0:01

The rising inequality in growing political

0:03

instability that we see today are

0:05

the direct result of decades of

0:07

bad economic theory. It's time to

0:10

build our economy for the bottom

0:12

up of the middle out. Not

0:14

with top down. middle out economics

0:16

is the answer Because was Three

0:18

didn't build this country. Great middle

0:21

class filters country. The more the

0:23

middle class thrives, the better the

0:25

economy is for everyone. Even rich

0:27

people like need. This

0:34

is Pitchfork Economics with Nick A

0:36

An Hour a podcast about how

0:38

to build the economy from and

0:40

middle out. Welcome to the Show.

0:50

So. Goal The It: Today we're

0:52

going to talk to Suzanne

0:54

Khan, who serves as vice

0:56

President at the Roosevelt Institute,

0:58

an organization we work closely

1:00

with, and she's here to

1:02

talk about their new report

1:04

which is called C Change

1:06

How A New Economics went

1:08

mainstream and I think he

1:10

would. I would have a

1:12

lot of. He.

1:15

You know, like we. We were a lot

1:17

to say about the report itself. I think

1:19

our analysis of. The. Sea Change

1:21

would take a different form or I

1:23

mean not new. Well I wouldn't have

1:26

a lap, it would overlap but in

1:28

my saying if we it we'd probably

1:30

give ourselves a little more credit. share.

1:34

An answer. Different kinds of things and

1:36

in a different order and so on

1:38

and so forth. But he here's the

1:40

thing that is one hundred percent correct

1:42

about the report is that there has

1:44

been a sea change. Were in the

1:46

middle of it, right? we are. We

1:48

are in the middle of a have

1:50

a profound sea change. And in

1:52

fact, Nick, You and I, we've

1:54

we've actually been writing about this

1:56

for an upcoming publication. We we

1:58

feel that way. we're

2:00

in a middle-out moment. Yeah but

2:22

what kind of things

2:24

were possible, so on

2:26

and so forth. You know, put aside who

2:29

did what and how it all happened. No

2:32

matter what, it's an extraordinarily

2:35

important and consequential moment. And

2:40

something to be celebrated and

2:43

promoted. And it

2:45

is incredibly consequential, potentially what's

2:47

happening now. Of course, look,

2:52

we don't know how this, how the 2024 election will turn out.

2:55

It could turn out that Trump wins

2:57

and everything the Biden administration has done gets

2:59

thrown out the window, along with all of our democratic

3:01

institutions and norms. And

3:08

that's the end of life as we know it. It could be that Biden

3:10

wins and Trumpsters have an armed rebellion and we get the same thing as

3:12

if Biden lost. Or it

3:14

could be that we have four more years of Joe Biden

3:16

in the White House pushing Bidenomics, which we think is very

3:19

middle-out. And

3:23

it is enough time to complete the paradigm shift that had happened in the early,

3:25

similar to the one that happened in the early 80s when Ronald Reagan, of course,

3:27

was in the early 80s, was in the early 80s. And

3:44

that really ushered in the

3:46

Reagan Revolution, the neoliberal revolution,

3:49

the economic paradigm that we've been living under ever since.

3:54

And this Biden revolution,

3:56

this middle-out revolution could be a

3:58

big part of the world. The. The

4:01

guiding paradigm for the next few

4:03

decades or more. A paradigm which

4:05

we think is better capable of.

4:08

Addressing. Are a crisis

4:10

of economic inequality are are

4:12

Arg, crisis of faith in

4:15

democracy and of course the

4:17

climate crisis which Neo Liberalism

4:19

cannot cannot. It is impossible

4:21

for Neoliberalism to address the

4:24

climate crisis or because it

4:26

will argue that you do

4:28

whatever the market does I

4:31

is the most efficient and

4:33

beneficial and moral and just

4:35

outcome fry. Ah, end of

4:37

the Market. Will never addressed this

4:39

on it's own because as long as

4:41

there is money to be made, By.

4:44

Burning oil and cutting down rain

4:46

forest. then that is what the

4:48

market will do just because they

4:50

have the right to do with

4:52

property rights and encumbered by government

4:54

and all that. so yachts. Anyway,

4:56

you'll be really interesting, talk to

4:58

Suzanne about their report and to

5:00

go through the the elements of

5:02

it and with that let's talk.

