Makers, Takers & America’s Wealth Distribution Problem | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: Why do you think it is that when we're faced. with this idea of fiscal responsibility, the thing we turn to generally first. is those that have the least? JAMES ROBINSON: Well, because they're the least powerful, and they're the least organized. JON STEWART: Wait, it's that simple. JAMES ROBINSON: That's not rocket science, is it? JON STEWART: Son of a bitch. [ROCK MUSIC]. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to The Weekly Show podcast. My name is Jon Stewart, and I am the host.

of The Weekly Show podcast. It is Wednesday, July 16. We're probably going to air Thursday, July 17. I don't even know what to say about the speed by which--. it's the summer, man. Isn't the world just supposed to fucking kick back. and go tubing or something? And it's flying fast and furious from wherever we go. We've even got the Senate accomplishing things. They approved a rescissions package.

I don't know if they--. NPR-- what bad timing, as NPR is struggling. for their funding, for Elmo to lose his fucking mind. and just go off on everything Elmo. has been feeling all these years. This is what happens when you infantilize. a person for the 30 years. They just develop these very strange thoughts and things, but not great timing in terms of making.

the case for his funding. But Elmo has apologized. That was my favorite-- my favorite part of the Elmo thing. was the Sesame Street apology. Elmo famously kind of went off on fuck the Jews, and Trump's a child fucker, and a variety of comments. that, you know, generally you don't hear on Elmo's show. You know, his show's a lot of Mr. Noodle, getting angry at a rock, that sort of thing.

So to hear him go off like that--. but my favorite thing is Sesame Street had to put an apology. out saying that the statements that were expressed on Elmo's--. I don't know if it was his Instagram or his X account. or whatever socials Elmo's on. I don't know what socials he's on, his hinge. I don't know if Elmo is dating. But they had to say that those sentiments do not reflect, they do not reflect the sentiments of Sesame Street.

And by the way, if you've been to the street, they are right. It's relatively orderly. I mean, things happen obviously. New people get introduced. They have to learn how to deal with death. or food shortages, that sort of thing, division, numbers. But generally, they don't have to deal with like full-on kind. of Nazi shit.

But I take them at their word. Sesame Street, you are forgiven, and well done. Meanwhile, the world continues to utterly spin out of control. Israel's, I think, apparently bombing Damascus today. because why not? It's like they do that in the same way that like when you. take a summer vacation, you think to yourself, I really want to see Croatia. So I think they're just--. that was just on their bucket list of Mideast capitals.

to bomb, continuing their ongoing bingo. card of cratering. Today, we're going to talk about the economy. I really want to get into-- you know, I've been thinking so. much about this tax and spending. bill and its priorities and why they are the way that they are. and why we accept those priorities as though those are. the kinds of economic priorities. that ensure our collective prosperity.

And so we have two really just expert economists that. are going to talk about that. And we're going to-- we'll step back, talk a little bit of a historical perspective. But I want to get into them now. And hopefully, Elmo will hear this and find a way. to calm and stabilize himself. All right, so let's get into it. [ROCK MUSIC]. We are delighted today to have as our guest--. this is as erudite a panel as I can pull.

off, ladies and gentlemen. You've listened to the show. We do very well with the guests. Generally, I play the part of Dunderhead Jones, but we have ourselves a panel today, ladies and gentlemen. Clara Mattei, Professor of Economics. at the University of Tulsa, Executive Director of FREE--. The Forum for Real Economic Emancipation, author. of The Capital Order. And James Robinson, University professor at the Harris School. for Public Policy and the Department of Political Science. at the University of Chicago. Yeah, I tried to get in there.

But apparently, there's like a test. that you have to take to get in. But James Robinson, Nobel Prize awardee. in 2024 for economic sciences. Welcome to both of you. And so pleased that you can join us today. I would like to start if we could--. I want to step back for a moment. We'll get into the tax and spending bill that we've got. and the priorities that the United States budget. is going to be pursuing.

But I want to step back for a moment to ask the question--. I think in this country, we have the idea that we. live in a free market economy. You know, the mythology is it's an Adam Smith laissez-faire, invisible hand. If government just gets out of the way, and it does, the market takes care of itself. So if I could, I just want you to address the realities.

of whether or not we live in a centrally planned. or a free market. Where are we at on the capitalism-socialism continuum? Clara, I'll start with you. CLARA MATTEI: Thank you so much, Jon, for having me on. JON STEWART: Please. CLARA MATTEI: It's a real pleasure. So the free market is a myth in the approach. I take to economics, in the sense that there is nothing. spontaneous or natural that pops up out of like the essence. of who we are. This is how we just tend to think of the market.

because it's the way in which we tend. then to accept the market. But really, the market, as I show, has to be constantly protected by the state in order. to secure what is at the foundation of it, which is not. just about exchange, it's really. about people having no alternative. but to sell their capacity to work for a wage. So the labor market is the foundation of what. we usually call market. But this labor market entails a certain coercion, a certain constraint, a limit of possibilities, the sense.

that people have really no alternative. but to go work for a wage and usually very low one. And so in this way, the state has. to protect the so-called market, which is not. at all a world of freedom, but I. would say a world of unfreedom because it. presupposes this ultimate coercion. that we can call exploitation. JON STEWART: James. JAMES ROBINSON: Yes, thank you for having me on. JON STEWART: Please. JAMES ROBINSON: My perspective, I suppose, is a bit different in that I think. there's lots of imperfections in the market.

I would say what you've got in the United. States is something like a mixed economy, that you have government. The government does lots of important things. It does significant things. You have imperfections in the market. You have monopolies. You have barriers to entry. But there is competition. There is competition. You know, you like Tesla cars. You buy a Tesla car. That's bad for General Motors. It's bad for Toyota. So I think competition and choice, it's imperfect,

but it is there. JON STEWART: I guess the question then becomes--. so generally, my position on this. has always been that when the government intervenes on behalf. of corporate interests, that is seen as a natural extension. of capitalism, that subsidizing a corporation or corporate tax. cut or creating a, you know, 0 interest window at the Fed,

those are all interventions on behalf of corporations. But if the government intervenes on behalf of workers. or individuals, whether it be so-called entitlements. or whether it be setting wage standards or those things, that's considered antithetical. It's still government intervention, but it's somehow anti-capitalist. And so that's kind of where I want.

to start in our discussion. Why do you think that that is? Why are those interventions different? Clara. CLARA MATTEI: Well, I think you really point, Jon, your finger to the essence of it. all, which is we live in a capitalist economy that. by definition works according to two. pillars, wage labor and private command over investment. JON STEWART: Would that be considered capital and labor? Is that what we're talking about? CLARA MATTEI: Yes, exactly, exactly. Exactly, capital and labor, right?

