Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Todcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by Wild Grain. Wild Grain is the first bake from
Speaker 1: frozen subscription box for sour dough breads, arteasonal pastries, and
Speaker 1: fresh pastas, plus all the items conveniently baked in twenty
Speaker 1: five minutes or less. Unlike many store brought options, Wild
Speaker 1: Grain uses some simple ingredients you can pronounce and a
Speaker 1: slow fermentation process that can be a lot easier on
Speaker 1: your belly, little gut health there right, and richer in
Speaker 1: nutrients antioxidants. There's also no preservatives and no shortcuts. The
Speaker 1: Wild Grain boxes are fully customizable. In addition to their
Speaker 1: variety box, they have a gluten free box, a vegan box,
Speaker 1: and a new protein box. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: have done the gluten free box. I have done it
Speaker 1: a second time. I have also used the code, the
Speaker 1: todcast code. If you use the promo code toodcast at checkout,
Speaker 1: you get thirty dollars off. I've already used it as
Speaker 1: a gift to somebody else who loves this bread. It
Speaker 1: is hard to find good gluten free bread. It is fantastic.
Speaker 1: They give you step by step instructions. I really dig this.
Speaker 1: There is nothing like having an artesion bakery in your
Speaker 1: freezer to chase away the winter chill. Now is the
Speaker 1: best time to stay in and enjoy some comforting homemade
Speaker 1: meals with Wildgrain. I obviously highly recommend it. It is
Speaker 1: worth giving Wildgrain to try. Right now. Wildgrain is offering
Speaker 1: my listeners thirty dollars off your first box plus free
Speaker 1: croyissants for life. Come on when you go to wildgrain
Speaker 1: dot com slash podcast to start your subscription today. That's
Speaker 1: thirty dollars off your first box and free croissants for
Speaker 1: life when you visit wildgrain dot com, slash podcast, or
Speaker 1: simply use the promo code podcast at checkout. This is
Speaker 1: a sponsor I absolutely embrace, so use that code. So
Speaker 1: my guest today is a man who's quite literally been
Speaker 1: in the room where it happens on and off for
Speaker 1: over three decades of American economic He is the only
Speaker 1: person to serve as a director of the National Economic
Speaker 1: Council under two different presidents, Bill Clint and Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: and most recently served as the White House coordinator for
Speaker 1: the American Rescue Plan for President Biden. I'll ask him
Speaker 1: what he did as a child staffer for Jimmy Carter's presidency.
Speaker 1: So she's worked for every Democratic presidency in my adult lifetime.
Speaker 1: It is Gene Sperling, and what I have him on
Speaker 1: today is actually he's got a new gig these days.
Speaker 1: He's the founder and executive director of what is dubbed
Speaker 1: the Economic Dignity Lab at Georgetown's McCourt School of Public Policy. Look,
Speaker 1: Gene is a think tanker who's actually been a practical
Speaker 1: government's servant as well. Sometimes you get your think tankers
Speaker 1: who throw out white papers and ideas, and you get
Speaker 1: your government servants who take those white paper and ideas well.
Speaker 1: Jean's kind of been on both sides of it and
Speaker 1: is one of the few people I know that while
Speaker 1: he's wonky, he also understands campaign politics and that is
Speaker 1: a unique breed of individual because it's not an easy
Speaker 1: thing to find. And you know, he's got the quirky
Speaker 1: sense of humor like I like I do, and like
Speaker 1: I like. So, mister Sperlin, good to see.
Speaker 2: You, Thank you, Chack, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: In fact, I have to say I didn't know this story.
Speaker 1: I was asking this. You know, why he's coming to
Speaker 1: us from California and I'm here going I just think
Speaker 1: of Gene as a d c's DC guy, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to make you quickly tell this just the shortened
Speaker 1: version of the story. You're an Angelino because of a
Speaker 1: fun little Hollywood meets politics meets real life meets your
Speaker 1: personal life. Tell us about it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, you you know, you could have said I've
Speaker 2: worked for four presidents, because I had four years where
Speaker 2: I was a consultant or part time writer for Jed Bartlett,
Speaker 2: the president on the NBC TV show The West Wing.
Speaker 2: But yes, the fact I'm coming from you in Santa
Speaker 2: Monica or that seems to be my main residence right now,
Speaker 2: does not feel comfortable to me. I grew up in
Speaker 2: ann Arbor, Michigan. We only came to La twice in
Speaker 2: my youth, and both times was to watch Michigan lose
Speaker 2: to Southern cal in the road. And so when people
Speaker 2: ask me where I'm from, it's ann Arbor. When they
Speaker 2: ask me where I've worked, it's Washington, d C. So
Speaker 2: it's very hard for me to kind of acknowledge that
Speaker 2: I just happened to be here. But the story was
Speaker 2: is that when I got done with Clinton, I'd gotten
Speaker 2: to know some of the people on the TV show
Speaker 2: West Wing. I really dug in. I worked on a
Speaker 2: really good story and I sent it in and they
Speaker 2: asked me to do an interview. I went out to
Speaker 2: LA and it just happened to be Hey, where Aaron
Speaker 2: Sorkin couldn't meet with me because he had a little
Speaker 2: legal trouble in an airport. But they set up a
Speaker 2: meeting for me with all the writers in the commissary.
Speaker 2: It's very exciting. You walk in. There's guys from Er
Speaker 2: walking around.
Speaker 1: Now it is the old The studio commissaries truly are
Speaker 1: Star Wars bar scenes. You never know who you're gonna
Speaker 1: run into.
Speaker 2: Yeah, just going through at the beginning, through the gate,
Speaker 2: you think of blazing saddles and them crashing through. So
Speaker 2: I go there. I introduced myself. First person on the
Speaker 2: left is name Alison Abner. She's just starting her second
Speaker 2: year writing for the West Wing, and I say hello,
Speaker 2: and what the heck? We got married. We've been together
Speaker 2: twenty five years, so I've been you know, I've been
Speaker 2: a bicoastal you know, spouse, and that means we've probably
Speaker 2: lived about a third of the time in DC, a
Speaker 2: third of the time in Santa Monica and a third
Speaker 2: of the time, including the entire Biden White House, I
Speaker 2: commuted back and forth every single week, even more than
Speaker 2: a California member of Congress.
Speaker 1: Would you are it allows you mess? Uh? You know,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't know if that's a good thing
Speaker 1: or a bad thing about showing off in a life.
Speaker 1: If you've hit all these great statuses on airplanes, it
Speaker 1: means you're never at home.
Speaker 2: No, you know. For me, what it's about is I
Speaker 2: work like crazy on planes so that every moment I'm home,
Speaker 2: I can be with my family. So I'd say the
Speaker 2: only time this whole thing was unbelievably painful was my
Speaker 2: third year with President Obama. My wife had gone back
Speaker 2: to start restarter her TV writing career. My son graduated
Speaker 2: from high school, and I had about ten months where
Speaker 2: I was commuting back and forth, and my daughter was
Speaker 2: like seven or eight, and I used to get in
Speaker 2: the car and just cry sometimes. But this last time,
Speaker 2: thanks to zoom and other things I didn't have, you know,
Speaker 2: you could kind of be half there, half here. And
Speaker 2: my daughter was sixteen seventeen and eighteen, and everybody knows
Speaker 2: at sixteen seventeen and eighteen. They're not dying for you
Speaker 2: to be there in their face every single night. So
Speaker 2: if that part was okay.
Speaker 1: Let me I want to dispense with one thing about
Speaker 1: West Wind. I have been people always assume I love
Speaker 1: the show, and I always say, you know what, I've
Speaker 1: never I've never watched a full season, and let me
Speaker 1: tell you why, gee, and you can tell me and
Speaker 1: tell me why I'm wrong, because I know you're going
Speaker 1: to be a defender, and I mean this, It's not
Speaker 1: as if I've seen quite a few episodes and they're
Speaker 1: really good and they're really interesting. Don't get me wrong,
Speaker 1: but I always found him more unrealistic than realistic. And
Speaker 1: what I always hated was when people say, why can't
Speaker 1: it be done like it was on West Wing? And
Speaker 1: I'm like, because west Wing was never you know, and
Speaker 1: I've had this argument. I've actually I got arguments a
Speaker 1: wrong word, a strong word, A debate with mister Sorkin
Speaker 1: where because he did it with Newsroom too, where he's
Speaker 1: creating a utopia of what could be if you had
Speaker 1: a year to prepare for every news cycle, for instance
Speaker 1: in Newsroom, or you had five years of historical context
Speaker 1: to then figure out how to have done it. So
Speaker 1: and perhaps I'm like too jaded because I'm old hotline guy.
Speaker 2: Right, you're too jaded because you're old hotline.
