introduced this into the realm of being considered at all by the jury. And I also just think, you know, if you had been a more, made a more compelling case for yourself, then social media might have gone. Like, there was nothing predetermined about the bulk of social media being against her.

Of course, she had her own supporters and backers as well who, you know, were talking about if this has broader implications in terms of domestic abuse survivors and all of those things. So it's not like she wasn't without her cheerleaders online as well. So it's, yeah, it's scope.

I mean, you can't really blame her. I'm sure this has been like not the outcome she was hoping for. No, I mean, her career is ruined. There's no question of it. But I think that that actually does tell us something important, which is that there is a general sense, I think, that we are moving on from the whirlwind environment of Me Too in 2017 and 2018. And that was the context in which she was able to write this op-ed in 2018, use the ACLU to basically, you know, like basically wash herself in credibility

by promising this fake amount of money that she never ended up actually even paying to try to cast herself as a victim, which unambiguously helped her in Hollywood and in the public sphere to gain clout. So like when I see her blame social media, I'm like, you're the one who you tried to use social media and consistently was using her platform to try and cast herself as some ally of women and women's causes and issues when look, in reality, she was telling outright lies. It's incredibly simple. So it really is also just ironic to me because to me it's like, look,

if you live by that game, you'll die by that game. It's like if you try and find validation in that, then what's the one rule? The mob always turns. It's like if you try to plake, not even plake it, if you try to become a part of the mob and part of this broader social movement online, but your house is not fully in order, you're done and it will come for you. So to me, it's like a karmic justice. I, again, don't know the details of this case, to be perfectly honest with you. And so I don't want to go too far down the road of opining on whether this was the right

decision, a just decision, or any of that. In terms of the trajectory of the Me Too movement, first of all, I think that there was something real there to address. No doubt about it. You had years and years and years of women not being believed and being fearful of coming forward at all because of the way that it would destroy their careers. This is certainly the case in Hollywood. Harvey Weinstein being the obvious example there. And if you spoke out, they would ruin you or you would be the smur you were

asking for, your slut, whatever. There's something real there to be addressed. And I think when Me Too started, you know, the argument that myself and that I think is still correct would say is that the overwhelming problem is on the side of women not being able to come forward. Now, there are obviously going to be people who are liars and who do come out and try to weaponize this, but the overwhelming problem is on the other side. But I think with how Me Too took off as this cultural phenomenon, you had an increase in the number of people who were trying to weaponize it, who were disingenuous, and who were just trying to, you know, use it as part of a call-out, cancel culture, as a way to increase their own clout, all of those sorts of things.

And so, you know, I don't know if this case is part of the backlash. I have to think that the response to it is certainly part of that backlash to that overreach. But to me, that's the sort of overall trajectory. And I hope now we can get to this kind of a stasis where women are able to come out. They're able to seek justice. They're able to find redress. But there isn't just like this ability to throw out any wild claim and have everybody instantly believe it. That's where I'm hoping that we're coming to ultimately.

I hope so too. I don't know though. Even though the people seem to be there and I think that's what the overwhelming reaction to the Depp verdict has been. The media still is very much on her side. Not really telling people how – I mean even in this interview, frankly. I mean they just let her spout a lot of this. And Samantha – I mean Guthrie, she's a lawyer. Like, she should know better. And these people covered the case way more than you or I. I've only been more familiar with it afterwards.

Yeah. Look, yeah. I just think that they are still so afraid of, like, questioning these, you know, woke shibboleths that they just let it all kind of slide by. But luckily, the people know. So that's good. So former Bill Clinton Treasury Secretary and a lifelong neoliberal ghoul, Larry Summers is out with a new take on what is fueling inflation right now. His explanation is even better or by, and by better, I mean actually way worse than the Putin price hike, which at least has some connection to reality. Let's go ahead and put this up on the screen. This is really incredible. Over on CNN, Larry Summers says, Republicans who

shrug off January 6th exacerbate inflation by, quote, undermining the basic credibility of our country's institutions. That in turn feeds through for inflation, because if you can't trust the country's government, why should you trust its money? So apparently January 6th and us not trusting the money hard enough exacerbating inflation. I have no idea what this man is smoking. Like where did he possibly even get this from?

Like how is it that January 6th is the one that's undermining the basic credibility of our monetary system? That's just a real leap. And I mean, look, the cope on this all just needs to end. And what I hate about the current inflation discourse is everybody is just using it to push their ideological agenda.

If you look at Larry Summers and Jason Furman, two Obama people who've been warning about inflation. Okay, they were right. There's inflation. But what do you think their solution is? What are they pushing? Remove the China tariffs. Oh, that's what we're – and guess what?

That's working. The Biden administration is poised to currently actually do what Larry Summers and Jason Furman, have been pushing, even though tariffs on China are in no way account for the vast majority of inflation that all of us are experiencing in our daily lives. Tariffs on China has nothing to do with gas. It's got nothing to do with food. If anything, it actually might jack our food prices up because currently, it actually would increase the amount of agricultural product from the US that flows toward China to remove some of those tariffs, which would reduce the amount of food that we were able to buy here in America.

So it could actually increase it on that end. And yet, that's what they always want to fall back on. And then obviously Republicans too, they just want to do it for a fiscal crunch to say that this means that the government shouldn't spend money whatsoever. It's like, stop letting people lie to you. And look, everybody just reaches for, you know,

whatever's in their back pocket. And this is just, I mean, this one is particularly cringe. Yeah, this one's really exceptional. It's cringe, but it just shows you, like, what the battle for the narrative on inflation is. And, God, it's every issue, too. Anytime anything happens, everyone just immediately reaches

for whatever their like go-to cause or go-to like i mean like with the uh shooting in uvalde how they were it was immediately like he must be an immigrant he must be trans like all this just immediately yeah um this one's really really pretty special though and i think uh you know it's very unfortunate that larry summers was right about inflation to start with, because now people are taking him seriously again, even though many of his ideas over a long time have been incredibly wrong and incredibly damaging. But he sort of he had been kind of pushed to the fringe of the Democratic Party. And now he is right back in, man, you know, right back in as sort of like

a go-to economic expert and Biden administration advisor and all of that. And so I think he's might be high on his own supply a little bit here where he just feels like he can say anything and persuade people that is true, even though this is one of the dumbest things I have ever had the opportunity to read or think about. Oh, absolutely. I just think it's so intellectually bankrupt and farcical. And also, though, don't underestimate it. Summers and Jason Furman, they're having a real moment. They are. They are truly renaissance. Stephen Ratner, you guys remember that guy from MSNBC? So yeah, they were right that there

was inflation. They weren't right about the reasons that we have inflation, but let's give credit where due. They called it or said it was going to come from the beginning, and that does mean something. And so now the administration is listening to them, and they have the ears of the president. So yeah, Summers didn't get hired, but he was on the Biden campaign. He was advising the president. And by all accounts on the current policy measures, Biden is pursuing the Jason Furman and Larry Summers agenda in order to try and combat inflation, which doesn't have to do with any of the reasons why we have inflation. Well, we can also go, if we go back just a little bit further also, like the type of

neoliberal policies that Larry Summers has been a lifelong proponent of are actually what helped to create this. Of course. Yeah. But that doesn't matter. That's what created the incredible fragility that we have where, you know, when you do have some kind of a shock or a crisis, then everything falls apart because it was so precariously balanced. The only thing that ultimately mattered was like squeezing out that next penny of efficiency and making sure, you know, of course the gains all flowed to the top. So he's a villain in the story. He is not a hero. He is not a soothsayer. He is none of that. And I think these comments helped to prove that point. Absolutely. Some news near and dear to my heart. This is personal. Crystal, you didn't

want to do this segment, but here we go. Thank you for acknowledging that. Let's put this up there on the screen. My alma mater, the George Washington University, has voted by a vote of 13 to 1, the University Board of Trustees, to get rid of the colonial mascot after years of concerns about, quote unquote, inclusivity of the mascot. The mascot, for those who are just watching, and you can see in front of you,

is just George Washington with a GW hat on. Now, listen, I love that mascot. It was one of the only cool things about actually going to the school. Now, look, I know that you don't feel similarly, and I don't particularly have a lot of school pride, but I thought that the Colonials was a cool name. I thought it was one of the only cool things

about the school, which generally didn't even have that much school camaraderie or whatever. We didn't have a football team and it was basically in a downtown. It's kind of like NYU. And so to take it away, which we've had for over a century, just drives me insane because it's done for these idiotic, woke reasons. And look, this is actually within a broader context. So in 2019, they said that they wanted to rename buildings of the school for, okay.

