Lovett or Leave It - LOLOLoligarchy

Episode Date: June 2, 2018

Recorded live in Philadelphia, Jon is joined by the city's new district attorney Larry Krasner, Ezra Miller and his band Sons of an Illustrious Father, the Roosevelt Institute's Mike Konczal, comedian Franchesca Ramsey, and writer Dylan Marron for a special action-packed episode focused on economic inequality and what we can do about it. Yes, we cover all the hits. Corporate power and consolidation! Inequities in the justice system! Trump's racism and economic populism! Republican policies that make things worse and Democratic policies that don't go far enough! Plus, we yell about Paul Ryan, teachers being underpaid, and how we need to stop blaming globalization and robots for everything. It was a really fun show about an important issue and you will like it.

Please give it up for Sons of an Illustrious Father. We're going to kick off our show with a song. Love it or leave it, just love it or leave it Perspective on the side Love it or leave it, just love it or leave it Straight shooter Love it or leave it, just love it or leave it Suspecting all but some Strange shooter STRAIGHT SHOOTERS

RESPECTING OUR MOST SAD I CAN'T HOLD IT, I CAN'T STOP IT, I'M LEAVING STRAIGHT SHOOTERS It's love and I'll leave it, it's love and I'll leave it Straight to death It's love and I'll leave it, it's love and I'll leave it Respecting all those times It's love and I'll leave it, it's love and I'll leave it Love and I'll leave it, it's love and I or leave it Love it or leave it Love it or leave it Love it or leave it

Guys, give it up for Lila, Josh, Ezra from Sons of an Illustrious Father Thank you guys so much for kicking off the show. They're gonna be back to play a game. How cool was that? Hello, Philadelphia.

It is so lovely to see you all. How's the balcony doing? How's the second balcony doing? Hey, we moved some seats in the second balcony. That's good, that's good. So, you know, the Eagles, congrats. So, you know, the Eagles. Congrats. You guys are very lucky that the Eagles played the Patriots.

And the Eagles won. I know they won because somebody ate horse shit on your streets. Yeah. You should think about that energy that you're putting out there. Because if I know about that, a lot of people do. Because we've talked about this. For sports-related news to cross into my feed, it's a lot has to go right or a lot has to go wrong.

You think it went right. So when was the last time you were so happy to bask in the reflected glory of a local event that you ate shit off the ground? Not literally. So you think we should take the horse shit eating person seriously, but not literally? Because I have to tell you, it was literal the video I saw

not a lot of analogy in that video you know what someone just shouted fuck Tom Brady and I think that's fine oh go bananas but I think that's fine. Oh, go bananas. But I think that that's interesting because of course you go heart negative

and I get it. Because, you know, deflated footballs, that weird kiss thing. There's a lot to unpack. The Trump support, there's a lot to unpack with Tom Brady. He's getting away with a lot

because he's handsome, all alright? Let's face it. No, he's not. Shut up. No, he's not. Come on. We're all adults here. But I do think that you should really relish in this Super Bowl victory because

there's no other team that you could play where everybody would root for you. And again, I say that as an outsider to your customs, but it has been made clear to me over the course of my life, and I'm not saying it's fair, but you have a bit of a reputation as far as sports fans goes. So we normally cover the week's news

and share in a catharsis over the fact that the most powerful man on the planet has no idea how to spell his wife's name. But sometimes we do lose the forest for the trees, so once in a while we're stepping back to dive into an issue instead of whatever shit just happened to happen over the previous seven days. Tonight, we want to talk about a shift in our economy and how it's shaping our politics

and our culture, an issue that has managed to divide liberals, even as we recognize it as one of, if not the most important economic issue that confronts us. That's right, tonight, at a comedy show, we're going to be talking about the funniest issue of all, economic inequality. We're going to do it because we love to laugh. So let's start the show. I want to introduce an expert on the topic. He's a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute where he studies inequality and the economy,

and he's also a contributor at Vox, The Nation, and Dissent magazine. Please welcome Mike Konzal. Mike, how are you? I'm good. I'm good. Thanks for being here. Yeah, just a normal podcast with a giant, large audience. It's amazing. Listen, they heard you were coming,

and we pulled out all the stops. They said, you mean to tell me there's a conversation on economic inequality going on downtown? Sign me the fuck up. He is a digital creator and host of conversations with people who hate me. Please welcome Dylan Maron.

Hi, thanks for being here. Dylan, how are you? I'm good, how are you doing? This is exciting, this is a fancy theater. Yup. Yeah. It really is. It's gilded, right? That's what you would call it? Well, we wanted something that evoked a gilded age.

It evokes a gilded age. You took the words right out of my mouth, yes. That's what I would call it? Well, we wanted something that evoked a Gilded Age. It evokes a Gilded Age. You took the words right out of my mouth, yes. That's what I meant to say. And she's a comedian, actress, and author of the new book, Well, That Escalated Quickly. Please welcome back to the show, Francesca Ramsey. Hi. How you doing, Francesca?

We've got fans. I wore my formal jumpsuit for this occasion. Oh, nice, nice. All right, let's get into it. What a yawning chasm between rich and poor. All right, some stats to kick us off. By virtually every major statistical measure, income inequality has grown for 30 years.

