The Problem With Jon Stewart - The Wealth of Wall Street with Oren Cass

Episode Date: February 11, 2026

As the stock market continues to break records, Jon is joined by Oren Cass, Chief Economist at American Compass, to examine how America's economy was reengineered to serve shareholders instead of workers. Together, they trace the history of financialization that enabled this transformation, explore how shareholder capitalism has hollowed out worker prosperity, and consider what policy interventions could rebuild an economy that delivers shared gains. Plus, Jon answers listener questions on The Washington Post, DOGE and lunch! This episode is brought to you by: GROUND NEWS - Go to https://groundnews.com/stewart to see how any news story is being framed by news outlets around the world and across the political spectrum. Use this link to get 40% off unlimited access with the Vantage Subscription. BILT - Join the loyalty program for renters at https://joinbilt.com/tws MINT - Plans start at $15/month at https://mintmobile.com/tws SHARK NINJA ESPRESSO MAKER - Get $60 off the Ninja Luxe Cafe Premier Series with code STEWART exclusively on sharkninja.com while supplies last. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast> TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod   > BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/theweeklyshowpodcast.com Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic  Producer – Gillian Spear Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Music by Hansdle Hsu Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You know what's interesting about the avocado? And I've never really thought about this. When you cut it open, you get that perfect little scoop with the little indentation. Have you ever thought to yourself, I bet that's comfortable to sleep in? Almost looks like a body shape where you can just lie there. And that's the genius of our sponsors. Avocado green mattress. They've taken the beauty of the restful beauty of the inside of an avocado and turned it

into a mattress. It's not made of avocados. Obviously, that thing would spoil. God, 30 seconds. But it's called avocado green mattress. They sell mattresses, pillows, solid wood furniture. What more do you need? And no pits. It's all made for materials designed to support healthier living and more restorative sleep. Made without the harmful chemicals. Can actual avocados say that? Probably not. They only use certified organic non-tacted materials. They even have sleep trials. you know, of up to a year to make sure you get the best mattress for you. Avocado green mattress. It is, it's brilliant.

Avocado, dream of better. Go to avocadogreenmatress.com slash TWS, avocado green mattress.com slash TWS.wesavacadogreen mattress.com slash TWS. Hey, everybody. Welcome to the weekly show podcast. My name is John Stewart. I am the host of this. And today, oh, special thing tonight,

the halftime of the podcast, we're going to have someone do a halftime show entirely in Latvian. They're just going to sing. I'm still recovering from just the anger and outrage that the right expressed over a fun musical before they said they've gotten so, so weak, so thin, so feeble that they can,

that they can't go 15 minutes without hearing the country. It just, it hurts them. It hurts the country. It hurts the foundation that we were built upon to have something like that. My favorite was somebody mentioned, you know, Trump is complaining. The whole thing is in Spanish and you're like, you know that the name of the place you live. You know the language that's derived from, right? Mar-a-Lago, yeah, that ain't, that ain't from London, brother.

But moving on to more important things, you know, I read an article just recently that I've been waiting for so long to read as coming from someone from the right, which was about how our economy has over, has been over financialized, you know, that the financial services has become too large a part and it's hurting ultimately the bottom line. And I, you know, and I'm sure that there are 50 years of left-wing economists out there who saw the article and just rolled the rise and thought, yeah, finally. But I was excited to see it and to see that it was written by our old pal, friend of the show. It's a title not bestowed often. Friend of the show. And he is joining us today to discuss this article and to discuss these larger issues in general that an over-financial vision of the economy may portend for the future stability of our economy. So I'm delighted to welcome back, Oren Cass. Ladies and gentlemen, please allow me to reintroduce himself. His name is

Oren, Cass. Oren, it's so nice to see again, you are the chief economist at American Compass. And that is a self-imposed title or that's... Self-imposed is good. Yes, self-imposed. The founder of chief economist and American Compass think tank contributing opinion writer for the Financial Times

and the New York Times, which is why I wanted to talk to. You recently wrote an op-ed in the New York Times. And it is an op-ed I have been waiting for, young man, for many, many years, to come from someone who is more or is classified as more

on the right. So to get into it, I want you to briefly explain it was about the idea that the financialization of our economy is a net negative. But I want you to give just sort of a brief description of this op-ed and sort of what motivated you to write it. Sure. Well, thank you for having me on to talk about it. These are always a lot of fun. Always. You know, financialization, I guess we probably have to define it. it as a starting point. It is essentially, and there are all sorts of technical definitions, but essentially it refers to the increasing role of financial markets in the economy,

where they sort of become ends unto themselves. And people start transacting and rejiggering and configuring businesses and taking cash out, not with any effort to create anything valuable in the real world, simply to generate more cash out of the activity. Give some examples of what financialization specifically, what that might be. Sure. So you see it in a lot of the kind of Wall Street firms, if you think about hedge funds, private equity funds, right? A lot of the time what they're doing is they're collecting a whole lot of money and, you know, interesting question where that money comes from. And then they're going out and looking for things that they think they can buy at one price and sell at a higher price. So if you're a hedge fund, right, in the case of what's called a high frequency trading hedge fund, you don't. don't even care what you're buying and selling. You're literally building bigger fiber optic cables to try to race your trades to the floor faster so that you can get out in front of whoever else is bidding on them. You make a teeny, teeny little bit on millions of transactions and,

ta-da, you've generated a profit. You haven't actually done anything useful. You've just extracted value from somewhere else. If you know, you're a private equity firm, in a lot of cases, what you're trying to do is say, let's go out and find a series of smaller businesses. Maybe they're privately run. Maybe the people running them aren't even just maximizing profit. Maybe they're veterinarian clinics, let's say, or nursing homes. And can you buy up a bunch of them, combine them together, maybe squeeze out, you know, squeeze the customers a little harder, squeeze the workers a little harder, get more cash out of it. Now you have a profit. And now could you sell it to someone else? When you talk about financial engineering, can you do what's called a capital restructuring?

So add a lot more debt to it so that you can earn more money. Now, you've also added more risk, which means if something goes wrong, turns out firms bought by private equity funds are five to ten more times likely to go bankrupt. Well, if you're a private equity fund, okay, well, if I buy a hundred, I'm okay with a bunch of them going bankrupt. I can generate more profit on balance from taking more risk, even though, of course, all the workers at the firms that went bankrupt only had the one job. And so you see in financial markets a lot of this kind of activity, I think it's important

to say financial markets are important, right? Like, I think capitalism is great. Generate to economists, I would say. There you go. Right. Like the idea that you want to have bankers and others who are collecting people's savings, collecting capital, finding productive ways to deploy it, that's incredibly important. They deserve a return on doing that.

I have no problem with someone making a good living, becoming rich doing that. The problem is that the share of the activity on Wall Street and financial markets that actually represents productive investment, actually causing anybody to build anything new and useful in the world keeps going down. And so even as financial markets, the financial sector as a share of our economy keeps getting bigger, bigger share of GDP, the biggest source of corporate profits, the number one place that people from top business schools go to, that keeps getting bigger. And yet in parallel, the actual amount of real investment happening in our economy keeps going down.

Right. And so that's the disconnect that, first of all, I think it's just, that is a problem in and of itself, but it also then obviously has incredible consequences for the real economy, for the country as we experience it. And this is, I think, a generally a critique that has been leveled more on the left, would you say, that that is. and so you, I think, are more associated with the right. And I guess my question is, do you still have an office where you are? Or have they, once they read this op-ed, did they put you in the mop room? Do you have a window, I guess?

Well, as you can see, I have lovely windows behind me. I figure they weren't, that's not your real office. No, no, this is my office. I'm out in the woods. We have a lot of snow on the ground. But, no, the nice thing about being chief economist is, I guess you can, you can say, whatever you want. It dictates its own terms.