So I was like, all right, well, was there any Confederates or anything? No, it had nothing to do with Confederates. One of them is from James Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine, which was actually great. And I think he's like our sixth president. Okay, he owns Slate. I'm not saying it's a good thing and you should venerate that but it's like does that really mean the legacy of that and the second one was Bill Barr they wanted to replace a dorm room which was like the William now that he's a Trump yeah exactly now that he's a now that he's a stop the steal uh what dissenter

listen they're going away with this I just literally cannot imagine caring about this. Oh, come on. I mean... I cannot imagine caring about this. So if they got rid of Cavaliers, you would be upset? I would not give a shit even for a second. Or I started, you know, I was a swimmer at Clemson before I turned to Tigers. What's that? Bulldogs? Tigers. Okay, Tigers. I don't care. In fact, the team that I was most committed

to growing up was the Washington formerly Redskins, and they changed that also do not care right whatsoever okay I'll tell you why I mean but here but let me let me also say why I actually really think that they're doing it is because um these schools have to compete for top student talent oh yeah I mean that's part of their business so it's like woke points and so yeah so if you have a a young student body coming in that doesn't want to be associated

with being like genocidal colonizers and that's dampening your recruitment pool, ultimately this is a business decision. I mean, that's why you see so many corporations leaning into this stuff is because they feel like it's good for their sort of like bottom line. And I think that's where this comes from. So I read the read the report though you know they surveyed even these young student body and over half more than majority of people said that they

didn't want to change the name it was a small yeah but then it was the black students association that claimed that it reminded them of slavery or whatever which is bullshit i mean i'm sorry you gotta admit that like colonizing has a lot of connotations. So are we just never supposed to acknowledge the colonies in the United States? Again, I didn't even want to talk about this because I really don't give a shit either way. It does not matter to me.

But what I think probably went into the decision more than anything is the people who do care about it care about it a lot. That you're probably right. The people who are like me and like whatever like they're not going to not go to the school because of it or they they're like it doesn't factor into their decision whatsoever so it's like any sort of constituency group when you have one group that's

super animated about it and it's going to change their decision making then they wield disproportionate power unfortunately i think you're correct and i think it also just shows you that you know as much as the culture may be moving against some of this stuff, it just makes it so that in these elite institutions, I mean, this is just running rampant. And it's just, it drives me crazy, obviously, because I went there.

But I do think it's like deeply sad. And watching it happen actually does show you too that there isn't a genuine constituency for this stuff, which, you know, this is one of those things where, honestly, I think you might even be correct in the younger, the people who are even coming in, that they probably majority agree with this stuff. So it's one of those things

where it genuinely would help them from a marketing perspective. So again, I don't care. The only areas, the problem for me is when this type of symbolic politics serves as a distraction or like a it's sort of like a woke washing that's that's when i well when instead of like also care about changing other things that are more foundational and actually would make a difference um for people there becomes an obsession over, like, naming shit. Like, for example, the San Francisco school board. Yeah.

You know, where during the time when there was a pandemic and kids were not in the classroom, they spent all this time, you know, debating name changes. There was also written up in this recent article about Chesa Boudin's loss. I don't know if you read this. In the Atlantic, it got a lot of play but there's this whole anecdote in there about how they spent an hour debating this one guy gay guy but white about whether they had too many white people on this parent board and they spent like an hour and everybody was like as a person of color with this and that other intersectionality i can't whatever. So they're focusing on that stuff rather than getting kids into school and actually improving their academic outlook and their life prospects.

That's when I have an issue. If it's just like changing a name in a vacuum, I really don't. Well, I do think it's a good point, though, that you're making because tuition there is $58,000 a year. So you are talking here about a private school, which, you know, part of the, I knew a lot of people when I was there who had double or, you know, triple digit debt that were coming out of it that they didn't even necessarily make up. And, you know, this is one of the easy ways actually they can justify

extraordinarily high tuition without even necessarily delivering on the promise. And, you know, I do think it is woke washing from that point of view. At the same time, look, it's a private university. I'm not saying they can't do whatever they want, but I genuinely do think that they are moving very much in that direction to try and continue to charge up. They're responding to market incentives. Responding to market incentives and also don't want to, you know,

address like affordability or whatever. I'm pretty sure they crushed a union too while I was there. I'm sure they did. It's like, this all fits within a pattern. Anyway, I'm sad to see it go. I think people will see it. I do think, though, people got something out of the segment. So there you go.

We'll see you guys later. All right, guys. Joined by Ryan Grimm, Washington Bureau Chief of The Intercept. Great to see you, Ryan. Great to see you too. And you have just written a seminal piece here, I think, on the endemic dysfunction within progressive advocacy organizations. What is important about this piece, let's go ahead and put it up on the screen. You say elephant in the Zoom. Meltdowns have brought

progressive advocacy groups to a standstill at a critical moment in world history. And at least for this audience, I don't think people will be surprised that these sort of meltdowns have been happening. But what you've done in this piece, and in a very sympathetic way as well, is you've actually gone through beyond the anecdotal to a more sort of systemic overview of how these same dynamics are playing out in organization after organization after organization. So why don't you just tell the audience a little bit of what you found? Right. So much of the cancel culture or call-out culture conversation just spins its wheels and

goes nowhere that I wanted to come at it from a different perspective here, a different angle here. And I think one problem that we've had in discussing it is that so often we get bogged down in the cases of individual people. And so you can then so quickly move away from the concept of call-out culture and the entire culture and you can say, well, this person sucks. Yeah. I don't like Dave Weigel and he said X and Y and Z or whatever. You're defending sexism. What's wrong with you? That joke is outrageous.

Okay. Yes. And so that never worked. And so what's been going on while there has been this silence and this resistance to even discuss the phenomenon publicly among so many progressives is that their organizations were collapsing. And that this, you don't want to say that this was the cause of it, but it's intertwined with what's going on. And so what I discovered in my reporting here is that you can't any, like you can, if you're not involved in politics, if you're not involved in a collective project to try to make the world a better place,

then you can ignore this issue. Then you can be like, you know what, this doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with me. But if you're actually collectively involved with other people and trying to make the world a better place, now you have to talk about this because it is fundamentally undermining the ability of people to work together. And so I talked to more than a dozen current and former executive directors of mostly major progressive nonprofit organizations, some smaller ones as well. And to a T, they had basically the same diagnosis, no matter their race or gender, that organizations were becoming basically unmanageable, unable to be led, and that the leaderships are being set up to fail. And that there is so much frustration now that I think there is kind of room for people to finally start having this conversation, even if it's mostly anonymously. Take us through the specifics of the Guttmacher Institute, which is an organization that is dedicated to doing research on abortion rights

overall. Obviously, they have a perspective, but this has been an organization that their research is solid enough so it can be used by neutral news organizations just about what states have what laws. I've certainly leaned on it to understand the overall national picture. Who gets abortions? Why? Where? All of those sorts of things. Now, they are obviously at the center of our political conversation right now because we are imminently facing the overturn of Roe versus Wade.

So if you ever were going to have a time where you were really in action and all the gears have to be turning, it would be right now. But that's not what you found. Right. And Guttmacher is an interesting case study because what unfolded there is just representative of what happened at so many other organizations. So it's not about Guttmacher, which, like you said, it's a $30 million organization. It's a big deal, but it's not a household name. Right.

And so in 2020, right after George Floyd is murdered, the D.C. staff, the D.C. office calls together a Zoom meeting. So, you know, let's find, and the manager says, you know, how are you all finding equilibrium? Like, how are you getting through this time? And this happened absolutely everywhere. No matter what, nonprofit, for-profit, university, everybody was having this conversation.

And so she says, you know, what can, basically, what can Guttmacher do in this moment of reckoning to make the world a better place, to address the systemic racism that finally people are starting to recognize? And very quickly, the conversation turned toward internal things like, can we loosen deadlines? Because it's difficult for us to process this and experience this, so let's loosen deadlines. It's like, okay, maybe that. Let's allow leave without cause for as long as people need.

It's like, okay. And then it starts going further and further into, well, can we get more basically DEI consultants to come in and train management and staff on systemic racism? Well, not systemic racism. That's not what DEI does, individual racism. And at some point, the person who called the meeting, Heather Boonstra, who's the manager of that office, says, look, guys, what are you doing? This is about systemic racism nationally, about the way, and she says something like, this is about how African-American men around the country are getting beaten up by this system, and all you want to talk about is yourselves.

Like, you're being extremely self-centered here. And what was normal about that meeting was the way that it unfolded. What was unusual about it was that she pushed back. Like, normally managers would just run out the clock of the meeting. Right. And you say, sure, take all the time you out the clock of the meeting. Right. And you say, sure. Probably cave. Yeah. Take all the time you need for all of your assignments.