Speaker 1: I understand that. Tell me make the best case for
Speaker 1: somebody today of why West Wing actually is emblematic of
Speaker 1: how governing works well.
Speaker 2: Listen, It's hard for me to think about the current
Speaker 2: White House and how it functions well, but I would
Speaker 2: say that if that for looked at the last couple
Speaker 2: administrations and the years of Republican administrations before that, I
Speaker 2: really do feel that there is a core truth in
Speaker 2: the West Wing, which that the people there who are
Speaker 2: there are privileged to be there, really are there to
Speaker 2: do good for the world, but they're in a very
Speaker 2: highly toxic and political environment. And so I think the
Speaker 2: way that West Wing is more realistic than some of
Speaker 2: the other you know, Scandal and other shows out there,
Speaker 2: is that those shows tend to show people who are
Speaker 2: only there to self deal to corrupt things. And I
Speaker 2: think what the West Wing did show was a group
Speaker 2: of people who were trying to do something idealistic, but
Speaker 2: they're in a very very political environment. And if you're
Speaker 2: not political political and you don't deal with those issues
Speaker 2: you don't do well. I think what makes me sad
Speaker 2: a little bit is I spent a long time telling
Speaker 2: people that that's the way white Houses really were. I'm
Speaker 2: not quite so sure that the West Wing is an
Speaker 2: accurate perception of the current White House.
Speaker 1: West Wing or Veep, who portrays staffers best.
Speaker 2: Well, I liked Veep too because I think Veep. I mean,
Speaker 2: of course, in Veep, nobody's really a good guy, but
Speaker 2: it's meant as a satire.
Speaker 1: It's meant I guess, I mean.
Speaker 2: It's showing the real conflicts people are dealing with from
Speaker 2: a kind of cynical point of view. But I still
Speaker 2: really enjoyed that. I enjoyed the other shows too. I
Speaker 2: just used to not like when people would kind of
Speaker 2: think that that was more realistic than the West Wing.
Speaker 1: Well, I hate when people say politics is like house
Speaker 1: of cards.
Speaker 2: I'm like, no, it's stop.
Speaker 1: Right, Like, I'm like stop, that is not and that
Speaker 1: would so that's where I always get I you know,
Speaker 1: I would vacinate that. Then then again, like you know,
Speaker 1: I can watch a few Good Men two thousand times,
Speaker 1: and I probably watched it two thousand times, So it's
Speaker 1: not that I don't love a good. Aaron Sorkin script,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. I mean, the man is a genius
Speaker 1: television writer. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2: When it comes to dialogue, all right, whenever I see Aaron,
Speaker 2: he's he asked me how how my wife Allison is doing?
Speaker 2: And I say, we're still together. And he says the
Speaker 2: two lasting things of the West Wing residual checks and
Speaker 2: gene and Allison's marriage.
Speaker 1: By the way, right when HBO Max was going to
Speaker 1: get rid of it, there was like an uproar and
Speaker 1: it reminded people, so it kept the checks coming, right.
Speaker 2: It really is. One thing I really will say is
Speaker 2: the number of people who I've seen actually go into
Speaker 2: public service. I mean, famously Cody Keenan.
Speaker 1: Who well, you're right, who watched it in it like
Speaker 1: inspired them to do it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, And I think, you know, I don't think
Speaker 2: it was a TV show for me, but I think
Speaker 2: you would see, you know, I'd see people huddled around
Speaker 2: RFK when I was a kid in sixty eight, and
Speaker 2: you know, I think sometimes you know that perception that
Speaker 2: that's something positive, that you can do good things, that
Speaker 2: you don't have to be the candidate to make a difference,
Speaker 2: and help people's lives or fight for justice. I think
Speaker 2: it's a positive thing and it's still pretty influential on
Speaker 2: a lot of college campuses around the country.
Speaker 1: Right, it has had a lot of staying power. Have
Speaker 1: you how serious have reboots been thrown around?
Speaker 2: I think it's more people toying with people. I mean,
Speaker 2: you know, I stay in touch with Brad Whitford in
Speaker 2: Delay Hill, and I did run in and I get
Speaker 2: to see Aaron Sorkin and Martin when we did a
Speaker 2: twenty fifth anniversary celebration at the White House. But I
Speaker 2: think there was once where I kind of was like, hey, guys,
Speaker 2: if this happens and I'm out of government, remember me.
Speaker 2: And I kind of got the word back. Now we're
Speaker 2: we're just toying with you, but we'll see.
Speaker 1: Before I get to what you're working on. Because I think, look,
Speaker 1: I think and we've been I think we were in
Speaker 1: a room together not too long ago. I think AI
Speaker 1: job displacement is going to drive political debates fear of
Speaker 1: AI job displacement over the next decade. Whether it hits
Speaker 1: is another story. Right, there's the fear of it and
Speaker 1: then there's the actual fear is going to drive a
Speaker 1: lot of political particularly in twenty twenty eight. So I
Speaker 1: want to get to that. But before we get to that,
Speaker 1: what's the state of the economy. What do you look
Speaker 1: at on a week to week basis to give your
Speaker 1: bit to what touchstones do you look at to determine
Speaker 1: whether this is a good economy, a bad economy, or
Speaker 1: a shaky economy.
Speaker 2: So I think there's moments where you pretty much know
Speaker 2: what you're looking for. Things are pretty clear, even if
Speaker 2: you don't know what the exact narrative how it's going
Speaker 2: to turn out, you know what the narrative is. This
Speaker 2: is a little bit of a tricky time. I think
Speaker 2: that what you were looking for after the kind of
Speaker 2: worst of the post pandemic supply chain shocks and global
Speaker 2: inflation was you were looking for what everybody called the
Speaker 2: soft landing, and what that meant was that we would
Speaker 2: be able to return to more of a normal, stable economy.
Speaker 2: So the Biden economy had amazing job growth, incredibly low unemployment,
Speaker 2: but there was also high inflation. And you know, people
Speaker 2: will fight forever, people like myself will say it was global,
Speaker 2: it was every where. It didn't wasn't really a factor
Speaker 2: of Biden policies. But whatever you thought the cause was,
Speaker 2: people wanted to see that soft landing. So what's interesting
Speaker 2: is that you've had pretty close to what people hope for.
Speaker 2: So when you had high inflation, you can remember that
Speaker 2: Larry Summers famously said, Oh, the only way you're going
Speaker 2: to bring this down is to have ten percent unemployment
Speaker 2: or two years of seven and a half percent unemployment
Speaker 2: or five years of six percent. Well that didn't happen.
Speaker 2: So the good news was that we've been able to
Speaker 2: so far avoid a you know, avoid caming inflation inflation
Speaker 2: only in a Paul Voker sense of well, I was.
Speaker 1: Just gonna say, let me let let's put a pause
Speaker 1: before you jump to that part. Doesn't this reinforce not
Speaker 1: a belief anymore? But is this now a confirmation that
Speaker 1: this was essentially COVID related, COVID inspired, COVID driven, and
Speaker 1: because we had the artificial stoppage and then and then
Speaker 1: suddenly it's sort of like kinking a hose and then
Speaker 1: I'm kicking it and a surge of product and a
Speaker 1: surge of money, and a surge of this. You know,
Speaker 1: as fast as it went up is as fast as
Speaker 1: it went down. The fact that it didn't take ten
Speaker 1: percent interest rates and it didn't take ten percent unemployment.
Speaker 1: Is that now confirmation for you that this was global
Speaker 1: and ninety five percent COVID?
Speaker 2: I think for me it is. I think it is
Speaker 2: for a lot of people. I think it's hard to have,
Speaker 2: you know, this easy objective conversation because one, there's so
Speaker 2: much politics involved, and you know, there's such a desire
Speaker 2: for the current administration to blame the last administration. There's
Speaker 2: so many people on the Democratic side that are just
Speaker 2: disappointed that Joe Biden lost and that people ignored people
Speaker 2: were so unhappy about prices. So there's so much political debate.
Speaker 2: But you know, I do think that for a lot
Speaker 2: of people, I cited an article Mark Zandy from Moody's,
Speaker 2: Peter orzag Our, former O and B director, and others
Speaker 2: who definitely feel that the fact that this came down
Speaker 2: without engineering a recession was evidence that this was overall
Speaker 2: globally inspired, pandemic related supply shot chain that said people
Speaker 2: will still debate the American rescue plan, and I don't
Speaker 2: think there's I think politically you'll hear Republicans now say,
Speaker 2: oh my god, everything that happened you know bad was
Speaker 2: due to Joe biden American Rescue Plant. That's clearly not true. Clearly,
Speaker 2: the American Rescue Plan had some very good effects in
Speaker 2: making US the leader and growth in the G seven, lower,
Speaker 2: unemployment less scarring long term negative impacts. But people will
Speaker 2: debate the inflation impact, and I think that the reasonable
Speaker 2: debate says, hey, maybe it led to inflation here being
Speaker 2: a point or a point half higher than it would
Speaker 2: have been, but it had these good parts. And I'd
Speaker 2: say the people who are most critical would say, no,
Speaker 2: it's more like three points higher. But I think you
Speaker 2: and I both know that in twenty twenty two, after
Speaker 2: Putin invaded Ukraine, you know, inflation almost everywhere in the
Speaker 2: world was seven eight nine percent, regardless of whether people
Speaker 2: had done a major fiscal stimulus. And you also saw
Speaker 2: every head of state did poorly everywhere in the world.