Is financialization, is it a perversion of what sort of the markets is the critique that, first of all, why do you think it happened? Why do you think that these financializations grew faster than what you would consider to be the economy of real things, jobs and industrial policy? those kinds of things. How did this happen? Yeah, it's a great question. And the way I understand it is, you know, not quite that it's a perversion. And I think it's also important to say, you know, at the end of the day, the folks doing a lot of this stuff on Wall Street, you know, it's also in a lot of companies that are even operating companies, increasingly they try to suck money out for shareholders rather

than build up companies. Right. You know, it's not like they're doing anything illegal. It's not, you know, they're not even lying about it. It's not a scam. They are operating in the system as we have constructed it. And so the core of the problem in my mind is that, you know, the entire premise of capitalism, you go all the way back to Adam Smith and all the way back to the invisible hand. The core of your critique is the entire system of capitalism? No, exactly the opposite. I think that the entire system of capital, well, this is a good point. Right. A lot of people say, well, this is the problem. Capitalism is just broken and can't work. I feel exactly the opposite. I think that the basic premise of capitalism, the idea that

you want to have a system where, you know, people are always going to pursue their self-interest, right? So the question is, can you have a system in which people pursuing their self-interest also serves the public interest so that the things that generate the most profit for you also turn out to be good for other people? And if you go all the way back to Adam's, you know, Smith and the invisible hand, this is actually exactly what he was describing. You know, the, the invisible hand has become this like magic. It's a bad metaphor because it sounds like this magical force. Like, it doesn't matter what you do somehow magically it will work out great for everybody. As long as you don't intervene. I mean, it wasn't the idea of that, that governments

should not intervene in what these markets will create on their own through supply and demand and the other. Well, that was certainly not, that was certainly not Smith's view. That is what it has become for a lot of modern economists. But if you go back, the paragraph where Smith uses the term invisible hand, he only uses it once, is it actually starts by noting that he's expecting that people will prefer investing domestically to investing in foreign countries and that people will prefer to invest in the ways that produce the most things of greatest value. And what he's saying is that if that's true, if somebody pursuing profit, the way they're

going to do it is by investing a lot domestically in creating things of value, then it's like there's an invisible hand that somehow ensures that what they are doing in their own self-interest also serves the public interest. So he's explaining how this can work, right? This is like at the very outset of markets, people are like, whoa, what's going on here? And he's saying, no, no, no, see, look, if the things that people are doing during a lot of money also leads to good outcomes, then this could be a great system. It'll be quite stable. But the way it turned out is the invisible hand sometimes slaps you across the face. And then that's the difficulty. That's right. I think, and so this goes to my point about like, what are people doing? What's gone wrong? It seems to me that, you know,

people in their self-interest are then always going to look at the system and say like, okay, well, is there an even easier way to make more money? Maybe that doesn't create so much good stuff for other people. And you see over and over again throughout history that happening, right? So if you go back to, you know, the Industrial Revolution, you had a period where the Industrial Revolution was working out horribly for most workers. I mean, people were literally getting shorter, dying earlier. And people would say like, gosh, we probably need like some labor laws. Right.

Like, we probably need to make it a rule that as you build these massive... If you're eight years old, you shouldn't be in a factory necessarily. Right. Maybe that also. Like, maybe this will work better if one of the constraints we impose is... if you want to make a lot of money building big factories, you also have to use adult workers and treat them reasonably. That will work.

And then, in fact, people started doing that. And you had what I would call the much more beneficial industrial revolution that led to huge productivity gains, you know, ultimately the creation of the middle class. You had the same thing, you know, at the end of the 19th century with the giant trusts, right? Rockefeller and so forth. And as we had railroads and utilities, people were saying like, oh, like I could make a lot of money if I just monopolize this thing.

And well, that's a fair point. And that's where Teddy Roosevelt shows up and says like, well, okay, right, Teddy Roosevelt, Republican. But this is not, this system does not work. We actually are going to have to do trust busting. And so I think you sort of go through these cycles where then what happened in the second half of the 20th century, you have the financialization. And I think globalization are sort of parallel.

A lot of people said, wow. And, you know, obviously we pursued free trade. We deregulated financial markets. And people said, well, this is great. The easiest way to make a lot of money is to do this set of things that does not create good jobs, does not necessarily produce growth. So that's what people started doing. Look, the algorithm is killing us. But the antidote, the antidote is information.

And that's where ground news comes in. Ground news, it's this website app designed to give readers a better way, an easier way to navigate the news. It pulls together every article about the same news story from all outlets all over the world and puts them in one place and not, not incentivized for like the worst, most hostile, most partisan take. It tells you where it's coming from, the bias comparison feature, highlight specific differences in reporting from across the political spectrum. It's an amazing learning tool. You can see starkly in black and white how these different organizations and algorithms are manipulating the information that we get.

Ground news helps you understand the full picture rather than just the slice of it, these bad actors want you to see. You can use it to stay informed. You can use it to stay engaged. You can use it to stay educated without becoming an angry. 3 a.m. Shit poster. If you want to see the full picture, go to Ground News.

They can help you through the noise and get to the heart of the news. Go to groundnews.com slash Stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the Unlimited Access Vantage subscription. Discount available only for a limited time. And this brings the price down to like $5 a month. That's GroundNews.com slash Stewart

or scan the QR code on the screen. So what you are describing feels very akin to my view. Like as you speak, it feels like a salve to my soul. I hear what you're saying. You say, you know, financial markets at profit is a wonderful driver of these things. But to utilize the energy of that profit motive, governments must also find ways to create a more sustainable value for the people through their labor and other things. That's my understanding of sort of what you would think is leftist economics.

Isn't kind of Milton Friedman, you know, the patron saint of this sort of, no, that's not what economics and capitalism is about. It's about pure profit. And that pure profit and the pursuit of it is actually what, will create the most value. Is this a a rebuttal to that, to Friedman, who, I mean, if you could say in the 70s when he comes out, that sort of leads us into the deregulation of the financial markets and leads us into globalization and all these political policies that might lead to incredibly high, you know, capital then wins and labor kind of loses.

Yeah, it's definitely a rebuttal of them. I think the important thing to say in the political context, though, is that until they came along, this wasn't a left-right fight in the way that we think about it now. Okay. So, you know, Friedman and the other guy gets associated with us a lot, Friedrich Hayek. Yes. And you're going to get some nasty letters from the Hayek's man. Those guys, they are active online, for sure. What you find is that Friedman and Hayek were not conservatives. And they would not have described themselves as conservatives. In fact, Hayek, maybe his most famous essay is called Why I Am Not a Conservative. Literally, that's the title of the essay.

And it goes to exactly what you're just describing, which is that Hayek basically says the wonder of the self-regulating market is what produces prosperity. And you just basically have to have faith that it will work and get out of the way. and all these conservatives out there like don't have enough faith in that. And that's a real problem. Right. And so up until that period, as you said kind of the 70s and the 80s, obviously conservatives and progressives were fighting about all sorts of things, but it wasn't

the conservative view that, well, if we just get out of the way, markets will magically fix everything. I mean, just thinking about like, that doesn't actually sound very conservative if you stop and think about it for a moment. And what happened in our politics is Ronald Reagan came along. And Reagan built this coalition. Reagan combined what you would call the free market libertarians, the Hayeks and Friedmans, the old, you know, literally guys walking around with Adam Smith neckties.

Do they still sell those? I don't know if they do. I wanted to reference it in Sanchez. I try to do a little research. I think we've moved on maybe from that. But combine that with the more traditional mainstream conservatism and then also the Cold Warhawks, right? You had a whole bunch of people all of a sudden who were like, let's go start lots of wars. And it's also, they viewed it as, I think, a battle between communism, which they viewed as sort of a very blanket suffocating state that was dictating terms.

That's exactly right. That's what these groups had in common was they all believe that the top priority was defeating communism, whether that was in market economic terms, whether that was in social and religious terms. Putting in God we trust on a coin and then moving on. Yes. And grand strategy from all perspectives. And I give them a lot of credit. It worked, right? They did win the Cold War. And that was very important. But that coalition then sort of lived on even after its animating purpose was gone. And so it's really in a lot of ways after the Cold War is won that things get out of control, that you start just saying, we're just going to keep cutting taxes no matter what.