The top 10% of Americans average more than 9 times as much income as the bottom 90%. The average income of the top 1% of Americans is more than 40 times the average income of the bottom 90%. There's been these two debates on the left. One is political. In part, that's about whether these forces contributed to our defeat in 2016,

that our failure to grapple with a changing economy and the uncertainty and anxiety that comes with it in part explains Trump. On the other hand, economic anxiety as a cover for racism and misogyny as an excuse has become almost a cliche. At the same time, there's a more substantive debate over the causes and remedies to economic inequality and what policies Democrats should pursue to be equal to the challenge. On the Republican side, to me, it seems like there's a similar dynamic to what's playing out with climate change in that the solutions are ideologically uncomfortable, and so the problem is downplayed or just rejected outright. Mike, I wanted to start

with you. This is simplistic, I know, but I just wanted to start at the core of the debate, which is, do you see economic inequality as a problem that contributed to the rise of Trump, or do you believe that's a red herring? So you hear this a lot, you know, economic anxiety or racial status anxiety, and I think it's a false choice. I don't think there's a way to talk about one without talking about the other. Throughout all of our history, race and gender is read through economics, and economics is read through race and gender. So the idea Democrats have to abandon identity politics and do real economics are just full of shit, because whenever you talk about one,

you're setting up a narrative and agenda and heroes and villains that implicate the other. And I actually think Trump, for all his buffoonery, is actually very sophisticated about this. Because even when he's talking about nominally economic issues, like a wall or tariffs or China or manufacturing jobs, he's invoking this imagery of, you know, a white male patriarchal breadwinner and everyone who's not that is the enemy, and we have to take them out. And so I think it's really important when we talk about economics, we have to understand that both are moving at the same time. And if we're talking about a vision of

how we want the economy to go, it's going to have a racial and gender component to it. And it's our job to make sure it's inclusive enough that motivates a broad number of people to vote for us. it's inclusive enough that motivates a broad number of people to vote for us. So Trump has focused on trade as a source of this immiseration. There's also been a lot of people who talk about automation as being part of what's contributing to the stratification in our culture. You've written a lot about this. What do you see as the biggest contributing factors to this sort of separating of the 1% of the 10% from the rest of the society? It's not these impersonal forces like supply and demand and globalization and technology. It's really the way the economy is structured, the laws, the taxes, the institutions, the contracts, the enforcement that really drive inequality. the enforcement that really drive inequality. And you know, starting in the 1980s,

we did this massive experiment where we cut taxes on rich people, destroyed unions, deregulated finance and the economy as a whole, stopped enforcing antitrust laws. We did all this terrible stuff with the- Did it work? It did not work. And now we're here in a world

where income growth is really sluggish. The Great Recession really started to show people the extent of the problem. And now out here in 2018, the question is, how do we get the political will to fix it? Yeah, Francesca, you know, we've had this argument about economic anxiety, but at the same time, there are lots of working people

who are young, who are people of color, who are gay, and somehow the uncertainty and lack of stability in the job market for them, the challenge of paying for college and then moving to a city where they want to have a career and unable to afford living there, none of these people seem to become Trump people. But at the same time, I think there is a sense that Republicans may want to make matters worse, but that Democrats don't have answers either. And you see that as a kind of cause for apathy. Do you think Democrats are waking up to that reality that they need to do more to appeal to the kind of people who feel disenfranchised? I think they are, but I think that they're still not really sure how to

speak to us in a way that gives us hope. You know, I feel like especially as a millennial, we keep getting blamed for everything. Like we're ruining the diamond industry because we don't want to fucking buy diamonds. I just keep reading all these think pieces about like where I'm not putting my money and how that's hurting everybody. And I'm not reading about solutions to help people feel like they can get jobs or have a living wage. And so I'm really hoping that conversations like this are inspiring people to have those conversations

because you're a very influential audience. I have not seen the conversations happen in a way that make me feel hopeful. Like I'm trying to be optimistic, but I think one of the biggest things that we need is more money and education so that people have... And not just better educational opportunities for people in high school, middle school, elementary school, but also a focus on the fact that people can go into other fields that don't include college, that that can be an alternative for folks.

There are a lot of people that are coming out of school and they're being told that there's only one way to go and get a job, and I don't necessarily think that that works for everyone. And so I think that that's one place I see an area for huge growth and improvement. Yeah. Dylan, you host a show called

Conversations with People Who Hate Me. And I think the title does a good job of helping people understand what it's about. Yeah. It's really hard to sort of unpack how these economic forces shape the culture and how it leads to people to be more angry or more mistrustful of one another, more willing to view somebody on the other side as an enemy. What do you find when you talk to people who hate you for your politics, hate you for being, do you identify as gay?

What's that? Do you identify as gay? Yeah, gay, queer, whatever feels right for you. Whatever's in the moment. In the moment, yes. It's whatever is the trendiest, that's what I am, yeah. No. What have you sort of learned sitting across from people

who come at you as someone who is alien or outside of what they want for the world? Listen, I'm clearly speaking to a lot of people who are Trump supporters. I also want to make a point to be talking to people who have called me out from within our own side because we know that happens a lot. There was one person who told me that I represent some of the worst aspects of liberalism. Other people who don't necessarily identify as one or the other. He called me a talentless propaganda hack. We had a lovely conversation.

You're just like, I am not talentless. That's what I said, and I cried. And he was like, fuck, I'm so sorry. And then that's it. That's the whole call. It's a 30-second podcast. You get right to it. A lot of this fear about how we talk about the economy is distilled into this word that is a trigger word for some, is a champion word for others, and it's privilege.

And I have found one of the most difficult conversation topics to broach with people is the idea of privilege. Some people have responded directly to videos I have made about privilege. And my podcast has kind of like radicalized me in a way of figuring out what is the best way to reach people. And also understanding that like when I would make a very well written, researched, concise video that was often being championed only by the people who already agreed with it. But when you talk about something like privilege,

which is inherently tied to economic privilege, that is incredibly hard to explain to a poor white person, right? Who is like, I don't know what you're talking about. And in my mind, I'm like, well, let me just play this video where I break down what white privilege means but still like in their mind they're only experiencing the world not from this big macro sense but from their micro sense of going through life on their own and life that can be hard

life that can be very hard truly for them So what I've learned is essentially, everyone thinks that it's a debate show, right? And everyone, when I invite them on, they're like, yeah, sure, I'll debate you. And I'm like, no, no, no, no. It's not a debate show. I'm more curious about why you wrote me that thing. It's more the why you are who you are. Not this,

not people just regurgitating these talking points that they hear, but explaining to me why they feel a certain way. And when you distill it to that, it doesn't mean that I agree with them, right? But it is a helpful way to access huge social, huge economic issues in ways that kind of pierce through the debate points, essentially.

