0:00

The U.S. defense industry is large, complex,

0:02

and competitive. It is also lucrative for

0:04

those companies able to navigate it successfully.

0:07

The American Society of Military Comptroller's helps

0:09

bridge the gap between the boardroom and

0:11

the battlefield while supporting transformation in the

0:14

defense sector. The Business of Defense podcast

0:16

brings you inside the companies working to

0:18

achieve this, directly from the business leaders,

0:20

and to understand how they create value

0:23

for their companies and their customers. For

0:26

more information on ASMC,

0:28

visit asmconline.org. Welcome

0:33

to this episode of the award-winning Best

0:36

of the Left podcast, in which we discuss

0:38

the past, present, and future of

0:40

tackling the uselessness of extreme wealth

0:43

by exposing and closing tax avoidance

0:45

loopholes and pushing for a culture

0:47

change to embrace the need for

0:49

a more equal society. Sources

0:52

today include The Hartman Report, Americans

0:54

for Tax Fairness, Pullback,

0:56

Navarra Media, Gary's Economics, and

0:59

Robert Reich, with additional members-only

1:01

clips from the majority report

1:04

and pullback. What

1:11

happens when you tax billionaires at 90%? You

1:15

know, secession, the TV show, is over, but

1:18

the spoiled, entitled billionaire

1:20

manchildren still very

1:22

much with us running social media companies,

1:25

owning newspapers and television networks, funding

1:28

politicians and judges who then keep

1:30

their taxes low and their regulations

1:32

minimal. America's billionaires pay

1:34

an average income tax rate of 3.1%. Are

1:38

you paying 3.1%? I'm

1:40

willing to bet it's not the case, unless you

1:42

happen to be a billionaire, or worth

1:44

$5, $6, $700 million. What

1:48

has that brought us that

1:50

has made America the most

1:52

unequal society in the developed

1:55

world? Nobody's even

1:57

close. Time

2:00

we had such severe poverty.

2:03

We. Have a homelessness epidemic here in

2:05

America as as people are poor people

2:07

are literally as was sleeping on streets.

2:11

Were. Not away a massive poverty The

2:13

United States. We also have insane wealth.

2:15

Three men. In. The United States

2:17

on more wealth in the bottom half of

2:20

America of of all Americans. Hundred.

2:22

And Sixty million Americans. Three.

2:25

Men on more wealth in all of them. We.

2:30

Read about robbing gangs doing smash and

2:32

grabs say and know nor does Nordstrom

2:34

and Home Depot he got were in

2:36

red States or schools are falling apart

2:38

because they're redirecting money to vouchers to

2:41

pay for all white christian academies. Gun

2:43

violence is plaguing our nation, particularly in

2:45

red states may real hide the homicide

2:47

rates in red states. almost us is

2:50

stalking city dwellers and every turn. Last

2:52

time we saw such inequality was during

2:54

the Republican Great Depression and these so

2:57

called Roaring Twenties that preceded them. Another

2:59

Roaring Twenties were only roaring for the

3:01

billionaires. Poverty. Actually increased in

3:03

America during the Nineteen twenties at the

3:05

bottom half of the wage scale. But.

3:08

Billionaires different really well in the nineteen twenties because

3:11

when Warren Harding came at office and nineteen twenty

3:13

one, the top tax rate was ninety one percent.

3:15

Drop the dollar, twenty five percent. And

3:18

so for the next decade. Billionaires

3:20

are make it out like bandits v I

3:22

and many would argue they were bandits. And

3:25

the rest of America got screwed. And.

3:29

Then Franklin Roosevelt came along. And

3:31

nineteen Thirty six and he said this will Not

3:33

stand. We're Not going To Do This. We're.

3:35

Going to something about this sack. We're

3:37

going to raise taxes. I mean, ah,

3:39

do you hear from the Three Sixty

3:41

Sean? The Zoo's. Franklin. roosevelt

3:44

talking about taxes out for

3:46

all of a theory that

3:48

we pay for the privilege

3:50

of membership in an organized

3:52

society and our society becomes

3:54

more civilized government national and

3:57

state and local is called

3:59

on more obligations

4:01

to its citizens. The privileges

4:03

of membership in a civilized

4:05

society have vastly increased in

4:07

modern times. But I am

4:09

afraid we have many who

4:11

still do not recognize their

4:13

advantages and want to

4:15

avoid paying their dues. There

4:18

you go. And he went on. There

4:20

was one in particular, one particular comment. It's

4:23

in my article. I don't have the audio

4:25

in the article. But here's the audio. This

4:27

is Franklin Roosevelt talking about how his rich

4:29

friends, keep in mind Franklin Roosevelt was born very,

4:32

very rich. His rich, rich

4:34

friends are a little concerned about

4:36

his 90% top income tax rate.

4:39

A number of my friends who

4:41

belong in these very

4:43

high upper brackets have

4:46

suggested to me on

4:48

several occasions of late that

4:50

if I am reelected president,

4:52

they will have to move

4:55

to some other nation because

4:57

of high taxes here. Now

5:01

I will miss them very

5:04

much. So

5:08

Eddy, what happened when FDR raised the

5:10

tax rate to 91% to 90% on

5:12

the billionaires of

5:14

his day in today's dollars? Well,

5:16

what happened was we saw the American

5:19

middle class go from about 20% of

5:21

Americans to over two thirds of Americans

5:23

by 1981 when Reagan came into

5:26

office. We saw poverty

5:28

collapse. We saw old age poverty

5:30

pretty much go away because of social security

5:32

that he got us in 1935. We

5:36

saw union membership grow

5:39

to the point where two thirds of Americans

5:41

when Reagan came into office had

5:43

the equivalent of a good union job, which

5:45

is why two thirds of us were in

5:47

the middle class. And life expectancy in the

5:49

United States hit a peak that had never

5:51

been seen in the history of the world.

