Oren Cass

I thought, isn't work productivity what they would define as productivity, or is that still only defined as it is to consuming? In the formal economic models, it is for the sake of the consuming. Jason Furman, who was chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisors,

now teaches the intro level econ course at Harvard, gave a speech a year or two ago in Geneva at a WTO, World Trade Organization, convening, where he specifically noted that economists know that imports are the good thing that we get, and exports are just the bad thing that we have to do to get more imports. Ha ha ha ha ha ha.

So it's basically we're all working for the weekend. Well, that's what we're... Exactly, right. So the ideal, if you're kind of, you know, they do what they call scoring policies, right? We're going to run our model and say what's the best policy. The ideal policy would be one where we get just everything we want to consume and don't have to do any work.

Luulen, että se on Elonin tulevaisuus. Luulen, että se, mitä hän sanoo, tapahtuu aiheesta. Tämä on mielenkiintoista kysymystä, eikö se ole hyvä vai ei? Tämä on niin mielenkiintoista, koska tekijäryhmät, jotka suunnittelevat, mitä dystopian maailman olemme eläneet, katsotaan, että automaatiota ja aiheita

Se ei ole vain se, että se vaihtaa meitä eri paikoilla, vaan se on parempi, että se toimii. Että he katsovat sitä niin kuin sinä sanot, mikä mielestäni huomaa myös sitä, että ihmiset haluavat tuntua liittyviä. Kyllä. Se on tärkeä osa elämää. Kyllä. Se tuntuu, että se, mitä sinä teet työskentelyssäsi, on tärkeää.

Suurin piirtein, onko se se idea, että me kaikki haluaisimme olla tärkeämpiä työntekijöitä.

We don't want to be replaced. We just want a wage commensurate with being able to live, not paycheck to paycheck, for that relevance. Yes. So that's exactly right. And this is the core of the point that I try to make and my organization, American Compass, focuses on, is the idea that there are a lot of things we actually need markets to do. So again, we love capitalism. We want markets. We think markets are the right way to organize an economy.

We want them to work well. And what that means is there's actually a lot of things we need them to do besides just give us access to cheap stuff. And one of the most important is be generating jobs in the places where people live.

aloittavat niitä asioita, joita he voivat tehdä, jotka voivat heitä tukea perheistä. Olemme taas Adam Smithin näkökulmasta. Onko asioita, jotka tapahtuvat ekonomiimme, asioita, jotka tukevat tämän tuloksen?

Ekonomikki on aiemmin ihan täysin ilmainen siitä. Tietysti finanssitilanteessa se on varmasti. Se on oikea. Finanssitilanteessa se tarkoittaa markkinan, jossa vahvistukset eivät tehdä sitä. Ekonomikki, joka on analysoinnin alue, ei todellakaan saa määrittää sitä. Kun näet, että GDP on kasvavaa,

Se ei kertoa sinulle mitään siitä, onko se menossa tavalla, joka tuottaa niitä asioita tai ei. Joten miksi, Orin, kerron sinulle tätä, koska muistan, ja ehkä tämä on siksi, että se oli sellaista itsevaihtoehtoisuutta, mutta jos muistat, että oli liikkuvuus, se ei ollut edes niin kauan sitten, 10-15 vuotta sitten, se ESG-liikkuvuus.

Where corporations were now also going to judge themselves or be judged on whether or not their economic production was also positive or a net positive. And they created sort of these different parameters about environment and social justice and these different things. And it was a disaster politically and otherwise. Yes. Why would that be given sort of what we're talking about?

Jos voin tehdä huolimatta puheenvuoron puolesta tällä hetkellä. ESG, se idea, että meidän täytyy huolehtia asioista muuta kuin tuotantoa on erittäin tärkeää.

One of the most unfortunate elements of ESG was that it said the things that we therefore really need to concentrate on more are essentially the progressive agenda. Right? So there was a very heavy focus on climate change. And what are you doing to reduce climate change? Right. Although a lot of it was, to be fair, a lot of it was lipser. I mean...

A lot of it's kind of nonsense. Oh, absolutely. But to the extent that you want to take it seriously, it was not actually focused on the set of things we've been talking about here. Are you investing domestically? Are you creating the kinds of jobs that are going to allow people to support families? I see what you're saying. It was focused on the set of

Essentially the left of center side of this elite that is generally happy with how things are going on, but wanted to impose a particular set of policy priorities around things like climate change, a certain conception of social justice. And maybe ill-defining it.

I've always been so surprised at the pushback, especially for those who talk about meritocracy. If you think about social justice in terms of markets, aren't these communities that have been traditionally excluded, oftentimes explicitly by the law, couldn't you just reclassify them as emerging markets?

ja tarkoittaa sitä, että halusin luoda parempaa investointia tulevaisuudessa markkinoille, jotta voisi luoda isompi, meritokraattisempaa järjestelmä, jossa olisi enemmän ympäristöä. Minusta se oli yllättävää, että se olisi näyttänyt niin negatiivisesti. Se tarkoittaa lähestymistapaista järjestelmää ja rajoittamista sen.

I think that if you're just putting your hat on as a business leader trying to maximize profit, what you like about an emerging market typically is it's a place to generate a lot of profit. In the US, as you've defined it,

For the most part, those groups that have typically been excluded, places that have been left behind, those don't tend to be the places where a lot of the profit opportunity is. Short term. Short term, which is what they're looking at and which connects back to another of the big problems with financialization, which is –