I mean, Reagan raised taxes five times when his initial reform didn't generate the revenue he wanted. Reagan was a protectionist. Reagan slapped all sorts of tariffs and stuff on the Japanese. After the Cold War is won, this coalition sort of just keeps going. So you get the economic view that, no, no, no, it really is just the market is the end unto itself. You know, I use the term market fundamentalism, which people think, like,

Yeah, sure. It's a little derogatory. It doesn't sound great. But it's also a descriptive term. I mean, what is a fundamentalism? It is a sort of overly simplistic attempt to impose a very rigid set of beliefs, often in a way that completely misinterprets the original texts, but that concentrates... Are you sure you're not a lefty? You're preaching, baby. I keep trying to keep myself from going, amen, Owen. Come on. Well, you're going to get me in trouble. You're going to get me in trouble. You're going to get me. me in trouble with this, John. So you got to maybe we'll do a quick five-minute interview where I give you some of my more conservative views. That's what we're going to need later. But, you know, fundamentalist's a sense of sort of not only just reinterpreting texts, very rigid view, but that is specifically designed to give all of the authority to this narrow set of people who claim a special wisdom over what must be done. And so this is what certainly right of center

economics. And to some extent, I'd say broadly, economics became. It was this sort of almost priesthood where if you didn't understand that financial deregulation and free trade were going to be great for the typical worker, that was just because you were not sophisticated enough. Or did they even care? Oh, I think they did, for the most part. My experience, having been in the political world for a while, is like, yeah, there are, you know, outright bad actors. But by and large, if you're an economist, if you're, you know, even someone running for office in most case, if you want to work in government, you may have convinced yourself of this in some way, in various ways. But at the end of the day, you are trying to do good things. And so a lot of folks really deeply believed. And let's remember on the, I mean, globalization, financialization, this was as much Clinton as it was Bush. It was an entirely sort of bipartisan consensus. And so these folks really, they really did believe it. Let me ask you when, because my understanding of sort of the shift of this was we shifted from

kind of, if I'm thinking about it in kind of epochs, you know, you have the New Deal epoch where it's kind of the government decides we also have to create a kind of framework of a safety net around to help maybe, in some ways, ameliorate the collateral damage that the system may create for people at the lower levels. And then that begins to shift in the 70s with Friedman and those guys into this, you know, the famous Laffer Curve, 1980s supply side trickle-down economics. What made that switch into trickle-down? And what were they using to kind of justify that?

And are the things that you're saying, is that consistent with sort of that understanding of those eras? Yeah, I think that's a good description of the eras. I would think about it more as a pendulum swinging, though. Okay. I think it's helpful to, in general, think about what happens in our politics, right? The New Deal emerges in response to the Great Depression and, you know, what had been a very minimalist government that clearly was not serving people's needs at that point. And so I think with FDR, you get this real swing of the pendulum all the way from, you know, we're much too far to one side.

You come to, okay, we got to fix this and then swing through to an overcorrection where by the kind of great society, you know, LBJ, great society programs of the 60s. Is that where conservatives would look at, okay, I mean, they were against maybe the New Deal as well. But is it the great society that is the cleaving point for them? You know, I think certainly if you talk about sort of what parts of the welfare state as it's been constructed that we would say like, yeah, that was really good versus that's not so good. There's definitely a very different view of New Deal type, you know, social insurance, right? Basic social security, fair labor standards. You don't see a lot of Republicans out there saying like, let's get back to child labor or whatever. There's a couple of them.

There's a couple. You can find them. But, you know, by and large, I think people on the right would say those were good. Great society in the 60, I think you'd see more of a mix. I think on things like Medicare, obviously, that's widely supported. But wasn't. I mean, Reagan famously came out. I don't know if you've ever heard that great recording of Reagan talking about Medicare as the socialist creep coming.

You know, he cut advertisements against Medicare. No, that's right. So there's, that is certainly where, well, of course, if you go back to the 30s, you would have Republicans, you know, saying the same thing about Social Security. And so you get, there's both sort of more of an acceptance of good parts over time, more of, I think, an increasingly sharp critique of pieces that didn't work. But so you get in the great society, I would say, you swing through the, oh, these were good things that we really should have in this country into, whoa, we're starting to build up some stuff that is creating problems. I think you see the same thing, for instance, with organized labor,

where I think the idea of worker power, workers having unions, etc., that's a fantastic thing. By the way, Adam Smith did too. But you swing from they don't have any power representation at all to, okay, good, they have a seat at the table, they have equal standing, to by the 1970s in a lot of cases, they are actively leveraging that power into a lot of quite counterproductive things, I would argue. And becoming somewhat corrupt in and of their own selves. I mean, using the money and those kinds of. Right. And so I think if you think about, you know, what was called the sort of stagnation of the 1970s, we were in a very bad position economically. And what the supply siders came in and said, which was fundamentally correct, like I would describe myself as a supply sider, is you can't just fix the economy. You can't get the growth you want just through what had become the main government model, which is just give people more money to spend.

That at some point the question is, what are the incentives for businesses to invest and build stuff or not? It goes back to that piece of capitalism I think we entirely agree on, which is you do want the profit motive driving positive behavior. And so the basic idea of supply-side economics is to say, look, one of the best ways to spur growth would actually be to improve the incentives of people to invest and build and grow businesses, that that can be good for workers too. I think that's correct.

But I think that then you pull this pendulum back in the other direction. You do some things that are more business-friendly. You create a better environment for investment. That's great. And then that swings straight all the way through to anything that's good for corporations and leads to more profits or reduces taxes is always going to be better. And same with, okay, you know, we did have over-regulation a lot of cases. Well, therefore, any, right, and we did need various types of deregulation.

Let's swing that all the way through to just the less regulation, the better. the market will automatically work. And so I think we sort of got all the way back up to that side of the pendulum, and now we need to swing back down again. So then it becomes what are the tools in the arsenal that can help us swing the pendulums back? And does the policy discussion become, all right, are the tools, you know, tax incentives, disclosure rules, or as you were saying, like limits on buybacks,

or so what are the tools now that we look at, you know, or the metrics that we look at that tell us we've gone too far. Is it, you know, I can point to wage growth. You know, you don't get a tremendous amount of wage growth or income inequality tells me the system is out of balance. What are the tools that we can use then that bring it more back into that balance? Yeah. So that's exactly where. where the rubber meets the road on all this. And I think it's interestingly where you start to see some of the traditional political divisions reemerge. Because, you know, my view is, it's a real problem if you have left and right disagreeing on the diagnosis, right? I think both

sides have gotten into that. Do they disagree still? Or is it, it feels like they're still disagreement? Much less so. There is some. So I think if you look back to, you know, the 2000s, let's say, the Republican Party had really dug into a position of saying, essentially, we have achieved equal opportunity. Everyone can succeed and build a great business. And actually, if we adjust the numbers in this way, everybody's wages are going up. And therefore, you would be surprised how many people's full-time job is to adjust the numbers to show that wages are going up.

Yes, I'm sure. But, and sort of therefore, ta-da, we don't need. to take action on any of these fronts because in fact everything is going great. And you would also see that on things like, you know, I think like climate change. There's another quintessential example where, well, we're not sure if we acknowledge that climate change is an issue, well then are we going to just have to embrace the Green New Deal? Let's just say that it's not a problem. And I think, you know, we have plenty of issues of that type on both sides, I would say.

We could talk about ways where, you know, the left doesn't want to. say that saying is a problem because if they do, well, then what rate is saying that now with the argument about housing supply, where you'd say, you know, they want to say that this is a problem, but we don't want to also say that over-regulation might be a problem, especially, you know, environmental regulations that may have to fix it. So you have, I see those tensions in any of the places. And so, you know, my view is just that that that is a very unhealthy partisanship, right? Like, there is nothing partisan about trying to figure out what is actually happening in the world. We should be able to reach a common description of that.

Now, we might apply different values to it, say which parts are good versus bad. So conservatives might say we're comfortable with a relatively higher level of inequality than progressives might. But we shouldn't be disagreeing on what that level is. Or that it exists. Exactly. That's right. Or what direction the trend is in and so forth. And so, you know, something like financialization, I think, is a great example of this, where

there are a lot of very difficult discussions to have about, okay, what would you do to address this? But we should be able to agree that the scale that Wall Street has grown to and a lot of what it's doing just is not creating value in the world. That's right. And the percentage, you know, you talk about it in the article, you know, the idea of financialization is sort of what percentage it takes up. of economic activity. Yeah.

And you were saying years ago, it might have been at 10%, but it has doubled, meaning that these sort of financial instruments and is containing it so difficult because, you know, in truth, I would imagine financialization is more agile than industrial policy. Certainly investing in manufacturing or warehouses or creating value for workers takes a much more stable uncertainty is going to throw it.