The fact that people go work for a wage. and others instead command investment in the sense that. decide for all of us how to invest and where. according to the logic of profit. So this by definition, requires the governments to maintain. these pillars alive for the system to be able to accumulate. as it should, right? The capital accumulation, which is economic growth, we tend to call it economic growth because it. sounds less political. It sounds more kind of neutral. But actually, economic growth presupposes these pillars,

which mean that the natural doing of the government. is very interventionist, but only in a way that protects. the two pillars, which means you can't give too much rights. to workers because they might decide not to go work. for a wage, while you should always incentivize. private investment and subsidize and de-risk. because we kind of all depend on the decisions. JON STEWART: Makers and takers. CLARA MATTEI: Yes. JON STEWART: If government steps in on behalf of makers, that's acceptable because that has virtue. But if you step in on behalf of labor.

or able-bodies non-labor, the takers, that would be moral hazard and those kinds of things. James, do you think that's fair sort. of as we're setting our tent posts for the discussion? JAMES ROBINSON: I mean, I think it's right. that that's the direction that American capitalism has. evolved in. But, you know, it's not true historically. If you went back to the 1930s and thought about the New Deal. or the Wagner Act or the Roosevelt government, there was plenty of intervention. trying to strengthen unions and strengthen.

collective bargaining. I think it's just really the way things have gone here. since Ronald Reagan, you know, and that whole kind. of embrace of this anti-statist model of capitalism. So I don't think it's inevitable. Look at Scandinavia. They have capitalism in Sweden, but they. have a very different attitude towards collective bargaining. and labor. JON STEWART: But James, also, you. bring up a really interesting point because when we talk. about Scandinavian countries or social democracies in America, there is a patina of disdain.

There is always that, you know, go live in Denmark. There's a sense that that is not the proper use. of government and capital. I'm talking about the vibe from American capitalists. CLARA MATTEI: If I may. JON STEWART: Yes. CLARA MATTEI: Ultimately, what's important to note. is that even during the Keynesian period--. JON STEWART: The Keynesian period being the 30s. when they were stimulating--. CLARA MATTEI: Keynesian period being the 30s and the immediate.

post-Second World War, so the moment in which supposedly. the state was doing what James is saying, which. is more of pro-labor policies. We need to remind ourselves that--. and I'm studying this period at the moment--. there are clear political limits. to what the state can do. Because exactly, if the state gives too much to people, it risks curtailing that market dependence. that secures wage labor. So again, those pillars--. of course, there's ways in which. you can try to like be less pro-capital only and try.

to secure more of a sense of neutrality and global interest. But at the same time, those pillars need to be maintained. And I was inviting actually in Sweden and Iceland. to talk about austerity because we don't talk about it. But in those countries, too, in the supposed Scandinavian. countries, they're affected by the same type of policies. that we've been affected in in the United States. So we tend to idealize those countries. as being like a fair version of capitalism. If you hear what they have to say--.

I was actually invited by the unions themselves there. They have a very different understanding. of what's happening to them. JON STEWART: What is their understanding then, Clara? Would they look at it as it's still. not fair enough to workers? What is their position? CLARA MATTEI: Well, they feel the constant attack. of social rights being taken away from them. And they understand, for example, deflation. So the increase of interest rate. that we saw in the last years affected. those countries as well. And the whole conversation was about how there should. be more wage moderation in order.

to allow for price stability. So this whole thing about wages having to kind of be decreased. in favor of price stability, this. is a typical capitalist compromise. that they can't escape. JON STEWART: So this brings us to our discussion. I think we've sort of framed it out, which is this, because I think, Clara, you put it very. well, that ultimately the stimulus that generally comes. under attack is stimulus that occurs on the demand side.

as being too generous, whether it be SNAP benefits. or Medicare or Medicaid. You know, James, you brought up the New Deal. and intervening there. Well, that was in a global economic depression. and in some ways might have staved. off a larger socialist or communist revolution. in this country. So, James, why do you think it is that when we're faced. with this idea of fiscal responsibility, the thing.

we turn to generally first is those that have the least? What is it about that politically. that makes that the first target, as opposed. to offshore profits that aren't brought. back to the United States? JAMES ROBINSON: Well, because they're the least powerful, and they're the least organized. JON STEWART: Wait, it's that simple. JAMES ROBINSON: That's not rocket science, is it? JON STEWART: Son of a bitch. [LAUGHTER].

That's simply it, like they're the easiest to go after. JAMES ROBINSON: I think so, yeah. JON STEWART: You're somebody, James, who I think your work is very much. on evidence-based economic theory. and using that evidence to design. healthier economies, right? Is that the healthiest option? Is there a different design other than austerity that we. can think about for central government intervention.

because we know they intervene? We've already established they intervene. What's a healthier intervention than just austerity, or is that the best move? JAMES ROBINSON: You know, I think. there's just lots of complicated trade-offs there. I think if you think about the history of economics, economics arose in the late 18th century to sort of try. to understand what the heck was going. on with the Industrial Revolution, and Adam Smith, and all of that. And economics has always gone backwards and forwards. between trying to justify this as the best possible thing.

and struggling to think of alternatives and what. might alternatives look like. You could say a very limited number of alternatives. have really been experimented with. You could think of communism, or Cuba, or whatever it is. But obviously, that's a very specific sort of alternative. And I think economists are just very bad at thinking. about alternatives. CLARA MATTEI: Definitely. [ROCK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Eh, eh, what do you got there, a business?

You realize your business needed to hire someone, and you needed them yesterday. Well, how are you going to find them? How are you going to find amazing candidates fast? What are you going to walk outside, ask people directly? Ba. Just use Indeed. Stop struggling to get your job post seen on other job sites. Indeed's sponsored jobs help you stand out and hire fast. Sponsored jobs, your post jumps to the top. of the page for your relevant candidates. so you can reach the people you want faster.

What do you want to be on the bottom of the page? Come on. You're the boss. This is your business. Get yourself to the top of the page for god's sakes. According to Indeed data, sponsored jobs. posted directly on Indeed have 45%. more applications than the non-sponsored jobs. With Indeed sponsored jobs, there's. no monthly subscription. There's no long-term contracts. You only pay for results. What more do you want from these people?

How fast is Indeed? In the minute I've been talking to you, and it might feel like longer, 23 hires were made on. Indeed, according to Indeed data. That's worldwide. Join the 3.5 million employers worldwide that use Indeed. to hire great talent fast. There's no need to wait any longer. Speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. And listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored. job credit to get your jobs more visibility. at Indeed.com/weekly.

Just go to indeed.com/weekly right now. Support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this. podcast, indeed.com/weekly. Terms and conditions apply. Hiring, Indeed is all you need. [ROCK MUSIC]. Clara, you're nodding your head vigorously on economists, not because it does seem like we. are stuck in this idea of it's either capitalism or it's. socialism, or it's communism.

