Oren Cass

A pension fund knows that's what you're doing. Things like just stock buybacks are not allowed, which was the case until 1983. It's very funny. You say we should get rid of stock buybacks. People are like, oh, that's Marxist. I'm like, well, it was also US law for more than 200 years. But they say anything you do is, you know, you really are, you're wading into a battle that I think the left has been fighting for a really long time, which is

There's this strange kind of dichotomy that if the government intervenes with the market, in quotes, on behalf of labor, that's Marxist. But if they intervene on behalf of financialization, easing their road, that's capitalism. I think that's the frustration you talk about.

Ymmärrän, kuinka haastavaa sinulla voi olla vasemmalla, mutta se on se haastava asia, jonka vasemmalla on. Kuten sanoit aiemmin, on tällainen dogma, että hallitus ei valita menettäjiä. Jos olet vasemmalla, se valitaan aina. Se vain valitaan menettäjiä, joilla on suurin osa tilannetta ja suurin osa rahaa. Se on meidän haastava asia.

No, I think that's right. I think it is a frustration on a large segment and a growing segment of the right as well. I mean, you've seen obviously a very sharp fallout between, you know, Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce and so forth and the right of center in the Republican Party.

I think there's an increasing recognition and it goes back to that point about just like what are the basic facts that this really isn't working. We really do need to understand why it's not working and do something about it. The thing that I always emphasize to folks on the right is –

Se, mitä meillä on nyt, ei ole järjestettävää. Puhutaan ja sanotaan ihmisille, että asiat ovat hyviä. Mikä osa sitä on mielestäsi vähemmän järjestettävää? Onko se väärin? Mitkä ovat asioita, joita olet tarkoittanut, joita olet tarkoittanut, että luulet, että luulet, että luulet, että luulet, että luulet, että luulet, että luulet,

I think there's what I would call a micro element at the personal level and a macro element at the national level. I'll just hit the macro one first because it's a little quicker.

The reality is that the US economy, it performs great on the measures like stock market valuation and top line GDP figures and so forth. Our actual capacity to make things, to create jobs, to innovate, to compete with China is in sharp decline.

A system that does not reward that above all else is not going to produce the kinds of outcomes that we want. Whether it is on these questions of financialization, if it's on these questions of trade and industry –

I think there's an interesting sort of immigration dimension to it and the extent to which we sort of say, well, we're just going to have to bring in – we can't find the workers we want here, so our solution is to just bring in somebody else. The formula we have settled on is not one that is actually conducive to the liberty and prosperity of the United States.

I think we are on what many people rightly feel is a downward slide that we need to reverse. Now wouldn't people on the right side know reversing it is an artificial contrivance that what we've learned is financialization, financial services, legal services, tech services. We're actually manufacturing is

The old economy, we're actually creating the new economy and why would you want to go back to that? I disagree with that view, but isn't that what they would say? They're getting out of the way and allowing these future markets to dictate our economy.

There is a small and shrinking and declining in influence group that will go down with the ship saying that. I would say it is at this point pretty far out of the mainstream, certainly within the Republican Party and Republican politics. And in a lot of the sort of new republications, what the kinds of programs younger people are participating in.

Tällä hetkellä ei ole mitään ihmisiä, jotka sanoisivat, että asiat ovat menneet hyvin. Tämä on oikea suunnitelma. Niin kuin he sanoivat, että katsotaan meidän GDP. Ymmärrät, että se on seitsemän yritystä ja AI-datacenterit, joita emme edes tiedä, että niitä käytetään.

Jep. No, so that's a perfect example I think you'll find. And again, the, you know, politics is politics. People whose job is to promote how well the Trump administration is doing will point to the things that show the Trump administration is doing well. But in the actual sort of intellectual debates, today's equivalent of what Friedman and Hayek were arguing in a prior generation, you won't find anyone anymore saying, but look at the S&P 500, things are fine.

That's a punchline, not an actual argument. Right, okay. And I think you see that even in, if you look at the sort of next generation of leaders on the right of center, and listeners are free to support them or not, but look at what they're saying, think about the positions they've taken. They're free to do that now. Six months from now they may not be free to support them or not. We don't know what's going to happen.

I suspect that freedom will persist just fine. But on these issues that we're talking about, if you look at what a J.D. Vance or Marco Rubio was doing in the Senate, if you look at a Josh Hawley, Bernie Moreno, who's a new senator from Ohio, Jim Banks from Indiana –

This is stuff that they talk about all the time and in these terms. And so I think the newer, it takes time obviously for these things to turn over in a political party. But at the staff and writer level and at the political level, I think you see a pretty significant shift, certainly on these macro questions, on the need to reindustrialize, on the need to take on China and so forth.

Why hasn't that then coalesced into something more coherent at the policy level? And this gets into maybe a larger discussion and it's one that I stepped in shit in last week with, you know, economists being very angry that I'm confusing economics with policy. But when you talk about that, why hasn't that shift in mindset created a more coherent

ekonomisen järjestelmän filosofiaa. Jos katsotaan Trumpin järjestelmää, jossa on näitä, ajattelen, enemmän oikeudenmukaisia ekonomistit ja niiden ihmiset,