Financialization is, hey, man, I just came up with this idea. What if we bundle mortgages? You know, it seems much more agile. Yes. And harder to catch up to. I think that's exactly right. And so that's a great sort of way into this question of what do we do? Because I think, you know, one place where I at least perceive still very large differences between how, you know,

someone like I would think about addressing this versus folks on the left is I think the more left of center view tends to be, okay, we essentially need to find the things that we don't like and prescribe them and sort of construct a regulatory apparatus that is going to sort of keep these things in bounds, figure out which ones we do like versus which ones we don't like. And like in the case of 2008 saying, well, you know, maybe banks shouldn't leverage at 35 to 1. You know, creating, you know, stress tests. Yeah. That don't allow it to become a hydrogen bomb for the economy.

You know, I'm a traveling man. I'm a rambling man. You know, I like to go. I like to see the world. Or, oh, no, wait, that's not me. I like to sit at home. But there are people out there who do like that. And let me tell you something.

If you do enjoy seeing the world, you know, that could be a little, a little bit of this, a little bit of cheese. You got to put a little cheese on that daco to go see the world. But imagine if you had some kind of like rewards program, you know what I'm talking about, like a Miles program, et cetera. But it's a rewards program that you pay rent through and then earn points for travel, dining, shopping, etc. 2026.

If you're still paying rent without built, come on, brother. It's a loyalty program for renters that rewards you for your biggest monthly expense, which is rent. We built every rent payment earns your points. can redeem them, flights, hotels, lift rides, Amazon purchases. So much more. And by the way, starting in February, Built members can earn points on mortgage payments. You get something for that. So join the loyalty program for renters at jointbilt.com slash TWS. That's J-O-I-N-B-B-I-L-T.com slash T-Ws. Make sure to use our URL so they know we say it.

But then if you look at what Dodd-Frank actually is, right? It's thousands of pages generating thousands of pages of regulations that in a lot of cases end up doing things like saying, well, if banks can't lend, make certain risky loans, banks will instead lend to this new set of institutions that we will call private credit and they will make the risky loans. And to your point, that will typically be more agile than the regulators will be. And a lot of that stuff, though, is added in. by, to be fair, by lobbyists for these financial institutions. You know, the difficulty, again,

is you also have a Congress that has much more access to the lobbyists for these very rich financial firms than to the people that they're sort of, you know, trying to help avoid these catastrophes. Yes. But it is important to take that as a baseline reality when you're deciding what we should do. Right? In other words, I do get very frustrated with my friends on the left when They're like, no, but this would have worked better if not for the lobbyists. I'm like, well, did you have a plan for their not being the lobbyists? Well, poor people need better lobbyists. I've always said that.

That I think the question of how you represent workers more effectively is a super important one. Well, I think the idea is for the left that your representatives are your lobbyist. In other words, you look to them as a bulwark against that financial group. rather than this kind of entity to be corrupted or swayed by it. You kind of view it as that's the balance. And that sounds fantastic. And then I would again say, and how's that working out for you? Right?

Not fair. That is not fair. This is we conservatives are pragmatists, if nothing else. So how do you design it? How do you catch up to? Because they're kicking our ass. I mean, that's the thing that makes it so difficult. is they're so much more agile.

Even in the way of, let's use your sort of example of part of financialization is in some ways like setting up microwave towers right next to where the trading is going so that you're making all your money on volatility or payment for order flow or all these other kinds of invented or gamifying it so that it resembles more, you know, fan duel. than it might anything resembling the real economy and the SEC is completely over, Matt. What are the things you can design to get ahead of it in pragmatic terms? Right. So what this leads me to is to think is that what we really need is quite sort of blunt, broad-based constraints.

Like Volker Rule kinds of that one page, if you're a bank, you can't use savings to find your whatever adventurism and financialization. Right. So very clear lines, what kinds of institutions can and can't do. Very clear transparency and disclosure requirements. So if you are planning to collect 7% of people's investments in fees to yourself, you actually have to publish that very clearly so that, you know, a pension fund, no. knows that's what you're doing. Things like just stock buybacks are not allowed, which was the

case until 1983. It's very funny. You say, we should get rid of stock buybacks. People like, oh, like, that's Marxist. I'm like, well, it was also U.S. law for more than 200 years. Right. But they say anything you do is, you know, you really are, you're wading into a battle that I think the left has been fighting for a really long time, which is there's this strange kind of dichotomy that if the government intervenes with the market, in quotes, on behalf of labor, that's Marxist. But if they intervene on behalf of financialization easing their road, that's capitalism. Like I think that's the frustration, you know, you talk about, I understand the frustration that you may have with the left, but that's the frustration I think

that the left has that, you know, there's this, as you said earlier, kind of this dogma, the government doesn't pick winners and lose. And I think if you're on the left, you go, no, it does all the time. But it just picks the winners that have the most access to it and the most money. And that's our frustration. No, I think that's right. I think it is a frustration on a on a large segment and a growing segment of the right as well. I mean, you've seen obviously a very sharp fallout between, you know, business roundtable and Chamber of Commerce and so forth and the right of center in the Republican Party because I think there's an increasing recognition.

And it goes back to that point about just like what are the basic facts that this really isn't working. And we really do need to understand why it's not working and do something about it. And the thing that I always emphasize to folks on the right is, you know, what we have right now is not sustainable, right? Like the cover your ears and tell people things are great. What parts of it in your mind are least sustainable? Like, is it inequality?

Is it, what are the things specifically that you're looking at that you go, man, this is, we're creating something that's not going to hold? So I think there's what I would call a micro element at the personal level and a sort of macro element at the national level. And I'll just hit the macro one first because it's a little quicker. The reality is that the U.S. economy, it performs great on the measures like stock market valuation and, you know, top line GDP figures and so forth. Our actual capacity to make things to create jobs, to innovate, to compete with China,

is in sharp decline. and a system that does not reward that above all else is not going to produce the kinds of outcomes that we want. And so, you know, whether it is on these question of financialization, if it's on these questions of trade and industry, I think there's an interesting sort of immigration dimension to it and the extent to which we sort of say, well, we, you know, we're just going to have to bring in, we can't find the workers we want here. So our solution is to just bring in somebody else.

The formula we have settled on is not one that is actually conducive to the liberty and prosperity of the United States. And I think we are on what many people rightly feel is a downward slide that we need to reverse. Now, wouldn't people on the right say, know reversing it is an artificial contrivance that what we've learned is financialization, financial services? services, legal services, tech services. That's, we're actually manufacturing is the old economy. We're actually creating the new economy and why would you want to go back to that? I disagree with that view, but isn't that what they would say? They're not, they're getting out of the way and allowing these future markets to dictate our economy. me. There is a small and shrinking and declining and influence group that will go down with the

ship saying that. I would say it is at this point pretty far out of the mainstream, certainly within the Republican Party and Republican politics. And in a lot of the sort of, you know, new republications, what, you know, the kinds of programs, younger people are participating in, there are very few people at this point who would say, know that things, things have been going well, this is the right track. Even as they point to, you know, look at our GDP. It's, you know, you realize it's seven companies and like, you know, AI data centers that we don't even know will ever be used. Yeah. No. So that's a perfect example. I think you'll find. And again, the, you know, politics is politics, people whose job is,

to promote how well the Trump administration is doing, we'll point to the things that show the Trump administration is doing well. But in the actual sort of intellectual debates, today's equivalent of what Friedman and Hayek were arguing in a prior generation, you won't find anyone anymore saying, but look at the S&P 500, things are fine. That's a punchline, not an actual argument. Right. And I think you see that even if you look at the sort of next generation of leaders on the right of center. And listeners are free to support them or not. But look at what they're saying.

Think about the positions they've taken on. They're free to do that now. Six months from now, they may not be free to support them or not. We don't know what's going to happen. I suspect that freedom will persist just fine. All right. But on these issues that we're talking about, you know, if you look at what a J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio was doing in the Senate,

it. You know, if you look at a Josh Hawley, Bernie Moreno, who's a new senator from Ohio, Jim Banks from Indiana, this is stuff that they talk about all the time and in these terms. And so I think the newer, it takes time, obviously, for these things to turn over in a political party. But at the staff and writer level and at the political level, I think you see a pretty significant shift, certainly on these macro questions, on the need to re-industrialize, on the need to take on China and so forth. Why hasn't that then coalesced into something more coherent at the policy level? And this gets into maybe a larger discussion. And it's one that I stepped in shit in last week with, you know, economists being very angry that I'm confusing economics with policy.