And there's no sense that in the words of Spinal Tap, you can turn the dial, you can turn it to 11. What are the--. Clara, does that ring true to you? CLARA MATTEI: Well, absolutely, I. think it is very true that the economic profession, the mainstream economic profession, has avoided even problematizing capitalism. If you open a textbook in economics, you don't even read the word capitalism. So you can't even understand the specificities. of our system. You just talk about markets, again, as something that just happen to exist for human beings.

to go along with. So I think this is the issue is that if we don't problematize. what's specific about our system, then we end up not. really having any possibility of really comparing. with other possibilities. And I think the main thing here is to understand that if we do. take it that our system is based on coercion, we as human beings can do better in terms of finding out. a way in which we could run production distribution. actually more democratically. In my work, I really show how austerity--. and I think we should define it at a certain point.

JON STEWART: Right. CLARA MATTEI: Austerity is ultimately. all about de-democratizing the economic space. And again, this is not something. that is because there's bad people in government. It would be too easy to say, oh, it's just because it's evil people. or corrupt or irrational. It's because--. JON STEWART: I see you've watched my show. [LAUGHTER]. CLARA MATTEI: It's because there's certain tendencies. Again, I think this is what is important about like more. systemic analysis that tells there. are certain tendencies that are kind.

of congenial to the system. And this is why, ultimately, I would say austerity. is in the DNA of capitalism. Depending on the moment, labor might have a little bit more. power to strike against it. But the reality is that we have certain clear. coercive mechanisms. And so I think we could do better than this. But the point is that it's very dangerous. to explore alternatives. As I show in my own book, when alternatives do emerge, this is something that needs to be-- actually,

they need to be bugged down and killed very quickly. because they are terrifying for the establishment, those who ultimately gain. JON STEWART: The status quo. CLARA MATTEI: And we need to remember that in this country, just one data point out of many, the top 0.1% owns five times what. the bottom 50% of the United States American owns. Three people own more than 150 million Americans. This is what capitalism looks like at this stage. And clearly, you need to protect. it very well because it's very unjust for the majority.

JON STEWART: So, James, so that's. what we're talking about. We're talking about a system that is-- you know, look, you mentioned the 30s. That is the last time-- or maybe even prior to that, more the Gilded Age--. when we lived in that laissez-faire era. of robber barons. And I think the determination there. was that society is not stable at that point, that there is--. how do economists get out of that perspective of focusing.

on supply and demand and pull back to a more macro. of what is a stabler version? What is a more stable version of a progressive capitalism. look like? JAMES ROBINSON: Yeah, I mean, but they don't-- economists. never really think about that actually. because economists don't see--. JON STEWART: Wouldn't that be the whole game? JAMES ROBINSON: No, no. You can't believe it. Economists just see the economy as being this sort. of free floating thing. They don't see it as being embedded.

in politics and society. JON STEWART: They see it as separate from politics. CLARA MATTEI: Yes. JON STEWART: Oh. JAMES ROBINSON: Is it separate? No, absolutely not. But that's the way economists think about it. If you picked up an economics textbook, the word politics never appears in it. It's completely unconnected to the political and social. system, which is obviously ludicrous, but that's how it is. You'd have to talk to political scientists if you wanted. to think more about the topic that you're interested. in, which was, you know, how the political system kind.

of responded to the crisis of capitalism in the 1930s. by trying to ameliorate some of the costs and reduce. some of the inequalities. And that ushered in a period after the Second World War. of terrific prosperity with falling. inequality, rising living standards across the board. And that unraveled in the 1970s in some sense, that consensus unraveled. And then we launched off in this other direction. JON STEWART: Why did the consensus in the--. so we'll take a step back in history here.

I think I understand why intervening. on behalf of workers arose. I think if you think about World War I-- and, Clara, you've written about this. You know, when people saw that in a time of crisis. the government took over a lot of the so-called laissez-faire. functionings of capitalism, whether it was for making. armaments or food or all that, they saw, oh, wait a second,

our government does have the ability to step. in and change the dynamics. This isn't a fait accompli. We can actually change this. Is that where workers started to look at demanding more, Clara, or a fairer system? CLARA MATTEI: Yes, I would say that before the First. World War, austerity was kind of taken for granted. JON STEWART: Austerity meaning like poor people, that's fine. CLARA MATTEI: Should I define it very quickly? JON STEWART: Please, if you could, yeah.

CLARA MATTEI: Sure. So I think, again, there is a mainstream way of understanding. austerity, which is all about how the state is stepping back. And kind of there is a cut in public expenditures. and an increase in taxes. So this is the definition. I would say this definition is already kind of blinding us. from what really matters, going back to the theme, Jon, that you're bringing up today, which is the state. never really steps back.

What happens is that the state just. decides to shift resources from some, the majority, to the few. And the same for taxation. It's not about just taxing people more, it's about who you're taxing more. And what you find out is that austerity. is all about regressive taxation, which means that capital is taxed structurally less. than labor. JON STEWART: That's right. CLARA MATTEI: And this is-- of course, the current policies have just escalated this tendencies. JON STEWART: And what is meant by that. is if you've got a capital gain or if you want to put machinery.

on your taxes and get those removed from your taxes. or things like that, or capital gains taxes. or carried interest taxes, that those are eased. But poor people still face point of sale taxes. that are very regressive, and so they. pay a higher percentage. Is that generally what we're--. CLARA MATTEI: Definitely. JON STEWART: OK. That's what we're talking about. CLARA MATTEI: So sales taxes are. very regressive because everyone pays them alike. But it gets worse. You know, the income brackets have majorly. shrunk so that the very wealthy pay less and less.

of their income in taxes. But really, also, it's about detaxing. corporate profits, capital gains, dividends, interest. So people who make their living off of capital. are de-taxed, not to think about inheritance tax. That basically doesn't exist in this country. JON STEWART: And labor is overly taxed. CLARA MATTEI: And labor is overtaxed so that in the United. States, a lot of people are poor because they're. overly taxed. So this is taxation.

Then in terms of how the state spends, what we see today. is exactly what austerity is about. You take away from social expenditures--. and the Big Beautiful Bill is all about this. Two million people are going to go hungry because they're going. to lose access to food stamps. And there's over 70 million people who will. lose their health coverage. These cuts in these domains, education, health care, public transport don't mean that this money.

is not spent elsewhere. And guess where it is spent. JON STEWART: I'm going to go with bombs. CLARA MATTEI: Exactly, military industrial complex. JON STEWART: I knew it was bombs. Son of a bitch. CLARA MATTEI: I mean, we're 1 trillion a year. That is an insane amount. JON STEWART: And another $150 billion. to create a whole new enforcement--. CLARA MATTEI: Exactly. JON STEWART: --force. James, James, let me ask you this. How would an economist then, who is looking at the evidence, how do we justify that? Is it purely based on, well, that's a stronger growth model?