Speaker 1: Now, that could be an antim.
Speaker 2: A reincumbent, you know, an incumbent in that setting, but
Speaker 2: you know, for me, I think it is you know,
Speaker 2: I think the fact that inflation went up everywhere and
Speaker 2: the way it came down, you know, it does confirm
Speaker 2: that this was not fundamentally about fiscal policy. But about
Speaker 2: the pandemic. But again, to be fair to some of
Speaker 2: the people who disagree with me, they would say, you know,
Speaker 2: it's a more nuanced analysis.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is being brought to
Speaker 1: you by Quints. As you know, a well built wardrobe
Speaker 1: is about the pieces that work together, hold up over time,
Speaker 1: and frankly allow you to be flexible and sort of
Speaker 1: business casual, to say social casual. Quins does this really well.
Speaker 1: They have premium material, thoughtful design, and some everyday staples
Speaker 1: that feel easy to wear, easy to rely on, even
Speaker 1: as the weather ships. I've got some sweaters from Quints.
Speaker 1: I love them. I can use them for here on
Speaker 1: the podcast. I can do a business meeting with them.
Speaker 1: They have every day essentials. I love the quality so far.
Speaker 1: It's lasting really well. I've had it for a while.
Speaker 1: They have organic cotton sweaters, polos for every occasion. They
Speaker 1: have some nice jackets, including you know, lighter jackets as
Speaker 1: things I hope warm up at some point down here
Speaker 1: in the mid Atlantic. The list goes on. All of
Speaker 1: it is built to hold up for you to wear
Speaker 1: this stuff all the time, right, not just something you
Speaker 1: pull out once a quarter to look nice. At work.
Speaker 1: No stuff that you might wear every week. They only
Speaker 1: partner with factories that meet some rigorous standards for crashmanship
Speaker 1: and ethical productive bottom line, I wear it, I'm happy.
Speaker 1: It's been really good. It isn't going to break the bank,
Speaker 1: So refresh your wardrobe with Quints. Go to quins dot
Speaker 1: com slash chuck for free shipping on your order and
Speaker 1: a three hundred and sixty five day opportunity to return it.
Speaker 1: Now available in Canada too. That's qui nc dot com
Speaker 1: slash chuck, free shipping, three hundred and six five day returns.
Speaker 1: Quints dot com slash chuck. Do you hate hangovers, We'll
Speaker 1: say goodbye to hangovers. Out of Office gives you the
Speaker 1: social buzz without the next day regret. Their best selling
Speaker 1: out of Office gummies were designed to provide a mild,
Speaker 1: relaxing buzz, boost your mood and enhance creativity and relaxation.
Speaker 1: With five different strengths, you can tailor the dose to
Speaker 1: fit your vibe, from a gentle one point five milligram
Speaker 1: microdose to their newest fifteen milligram gummy for a more
Speaker 1: elevated experience. Their THHC beverages and gummies are a modern,
Speaker 1: mindful alternative to a glass of wine or a cocktail.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you this, I've given up booze. I
Speaker 1: don't like the hangovers. I prefer the gummy experience. Soul
Speaker 1: is a wellness brand that believes feeling good should be
Speaker 1: fun and easy. Soul specializes in delicious hemp derived THHC,
Speaker 1: and CBD products, all designed to boost your mood and
Speaker 1: simply help you unwine. So if you struggle to switch
Speaker 1: off at night, Soul also has a variety of products
Speaker 1: specifically designed to just simply help you get a better
Speaker 1: night's sleep, include their top selling sleepy gummies. It's a
Speaker 1: fan favorite for deep restorative sleep. So bring on the
Speaker 1: good vibes and treat yourself to Soul today. Right now,
Speaker 1: Soul is offering my audience thirty percent off your entire order.
Speaker 1: So go to get sold dot Com use the promo
Speaker 1: code toodcast. Don't forget that code. That's get sold dot
Speaker 1: Com promo code toodcast for thirty percent off fifty years
Speaker 1: from now. In an economics class, that might look at
Speaker 1: a couple of case studies about what you do in
Speaker 1: a in an economic crisis. Either one that's directly about
Speaker 1: the economy, like what we had with the housing crisis
Speaker 1: and the Great Recession, or something like COVID which sort
Speaker 1: of impacted the global economy. One of the things that
Speaker 1: my simple hot take has always been, we had two
Speaker 1: choices with COVID. We either had inflation or recession, and
Speaker 1: if we didn't throw money, If we had handled COVID
Speaker 1: the way we'd handled the housing crisis, which is to
Speaker 1: be fiscally a bit small sea conservative about how much
Speaker 1: money we threw at the issue, we probably prevent inflation,
Speaker 1: but we might have had a massive recession. The less
Speaker 1: I've always felt is if that COVID, coming just within
Speaker 1: a decade of the Great Recession, sort of got everybody thinking, hey,
Speaker 1: we better if we're not sure, throw a little bit
Speaker 1: more money at it. Let's not underfund, let's overfund. Do
Speaker 1: you think fifty years from now, That's how we'll look
Speaker 1: at those two events. And it's sort of when it
Speaker 1: comes to government intervention, the economic crisis, the Great Recession
Speaker 1: will always be seen as an example of government not
Speaker 1: doing enough, and COVID will be seeing as an example
Speaker 1: of when government does a little too much. I know
Speaker 1: I'm being very I'm asking for a black and white
Speaker 1: hot take on something that be incredibly it's generally speaking, I've.
Speaker 2: Actually written on this exact topic. I wrote in the
Speaker 2: Wall Street Journal a while ago on the lessons learned argument.
Speaker 2: And I think people will debate this. I think that
Speaker 2: there's kind of a will be you know. I think
Speaker 2: some people will make it a more simple argument of
Speaker 2: you know, but even then there's a question of lessons
Speaker 2: learned or lessons overlearned. So the lessons over learned argument
Speaker 2: was one you did too little in the financial crisis.
Speaker 2: I don't think by the way that was by intent
Speaker 2: by President Obama as someone there. I just think you
Speaker 2: couldn't get it, couldn't get to politically.
Speaker 1: Look by the way in fairness politically it will I mean,
Speaker 1: you couldn't cross that that number. It had to be under.
Speaker 2: A true exactly. You know. There was sometimes people think
Speaker 2: there was just debate, but I do that there was
Speaker 2: also a sense in two thousand and eight, two thousand
Speaker 2: and nine that if you were wrong, maybe you could
Speaker 2: come back and get more. And I think one of
Speaker 2: the lessons that was learned there was, hey, you may
Speaker 2: only get one shot, so you might go bigger because
Speaker 2: you may not get another shot. Two is the insurance policy.
Speaker 2: Other things might happen, like who would have predicted Putin
Speaker 2: was going to invade Ukraine. As you remember, in the
Speaker 2: financial crisis, there was the Greece in eure a financial crisis.
Speaker 2: So another argument is put a little extra because there
Speaker 2: might be unknowns that are going to slow you down
Speaker 2: even more. One lesson I really think we learned well
Speaker 2: was that when you don't do enough right away, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of long term suffering that takes place, long
Speaker 2: term unemployment, young people who couldn't get into the job
Speaker 2: market for four or five years. Economists actually have a
Speaker 2: phrase that makes sense. They call it scarring, and it's right.
Speaker 2: What it means is they didn't These people didn't just
Speaker 2: suffer for a year or two. Their lifetime earnings were changed.
Speaker 2: Their rates of divorce and alcoholism and suicide or deaths
Speaker 2: of despair were changed. So one good lesson learned was
Speaker 2: that in this financial crisis you had a lot of
Speaker 2: strength right away and so you didn't get the long
Speaker 2: term unemployment. We had a policy that actually prevented millions
Speaker 2: of people from being evicted. So I think on the
Speaker 2: whole the argument will be that the American Rescue Plan
Speaker 2: did properly learn the lessons. The counter will be, well,
Speaker 2: but maybe you overlearned by doing a little bit too much.