Mike, I feel like there's this learned helplessness around these issues. that kind of pierce through the debate points, essentially. Mike, I feel like there's this learned helplessness around these issues, and there is this conclusion from economists, from experts who say, economic inequality is not magic, it's not inexorable, it's a solvable problem based on policy choices. And yet, in our policy debate, in our politics, it's taken as like the water we swim in. Like, obviously, there's globalization and automation. These are impossible, difficult, long-term challenges that are causing all these cultural

shifts in our world. Do you think Democrats have internalized this kind of helplessness? And how do you shake Democrats out of it? Because I know that, like, even in learning about this issue over the past year, I've been surprised to see how much of the expertise is saying, this is not automation. This is not globalization. This is policy. This is taxes, regulation, consolidation. This is solvable. This is unions. How do we get people out of this mindset? Well, an important thing to remember is that if policy or the rules of the economy have created this, it can uncreate it.

It can create a different world. And that's one of the first things just to learn and remember, because you can get lost and it's very overwhelming. There's a lot of moving parts. But these are choices we make together and we can choose to make different choices. I think the Democrats are definitely moving to the left on a lot of these issues compared to even 10 years ago, much less 20 years ago, the way they're talking about the economy going into 2018 and 2020 is much more aggressive.

And it'll be interesting to see where they land, but I think three things are moving very quickly. One is the idea of wage stagnation and economic insecurity is not an individual problem, it's a collective problem. It's not a matter of like, you need to get better skills or education, which everyone should get a good education, but that's a problem you can't solve by yourself. The fact that your boss can screw you over, you can't find a job. I think there's a lot more skepticism about the way corporations are

run. You know there's been a long string of corporate malfeasance and I think we're starting to see it a little bit more clear now. We need to take that more seriously. And the last thing is looking much more at public solutions for public problems. I think if the Republicans had tried to make the ACA work, Obamacare work, maybe we'd be talking about a different world. But their surprising, not surprising, but like actually kind of surprising campaign of terror against the uninsured or people with some insurance through the exchanges has been very surprising to me.

And it's forced Democrats to take on a more public role, which I think ultimately would be good. One last thing is that all these ideas are really good. And as opposed to the Republicans, we don't have to lie to people about them because we can just say, no, you'll get health care and school and wages and pensions and Social Security, where the Republicans kind of have to lie to people about what their bills do. The Better Deal, which we all made fun of for the name, actually had really interesting consolidation and concentration policies around it. What do you think the role of corporate consolidation is in this? How much of the problem would be

addressed simply by breaking up some of the biggest conglomerates in the US? I think more skepticism to mergers, I think, is really important, particularly in certain kinds of telecoms and other things. Some things you have to break up, some things you need like net neutrality, where you prevent them from screwing over their customers. I don't think there's going to be a silver bullet. I think you're going to need things like the expansion of public programs, like Social Security and Medicare, you're going to need stronger unions or stronger worker power, you're going to need more pressure on corporations who are abusing their social responsibilities. I think together,

it's a pretty powerful package. And it's a package that crucially benefits rural whites. It benefits people of color in cities that have been disinvested, benefits older people and younger people. I mean, it's not going to be trivial to do, but it's something that if done right, can really bring together a broad coalition. It seems like Democrats, especially Democrats who are considering running for president, are kind of coming around to the idea, in part because of Trump, that, oh, we need to think bigger. We need to be a bit bolder than we were in the past. And we need answers that scale to the size of these problems. I think partly that was Bernie's appeal, like kind of whether you agreed with his program or not. I think one of the things that was appealing

about Bernie was that he was offering big answers for what people felt like were big problems. Do you think if Democrats get behind something bigger, right, a true agenda to take on economic inequality, that would go a long way to getting people to believe that there is a reason to vote, there is a reason to get involved? Beyond that, I think the reason that people like Bernie is that he spoke in plain English, kind of in the same reason that some people, that Trump resonates with them because of the way that he speaks. And I think that that speaks to a greater problem that we need to have a resurgence of schoolhouse rock. I need a breakdown of everything that's happening like I feel like every single time I read about something I have to go and do all of this research to actually

understand it and I am someone that is a fairly well-read educated person and sometimes I feel overwhelmed when I'm trying to understand the issues and I think that that creates a great opportunity to take advantage of those people who are not as educated and they do do want an easy, quick-fix solution. They do want someone to blame, and that's how you can get the Mexicans are stealing your job as the solution, when I don't think anyone has ever shown up to work and seen a Mexican at their desk. They're willing to believe that because it's easier, but wouldn't that be hilarious a bit? Like, you would kind of be like, you know what? It's yours. You got here early. You got the spot. Like I'm going to give it to you.

People are willing to believe that rather than like the realities because the realities are so difficult and complex to actually understand. And we need a way to actually talk to average American voters in a way that they're going to actually talk to average American voters in a way that they're going to actually understand that there is a solution and feel invested in the solution, but also feel optimistic that their vote is actually going to make a difference. Yes, to all of that.

I also think that the whole idea of build the wall, you're distilling very complex fear and psychology into three words that are very easy to chant. It is very hard to chant back like the Glass-Steagall bill. You know what I mean? We need to build a wall between the investment side and vanilla savings and loan side of the banking industry. This is really good. Yes. That's it. We found it. We need to make sure in insurance markets where there's only one private insurer that there's also a public option to make sure that there's legitimate competition, even in rural counties where healthcare can be harder to access.

That's a hashtag. I see the problem. No, yeah. No, and I think that that's not just them. We over here also need the simplification of a script. When Schoolhouse Rock was out, it was just seen as like the neutral truth, right? And there was so much media that was just, yeah.

But now everything is tinged with the idea of like, is this biased or is it not? There's no like neutral, kind of like educational entertainment platform, you know? We're just a few months away from That's How a Bill Becomes a law being a partisan exercise, which is terrifying,

but also plenty to be hopeful about. When we come back, OK Stop! Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back! Now for a game we call OK Stop. Here's how it works. We roll a clip and then the panel says OK Stop

at any point to comment. Paul Ryan. What can we say about our future former Speaker of the House? He has the backbone of a Neville Chamberlain and the political acumen of a guy that lost to Neville Chamberlain. But one thing you can't take away from Paul is that he hates taxes. He hates taxes so much he'll hurt the majority of the country and explode the deficit just to pass a tax cut.