5:53

Now what has happened in the

5:55

42 years since then, since Ronald

5:58

Reagan instituted neoliberalism Reaganomics? wrote

6:00

a whole book about this the hidden history of

6:02

neoliberalism are a good economic got it america by

6:04

most recent book in the history series what

6:07

happened was life expectancy crashed

6:10

in the united states only in the united

6:12

states not in europe not many other developed

6:14

countries but just in the united states like

6:16

expectancy crashed and as

6:19

it wages the middle class has gone

6:21

from two-thirds of us to forty five percent of us

6:24

and now it takes two jobs to maintain

6:26

a middle class lifestyle instead of just the

6:28

one you could do when jimmy carter was

6:30

president before reagan fdr

6:34

had it right and

6:36

we need to do this again we need to

6:38

raise the top income tax rate bracket just the

6:40

bracket it will only be paid by people making

6:43

over a million dollars or over ten million or

6:45

over fifty million or wherever they want to set

6:47

it when fdr set the

6:49

top bracket the top ninety percent bracket he

6:52

set that at above fifty

6:54

thousand dollars now fifty thousand dollars

6:56

back in nineteen thirty two is the

6:59

equivalent of one million one hundred

7:01

thousand dollars today in

7:03

annual income yet

7:06

ninety percent income tax on income over one

7:08

point one million dollars that's what he did

7:11

and we're going to do a rescued america

7:14

it built the american middle class it got

7:16

us out of the great depression expanded

7:18

and extended our life spans

7:20

it did made americans healthier

7:23

it uh... it it it it it's stabilized

7:25

us we had we had forty fifty years

7:27

of peace and prosperity like we had never

7:30

seen before neither had the world it

7:32

worked now republicans

7:34

are going to get all hysterical if you

7:37

talk about raising the top income tax bracket

7:39

to ninety percent like it was from literally

7:41

it was during world war one and

7:43

then starting in the nineteen thirties went

7:46

back up to ninety percent stayed there

7:48

lbj dropped it down to seventy four

7:50

percent nineteen sixty seven but

7:52

what he did when he dropped it was

7:54

a close so many loopholes that are actually

7:56

increased the actual income tax there was being

7:58

paid by billionaires Reagan

8:00

dropped it down to 27% and it's been in the

8:02

20s and 30s ever since then and that's why

8:05

your average billionaire now is paying 3.1% in income

8:08

taxes. We need to do

8:10

something about this. Let's make

8:12

America great again. One

8:24

and again during this period of home

8:27

I'm hearing about tax fairness and

8:29

nurses and

8:32

firefighters and working people

8:35

basically ask one question.

8:39

I pay my taxes with every

8:41

paycheck. Why should

8:43

the billionaires get special treatment and

8:46

get to pay taxes when

8:48

they choose or in some

8:50

cases avoiding paying taxes

8:52

for years on end? Here

8:56

is my one

8:59

sentence answer this

9:01

tax day. The tax

9:04

code is unfairly tilted to

9:06

benefit billionaires and

9:09

as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee

9:12

I'm pushing throughout the year to

9:14

balance that tax

9:17

system so it's fair to

9:19

everybody so it gives everybody

9:22

in America the chance to get

9:24

ahead and as

9:26

I've said at every stop we

9:29

want people in this country to

9:32

be successful as part of

9:34

the American dream. Billionaires

9:36

are not going to be any

9:38

less successful if

9:40

they pay their fair share just like

9:43

the nurses and the

9:45

firefighters. Here is essentially

9:50

how it

9:53

all plays out. The

9:56

nurses and the firefighters get

9:58

income for their work. The

10:01

billionaires work it out with their

10:03

accountants and this battery

10:05

of lawyers and

10:07

specialists so that they

10:10

essentially don't take an income. They

10:13

get advised, and it's on the cover

10:16

of publications all across

10:19

the country, they

10:21

use something called buy, borrow,

10:24

and die to

10:26

pay little or no taxes

10:29

for years on end. They

10:32

can have a wonderful lifestyle that

10:34

way. They can get money

10:36

to grow more

10:38

wealthy, but

10:41

it was unjust before the pandemic,

10:45

and the pandemic has just

10:47

spotlighted the unfairness.

10:49

You mentioned the fact

10:51

that the billionaires made $2

10:53

trillion over the last couple of years.

10:57

That works out to $114 million every hour of every

10:59

day the past two years. That's

11:05

a pretty big loophole, and

11:08

I want to close it with my

11:10

billionaires' income tax. The

11:13

amount of those who are at the very top

11:16

are going to pay their fair share. That's

11:19

what this is all about. That's

11:22

why you all are called Americans

11:26

for Tax Fairness. This

11:29

is about getting the fair

11:31

shape for everybody in America. It's

11:34

about protecting our democracy. The

11:37

democracy finds it

11:39

pretty hard to be healthy when

11:41

the wealthiest few

11:44

play by a set of rules they wrote

11:46

themselves. That's not healthy. You

11:49

mentioned that our

11:52

bill involves something like 740

11:54

people. They

11:58

just paid. a

12:00

capital gains rate because this is about evading

12:04

capital gains taxes. The

12:07

country would raise more than $550 billion over the next

12:09

10 years, according

12:14

to the Joint Committee on Taxation. That'll

12:17

do a lot to help schools

12:19

and infrastructure and

12:21

American priorities. So

12:24

we don't want people to lose

12:26

faith in our system when they see

12:28

these kinds of tax dodges. So this

12:30

isn't just a fight to make the

12:33

tax system warfare, it's

12:35

a fight to protect core

12:37

American values and American

12:39

democracy. When

12:52

people say tax the rich, tax the

12:54

rich, what does that actually mean? And

12:56

that means taxing wealth rather than income,

12:59

because most rich people

13:01

don't make big salaries. I mean,

13:03

some of them will make very

13:06

large salaries. And I'm putting

13:08

salaries in quotation marks, you'll hear, oh, this

13:10

CEO's compensation package is worth,

13:13

say, a million, two million, what have

13:15

you. But when you

13:18

hear the words compensation package, a

13:21

very small part of that will

13:23

be in a wage labor

13:26

income. The majority of the

13:28

compensation package will be made up in assets,

13:30

which are wealth. And so we want to

13:32

be taxing that wealth. And

13:34

just to give people a primer, the rest

13:36

of us plebs make money by

13:38

getting a salary and we get taxed

13:41

on our income, that's an income tax.

13:43

But very rich people will

13:46

ask to be paid in assets. So these are

13:48

stocks. In some cases, this

13:51

can be things like people will be like, oh,

13:53

I would like to be paid in art, either

13:56

real things or gold bullion,

13:58

if you will. You

14:00

know, the things you hear about when you work in

14:03

this field, and those things

14:05

are taxed very differently. In a

14:07

lot of places, wealth

14:10

is taxed at a fraction, at

14:12

a mere fraction of what income

14:14

taxes are. In most of

14:16

the OECD, so those are the group of

14:18

developed countries, income taxes are somewhere in the

14:20

30% range. Taxes

14:23

are on assets

14:25

that can gain value over

14:28

the course of the year. So

14:30

this is often stock, real

14:32

estate, maybe some forms

14:34

of gold or goldblane, depending on

14:36

whether or not you... And this

14:39

will be important, whether or not you've disclosed that you have

14:41

these things, will be taxed often at

14:43

10%. That's called a capital gains

14:45

tax. And so if you're

14:47

holding most of your money in these

14:49

kinds of assets, you're not getting

14:52

taxed at all. This is what people

14:54

mean when you hear that, okay, yeah, Elon Musk

14:57

paid an effective tax rate of 3%, because

15:00

the majority of his

15:02

money is being held as

15:04

Tesla stock, which is very

15:06

valuable. He's not drawing a salary.

15:08

Yeah, and that's just the stuff the government

15:11

knows about. Am

15:13

I right in thinking that it's kind

15:15

of easier to hide wealth internationally than

15:17

income? Yeah. For example, art, gold

15:20

bars, yachts. There

15:23

are reasons why I'm bringing these sorts

15:25

of assets up or even mansions. What

15:27

you can do is you can put

15:30

your art or your gold bars or

15:33

your yacht in what's called a free port.