But when you talk about that, why hasn't that shit? shift in mindset created a more coherent governing philosophy of economics. When I look at the Trump administration filled with these, you know, I'm assuming more right of center economists and people of that thing, it feels incoherent. I'm going to take 10% of Intel. You know what? I'll let you sell chips to China, but you've got to give me a cut of that. Oh, also, I'm going to put 50% tariffs on Brazil, because I don't really like the way they've treated Bolson Arrow. And you sort of can't wrap your mind around what we are and how they're designing these policies, not as correctives for pendulum swings or societal ills, but as kind of impulse,

like giant baby impulse. Well, I think what you have with the Trump administration is President Trump. Right? I mean, I think, you know, fair enough. Fair point. Fair point. To my point, you know, in parallel to my point to the left about taking as a baseline reality that you have the lobbyists, there's also a baseline reality that the head of the executive branch is Donald Trump. Right. And Trump is someone who, as you just described, tends to go in a lot of different directions. I call it tantronomics. Tantronomics. Tantronomics. The, you know, and it's important to say, I think what's so fascinating about him as such a non-ideological person is that I think that actually had some real benefits in his willingness to reject everything that had been standard Republican dogma, right? His willingness, there was no one else willing. But you can't replace it with a sort of nihilistic and vindictive.

That's right. So the metaphor that I always use is the building metaphor, right? which is that like demolition is an important part of a rebuilding process. If all you do is demolition and then go find the next thing to demolish, you're less likely to be remembered as a great builder. I see. So you're saying right now we're in the east wing part of our economy, but we haven't yet gotten to the ballroom.

We're waiting to get to the ballroom of the economy. I think it is certainly fair to say that there has been a lot of demolition. Yes. And I think the, you know, the interesting thing when you mentioned, you know, take 10% of this company and so forth, what you see at the sort of fundamental level is, in fact, a shift toward, you know, we are going to do industrial policy. Or a state-run capitalism. But, you know, we get into this loop now, which is how do you then prevent the kind of kleptocracy and feeding at the trough of the patrons of the president? you know, it's very hard to look at any rebalancing of the economy when people can say, but the president has benefited by the tune of $4 billion through the course of this. Isn't, you know, at the base of this, we have to preserve what kind of got America to this point,

which is a baseline of there are stable rules of the road that. that we will honor, that allow for, you know, they always say in the economy, the worst thing is uncertainty. Have we lost that that was our gold standard? And before we can even tackle the kinds of remedies that you're talking about, don't we need to rebuild kind of that baseline stability? Yes. I think that's an incredibly important point that there are certain, you know,

When we think about the sort of interaction between politics and the economy, this is one of things that was so lost. It's funny, there didn't used to be a field called economics. It was called political economy. People called Adam Smith a political economist. And it was only really in the 20th century that you defined this separate field of economics, which was just with math and abstract models and so forth, we can kind of say what should be done. when in reality the political dimension is is almost always inseparable, certainly at the level of what should we be doing.

But don't economists try and have it both ways. I have to say, you know, one of the things that felt disingenuous about, we talked to Richard Thaler last week, which, by the way, I love talking to that. I thought it was a great conversation, but there were a lot of economists that were really pissed, not at him, at me for ignorance and all kinds of other things. But one of the things they were pissed about is, you don't know. understand the difference between economics and policy, but don't they want it both ways? Because they don't just study it in an ivory tower and put it in a terrarium. They're in the room when

these policies are made. You know, they are incredibly influential in designing the parameters of our economy. And yet if you criticize that, you know, it stirs up, if I may say, very mean. They're very mean people. Yes. So I completely agree with that. I think in debating circles we refer to that as a a motte and bailey, which is, are you familiar with the motte and bailey? I am not a familiar with the motte and bailey. Let me tell you about the monailey. I would like the mott and bailey is the configuration of a medieval village that had, I might get them backwards, but I believe the mot was the small fortress on top of the hill. And then the bailey was the sort of open village

area that everybody preferred to live in. And so you lived out in the Bailey, and then if, you know, the barbarians were attacking, you could retreat into the Mott. Solid move. Well designed. There you go. And so the Mott and Bailey form of argument is you sort of spread out and make these very expansive claims and sort of have a great time.

And then when you actually get attacked, you retreat to this much narrower thing that you can defend. And then when you're in your Mott, you yell. insults at anybody who dares. Like the Monty Python. Yes. And then, but as importantly, as soon as the attackers have gone, all right, fine, and moved on, you spread right back out again into your bailie. Well, they've been bailing my mott. And I don't like it, buddy. You're like me. You're a victim of your own inertia. The body at rest stays at rest.

If I got something I'm doing, I just keep doing it. Does it matter that it's better? No. Does it matter that it's worse? Probably not. I just keep doing it. Slogging along. like a snail moving through the garden of life. That's actually pretty dark. But the point is, that's what screws me on telephone bills. Stop paying for too much wireless just because, I don't know, that's just what I do. That's how it's always been. That's just my company.

Mint exists purely to fix that. Same coverage, same speed, just without the inflated price tag. You can change your coverage people. Mint is the premium wireless you expect. You know, your unlimited talk, your unlimited tax, your data, but at a fraction of what others charge. And for a limited time, you can get 50% off three months, six month, 12 month plans of unlimited premium wireless.

Bring your own phone number. Activate with e-sim and minutes. Start saving immediately no long-term contracts, no hassle. With a seven-day money-back guarantee and customer satisfaction ratings in the mid-90s, mint makes it easy to try and see why people don't go back. ready to stop paying more than you have to. New customers can make the switch today and for a limited time,

get unlimited premium wireless for just $15 a month. Switch now at mintmobile.com slash twis. That's mintmobile.com slash twes. Limited time offer. Up front payments of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12 months, plan required,

$15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra, initial plan term only. Over 35 gigabytes may slow when network is busy. Capable device required. Availability speed and coverage varies. See mintmobile.com. So this is a constant feature of the economics debates that I think is very important

is that, yes, there is an important, valuable discipline of economics that has useful insights that uses both analysis and data and so forth to make useful points that we should consider when we are making public policy. And then there is the actual policymaking process. And economists have gotten very comfortable asserting that their narrowly useful technical insights dictate what policy should be. So our model shows that free trade is efficient. If you only followed them, right.

Therefore, anybody who questions our prescription of free trade is an idiot. And it's like, well, well, actually, I understand. your model of free trade, here are 10 reasons why in the real world, like, first of all, maybe I just have values for optimizing around other things. Second of all, here's ways other people are going to behave that you're not taking into account. Third of all, here's what's going to happen to our politics if we do that. And if we undermine our politics in that way, what do you think is going to end up happening to the economy and so on and so forth?

And it creates a credibility issue. Yes. That I think undermines, you know, rightfully so. And I probably consider in the way that I think a lot of people view the Iraq war as a kind of cleaving point for American credibility, right, overseas. And again, you probably can go back to the 60s and 70s and say the Vietnam War did a very similar thing. I think the 2008 financial crisis, and maybe it's been an overcorrection against that credibility. But it really, for something that was so devastating to the broader economy and to the jobs and to the, labor and all that and the direct result of the financialization and instrumentation of the economy,

I've been surprised at how resilient the architects of all that remain in the economy. How is that? Well, I think at least until recently, this goes back to the sort of priesthood phenomenon, they were the arbiters of it. I mean, you can even find all sorts of great papers unsurprising. about how the great financial crisis was not their fault, which are technically the authoritative academic. If it's in the journal, if it's in the journal.

It's in the journal of financial regulatory economists. It turns out that they had nothing to do with it. But I really do think it's the double whammy of the financial fallout from the Great Recession and the sort of industrial fallout from free trade with China. that are these because that also was such an iconic, you know, I love quoting Larry Summers on this point. I think I can still do that maybe a little bit longer. Wait, the room just got cold. I don't know what happened. The, you know, he testified before Congress as Secretary of the Treasury that, you know, economists disagree on everything on this, there's only one answer. And, you know, they kind of

Clinton White House walked these Nobel laureates up to the briefing room to sort of lecture people that, you know, if you did not see how great this was, you just were not smart enough to understand. You don't understand the science and you're an idiot. And then even worse, it carried on after it was obviously wrong. So, you know, I worked for Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in 2011, 2012. And Romney actually was because he came from more of a business background was very focused on the China issue. And the ways that free trade with China was clearly not working out. And this would, you know, 10, 12 years into this debacle, an economist just absolutely denied it.