You know, there's a lot of, you know, why do Democrats hate Trump more than they love America? Why does Paul Ryan hate taxes more than he loves America, would be a question. Anyway, let's listen to Paul Ryan explain why his corporate tax cut is good for the little guy. Mr. Speaker, I think polls show

that he didn't. Okay, stop. Sorry. Worst Speaker of the House in the last 100 years? Nancy Pelosi got every goddamn bill across the line in 2009. Equally contentious caucus. You had crazy blue dogs, new Dems. Even got cap and trade, the aggressive ACA. This week they gave him the key ball thing they give for kids who can't hit anything with the farm bill

and he failed to do that. It was just giving money to farms. I think that Paul Ryan's place as the worst depends on how bad things are when Trump is no longer president because there is nothing Paul Ryan has done that will be more important to Paul Ryan's legacy than the role

he played in empowering Donald Trump. That is his legacy. The Trump legacy is the Paul Ryan legacy. They are one and the same. Wait, I just wanted to add one more. Okay, stop. This is off topic, but the young woman producer in the background is just staring at a blank green screen.

That is true for those listening at home. Fully blank. And she doesn't even have her mic on. The mic is above her head. She was like, oh shit, I'm caught. I'm caught, I'm here. I'm listening at home. Fully blank. And she doesn't even have her mic on. The mic is above her head. She was like, oh shit, I'm caught. I'm caught. I'm here. I'm in the shot. I'm in the shot. I gotta be still for 15 minutes now. Yeah.

So that's my truth that I wanted to share with you guys. Most people view this bill as kind of, as you pointed out, as far more generous to corporations than it is to individual taxpayers. Are they wrong? Yeah, they are. Okay, stop. That's a lie. That's a lie. The bill is $1.5 trillion. Mike can correct my math or not. I don't care. I don't care if I'm wrong. Trump is president. You can be wrong. But the vast majority of it, I think over a trillion, went to corporations in the

wealthiest 1%, wealthiest 2%. And that accrues to the smallest number of people. The vast majority of people shared the pittance, which is just obviously true. So he's lying. Anyway, that was easy. You've had this big debate on TV where Republicans and Democrats are arguing with each other. Pundits in the media are saying this and that. When you actually break down the components of this bill, it pulls extremely well. But more importantly, when it gets in place, when people see their paychecks getting bigger in February because withholding tables have adjusted to reflect their tax cut, when businesses are keeping more of what they earn, when they can write off their expensing investment in their businesses and hire more

people, that's going to change its popularity, I am convinced. Okay, stop. It is a massively unpopular bill. And it's sort of crazy to think about this, but basically they've cut taxes so far that people don't even notice it anymore. Most people are saying that they do not see this in their bill. The way they cut taxes is super janky. It's designed basically to

war against blue states and blue counties. People are not experiencing this way. And remember, he sold it as like, you can do your taxes on a postcard now. And if anything, the tax code is far more complex because all of us can start to declare ourselves LLCs to hide money overseas and whatnot. Is it weird that the only thing I can think about is those weird pictures of Paul Ryan working out? I curse whoever brings those on my timeline every day.

I just can't see past it. I try not to think about it. He looks good in those photos. Oh, wait. Oh, no. He does. No. I'm sorry. I have to agree. What?

Thank you. He looks good in the photos. Whoa. I'm queer. Whoa. What we are not going to do is suggest that... No. No. Look, I'm sorry that...

I rebuke you. You are blinded by partisanship no no no no no I listen I have no problem admitting when someone I just he just does not do it for me look all I'm saying he does it for me I don't think he's not doing it for me it's not like I'm like I'm not like I'm not racing to kind of be the hand that high fives his pointing hand in his workout pictures. Was that too familiar with that? But when those pictures came across your timeline, you were not like unfollow, block, hide. It is the way that I regard an attractive Sears model. You know, you're flipping through and you're like, that's an attractive Sears model.

I'm going to get on with my life. I want to get us back on track. So just going to refresh where we're at. One, he's lying about the Republican tax cut. Two, Dylan and I are conceding that if he was for single payer, we'd be for him. Yes. That's just an honest-to-God truth.

I hate it more than you could know. It sucks, frankly. The idea that after passing tax reform, as if it's the only thing I care about, I'm just going to leave, get up and go, it's ridiculous. Okay, stop. Oh! That.

That's what he did. That's what he did. That's awesome. I didn't even know that that was coming. That's so cool. God, the levels of lie that go into this, right, that people will see the benefit and... That's hilarious.

What, like I'm going to take my ball and go home if I get my tax cut that benefits me personally? That's what he's doing. Entered my mind, let alone discussed it with anybody. I'm not going to get up and leave this Congress, our conference, and my responsibilities in the middle of this term. We've got so much more work to do. Gail, you know I'm working on poverty next year. You know we're working on getting people.

Okay, stop. Man, when Paul Ryan works on poverty, it's very different than what we'd want. They're not going to do poverty. And also, he did announce that he was leaving midway through. Although I guess he's going to try to hang on to that speakership. And look, ultimately, I know it doesn't matter if we take the gavel from Paul Ryan's hand or if we take the gavel from Kevin McCarthy's hands or if we take the gavel from Mr. Burns' hand.

Doesn't matter, but I do want to take the gavel from Paul Ryan's hand. Well, that's a reminder to go to crooked.com slash crooked8 so we can win the seats in California. We need to take back the house. That's okay, stop. California, we need to take back the house. That's okay, stop. When we come back, we're going to play a new game with a very special guest. Don't go anywhere. This is Love It or Leave It, and there's more on the way. And we're back!