5:04

This is at. An

5:10

event on and their Vice President

5:13

of the think Tank at the

5:15

Result Institute. We are a think

5:17

tank that so kisses on changing

5:19

the conversation in which policy has

5:21

made and we work across issue

5:24

areas from climate to corporate power

5:26

at higher education by a common

5:28

theme and all of them is

5:30

kind of move away from neo

5:32

liberal policy paradigms and think about

5:35

new economic policy paradigms. I can

5:37

help us build a more accurate

5:39

a ball economy. And my

5:41

own expertise is really on labor

5:43

and social insurance systems. Ama historian

5:46

by training and night at work

5:48

with I came across a really

5:50

broad portfolio issue areas. Most recently

5:52

I got to work on a

5:55

report we did called. Speech

5:57

zones or bouts of

5:59

every. When it happened over the

6:01

last fifteen years to get us to

6:03

the economic policymaking moment we are now

6:06

and. More. Thanks for joining

6:08

us So regular listeners know that that

6:10

intersection between history and economics. That's my

6:12

sweet spot. That's what I love to

6:14

talk about so it's great to have

6:17

you on the pod Nick You want

6:19

to start off? Sure, I mean so

6:21

you've got to see report out once.

6:23

You kind of give us some the

6:26

top. Set. Sell Out

6:28

We called it see to ends

6:30

And because it is really about

6:32

what a huge change has occurred

6:35

over the last fifteen years, years

6:37

or so in that and shared

6:39

common sense in which policymakers make

6:41

economic policy. I know this is

6:44

something you all have talk about

6:46

on previous episodes but again. What

6:48

we were really wanted. To document

6:50

and look out was how different

6:53

the for policy making landscape is

6:55

now and then it was. Even.

6:58

Honestly, four years ago you will

7:00

during the Obama administration right during

7:03

the about an assertion that Trump

7:05

administration. And we really wanted

7:07

to trace out what had happened to

7:09

get us to this moment. And.

7:11

How we got to a point where policies

7:14

that were. Unimaginable.

7:16

Eight. Years ago. For years ago. Everything

7:18

from how Biden responded to the.

7:20

Coven. Nineteen Recession within massive investment

7:23

and actually spending money and

7:25

not austerity policies to the

7:27

climate policies in the Ira,

7:29

to his willingness to train

7:31

council seat and Dad are

7:33

all with a representative of

7:35

a much larger shaft away

7:37

away from thinking about policymaking

7:39

as something that should happen

7:41

with markets as a central

7:43

frame. So. That was that. sort of

7:45

the top. My number one and then I would

7:47

say toppling number two is. We. Are in

7:49

as. Gary. Moment we don't

7:52

know why or place the

7:54

neoliberal assumptions of the past,

7:56

we at Roosevelt certainly are

7:58

proposing that new. frameworks that

8:00

would move us in a more

8:02

progressive direction that center equity

8:04

and concern for our climate.

8:07

But where we're going next is up

8:09

for grabs and we thought that a

8:11

first step to helping direct

8:14

that was to document how far we've come

8:16

which can hopefully give us the momentum in

8:18

that progressive direction. So

8:20

I mean what are the

8:22

high points? Or you could you

8:24

could also start from the low points to the

8:26

high points where we were 15 years ago to

8:29

where we are now. It is quite remarkable.

8:31

Yeah. Well I'll say

8:33

our joke sort of like internal

8:35

joking title for this before

8:37

we released it was Millennials

8:40

Now Old. And we

8:42

really felt like as we were writing it this

8:44

was a story about the lessons a whole generation

8:46

of people learned from living through the economic crisis

8:49

of 2008-2009 and sort of the long 10 years

8:51

after that.

8:57

So we started a lot of

8:59

the story with Occupy Wall Street

9:01

as a response to the neoliberal

9:03

framework with which the economic crisis

9:05

was met and really

9:07

tried to show how the groundwork was laid

9:09

on a whole range of issues. I think

9:12

it's fair to say no one really

9:14

expected in during the presidential

9:16

primary of 2020 that

9:20

Biden would be the guy who like

9:23

made all

9:25

of these or made many

9:27

of those ideas become at

9:29

least partial realities that

9:32

had been ideas that had been

9:34

coming up from movements and economists

9:36

and think tanks on really pushing

9:38

the edge of pushing against

9:40

neoliberalism for you know the past 10 or

9:42

so years but the world

9:45

changed so fast that the

9:47

Biden-Omics agenda has really a

9:49

reflected many of those lessons

9:51

that I think were started

9:54

to be learned and thought through in

9:56

the wake of that 2009 recession. One

9:58

of the advantages to having an 80 year

10:01

old president is that Joe

10:04

Biden actually was elected to

10:06

the Senate before neoliberalism took

10:09

hold. So he's old

10:11

enough to remember what it was like

10:13

before neoliberalism and what type of policies

10:15

we had back then. Yes,

10:17

even older than the millennials who are now older. Yes.