Speaker 2: And that's the people who will argue that the American
Speaker 2: Rescue Plan, even if it wasn't the cause of all
Speaker 2: the inflation or even most of inflation, kind of added
Speaker 2: to it. And that's where I think you will continue
Speaker 2: to have the debates where people like myself will say,
Speaker 2: and probably Jared Bernstein would say, and Peter orzagnersay, didn't
Speaker 2: have that much, but my friend Jason Furman would say,
Speaker 2: you know, you should have done a bit more. I
Speaker 2: do think what will happen going forward, Chuck, from now
Speaker 2: on is that I do think you had an entire
Speaker 2: generation of people who had never seen significant inflation. And
Speaker 2: so I'm not.
Speaker 1: Sorry, that's one hundred percent right. Like I you know,
Speaker 1: I would sit there and say, I had a memory
Speaker 1: of my of my parents excited when interest rates got
Speaker 1: from win from double digits to single digits. So I
Speaker 1: had at least remembered that era and of the era
Speaker 1: of the late seventies and early eighties, and it did.
Speaker 1: I mean, we were one of those working class families
Speaker 1: that we couldn't afford a house until the interest rates
Speaker 1: finally got to I think it was just under nine percent,
Speaker 1: and we could finally get into a house exactly. That
Speaker 1: was a big deal.
Speaker 2: Four. When Reagan runs on mourning in America, things really
Speaker 2: aren't very good inflation.
Speaker 1: They were better than they were.
Speaker 2: That's the key it had. People remembered things being bad
Speaker 2: for so long that when it improved, Reagan got lots
Speaker 2: of credit. And what hurt President Biden is that even
Speaker 2: when inflation came down, people still remembered beef and milk
Speaker 2: and cheese and eggs being lower. And so I do
Speaker 2: think that even though I don't believe the American Rescue
Speaker 2: Plan was the cause of most or even the significant
Speaker 2: amount of the inflation, do I think that next time
Speaker 2: around people will think about it more, or worry a
Speaker 2: little bit, or do the balance more. Yes, because they've
Speaker 2: now lived through a world where they saw President Biden
Speaker 2: do what you and I would have predicted would have
Speaker 2: been a winning hand going into twenty four, which was
Speaker 2: inflation coming down under three percent, record low unemployment, and
Speaker 2: all of those things were dwarfed by people's unhappiness with
Speaker 2: everyday prices that they went to the grocery store and
Speaker 2: saw and that is both a politic that's an economic lesson,
Speaker 2: but it's also going to be a political lesson for
Speaker 2: I think a generation.
Speaker 1: I mean, what the seventies taught me and especially now
Speaker 1: looking in hindsight, is that inflation is nonpartisan, or inflation
Speaker 1: is bipartisan, however you want to say it. In this respect,
Speaker 1: inflation took down three presidents, Right, Richard Nixon loses support
Speaker 1: among Republicans. People always forget this. If the economy is better,
Speaker 1: Nixon fights harder and Republicans probably fight on his behalf
Speaker 1: and maybe, but you know, the bad economy was was
Speaker 1: a secret sauce in that that made it easier to
Speaker 1: dump him. Forward. Look at the end of the day, right,
Speaker 1: you know, whip inflation now that terrible you know slogan
Speaker 1: he had wi n win Whip inflation Now that didn't work.
Speaker 1: And then Carter you know, one because of it and
Speaker 1: then immediately lost because of it. So the point is
Speaker 1: is that it was a reminder that the American public
Speaker 1: just focuses on what's in front of them, not what
Speaker 1: not always what what was, it's what is, and inflation
Speaker 1: is one of those what is or the other.
Speaker 2: Thing too is that if you're preventing, if you have
Speaker 2: greater job growth, lower unemployment, those things are good and important.
Speaker 2: They don't affect everybody, you know, the inflation does. Now.
Speaker 2: One thing you and I did know politically was we
Speaker 2: did know that gas prices have a disproportionate impact on
Speaker 2: presidential approval.
Speaker 1: Well that and that also is a scar from the
Speaker 1: seventies and gas lines and I mean, my those are
Speaker 1: bright memories for me, right, but I think what.
Speaker 2: Was learned in twenty three and twenty four was that
Speaker 2: it's not gas prices per se, it's everyday prices that
Speaker 2: somebody is confronted with on a week by week basis.
Speaker 2: And so even though inflation's coming down, even though the
Speaker 2: job market is good, people are going through the grocery
Speaker 2: line or the gas line and they're not happy. And
Speaker 2: that's hitting a much wider number of people. And the
Speaker 2: other thing that's interesting is, I mean you could say
Speaker 2: it's American, but you could also say we learned its global.
Speaker 2: You can't name one incumbent head of state in the
Speaker 2: post pandemic period that did very well, not a single one.
Speaker 2: And so you know, I think I think it's an
Speaker 2: unusual combination of inflation all the strains of the pandemic,
Speaker 2: but it's kind of you know, one thing you can't
Speaker 2: do is say if only Joe Biden had done like
Speaker 2: incumbent x or Y had done. There are no ones.
Speaker 2: So that again does suggest that the kind of unhappiness
Speaker 2: of people dealing with everyday price is going higher. And
Speaker 2: it's what makes things so puzzling about President Trump is
Speaker 2: that he now has seen all these things happen. He's
Speaker 2: learned this lesson. He's got the benefit of hindsight, and
Speaker 2: this is a point people never make, but they need
Speaker 2: to when he comes in. Not only is inflation a
Speaker 2: little under three percent, every major forecaster in the country
Speaker 2: is projecting it's going down to two percent. So I
Speaker 2: think a lot of people on like the Bien Economic team,
Speaker 2: are like, boy, bad luck for us. Our soft landing
Speaker 2: is on its way, and it's going to land because
Speaker 2: of the hard work we did.
Speaker 1: With President time in a row that Trump inherit's a
Speaker 1: healing economy from a democratic president, right.
Speaker 2: I know. And then he goes out of his way
Speaker 2: to ignore every political lesson and put tariffs on everyday products.
Speaker 2: So That's why I've said before. You know, when they
Speaker 2: say it's the Biden economy, I say, no, it's the
Speaker 2: self inflicted wound economy. You could have just done nothing
Speaker 2: and coasted on the Biden economy. You've gone out of
Speaker 2: your way to keep inflation not just higher, but in
Speaker 2: a lot of those everyday products. That makes people so unhappy.
Speaker 1: There is I'm curious your take on whether it is.
Speaker 1: I'm sure you don't think it's fair that service for
Speaker 1: the in the Biden white House might be seen as
Speaker 1: a demerit if you run for president. But what do
Speaker 1: you make of this issue for Pete Budet?
Speaker 2: Well, you know, I think, yeah, I think it's a
Speaker 2: long ways to go. And you know, I'm like you,
Speaker 2: I'm an addict, so I a political you know, I'm
Speaker 2: as much of a so I follow it. But I
Speaker 2: think it's a long ways a way. I do think
Speaker 2: that I do think that that people are you know,
Speaker 2: I think the debate that happened in the Biden White
Speaker 2: House and where some of us might have different views,
Speaker 2: has been greatly exaggerated. It's as if like President Biden
Speaker 2: didn't care about affordability. Of course he was running, you know,
Speaker 2: He was the one who did the prescription drugs, you know,
Speaker 2: bring down prescription drugs and key things. He was the
Speaker 2: one focusing on lowering electricity and energy prices. Our whole
Speaker 2: we had a major childcare initiative, which, even as you
Speaker 2: saw with may Or Mundami, one of the key issues.
Speaker 2: So I think people are wrong to think there wasn't
Speaker 2: affordability focus. I think what it really came down to,
Speaker 2: and maybe where I sometimes had a little bit of
Speaker 2: a different view, was that I did get my political
Speaker 2: upbringing with Bill Clinton. And Bill Clinton was known as
Speaker 2: the feel you're paying guy, and there's truth to that.
Speaker 2: Bill Clinton told me in my first few months in
Speaker 2: the White House when I was writing the statements from him,
Speaker 2: he said, never write a statement that wouldn't seem right
Speaker 2: to somebody in one of the thirty worst economic counties.
Speaker 2: That so, in other words, stay connected and touched first.
Speaker 2: I think what happened with Biden was there was a
Speaker 2: conflict between that and the saying, hey, if you don't
Speaker 2: put forward your best foot, nobody would so wrong.
Speaker 1: It was the wrong lesson learned from Trump. I think
Speaker 1: there's a there's a there's a it's interesting you say
Speaker 1: that there's a chunk of Democrats who think, hey, the
Speaker 1: lesson to learn from Trump is bullshit, like he does.