15:35

These are often ports. And

15:39

I'm using again, ports as a place where

15:41

goods come and then get transported. So these

15:43

can be places that actually have a sea

15:45

port or are free zones,

15:48

I think is another term that people

15:50

might know, where if you

15:52

incorporate a company there that holds assets, you

15:55

will not be taxed at all. And

15:57

so if you say, okay, I'll make for

16:02

Ea, FZ, LLC, which is a free

16:04

zone company, LLC. And I say, actually,

16:07

it's that company that owns my house,

16:10

that owns all my art that owns

16:12

my yacht. I don't get taxed on

16:14

that. But beyond that, often

16:17

these kinds of entities

16:20

are incorporated in countries

16:22

or jurisdictions that have very, very

16:25

strong secrecy law. Governments

16:27

have no way of finding out

16:29

what it is that I'm actually

16:31

holding. In fact, sometimes they

16:33

might not even know that it's me that's

16:35

holding it because my name will be obscured.

16:37

It will be what's called sometimes numbered companies,

16:39

shell companies that will own

16:42

these assets for me. So

16:44

it can be very hard to even know what

16:46

is actually owned. Yeah. So the

16:48

pervasive secrecy around wealth, am I right

16:51

in thinking that that's one

16:53

reason advocates are

16:55

sometimes calling for wealth taxes to

16:57

be implemented as a global thing.

16:59

You could then have rules set

17:01

up internationally so that we would

17:04

know what this wealth looks

17:06

like, how much it was valued at and

17:08

things like that. Absolutely. So

17:11

if people who've

17:13

read Thomas Piketty's book, will

17:16

be familiar with a term called

17:18

the global asset register. It is

17:20

a proposal to create a

17:22

comprehensive international registry of all

17:24

wealth and assets and

17:27

what their real beneficial owners in

17:29

order to tackle global tax abuse

17:32

and redress inequalities. So this hits

17:34

on two of the things I've said. One

17:37

is the fact that most people will

17:39

hold their wealth in other jurisdictions

17:42

that will tax these assets at

17:44

a very non existential rate, as

17:46

in it, there's no taxes on

17:49

the assets they hold in certain

17:51

jurisdictions. These jurisdictions will

17:53

have very strong financial secrecy.

17:56

And the other thing is that even if

17:58

you were able to see what assets are

18:00

being held in certain jurisdictions, the ability

18:02

to find out who are the real

18:04

beneficial owners who is actually benefiting from

18:07

the income that is being made

18:09

or the value of these assets is

18:11

often very hard to find. And

18:14

so a global asset register aims

18:16

to solve this problem. But that's

18:18

why a wealth on taxes has

18:20

to be a global effort to capture

18:23

all this wealth that's hidden

18:25

in all the four corners of the world,

18:27

but mostly in the Caribbean

18:29

tax days and islands. I actually

18:31

have a question that might be a little pedantic and

18:33

it's fine if you don't know the answer. But if

18:35

someone is holding most of their wealth in art

18:38

and yachts and houses, and we

18:41

levy 3% tax being like, okay,

18:43

your wealth is worth this much,

18:45

you owe us, I don't know,

18:47

a million dollars. What

18:50

if they don't have a million dollars that's liquid,

18:52

so then they have to sell one of their

18:54

assets, but then that would lower their overall

18:56

wealth. Like I said, maybe I'm being too pedantic.

18:58

Since they bought that asset, it's appreciated in its

19:01

value. So even if they're selling it,

19:03

if you're charging like 3% of

19:05

the value of that thing, most of these assets will

19:07

have appreciated more than that in the time that it

19:10

was acquired. So if I

19:12

have a painting that's worth 10 million,

19:15

and it appreciates in value 20%, even

19:18

if you're taxing 3% of

19:20

that, if I sell it, I'm still making a profit.

19:32

Shop incredible don't miss deals at

19:34

ShopRite. This week, assorted varieties of

19:37

turkey hill ice cream are on

19:39

sale now for only $2.88 when

19:41

you shop with your ShopRite price

19:43

plus card. Shop in store or

19:45

online at shoprite.com. ShopRite. Check out

19:47

Happy. Does

19:53

the principle of limitarianism

19:55

exist between countries as

19:58

well as within countries? because

20:00

of course there are huge wealth inequalities

20:03

here in the U, but even the

20:05

poorest person in the UK is taking

20:07

up much more of the carbon budget

20:10

than the average person say in

20:12

sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, you're

20:14

totally right and I should

20:16

say there are current debates

20:19

or politicians in the UK

20:21

and Europe more broadly who

20:24

argue also for reducing inequalities and have

20:26

all sorts of proposals and sometimes I

20:28

really miss an acknowledgement of the international

20:31

dimension and I should

20:33

say that in this respect I discussed

20:35

the studies done by Jason Hickel and

20:37

his co-authors and it's

20:39

not just that say you have

20:42

Amazon where the people in the

20:44

what does he call them fulfillment

20:46

centers the warehouses get bad

20:48

working conditions, bad wages etc and

20:51

be so stakes all these billions.

20:54

It's not just within a UK

20:56

or a country but even on

20:58

a global scale we really give

21:00

breadcrumbs to those who produce our

21:02

mobile phones and our clothes and

21:04

all the rest and the rest

21:06

goes they go to the

21:08

global north but then they go also to

21:11

those within the global north that have most money. So

21:14

we should actually also have a

21:16

conversation not just about inequality within

21:19

countries but also globally and

21:22

here I'm a bit pessimistic

21:24

because I'm worried

21:27

like how far this

21:29

is how much people are really

21:31

willing to have this conversation. I really

21:35

believe that in the global north

21:39

perhaps everybody but definitely the middle

21:41

class but even much more

21:44

so the super rich they live

21:46

on money that they

21:48

have yeah I would really want

21:50

to use the word stolen from those

21:53

who in this global

21:55

production get the breadcrumbs and

21:57

also from the future. The

22:00

problem is the more you think about

22:02

this, the more you see how deeply

22:04

unjust the situation is and what I

22:06

just encountered is that most citizens are

22:08

so far from this analysis that the

22:10

question is how do you get them

22:12

into that conversation. That for me is

22:15

an important question. And so

22:17

if I just reverse back to you, how do

22:19

you get more people involved in that conversation? Yeah.

22:22

So that was for me a reason

22:24

to try to write this book with

22:26

as little theoretical commitments as possible. To

22:30

communal if you want to say and also to try

22:32

to write it in a way that

22:34

I hope is really excessively written and

22:36

also to bring in all these examples.

22:39

And yeah, that is it's not for me

22:41

to judge whether I succeeded, but I

22:44

think there is, of course you have

22:46

all these theories about political avant-garde who

22:48

will then take everybody along with

22:50

them. But I do

22:52

think definitely because informal democracies, the

22:55

voting system is really a system

22:58

in which you can change things.

23:00

But if the majority of people

23:02

really start are mainly drawn into

23:04

discussions about what I think is

23:07

everything to do with scapegoating, talking

23:09

about all these endless discussions about

23:12

refugees and about migrants and

23:14

about so-called woke topics, we

23:16

don't talk enough about the

23:18

economy. And I think that

23:21

is for me very important to make it clear

23:23

to and people also tend to, they

23:25

may be unhappy, but they

23:27

may not have the analysis why they are unhappy.

23:31

And unhappy is actually they may be

23:33

dissatisfied with the way they're. And for

23:35

example, I think the data that are

23:37

widely spread among inequality analysis and political

23:39

analyst on how much of the share

23:42

that labor got from production in the past,

23:44

how that has diminished, I think

23:47

most workers don't know. This

23:50

book is predominantly

23:52

about inequalities in distribution.