10:21

So let's talk about some of these

10:23

policies and how they're different. I'm also

10:26

curious, not just from the

10:28

policy perspective, but how the

10:30

economic thinking that underlies

10:32

and informs these policies

10:35

has changed. Yeah, absolutely.

10:37

I mean, one of my favorite

10:39

examples is actually student debt. I

10:42

think you can really trace

10:44

an interesting arc from, again, Occupy

10:47

Wall Street all the way through to

10:50

Biden ultimately trying to cancel student debt.

10:52

We can put the Supreme Court aside

10:54

for a second. But one

10:56

of the things that really comes

10:58

up during the Occupy moment is

11:00

challenges to how

11:03

much debt people are holding across a whole or

11:05

for a whole variety of reasons and really

11:07

challenging that. But the challenge to

11:09

student debt gets really institutionalized. A

11:12

bunch of organizations, including the debt

11:14

collective, are formed out of

11:16

the initial Occupy moment. And

11:18

they really start to put together a

11:20

challenge to the idea that higher education

11:23

should be paid for in this

11:25

way, which is to say buy

11:27

individuals using private financing, which

11:30

was really sort of the

11:32

product of neo-liberal policy ideas

11:35

that said we're

11:37

all individuals who compete in a market.

11:39

We all have our own personal

11:42

human capital to invest in. And

11:45

investing in higher education for ourselves will

11:48

be a good investment that prepares us

11:50

to be little market actors who are

11:52

going out into an equitable, like a

11:54

free market and we're just all going to compete

11:56

from an equal starting platform. So I think over the course

11:59

of the. the 2020, the 2010s, you really see a growing

12:01

challenge to this, this neoliberal

12:06

idea about human capital, underlying,

12:10

like growing movement for free college and debt cancellation,

12:12

UC Bernie Sanders pick it up in the 2016

12:15

campaign. And then

12:17

by the 2020 Democratic primary, sort

12:20

of all the candidates are fighting

12:22

for who has the most progressive free college

12:25

and debt cancellation plan. And

12:27

one of the results of that is that

12:30

when the COVID-19

12:32

pandemic starts, and there are

12:35

sort of looking around for

12:37

ways to get money back into people's

12:39

pockets and stimulate the economy, student debt

12:41

payments get paused, which I don't think would

12:44

have happened without that eight years of work,

12:46

putting that idea forward. And

12:49

it creates a momentum of its own. So

12:51

that when you know, when Biden comes in

12:53

into office, people have not been paying student

12:55

debt payments for months that continues. And ultimately,

12:57

we see him try

13:00

and cancel student debt and make

13:02

major reforms to the way that

13:04

payment systems work going forward as

13:06

well. Right. And it's interesting, because

13:08

when you look at opposition to

13:10

student debt forgiveness, it's

13:12

often presented as like totally

13:15

outside the norm that somehow

13:17

we're going to take this large group of

13:19

people and say, Oh, you don't have to

13:22

pay your debt and that that is un-American

13:24

in some way. But really, it's the student

13:26

debt itself that is the historical anomaly. Our

13:29

entire public education system,

13:31

both K-12 and

13:34

public colleges and universities,

13:37

was founded on

13:39

the notion that a

13:41

well-educated, skilled workforce was

13:44

a public good, not

13:47

private, personal owned

13:50

human capital. But it's a

13:52

public good it was advocated for

13:54

by industry because they knew they

13:56

needed a Literate and

13:58

numerous workforce. I. In

14:01

a modern economy and it's the neo liberal

14:03

era where we say no, no, no, that's

14:05

a private good you should pay for yourself.

14:08

That's the historical anomaly. So.

14:10

It Again, It's it's. In some

14:12

ways, it's fascinating to see this start

14:14

to shift back to what it had

14:17

been for The. Their. Previous

14:19

Hundred and fifty years. The

14:21

I I completely agree and I think

14:23

you know where result that a lot

14:25

of work and the twenty and and

14:27

twenty eighteen twenty nine pm. Looking at

14:29

all the different ways that that idea

14:31

about human capital had. Been.