They just, that's just not true. Free trade works well for everybody. And was it a misunderstanding of that sort of capital can travel, but labor can't? Is it just the advantages that capital had in this new, like, electronic world economy that labor just was, was naturally going to get its ass kicked? You know, I think that's a piece of it. I think the two other problems, though, one is they always just assume that trade would be balanced. So if a whole bunch of capital fleets to China to make something cheaper in China, that's

okay. There's going to be something else that we may not, you know, we make here now to trade for the stuff from China. And it was a sort of rock solid principle. There's actually Paul Krugman wrote a famous essay talking about what should we teach undergraduates about economics. And one of the core things was trade deficits are self-correcting. So you can't have a long term. I was on a podcast with him last year and mentioned this to him. He didn't remember, of course. He must have been very excited to hear about. He must have been

very excited to be reminded of that order. And I said, no, no, I, you know, I'm always ready to read the quote as needed. And he said, well, that was naive. And I was like, well, yeah, well, that's credit to him. I wish you hadn't. written the accompanying essay suggesting that people who could not understand your economics should be ridiculed because ridicule is more powerful than actually trying to argue with them. I'm aware of that as well. That's my Mott and Bailey. Now you're just misusing terms left and right. But this was sort of the MO of all of this. And so if you figure, oh, a whole bunch of stuff will go to China, that's fine. We'll get something else instead. Maybe that could

have worked out, but it turns out that that was simply wrong. And then the other core assumption under all of this economics that the economists hate talking about is that all they care about is consumption. Like, quite literally, the way that economics defines the good is having more stuff to consume. And in fact, it defines work as the bad, right? The idea economic outcome. Well, explain this. What does that mean? Because I'm familiar with, you know, sort of the consumer index and consumer spending being

70% of the economy and all that. But I thought isn't work productivity, what they would define as productivity, or is that still only in defined as it is to consuming? So in the formal economic models, it is for the sake of the consuming. And so, you know, Jason Furman, who is chair of Obama. Thomas Council of Economic Advisors now teaches the intro-level econ course at Harvard gave us speech a year or two ago in Geneva at a WTO World Trade Organization convening, where he specifically noted that, you know, economists know that imports are the good thing that we get. And exports are just the bad thing that we have to do to get more imports. So it's basically we're all working for the weekend.

Well, that's what we're. Yeah. All right. Exactly. Right. All right. So the ideal, if you're kind of, you know, they do what they're called scoring policies, right? We're going to run our model and say, what's the best policy?

The ideal policy would be one where we get just everything we want to consume and don't have to do any work. I think that's Elon's future. I think that's what he says is going to happen to us through AI. Well, this is an interesting question, right? Would that be good or not? Right. Well, wouldn't that make, see, this gets a, this is such an interesting because from the sort of the powers that be within, in the tech world, the new billionaires

that are gonna design the whatever dystopian world we're gonna live in, they look at the gig economy, that automation and AI, not only is it going to replace us to certain places, it's better that it does. That they look at it in the way that you're saying, which I think misses out also on that people want to feel relevant Yes. That's an important part of life.

Yes. Is the feeling that what you do through your labor matters in the smallest of ways, whether that it's that idea of we all would like to be essential workers. We don't want to be replaced. We just want a wage commensurate with being able to live, not paycheck to paycheck for that relevance. Yes. So that's exactly right. And this is the core of the point that I try to make and my organization, American Compass focuses on, is the idea that there are a lot of things we actually need markets to do.

So, again, we love capitalism. We want markets. We think markets are the right way to organize an economy. We want them to work well. And what that means is there's actually a lot of things we need them to do besides just give us access to cheap stuff. Right. And one of the most important is be generating jobs in the places where people live, align to the kinds of things they can do that allow them to support families. Right. And so we're all the way back to the Adam Smith Invisible Hand thing again. Are the things that are happening in our economy, the kinds of things that generate that outcome? And economics formally is just completely blind to that.

Well, certainly financialization is for sure. Well, that's right. The financialization, it reflects a market where the incentives are not to do that. Economics as a field of analysis just doesn't really have a way to measure that, right? So when you see GDP go up, that doesn't tell you anything about whether it is going up in a way that supports those things or not. So why, Orrin, let me ask you this, because I remember, and maybe this is because it was kind of a self-regulating proposition, but if you remember, there was a movement, it wasn't even that long ago, 10, 15 years ago, that ESG movement, where corporations were now also going to judge themselves or be judged on whether or not their economic production was also positive or a net positive. And they created sort of these different parameters about environment and social justice and these different things. And it was a

disaster politically and otherwise. Yes. Why would that be given sort of what we're talking about? If I may make a respectful point regarding the left at this moment. Yes. ESG, the idea that we do need to care about things besides profit is very important. One of the most unfortunate elements of ESG was that it said the things that we therefore really need to concentrate on more are essentially the progressive agenda, right? So there was a very heavy focus on

climate change. And what are you doing to reduce climate change? Right. Although a lot of it was, to be fair, a lot of it was Lipser. I mean, a lot of it's kind of. Oh, absolutely. But to the extent that you want to take it seriously, it was not actually focused on the set of things we've been talking about here. Are you investing domestically? Are you creating the kinds of jobs that are going to allow people to support families? I see what you said. It was focused. on the set of essentially the left of center side of this elite that is generally happy with how things are going on, but wanted to impose a particular set of policy priorities around things like climate change, you know, a certain conception of social justice.

And maybe ill defining it. Yeah. Although the social justice part, you know, I've always been so surprised at the pushback on, especially for those who, you know, talk about meritocracy. I would think, you know, if you think about social justice in terms of markets, aren't these communities that have been traditionally excluded, oftentimes explicitly by the law, couldn't you just reclassify them as emerging markets and suggest that you wanted to create better investment in emerging markets to create a larger, more meritocratic system,

ultimately with more competition. Isn't, I always viewed that as, it was surprising to me that it was viewed so negatively. Because it basically taking a legacy system and kind of breaking it down. Right. I mean, I think the, you know, again, if you're just putting your hat on as a business leader trying to maximize profit, what you like about an emerging market typically is it's a place to generate a lot of profit. And in the U.S., as you've defined it, for the most part, those.

those groups that have typically been excluded, places that have been left behind, those don't tend to be the places where a lot of the profit opportunity is. Short term. Short term. Which is what they're looking at and which connects for, yeah, and which connects back to another of the big problem with financialization, which is when you're making all of your money in financial services, you know, to some extent in tech, in media, you You can generate a lot of growth, but you are making the most profitable things, the boosting

and lifting up of those narrow enclaves that are already doing best. And one of the most powerful things I think we need, and again, I think this is where you'll then get different answers across the political spectrum is, okay, what does it mean to drive more investment back out into the rest of the country? In my view, you aren't going to get that done by basically making much of rules. saying you have to go do that. What you want to do is create these very broad rules. Even taking a tariff as an example, you want to create a broad rule that says it's going to be cheaper to sell something that you've made in the United States than it is to sell something that you made

somewhere else. Which is awfully difficult when you think about the imbalances of regulation overseas and what they get away with paying people and what their standard of living is. That's that's a really hard thing then to engineer, isn't it? Well, that in my mind is exactly the argument for something like tariffs is to say, if all we want is the cheapest thing, then this is great. If Chinese slave labor makes it, it will be cheaper. The problem with the tariffs, though, is ultimately, and again, not to push back on the dearest of our leaders, but ultimately that ends up being a regressive tax on consumers

and the people that can least afford, you know, to pay that premium. And that money may not come back to them in investment. So aren't we punishing the very people we purport to help? There is potential for it to be regressive. There's actually a wonderful, I guess he's an economic historian officially named Michael Lind, who makes this point that I think is so important and wrote a great essay for us about it, that it's really important to remember that the progressivity or regressivity of our

income of our tax system isn't the primary question. It is a secondary thing that we do to make up for all of the other inequality. But if we could do something... How else do you make it up? Taking tariffs as an example, if we do things to restructure our economy in ways that are actually going to benefit typical workers left behind parts of the country, are going to ideally generate better economic outcomes, if that comes alongside less progressivity in the tax system, but the end result is better jobs and opportunities for the typical worker, that's a great outcome. But isn't that what wouldn't you say like the Chips Act? Isn't that what that would be?

And then so why on the right was that such a controversial and negative response to it? That sounds like in terms of what you're saying, almost the perfectly designed. political program to do such a thing. Yeah. So I love the Chipsack. We pushed very hard for the Chipsack. I saw that bumper sticker on your car. That's right.