23:55

But I was just thinking as you were talking

23:57

about inequalities, generation.

24:00

by production. And

24:02

I was thinking about it with regards to

24:04

the fact that in the global north, often

24:06

the very cheapest things you can buy are

24:10

the most carbon intensive and

24:13

ecologically degrading, right?

24:15

If you're poor in the UK, it is

24:17

very expensive to buy vegetables and oil and

24:19

cook them from scratch in your home. It's

24:21

a lot cheaper to get some chicken nuggets

24:24

from the takeaway. And if you are poor,

24:26

that's what you'll do because that's what you

24:28

can afford to do. It's also a lot

24:30

more ecologically damaging to do it that way.

24:33

In order to buy clothes or

24:35

things to have in your home,

24:37

it's much cheaper to buy

24:40

something from fast fashion or single

24:42

use plastics than it is to

24:44

buy something that's going to last

24:46

forever. And I don't think

24:49

it's right to almost wag the finger and

24:51

shame and tell people, you should be more

24:53

ecologically responsible because they're buying what they can

24:55

afford. It's also a

24:58

global inequality that is re entrenched through

25:00

the condition of being poor. And I

25:02

suppose, how does the

25:05

philosophy of limitarianism address

25:07

inequalities of production, as

25:10

well as inequalities of distribution?

25:13

So I want to say one thing about

25:15

the case you just mentioned and then answer

25:17

your question. So that is the reason what

25:19

you were just describing that the poor really

25:21

can't live ecologically sustainable lives because they don't

25:23

have the money. That is

25:25

one of the reasons why we need

25:27

something, whatever you call it, the Green

25:30

New Deal, where the social and ecological

25:32

come together. I've really been convinced by

25:34

research by people like Fergus Green, who

25:36

works here in London, that

25:38

we can't separate those two. You

25:41

gave some examples, but I think a really

25:43

interesting example is in places where people

25:45

drive cars. What the green

25:47

of people now do is they buy

25:49

electric cars and it's good. But

25:52

people who don't have money can't buy

25:54

an electric car. So that

25:56

I think is social inequality and ecological inequality

25:59

should be analyzed together. Now

26:02

your question about production, I

26:04

actually agree, you raised it as a

26:06

question, but you could also say it

26:08

as a criticism that there's no really

26:10

big analysis of production, which I think

26:13

it would be a fair criticism, because

26:15

in the end, the distribution of money

26:17

is the symptom. It's actually at the

26:19

same time the symptom and the cause of

26:21

further bad things. And I analyzed it in

26:24

the book as the cause of further bad

26:26

things, the undermining of democracy and all these

26:28

other things. But it is of course also

26:31

the outcome of a system that is an

26:33

economic system, production system

26:35

that is deeply unjust. But in the

26:37

production system, there are distributive effects

26:40

in the production system. But

26:42

many of the things we discussed earlier

26:44

can come together. For example, the

26:47

fossil fuel industry. I

26:49

think the theoretical

26:51

arguments really give

26:53

us good reasons to want to nationalize

26:56

the fossil fuel industry. So

26:58

I've also written a quarter of the paper

27:01

giving those arguments why we should do this. However,

27:04

it depends on, because

27:06

we now actually have a lot of nationalized

27:09

fossil fuel industries in the world, in

27:11

say Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on.

27:14

It's not as if these countries are

27:16

scoring very well on keeping the oil in

27:18

the ground. It depends again on what we

27:20

can expect from the government. So

27:23

yes, but still I think the arguments

27:25

are really that as long as something

27:27

like the fossil fuel industry is

27:30

organized around the profit motive, we're not

27:32

going to solve this problem. See,

27:35

you are Marxist after all. I

27:37

don't care what people call me. I really

27:39

don't care. I suppose my final

27:42

question, if you could get one

27:44

idea from this book implemented

27:47

tomorrow, which one would you

27:49

pick? Yeah, so I think this may be perhaps a

27:51

surprising answer. But I think the first thing we need

27:53

to do is if it's

27:56

about really implementation of concrete

27:59

policies. it is closing tax

28:01

havens and really regulating the

28:03

flow of money of capital in the world.

28:06

Because as long as we have that, it's

28:08

going to be difficult even if we were

28:10

to have the political majority to change things,

28:13

to implement more egalitarian policies. But

28:15

that is at the level of

28:17

policies, but what I really think

28:19

we need in society is

28:21

to have a much more intense political

28:24

conversation among all people about what kind

28:26

of society do we want, and what

28:28

is the economic system that fits with

28:30

that society, and really to bring

28:32

the discussion about the economy and political

28:34

economy central stage in the

28:36

political discussions. And yeah, that's

28:39

why I'm trying to make a contribution. Imagine

28:52

you own completely your own

28:54

house. No

28:57

mortgage, no rent, you own your own house. Some

29:00

of you will be in that position, most of you won't be in that position.

29:02

Now imagine you are in that position. How

29:04

expensive will your life be? Well,

29:07

for most people, their housing cost is their single

29:09

biggest expense in their life, be

29:11

that through paying rent or paying mortgage. If

29:14

you own your own house outright,

29:16

you don't need to pay rent, you

29:19

don't need to pay mortgage, and basically your costs in life

29:21

are very low compared to somebody else. Now

29:23

let's imagine situation changes and suddenly

29:25

you lose that house, you completely lose

29:27

that house, and now you still need

29:30

to live, but you don't own your

29:32

house, your costs will massively increase because

29:34

you have to pay rent for a whole

29:36

house, you have to pay mortgage on a whole house. So if

29:39

you own your house, your expenditures

29:41

in life are much lower than if you don't

29:43

own your own house. Now keep this example in mind,

29:45

and we're going to start thinking about the government. So

29:48

I talk a lot on this channel about

29:50

increases in inequality of wealth, and

29:53

what I say very often is that there are

29:55

two groups in society who are losing their wealth,

29:57

that is ordinary working families.

30:00

like you, unless you're very rich, and

30:02

the government. And both of these

30:04

groups have lost their wealth significantly. Now, of

30:06

course, if you're an ordinary

30:08

family, especially if you're a young person

30:11

from an ordinary family, it will be very

30:13

visible to you that ordinary families are losing their wealth

30:15

because you'll be probably struggling to buy a home or

30:17

you may be in a situation where you think you

30:19

can never buy a home compared to

30:21

older generations who could buy property. But

30:24

the loss of government wealth is

30:26

often a lot less visible because we don't, you

30:29

know, we are not the government, we don't think about what the government owns.

30:32

So I went to a talk by famous

30:34

French inequality economist Thomas Piketty, of whom

30:36

I'm quite a big fan, a

30:39

few years ago when I was at Oxford. And he

30:41

showed us a graph, which I still remember today, and

30:43

we're going to show you that graph now, which

30:46

basically shows you government

30:48

wealth holding. So

30:51

what you can see in this graph is that all

30:53

of the countries in this graph, the wealth

30:56

holding of government has decreased significantly over time. So

30:58

that one line at the top is China. You

31:00

won't be surprised the Chinese government, it's

31:03

essentially a communist country, the government owns a lot of the

31:05

wealth in the country. The other

31:08

country on the graph are all Western countries. So you've got the

31:10

USA on there, UK in there, Germany,

31:12

Japan, I think France is on there. And

31:15

the story of the rest of these countries is basically all the same.