What's the justification? JAMES ROBINSON: Could I put this in a little bit of--. JON STEWART: Please. JAMES ROBINSON: --perspective since--. JON STEWART: Yes, yes, yes. JAMES ROBINSON: What I mostly study is poor countries? You know, I've been working in Colombia for 33 years. I work in Nigeria. I work in Democratic Republic of Congo. And I think like I'm not denying. anything that Clara says. But I think if you think about the big picture, you know, the United States has actually. been better at solving those sort of problems than Nigeria, or Colombia, or any poor country in the world has been.

Any country in the world has elites that want to rig. the game in their favor. And boy, have they been more successful in Colombia, you know, than they have in the United States. I think that's the big picture. You know, and, in fact, you know, there are all these problems. I agree. But if you look at the last 100, 150 years, yeah, you have to fight. You have to fight for your rights. You have to fight for wages. You have to fight to get the government. to pay attention to you. But that fight has been much more successful. for ordinary people in the United States.

than it has in Colombia. And I guess that's what I said here. JON STEWART: James, do you think that's because, you know, if we look at the political systems, you know, that the places that you're talking about. were, in some respects, on the receiving. end of these extractive economic policies? You're talking about places that. don't have the benefit of--. CLARA MATTEI: Exactly. JON STEWART: --the kind of civic society. that grew up because they were on the receiving end of our. whether it be mercantilism or colonialism.

or those kinds of things. I don't want to get into, you know, this idea. that like we drained everybody to our benefit. But to some extent, doesn't that. explain a little bit of why those countries have been more. volatile in their economic--. JAMES ROBINSON: Yes, absolutely. I mean, they've been organized for the benefit of the elites. I think United States--. JON STEWART: I mean, we were the beneficiaries. of a lot of that organization, as is my understanding.

JAMES ROBINSON: Well, I think the Colombians had. more to do with it, honestly. JON STEWART: Right. So did that type of system empower those corrupt elites. is, I guess, my point? JAMES ROBINSON: Yes, absolutely. Yes, it's reproduced hideous levels. of inequality and social exclusion and of a sort. that you don't see in the United States thankfully. But, of course, I'm not denying any of these problems. that you're talking about. JON STEWART: No, no, no, I understand. JAMES ROBINSON: It's sort of saying--. JON STEWART: So, James, it actually brings up. a great point, which is maybe the United States then.

as an avatar of what a more successful system could look. like-- so let's say we look at Nigeria, and Colombia, and those things, and it's much more volatile. and the elites are more corrupt. But that certainly doesn't excuse the United States. creating a system, as you said, since Reagan, that increased our inequality to the extent that it did. So what can we--. let's look at it as a system that's functioning. better than others.

What is it that we could do within the way. that we balance capital and labor--. what could we do differently that would. help save us from turning into those other places? JAMES ROBINSON: Well, I think that's about politics. It's about defining a kind of agenda, a practical agenda, of taxing extreme levels of wealth inequality. And I think looking at the history. and showing you can combine a much more equal society.

with very rapid rates of economic growth. with successful capitalism, with innovation. That's exactly what happened in the post-war period. JON STEWART: And so why did that fall apart, Clara? CLARA MATTEI: I don't think this ever happened. We have a very different--. JON STEWART: Oh, all right, all right. CLARA MATTEI: --reading of reality--. JON STEWART: Tell me. CLARA MATTEI: --here, I think. JON STEWART: Yeah, yeah. CLARA MATTEI: The point is that I really. do think we need to understand what. are some key feature of our economic system, which. is capitalism. JON STEWART: In America or--. CLARA MATTEI: Yes, everywhere. It's global capitalism, and we can't. reduce it, again, all to oh, there.

are elites who are corrupt. That is not how it operates. And it's really important also to notice that the Global South. has been structurally dependent on the Global North, so that really you would not have. development without the active creation of poverty. So again, this is also a very different. reading of development. And I know James has a different reading. Dependency theory tells you that the Global. South is poor because the Global North is rich. So the fact that the Global South is hit stronger.

by austerity-- the IMF has been imposing austerity measures. in the Global South for much longer. than the neoliberal period. So this is, for me, very important. We should stop just thinking that the problem. is neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is an escalation of certain key feature. of our system that we need to understand. And I'm sorry, the United States. is a very terrible, dehumanizing model. that nobody should follow. Half of the American homeless people work, OK. People are homeless because they can't afford a house.

because their wages are too low or. their work is too precarious. We have one out of six children in dire poverty. in the United States. And these numbers keep going up, by the way. OK, the fact that actually under the Biden administration, the child credits have been taken away. This actually doubled the number of children in poverty. In New York, the richest city in the world, we have one out of eight children in public education.

that experience homelessness. This is not a healthy society. This is a society that has issues, and we need to understand its long history. I'm actually working on the golden age. It was not as golden as people like to depict it. It's easy to say, look, our system is eternally flexible. We can have humane capitalism. But if we really want to be honest historically, this is a lie. And this is why we need to figure out the real reason. why austerity operates. And it's not just Trump. Trump is ultimately the very obvious face of the violence.

of our economy that we need right now to take courageously. because with the genocide happening, with the climate. collapse, with future generations having no future, we have no time to keep excusing our system. as possible of renovation. It really needs to have more courageous. And last thing I want to say is, in Tulsa, for example, we are trying to do something different with FREE--. The Forum for Real Economic Emancipation.

The idea is to bring people back in the picture. in thinking about the economy. I agree, mainstream economics is all about excluding people. from economic topics so that we feel. we're too stupid to even care because we can't understand. This is already part of the problem. We need to participate in realizing. that economics in the real sense. is not neoclassical economics. That's an excuse. It's all about actually connecting the theory. with the social struggles. And this is what we're trying to do in Tulsa. And we hope we can do this elsewhere as well.

[ROCK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Folks, you've heard. me talk about this before, and I'm. going to talk about it again. And I'm not going to stop talking about it. until you people get on this damn thing. Ground News, it's a website. It's an app. It's a website and an app. It's on a mission. It's going to give readers an easier, more data-driven. way to read the news. I don't understand why they didn't do this before. They prioritized critical thinking, media literacy. Everything they offer is all related. back to those two ideas.

Every day, they're pulling thousands of news articles. from around the world. They organize them by story. Each story comes with visual breakdowns. of the political bias, ownership, and headlines. Oh, relevant to today? You bet your ass. It helps you better understand why you're seeing what you're. seeing and who's behind it. Ground News is a response to that fear, anger-based media. They don't dictate how readers should think or feel. They aggregate, and they organize the information. And they help readers make their own informed decisions.