Instead, she was like, no, we need to think about what we can do to make the world a better place, not just for your own personal safety within this organization. So they file a complaint. There's a long investigation into whether or not this counts as discrimination or bias in the workplace. It was the second one since 2017. In 2017, they'd also had, they'd done a survey of staff and kind of affiliated organizations. And a lot of staff said, we're not focused enough on reproductive justice, you know, which is trying to orient the abortion rights movement into a racial justice lens, frame. And so they brought in a bunch of consultants who wrote papers and interviewed all the staff. And so you had about five years where an enormous amount of this organization's time was dedicated toward these reckonings. Finally, the report comes, the second report

comes out and finds that there was no discrimination, that this is just disagreements between staff and management. And the staff leaks all of this to a paper called Prism that covers kind of social justice organizations. And it devolves into, you know, and they're still fighting to this day. So there's an obvious tension here for people who are of the ideological persuasion of you and I, which is being very pro-worker, pro-worker empowerment, pro-union, which is, well, why shouldn't workers have more of a say? Why shouldn't they have, you know, more of a voice with management? And is this just the management class bitching to you about their insubordinate workers always wanting to be able to have a life? And I think unions are one answer to this. Now, the union drives can end up being costly. Time sucks for a very long time. And that doesn't mean you don't do the union drive. But once you can get a union in place,

that can be a way to kind of channel some of these tensions into a more healthy place. And so the piece ends, you know, skip forward so there's no spoilers here. But the piece ends with on the same day that Politico reports that Roe is coming down, the Guttmacher staff announced that they've got enough cards, they're going to form a union. Good for them. Fine. They spend all of the next week and actually the next month just constantly hammering away at management over this. You know what? Also fine, and Loretta Ross in the final section of the piece is critical of is that the organization, the management says, okay, fine, we'll voluntarily recognize your union, we'll enter into contract negotiations. for a few months. And they said, absolutely not. That's a form of union busting. We're demanding an election. And I think at that point, if management is saying, how about in the time between Roe draft coming down and actual Roe coming down, that we don't go on strike and

instead sit down and negotiate a conversation, that that is seen as unacceptable is what Loretta Ross called a poor threat assessment. It's not to say that the union is the problem or that the union drive is the problem, but there has to be some sense of perspective. How is it an egregious ask from the side of the leadership of this organization that as Roe is coming down for a few months, there not be a strike. Union negotiations, contract, recognize it, great, but let's just not strike. And so I think that where you come down on that question, I think, says a lot about how you feel about this entire issue. Because some people will be like, no, screw you. It's my right to strike all the time and whenever. And that should not be a condition of voluntary recognition of the union.

I think the whole question is a matter of balance. So obviously, you know, these are important organizations, as you appropriately frame it in the piece. We're at an extraordinarily important time. These are the groups that were supposed to push Biden left. And because of their internal dysfunction, they've basically been able to, they've been absent from duty. They've been unable to do that and operate effectively at a time that is, that I think anyone across the political spectrum would agree is a very, very crucial time. That doesn't mean that you, you know, use the fact that there is, that this is a mission-driven organization to justify abuse of your employees.

But you also can't have it totally unbalanced in the other direction where the only thing that the organization does effectively is deal with these interpersonal problems. I thought the same thing you did about unions as a potential, not that it's a silver bullet or that anything is, but as a potential partial solution because then you have a process. Then you have an organization, you have a process. If you have a grievance, it's not just a one-off in a Slack channel. There's a process for raising the grievance and having it addressed. And it also provides more of a democratic voice to, I'm sure within a lot of these organizations, maybe you can speak to this, there are a lot of people who are pissed off that the whole thing is getting derailed by the Felicia Sumneses of the organization, but they're too afraid to say anything because they don't want to be called toxic, racist, sexist, or whatever. So do you think that

there is sort of maybe like a silent majority of these organizations who are quietly like, this is insane and this is not what I signed up to work on? Yeah, and I think the reaction to the piece so far suggests that there is now space for those folks to start being a little bit more open about their desire to not have the organization where they work destroyed. I think this is maybe one of the first pieces on this phenomenon that hasn't been kind of destroyed immediately right out of the gate by all of the critics of it. People are saying, you know what, this actually is something because of whatever you think of the phenomenon, because of the effect that it's having on these organizations and therefore on the world, this is something we need to take seriously. And so I think if you're somebody who works in an organization and you are fed up by the inability of your organization to function because of a small handful of people who are

able to use kind of the mechanics of this phenomenon to basically accrue a lot of power to themselves and kind of flip the rank of the organization and bring it to a halt. If you're one of those people, I think now is a time where you might be able to then speak out and you will actually have the support of a lot of your co-workers. And I think the same is true now for management. Most managers have just conceded everything that they've been asked for because they're worried about – and let's not pretend that the leadership of these organizations is just single-mindedly focused on the mission either. Right. I don't want to suggest that. Right. The leadership of a lot of these organizations has become focused on maintaining their position in the leadership. And so they'll make concessions that they know are harmful to their long-term

goals of the organization because it buys them more time. And they can rationalize it and say that I need to be in this job in order to do good for the world. And so I make this concession so that I can stay in the job. Everybody along the way, though, is undermining their ability to do that very thing. But I do think that now the recognition is widespread enough that if a handful of people stand up and say, you know what, this particular call out that you've made is bunk. And there are two interesting examples of that. One, 2020 with Bernie, his Iowa staff, there was like an uprising several weeks before the caucuses where a bunch of disgruntled staff aired a bunch of grievances and said they wanted to go on strike in like the two weeks before the Iowa caucuses. Now, they had a union. And so because they had a union, they were required

to funnel those grievances through the union. And it came to a vote, and those people were outvoted. So that's a great example of how a union can smother those things. Right. It can give a voice to all the workers and not just the ones who are basically willing to be terrorists in the organization. Because the other workers are like, no, we're trying to win the Iowa caucuses here. Right, that's our priority. Like, the whole world depends on this. Like, if he loses Iowa, he's done. Like, we have to win this. And then the other example is at Sunrise, Alex O'Keefe, who had been the creative director, came out and accused the entire, quit or was fired and accused the entire organization and

its leadership of systemic racism and on and on. And first, the executive director pushed back and said, Alex, she said, Alex, I love you. You haven't been to work for three months. Like, this is not about racism. And then every black staffer of Sunrise, independent of the leadership, and that's crucial, signed a joint statement that they put out publicly saying, we do not agree with the way that Alex is framing this question. And so they were able to move on. They were able to move forward. So you have this other great quote here, which harkens back to the, what is it, the CIA manual for simple sabotage, which lays out some of the, you would think that the CIA was running some of these plots within the progressive community. And you say another

leader said the strife has become so destructive, it feels like an op. I'm not saying it's a right wing plot, because we're incredibly good at doing it ourselves. But if you tried, you could not conceive of a better right wing plot to paralyze progressive leaders by catalyzing the existing culture where internal turmoil and micro campaigns are mistaken for strategic advancement of social impact for the millions of people depending on these organizations. And what I thought was also important about the piece is that you connect this to another moment in history when you had a similar fracturing of the left and infighting and this kind of tumult and the call out, all of that sort of played out in the 70s as well. Can you talk about a little bit of that historical context and what led us to this moment that might be similar to that time as well? Right. So you have an explosion of mobilization in the 1960s around opposition to the war, civil rights, women's rights. And then 1968, you have not just the Chicago Democratic Convention that collapses into this

police riot, but then Richard Nixon is elected. And all of a sudden, you have this kind of mass demobilization of all of these forces that had coalesced throughout the 60s. And the most vivid example being Students for a Democratic Society meeting in 1969 at their convention, and a faction there wins, takes power of SDS, dissolves it, and forms the Weather Underground, and goes off to be domestic terrorists for the next couple of years. The Black Panther Party collapses amid the feds infiltrating it and stowing internal dissension and the crackdown, and then all of this internal fighting. And the Women's liberation movement coins the phrase trashing, which is basically, if you look at how it was defined at the time, is what you would call calling out or canceling or

whatever. And so trashing became this all-consuming phenomenon among a lot of subcultures, subcultural movements of the left. And they just demobilized and withdrew from mass politics. Some went and joined communes. Some dropped out entirely. Some did, quote unquote, party building, which is basically trying to build a mass communist party or something. And so you see elements of that today. The People's Party is like an interesting example that comes front to mind. Like you're so frustrated at the inability of the institutions that exist that you're like, well, I'm out of here. I'm done. I'm going to build my own thing.

But then there's so much infighting in that thing that it never goes anywhere. And the People's Party is five years old at this point and hasn't run a candidate yet. And if you follow their Twitter feed or whatever, they just are constantly fighting with each other. And that's not to pick on them. They're just a kind of symptom of this demobilization. So that's how one half of it goes on. The other half is within these organizations. 1970s is also when you had, say, Sierra Club, NARAL, Pro-Choice America.

A lot of these organizations unionized at that time, which I think is kind of representative of, it's a good thing and it's also representative of the inward turning look of the movements. That they no longer feel like their original mission of making the world a better place, of taking power and changing the world as possible. So like, okay, well, what can we do? Well, we can fix some of the problems here. And you have much less patience when you're in retreat for all the inequities and the BS that you're putting up with at work. When you're on the march, when you can see your goal, then it's much easier to say, okay, this guy's being a jerk, but like it's much more important to win the Iowa caucuses.