One facet of economic inequality is inequality in the justice system. The U.S. abolished debtors' prisons in the 19th century, but along with exposed brick, Edison bulbs, and authoritarianism, sending working people to jail for owing money is seen as very authentic and on trend. According to a report by the ACLU, an estimated 77 million Americans have a debt that has been turned over to a private collection agency. Thousands of these debtors are arrested and jailed each year because they owe money. Millions more

are threatened with jail. In the meantime, we've seen a steady decline in white-collar prosecutions. Federal prosecutions for white-collar crime are actually at a 20-year low, something that has been very important to Michael Cohen. It is in his PowerPoint presentation for new clients. As you can see, we can do anything. I had a bunch of people get hit by cars on purpose

and got them insurance money, no consequences. I own taxi medallions because all the coolest people do that. I own taxi medallions because all the coolest people do that. So tonight we are going to play a game called Go Directly to Jail, Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Escape a Grinding Cycle of Debt and Poverty. And to help us play, please welcome to the stage former civil rights attorney and public defender serving as the 26th and current district attorney of Philadelphia,

Larry Krasner. Thank you so much. Thank you for being here. It's great to be here. So we are going to start with a game. Would anyone out there like to play the game? Hi, what's your name? Andrew. Andrew. Yeah.

Thank you for being here. It's a bit of a struggle because my partner's from New Haven, Connecticut, and he's not over the pizza thing. I had to drag him. So your partner's from Connecticut? Yeah. And he thinks the pizza there is good? Yeah. Uh-huh. Huh.

Cool. Has he been to New York. Yeah. Uh-huh. Huh. Cool. Has he been to New York? Yeah. He should check out New York. It's a cool place. There's a lot of good food there. I did the thing where I am at a cocktail party and you said your name, but I was

doing other things. Was it Chris? Andrew. Andrew. Are you ready to play the game? Yes. Andrew. Whose partner is from Connecticut. Where are you from? Philly. Nice. Yeah. Question number one.

In 2012, a Senate investigation revealed that the bank HSBC had knowingly laundered billions of dollars for multiple drug cartels, helped a bank linked to Al-Qaeda sneak money into the U.S., and covertly did business with countries sanctioned by the United States. Which of the following was not part of HSBC's punishment? Was it A. Promising to never do it again.

Was it B. Pay a fine of about one month's profits. Was it C. Saying sorry. Or was it D. Anyone facing a single criminal charge. D.

It is. It was D. No one faced any kind of criminal charge. There it is. Andrew, question number two. Helen Brown was arrested, handcuffed, and taken away from her home while her 15-year-old son was sleeping in the house, the result of a bench warrant issued by a Dauphin County court here in Pennsylvania.

Brown was jailed for four days in Dauphin County Prison. None of the prison guards or officials could tell her why the warrant had been issued against her, and she was not allowed to use a telephone for the first 48 hours. Helen was working as a bar and table server at a veterans organization for $9 an hour. She missed 60 hours of work. What was the bench warrant issued over? Was it A, knowingly laundering billions of dollars from multiple drug cartels,

helping a bank linked to Al-Qaeda sneak money into the U.S., and covertly doing business with countries sanctioned by the United States? Was it B, colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Was it C, owing $250 in attorney's fees to a collection agency, improperly pursuing a credit card debt, even though Helen Brown had already declared bankruptcy.

Or was it D? Saying, I'm literally screaming on Twitter over some mildly interesting nonsense. It deserves D, but it's C. It is, it's C. Question number three. In the savings and loan crisis in the 1980s, which was a fraction of the size of the financial crisis we went through in 2008,

regulators made over 30,000 criminal referrals and produced about 1,000 felony convictions. How many people have gone to jail over the 2008 financial crisis? Was it A? It can't be none, right? I know it's a low number because that's the point of the game. Or was it B?

One. One guy which is almost worse than none. One guy? That feels unfair to that guy. It's fine, screw him, but this is bad luck. Oh, this one guy did it. Was it C? I'm trying to remember the end of the big short, but all I can remember is Ryan Gosling

explaining the housing crisis using Jenga. I think Christian Bale and Steve Carell got into trouble. Final answer, two people. Or was it D? The CEOs of over a dozen financial institutions served a total of 130 years in prison for their role in the crash. It was a wake-up call to Wall Street

and a scary story shared every year after at the Goldman Sachs team-building retreat and ropes course. B? Yes, it was B. One guy, Kareem Sarageldin, for hiding hundreds of millions in losses in Credit Suisse's... Credit Suisse? Who cares?

Mortgage-backed securities portfolio, according to the New York Times. Even the judge during the sentencing was like, okay, fine, 30 months, but this can't be the one guy. He really was like, you know, it's an interesting thing. The one guy. You're doing great, Andrew. Oh my God, thank you so much. Question four.

In 2015, Gordon Wheeler was arrested because of a student loan debt by half a dozen U.S. Marshals at his Texas home for failing to appear at the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The original $2,500 federal student loan he obtained to pay for trucking school in 1983 had mushroomed into $12,000 with interest and fees. Wheeler was retired and living off of Social Security and disability. Why did he fail to show up in court? Was it A, his attorney, Rudy Giuliani,

said he didn't have to respond to a subpoena? Was it B, he was on a juice cleanse just to get himself ready for beach weather? Was it C, he was recovering from open heart surgery? Or was it D? He lost track of time binge watching the show Justified Which he gets is ironic And maybe one day he'll be able to appreciate it But he still feels

Is not a fun subject for a TV show C Yes it's C He was recovering from open-heart surgery. Andrew, your final question. You're doing great. Reporter Jesse Isinger documents this meeting in his book on the decline of white-collar prosecutions.

A new U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York gathered his team and asked his prosecutors a question. Quote, Who here has never had an acquittal or a hung jury? A bunch of hands went up. The new U.S. attorney then mocked everyone who raised their hands for not taking enough risks or going after tough prosecutions. What was his nickname

for this group of prosecutors? Was it A? The Chicken Shit Club. Was it B? Graduates of UPenn Law School. Was it C? Legal Beagles, a pun on the 80s comedy Legal Eagles, starring Robert Redford, Daryl Hannah, and Deborah Winger. Bring back Deborah Winger, more Winger.