14:34

Miss understood And so we have

14:36

a great paper about House. Actually,

14:38

employers are just demanding more and

14:40

more credentials for the same jobs

14:42

and seven several her pet hates.

14:44

It's not that you're actually investing

14:46

ourselves. And aware that is getting new. Near.

14:48

Recovery know, growing your i guess

14:51

returns on investment and more as

14:53

and killer even more damningly employers.

14:55

Are demanding many more degrees for

14:57

the same jobs from. Black. Applicants

15:00

than from what. We.

15:02

See that their study showing that as

15:04

sir. Unemployment goes up

15:06

ah employers demand more credentials

15:08

as the labor market titans,

15:10

and it's harder for them

15:12

to find workers. They demand

15:14

fewer for dungeon. So

15:17

it's a market power. Issue

15:19

is so Speaking of market power, What? What

15:21

are we talking for? Little bit or suzanne

15:23

about promoting competition. Tickets. To that.

15:26

I think another thing you see

15:28

over the course of the twenties

15:30

handles a growing sense. That.

15:33

That is. Very. Large

15:35

companies like Alice has

15:37

adding more and more

15:40

control over Alive and

15:42

are. being allowed to

15:44

grow and self absorbed and

15:46

competitors and because of the

15:48

way we've come to understand

15:50

competition policy and any trust

15:52

law and one of the

15:54

another big chef that you

15:57

see abiding messrs in implementing

15:59

as appointing Lena Kahn, who

16:01

was one of the leading critics of

16:03

corporate concentration and as founder of

16:05

the Neo-Brandisian School

16:08

of Antitrust to

16:10

run the FTC. And so we

16:12

see them really centering an idea

16:15

around needing more competition

16:17

and really taking on corporate concentration,

16:19

which I think is a larger

16:22

part of, it's obviously its own pillar

16:24

of binomics, but I think, but

16:27

across the board, one

16:29

of the breaks with neoliberalism that

16:31

is really significant that we're seeing

16:34

is an understanding of power

16:36

and really trying to understand how power is

16:38

playing out, whether it's in labor

16:40

markets or among companies

16:43

or in shaping public policy and

16:45

the competition policy is part of

16:47

that. Right. And that is

16:50

really kind of a core feature

16:52

of neoliberalism is wishing

16:54

away power, I think knowingly

16:57

because it's an

16:59

ideology created to benefit people

17:02

who have lots of powers. You

17:04

want to pretend it doesn't exist.

17:06

But it's actually deep it deeper

17:08

than the weaponized ideological framework of

17:10

neoliberalism powers wished away and,

17:13

you know, in neoclassical economics, right?

17:15

Like the problem is deeper and

17:17

worse, because you can't make the

17:19

math work if power exists, right,

17:23

in these equilibrium systems, you

17:25

know, you have to assume power away.

17:27

How do you magnetize power? Yeah, exactly.

17:29

It's very difficult. And, you know, if

17:32

you desperate to believe that markets are

17:34

perfectly efficient, and people are perfectly selfish

17:36

and rational, and, you

17:38

know, the economy is pretty optimal, power

17:40

is very awkward. And ignoring

17:43

power in economics would be like

17:45

ignoring gravity in physics. You

17:48

know, like you're missing the big part. And

17:52

obviously, one of the most exciting

17:54

things about the Biden administration is

17:56

their Head on approach to

17:59

this problem. And if.

18:01

We can get another four years.

18:03

Probably the most important legacy may

18:05

be maybe the these executive orders

18:07

that are trying to make markets

18:09

truly competitive rather than the oligopolies

18:11

said. They mostly are just really.

18:14

Really? Exciting. A non

18:16

serious suzanne, we have a take

18:18

on this, but whether you and

18:20

your colleagues see a coherent narrative

18:23

in. By. Dynamics' and

18:25

it's three court stated. Their.

18:27

Their self self proclaimed

18:30

three pillars of empowering

18:32

workers. Making smart

18:35

investments and promoting competition.

18:37

Dcs coherent economic narrative

18:39

in that. Ideal.

18:41

And so we all have thoughts about

18:44

how well that narrative beg. Present.

18:46

Add but I think a especially for

18:48

sounds like you I need a who

18:51

have been thinking a lot about Neo

18:53

Liberal As an end? it's coherent narrative,

18:55

the three pillars into. All.