31:18

The wealth holding of the government has

31:20

decreased significantly over time. And

31:23

I wanted to notice that in the case of

31:25

both the UK and the US, that number

31:27

went down below 0% in the sort of

31:30

early 2010s. So

31:33

the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. So

31:35

what that means is the total wealth of the

31:38

UK government, the US government, and basically

31:40

every other Western government is in a pretty similar situation,

31:43

is now below zero. So

31:45

that means these guys have debts bigger than

31:47

their assets. And note that that graph ends

31:49

in 2014. The

31:52

situation during COVID got significantly worse. So

31:54

now these graphs will drop down significantly.

31:56

And what you will see is significant

31:58

negative wealth holding. the British

32:00

government or the American government,

32:02

basically every Western government. Now

32:05

I want you to remember the story I told

32:07

you about you and your house. Because

32:10

Western governments, including the British and American

32:12

governments are basically in this situation. Back

32:15

sort of 50 years ago, Western

32:17

governments had a lot of

32:19

wealth. They essentially owned

32:21

their own house. Now of course, when we talk about

32:23

governments, it's not just housing,

32:25

we're talking about governments owning things like

32:27

hospitals, like schools. But of

32:30

course in the case of the UK, the UK government

32:32

did own also a significant amount of housing back in

32:34

the 70s. And

32:36

governments have lost this wealth now. So

32:39

governments are in the same situation basically as you would be

32:41

if you lost your home. So

32:43

governments, they provide in the

32:45

West a lot of services, education, healthcare, they

32:47

used to provide housing for the poorest people

32:49

in the countries. And

32:52

they were able to do this because they

32:54

owned the wealth, they owned hospitals, they owned

32:56

schools, they owned housing. And what

32:59

we learned from that piketti graph that I

33:01

showed you is that basically Western governments do

33:03

not own any wealth anymore.

33:05

And the fact that the number has dropped below

33:08

zero means that not only do they not own

33:10

wealth, they're actually in a significant amount

33:12

of debt. So what does that mean?

33:14

Governments still need to provide you with healthcare, but

33:16

they don't own the hospital. Governments still

33:19

need to provide you with education, but

33:21

they don't own the school. Governments

33:23

still need to provide the poorest people

33:26

in society with housing, but they

33:28

don't own the homes. Now,

33:30

things like healthcare and education are

33:33

never very cheap to provide

33:35

anyway. You need to pay for doctors, you

33:37

need to pay for teachers, but

33:39

they're a lot cheaper to provide when you own the buildings. If

33:43

you don't own the building, then you need to pay rent on the building. If

33:46

you have a massive amount of debt, then you

33:48

need to pay interest on that debt. So

33:50

now governments are in situations, just as you were

33:52

in. Previously, they didn't need to pay that

33:54

rent. They didn't need to pay that debt

33:56

interest, and now they've got to pay it. What

33:59

that means is... if they want to provide you with

34:01

the same level of service that they used to provide you

34:03

with 30, 40, 50

34:05

years ago, they simply need

34:07

more tax money because they no

34:09

longer own the assets and they

34:12

need to pay rent or interest on those

34:14

assets. So I think this

34:16

is a really important thing for you

34:18

to understand and it really completely explains

34:20

the situation that we are in. The

34:22

reason that governments are having to charge

34:25

much higher levels of tax to

34:27

provide much worse levels of

34:29

service is quite simply because governments

34:32

are much, much poorer now. Governments

34:35

are really poor. I mean, governments are rich. They

34:37

have what you could call in modern

34:39

lingo passive income. They own the

34:42

property. They don't need to pay for the property and they

34:44

can use those passive incomes to provide you

34:46

with government services. Governments are no

34:48

longer rich. Governments are now very poor. They need to

34:50

rent everything they use. They need to pay interest and

34:52

that means they've taken that money from you and despite

34:55

taking more money from you, they can't provide services.

34:57

That is what happens when you go from being

34:59

rich to being poor. Now,

35:02

this wouldn't necessarily

35:04

be a problem if the assets

35:07

which the government has lost,

35:09

the wealth which the government has

35:12

lost were held by ordinary families.

35:14

So one thing I want you

35:16

to realize is this

35:18

loss in government wealth, these assets, these

35:20

hospitals, these schools, they have not disappeared.

35:22

They're all still here. These assets must

35:24

have gone to somebody

35:28

and if those assets had gone to ordinary

35:30

people, it wouldn't necessarily be

35:33

a problem. I think the best example to illustrate that

35:35

is the council housing. When

35:37

council housing was sold off in the

35:40

80s and the 90s, the

35:42

people who benefited from that initially were the people who

35:44

lived in the council houses and council houses were given

35:47

to poorer people. So it benefited the poorer

35:50

people. Now, the government didn't have the homes

35:52

but the people who needed the housing owned

35:54

their own homes. So it wasn't initially a

35:56

problem. If it was just a transfer of

35:58

wealth from the government. to the people,

36:01

then it wouldn't necessarily matter because the people

36:03

would be richer now, they could

36:05

pay more taxes, or the government wouldn't need

36:07

to provide so many services because you directly

36:09

would own things like your own homes.

36:13

The problem that we have is that actually,

36:16

in the last 34-year

36:19

period in which you have seen, governments have

36:21

massively lost their wealth, we have

36:24

also seen a significant loss of wealth in

36:27

ordinary families. And I think this is something

36:29

I talk about a lot on the channel,

36:31

but it is most visible in two things.

36:34

Number one, the massively decreased home

36:36

ownership rates for young people, here

36:39

in this country, and in the US,

36:41

ordinary families, their wealth tends to be in

36:43

housing. So if younger people are not

36:45

getting housing, it's a sign that families are losing

36:47

their wealth. And number

36:49

two, the massively increased debt levels for

36:52

ordinary families, especially families who manage to get a

36:54

mortgage. So I think this creates a kind of

36:57

interesting and confusing paradox, right? Which is,

37:00

how can it be possible that government has lost

37:02

its wealth and ordinary families

37:04

have lost their wealth? Now the government

37:06

gave, for example, the council housing to

37:09

ordinary families. Now you have

37:11

a situation where both ordinary families and governments

37:14

are struggling to get housing.