Speaker 2: No, I think, you know, look, I'm very I defend
Speaker 2: a lot of the things we've done, and I realized
Speaker 2: things are hard choices. I do think we probably could
Speaker 2: have done a better job of starting by recognizing people's
Speaker 2: unhappiness and then try to and then connecting, try to
Speaker 2: explain why we're doing things to do better. But I
Speaker 2: will say, Chuck that you know, at the time, there
Speaker 2: were lots of smart political people who were saying, why
Speaker 2: aren't you guys bragging about record job growth enough? Why
Speaker 2: aren't you bragging if the president doesn't do that? So
Speaker 2: I will say, but I will agree that I think
Speaker 2: we could have maybe focused more on first, you know, connect, Hey,
Speaker 2: we're not happy prices are up. Explain to people that
Speaker 2: we're doing everything we can explain why we want to pass.
Speaker 2: But start more from the basis of a little bit
Speaker 2: of Clintonian feel your pain. But I don't think that
Speaker 2: should be confused with the idea that Joe Biden wasn't
Speaker 2: out there fighting for a child tax credit, which gave
Speaker 2: people a few thousand dollars more in their pocket, fighting
Speaker 2: for lower healthcare costs. I think criticisms of like, you know,
Speaker 2: I think people who want to show their new and
Speaker 2: change oriented are going to probably pick some holes at
Speaker 2: Biden alum in the primaries. That's kind of basic politics.
Speaker 2: But I think in the end people will have a
Speaker 2: time chance to say what they could do and what
Speaker 2: they could and the truth was, Joe Biden had the
Speaker 2: tiniest of margins. So like on a Biparson infrastructure bill.
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine what imagine what your job would have
Speaker 1: been like had it been a Republican Senate with a
Speaker 1: Democratic House, which was the most likely scenario before the
Speaker 1: Georgia Rubbins. No.
Speaker 2: So we got a lot of good things done, but
Speaker 2: when those things got done, you couldn't always do them
Speaker 2: exactly like you want, So you couldn't like necessarily get
Speaker 2: everything out the door as fast as you wanted or
Speaker 2: things like that. But you know, again, we've got a
Speaker 2: lot there's gonna be a lot of primary candidates. They're
Speaker 2: going to take a lot of shots at each other.
Speaker 2: I tend to like and know most of the people
Speaker 2: that people are talking about, So I'm looking at people
Speaker 2: I basically admire and I'm kind of like sitting back
Speaker 2: and kind of watching like I'm Chuck Todd, wanting to
Speaker 2: see who's good, who's effective.
Speaker 1: Well, the most likely what's the most likely scenario of
Speaker 1: one of them? When's the presidency? Jean Spurley's going to
Speaker 1: go work for.
Speaker 2: I will say that from a family perspective, for me
Speaker 2: to go out with that would be both you know,
Speaker 2: from a human perspective, would be arrogant to suggest that
Speaker 2: you know somebody would want you again, and from a
Speaker 2: family perspective forecasting that would probably not do well for me.
Speaker 2: Right now, we're focused on the upsides of not being
Speaker 2: in the government.
Speaker 1: This episode of the Chuck Podcast is brought to you
Speaker 1: by American Financing. Let's be honest, the math just isn't
Speaker 1: adding up lately. Between the grocery store and those skyrocketing
Speaker 1: insurance premiums. Even with a steady job, more families are
Speaker 1: being forced to rely on high interest credit cards to
Speaker 1: cover expenses. So if you're a homeowner caught in this
Speaker 1: cycle carrying balances with interest rates in the twenties, frankly
Speaker 1: even the thirties, it's time to get some relief. Right now,
Speaker 1: mortgage rates are at a three year low, and my
Speaker 1: friends at American Financing are helping homeowners pay off that
Speaker 1: high interest debt at rates in the low fives. Their
Speaker 1: salary based mortgage consultants don't just push loans on you,
Speaker 1: They build exit strategies from debts. On average, they're saving
Speaker 1: their customers eight hundred dollars a month, so if you
Speaker 1: start today, you may even delay the next two mortgage payments.
Speaker 1: There are no upfront fees or obligations. To find out
Speaker 1: how much you can save. American's home for home loans
Speaker 1: is American Finance eight sixty six eight eight five ten
Speaker 1: eighty one. That's eight six six eight eight five ten
Speaker 1: eighty one, or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chuck Toodcast.
Speaker 1: Important disclaimer nm LS one A two three three four
Speaker 1: NMLS Consumer Access dot Org APR for rates in the
Speaker 1: five start at six point one ninety six percent for
Speaker 1: well qualified buyers call eight six six eight eight five
Speaker 1: one zero eight one for details about credit costs and terms,
Speaker 1: or Americanfinancing dot net slash the Chucktodcast. Having good life
Speaker 1: insurance is incredibly important. I know from personal looksience. I
Speaker 1: was sixteen when my father passed away. We didn't have
Speaker 1: any money. He didn't leave us in the best shape.
Speaker 1: My mother, single mother, now widow, myself sixteen, trying to
Speaker 1: figure out how am I going to pay for college
Speaker 1: and lo and behold, my dad had one life insurance
Speaker 1: policy that we found wasn't a lot, but it was
Speaker 1: important at the time, and it's why I was able
Speaker 1: to go to college. Little did he know how important
Speaker 1: that would be in that moment. Well, guess what. That's
Speaker 1: why I am here to tell you about Etho's life.
Speaker 1: They can provide you with peace of mind knowing your
Speaker 1: family is protected even if the worst comes to pass.
Speaker 1: Ethos is an online platform that makes getting life insurance
Speaker 1: fast and easy, all designed to protect your family's future
Speaker 1: in minutes, not months. There's no complicated process, and it's
Speaker 1: one hundred percent online. There's no medical exam require you
Speaker 1: just answer a few health questions online. You can get
Speaker 1: a quote in as little as ten minutes, and you
Speaker 1: can get same day coverage without ever leaving your home.
Speaker 1: You can get up to three million dollars in coverage,
Speaker 1: and some policies start as low as two dollars a
Speaker 1: day that would be billed monthly. As of March twenty
Speaker 1: twenty five, Business Insider named Ethos the number one no
Speaker 1: medical exam instant life insurance provider. So protect your family
Speaker 1: with life insurance from Ethos. Get your free quoted ethos
Speaker 1: dot com slash chuck. So again, that's Ethos dot com
Speaker 1: slash chuck. Application times may vary and the rates themselves
Speaker 1: may vary as well, but trust me, life insurance is
Speaker 1: something you should really think about, especially if you've got
Speaker 1: a growing family. So let's talk about where is what.
Speaker 1: You're one of the few people who understands economists speak
Speaker 1: and sort of Americans speak, right, which is why I
Speaker 1: think you've been a popular staffer to bring in for presidents,
Speaker 1: because you're just you're not just thinking like an economist
Speaker 1: and a data guy, but sort of you're able to
Speaker 1: fuse it with sort of realistic, realistic policy that you
Speaker 1: can sell. Right. There's one thing about proposing policy, but
Speaker 1: it's policy you can actually sell to the public. I
Speaker 1: think the pitchforks are being sharpened. There's definitely distrust and
Speaker 1: anger at sort of corporate America generally and the biggest
Speaker 1: companies specifically AI. Job displacement's probably going to fuel this
Speaker 1: even more it is. Is it inevitable that just becomes
Speaker 1: just some sort of anger driven political movement, or is
Speaker 1: there a chance for somebody to, you know, for this
Speaker 1: not to end up down that road, Like I think
Speaker 1: it's we're inevitably going to go there. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: to have this moment that we end up there. Maybe
Speaker 1: it's a little bit like the first part of the
Speaker 1: twentieth century, but there really is sort of almost a
Speaker 1: revolt against some of these folks here because of the frustrations,
Speaker 1: and it will be this sort of white collar blue
Speaker 1: collar a mix. But maybe I'm wrong, and maybe AI
Speaker 1: is more like what you know, computers in everyday life
Speaker 1: turned into increased productivity and all boats rows.
Speaker 2: So you know, I've never been somebody you know who
Speaker 2: like starts running to a camp, you know, when I see,
Speaker 2: you know, like with a policy tribe, because I often
Speaker 2: don't think that it's helpful in finding what's good economic
Speaker 2: policy or even what's good economic message to think like
Speaker 2: you have to be in a single camp or the other.
Speaker 2: So of course I run into people who feel like,
Speaker 2: oh my god, everything we need does has to sound
Speaker 2: kind of quote centrist or practical, and then other side
Speaker 2: who are saying no, every single thing needs to be
Speaker 2: populist anger, I don't know that the world looks like that.
Speaker 2: I would say that to me, You've got to do
Speaker 2: maybe two things together, which is one, you do need
Speaker 2: to be an optimist about people's lives. You do need
Speaker 2: to show that you want to see more people meet
Speaker 2: the American dream, not just tread water, but get ahead
Speaker 2: and maybe own a house, have a little nest stake
Speaker 2: for their retirement. You need that optimism and positive view.