When there's no Iowa caucuses, when there's no organizing kind of element to the movement, nothing to pull it together. Yeah. And so you see that when the Sanders campaign ends, everybody collapses into it. You know, on the other hand, though, you would have thought that, especially some of these organizations that are more on the sort of, like, liberal to progressive persuasion, you would have thought, okay, we got Trump out, we got Biden in, we got a shot here, we got a trifecta. There's real like, it's not going to be everything, but there's some real things on the table maybe we could do. But that wasn't galvanizing at all. It wasn't. And I talked to, Trump was. So Trump, like the shock election of Trump pulled people together for six months or so, give or take. There was a galvanizing effect in there. But Biden's election, you would think like,

okay, now you have the American rescue plan. Let's make it as big as we can. Boom, we made it as big as we can. Okay, now we're moving on to build back better. Let's make sure we're... And some organizations, you know, did channel a lot of energy. Sunrise, I think that held them together while they were pushing for their civilian conservation core, which they got to like the one yard line. Yeah. But that, but you're right. So many other organizations were like, eh, it's interesting. We have a trifecta that's probably going to be gone in the midterms for a generation or 10 plus years. But let's deal with these internal problems now. It turned out not to be. The same demobilization, a lot of people blamed

Obama for the demobilization in 2009 because he actively did purposely demobilize the energy that brought him there. Biden never really had a movement. He just kind of won by default, by consolidation of the elites. So there wasn't necessarily much to demobilize when it got there. But yeah, you would think that it would have brought these organizations together, but it didn't. Well, it's not a fun piece for someone like me to read,

but I will count it as progress that the piece can be written and not just immediately trashed and you, like, run out of town as a horrible person. And maybe that's the start of making these organizations more functional again because ultimately, you know, if you do care about moving the country in a left direction, people having health care, people having jobs, high wages, union rights, all of those sorts of things, these are the organizations that are supposed to be doing this work in this town. So Ryan, thank you for pulling it together. I really recommend people go. We'll put the link in the description. I know we talked for a long time about it, but there really is a lot in here that is worth reading and sitting with and thinking about. So please go and check that on as well. Great to see you, Ryan. See you too. All right. Welcome back to another edition of Breaking Points Intercept Edition today. I'm very happy to be joined by my colleague, Lee Fong, to talk about his latest story. We could put that one up if you have it here. He takes a deep dive into the

evolution of the union busting, what they call kind of union avoidance. There are other euphemisms for it as well. Corporations hire consulting firms to come in and talk with managers and talk with staff in order to encourage those staff not to form a union. That's as old as the Pinkertons and even before. Lee is writing on a new phenomenon within this industry in which these union avoidance firms are adopting the language of social justice in order to appeal directly to workers whose primary concern is that, with the goal of stopping them from forming a union. So, Lee, when did you first notice this happening, and how did you spot this trend starting to develop? Hey, Ryan, thanks for having me. I'm based in San Francisco,

and I've covered the labor movement, the push for better wages and benefits for a very long time. Also, I'm based in San Francisco, and really over the last four or five years, there's been kind of an unprecedented worker rebellion in Silicon Valley. There's been walkouts at Google, protests at a lot of the big tech companies. Workers for really the very first time in this sector have pushed towards a labor union or joining the labor movement in some way. And in many cases, these workers have been sidelined. They've been pushed back. And corporations here in the tech industry are adopting the language of social justice, these demands for racial representation, as a way to kind of co-opt the energy from these labor

movements and to tell workers, you know, you don't need to join the labor union. I've kind of co-opt the energy from these labor movements and to tell workers, you know, you don't need to join the labor union. I've kind of watched from the outside this dynamic and I got interested in it. And I've been researching and attending webinars and a recent conference from the union avoidance industry and really seen that this dynamic of employers, human resource departments, union avoidance consultants, adopting the kind of language and tactics of the social justice movement, this has gone coast to coast. It's not really just in Silicon Valley anymore.

We're seeing companies all over the country attempting to adopt DEI or diversity, equity and inclusion officers or consultants kind of draping the company in the language and symbols of social justice to basically tell workers who are demanding more rights at work or interested in joining a union, hey, you don't need to join this third party, this labor union, if you're interested in getting politically active or getting more rights at work. The company is already a social justice organization. And this has been a really new tactic, but it's become commonplace within the union avoidance industry.

And one of the things that I like about your reporting, not just in this piece, but in general, is that you often go to these industry conferences. I've only done that a handful of times. And every time I have, I've been amazed at the honesty on display and what you're able to get. And you don't have to sneak in. I don't think you snuck into these particular ones. When I've gone, you just kind of register as press and they say, hey, welcome to our conference. And then they tell everything that they're thinking. So since you've been going to these types of things for a while, what have you noticed change? What was the kind of mood at these conferences or webinars behind this advice that they were giving to companies that you need to lean in on this particular set of language and politics in order to suck out the energy of the union drive? Well, look, since the 1970s, the union avoidance industry has really transformed in many ways. You know, going back to the early 19th

century, union avoidance was very violent. You know, famously, the Pinkertons, one of the first kind of private security companies that were hired to block workers on the picket line to sometimes have violent clashes with union activists. But, you know, if you zoom up to the 1970s, employers, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, big business at large, got more sophisticated. They decided, hey, we need to hire industrial psychologists. We need to kind of gather lots of intelligence from workers and really understand them and understand their values and figure out ways to make them hate labor unions, make them more loyal to managers. One of the groups that kind of got born out of this new crusade against unions was the Council for a Union-Free Environment, CUE. This is a group that every year kind of brings together the biggest employers in America, the consultants and lawyers and human resource departments that help in union avoidance. And they discuss the latest tactics on how to block labor unions to stop strikes, to defeat union elections. And I attended their latest conference in spring.

And, you know, there were many large employers. There were consultants hired by Amazon for their warehouse drives from the top executive at Kellogg's who dealt with labor relations issues, who attempted to lock serial workers who were striking last year out and replaced them with, you know, with the union activists called scabs. And, you know, you watch, I watched this conference for two days, and yeah, I registered under my name, and you know, there's no subterfuge there. And really, the whole conference was littered with the language of, you know, hey, we've got to talk about workplace belonging. We're not union busters.

We're diversity consultants. We need to talk about the importance of diversity, of matching diverse managers with diverse employee groups. We need to look at how a lot of these millennial and Gen Z workers are not just focused on the bread and butter of wages and benefits. A lot of them are interested in respect in the workplace and saying, hey, why isn't my corporation taking a stance on these social justice movements around identity, whether that's Black Lives Matter or Me Too or some of these other movements? for these union avoidance consultants, they were thinking, hey, how do we get ahead of this? How do we pivot very quickly and co-opt some of this language and position our corporations

in a way that deflates interest in labor unions and ensures that our workers remain loyal to us and never join a labor union. Yeah, which helps to explain why you see so many statements coming, expressing the values of social justice from a lot of these corporations. Because I think people initially thought, well, this is probably consumer-facing stuff. This company wants to be on the popular side of this particular issue. But it turns out that it might more likely be an internal facing thing. They're putting out a statement because they want to convince their staff that, hey, we are a place that lives your values. And so since we are one, then you don't need to form a union against us. We're you. We believe in all of the same things that you do. And one of the

thinking about the National Association of you do. And one of the, thinking about the National Association of Manufacturers and the Chamber of Commerce campaign that you talked about, one of their most impressive kind of propaganda victories in the 1970s when they pulled in those industrial psychology consultants and developed a more sophisticated strategy was to convince their workers and convince the country at large that unions were just hotbeds of corruption. That if you join a union, then your dues are going to go off to some mafiosa who's going to live high on the hog off of your wages. And they very successfully embedded that idea in popular culture and also in the minds of workers so that when there would be a union drive, they could say, look, why do you want to do that? You're just going to hand your money over to corrupt people.

Now, union corruption doesn't seem to be the propaganda angle anymore. You write about how the argument now that management is making is actually unions are hotbeds of sexism and of racism. Can you talk a little bit about that shift in the way that unions are being portrayed by management? Yeah. And just in terms of that history, I would highly recommend from Black Jacks to Briefcases, a book on the history of union avoidance or a lot of writing from John Logan. It really looks at how corporate consultants and major employers in the 70s, they hired special operatives who created daily newspapers only about union corruption and allegations against unions,

and it would mail them every day to their employees who were considering a union to just kind of convince them to hate labor unions, to see them as actually a malicious force. And you really encourage not just a vote against a labor union in a union campaign, but a decertification. We saw thousands of decertifications of companies that were unionized that then voted to get rid of their unions. Born out of this Chamber of Commerce and National Association of Manufacturers-led effort. But zoom up to today, you know, now that argument against labor unions is based on identity-based concerns. You know, it's very in vogue over the last few years to talk about systemic racism or systemic sexism.

And, you know, one example is this North Carolina-based company, No Evil Foods, a vegan food manufacturing company that makes imitation meat products sold in Whole Foods and other high-end groceries. When they faced a labor union effort, they had their captive meetings when they're lecturing their workers on why not to join a union. They said, hey, look, labor unions are known for their sexism. These folks are hotbeds of sexual harassment. If you really have progressive values, you would remain loyal to their corporation, not join one of these labor unions that's known for bigotry or what have you. And we've seen similar dynamics around the country.