18:58

Take. On the idea that.

19:01

Marquette, Are. The

19:03

primary frame through which

19:05

public policy. And

19:08

that the government's role as flat markets. The

19:10

markets. And

19:12

I'm Amy. I think it all goes

19:14

back to that power peace words are

19:16

talking about In I think they're all

19:18

trying to look at. how do we.

19:21

Shift who or what companies have

19:23

power and actually say there's a

19:26

role for the government and to

19:28

play in. Choosing. Who

19:30

we want to have power and how we want

19:33

them to have power in his Around these different

19:35

issues we need at all. right? And

19:37

and and and Reap Balancing

19:39

that power imbalance mean that

19:41

is you know is implicit

19:44

in their pillars of empowering

19:46

workers. It's it's it's to

19:48

use government to either provide

19:50

or to enable. ah, this

19:53

countervailing power in a segment

19:55

of the market which is

19:57

No even Adam Smith acknowledged.

20:00

is leans in favor of the

20:02

employer. That

20:04

workers are naturally, individual workers

20:06

are naturally at a disadvantage

20:08

in terms of their

20:10

power relationship with their employer. This

20:13

is very different from the neoliberal approach

20:15

of, oh, just let the markets

20:17

work it all out and we'll end up with

20:20

an efficient and fair outcome because that's how markets

20:22

always work. Yeah. And

20:24

everyone has equal power in the system. Let's

20:27

get to some of the specifics

20:29

of this report in terms of

20:32

what has led to these changes

20:34

both in policy and theory.

20:36

Obviously, we've got two

20:38

big ones, which kind of bookend

20:41

this, which is the financial

20:43

collapse, the great recession

20:45

and that long, painful,

20:47

slow growth recovery. And

20:49

then on the other end, the pandemic. But

20:52

there's a lot of things that

20:54

happened in between and Nick and

20:57

I were chatting before you joined

20:59

us. And one of the

21:01

things we noticed was missing from the

21:03

report was a mention of the Fight

21:05

for 15 and the success

21:07

of these minimum

21:10

wage movements in cities

21:12

and states around the country. I'm

21:14

curious how whether you feel

21:16

the fight for a minimum

21:18

wage kind of changed the way

21:20

people think about economics and

21:22

also if you want to go through some

21:25

of the other things that helped

21:27

brought us to this moment. That's

21:29

a great point about the Fight for 15. I

21:32

think we really tried to

21:34

pick a few examples

21:36

kind of within each pillar to

21:38

chart. I do think it'd

21:41

be interesting to think about where the Fight

21:43

for 15 would fit in there. I

21:46

certainly think it's part of the empower and educate

21:48

workers track. I absolutely do think

21:50

the Fight for 15 was a significant

21:52

moment. I think a lot of

21:54

the Biden administration's biggest successes

21:57

around worker empowerment.

22:00

have really come back actually to the

22:03

ARP and the decision

22:05

to prioritize full employment

22:07

over, in some ways, inflation.