37:17

And I think this reveals the

37:19

core of the problem, which is something I talk about a lot

37:21

on this channel, which is that

37:23

wealth which transferred initially from the

37:25

government to ordinary families, has

37:28

over time ended up being held

37:30

by the very rich. And this

37:33

happens to, if you wanna understand the mechanism of this, you should

37:35

watch the video we put a couple of weeks ago called

37:38

How You Lose Your House, which is ordinary

37:41

people got this wealth from the

37:43

government. They use that wealth

37:45

to support their lives, to support their retirement, to pay for

37:47

ends of life care, and they ended up

37:49

setting that wealth to the rich. The

37:52

end situation is we

37:54

end up in a place where both

37:56

the government and ordinary families

37:58

have very little wealth. Now

38:00

this is, it's kind of a disastrous

38:03

situation right, because we've already learned government

38:06

is struggling to provide basic services now because

38:08

government is poor. What

38:11

does it mean if on top of that ordinary

38:13

families are poor? Well that means

38:16

ordinary families can't afford housing, which

38:18

means they really need housing. But

38:20

the government who used to have housing doesn't

38:22

have housing either, so they can't provide you with housing. It

38:25

also means that people

38:27

who are living lives of greater poverty, they

38:29

will live in worse conditions, they will live

38:31

in worse housing, they will eat worse diets,

38:34

they will have more stress, they will probably

38:36

face more crime, which means they'll need more

38:38

healthcare. The government can't provide more

38:40

healthcare because the government has

38:42

no assets. So

38:45

I think this really

38:48

realises, makes real the

38:50

problem that I talk about

38:52

on this channel. So people who've watched for a

38:54

long time will know I'm very, very worried about

38:56

growing inequality of wealth. And I think people

38:59

have become used to the idea that inequality

39:02

is a social problem. They're

39:06

used to people on the left arguing that we

39:08

need less inequality because it's unfair, it's not good

39:10

for society. My worry is

39:12

deeper than that. My worry is that when you

39:14

have very high levels of inequality, what it means

39:17

is you can't get basic

39:20

essential needs like housing and

39:22

healthcare and education. In

39:27

our economy, we have a distribution of resources. If

39:30

both governments and ordinary

39:32

families are losing their wealth, that

39:35

water is going to the super rich. Shop

39:43

incredible don't miss deals at ShopRite. This

39:45

week assorted varieties of Turkey Hill ice

39:47

cream are on sale now for only

39:49

$2.88 when you shop with

39:51

your ShopRite Price Plus card. Shop in

39:53

store or online at shoprite.com. Shop

39:56

right. Check out happy. Happy.

39:58

You love podcasts. the stories,

40:00

the laughs, the unexpected turns.

40:03

But when this episode ends, the

40:05

silence starts. Not anymore. audiobooks.com

40:08

turns that silence into your

40:10

next great adventure. With

40:14

over 450,000 titles, from bestsellers to

40:16

hidden gems, your love for listening

40:18

just found its new best friend.

40:20

And because you already know the joy of

40:22

audio, we're giving you three free audiobooks to

40:25

start your journey. Imagine

40:27

your favorite podcast. Now with

40:29

unlimited episodes. That's audiobooks.com.

40:32

Keep the story going.

40:34

Sign up for your

40:36

free trial at audiobooks.com/podcastfree

40:38

today. Because for podcast

40:40

lovers like you, the end of an episode

40:43

is just the beginning. That's

40:46

audiobooks.com/podcast S-R-E-E.

40:56

Incoming wealth is now more concentrated at the

40:58

top than at any time over the last

41:00

80 years. And our unjust

41:02

tax system is a big reason why.

41:05

The tax code is rigged for the rich, enabling

41:08

a handful of wealthy individuals to

41:10

exert undue influence over our economy

41:12

and democracy. Conservatives

41:15

fret about budget deficits. Well

41:17

then, to pay for what the nation needs.

41:20

Ending poverty, universal healthcare, infrastructure,

41:22

reversing climate change, investing in

41:24

communities so much more, the

41:27

super wealthy have to pay their

41:29

fair share. First, repeal

41:32

the Trump tax cuts. It's

41:34

no secret Trump's giant tax cut was

41:36

a giant giveaway to the rich. 65%

41:39

of its benefits go to the richest

41:41

fifth. 83% of the richest 1% over a

41:44

decade. In

41:47

2018, for the first time on record,

41:49

the 400 richest Americans paid a lower

41:51

effective tax rate than the bottom half.

41:54

Following the Trump tax cuts, benefits to the

41:57

wealthy and big corporations will raise

41:59

an estimated $500 billion over a decade. Second,

42:04

raise the tax rate on those at the

42:06

top. In the 1950s, the

42:08

highest tax rate on the richest Americans

42:11

was over 90%, even

42:13

after tax deductions and credits, they

42:16

still paid over 40%. But

42:19

since then, tax rates have

42:21

dropped chromatically. Today, after Trump's

42:23

tax cuts, the richest Americans pay

42:25

less than 26%, including

42:28

deductions and credits. And

42:30

this rate applies only to dollars

42:32

burned in 8 cents of $523,600.

42:37

Raising the marginal tax rate by just 1%

42:41

on the richest Americans would bring in an estimated

42:43

$123 billion over 10 years. Third,

42:48

a wealth tax on the

42:50

super wealthy. Wealth

42:52

is even more unequal than income. The

42:55

richest 1 tenth of 1% of Americans

42:58

have almost as much wealth as the bottom

43:00

90% put together. Just

43:02

during the pandemic, America's billionaires added

43:05

$1.3 trillion to their collective wealth.

43:09

Elizabeth Warren's proposed wealth tax would charge

43:12

2% on wealth over $50 billion and

43:16

3% on wealth over $1 billion.

43:20

It would only apply to about 75,000 US households, fewer

43:24

than 1 tenth of 1% of taxpayers. Under

43:27

it, for example, Jeff Bezos would owe

43:29

$5.7 billion. Out

43:32

of his $185 billion fortune, that's

43:36

less than half what he made in

43:38

one day last year. The

43:41

wealth tax would raise $2.75 trillion over a decade,

43:47

enough to pay for universal

43:49

childcare and free public college

43:51

with plenty left over. Fourth,

43:54

a transactions tax on trades

43:57

of stock. The richest

43:59

1% owns a wealth tax. 50% in this

44:01

country. A tiny 1.1% tax on financial transactions,

44:03

just $1 for $1,000 traded, would raise

44:11

$777 billion

44:14

over a decade. That's enough to

44:16

provide housing vouchers to all homeless people

44:18

in America more than 12 times

44:20

over. Fifth, end

44:23

the stepped-up cost basis loophole.

44:26

The heirs of the super-rich pay

44:28

zero capital gains taxes on huge

44:30

increases in the value of what

44:32

they inherit because of a loophole

44:35

called the stepped-up basis. At

44:37

the time of death, the value of

44:39

assets is stepped up to their current

44:41

market value. So, a stock

44:43

that was originally valued at, say, $1

44:46

when purchased, but that's worth $1,000 when

44:48

heirs receive it,

44:51

escapes $999 of capital

44:53

gains taxes. This loophole

44:55

enables huge and growing

44:57

concentrations of wealth to be

45:00

passed from generation to generation

45:02

without ever being taxed. Limiting

45:04

this loophole would raise $105 billion over a

45:07

decade. Sixth,

45:11

close other loopholes for the super-rich.

45:14

For example, one way the

45:16

managers of real estate, venture

45:18

capital, private equity, and hedge

45:20

funds reduce their taxes is

45:23

the carried interest loophole, which allows

45:25

them to treat their income

45:28

as capital gains rather than ordinary

45:30

wage income. That means they

45:32

get taxed at the lower capital

45:34

gains rate rather than the higher

45:37

tax rate on incomes. Closing

45:39

this loophole is estimated to raise $14

45:42

billion over a decade. Seventh,

45:46

increase IRS funding. Because

45:49

the IRS has been so underfunded,

45:52

millionaires are far less likely to be

45:54

audited than they used to be. As

45:57

a result, the IRS fails to collect

45:59

a huge amount of money. taxes from

46:01

the wealthy. Collecting all unpaid federal income

46:03

taxes from the richest 1% would generate

46:06

at least $1.75 trillion over the decade.