Or was it D? Soft serve, vice team. So it could have been a pun. What do you think? Phone a friend? A. It is a friend? A. It is. It's A.

The quote was, you are members of what we like to call the chicken chick club for not pursuing riskier prosecutions. It was 2002, just a few years before the financial crisis nearly destroyed the economy. Here's a bonus question for you. Who was that U.S. attorney? Rudy Giuliani? No, it was James Comey Andrew you did really well, you won the game

and the parachute gift card, guys give it up for Andrew from Philadelphia whose partner enjoys eating cardboard and takes pride in it. So, thank you for participating in this game. It says here to call you Larry, but I want to call you

Mr. Krasner because you have such a serious job. Can I call you Larry? Yes. Cool. So, you've taken some pretty bold steps this year, from stopping law enforcement from pursuing criminal charges for marijuana possession to ordering prosecutors to stop seeking cash bail. Why are these important issues to tackle? First of all, there's a different theater somewhere else where they're all booing right now.

I just want you to know that. Why are they important issues? Because prosecutors pick on the poor. That is what they've been up to for a very long time. And it actually makes us poorer because what they do is they use various different methods that break people so they are no longer employable or at least will not be employed as things are structured now. And that tears down the economy. There is this relationship between injustice in the criminal justice system and economic inequality, but there's also

systemic racial problems that you're tackling here in Philadelphia. Are these problems you have to address separately? Are they one in the same and how you approach the job? Do you think about writing these equities as more about alleviating the economic hardship that comes with being sort of ensnared in the justice system? That is a very smart and academic question, which I cannot answer. Okay. But I can answer that, you know, in general, you try to do things that are sort of fair and even-handed, and there is so much overlap between issues of race and issues of poverty

in American society right now that often the answers are really just the same. Yeah, give it up for Larry Krasnick. You know, one of the things we just covered in that game is it does feel like there's two justice systems, one for the poor, one for minorities who are kind of more subjected to the whims of the system, and one for the wealthy and the elite

who have faced no consequences or fewer consequences for far more serious financial crimes. What are some tangible things that people can do in how they vote and what they push for in their communities to make sure that we're holding white-collar criminals accountable at a time when you see on the news, what I take away from seeing Michael Cohen every day is, holy shit, there is a ton of white-collar crime that nobody's noticing every single day. So the first tangible thing that lawyers and law students can do is they can apply to the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

Because we are in fact in need of talent and hard work and we would love to see those applications. First thing that voters can do, and they can do it in California right now and they can do it in many other states, is they need to look for the right people to be in those positions, people who reflect a movement and are part of a movement, because there is so much discretion in prosecutors' offices. There are so many decisions made that don't require compromise, that don't require log rolling, that frankly don't require working with other people, that there is tremendous power in those offices, and people are seeing that more and more. So it's been reported that you're working on a sentence review unit to review past cases and sentences and seek re-sentencing in cases where individuals were given unduly harsh punishments. This seems like a pretty good idea.

Why are you the first person to do it? The way this comes up is actually very indirect. It came up in the context of our looking at instances in which a conviction should possibly be overturned due to innocence or due to other things that would show a lack of integrity in the case. And as you looked at the length of some of these sentences, we even had old school prosecutors who had been in the office in prior administrations come to us and say, well, even if the defendant is not right on the merits, maybe the defendant is right about the excessive length of this sentence. I think it also came to us because we're in the process of resentencing more juveniles who were sentenced to life in prison than pretty much any other office. And as you do that, you look at cases where there were three defendants. One was 18 1⁄2, was 17 and a half. The one who's 18 and a half will stay in

jail until that person dies, having done 50 or 60 years in jail. And the one who's 17 and a half is going to get out probably somewhere between 20 and 25 years. And there's obviously massive inequities in that. So it kind of grew out of that. It's something that I think we all have to realize that prosecutors make decisions moving forward, but if they're unwilling to address the mistakes of the past, then you're just going to keep lighting money on fire, you're going to have bankrupt schools, you're not going to have money for the treatment of addiction,

you're not going to have money for job training or for economic development, and all the things I'm talking about actually prevent crime, which locking up more people most definitely does not. We'll leave it there. Guys, give it up for Larry Krasner, your district attorney. Thank you so much for playing. Thank you so much for being here. That was great.

Thank you. We'll be right back with a game. Hey, don't go anywhere. There's more of Love It or Leave It coming up. And we're back. For this next segment, let's welcome back to the stage the greatest band of all time, Sons of an Illustrious Father. Lila, Josh, and Ezra, thank you so much.

So, look, you guys were pretty clear. Your rider says you won't play unless you can play a game about corporate consolidation. That's why we don't play any other show. So, tonight we're going to fulfill that demand that you had in a game we call... Okay, here we go. Not trust-busting is unjust,

and gutsy mistrust of the upper crust is a must. It's catchy. Smash the selfish shellfish in their shiny, shimmery shells. Exactly. That was cool. I think it's equivalent. Just so you know, the alternate title was Monopoly Money, which would have been better, probably,

or easier, anyway. Since 2008, there have been more than $10 trillion in mergers. We've seen consolidations throughout the economy. In fact, the number of publicly traded companies in the U.S. has declined by half. Many point to this concentration as one of the key drivers of soaring corporate profits combined with wage stagnation, higher consumer prices, and economic inequality.

So we're going to play a game that looks at this. The goal will be to figure out just how consolidated our economy has become. Would anyone out there like to play? So here's how it's going to work. Josh and Lila are going to be a team. And hi, what's your name? Jenny. Jenny? Yes. You and Ezra are going to be a team. Hi, Ezra.

And basically what's going to happen is I'm going to describe an area of corporate dominance. Lila and Josh, you guys are together. Ezra and? Jenny. Jenny. Unbelievable. Like Forrest Gump. Jenny.