22:13

We don't talk enough about how

22:15

that has really allowed for the

22:17

wave of strikes and empowerment of

22:19

workers as sort of a generational

22:21

high. So I think that we were

22:24

focused on that piece of the story and Fight for

22:26

15 is probably more related to

22:28

some of the unfinished business, but I

22:30

think there's still a lot of work

22:32

to do to reform our labor laws

22:35

at the national level. I think what we would

22:37

tell you is that we always viewed it as

22:39

a wedge issue. That the Fight

22:41

for 15 was both

22:43

good policy in that it

22:46

has. Clearly, the study show

22:48

it's had a huge

22:50

impact on people's lives in terms

22:52

of raising wages at the

22:55

low and even pushing up a bit as

22:59

people above minimum wage

23:01

jobs rise in response. But it also I

23:03

think has done a great job not just

23:06

just of educating workers as

23:08

to, hey, we can win something

23:10

like this. But I think pundits,

23:12

journalists, economists, the fact that it

23:15

called the lie on

23:17

one of the core principles, not

23:19

just of neoliberalism, but of neoclassical

23:21

economics, that when the price of

23:23

something rises, people purchase less of

23:26

it. That the labor

23:28

market is somehow locked into

23:30

the law of supply and demand. That

23:33

if you raise the minimum wage, employers

23:36

will hire fewer low wage

23:38

workers and that has turned

23:40

out not to be

23:42

true. Again and again, either there's no

23:44

correlation the study show or

23:47

in fact that recent study showing

23:49

that the higher the minimum wage

23:51

went, the larger the increase

23:53

in employment locally. To us, we

23:57

think this is just it calls the lie

23:59

on Orthodox economics entirely because if

24:01

they're wrong about something as basic as

24:03

that, what else are they

24:06

wrong about? Yeah, it feels to us

24:08

like the $15 minimum wage was the

24:10

first big assault on neoliberalism because

24:12

the Orthodox thinking was when you raise

24:14

wages, it kills jobs. And

24:17

the degree to which that idea

24:19

got embedded in policymaking explains

24:23

probably a trillion or a trillion and

24:25

a half dollars of the trillion of

24:28

the two and a half trillion dollar

24:30

shift in income from the bottom 90% to the top 1%.

24:36

All of these things I think

24:38

together combine to shake the sort

24:41

of neoliberal and neoclassical way of

24:43

understanding economic cause and effect which

24:45

makes things like canceling student debt,

24:48

promoting competition, all that other stuff

24:51

seem more logical and plausible. I

24:53

mean the title of your report

24:55

I think is really spot on

24:57

which is sea change. Right,

25:00

it is a profound change in

25:04

how policymakers see economic

25:06

cause and effect and

25:09

I think what's really

25:12

remarkable is that we had eight

25:14

years of the Democratic administration not

25:16

very long ago that had

25:18

the political power to do all the stuff

25:20

that the Biden administration has done but just

25:22

chose not to do it because

25:24

the economists that were running that

25:26

policy shop thought that all of

25:28

those things would be a big

25:30

government job killing attack on freedom.

25:33

Right, and kudos by the way to Roosevelt which played

25:35

a big role in

25:37

making sure those guys didn't get their

25:39

jobs back. That's right. The

25:43

old, I'd

25:46

say that personnel is

25:48

policy and Roosevelt played

25:51

a big role in helping the staff,

25:53

the recommending

25:56

staff for the Biden administration

25:58

so it's a much better better

26:00

personnel than we've had in the past. Yeah,

26:02

we're very proud of that. And I think, I

26:04

mean, I do think that the, you

26:07

know, you asked what are the things

26:09

that change and I do think that

26:11

the experience of sort of

26:13

the promise of the Obama administration, I

26:16

worked on that campaign, I remember

26:18

the excitement of the

26:20

election and then the, I think there

26:22

was a visceral experience of the sort

26:25

of grip neoliberalism actually had on all

26:28

policy imagination that occurred over

26:31

those eight years that are part of what

26:33

laid the groundwork for this sea change. No,

26:35

I would add to that, you know, an accelerating

26:37

climate crisis as well. And for

26:39

the Trump administration. Yes. Well, and then

26:41

there's the, but in some ways I

26:43

think that's a different visceral experience. Let's

26:47

be fair to Obama. It's not his fault

26:49

that he was so young. Look,

26:52

do I generally think our

26:54

president should be in their 80s? No.

26:59

But, but it's not again,

27:01

I repeat this a lot. It's not

27:04

all bad, especially in

27:06

this moment when you have somebody with

27:08

the long life of

27:11

experience to know that there are other ways of

27:13

doing things than the way we've been doing it

27:15

for the past 40 years. So

27:18

a couple of final questions. The first is

27:20

our benevolent dictator question. So if you were

27:22

in charge of everything, what would

27:24

you do? We

27:27

at Roosevelt, because I think so much

27:29

of our work is about the paradigm

27:31

level and trying to shift the conversation.

27:33

We spend a lot of time thinking

27:35

about what a different policy world would

27:37

look like. But I

27:40

think we start to fail at our job when

27:42

we reject all political constraints. And

27:44

I'll, and I will tell you why I think we,

27:46

and, you know, I can imagine the best of all

27:48

possible worlds, but when we measure ourselves against that, it

27:50

becomes really hard to celebrate our wins. And I do

27:52

think part of our, of the point

27:54

of this paper was

27:57

not to say, you know, everything's great and we've, we

27:59

did it all. but to say, look how far we

28:01

have come, and it

28:03

is really important for building

28:05

momentum that we recognize that.