Speaker 2: And I do think that presidents who've done well have
Speaker 2: done that and so. But on the other hand, I
Speaker 2: don't think you can hold back when there's clear economic injustice.
Speaker 2: I don't know that Americans are, you know, have a
Speaker 2: I'm against you know, business or corporate America. I think
Speaker 2: they understand that that's where a lot of jobs and
Speaker 2: growth come. But they are against when they think the
Speaker 2: system is rigged, or when a bottom line that affects
Speaker 2: a chosen few is doing is more important than your
Speaker 2: lives and your struggle. So I think you need to
Speaker 2: I think what we need is to have a degree
Speaker 2: of optimism that we are the ones who can be
Speaker 2: good for the economy. We are the ones that can
Speaker 2: help you get ahead, and that doesn't mean being down
Speaker 2: on everybody who's a major job creator. But on the
Speaker 2: other hand, people don't believe people who believe in markets
Speaker 2: and capitalism, which I think is most Americans still believe
Speaker 2: that the ultimate purpose of what they do is not
Speaker 2: big bonuses for the CEO or just extracting profits for shareholders.
Speaker 2: They think, as I've written about in my book in
Speaker 2: the past and now, they think that the ultimate goal,
Speaker 2: rightly is does it benefit typical people? Does it provide
Speaker 2: economic dignity? And so when they see people doing things
Speaker 2: that are just about extracting profits from them, when they
Speaker 2: see a kind of economic policy that is not geared
Speaker 2: towards creating more jobs, good jobs, jobs with dignity, jobs
Speaker 2: with respect, then they're going to be angry. And I
Speaker 2: think it is okay to tap into that anger. And
Speaker 2: I think it is okay to say I believe in
Speaker 2: our American market based system, but the goal of that
Speaker 2: market based system is ultimately the well being and economic
Speaker 2: dignity of working families. And if you have a system
Speaker 2: that is rigged to benefit just the few and not
Speaker 2: typical American families, then yeah, you should be anger angry
Speaker 2: about that, and nobody running for president in the Democratic
Speaker 2: side should be hesitant in pressing that anger. And I
Speaker 2: won't just I'll take a second just to start on
Speaker 2: the AI if you want. But it's also a good
Speaker 2: example of that, you know. I mean, if you listen
Speaker 2: to people now, you might think, if you're listening to
Speaker 2: the White House, that well, AI is just going to happen,
Speaker 2: and maybe it's going to hurt a lot of jobs,
Speaker 2: and we should preempt states from trying to regulate it
Speaker 2: in any way, or make sure people have protections of
Speaker 2: privacy or against abusive surveillance, or to make sure that
Speaker 2: we're dealing with job dislocation. And the response comes by no, no, no,
Speaker 2: we have to rush, rush, rush to get more GDP
Speaker 2: and greater growth. And I think they will lose people
Speaker 2: because people will ask the question I've said, but what's
Speaker 2: the ultimate point if why would we have a policy
Speaker 2: that's not good for jobs, it's not good for the
Speaker 2: typical family. And I think that it's not maybe the
Speaker 2: front and center issue now, but I think it will be,
Speaker 2: and I think it will be part of that bigger picture,
Speaker 2: which is what is the ultimate goal of our economy,
Speaker 2: and if people think it's just to have some enormous
Speaker 2: wealth and five or six AI companies and we'll just
Speaker 2: deal with the effect on job loss and income loss
Speaker 2: as an after effect. People are going to be angry.
Speaker 2: They're going to be rightly angry. And I think people
Speaker 2: going in twenty eight will do better not to be
Speaker 2: like they're head in the sand about AI or the
Speaker 2: good things it could do. But people who are going
Speaker 2: to say, front and center, my goal is you your job,
Speaker 2: whether your children can be as well off as you are.
Speaker 2: And when I'm thinking about AI, I'm thinking that about
Speaker 2: how we shape it to serve average people. Technology is
Speaker 2: not destiny. Democracy determines our destiny.
Speaker 1: Some of the proposals that are out there about AI
Speaker 1: job displacement remind me of some of the ideas that
Speaker 1: you guys attempted to implement during sort of the the
Speaker 1: era of the nineties, the free trade era of the nineties, right,
Speaker 1: And I remember one of the central promises on NAFTA was,
Speaker 1: you know, when when if factories went away, there'd be
Speaker 1: there was always you know, there was going to be
Speaker 1: money there for retraining and job displacement. And the money
Speaker 1: was there and there was retraining, but it turned out
Speaker 1: that didn't take right. There were weren't a lot, There
Speaker 1: weren't as many people interested in some of the retraining
Speaker 1: opportunities that were offered. I don't and I'm curious what
Speaker 1: lessons you take away from that as you think about
Speaker 1: developing Frank what I assume will potentially be a policy
Speaker 1: that next a new president may may be influenced by
Speaker 1: I sort of how to manage this displacement. The displacement's
Speaker 1: going to happen. And you know, I'm I'm I am
Speaker 1: you know, I'm a capitalist. You know, I think we
Speaker 1: just want capitalism with a little bit of guardrails. And
Speaker 1: in every technology, right, this has been true of the
Speaker 1: media business, and it's true of really anything. Right, you
Speaker 1: get a new technology, there's immediately fragmentation. Maybe you get
Speaker 1: a thousand startups, and then eventually you get consolidation, and
Speaker 1: then a new technology comes and the cycle can begin
Speaker 1: all over again. Globalization, in some ways right, the idea
Speaker 1: of free trade, which of course the upside was there's
Speaker 1: not a fruit you can't get any any month of
Speaker 1: the year in America now, which was not true when
Speaker 1: you and I were growing up. It was not true
Speaker 1: in the eighties and nineties. But that's what free trade
Speaker 1: has done right in many ways, And that's just it's
Speaker 1: I always use I like to use produce because it's
Speaker 1: the simplest example of what free trade has meant. Like
Speaker 1: you realize that you know, you're you get to eat
Speaker 1: certain fruits year round now and back in the day
Speaker 1: you couldn't. But there was certainly right that. Arguably, the
Speaker 1: the seeds of the Trump victories of sixteen and twenty
Speaker 1: four were planted with the globalization and free trade movement
Speaker 1: of the nineties. So what policies do you now wish
Speaker 1: where it implemented better than and what parallels do you
Speaker 1: see as you think about what AI job displacement and
Speaker 1: what benefits are necessary to ease that pain.
Speaker 2: So I guess I would disagree with one of your premises,
Speaker 2: which was that.
Speaker 1: I throw a lot in there. So the fact that
Speaker 1: you only disagree with one premise maybe is a small victory.
Speaker 2: So, first of all, I think the core issue when
Speaker 2: you look back on kind of the Clinton agenda was
Speaker 2: that Bill Clinton came in with the view that you know,
Speaker 2: there was going to be greater global integration and that
Speaker 2: we really needed a robust response.
Speaker 1: And so and by the way, you guys, you know,
Speaker 1: a huge opportunity in from of you, right, we basically
Speaker 1: the end of the Cold War. This was the peace divoting.
Speaker 2: No, And I think that a lot of what he
Speaker 2: was trying to do was integrate more of the world
Speaker 2: to avoid some of the issues we're having now with
Speaker 2: Russia and China. So there was a big foreign policy element.
Speaker 2: But the vision was that you would have universal health care,
Speaker 2: there would be a major universal training program for anybody
Speaker 2: who lost a job for any reason, and then you
Speaker 2: would also have significant place based investment in places. And
Speaker 2: I think what happened with President Clinton was they didn't
Speaker 2: get that. We didn't get healthcare, and then we didn't
Speaker 2: even get to propose our universal training proposal because we
Speaker 2: lost the Congress for all six years, both houses. So
Speaker 2: I don't think that we ever got to test out
Speaker 2: what that we ever got to test out what truly
Speaker 2: having a robust safety net would be like, I don't
Speaker 2: think it ever got to be put in place in
Speaker 2: the way that it might have if Democrats had controlled
Speaker 2: both houses for four or six years. So one, I
Speaker 2: don't think we ever tested two, which is very relevant
Speaker 2: is that globalization turned out to be much more dramatic
Speaker 2: than anybody would have thought at the times. And then
Speaker 2: you had eight years of a Republican administration that wasn't
Speaker 2: really willing to adjust to that or do anything. So
Speaker 2: I guess i'd say number one, we still have just
Speaker 2: huge holes in what I think of as an economic
Speaker 2: dignity net of making sure people are working or doing
Speaker 2: their best or living lives of economic dignity even in
Speaker 2: moments of disruption. And I think what globalization showed is
Speaker 2: that even the there were lots of benefits to the
Speaker 2: Internet era. And look, it wasn't just trade agreements, it
Speaker 2: was the Internet, it was globalization. It was just a
Speaker 2: smaller world, even though there were benefits to that. You
Speaker 2: can't have an economy where you say, hey, for sixty
Speaker 2: or seventy percent of you, this is nice because you're
Speaker 2: getting lower prices and mode choices, but there's like a
Speaker 2: portion of you that are watching your community spiral down.