Ground News can help you through the noise. and get to the heart of the news. Go to groundnews.com/stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the unlimited access. Vantage subscription. Brings the price down to like $5 a month. That's ground.news/stewart. Or scan the QR code on screen. [ROCK MUSIC]. I find what Clara is saying very compelling. You know, it's very difficult for me.

to look at the inequalities that she just sketched out, which is the problem in this country is not. the able-bodied young men that don't work. but somehow have access to health insurance as the reason. why our country is falling apart. It's this idea that you can work your ass off. and still need food support. Look, we've got a food bank here locally. You cannot believe the business that it is doing in the richest.

country in the world. So my position is always America doesn't have a wealth. growth production problem. It has a distribution problem that the people who create. that wealth do not benefit commensurately in the way. that they should. It's not about entitlement. It's about investment and distribution. James, does that resonate with you at all? JAMES ROBINSON: Yeah I mean--.

you know, I think this argument about why. poor countries are poor, why Colombia poor. is completely misconceived. And it's nothing to do with the International. Monetary Fund or the United States. or the United Fruit Company. Let me talk about what you're saying. I agree there is a distributional problem. I mean, why is that? I think if you thought about the history of the United. States, there's such a history of kind of marginalization. if you think about the way Black people were treated, discriminated against, kept on the side,

wages repressed, politically excluded until the 1960s. But there's also just this kind of culture. in the United States, you know, of kind of self-reliance. I mean, I would say it goes back into the 19th century. There's actually a lot of evidence on this about linking. the kind of regional cultures within the United States. towards attitudes towards redistribution. And there's just this idea that you have to make it on your own. in the United States, and you don't want. handouts and things like that. And that creates all sorts of problems. So I agree with you that there is a distributional problem.

JON STEWART: And it is an idea that somehow if you are poor, that is a function of vice. And that if you are rich, it is a function of virtue. But I think to Clara's point that I wanted to get to is. that does our system require a permanent underclass? Is that baked into what we're doing? And how could we--. when you talk about distribution, as someone who studies the mechanisms,

how can we alleviate that? Forget about-- let's remove politics from it. We're going to operate in a space. where it's not about what we can get through a Republican. Congress because I think if we stick to that, we're never going to think about anything. So thinking about it on a more idealized plane, what would you say if we have a distribution problem, what. are the mechanisms that we might choose that could.

help alleviate that issue? JAMES ROBINSON: I mean, I think that's about labor. market institutions. It's about strengthening trade unions and the bargaining. power of workers. And I think if you look at countries that. have successfully developed with much. more equal distribution of resources, that's the key to that. JON STEWART: But why is it on--. I always wonder why it's on-- so let's take corporate boards. for an example. And I'm talking about larger corporations, obviously not. the small businesses or consumer spending. or anything like that.

When you look at how corporate boards distribute profit, they do buybacks. They do profit sharing. They find ways to carve up whatever. that profit is so that everybody. gets a slice of that pie. Workers can only benefit through wages. Every now and again they'll get shares in a company. or they'll get certain things. Why is it that for workers it's required that it's.

incumbent upon themselves to create a movement. to then go into the--. why isn't it the status quo that they sit on those boards. and that they share in the same way. that somebody who's on the board would. share or somebody who's a stockholder? Why do we have stockholder and shareholder capitalism, but not--. why aren't the workers included in that? Do you know? JAMES ROBINSON: That's the way the law is organized. That's the way corporate law is organized. If you incorporate-- you start a business.

That's about the legal system in some sense. And you could say, well, where did the legal system come from? Well, the legal system was written. by economic elites or people who could. influence, policymakers. JON STEWART: So that can be changed, and it wouldn't be disastrous. Clara is about to jump out of her library, so I'm--. she's about to pull hair and books off and do that. Clara, do you want to answer that? CLARA MATTEI: I just want to say that the legal system is.

not separable from the political economy. we're discussing, right? And so I think this is really the difference in method here, is that I'm trying to say that actually. capitalism is an animal that has. all of these elements to it. The political, the legal, they're part of the economic. And to understand the economic, you can't separate, right? So this separation is already, for me, very ideological. because it tends to say, OK, so the problem is not the economy, the problem is the law. The problem is this other thing. JON STEWART: They work together to suppress, right?

CLARA MATTEI: Of course. And historically, how did capitalism come into being? With the enclosure of the commons. And the enclosure of the commons. is all about taking away subsistence, means of people, and transforming land into a commodity. that then was appropriated by the elite, right? Without the law, this first step that you're talking about, which is the fact that very few controlled. the means of production and actually get. to make decisions about how something is produced.

and how it's distributed--. this requires a certain legal backing, right? There would be no capitalism without a specific law. Again, the law comes from the state. And we go back to the point of saying. the state is constantly intervening. to protect the market. Also, one other point is, of course, that that's what we mean by exploitation. is the fact that exploitation is not just. about having a very low wage. You are exploited also when you don't have a say. on what you are working for.

Software engineers right now working for Microsoft, and Google and knowing that what they're doing. is going to basically boost the AI. that is killing the Palestinians. and ludicrous profits. We know Francesca Albanese just released a very powerful report. about all the corporate gains off of what is. happening right now in Gaza. Well, this Microsoft engineer has very little choice. but either to fire himself or to get fired because if he goes. to work, that's what he has-- JON STEWART: To lose his job. CLARA MATTEI: --to work. This is what he has to work for.

JON STEWART: But I think if you were to--. I mean, if you were to look at--. and I absolutely, you know, understand. where you're going there. But if you were to look at what people work on. and everybody had to look at the downstream effects of what. they work on and whether or not it would be destructive or not, very few people would work. CLARA MATTEI: Exactly. JON STEWART: I mean, anybody that. makes anything would find themselves downstream. of progress or human thing. I think while I definitely appreciate all the aspects.

that you're saying, my question is the system that maybe. you might be advocating for--. and I don't want to put words in your mouth. But I haven't seen the success of purely socialist, where workers have--. is there a system where you can protect private property. and individual rights but still create. an engine of progress that brings people the more. modern types of conveniences?