28:08

Yeah, absolutely. And one final

28:10

question, why do you do this work? I

28:12

have worked for labor unions, I've worked on

28:15

like much more direct policy fights. And

28:17

I think sometimes it can feel a little

28:20

silly to focus at this high a level

28:22

around and really be trying

28:24

to think through the conversation in which policy is

28:26

made. But on the other hand, I do think

28:28

we are at this moment where people

28:31

are questioning neoliberalism

28:33

in a way, and the sort of

28:36

dominant policy frame in a way that

28:38

has not happened in 30, 40

28:40

years. And

28:42

that's an incredible moment of opportunity. But it's

28:44

also a moment where we don't know what's going

28:47

to happen. We don't know if the answer,

28:49

if the new frame is going to lead

28:51

us towards more climate catastrophe or less, whether it's

28:53

going to make the air safer to breathe,

28:56

or less safe to breathe, if it's going to

28:58

make people have more opportunity no matter where they

29:00

come from, or less. And

29:03

I really think we at a moment when things are

29:05

up for grabs, it's so important

29:07

that we are trying to ensure

29:10

and putting forward a vision that

29:12

can shape a whole

29:14

range of public policies that move us in

29:16

a more progressive direction. Awesome.

29:19

Well, thank you very much for being with us. Yeah,

29:21

thank you. Of

29:28

course, Nick, listening to

29:30

Suzanne, I was reminded

29:32

of one of our

29:34

great American economists, Milton

29:37

Friedman, who

29:40

is responsible for much of this, but

29:42

also was absolutely right on at least

29:44

one point. And

29:47

I remember this quote very clearly, only

29:50

a crisis, actual or perceived,

29:53

produces real change. When

29:55

that crisis occurs, the actions that

29:57

are taken depend on the the

30:00

ideas that are lying around.

30:03

Yeah, it could have been more

30:05

right. That was Milton

30:07

Friedman on the

30:09

ascendancy of neoliberalism, that

30:12

they pushed these ideas for

30:15

several decades. And when that

30:18

crisis, the stagflation, occurred

30:20

in the 1970s, and the Keynesians seemed

30:24

to be unable to come up with

30:27

policies to address it, Friedman

30:30

and his fellow neoliberals swooped

30:32

in with their

30:34

ideas that were lying

30:36

around. And the neoliberal

30:39

era was the result. Yeah,

30:42

absolutely. And here we are in a

30:44

new era, and there's a bunch of

30:46

new ideas that are percolating in a

30:48

really profound way. And we'll

30:50

have, I think, a really

30:53

big effect on

30:55

the economy, and ideally how people think

30:57

about how the economy works. One

31:00

of the final things that Suzanne said was

31:02

that we don't know what's

31:05

going to happen. And I agree in the

31:07

sense that we don't know

31:09

whether this new paradigm will be

31:11

given the opportunity to take hold. But

31:14

I think there are a lot of things that

31:16

we do know about what that, if

31:19

it does take hold, what that new paradigm will

31:21

look like. Because there's

31:23

been a lot of advances

31:25

in economics just

31:29

the science of it over the past

31:31

few decades that informed that

31:34

middle out, Bidenomics paradigm.

31:37

There's a lot of empirical evidence that

31:39

supports it. And I

31:42

think one of the things that you and

31:44

I have played a role in over the

31:46

past decade is the narrative

31:49

has advanced. And we

31:51

are a storytelling species, and

31:53

having a good story to

31:55

tell is really important. Yep,

31:57

absolutely. We're telling a better

31:59

story. and it's catching on. That's right

32:01

and you know the good news is Goldie

32:03

is that no matter what happens the

32:06

state of the art in economics has

32:08

changed. I mean the Heritage Foundation is

32:10

never going to change right. The Cato

32:12

Institute is never going to change but

32:15

the better economic

32:19

ideas that are emerging

32:21

from the Academy the fact

32:24

that there's an empirical revolution

32:26

going on in academic economics.

32:28

We're not just talking about

32:30

some dumb theory we're actually

32:32

checking what happens in the real world

32:35

to figure out if the theory makes

32:37

any sense or not. You

32:39

know those trends I think are

32:41

not going to stop they're going to accelerate. You know

32:44

I think there's a broad awareness

32:46

within the academic economics community that a

32:48

lot of the stuff that they said

32:50

was true wasn't and so

32:53

I do think that they're you know obviously

32:55

the world's at a very scary point but

32:57

I do think that long term the

33:00

paradigm will shift. The question

33:02

is are we going to make a lot of

33:04

progress soon or is that progress going to be

33:06

slow and fitful and are we going to have

33:08

to take two steps backwards or ten steps backwards

33:10

to take one step forward. That

33:12

remains the question. And I think one

33:14

of the things that's encouraging to me

33:17

about this is you know as

33:19

Suzanne said that their joke

33:22

title was what Millennials Get Old and

33:25

it's important to note that Millennials

33:27

who graduated into the job market

33:30

in the mid-aughts into the

33:33

depths of the Great Recession

33:35

and that slow recovery they

33:37

really suffered from neoliberal policies

33:39

and neoclassical economic theory. They

33:41

were the victims of it.