I'm a huge hit at cocktail parties. The, you know, ultimately, I think something like 16 or 17 Republican senators voted for it. And so you're right. It's something that was, it divided the Republican Party at this point because you had the more old guard folks who were like, oh, that's not what we do. And you have an increasing segment that say like, oh, yes, actually, this is what we should do. And maybe more positive than tariffs, which they support across the board. Well, so, but this is the key is I think you can't do it all through those kinds of policies, right? You can't go and find every industry and everything you wish we did

and design a government program to boost it. I think that kind of industrial policy can be really valuable where you have like a particular must-have thing. So semiconductors is a great example. You're seeing it now with critical minerals is a great example. But if you want to think more broadly about we want people investing in the U.S., bringing back the kinds of things that can be done here productively, you do need to address that problem you just described, which is labor and environmental regulatory issues, just baseline wages and so forth. There are an awful lot of reasons not to build things in the U.S. Other countries give so much more support

to their producers in a lot of cases. And so we do need something to offset that. Right. Meanwhile, we've got, even within our own country, a kind of miniature globalization dynamic in that there are certain states that work to undercut the protections and wages of other states.

So we're almost facing that same battle at home that we're also facing overseas. And in this model, is there anything you can do to address that aspect of it? Yeah, it's a tricky balancing act because the flip side is that we like the idea of states competing against each other in constructive ways, right? There are all sorts of things we would say it's good that states can go their own way. if states are actually competing on like who can have the most efficient process for permitting something new, that's good. We should want that.

Right, right. And so the sweet spot, it seems to me, is you need to have good national baselines, right? You need to have the national labor law, the national employment standards, the national environmental standards paired with then allowing and encouraging states to compete with each other. And so I don't think we have it exactly right. but I would say that it is actually one of the real benefits of the American system that we have some sort of flexibility and give and take in that. The federalism. That I think on balance probably benefits us.

Right. So ultimately, as we sort of bring it all around to a circle, you know, you describe this kind of pendulum swing from labor to capital and all these things, that financialization is kind of a metastasized version of what that is and different policies that can kind of get it under control. Can I ask is ultimately, is it a product of, A, obviously I think it's more agile than our political system, but B, is it a function of the fetishization of growth over, you know, And we see that in a lot of areas, you know, the stock ticker is down at the bottom of your screen as though that's a, you know, an actual important way of determining the health of the economy

when it's just this tiny part of it. Does the fetishization of growth skew all these incentives in favor of these quick hit, big profit doesn't build the types of stability and industrial base that you're you're talking about and is that a problem that goes all the way back then to Friedman which is it's about maximizing shareholder value and these guys coming in and working purely for that. I'm glad you brought it around to that because that's where I end my essay as well is on on the point that there's a, there are all sorts of policy discussions to be had. But in the final analysis, this is also a cultural question.

You know, there have always been ways to make money that are just not good things to do. Sure. That are embarrassing, frankly. Greed is good. I mean, that was, that was one of the, that's right. That was one of the sort of transition points. You know, there are plenty of ways to go make money that are legal in the United States today. that most people would still say like, oh, like, that's not going to be the top thing the college kids are going to the recruiting presentation on.

And so I don't think it's exactly the fetishization of growth because I do think growth is good. I think, you know, in the periods where the United States, where the economy was working best, people were absolutely obsessed with growth. And that could be. Or the right metrics of growth. Maybe it's. Yeah, exactly. So I think that's more the problem is that, and this connects back to sort of some of what especially the, the more sort of market fundamentalists got wrong is there's been a very concerted effort

to make the case that any pursuit of profit is productive. And anybody who makes a lot of profit, that must prove that they've done something valuable. And I think it's just really – and that is a cultural issue. As long as people believe that, it's going to be very hard to sell them on, you know, we need the regulation or anything else. We need to do anything differently. And sadly, I worry we're moving in the wrong direction because everything you're saying, if I look at sort of where the weather vein is pointing,

it's to the gamification. It's to creating a more gamified financial system. And is maybe sort of crypto the poster child for the direction we're moving in, that is the antithesis of what you're talking about. I think that's right. I guess I'm, that is what gives me optimism that I think we've finally sort of hit the reducteo ad absurdum of it is just, it is impossible to look at what's going on at this point and defend it. And I think people are starting to see. And it's funny that, of course, my editor was like, you have to make this more in like everyday terms things people see. And it's finally at the point where you can do that, right? Like whether it's your experience trying to figure out how to watch the football game or youth sports or, you know, now you do see. young people obsessed with prediction markets and crypto. Cali and polymarket.

I mean, if you're looking at the growth segments, that's where it all seems to be going. And that seems to be the opposite of what we're talking about. Yeah, I mean, someone pointed out, you know, if you watch the Super Bowl ads this year, you'd think our economy was driven entirely by, you know, chatbots, prediction markets and weight loss drugs. Right. And I think there's a way in which it is so obvious at this point that these things are not correlated with the actual well-being and human flourishing, that that is the point of all of this, that I think there is, there is increasing potential for a political response.

And you have an optimism of that because it's almost like looking at it as financialization is sort of, it's standing in for political failure. Yes. Right. Well, you have, this conversation, and I say this with great respect, has convinced me to sell my Melania meme coin. Or hold. That's what I meant.

Hold. That's what I meant. Hold. Because you got to remember, if you're selling it, someone else is buying it. It may be better to just go down with the ship. Orrin, it's always such a pleasure to talk to you. Fascinating stuff. Really enjoyed reading that article.

Orencast, Chief Economist, American Compass. And just thanks again for joining us and having the conversation. Well, thank you for wanting to talk about. It was great to see you. Beautiful. Nice to see you as well. This episode is brought you by Ninja Lux Cafe. You know, I got a question for you guys.

You know how to drink coffee sometimes you have to leave your house? What's that supposed to be? You got to what? Talk to people? Share their space? It's not why I'm on this earth. Now, if you'd rather not have to brave the outside world with the cold and the schlepping and the people for your $20,

latte with stuff in it that is pretty sure is not edible or drinkable? Or would you rather just press a button and have one made in your own home? Home! That's what we're talking about. This episode is sponsored by Ninja Lux Cafe. Burista Assist Technology handles the details. Grinding, weighing, brewing.

You don't have to. Ninja Lux Cafe makes cafe quality without the guesswork. And without the drive, your coffee shop. listeners of this show get $60 off the Ninja Lux Cafe Premiere series with Code Stewart exclusively on Shark Ninja.com while supplies last. That's $60 off the Ninja Lux Cafe Premiere series with Code Stewart, exclusively on SharkNinja.com while supplies last. I have to say, I appreciate his ability to discuss these matters in a,

a way that feels accessible. And not condescending. And not condescending and not tickish. And I have to say, I don't know what shit I've stepped in this week. Because after talking to Richard Thaler, who was the economist from last week, I was very pleased with the conversation. I thought, well, that was really interesting and spirited and said some things back and forward. But I had no idea how mad the economists. and they were fucking mad.

They were mad. I will say, though, I was looking at a lot of the response, and they weren't really from economists. They're just people that ride for economists for whatever reason. Wait a minute. There's a beehive for economists? Yeah, apparently there's people really eager to just jump in for their defense.

The summary just seemed to be not all economists as well. But also, the summary seemed to be like, well, you're just fucking stupid. Well, not too. And I was like, well, I don't know if that's really a, a cogent critique of... Yeah, is that constructive criticism? Not really.

A lot of it was just shock. Like, how can this guy have been on television for 30 years and not understand anything? And I'm like, I mean, I did... Richard Ther said he's a Nobel Prize winning economist. He could have very easily said, like, I think you're completely misunderstanding or like, big boy, he could have handled the... He said you passed his class. People were literally writing articles like, John. Stewart is what's wrong with the American electorate. And I'm like, I think that's hyperbolic.