Or is that pie in the sky? But I get uncomfortable when I start getting into--. so there's nothing within the system that can be salvaged. other than a worker's utopia, which like. I have not seen work anywhere. CLARA MATTEI: Well, I think it's also. interesting to note that capitalism is very young, so it's only 0.1%--. [LAUGHTER]. No, this is really important. JON STEWART: It's just a boy. CLARA MATTEI: Really, it's only 0.1% of the time humans.

as Homo sapiens has been on Earth that we are. under industrial capitalism. JON STEWART: But the other systems. have been feudal systems and empire. like have been pretty shitty. CLARA MATTEI: They're a multiplicity, but also a lot of, for example, Native horizontal relations. So it's not necessarily that you need to organize. production vertically. And this doesn't mean-- by the way, again, I think we use the word socialism, and everyone gets scared because, of course, it's used, especially in the United States,

as something that is considered taboo even to talk about. But we can even use--. we can get creative of how we want to talk about it. But the point is that we need democracy in the workplace. And cooperatives, for example, are this democratic space. And it's not easy, of course, because actually. to organize production democratically. requires a lot of work. JON STEWART: And I don't know that they. have the scale or the ease. I understand it. And, James, maybe you can speak to because I think while I.

probably lean towards Clara in a lot of these spaces, going back to like cooperatives feels like at scale. with the amount of people we have in this world. and the way that human behavior feels like it's. artisanal and not practical. But, James, I'll ask you that. JAMES ROBINSON: Yeah, I mean, I think a bit of utopianism. is a good thing. I think in the United States, you need ideas,

you need creativity, you need to figure out. how to create a kind of coalition, a political coalition to put the society. on a different track. But I do think, as you say, Jon, that if you look at these experiences. of successful economic development--. look at what's happened in South. Korea in the last 50 years. South Korea went from a poor to an incredibly. interesting, exciting-- and I don't just mean economically. I mean culturally. I mean K-pop, Gangnam Style, you name it. And what was that?

It was capitalism, basically. It was Hyundai. It was Daewoo. It was Samsung. It was just an amazing amount of innovation and creativity. What took tens of millions of Chinese people out of poverty. since 1978? The Communist Party giving up trying. to control every little bit of people's lives. and just allowing people to do their thing. And so could I imagine another world, and should we? Yes, absolutely, we should. But I think like economists would. be practical in the way I'm suggesting.

and say, OK, let's just look at these places. JON STEWART: All right, so let's try-- so this. maybe coalesces this for me. And I'm going to throw this out there. And you guys can both yell at me about this. The way I view it is capitalism is the operating system. that we have chosen to create innovation. and progress in this country. But inevitably, it is a destructive operating system, that it is almost by definition,

as Clara said, exploitative. What I'm saying is, I think Clara. is far more creative and innovative in the way. that she's thinking about we can reorganize this in a very. different way through a more cooperative, democratic, worker-based system. I guess I still look at it--. and maybe this is-- again, it's sclerotic thinking. But I look at it as government's job.

is to ameliorate and mitigate the natural tendencies. of capital as destructive. How can government channel the good things of innovation. and production, while mitigating. the disastrous effects of the poverty. that it creates, the inequality that it creates, and all those other things? Does that resonate at all with you, Clara and James? And I'll ask Clara first and then James.

CLARA MATTEI: Yeah, I mean, we are. in an economy in which half of the world population. is in poverty. So it's very important to understand this is. not exactly a success story. JON STEWART: Right, right. I'm talking more about--. I'm talking more about the United States. I'm not talking about--. CLARA MATTEI: And in the United States, we have 11% of the population in poverty. So again, it's not a success story. So we do need to think creatively. I absolutely think so. And two points is that I think the issue. here is also that it's not just about private investment. It's also that private investment.

follows the logic of profit. And again, it's not just about individuals is that everyone, even the businesses are stuck in what political economy calls. real competition in the sense that if they don't exploit. more, they don't survive, and they. get eaten up by bigger fishes. JON STEWART: Right. They're just chasing growth. CLARA MATTEI: Exactly. JON STEWART: But I'm asking, so what is a government role, when you talk about 11% in poverty, which for us is actually probably. better than I thought it was to be perfectly honest--.

but what does a distribution system and a government. look like that is helping to mitigate those issues. without creating more poverty? CLARA MATTEI: Right, exactly. Because the thing I just wanted to say. was that this progress that you talked about. is ultimately the result of this technological innovation. that needs to happen because otherwise people get. kicked out of the game. So that's also important to keep in mind. It's not like the progress is not the goal in itself. The goal is profit. Progress is the outcome of competition,

if we want to call it progress. So going to your question, I do think. that governments don't operate as technocratic kind. of do-gooders. We need to pressure from below. And this is the whole conversation also that we're. having with the FREE--. Forum for Real Economic Emancipation. is to say the only way in which governments will change how. they operate, not through austerity-- because we're. just saying how governments are ultimately imposing austerity.

I remember your first words in this conversation. were all about how it's normal to think that anything in favor. of labor is considered bad. Anything that is ultimately about de-risking, subsidizing, private shareholders, that's just the norm. So this is the norm. So austerity is the norm. So how do we do not austerity under capitalism? I would say it's a tricky political balance. because, again, I think the tendency for the system. is to go there exactly because you need. to increase market dependence. And this is the very important point that I did not make,

is that how do you keep people under conditions of wage labor? You have to increase market dependence, which. means that in order to survive, you have to buy your own health. insurance, buy your food, pay your rent so. that people become more precarious and more vulnerable. So in this case, what happens? The only thing I think-- the only possibility. here is for people to actually gain an awareness of how. the system operates, to stop just. blaming the one person in government.

and realize that it's a bigger issue. There's a bigger tendency under the system and thus, in a way, cultivate their critical consciousness, what. we're trying to do with FREE. And by the way, what we have is also available online, so anyone can follow. If this consciousness is cultivated, this is when we can start putting. pressure on our governments. Governments will not act without the pressure. So you can start pressuring at the local level. to increase access to basically what breaches. the market dependence. This is what I think is important, is that the only way in which workers will gain back.

some power is if they're able to create spaces. in which they can breach market dependence. and have more sustainable. So basically, anti-austerity operations is what can. create more democratic space. JON STEWART: James, you talked about that a little bit. What Clara is talking about is if people. feel like the floor is stronger, they have more autonomy. Oddly enough, it's almost-- when you think. about the libertarian perspective, which is we should. do what's the most for individual freedom, it seems to me in some ways that's compatible with a more.

libertarian view, which is if you build a stronger floor, people have more liberty. In other words, you don't have to stay in a job. because that's your health care. You don't have to stay in a job because it's a company town, and you've got to do the thing. Is a stronger floor part of more liberty, James? JAMES ROBINSON: Well, liberty is a kind of complicated word. JON STEWART: Always.

JAMES ROBINSON: I try not to use the word liberty because. in the United States, if you use the word liberty, people think you're a kind of conservative nut. I come to-- in England, they wouldn't think that. But, I mean, I think the image that you lay out, Jon, is exactly the right one. Famous account of the rise of the modern state. is that the modern state kind of exactly. arose because of capitalism. Capitalism freed people from social structures. It freed people from kinship. It set people loose, you know. And that was fantastic at some level,

for innovation, and individualism, and all sorts of things. But it created all these massive consequences, these negative consequences, poverty, slums--. JON STEWART: Which we don't reckon with for some reason. JAMES ROBINSON: Well, see, government had. to come to make that stable. This is the vision of Karl Polanyi's. book Great Transformation. So I think you said that. And I think that's sort of right. But it's an endless battle. It's an endless battle to keep that on track. because everyone wants to shade a bit.