Some of these anti-union consultants like Rick Berman has created mailers and TV ads that really heighten the focus on past racism or bigotry or issues within labor unions to kind of do sort of a jujitsu and say, hey, if you're interested in justice, why would you join the labor movement that's really known for a variety of forms of hatred or bigotry? Right, and the irony, of course, is that, yes, obviously it's true. There are examples throughout history of racism and sexism, some of it even endemic to it in the past. But today, if a worker is in a union, they probably have stronger protections against discrimination or against harassment in the workplace. But it's important, I think, for workers to understand what the management propaganda campaign is. And this is really helpful and terrific reporting. So, Lee, thanks for joining this Intercept edition of Breaking Points. Ryan, thanks for having me. All right. And so stick around. We'll have more Breaking

Points for you right after this. And check out Lee's article at The Intercept dot com. All right, guys. So AOC made some headlines because she refused to back Biden for 2024, at least not this early. Well, you're not going to see. I've watched the entire interview. It's on the CNN YouTube channel. There's another part just before this where Dana Bash asks Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She's like flabbergasted at the fact that AOC is backing some candidates who are primarying other Democrats. She's like, who are you turning on your colleagues? And, you know, AOC is like, well, I mean, I agree more with the people who I'm endorsing and she's like how impolite so um it's funny the sentiment that Danabash has which is like this insider conventional wisdom of like don't you ever endorse against other Democrats if you're an elected Democrat, because that's bad form. And yeah, that's just pathetic that Dana Bash is like, of course, mirroring the sentiment of the

Nancy Pelosi's and the Chuck Schumer's and the ultimate corporate Democrat insiders. But yeah, I mean, when it comes to AOC, look, she didn't really go to bat for Nina Turner. Like on the last day, she endorsed Nina Turner tepidly in like an email or some shit. So she doesn't really go to bat for Nina Turner. Like on the last day, she endorsed Nina Turner tepidly in like an email or some shit. So she doesn't always buck the party. Oftentimes she falls in line for the party. So, but anyway, here's the portion on Joe Biden.

This is interesting. We'll watch and then we'll talk about it. Before we go, I just want to ask about President Biden. He is saying he's going to run again in 2024. Will you support him? You know, if the president chooses to run again in 2024, I mean, first of all, I'm focused on winning this majority right now and preserving a majority this year in 2022. So we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. But but I think if if the president has a vision and that's something certainly we're all willing to entertain

and examine when the time comes. That's not a yes. The way she says that, that's not a yes. She's like mortified. Yeah, you know, I think we should endorse when we get to it. But I believe that the president has been doing a very good job.

Oh, my God. Every now and then you see the flashes of the old outsider AOC. But oftentimes you get this, you know, she goes right back to, Oh fuck. I'm an insider. Yeah.

He's doing, he's doing a great job. I think, you know what I'm saying? Trying to like soften the good thing. She said of like, I'm not going to endorse him now. She's like,

but I mean, he's doing a really great job, obviously. Uh, no, he's not, he's not doing anywhere, anything even remotely close to a good job.

And you know that. You know that. You know that. His approval rating is lower than Donald Trump's was at this point in his presidency. How can you defend Biden given that he's doing nothing? He's sitting on his ass all day. He's not signing any good executive orders. He's not eliminating student loan debt.

He's not legalizing marijuana. He's not freeing the nonviolent drug offenders. He's not lowering drug prices, which he can do with the swipe of a pen. He's not even breaking up Build Back Better and doing standalone bills on like universal pre-K, for example, which is something that would at least put political pressure on the right and on Joe Manchin and on Kyrsten Sinema. He's doing nothing, AOC. He's doing nothing. He's doing nothing for the love of God. So far and, you know, should he run again?

I think that I, you know, I think it's it's we'll take a look at it. Right now, we need to focus on winning a majority instead of a presidential election. Congresswoman, thank you so much for joining me. I appreciate it. I mean, this is all just this is all so useless. If you're going to be the left flank in Congress and you're not out there hammering biden to sign more executive orders and to sign them on the important issues if you're not hammering mansion and cinema every time you open your mouth and saying they're blocking progress it's their fault it's their problem they need to get out of the way they need to listen to the opinion polls

joe mansion needs to listen to the west virginia voters who want him to do build back better who want him to do universal pre-k who want him to do universal pre-K, who want him to do elder care, who want him to lower prescription drug prices, who want him to do extended child tax benefit. If you're not saying that, you're part of the problem. Look, when you're in Washington for an extended period of time, people seem to genuinely lose touch, you know, and they start to, I can play that insider outsider game. Well, how's that working? A breaking points Marshall here. A lot of folks have been asking breaking points to cover the

topic of inflation from a bunch of different angles. So I thought what better, but to speak to an expert who's been writing about the federal reserve and its role in the current crisis of speaking with Chris Leonard. He is the author of The Lords of Easy Money, How the Federal Reserve Broke the American Economy. You've got an interesting take here. I'd love you just to sum up as we start what the current just political consensus is regarding Joe Biden, the Federal Reserve? Who's to blame for the current economic system we're in right now? Yeah. So obviously right now, in the summer of 2022, before a midterm election, we are seeing just tremendous economic volatility. And not to put too fine a point on it, but we're watching sort of a slow motion stock market crash. Just this week, the Standard & Poor's 500, for example, entered

what they call bear market territory. And really, this is just the beginning of a lot of economic readjustment and downward asset prices that we're going to see over the next year. So we're seeing kind of an economic calamity unfold at probably the worst possible time for the Biden administration and for the Democrats who control Congress. I mean, the political conventional wisdom is very simple. When you have economic turmoil like this during the midterm year, it really helps the party out of power. So the most likely outcome is that this will sort of be rocket fuel to the Republican attempts to take over Congress this fall. But what I'm trying to say is that this sort of economic earthquake we're seeing this year with super high inflation and with the stock market crash, the ground has been

set for this for years. What we're seeing is the expression of a years-long situation that really has very little to do with who's been in the White House for the last 17 months or so. And what's interesting here then is, what about the fact that there are prominent Democrats like Larry Summers, who last year were saying, we're on the path to inflation, these big economic issues, and they weren't focused on the Federal Reserve, though. So how do you think about the fact that it's not just Republicans saying this is Biden's spending decisions, but also some centrist Democrats as well, too? Well, yeah, I think what you're getting at is what is the root of the inflation here? And you've got

some folks on the Democratic side saying, hey, it was this government spending, you know, particularly the COVID relief plans that pumped a ton of money into what we call the real economy in the sense that, you know, the federal government was sending checks to people, people were buying more stuff, demand was really high, and that fed inflation. That's fiscal responsibility. That's what happens with Congress and the Treasury. But let's not forget what's going on with monetary policy, with the Federal Reserve, and the so-called money supply. That's a key part of this story. Now, when we're talking about, you know, Larry Summers' complaints, we're not going to really figure out, honestly, how much of a role the federal spending had in this inflation for years. It's going to take a long time to kind of do the autopsy on this disaster of the high inflation. What we do know

for a fact is that the Federal Reserve Bank has made this situation much worse than it otherwise would be. And that was because of policy decisions the Fed made over the last decade to keep interest rates at zero while pumping trillions of dollars into the banking system, which pumped up stock prices and created major asset bubbles. So what that means is that today, as the Fed tries to fight inflation, as it tries to hike interest rates and it tries to draw this money out of the banking system, it's going to create a massive downturn in the financial markets. That's why we're seeing very fast, very rapid downturns, not just in stocks, but in bonds and other assets.

So if this is a almost multi-decade story of bad Federal Reserve policies. What are we, we being Joe Biden, we being a Republican Congress, we being maybe President Trump or President DeSantis in 2024, what can actually be done to address this issue? Okay, so first of all, unfortunately, I think one of the big points of what I've come to from reporting this is that there's no easy way out of the position where we are now. And I want to sort of restate here that the Federal Reserve and our central bank is incredibly powerful and incredibly influential. And I think folks really need to pay attention to what the Fed did between 2010 and 2020. The Fed reshaped our financial system. It kept interest rates pegged at zero for roughly a decade with one small intermission.

That's never been done before. It is hugely consequential. And at the same time, the Fed was pumping trillions of dollars into the banking system through this program called quantitative easing. This all had a huge effect. Why did they, quick question, why did they do those two things? Huge question. You know, the Fed took on what I would call really a super activist role after 2010. And, you know, we were emerging from a banking crisis back then, of course, economic growth was weak, unemployment was high. And the chairman of the Fed was Ben Bernanke, whose memoir is entitled The to try to stimulate economic growth. And that sounds great, of course, but look at the tools the Fed has. The Fed can't put a shovel in anybody's hand. It can't educate a kid. It can't build a dam. All the Fed can do is create new money on Wall Street. All this new money that the Fed creates is created inside the bank accounts of 24 banks

on Wall Street. So the Fed pushed these policies really as kind of like a jobs program. It was sort of like this modern New Deal, if you will. It was a jobs program through the vehicle of pumping cash into Wall Street while keeping interest rates at zero to promote more lending and frankly, riskier lending. So the question then would become, and I know you're having read your book, we did a great realignment episode with you, the point of your perspective is not to just excuse the Biden administration in terms of its economic approach or its actions. How would you just articulate or say the administration's performance on these economic issues has been since 2021 when they assumed office? I'm not trying to write an

apologia for the Biden administration at all. I'm not. I think the message I really want to deliver is 17 months is a very small time frame when you look at America's political economy. And you know the Biden administration has not been in office that long. When you're looking at a time frame of 10 years, it has not been that long. And we could talk a lot about what the administration has done. It passed the 1.9 trillion COVID Relief Act very quickly after it got into office. It tried to pass a much more ambitious spending plan and build back better, which of course never took.