Speaker 2: You're losing your hopes, your dreams, you're watching your father
Speaker 2: or grandfather become an alcoholic. And so one of the
Speaker 2: things that I talked about with economic dignity is you
Speaker 2: have got to have policies that aren't just good for
Speaker 2: GDP or don't just lower prices for some people. Generally,
Speaker 2: you have to have policies where everybody feels they're not
Speaker 2: being left behind. And you know, I wouldn't put as
Speaker 2: much blame on anything Bill Clinton did, but I would
Speaker 2: say that the accumulation of policies over twenty thirty years
Speaker 2: did not put in place the type of job creation
Speaker 2: focused protections, checks on abuse of corporate power that were
Speaker 2: necessary to make sure everyone has economic dignity for all.
Speaker 2: So where AI becomes relevant is that globalization was a
Speaker 2: bigger shock than we might the people might have known,
Speaker 2: and the holes in our safety net or our insurance
Speaker 2: of economic dignity for all became more painful. I think
Speaker 2: that's how you should look at AI. I don't think
Speaker 2: AI is just another technology. I think AI is likely
Speaker 2: to have a greater impact on job disruption and a
Speaker 2: greater impact on maybe even the reduction of the amount
Speaker 2: of jobs in the private sector than we've seen before.
Speaker 2: And so now is the time to me not to
Speaker 2: sit back and watch and just say, oh my god,
Speaker 2: tens of millions of jobs are being lost, or react
Speaker 2: by just having a UBI program that writes checks to people.
Speaker 2: Now is the time to start shaping, to make shaping
Speaker 2: our economy, and to me, I talked about three things
Speaker 2: and what I wrote as an Economic Dignity Coumpact for AI. One,
Speaker 2: let's create more dignified jobs where we know we need more,
Speaker 2: which are helping families with disability, helping people come out
Speaker 2: of prison, helping people with addiction, helping people coach more
Speaker 2: people on their healthcare. There may be twenty million missing
Speaker 2: jobs there that could employ people, have a tighter labor market,
Speaker 2: and deal with a lot of dislocation. That's number one.
Speaker 2: We have the power to do that. We also have
Speaker 2: the power to create tax incentives and subsidies that encourage
Speaker 2: a company to augment use AI to augment jobs supplosed
Speaker 2: to displace jobs or to redeploy people. We control our
Speaker 2: economic policy. We should be doing that now. Secondly, going
Speaker 2: to the point I talked about, let's create an economic
Speaker 2: dignity floor for everyone, so that if there is a
Speaker 2: worse disruption than we thought, unlike what happened in communities
Speaker 2: and globalization, now we're going to have programs that focus
Speaker 2: on jobs, on helping people find new jobs, of making
Speaker 2: sure you still have health insurance. And then the third issue,
Speaker 2: which is going to be the toughest than the one
Speaker 2: that hits us, is what are those overall policies that
Speaker 2: help people move to the next job. I just believe
Speaker 2: that we are a country where we care about work,
Speaker 2: we care about contribution, we care about purpose and potential.
Speaker 2: And what I don't like is that everybody's kind of
Speaker 2: you know, you've got a White House that's just saying
Speaker 2: go as fast as you can and geez if it
Speaker 2: causes lots of disruption, kind of too bad, that that
Speaker 2: can't be our policy. Our policy going forward must be
Speaker 2: AI is going to happen. You can't stop it all,
Speaker 2: but you can have policies that shape to make sure
Speaker 2: that it is serving the American people. What is the
Speaker 2: point of an economy having high growth and high productivity
Speaker 2: growth if it creates unhappiness for a large portion of
Speaker 2: the economy. That's the focus I want to do in
Speaker 2: my Economic Dignity lab is to focus on our goal.
Speaker 2: What is our ultimate goal? Every day? It's not higher
Speaker 2: GDP and productivity growth that makes people unhappy. It's higher
Speaker 2: growth and productivity growth that leads to more opportunity, more dignity,
Speaker 2: more upward mobility for more Americans.
Speaker 1: You know, Shared Brown's going to love the fact that
Speaker 1: you use the word dignity so much. The dignity of
Speaker 1: work myself.
Speaker 2: I wrote the book twenty twenty. The title is Economic Dignity.
Speaker 2: So I've got here. It is right here, I copyrighting
Speaker 2: the word dignity. Take that, Take that, take that, share it.
Speaker 2: Let me get you out of here on this. When
Speaker 2: is a company too big to regulate? And when is
Speaker 2: when do you fear that a company's becomes bigger than
Speaker 2: a nation state? And what happens there? I mean, like
Speaker 2: I used to think of this as sort of perverted
Speaker 2: Bond James Bond plot.
Speaker 1: Lines, and but the fact of the matter is these
Speaker 1: huge companies are bigger than most nation states. And what
Speaker 1: does that mean right that they're they're that that's it
Speaker 1: is different than what we've had. And does our government
Speaker 1: of a responsibility from preventing that or do you let
Speaker 1: capitalism be capitalism?
Speaker 2: Well, again, I think it goes back to the tests
Speaker 2: that we have before. The purpose of structuring our economy
Speaker 2: is not for the companies themselves. It's not for the
Speaker 2: CEOs themselves. It's to have an economy that benefits people's
Speaker 2: lives and gives people more opportunity. So when companies start,
Speaker 2: when companies get so large or integrated that they I
Speaker 2: think there's two things you have to worry about. One,
Speaker 2: when you don't have true competition, you know, I mean
Speaker 2: Adam Smith was not writing about a market economy where
Speaker 2: you know, for big AI or big tech companies controlled everything.
Speaker 2: It was about how to have competition and why competition
Speaker 2: would through some form of process he said invisible hand,
Speaker 2: I'll say a little more notable hand. Make sure that
Speaker 2: it's benefiting everybody. So one when is that working? The
Speaker 2: other way? Now, I know a lot of people aren't
Speaker 2: always happy with everything Lena Khan did, but I'm more
Speaker 2: of a fan of hers, and I think that what
Speaker 2: she did and looking at big Tech and Amazon, was
Speaker 2: to look and say, in reality, are these large companies
Speaker 2: suppressing competition and hurting people or are they actually encouraging it?
Speaker 2: So you should have that test. And then the second
Speaker 2: test is a democracy test. If the size and power
Speaker 2: of companies mean that they are disproportionately determining our policies
Speaker 2: as opposed to our democratic processes based on what's best
Speaker 2: for people. Then I think that's the problem.
Speaker 1: So for me, it's not you know, you've been on
Speaker 1: K Street lately.
Speaker 2: It's not just the size, but what is the impact?
Speaker 2: And I think the reason.
Speaker 1: How do you say that? I would say arguably right
Speaker 1: now that the between there are two industries that are
Speaker 1: over indexed in Washington and they seem to get whatever
Speaker 1: they want because of how much campaign money they give,
Speaker 1: and that is the crypto and AI.
Speaker 2: Well, I think there's a lot to be said for that,
Speaker 2: and I think, look, I think there's always been big
Speaker 2: companies who use political contributions and lobbying power to get
Speaker 2: what they want at the benefit at the expense of
Speaker 2: what might be the common good, and that is a
Speaker 2: real problem. I think what's a little more concerning on
Speaker 2: the AI front, though, is the idea that there could
Speaker 2: be four or five or six companies that actually are
Speaker 2: almost determining the structure of the economy, not just benefiting
Speaker 2: their company at the expense of some higher prices for
Speaker 2: other people, which is itself very problematic, but where it
Speaker 2: looks like they're determining policy. And I do see sometimes
Speaker 2: when I look at the White House, you know, I
Speaker 2: do wonder our six or seven companies contributing whispering in
Speaker 2: the ear. Are you seeing companies, you know, whether it's
Speaker 2: crypto or AI or other places, actually part of deals
Speaker 2: that are actually benefiting in a more corrupt way individuals
Speaker 2: associated with the administration. That is very concerning. Now, look,
Speaker 2: some of the heads of these big AI companies have
Speaker 2: notably gone out and said, we need to think about
Speaker 2: what's best for the country. But the fact is that
Speaker 2: when I still look at what's happening every day, it
Speaker 2: looks like rush fast, hygien growth, high wealth, get things
Speaker 2: built as quickly as possible, and those discussions about what's
Speaker 2: best for jobs or people or the economic dignity of
Speaker 2: people is being lost. And my prediction is going to
Speaker 2: what you said at the beginning, is if people don't
Speaker 2: start talking about how to shape AI so that it
Speaker 2: is benefiting everyone, they're going to get a backlash that
Speaker 2: that might be even harsher than is desired.