I love that headlines. Like, I don't really know what I'm getting into at this article. Could be a few things. It was bad, man. I was just like, whoa. Was there anything that he said that struck you as, it's so interesting to me because it's so reflective, I think, of what, what I would consider as kind of a more leftist view of what the economy is. Something that kind of stood out to me is that in this conversation, he was talking about how the left and right agree on the diagnosis. And in his article, he refers to Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance as people who have talked out against financialization, but I thought it was interesting because he cites Marco Rubio in 2019 and J.D. Vance in 2023. And I haven't seen these people talking out against financialization recently where the president

of the United States is benefiting so much from this grift. Right, right. I'm against financialization, except for the Trump Eagle coin. The Trump Eagle coin. Get it today. Yeah. I mean, Orrin, he calls himself a pragmatist, but I think it's very optimistic that he always thinks the Republican Party is like right on the precipice of doing this. I do think he's optimistic in that time. And I imagine it's frustrating, you know, this has been, you know, since the Keynesians kind of moved out of a position of authority and kind of the Reagan Revolution. and deregulation moved in. I think it's probably difficult for those on the left to hear it and not say like, that's what we've been fucking saying for 50 years.

Like what? But you're both right that the deregulation was a bipartisan project that got us into this mess. Yeah. That's always the thing. I'm always like, deregulation is like, well, Clinton, shut up. But besides that. Besides that guy. And Carter?

Maybe we should just only do economic conversation. Maybe next week we should have like a roundtable like come at me bro. And we should just get all the With all your favorites. Economists around. Can we get to invite Furman back?

I think Larry Summers might be busy though. Yeah. Like how did that happen? Like the meanest conversation like economists they're literally like this group of bullies that just sit in the thing and just like every time you ask him a question, it's like, well,

if you understood anything. It's Revenge of the Nerds. I wish it was because they have so much power and control within the whole fucking thing. But maybe next week we'll, or no, next week we're not, are we doing anything? We're on vacation. What? President's Day.

We'll jump in with something, you know, more accessible, more culturally. We'll go engagement farming. We'll go engagement farming on the next. That's a no on the economics roundtable. That's going to be a no on the economics roundtable. Brittany, what do the kids want to know this week? All right. First up, John, can you please explain what Jeff Bezos is doing with the Washington Post?

He's looks maxing it. He's monging it. He's hitting it in the face with a hammer to get its chin a little bit more. I mean, I think it's pretty clear what he's doing. I mean, talking about financialization. He's hollowing it out, you know. Here's what I wonder. Let me ask you guys about this.

Do we have a nostalgic view of the Washington Post? Because in my mind, it was kind of New York Times, Washington Post were like the flagships, especially Post Watergate. All the president's men. Right. I mean, it's a great film. I've heard it's a book. You're a newspaper that had a movie made out of you. There's very few that can say that.

Maybe Boston Globe. With Robert Redford. Redford. Can I tell you that was, he was my guy. In the 1970s, Robert Redford was in every great movie. That three days of the condor, electric horseman, the sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kit. Like, he was my absolute, whoa, you're going, you're going. I'm also a big fan.

You're going Burley Redford with the beer. The way we were. He was the best. I completely forgot what I was talking about. Washington Post. The Washington Post. Oh, the headache. Robert Redford has the ability to do that.

Yeah, Jeff Bezos. But say, Lauren, you said there is a nostalgia to her, right? Yeah, and Bezos can do a lot of things, and the brand will continue. People have that recognition of the brand. And there's going to be great journalists there, despite any number of layoffs. But it's been on this trajectory for a long time. And, I mean, media has been. I think the hope was, you know, in the grand tradition of billionaires wasting money on newspapers,

that he would have viewed it as a responsibility to the public more than something to arbitrage and like sell off for parts, that he would say like, well, shit, if I can spend billions and billions on sending Katie Perry somewhat close to the troposphere, like maybe I can keep this thing going in a robust way. I think that's my disappointment is, what the fuck else are you doing with the money?

money that you have other than like what better use could there be there's a milania documentary in cinema i've heard i meant other yes that's also a good use of it but i think it also shows again like just because you came up with a good way to get books to people faster doesn't mean you care or know the first thing of running you know a quality newspaper just it just it's disappointing that he would, maybe it's this. Maybe he has like a weird relationship with the newspaper that like, if it gets stronger, his body gets frailer. But as he gets pumped up, the Washington Post must get frailer.

Maybe they have, maybe it's a weird symbiote, like. I think it's steroids, but I think we'll never know. We'll never know. What else do they want? What else do they know? John, do you think Doge would have done a better job at releasing the Epstein files? Come on. They're such self-serving.

Like, I love how, like, his whole personality right now is, I want to get to the bottom of this Epstein thing. I want to find out, what am I doing in those files getting a massage? Wait, how did that happen? Yeah, that's, Doge has always been the misguise. guided tantrum of entitled billionaires who come in and suggest that the only way to discern value is to just walk in and cut 50% of something off without any real clear understanding of what it provides. So I can't fucking like, I'm so mad. Well, Elon, he could have just released his emails and then we would have gotten halfway there at least. I love it now that

He's like, I'll protect anybody who testifies me. Like, yet now. It's like a tweet a second about the Epstein files. And it's all the same bullshit that they always, like the anticipat. I'm a free speech absolutist. Somebody says something I don't like. They should be in jail. Like the contradictions.

I don't understand how you just carry around in those heads and expect that people don't see through it, but they don't. Do you think people don't see through it? I really, I think that there is, there are very few people that have acolytes and are worshipped in the way that, like, I can't tell you how often I'm like, thank you for saving free speech. And you're like, you support a president who threatens to put people in jail for saying the wrong thing. Like, how the fuck are you suggesting that that's supporting free speech? It's insanity. You know, but that's the end of it. But Doge, apparently Doge ended up costing America

billions more than. You're kidding. No, for real. Yeah. She can't believe. it. No. Didn't see that coming. I wrote it down. All right. Final one. Last one.

John, can my vegan wife and I please buy you a vegan lunch in New York City between March 6th and 11th? First of all. Do you want me to connect them with your social secretary? What an enticing offer. It's, oh, I'm, you know, when we got, we got ourselves a little rescue form. And we had no idea the world we were stepping into. And it's so interesting to me that the vegan world, they describe, I'm vegan and you're like, no, you're a human that has a certain diet.

But it is, I had no idea what a competitive sport veganism was. Do you got, have you guys, first of all, have you guys ever done it? Have you ever gone and tried to do it? It's fucking hard. It is really hard, especially if you don't. You have to cook if you're vegan. No question. No question.

And it's also really hard to do it. Like they always say like, oh, you just have more salads and stuff. The truth is you have more potato chips. I was just about to say the thing that I became aware of is that there's junk food for vegans. Like there's a place called slutty vegan. They yell at you when you walk in and say, hey, slut. Like, there's definitely junk for everyone.

Wait, that's how they greet you when you walk in? I was stunned, but I remembered where I was. Yes, that's interesting. Right. I would think they'd at least go, hey, vegan. No, they go. It's 50-50, yeah. You know, it's this world where, like, it's the most unwelcoming world I think I've ever been a part of.

It's incredibly competitive. And they're constantly stress testing whether you're living up to the right type. It's like the first thing, if you say, like, I'm vegan, the first thing vegans will always say to you is like, how long? How long have been vegan? And you'd be like, I guess it's been like two years. And I'm like, yeah, 15 years. I've been doing it 15 years. And then somebody else would be like, well, I knew when I was eight that it was wrong.

Oh my goodness. And then they're like, and then so like you'd be talking again and they'll be like, do you eat honey? And I'm like, not completely. I mean, like I have other shit and they're like, hmm, the damage that does the piece. And at a certain point, somebody once told me they go, You really want to fuck them up, just tell them mushrooms are more sentient than shellfish, because that's true. And just watch them implode.

Okay, well, you're actually really harming my relationship to mushrooms right now. But just to be clear, is that a no to lunch? Oh, I'll see them there. I'll see them. You know what? Tell them. I'll meet them at the slutty vegan. All right.

How else can they get a hold of us there? Brittany. Twitter, we are weekly show pod, Instagram, threads, TikTok, Blue Sky. We are weekly show podcast. And you can like, subscribe and comment on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show at John Stewart. Boom. We got next week off. Thank you guys so much. Enjoy your week off. Thanks again for your wonderful help in putting these episodes together, but also in helping me fend off the wrath of whatever community I've stepped in shit in. The economist came after me last week. Be on the lookout for vegan emails because they're Oh, no. Oh, God.

They're coming, brother. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedevick, producer Jillian Spear, video editor and engineer Rob Vitola, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce. And our executive producers, Chris McShane and Katie Gray. Thank you guys so much. Have a great week. Boy! The weekly show with John Stewart is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Bus Boy Productions.

Podcasts.