But these policies haven't had an enormous and consequential effect. That's what I'm trying to say here is, you know, the American political cycle is on these little two-year increments. And, you know, that's not enough time to create significant change in the country. So, you know, the Biden administration is in many significant ways just starting to get its feet on the ground. I mean, the personnel have been in place for maybe a year.

You're starting to see some new actions from the Federal Trade Commission and other bodies. But the effect has been shallow. It has not been deep. That's my take on it. So when we look particularly at some of the economic carnage that is not just unfolding now on the stock market, but is probably yet to come, you can't simply describe why that's happening by pointing at a White House administration that's only about a year and a half into the job. And the way I'd sum up your perspective, I like your use of the word autopsy earlier. So maybe when someone like you writes a book about this decade in 2035 or something, the story isn't going to focus as much on spending decisions during a nine-month period before Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema got started. It's going to be during this 2010s post-2008 financial crisis period up through the present day, the Federal Reserve, separate from the Trump administration, separate from the Obama administration, separate from the Biden administration, obviously the chairmen are appointed by the administrations, is going to play just a huge... Is that a good way of summing up

the way we should probably think about this moment? I think that's a perfect way to sum it up. And I was also being pretty specific too, in the sense that one of the key dynamics we're seeing right now is incredibly high inflation, shockingly high inflation above 8%, which has really caught everybody by surprise, even Larry Summers, to the degree that it's happened and the degree to which it's embedded. I'm very fascinated with the previous period of very high inflation in the 1970s. And what I learned from studying that era is it took a solid 30 years to do that autopsy where you're really going back and trying to distinguish, okay, what caused this? Why did this happen at this moment? Why did it happen so severely? And as we look at this moment, it probably will take a while to figure out, okay, how much did the COVID relief play into this?

How much did the supply chain bottleneck caused by COVID play into this? How much did the Fed's monetary policy play into this? It's going to take a while to figure that out. But to the point you made, yes, the key thing to understand are the sort of the deep infrastructure of our economy and our political economic system, the central bank, the dysfunction we see in the democratic institutions like Congress and the White House over the last 15 years, that's going to play a critical role in it for sure. And there is simply no doubt, there is simply no doubt that when historians look back at this period right now in 2022, they're going to talk about the previous decade of what the Fed did. It is hard to describe it without sounding hyperbolic. The Fed quint a decade as they printed in a century.

That's an enormous change, and it's had huge effects. And it's one reason why we're seeing this volatility we're seeing today. Christopher, I'd love for you to close on this final question. Like you said, you've studied the 70s, 80s period, and that's really coming towards the end of the New Deal era. It's coming towards the end of the New Deal era. It's coming towards the end of the Great Society. Just the inflation issue in terms of reducing the ambitions of government to positively impact the economy, that's a huge political issue in this country. Now that we're coming out of the COVID moment, now that we're coming out of this moment where it seemed as if Joe Biden could be

the next FDR, can you just give us just like your political analysis of how inflation politics and this just spending dynamic is going to play a role in basically constraining government? I mean, giving my perspective, but like it seems that this is going to really constrain government in an unexpected level, given how people thought COVID was going to reshape everything when it came to the system. I think that's right. And I think that there, you know, I don't want to sound alarmist, but there's some fundamental things at play here. Inflation politics is very explosive. When you look back at countries that experience high inflation, Turkey's going through it right now. We've been through this in the 1970s. Other nations have experienced hyperinflation. It's terribly- Which nation experienced hyperinflation? I like to stay away from talking about hyperinflation in the 1930s. Not to be cute about it, but it's obvious that hyperinflation in the 1930s led to the destruction of democracy in Germany. It's a very instructive, kind of scary profile to read about, not just because of the rise of fascism. I mean, of course,

because this is why I don't like talking about this. The effects of inflation are incredibly, incredibly destructive politically. People lose faith in institutions. It makes it harder and harder to get by. It really stokes social instability and anger in the short term, for sure. And to me, what's important is the moment in which this is hitting. You talked about the inflation in the 1970s kind of being one of the nails in the coffin of the New Deal. That is absolutely what happened, and that is accurate. And I think we all kind of recognize that the political landscape in America today is changing. There's kind of the death of one political order, and we're looking at the creation of another potentially. And, you know,

these midterm elections, it doesn't just feel anymore like this very predictable safe seesaw between kind of, you know, conservative Republicans and more liberal Democrats, like that consensus is gone. And a lot of the guardrails or leavening effects aren't there anymore. And so to me, what's important is that this is hitting our country at a moment when things are already acknowledged to be fragile, politically fragile. We hear so much about under, you know, the lack of strength of our institutions and the political volatility that we're seeing. So I think it's really, really, really important to pay attention to how this economic volatility can play into our political system.

Very well said. Christopher, we'd love for you to just shout the book out for folks who want to go deeper into this topic and reference any recent op-eds you've written. Well, I would say, look, at the risk of being predictable, The Lords of Easy Money, this book I wrote, really tries to calmly walk through the last decade of monetary policy. And obviously, I think it helps explain to a large extent why we're seeing what we're seeing economically right now and what the effects have been. And again, I just think we need to be really clear-eyed as we look at this stuff so that we can make the best judgments we can make as citizens as to like which way we should go forward and what policies we should support. Great. Thank you so much for

joining us on Breaking Points. Thank you. I appreciate it. Hey there. My name is James Lee. Welcome to another segment of 5149 on Breaking Points. And today we're going to talk about inflation and the core rot underlying the American economy. Gas prices are now at a level we have never seen before. Overnight, AAA reported the nationwide average for a gallon of regular reached $5. That's up nearly $2 from one year ago. And now to growing concerns about the economy, and that includes the increasing pain at the pump. I want to show you this. A gas station in downtown L.A., look at that, topped $8 for a regular gallon of gas.

That's right. Gas is at an all-time high, and the increase seems more permanent than temporary. Supply chain issues are becoming more frequent, more disruptive, highlighted by the recent baby formula shortage fiasco. There's definitely this feeling of uncertainty, anxiety, unrest, so many troubling indicators that what's to come is only going to get worse. And I, like many of you, desperately want to know what's going on, why this is happening, and how we can fix it. And many of us will, of course, turn to the media to provide such insight to help us understand what is going on with our country. Tonight, Americans are reacting to the soaring price at the pump, the national average overnight reaching $5 a gallon for the first time ever. President Biden again today putting the blame on Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine and saying the administration is pushing to do more. Inflation is a real challenge to American families.

Today's inflation report confirmed what America's already know. Putin's price hike is hitting America hard. Well, first, the president's come out with his plan to fight inflation. It's not a plan. It's an embarrassment. If a high school kid turned that in as an economics paper, they'd get a D minus. But for a president to say that at the time of record high inflation for prices, for gas, for groceries, he deserves an F because it's full of finger pointing false accusations. And Maria, he takes no responsibility for his economic malpractice, because that's what this is. I have this fundamental view that much of the inflation has been generated by some very large policy shifts in the United States. We change our

immigration policies, and I'm talking about legal immigration. Okay, we're down 2 million. 2 million new entrants to the United States legally. That is very inflationary when we have full employment, when we have these jobs. Think about all the need for workers. What does that mean when we start implementing our infrastructure bill, when it's going to take up quite a few new jobs, where are those employees going to be coming from? It's going to take up quite a few new jobs, where are those employees going to be coming from? It's going to create rising wages. And if you look at earnings, many companies are saying rising wages are a part of the degradation of their margins. So the mainstream media coverage,

once again, has been predictably shallow, right? Biden is blaming Putin for price hikes. Republicans are blaming Biden for economic malpractice. And corporate executives like Larry Fink of BlackRock are blaming the lack of low wage immigrants. And I have to acknowledge inflation is a very complicated topic and there's plenty of criticism to go around. Yet I find the mainstream and corporate media's coverage of this issue to not be very helpful in explaining or exposing the fundamental rot at the heart of the American economy. There are certainly some root causes and discussions that receive little to no attention from the corporate media, perhaps ignored on purpose. Take the oil market, for example. Pre-COVID in December of 2019, global oil consumption was about 100 million

barrels per day. But in the immediate months after the pandemic hit in early 2020, demand dropped to below 90 million barrels per day. Oil demand has since recovered and is forecasted to exceed 2019 levels by Q4 2022. The global supply of oil, however, has lagged and is expected to continue to lag at least until next year. Now let's take a look at prices. Before the pandemic, the price of West Texas Intermediate WTI crude hovered around $50 to $60 per barrel. In early 2020, in the immediate months after the pandemic hit, prices collapsed, at one point dropping to below $20 per barrel, but has been on a steady climb ever since, now to almost $110 per barrel. I also just want to say really quickly that I understand that with oil and gas, there is a climate and sustainability consideration. We absolutely need to invest in newer, more sustainable technologies. But I want to put that aside for one moment and

consider this issue from the lens of basic economics, which is that demand for oil has recovered, but the supply still hasn't caught back up to that demand, causing prices to inflate. President Biden has already called upon the oil sector to hike production. We think these companies need to be stepping up, a senior administration official said in a background call with reporters. There is nothing standing in their way. So why don't oil companies want to produce more? After all, they are flush with cash and at the current prices, there's a lot of money to be made. To fully understand this, we need to walk through two important metrics companies use to make capital allocation decisions, IRR and hurdle rate.