Everyone wants to play the game a bit in their favor. and stack the rules a bit in their favor. and get the government not really doing. that because, yeah, that keeps wages low. or it allows us to make more profits. So I think that's a--. so that's a never ending struggle, that kind. of dialectical contest in some sense, between people. to get the state to control capitalism. But I guess my view of capitalism. is different from Clara's, though, because I think--.

you might disagree with Elon Musk and Peter. Thiel's vision of progress. I certainly do, but they definitely have one. JON STEWART: I believe that humanity. should still have a role. JAMES ROBINSON: But they definitely have one. If you think about Mr. Musk--. CLARA MATTEI: Progress for one person. JAMES ROBINSON: What was it that drove him. to take over this whole DOGE? He was not trying to make money. He actually lost enormous amounts of money. He was doing it because he's a libertarian, because he's. ideologically driven to oppose anything the government does, I think. JON STEWART: Right.

And it's such a strange--. I guess that gets back to the original contradiction. and everything that we talk about is you have these folks. who are anti-collectivist, but collectivism formed. for a reason that together people. were able to overcome the adversities of a dangerous. natural world or other things. There's a reason why this all happened. But somehow, once we came together, that instinct of strength through a stronger floor.

and through keeping us all together. has now been viewed as a weakness, which I find fascinating. Like it's such a strange turn of events. And I would love to understand a little bit. And maybe, James, you could do this. What are the tools that economists. have that can help the political and the legal.

because I think this gets us to how we change it? Clara talked about this, of people rising up. But they need the tools to be able to do that. My fear is these systems only change. in catastrophe or cataclysm. What are the tools that maybe we can look to from economists. that can help provide us the ability. to prosecute a better case for a fairer economy, James?

JAMES ROBINSON: Well, I think economists have to think more. about the negative consequences for society. and for the stability of society of organizing. the economy in this way. As I was saying earlier, the problem. with mainstream economics is that it completely ignores. sort of society and politics. So it doesn't think about--. JON STEWART: Right, and law. JAMES ROBINSON: What's the feedback on to politics.

of having this enormous increase in income. and wealth inequality? Like that feeds back onto politics. It feeds back onto tens of millions. of dollars being thrown into political contests. And so, of course, but that's not. a feedback that an economist would think about. Economists do think about inequality, and they're very interested in studying inequality. But you have to see the whole picture. And why is it that economists don't see the whole picture? I don't know. I've spent my entire career struggling with that. I still don't really--.

it's something kind of baked into the way economists. are taught to think about the world. I'm sure Clara would say she has a kind of conspiracy. theory about this. CLARA MATTEI: No, it's not conspiracy. JON STEWART: Now, now. JAMES ROBINSON: I think it's more complicated. It's more complicated. It's more complicated than that. I don't think academic--. CLARA MATTEI: Well, I mean, I also think that economists. play a role in society. It's not about conspiracy. It's about realizing that all knowledge is embedded. and that people like us we create knowledge, but we're very privileged as professors with tenure.

And we tend to not see a lot of the time what. are the difficulties that people. actually are living through. This is why I think economics needs. to not just be based in academia. in the high ivory towers. We need to bring back economics so that it becomes more humane. We need the experience of the lived experience. of the social struggles of people. And this is what we're trying to do at FREE. We can't renounce economics. We need just a different type of economics. that raises awareness.

And honestly, in my own historical work and my book, The Capital Order, this is all I've been doing is looking. at the origins of neoclassical economics, mainstream economics. to understand how it came into being. in the moment in which people were. saying value comes from us. We are producing the values. It's not the entrepreneur. It's the worker. And guess what, neoclassical economics. tells you the opposite. Workers don't count. JON STEWART: Right. It's a rebalance. CLARA MATTEI: Who counts is the entrepreneur. So of course, the the lens through which we look. at the world is very political, and economics.

is very political because it gives us a lens. that structurally disempowers. I think we do need a more empowering lens. And we also do need to be able to look at capitalism. and understand its problems. I think this is the only way we will have imagination that. is actually will be able to bring us to confront. the challenges of our future. JAMES ROBINSON: I think many economists. are studying the world. Many economists are doing field work in Latin. America, in Africa, in India. What am I doing in Rwanda? I'm trying to understand the logic.

of society, of the economics of poverty in Rwanda. I think many economists are doing that already, to be honest with you. JON STEWART: Is it possible--. because I think while you guys might disagree. on certain aspects of it, is it possible too. that economics is just one other commodity that. can be utilized by the elites to promote. the outcomes that they're looking for politically? In other words, it's just one more tool that can in some ways.

be exploited. I think to James's point, I think you're right. There's a lot really interested, fascinating economists who are out there in the communities. But ultimately, how that knowledge. is applied in societies, it can be perverted. Any knowledge can. And I think getting back to what Clara is talking about, your history of sort of how the workers consciousness.

of the 20s coming off of World War I and how Mussolini. and even in England with the trade unions, how they used their resentments to actually work against those. folks is fascinating to me. And that, I think, speaks to what James. is saying, which is there's a lot of people. doing this great work. But without the political mechanism to not pervert that,

how do we prevent that? CLARA MATTEI: Yes, and we need to understand. that any knowledge has a method. And again, this method is not neutral. because there's different ways in which you can do economics. And again, you can do it in the mainstream way. or you can do it as we're trying to do. at FREE and other places. And I think this is the whole point is that economics is just. a field that we need to then, I think, build with lenses that also can help have future imagination.

And I do think, though, that this imagination. is not up to the academic. It's up to actual experiments on the ground. In many places in the United States, people try to operate through solidarity economies, through ways in which, again, you do try. to breach market dependence. And this is the beginning. We can't see the future now as academics. JON STEWART: That's right. CLARA MATTEI: But we can definitely help. build something different. And I think this is the only thing that. keeps me not depressed about the dehumanization. of this world. JON STEWART: So what Clara's talking about. is a more disruptive model, using [INAUDIBLE].

James, in your model, which may want. a little bit more structure, how do you. see your work being utilized? How would you like it to be utilized? And what would you like to see as the optimistic outlook. for that? JAMES ROBINSON: No, I mean, I agree with--. I agree that ideas are very powerful in this debate. That's why I was saying we need new ideas. We need to be able to reimagine our social system. And think about the influence of Milton Friedman.