46:09

So fully fund the IRS. Together, these

46:11

seven ways

46:16

of taxing the rich would generate more than $6 trillion

46:19

over 10 years, enough to tackle the

46:22

great needs of the nation. As

46:24

inequality has exploded, our

46:27

unjust tax system has allowed the richest

46:29

Americans to cheat their way out of

46:31

paying their fair share. It's

46:33

not radical to rein in

46:36

this irresponsibility. It's

46:38

radical to let it continue.

47:00

We've just heard clips today starting with the

47:02

Hartman Report doing a rundown of the history

47:04

of the top level tax bracket. Americans

47:06

for Tax Fairness described the buy,

47:08

borrow, and die strategy of tax

47:11

evasion. Pullback explained how the

47:13

rich are paid in ways that allow them

47:15

to legally avoid taxes. Navarra

47:17

Media discussed wealth inequality and why

47:19

this needs to be an international

47:21

rather than national topic. Gary's

47:23

Economics looked at how the existence of the

47:25

super rich end up raising taxes for the

47:28

rest of us. And Robert Reich

47:30

gave a brief rundown of seven

47:32

strategies to tax wealth. That's

47:35

what everybody heard, but members also heard

47:37

bonus clips from the majority report looking

47:39

at the cultural roots of our belief

47:42

in the deserving rich. And

47:44

Pullback described the benefits of everyone

47:46

paying their fair share. To hear

47:48

that and have all of our

47:50

bonus content delivered seamlessly to the

47:52

new members-only podcast feed that you'll

47:55

receive, sign up to support the

47:57

show at bestoftheleft.com/support or shoot me

47:59

an email. requesting a financial hardship

48:01

membership because we don't let a lack of

48:03

funds stand in the way of hearing more

48:05

information. And now, we'll hear from

48:07

you. Hey

48:15

Jay, this is Nick from California. It's

48:17

been a while. I've been unplugging

48:19

a lot lately, so I've been

48:23

behind on all podcasts. But

48:25

I've been catching back up and I think I caught

48:27

some out of the long order and I think the

48:29

Israel Palestine episode was the

48:31

most recent episode. And I

48:34

listened to it and I just, I

48:37

don't know what we should

48:39

do because on one

48:41

hand I understand why people are giving

48:44

Joe Biden a tough time

48:47

on what he's doing in Israel. At

48:49

the same point, if Trump

48:52

gets elected because

48:54

of this issue, we

48:57

would then have someone in there

48:59

who would actively celebrate the carnage

49:01

there. Or it

49:04

would be worse. And

49:07

I've just been like, well, what

49:10

do you do when you have

49:12

the person

49:15

that's the lesser of the two evils, not

49:17

be the lesser of two evils on an issue,

49:19

or very least not enough of a lesser of

49:21

an evil on an issue. That's very

49:23

important to some. And

49:27

the alternative is Trump. I

49:29

just, I don't, I

49:32

hear these people's voices saying that,

49:35

well, if Joe Biden loses, it's the Democrats

49:37

fault. It's his fault. That's

49:40

fine, but it doesn't matter whose fault it

49:42

is. It doesn't matter whose

49:45

fault it is. The fact of the

49:47

matter is I don't know that our country can

49:49

survive another Trump administration. I

49:51

mean, just fall out. I don't know

49:53

climate change. I mean, everything. I just,

49:55

I don't know that we, I

49:58

don't know what will happen under another. Trump

50:00

administration, but there is

50:02

a much higher probability that we

50:05

implode as a country, maybe as a

50:07

species, with Trump up the

50:09

helm again. Maybe we

50:11

lose our democracy completely. And,

50:14

you know, that's terrifying to me.

50:17

And I just I really don't know the answer.

50:19

I'm not saying that these

50:21

people are wrong and they're thinking

50:24

they're not wanting to support Biden. And

50:26

it doesn't really matter to me whose fault it is in

50:29

the end. What matters

50:31

is what

50:33

is going to be the ramifications over the next four

50:35

years. Given the horrors

50:37

in Gaza, I really don't know what the answers

50:39

are. So thanks.

50:50

Thanks to Nick for those comments.

50:53

It is definitely a complicated matter

50:55

to attempt to either understand or

50:57

influence a person's personal voting decisions.

51:00

But we try anyway. Every

51:02

four years around this time, basically like

51:05

clockwork, I find myself having to give

51:07

a few of these little talks about

51:09

voting mechanics and series of change because

51:11

there's always a segment of the population.

51:13

A segment of the population who feels

51:15

very passionately about voting based on something

51:17

other than a dispassionate

51:20

weighing of the options that

51:22

will hopefully actually take

51:25

themselves and society as a whole to

51:27

a better place rather than a worse

51:29

place. Now, in 2016,

51:31

this is a classic case. It

51:34

was the Bernie or bus crowd

51:36

that was so incensed and rightfully

51:38

so that the

51:41

DNC and the Clinton campaign did

51:43

a bunch of things against the Bernie Sanders

51:45

campaign. And so the Bernie supporters,

51:47

not all of them, not by a long shot.

51:50

I was a Bernie Sanders supporter and did

51:52

not follow this logic. But

51:54

some Bernie Sanders supporters felt like they

51:56

needed to then turn and use their

51:58

vote in the general election. election

52:00

after Bernie had lost at the primaries to

52:03

send a message or to

52:06

inflict punishment on the Democratic

52:08

Party or on Hillary Clinton

52:10

or just even defeat this

52:13

person who they saw as someone too

52:15

terrible to be elected, even

52:18

if it meant electing someone

52:20

demonstrably more terrible. That

52:24

is pretty much the situation we find ourselves in

52:26

today, but it's far from

52:28

a perfect analogy because the complaint against

52:30

Clinton and company was largely that she

52:33

was too much of the establishment and

52:35

too much of a neoliberal, a

52:38

complaint I sympathize with, but

52:40

I wouldn't risk right-wing authoritarianism

52:42

just to defeat, establishmentarianism

52:46

or neoliberalism.