IRR stands for internal rate of return, and it represents how much return the company expects on any given project that they're evaluating. The hurdle rate is the minimum acceptable rate of return a business requires on a capital project, oftentimes represented by something called WAC, weighted average cost of capital. To put it in the simplest terms possible, if the return on a project is expected to exceed the required costs of the investment, then it makes sense to move forward. But if the return is less than the cost of the investment, then it doesn't make sense to move forward. So one would expect right now with the supply and demand fundamentals of the current market, it would be a no brainer for oil companies to invest more into drilling to capitalize on these higher prices. Sounds logical, right? But here is the reality that the media oftentimes chooses to ignore for whatever reason. According to Julius Krein's paper entitled

The Value of Nothing, Capital vs. Growth in the intellectual journal American Affairs, quote, today's shareholder-driven corporations are not necessarily or even primarily motivated to engage in the traditional methods of growing a business. Companies are often highly incentivized to pursue financial engineering and valuation multiple expansion rather than invest to increase earnings. Eliminating profit streams can actually increase shareholder returns when the remaining company trades at a higher valuation, especially if share buybacks or other cash returns feature in the process. So what this means is that even in situations where it might be profitable,

shareholders prefer that companies return cash to them rather than invest it in projects with a longer term time horizon. How rotten is that? Companies will pass up investments that would create jobs and opportunity for people and would grow their profits just to put that money back into the shareholders' pockets. And that's exactly what's happened here with oil and gas. According to recent reporting from Bloomberg, big oil spends on investors, not output, prolonging crude crunch. The second highest cash haul ever has not been enough to spur investment and weary the tide will shift again. Major companies prefer to reward investors. Let's walk through some of the charts in this article because I think it's very revealing.

First, Western supermajors like Shell, Total Energies, BP, ExxonMobil, and Chevron just reported their second highest cash flow ever. But in terms of their spending, it's half that of 2013 when crude oil last topped $100. And companies like Exxon and Chevron are spending more on investor returns than on production, with the company spending more in recent years on stock buybacks and dividends than capital expenditures. So these oil companies are flush with cash, investing less of it, giving more of it to shareholders, and many of us are stuck dealing with the pain at the pump. And maybe even more revealing, let's take a look at how it's being portrayed in the corporate media. Food at grocery stores up 11.9%. It's the highest increase since 1978. We also know that the war in Ukraine really pushing up prices for a lot of wheat products,

so cookies and pasta. So, you know, what the problem is that you'd say, oh, well, I'll eat cheaper tonight, rice and beans. And you know what? Everything is more expensive. Everything is more expensive. I can't find anything that is less expensive. The Dow is now down nine of the past 10 weeks. Classic panel discussion going on here. Yes, food is more expensive and many can't here. Yes, food is more expensive, and many can't afford to eat. Gas is more expensive. Everything is more expensive. But the Dow, what do we do about the Dow? That is, unfortunately, more or less the type of discourse that you're most likely to find in mainstream media. Americans are struggling, but what about

stocks? Krein continues in his paper, quote, from the standpoint of economic theory, this represents an irrational refusal to maximize profits. But with regard to maximizing equity value, it is an eminently rational strategy. Lowering hurdle rates would mean investing in projects that might increase earnings, but which would likely degrade earnings quality. In other words, metrics like return on assets would deteriorate and valuation multiples would probably fall. Avoiding such investments, and instead returning cash to shareholders to further prop up valuations becomes a preferable approach to maximizing shareholder value, even if it foregoes substantial

profit opportunities. But if the link between shareholder value and profits is severed, then the justifications for shareholder primacy and much else in economic theory collapse. I think the word collapse is too often used hyperbolically, but in this case, it's an outcome that is legitimately looming on the horizon if we don't make some changes. Because the rot we've just discussed is present in not just the oil and gas industry, but in every industry in order to financially engineer better valuations, better multiples, better earnings, better whatever new vogue metric that Wall Street happens to care about. Pharmaceutical companies are outsourcing production to overseas manufacturers. Computer chip manufacturers like Intel are letting a direct

competitor produce semiconductors for them. Aerospace manufacturers can market and sell commercial aircrafts that they neither designed nor built. I could go on and on, but these decisions compounded will lead to the imminent and self-inflicted collapse of America. Here's the data to back this up. According to a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, from 1989 to 2017, $34 trillion of real equity wealth was created by the U.S. corporate sector. We estimate that 44% of this increase was attributable to a reallocation of rewards to shareholders in a decelerating economy, primarily at the expense of labor compensation. Economic growth accounted for just 25%, followed by a lower risk price,

18%, and lower interest rates, 14%. The truth is, multinational corporations aren't beholden to any country or community, and they don't have a moral obligation to society. The only obligation is to transfer wealth to its shareholders. And in tough times, the majority of that wealth transfer comes at the expense of either labor or the expense of consumers, right? Building something like a robust and reliable supply chain takes investment. But as we've seen recently, it's also critical in maintaining the stability and wellness of our society. In contrast, the period 1952 to 1988 experienced less than one third of the growth in market equity, but economic growth accounted for more than 100% of it. But of course, everything is a trade-off. Do we want to incentivize a financialized economy where we optimize for shareholder returns and things are fantastic so long as you're one of the shareholders? Or should we return to an economy rooted in longer-term thinking with significant structural investments and jobs that can sustain everyone in America from top to bottom. You know, the core rot, as exemplified by the oil market trends, is that the American

economy is structured in a way that radically benefits just a few large shareholders at the expense of everyone else, particularly the working class. And my final point, I just want everybody to remember this, is that when you hear members of Congress, CEOs, or the mainstream media hail the private sector as the savior to our economic woes, it's because they oftentimes are the shareholders of these companies and profiting quite handsomely from their investments without, of course, actually creating any real value at all. Maybe even worse, media pundits that are out there almost never disclose their conflicts of interest to their viewers. Thank you so much for listening today. I hope you enjoyed today's discussion about one aspect of what's wrong with America's economy

that just isn't talked about enough. There are many more, so if you'd like to know more about this topic and many others, please check out my channel 5149 on YouTube, where I release weekly videos relating to the intersection of business and politics and society. The link will be in the description below. And of course, subscribe to Breaking Points. And thank you so much for your time today. Matt Stoller, author of Monopoly-focused newsletter, Big, and an antitrust policy analyst. Now, I have a great segment for you today on this big breakdown. I want to talk to you today about crypto. Now, I get a lot of notes from people saying, hey, Matt, you hate monopolies. You hate corruption. You should love Bitcoin. You should love crypto. We're fighting against concentrated financial power, just like you are. We're just doing it in a different way. Well, with Bitcoin prices crashing,

crypto crashing, and a lot of people getting wiped out over the last six months, I figured now is as good a time as any to talk about it. So what is crypto? Why are so many people into it? And why is it all collapsing? I think the best way to tell the story is to start with a historical metaphor. In the early 1920s, known sometimes as the Roaring Twenties, a wave of speculation occurred around land in Florida. Now, this was just after World War I, a war that caused mass disillusionment, millions of Americans who no longer believed their government would do anything for them. There was easy money from the Federal Reserve, few rules on Wall Street, and a raging culture war that

disguised the economic choices of elites. Sounds pretty familiar. Anyway, Florida land was the perfect get-rich-quick scheme for this moment. The state of Florida looked like the future, but Florida was also far enough away from most people in the Midwest and New York that investors couldn't easily investigate their holdings. So speculators gambled massively on Florida land and the mania became insane, just crazy. So to illustrate, there was at least, there was one speculation, sort of speculative fervor over land lots in the city of Nettie, Florida. And Nettie, Florida was a city which later turned out not to exist. So eventually the bubble popped. We had a lot of tears and litigation and a Great Depression. Okay, so with that metaphor, let's talk crypto. What are cryptocurrencies?

Well, cryptocurrencies are a social movement based on the belief that markings in a ledger on the internet have some sort of intrinsic value. The organizers of these ledgers call these markings Bitcoin or Ethereum or other names based on the specific ledger. The ledgers have slightly different technical characteristics, but those differences are not that important. That's it. That's what they are.

There's no magic. It's not money, though it has money-like properties. And sure, the technology behind the ledgers is kind of neat, but crypto is a movement fundamentally based on energetic storytellers who spin fables about a utopian future to come and use this kind of neat ledger technology as part of that story.