33:44

A lot of the losses that occurred

33:46

to them will never be fully regained.

33:49

These are people whose

33:52

lifetime job earnings will

33:54

never recover fully whose

33:56

Net Worth will never recover fully

33:59

from that. The last decade

34:01

a post Great recession

34:03

and and that last

34:06

decade was. A consequence

34:08

of bad policies and

34:10

contrast that which what

34:13

happened with the pandemic

34:15

which was a. Much.

34:18

Bigger. Economic. Collapse

34:20

than anything we saw during

34:22

the Great Recession. I mean,

34:24

people have to remind themselves

34:27

said the spike in unemployment.

34:29

Or during the pandemic. Is

34:32

so huge that we're going to have

34:34

to just. You. Know skipping over

34:36

a thing to future of have

34:38

a set of six. the graphs

34:40

won't fit on the page or

34:42

me and we're talking likes magnitudes

34:44

greater than anything we've ever seen

34:46

in history, ever young. and to

34:48

have a disruption like that and

34:50

to come out of it. As

34:53

well as we had in fact in

34:55

some cases many for many people better

34:58

with higher incomes and more savings and

35:00

they had before the pandemic and then

35:02

to have that that spike have club

35:04

loved i know you hate to call

35:07

it inflation, higher prices that you know,

35:09

spike of higher prices that we had

35:11

and to be told all now we're

35:14

gonna have to have some suffering to

35:16

deal with this for gonna have to

35:18

have seven and a half unemployment for

35:20

two years. Go back to the bad.

35:23

Times that turns out we

35:25

didn't love. This shows you.

35:27

Oh My. God. Government is

35:29

not the problem. It can

35:32

be the solution and all

35:34

that government spending. Actually

35:36

paid off. Ah,

35:39

A in terms survey, easing the

35:41

transition into the pandemics and out

35:43

of the pandemic and into this.

35:46

The. Historically strong labor market that

35:49

we have today. So.

35:52

There you had a real life experiment.

35:54

Your if you look at the millennials.

35:56

They went through the neoliberal policies following

35:58

the great research and they are. No,

36:00

we can't We can't spend too much.

36:02

We have to of austerity. That's the

36:04

way to get out of this and

36:06

ten years of suffering and then we

36:08

have. The. Non and

36:10

neo liberal almost keynesian

36:13

approach. To. Their

36:15

pandemic and oh my god

36:17

to with some added this

36:19

sarah so much quicker and

36:21

better from an even steeper

36:23

decline. There's lessons to be

36:26

learned from real life. Yeah, Let's.

36:28

Hope we learn the lessons that that the. but the

36:30

problem with humanities were so bad at that. Well.

36:32

Again, to tell the story right. People

36:35

need to know. The people need to

36:37

know. They need to stop focusing on

36:39

one year of inflation. Of

36:41

higher prices which was very

36:44

volatile. Clearly. A

36:46

supply side problem. Stop. Focusing

36:48

on that and look at how

36:50

your real wages are higher than

36:52

they were before those prices went

36:54

up. And how much better off

36:56

you are coming out of the pandemic

36:59

then you were coming out of the

37:01

Great Recession and Man by Dynamics' starts

37:03

to look pretty good. Absolutely.

37:06

Again, If you wanna read the

37:08

full report sea Change how a New

37:10

Economics went mainstream, there is a link

37:12

in the show Notes: To

37:20

studies and civic center of you want to sell

37:22

and actual of start me on the deal for

37:24

you that your. And

37:26

us on Twitter and Facebook at Syntax

37:28

and and they can. Our fall are

37:30

riding on medium. it's a Skunk works

37:32

and people in the podcast scenes on

37:34

Instagram at Pitchfork Economics has always some

37:36

our team. It's adventures. Sing soliciting.

37:40

See. An exit.