52:50

While the complaint today against Biden

52:52

is that he's complicit in genocide, which

52:55

is admittedly a problem of notably

52:58

higher gravity and so that does complicate things a

53:00

bit or at

53:03

least it makes the emotional drive

53:05

to vote in a way that

53:07

would send a message or inflict punishment

53:09

or even to defeat someone seen as

53:11

too terrible to be elected, it makes

53:15

all that much more understandable. The

53:17

fact that the opponent is the

53:20

same dude and is still demonstrably

53:22

worse even on this specific topic

53:24

of Israel and Gaza, not just

53:26

in general, but on this topic,

53:29

it continues to make that

53:31

emotional reaction illogical even if

53:33

it is still understandable. If

53:36

you want to understand these dynamics, maybe

53:39

not super well, but possibly

53:41

as well as you can, I

53:44

recommend a recent article from Slate magazine

53:46

titled, The Storm Brewing in

53:48

Michigan, Are Arabs in the State

53:50

Really Prepared to Hand the Presidency

53:52

Back to Donald Trump? In

53:54

a word, yes. And

53:57

this piece was written by an Arab American

53:59

reporter. quarter, who wins to Michigan, or

54:01

maybe lives there, I'm not sure, to

54:04

speak with other Arab Americans about the

54:06

presidential election and their feelings toward Joe

54:08

Biden in light of his support of

54:11

Israel during the war in Gaza. The

54:14

article describes the anger toward

54:16

Biden among this crowd as,

54:18

quote, intense and tangible. And

54:21

the writer also says, quote, I've

54:24

now come to understand

54:26

the incandescent rage many

54:28

feel toward Biden, end quote. And

54:31

to me, just the use of

54:33

that phrase incandescent rage almost preclude

54:36

... First of all, it's very illuminating. I'm

54:39

really glad to have that insight to really

54:41

understand how people are feeling. But

54:43

it also ... When I think of someone

54:46

who is in a state of incandescent rage,

54:49

I think of a person basically

54:51

precluded from the possibility of

54:53

clear thought and analysis, which

54:56

is not at all to dismiss

54:58

the rage as irrational in the

55:00

least. I think the rage is

55:02

completely justified, just as,

55:05

again, another imperfect analogy, just

55:07

as Americans were right to be

55:09

angry after 9-11, and Israelis were

55:12

right to be angry after October

55:14

7th. But in both

55:16

of those cases, that anger

55:18

was channeled to retaliate wildly

55:20

in the hope of doing

55:22

maximal damage, which

55:24

was successful in one sense, but

55:27

which also came at the great

55:29

cost of much self-inflicted damage. And

55:32

my concern is that the Arab community in the US

55:34

is about to do the same thing. But

55:38

in packs to that specific

55:40

community aside, the writer

55:42

did manage to find one local Arab

55:44

American in Dearborn, Michigan who would admit

55:46

to planning on voting for Biden. And

55:48

that person said, quote, it's

55:51

depressing to think of our community as

55:53

being so selfish. You're willing

55:55

to put someone who, there's no

55:57

question, will be a worse president.

56:00

for black people than Joe Biden. He's

56:02

going to be worse for more people.

56:04

Things are going to be worse for

56:06

students, for workers, for gay people, for

56:08

women. That difference matters." And

56:11

the writer continues, "...the

56:13

small difference between candidates may seem insignificant

56:15

to some," he said, but he believes

56:17

four more years of Trump will have

56:20

tangible consequences for real people. Quote, "...one

56:23

of their neighbors is going to not be

56:25

able to make rent because of this fucking

56:27

decision. Your kid's art program at school is

56:29

going to close because of this shit. And

56:32

people feel so righteous, that's the part that bothers

56:34

me. The world as a

56:36

whole matters," he said. His

56:39

children are half black and one is

56:41

trans. He doesn't understand how no one

56:43

can see what another Trump presidency will

56:45

bring. And then

56:48

the final quote that I'll read from this interview, the

56:50

guy says, quote, "...previous

56:52

generations of Arab activists understood this.

56:54

They didn't see Palestine in a

56:56

vacuum. They saw it as part

56:59

of an international struggle. So deciding

57:01

everything else has to come to

57:03

a stop to make this thing

57:05

that isn't going to change anything

57:08

policy-wise. It's a literal

57:10

objective fact that Donald Trump's proposed

57:12

notions for Palestine are worse than

57:14

Biden's, which is hard to do."

57:18

And he actually goes on to

57:20

praise the activism, meaning that if

57:23

it was directed in the right way, it

57:25

would be really powerful and good for their

57:27

local constituency, where people who care about Palestine

57:29

can truly have a voice. But

57:32

he laments that all of that energy

57:34

is going into defeating Biden to send

57:37

a message or inflict punishment, or maybe even

57:39

to defeat him because it'll feel good in

57:42

the moment to get rid of someone you

57:44

see as having genocidal blood on your hands

57:46

as, you know, of course it would, but

57:49

to actively usher in someone

57:51

demonstrably much, much worse

57:54

like Trump, not just for

57:56

your own community, but many others as well, is

57:58

going to be the self-inflicted. the damage

58:00

that makes the desire for

58:03

revenge ultimately not worth it. That

58:06

is going to be it for today. As always, keep

58:08

the comments coming in. I would love to hear your

58:10

thoughts or questions about this or anything else. You can

58:13

leave a voicemail or send us a text at 202-999-3991

58:15

or simply email me to jatbestoftheleft.com. Thanks to

58:21

everyone for listening. Thanks to Dion Clark

58:23

and Aaron Clayton for their research work

58:25

for the show and participation in our

58:27

bonus episodes. Thanks to our Transcriptions Quartet,

58:30

Ken, Brian, Ben, and Andrew for their

58:32

volunteer work helping put our transcripts together.

58:34

Thanks to Amanda Hossen for all of

58:36

her work behind the scenes and her

58:38

bonus show co-hosting. And thanks to those

58:40

who already support the show by becoming

58:43

a member or purchasing a gift to

58:45

memberships. You can join them by signing

58:47

up today at bestoftheleft.com/support through our Patreon

58:49

page or from right inside the Apple

58:51

Podcast app. Membership is how you get

58:53

instant access to our incredibly good and

58:55

often funny bonus episodes in addition to

58:57

there being extra content, no ads, and

58:59

chapter markers in all of our regular

59:02

episodes all through your regular podcast player.

59:04

You'll find that link in the show notes along

59:06

with a link to join our Discord community where

59:08

you can also continue the discussion. So

59:10

coming to you from far outside the conventional wisdom

59:12

of Washington, DC, my name is Jay and

59:15

this has been the Best of the Lost

59:17

Podcast coming to you twice weekly, thanks

59:19

entirely to the members and donors to

59:21

the show from bestoftheloves.com. Thank

59:27

you. At

1:00:00

Giant Eagle, you may have spotted

1:00:03

the Stacker. With uncanny My Perks

1:00:05

ability, she stacks up the perks

1:00:07

to choose either dollars off or

1:00:09

up to 20% off her entire

1:00:11

grocery bill. The Stacker, stacking

1:00:13

up huge savings with My Perks.

1:00:16

Find your My Perks-anality and

1:00:18

transform your shopping into free

1:00:20

gas and groceries. Full

1:00:22

details at gianteagle.com/My Perks.

1:00:25

Perks cannot be earned or be deemed on

1:00:27

select items. Restrictions apply. Watch

1:00:30

the total silvery clips at Seneca

1:00:32

Resorts and Casinos. Join us

1:00:34

on Monday, April 8th for

1:00:36

events filled with food, drinks,

1:00:38

DJs, viewing glasses and more.

1:00:40

Family friendly at Seneca Niagara

1:00:42

and Seneca Allegheny. 21

1:00:44

and up at Seneca Buffalo Creek. The first 200

1:00:47

guests at each property receive a

1:00:49

commemorative t-shirt. Book your overnight stay

1:00:51

now so you don't miss it.

1:00:53

Get all the details at senecacasinos.com.

1:00:56

Seneca Resorts and Casinos. Nothing else

1:00:58

comes close.