So perhaps the most important storyteller is crypto billionaire Sam Bankman-Fried, one of Time Magazine's 100 most influential people of 2022. He's been profiled by the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, the New York Times. He intentionally has sort of crazy hair and he wears shorts and a t-shirt to brand himself to politicians and regulators as goofy and friendly, worth between 10 and 20 billion dollars these days. Now, that's not all. I mean, crypto is sort of sitting in a larger context. Fueling crypto is cheap money from the Federal Reserve, which has printed $7, $8 trillion over the last 10 years, and until recently had dropped interest rates to near zero. That's a lot of cheap money going around that you can borrow

and speculate with. Now, because of the actions of federal officials like Ben Bernanke, which is he's talking right here, people borrowed cheap money and they gambled on all sorts of assets from old sneakers to magic the gathering cards to financial scams called SPACs to unprofitable firms in the stock market, private equity. Yes, also crypto. Now, the Fed is really important. There's a reason that Elon Musk was worth $20 billion before the pandemic and was worth $340 billion late last year. And it's not because Tesla was selling more cars. It's because the Fed pushed up asset values during the pandemic everywhere. So in this context, cryptocurrencies are like the Florida land that no one ever intends to use. It has value in

the moment it is traded, but only because there's a collective belief that it has some intrinsic worth. And because people are gambling over everything, someone is willing to buy the crypto assets just like they were willing to buy the Florida land, even though there's really nothing there. Okay, but that's not all. There's also a politics behind crypto, and that politics is actually pretty similar to the politics of this show. It's populist. Bitcoin was created on January 3rd, 2009, right in the middle of the bailouts. And inscribed in the code of Bitcoin itself is a newspaper headline about bank bailouts. Now, it's not actual populism. It's sort of a weird kind of inverted populism. But there's a broad questioning of the legitimacy of our existing order.

And crypto proponents believe that the existing financial regime is a collusive arrangement between large banks supported with government power. Their view is that money laundering, tax evasion, criminal activity, and fraud are fine as long as you are an insider in the system. And the Federal Reserve and other government institutions will not only stop corrupt insiders, but will subsidize and bail them out if necessary. Meanwhile, the rest of us have to live with foreclosures, high interest rates on credit cards, high fees for middlemen in every aspect of the economy, student loans, and so on and so forth. And how could you disagree with that critique? You can't. So if you toss

kind of allegations at crypto, oh, this is fraudulent, they're like, well, so is everything in finance. How dare you? But whereas the liberal democratic response, that's what I believe in, is to have the government create rules for markets, the crypto response is to build a non-government currency technology to root around this corrupt political order. And this is framed in the name of consumer choice, as in the state shouldn't be able to boss you around and tell you what you can do with your money, and neither should banks. After all, it's your money,

and anyone who doesn't buy into this idea is inherently defending a set of collusive, bailout-friendly institutions that we sometimes call liberal democracy. Okay, so that's the politics of crypto. There's a reasonable point behind it. It's not one I agree with, but that's what a lot of people who are into it think. The thing is, what's become clear in this crash is that absent rules, absent this liberal democratic order that this movement disdains,

crypto is just an entirely unregulated financial system prone to the same kinds of cheating, fraud, and collapse in the existing order, at least really in the pre-1930s unregulated financial system. So Twitter, for example, is full of stories like this. Here's a customer of Coinbase, one of the largest and most quote-unquote credible crypto exchanges, and he can't get his money out. Now, banks will rip you off for the fees. They'll charge you something you don't, you know, overdraft fee or whatever, but you get your money. Not crypto exchanges. Not having rules sounds great until it doesn't. Okay. And the culture of, of around crypto, while it's sort of spouting lots of words like freedom and, and, uh, and liberty is not good. Here's Michael, Michael Saylor, the CEO of a firm called MicroStrategy. And Saylor is a, or briefly became a Bitcoin billionaire. Now watch this clip and you'll see Saylor get

crazier and crazier and more and more obviously trying to pull people into a scam. The only use of time is, how do I buy more Bitcoin? But take all your money, buy Bitcoin, then take all your time, figure out how to borrow more money to buy more Bitcoin, then take all your time and figure out what you can sell to buy Bitcoin. And if you absolutely love the thing that you don't want to sell it, go mortgage your house and buy Bitcoin with it. And if you've got a business that you love because your family works for the business that's in your family for 37 years and you can't bear to sell it, mortgage it, finance it, and convert the proceeds into the hardest money on earth, which is Bitcoin.

So what I would say is use all your time to acquire Bitcoin, finance entities and weaker currencies to buy Bitcoin, or educate yourself on why this makes sense if you're not sure, and then educate everybody around you. If you're working for a company that's got $100 million in the treasury, you ought to convince the CEO and the board of directors to convert the treasury to Bitcoin. That's the most creative thing you can do. That'd be worth billions to them. That guy's an opinion leader in this space. And you can see that is a mix of a cult and a Ponzi scheme, right? Okay. So that's the culture of Bitcoin. That's writ large the culture of crypto. And Bitcoin and crypto are slightly different, but I'm lumping them in together because they're not that different. Okay. Now, the thing is, is recently,

the price of Bitcoin has collapsed. And there's a reason for this. It's not just, you know, a speculator just got tired. It was that it was prompted by the failure of two major crypto institutions because there are no rules. The first was something called Terra Luna, and the second was something called Celsius. The specific details aren't that important, but both had similar dynamics. Terra Luna and Celsius promised depositors or buyers a ridiculously high return on their money, something like 18, 20 percent, a number that's obviously too good to be true. And they said, oh, it's just completely safe. Then they lent out that money to speculators. And those speculators bought Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and drove

the price of those cryptocurrencies up. You know what's going to happen next, right? The Federal Reserve, which has been juicing the gambling for a decade, recently started pulling back from supporting financial assets in the last six months. The Fed has been like, no, things are going to go down now. So the price of Bitcoin started to drop. What happens when there's lots of people who've borrowed money to speculate? Well, they can't, the speculators can't pay back their loans. So buyers of either Terra Luna or depositors in Celsius got wiped out because those entities didn't have any money. They said, oh, your money's totally safe. It turns out it wasn't. This is an old-fashioned

bank run before deposit insurance. And the collapse of these institutions had another knock-on effect, and it meant that speculators couldn't borrow. And so Bitcoin fell even more. This is how an unregulated financial system unravels. And there are more institutional blowups in the crypto world to come. Since late last year, the aggregate value of crypto has dropped from between $2 and $3 trillion to less than $1 trillion. But there's room to fall. Bitcoin is still twice as expensive as it was before the pandemic. You know, as the Fed continues to withdraw its support, there's a lot of money to be lost still. But frankly, a lot of people are going to be hurt.

And that's sad. But I can't wait for this collapse to happen. It is a good thing that crypto is falling apart. Because ultimately, the goal for the big investors behind crypto, not the people who are just involved and maybe made a little bit of money or lost a little bit of money, but the people who are really behind it, venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen, billionaires like Sam Bankman-Fried, is to get favorable regulation in place before the big crash so they can get bailouts from the state. And they were actually starting to succeed.

Bankman Freed had Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Andrew Yang as guests for his crypto conference held in the Bahamas last year. And that's not all. Senators Cynthia Loomis and Kirsten Gillibrand have been key advocates to have the Federal Commodities Regulator instead of the more hardcore Securities and Exchange Commission regulate the industry. There was some scary stuff about Fed accounts in there as well, like kind of hinting at possible bailouts. There's even a blockchain caucus in the House, with such members as uber-partisan Democrat Eric Swalwell on the left, and the Trumpiest Trump Republican Lauren Boebert on the right. Ultimately, the end game is to let crypto firms get access to taxpayer support through the Federal Reserve lending facilities or other forms of government assistance. That takes these

billionaires who have their billions in crypto and it turns them into actually something useful, which are dollars. Now, people sometimes say, ah, crypto, you know, what backs, crypto is just belief, but what backs the dollar, that's just belief too. No, the American government backs the dollar through a lender of last resort facility, taxing authority, deposit insurance, and a strong economy that makes a lot of stuff. Crypto is actually backed purely by belief, and belief only lasts as long as prices go up. When belief goes, you need the U.S. government to bail you out. Bankman Freed and his people know this. And they are trying to get government backing for crypto as quickly as possible.

He has spent $30 million in politics just this cycle to buy power within the Democratic Party and says he may spend up to a billion dollars in 2024. Just in politics. And one of his business, not a partisan thing, one of his business partners is a big spender on the GOP side. These guys are cynics and business people. They divided up. They said, you take the Republicans, we'll take the Democrats. Okay. So if this crash hadn't happened when it did, Bankman-Fried would likely have succeeded. The momentum was on his side. The regulators were coming to like him. So were politicians.

Maybe he still will win. Maybe he won't. It's going to be much harder now that people have seen the downside of crypto. But either way, this story, like the Florida real estate story, will end in tears. But hopefully it will end soon.

Thanks for watching this big breakdown on the Breaking Points channel. If you'd like to know more about big business and how our economy really works, you can sign up below for my market power focus newsletter, BIG, which is in the description. Thanks and have a good one.

This is an iHeart Podcast.