Jenny. I know. Where do I go, Travis, when they say the name? Doesn't matter. Doesn't matter. It's a Price is Right style game. It is closest without going over, and you've got to go in increments of five or more. You can go

as high as you want, but it's got to be a five. So, like, you can guess 50. If Ezra and Jenny guess 50, you can guess 70. But you have to guess 55 to 70. You know what I mean? You can't go up by one at a time. You can't sneak in with that $1 bet that people do. Those shifty people sometimes do. Where someone says, I think the dinette's $500.

Someone's like, I think the dinette's $1. It's like, you shifty bastards. Me, I do that. Yeah. Is that your move? Sorry, yeah. Have you been on the prices right? No.

No. Okay. So, Jenny and Ezra, are you guys ready? We're ready. Yes, we're so ready. Absolutely. We've been connecting from afar. Yes, mind meld right here.

All right, I'm going to start with you guys, and we'll go back and forth. We've seen a spate of mergers in the airline industry in recent years. In fact, four airlines now sell a huge proportion of domestic airline seats in the United States. What is that share? Reminder, you're going to guess a percentage in increments of five or more. Are we talking about like the evil science fiction ones? Like the Star

Alliance and the One World Alliance? Yes. Those are the same. They are evil sounding as groups. The Star Alliance. We're with the Rebel Alliance. We have no planes. Yeah, the Rebel Alliance, though,

you don't get a lot of free upgrades. Jenny, stop stalling. It's all me. It's all my fault, everybody. What percentage of airline seats are controlled by just four airlines? All right, Ezra. What do you guys think?

What do we think? 80. 80? 80. 80? I'm... 80! Guys, that's it. It's 80. You don't even get a guess.

They were right off the top. Jenny and Ezra, perfect team. Lila and Josh, get your fucking shit together. Question number two will start with Lila and Josh. After a series of mergers and acquisitions,

two companies, Anheuser-Busch, InBev, and Miller Coors, have come to sell this share of beer in the United States. 75. Sorry. That's wrong. You went over. It's 70%. Ezra and Jenny get another question.

They did it. They didn't even have to answer. Lila, I want you to know that we all saw what happened. Thank you, John. Question number three. Google and Facebook have come to dominate digital advertising online.

What share of the digital market is controlled by these two companies? 70? Their first guess is 70. Seventy. Remember the rule. Eighty. It was 75%.

Lila! Ezra and Jenny have gotten three, four, four. It is your final chance, but good news for Josh and Lila. This question is for the win. Oh! So games work. It's your chance to even the field.

Super tiebreaker. Okay, all right. Catch up. All right, question number four. Comcast, Charter, Cox, and Altus are the biggest cable companies in the U.S. Comcast originally tried to take over Time Warner, but that deal was stopped in part because of antitrust fears. Then Charter made the same

acquisition, changing their brand name to Spectrum, you know, and Xfinity. It's like, yeah, the name was the problem. Come on. So these four companies control what share of cable broadband in the U.S.? Josh and

Lila, kick it off. Sorry, we're just having a little conference. Jenny and I already know the answer. Yeah, well, you guys have a beautiful psychic connection, and Josh and I have never met. Look, Lila, if you don't get this right, no one will blame you. Everybody knows who the weak link on your team is. It's hard to say, but it's the world. Yeah, it's the way it is sometimes.

55? 55. You say it. You say it you say it 60 we'd say 50 well you have to go above because it's not 60 yeah you have to go above oh it's more

60 60 70 should we be bold say 70 80 90 I think, from the hissers of 90. 90. 90.

I think I do, actually, weirdly. 90. We're going to say 90. Thank you, hissers. They got it. It is 90. Oh, man. That is disgusting.

Yes. Nearly half of all households in the U.S. have no choice in wired broadband. Either they have no access at all, or mostly are served by just one of these companies. Ezra and Jenny, you've won the game. Jenny, you've gotten the gift card. Lila and Josh in a very tough, close second place.

I just want to say, so you guys have a new album coming out, right? And I have the name right here. It says Deus Sex Machina colon or comma moving slowly beyond Nikola Tesla. Rolls off the tongue, does it not? And it comes out June 1st.

Just like our band name. Sons of an Illustrious Father is cool. You're on the fence about it. It's a little long. It rolls off the tongue. It just rolls for a long time. That's true. You guys are going on tour in June,

and you can head to sonsofanillustriousfather.com to learn more about that. But guys, give it up for Sons of an Illustrious Father for playing. When we come back, The Railwheel. Don't go anywhere.

This is Love It or Leave It, and there's more on the way. And we're back. Now for a segment we call the ran wheel. Here's how it works. We spin the wheel wherever it lands. We talk about it. This week on the ran wheel, we have deficits, the royal wedding dress, binding arbitration, the millennium falcon,

pre-K, unpaid internships, teacher walkouts, and avocado toast. Let's spin the wheel. It has landed on the deficit, which Mike suggested as something he wanted to rant about. Yeah, so the deficit. So we were talking about Paul Ryan earlier, and there's this weird moment with the media when it realized that all his concerns about the deficits during the Obama year were total bullshit lies. And it was like the reveal in a horror movie. It was like the media was like in Get Out

and realized it was all surrounded by white supremacists in the Republican Party, and it's like, Paul Ryan, where are the keys? And he's like, I'm not giving you the keys. I'm with them. I've clearly always been with them. Spoiler alert. Oh, sorry. You know what? If you haven't seen Get Out, get out. That window's passed, I think.

