Oren Cass

When you're making all of your money in financial services, to some extent in tech, in media, you can generate a lot of growth, but you are making the most profitable things, the boosting and lifting up of those narrow enclaves that are already doing best. One of the most powerful things I think we need

Again, I think this is where the – you'll then get different answers across the political spectrum is, OK, what does it mean to drive more investment back out into the rest of the country? In my view, you aren't going to get that done by basically making a bunch of rules saying you have to go do that. What you want to do is create these very broad rules.

Even taking a tariff as an example, you want to create a broad rule that says it's going to be cheaper to sell something that you've made in the United States than it is to sell something that you made somewhere else. Which is awfully difficult when you think about the imbalances of regulation overseas and what they get away with paying people and what their standard of living is. That's a really hard thing then to engineer, isn't it?

Well, that in my mind is exactly the argument for something like tariffs, is to say if all we want is the cheapest thing, then this is great. If Chinese slave labor makes it, it will be cheaper. The problem with the tariffs though is ultimately, and again not to push back on the dearest of our leaders, but ultimately that ends up being a regressive tax on consumers and the people that can least afford tariffs.

you know to to pay that premium and that money may not come back to them in investment so aren't we punishing the very people we purport to help

There is potential for it to be regressive. There's actually a wonderful, I guess he's an economic historian officially named Michael Lind, who makes this point that I think is so important and wrote a great essay for us about it, that it's really important to remember that the progressivity or regressivity of our income, of our tax system, isn't the primary question. It is a secondary thing that we do to make up for all of the other inequality.

But if we could do something... How else do you make it up? Taking tariffs as an example, if we do things to restructure our economy in ways that are actually going to benefit typical workers left behind parts of the country, or going to ideally generate better economic outcomes, if that comes alongside less progressivity in the tax system, but the end result is better jobs and opportunities for the typical worker, that's a great outcome. But isn't that what

Sanoisitko, ettei se ole se, mitä se olisi, ja miksi oikeassa se olisi niin kontroversiaalinen ja negatiivinen vastaus siihen? Se kuulostaa, mitä sanoit, kuin melkein täysin suunniteltava poliittinen programmi tehdä näin.

Yeah, so I love the chips act. We push very hard for the chips act. I saw that bumper sticker on your car. That's right. I'm a huge hit at cocktail parties.

Luonnollisesti luulen, että 16 tai 17 republikaanisen senaattoreita valitsi sen. Olet oikeassa. Se oli jotain, joka yhdisti republikaanisen puolueen tällä hetkellä. Oli aiemmat puolustajat, jotka sanoivat, että se ei ole se, mitä me teemme. Meillä on lisäksi segmentti, joka sanoo, että kyllä, tämä on se, mitä meidän pitäisi tehdä. Ehkä enemmän positiivisempaa kuin tariffit, joita he tuottavat puolustuksessa.

Tämä on tärkeä asia. Luulen, ettei voi tehdä kaikkea näillä poliiseilla. Et voi löytää kaikkia yrityksiä ja kaikkea, mitä haluaisimme tehdä ja suunnittelemaan hallituksen programmi, jotta sen voidaan vahvistaa. Luulen, että sellaista industriali-politiikkaa voi olla todella tärkeää, jossa on erityinen täytyy olla asia.

Semiconductor is a great example. You're seeing it now with critical minerals is a great example. But if you want to think more broadly about, we want people investing in the US, bringing back the kinds of things that can be done here productively, you do need to address that problem you just described, which is...

labor and environmental regulatory issues, just baseline wages and so forth. There are an awful lot of reasons not to build things in the US. Other countries give so much more support to their producers in a lot of cases. And so we do need something to offset that. Meanwhile, we've got, even within our own country, a kind of miniature globalization dynamic in that there are certain states

that work to undercut the protections and wages of other states. So we're almost facing that same battle at home that we're also facing overseas. And in this model, is there anything you can do to address that aspect of it?

It's a tricky balancing act because the flip side is that we like the idea of states competing against each other in constructive ways, right? There are all sorts of things we would say it's good that states can go their own way. If states are actually competing on like –

who can have the most efficient process for permitting something new, that's good. We should want that. The sweet spot, it seems to me, is you need to have good national baselines. You need to have the national labor law, the national employment standards, the national environmental standards paired with then allowing and encouraging states to compete with each other. I don't think we have it exactly right, but I would say that

Se on itse asiassa yksi todellisista hyödyntäminen amerikkalaisessa järjestelmässä, että meillä on semmoinen fleksibiliteetti ja antaa ja ottaa. Federalismi. Joten luultavasti tasapainossa se todennäköisesti hyödyntää meitä. Niin. Joten lopulta, kun lähdemme koko ajan ympärille.

Kuulostaisit tällaisen penduloinnin suuntaan, jolla on laboria ja kapitalia ja kaikki näitä asioita, että finanssaalisuus on tavallaan metastasiattinen versio siitä, mitä se on, ja erilaisia poliiseja, jotka voivat saada sen kohdallaan. Voin kysyä, onko se lopulta tuotanto A, tietysti luulen, että se on helpompi kuin meidän poliittinen järjestelmä,

Mutta B, onko se osa kasvavaa kasvavuutta? Ja näemme tämän monissa aloissa. Asiakkaat-kirjaukset ovat yläkohdassa, kun se on todella tärkeä asia.

way of determining the health of the economy when it's just this tiny part of it does the fetishization of growth skew all these incentives in favor of these quick hit big profit doesn't build uh the types of stability and industrial base that you're you're talking about and is that a problem