Speaker 1: So we never do prevent very well so it's.
Speaker 2: Benefiting everyone, and not have this perception that the White
Speaker 2: House listens to five or six major companies and they
Speaker 2: not the American people are determining what the what the
Speaker 2: path of our economic future will be.
Speaker 1: Well, take me back to your time in the Biden
Speaker 1: White House when these AI companies were looking for more
Speaker 1: government assistance to excel rate what they were doing. Did
Speaker 1: you feel like they had a gun to the head, like, well,
Speaker 1: you know, you either help us out here we're going
Speaker 1: with the other guys, or I.
Speaker 2: Can't you know, at this time of that life, I
Speaker 2: wasn't the National Economic consol Director, so I was running
Speaker 2: the American Rescue.
Speaker 1: You didn't really have a good you didn't have a
Speaker 1: good window into that.
Speaker 2: With the air I didn't see as much. But I
Speaker 2: never had the feeling. No, I never had that that feeling.
Speaker 2: And to be quite honest, I think in some ways,
Speaker 2: the Trump White House has invited that, you know. I
Speaker 2: think I don't think that the AI companies would feel like,
Speaker 2: oh my, if you didn't do exactly what Joe Biden wanted,
Speaker 2: he was going to go out and punish you, or
Speaker 2: single you out, or call in the Justice Department, the
Speaker 2: criminal part of the Justice Department on you. I think that,
Speaker 2: you know, I think what you've seen more recently is
Speaker 2: really the most unattractive thing I think I've seen in
Speaker 2: my political life, which is that the most well off
Speaker 2: people and the most well off companies are the first
Speaker 2: ones to take a knee and to and to do
Speaker 2: whatever this administration wants. So as much as I agree
Speaker 2: that we need to be concerned about the lobbying and
Speaker 2: political power of major companies and are determining the path
Speaker 2: on AI, in this situation, it's a little bit like
Speaker 2: the White House kind of invited it, you know, a
Speaker 2: little bit of give money.
Speaker 1: As I said, you know he's not.
Speaker 2: And you'll have influence.
Speaker 1: And if not everybody knows, everybody knows how it works.
Speaker 1: You write a big enough check to the right entity,
Speaker 1: you're going to get a meeting.
Speaker 2: So I just don't think you would have seen that
Speaker 2: kind of behavior, you know, towards the Biden administration, because
Speaker 2: one it wouldn't have been tolerant but too On the
Speaker 2: other hand, we wouldn't have been out there telling American companies,
Speaker 2: you know, do as we say, or or American universities
Speaker 2: or American law firms that you have to get in
Speaker 2: line or there's going to be consequences. They may not
Speaker 2: have liked our climate policy, they may have disagreed with
Speaker 2: some anti trust policy, but the notion of you contribute
Speaker 2: and get in line, or you will face consequences. Was
Speaker 2: just not part of the bid. No Harris administration.
Speaker 1: All right, I'm going to get you out of here
Speaker 1: on what I think is the toughest question. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ask you, Jim Harball. Good feelings are bad feelings when
Speaker 1: you think about Michigan football.
Speaker 2: Good feelings.
Speaker 1: You know, you look at this situation because you know,
Speaker 1: are you do you wish he were still there? Or
Speaker 1: do you feel like, Nope, we got our title and
Speaker 1: I'm glad he left.
Speaker 2: I think that for a while of reasons it made
Speaker 2: sense for him to go. But look, I've been just
Speaker 2: an incredible Michigan football, Michigan basketball, Detroit Lions, Detroit Tigers,
Speaker 2: Detroit Pistons fan for six nice runners.
Speaker 1: It's finally coming together six seven.
Speaker 2: So I've never had a football team in the I've
Speaker 2: never had the Lions in the super Bowl, the Tigers.
Speaker 2: We've had two World Series in my life. So let's
Speaker 2: just say I'm not I'm more like the AI startup
Speaker 2: than Navidia. You know, Navidia is like the Patriot fans.
Speaker 2: They have so much, they have so much. But I
Speaker 2: will say that two thousand that two thousand and three,
Speaker 2: two thousand and four. I mean that NCAA championship game,
Speaker 2: being there with my family at Michigan Ohio State, being
Speaker 2: there at the Rose Bawl when they beat Alabama. I
Speaker 2: think that was kind of like you said, your whole life,
Speaker 2: if we ever won an national championship outright like that,
Speaker 2: I won't ask for anything more. I feel like I
Speaker 2: have to honor that for a few more years.
Speaker 1: And and you you never felt like the ninety seven
Speaker 1: title was just because you split it with Nebraska. It
Speaker 1: never felt perfect.
Speaker 2: It did never feel quite as perfect, though I was
Speaker 2: very happy, and I still to this day. You ready
Speaker 2: for this. When Michigan came for their their ceremony with Bill,
Speaker 2: did you.
Speaker 1: Guys invite them both? By the way, that Clinton the.
Speaker 2: Same day, but they had separate ceremonies. Interesting and the
Speaker 2: and the Bill Clinton and the Michigan one was right
Speaker 2: before a budget meeting, so they gave Bill Clinton a
Speaker 2: hat that he wore, and he came into the budget meeting.
Speaker 2: He was in the cabinet office and the first thing
Speaker 2: he did was fling me the cap. So I still
Speaker 2: have the hat that the ninety seven Michigan football team
Speaker 2: presented to him, and I also had the benefit of
Speaker 2: Jim Harbaugh brought the team to d C during the
Speaker 2: Biden administration. I got invited to go over and be
Speaker 2: the dinner speaker at one of their whole dinners and
Speaker 2: hang out with him and them, and so oh, he
Speaker 2: will always be thankful for Jim Harbaugh for that. You know.
Speaker 1: It's funny about Jim Harbaugh, and I take it you've
Speaker 1: gotten to know him a little bit. A lot of
Speaker 1: people try to pigeonhole his politics. I'm guessing he's like
Speaker 1: most Americans. It's not as predictable as people try to
Speaker 1: make them out to be. He's pretty passionate on some issues,
Speaker 1: like I know, reproductive rights and things like that, and
Speaker 1: so people just assume he's in one place, but he
Speaker 1: seems like he's genuinely like your typical Midwestern independent. There's
Speaker 1: a little bit of you don't quite know where he's
Speaker 1: coming down.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, yes, And it goes to the question
Speaker 2: you asked me before. I think people who sit around
Speaker 2: and think, oh, should we be angry, populist or centrist,
Speaker 2: it's not the right way to think. Think about real
Speaker 2: people what's best for their lives. What's best for their family.
Speaker 2: That's gonna I think, as we said, that's going to
Speaker 2: make for some populist anger, but it's but you should
Speaker 2: think about their lives. And I think, yes, Jim Harbaugh
Speaker 2: is one of those people that's a bit more complicated.
Speaker 2: It's very clear his wife is very pro life and
Speaker 2: he's respected. That is the other hand. The real highlight
Speaker 2: of my you know, one of the highlights of my
Speaker 2: time in the Bide administration was I was speaking to
Speaker 2: the Legal Service Legal services, you know, the people who
Speaker 2: represent the poor, and as they brought, knowing my background,
Speaker 2: they brought Jim Harbaugh on to introduce me. Why because
Speaker 2: Jim Harbaugh has been a huge advocate of legal services
Speaker 2: for the poor and is actually on the National Advisory Board.
Speaker 2: So yeah, he's a little more complicated, and I think
Speaker 2: a lot of Americans are a little more complicated and
Speaker 2: exactly that way.
Speaker 1: So have you become LA's only Chargers fan now, because
Speaker 1: I know there's people are looking for Charger fans in
Speaker 1: LA if they find them.
Speaker 2: Now, I'm a Lions fan. I'm lucky enough to kind
Speaker 2: of know a couple of the owners of the Commanders.
Speaker 2: So I think if I have a second team now
Speaker 2: it's the Commanders, but first team first and always will
Speaker 2: always be the Detroit Lions.
Speaker 1: Well look, it's a you know I. The only good
Speaker 1: news for you living out there in la Is you
Speaker 1: might be able to see Tarik Schooble pitch as a
Speaker 1: Dodger before the season ends, which will really piss you off.
Speaker 2: The only good news for me being out in la
Speaker 2: Is One word weather, second word weather, third word weather.
Speaker 1: Jane, It's always fun to talk with you. Good to
Speaker 1: catch Thanks all right, my friend.
Speaker 2: Bye bye,