Sorry for the few of you. Republicans always lie about caring about the deficit. They did it throughout the Obama years. They did it in the Clinton years. Because as soon as they take power, they blow up the deficit. But crucially, they do it in a way that is totally in line with how they want the government to work. They think the government should get out of the way of rich people, think the government should not provide health care to people, so they do things like cut health or try to cut health care to give the money to corporations. And I think when the Democrats take power, we need to think much more critically, because I think there's a sense in which the Democrats are clearly tired of cleaning up the messes

of Republican administrations. So when we take power and get out and vote in 2018 and 2020, I think it's really important to understand that the deficit is a tool. And in an era of secular stagnation and weak recoveries and high unemployment, the deficit is necessary. We can use it in a way that helps us provide jobs and provide health care and build a better economy. Yeah. And no one cares about the deficit. They care about jobs and they care about their health care. Absolutely. Let's spin it again. It has landed on unpaid internships. I wonder who suggested that. I believe Francesca

suggested that. Okay. Yeah, I mean, who, first of all, you should pay your interns. Yeah, I mean, who, first of all, you should pay your interns. Second of all, the people that can afford to take unpaid internships are usually the people that don't need to take internships. When I was in school, my mommy and daddy did not help me with any of my student loan payments. I was, you know, at the mercy of Sally Mae, and so I could not take an unpaid internship, and I remember going and looking at certain companies

and thinking this is a place I really wanted to work, and I couldn't get my foot in the door, and I could not afford to take an unpaid internship. On the topic of internships also, your interns should be learning things. You should not just be having them do all the shit that you don't want to do. That is not an intern. That is a personal assistant. Do not have your interns grabbing coffee and doing things where they're actually learning something about the way that the business works and they're being enriched by

the opportunity and the experience. You should also be paying them i'm still really pissed because there was a job that i really wanted and i didn't get it but look at me now because i'm gonna love it or leave it and i clearly didn't need that unpaid internship let's spin the wheel again. It has landed on teacher walkouts, and this is where we'll have to leave it. So we've seen teachers walking out across the country. There were more walkouts recently. We've seen it in Oklahoma, West Virginia,

Kentucky. I believe North Carolina has been participating as well. And I think it's really exciting. I think it's exciting to see people stand up to a kind of right-wing agenda that said we can cut taxes and pay no consequence, that we can grow our way out of a decreasing public budget. But I think it's part of a larger issue we see in the public sector. I think it's also connected to what we see with a stagnating federal minimum wage, which has lost a tremendous amount of value even compared to 1968 because it's worth less now than it was then. And we see it across public sector jobs, from teachers to government workers of all types,

even to members of Congress whose wages have stagnated. And I know it's a crazy thing to connect teachers who have been victimized by the fact that they're not valued enough with members of Congress, but I do actually believe there's ultimately a connection to just how little we value public work of every single type, from teachers all the way up to members of Congress. Because there's a reason teachers in Oklahoma don't stay for more than two years and leave to get a job elsewhere. There's a reason teachers cross the border into California to get a more higher-paying teacher job. It's the same reason we lament how shitty Congress is year after year after year, when really smart lawyers

who are really ambitious look at the chance of working at Congress and they say, why would I do that when, because of economic inequality, I can make 10 times, 50 times, 20 times. You make more as an entry-level lawyer at a New York firm than you do as a member of Congress. Now, we do not cry for any of these people. But it's a practical matter. I don't want to give these people raises. I don't like these people, but it's a practical matter. I don't wanna give these people raises.

I don't like these people, but I would like to attract more talented people, whether it's a teacher or a nurse or just a government worker in an agency somewhere or members of Congress. We just need to value the public sector again, and I think Democrats work out so long to this idea that if you're talking about government workers

in any kind of complimentary way, if you're suggesting that we should invest more in bureaucracy, you're talking about government workers in any kind of complementary way, if you're suggesting that we should invest more in bureaucracy, you're seen as doing something that's anathema to winning. And I think what these teachers are showing us is that people are fed up and they see the connection between stripping the tax base and stripping government and having schools where the lights don't work, where the heat doesn't work, and where every teacher has been there for six months and no more. work, where the heat doesn't work, and where every teacher has been there for six months and no more.

And I think it is connected to having a Congress full of people who simply aren't up to the job. So we need to value the public sector more. And that's that. I do want to end on a high note, because we've been talking about economic inequality, which is... I love an ill-timed ding. Sounded sexual.

Shut up. You know, I just wanted to say that I'm glad we did this. And I think what Francesca said and what Mike said and what Dylan said about how we tackle this issue and how we sort of treat it as something solvable that can inspire people and get them involved and get them to believe that politics can make a difference in their lives is really important. I think that we have to internalize the idea that this is like a solvable problem and not some inexorable force, not some unstoppable natural result of change or globalization or automation, because the data simply doesn't support it.

The facts don't support it. And I think too many Democrats have internalized it. Too many Republicans have internalized the idea that it's not a problem to solve at all. You know, there are tangible answers to fix this problem today that will give power and opportunity to working people and consumers that will restore some dignity for people. Economic inequality is a consequence of selfish and destructive policy choices. And if we knock on enough doors and throw out enough Republicans and elect Democrats who are willing to really fight, not say they get it, not act like it's important,

not see it as an important message, but as an organizing principle that requires making enemies, that requires making enemies of donors, that makes enemies of certain corporations, that recognizes that you can't just go along to get along. That if we elect those kinds of Democrats, we can actually solve this problem.

And I do see glimmers of hope that Democrats are starting to get this, not fast enough, not strong enough, but I do believe that change is happening. Because I really feel like there's only so much we can sort of stretch the fabric of our society before it doesn't bounce back. Like when you roll up a sleeve too high up and then you kind of pushed it too far up

your elbow and then you kind of, you realize like, oh man, the elastic is fucked up. And then you bring it back down to your wrist and it's a white supremacist. You know? I hate when that happens. So that's what we need to avoid, which is why I wanted to talk about this, because similar to what we talked about when we had that show about social media,

is that so often we act as if these are forces outside of our control, but we have power in the system. And one of the ways in which we can assert our power is remembering that we are not helpless. We are not the subjects of these corporations. We are not the subjects of our government. We are not the subjects of our government. We choose our government, and we can choose a government

that will actually solve this problem. You see a glimmer of hope with someone like Larry Krasner who comes in and says, we can solve inequality in this city, and we can do it here, we can do it in Congress, and that's what we have to do. So I want to thank our panel. Thank you guys.

Everybody, give it up for Sons of an Illustrious Father. One more time, thank you to Mike Conzel, Francesca Ramsey, Dylan Maron, Larry Krasner. Thank you, Philadelphia. And have a great night. Thank you.