I think Milton Friedman pushed this very. simplistic model of like what market economies were about. And that was an enormous, powerful tool. in the hands of Mrs. Thatcher or Ronald Reagan. So those ideas are--. JON STEWART: That was the beginning of it, the austerity. I mean, those guys were--. JAMES ROBINSON: So those ideas are powerful. I mean, I studied Africa or whatever, and the way Africans organized their economy is completely. different historically and in many ways today. than the way people organize--. I'm somewhat reluctant to start talking about it, since we're talking about the kind of Western world.

JON STEWART: No, but it's interesting, James, to look. at it from that perspective. Because if they're more nascent, you have an ability to build something. that maybe is the system we're talking about. JAMES ROBINSON: Yeah, well, I think there's many things. One of the reasons I studied the rest of the world is I. think there's many--. I mean, I agree, there's lots of--. There's no society is perfect. There's always lots of problems. You don't have to go very far from my office. in the University of Chicago to see that.

So I think one can always learn from other societies. the way they experimented, the way. they tried different things. I agree like socialism didn't work out very well. So what? It was hijacked by whoever, by Stalin, by Fidel Castro. So what? So let's think about alternatives. And let's learn from the world. And I agree with that impulse. That's exactly-- I agree with that. Let's dream. I mean, I'm not sure I'm the person to tell you about that. Because I'm just a British empiricist. British people have a particular mindset.

I think French people, maybe Italians. are much better at this. JON STEWART: But the empiricism is the point, is being able to take empiricism. and not have it be perverted and to apply it in these areas. We talked about Friedman earlier and all that. And I'll end with maybe this, about the value of sort. of how these empiricists work. Alan Greenspan, famously the Fed chairman for so long,

was on my program, The Daily Show. This was post the 2008 financial crisis. And so this is, as we talk about, one of the popes of economic vision, studied at the foot of Friedman and all those guys. And I asked him what went wrong? And he said to me, I guess at the end of the day, we made a mistake in thinking the banks. could regulate themselves. [LAUGHTER].

Oops. So that's kind of the point, Listen, I love. both of your perspectives. I find it really interesting. I think it's the question of our times, which. is to stand back and reimagine systems that. can be in healthier balance. And so I really appreciate you guys. You've put so many wonderful ideas out to think about. So I really appreciate you both being here.

Clara Mattei, Professor of Economics, University of Tulsa, the Executive Director of FREE--. the Forum for Real Economic Emancipation, author. of The Capital Order. It's a great book. James Robinson, University Professor at the Harris School. for Public Policy and the Department of Political Science. at the University of Chicago, Nobel Prize Awardee in 2024. and out and about right now in Africa, checking out economic systems on the ground. I so appreciate you both taking the time to be with us. Thank you again. CLARA MATTEI: Thank you so much. It was a pleasure. JAMES ROBINSON: My pleasure. Thank you. [ROCK MUSIC].

JON STEWART: Economists fight. GILLIAN SPEAR: On our show? Never. LAUREN WALKER: You were really good referee. JON STEWART: I didn't even know that was going to go down. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: No. GILLIAN SPEAR: You never expect it. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: But what does. it say about us that like our economy. episodes are the most fury? JON STEWART: It is the most. It gets in there. Can I say this, though, that I so appreciate it. The lack of condescension and smug eye. rolling from both economists was such a refreshing for me.

Like whenever I'm talking to economists, I always feel like it's like--. you get a fortune cookie, and you read. in bed after every fortune. That's the game. With economists, I think the game is after everything they. say, you just add you asshole. Because it's like, no, demand goes up when money policy is. less restrictive, you asshole. GILLIAN SPEAR: And they love to say that's econ 101. JON STEWART: Right.

LAUREN WALKER: Zing! JON STEWART: None of that from these guys, just flat out fucking economic passion. LAUREN WALKER: You know what I really appreciated, though? I appreciated the reminder that economics isn't a science. And I really liked the point that we were. touching on with Clara about austerity is a choice, and it is a tool. And all I could think about was the Big Beautiful Bill, which we also touched on, and how the health care provisions, the taking away of Medicaid doesn't happen.

until after the midterms. That is a choice. That is a tool. It's exactly right. GILLIAN SPEAR: Austerity isn't inevitable. It's a choice that serves specific interests. And I think the one thing that they would definitely agree on. is that nothing about the way that people interpret. the economy is neutral, and nothing. about the medicine that they prescribe to the economy. is neutral. And it's not just because of politics. It's because in the field itself, it requires the cherry picking of certain data. JON STEWART: Right.

I thought it was interesting too when they talked about you. cannot remove the legal system and the political system from. economics, but so often the field. narrows its focus to do that. And I think to your point, Lauren, that the idea that the things that people might be. upset about won't kick in until after it won't matter. to them for the elections. But I think also the broader thing. of we get so wrapped up in like, oh, there might be some cuts to Medicaid and things like that. without stepping back and realizing, right,

relying on work or subsidies to get health insurance. is fucked in the first place. GILLIAN SPEAR: Absolutely. JON STEWART: That these are the things. And this is not the way the system has to be designed. This is the way we've designed it. GILLIAN SPEAR: And something else that stood out to me. is just that it's so unfortunate that World War I. and COVID are the moments that people. realize that the government can actually work for them. JON STEWART: I know.

LAUREN WALKER: That's a great point. GILLIAN SPEAR: Absolute miserable. JON STEWART: Well, even when he said after World War II, we had more demand, and we had great prosperity. But then there was a little bit of stagflation in the '70s. And so Reagan and Thatcher came in and said, kick people off, kick people off of welfare. GILLIAN SPEAR: You're all getting. a little too comfortable. JON STEWART: And we should be fine here. That'll be fine. LAUREN WALKER: I guess also the other thing I was thinking. about was just how the Big Beautiful Bill came about. in order to address the deficit, but actually increases it and will just raise the debt.

ceiling as the solution. GILLIAN SPEAR: Which is addressing. the deficit in its way. JON STEWART: You know what, Gillian, that's a good point. If you trash the economy, I guess that could--. deficit would go up more slowly. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Oh my god. JON STEWART: Fantastic. Brittany, what do we got? What do the listeners want to know this week? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: First up, Jon, do you think that Skydance would get rid of The Daily Show. after the merger goes through. JON STEWART: Skydance, the company that's coming in? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yes. JON STEWART: Boy, that's a good question. Unfortunately, we haven't heard anything from them.

They haven't called me and said, like, don't get too comfortable in that office, Stewart. Let me tell you something, I've been kicked out of shittier. establishments than that. We'll land on our feet. No, I honestly don't know. I mean, I think--. I'd like to believe that--. like, without The Daily Show, I don't know--. Comedy Central's kind of like Muzak at this point without--. I think we're the only sort of like life.

that exists on a current basis other than like South Park. GILLIAN SPEAR: Reruns of The Office. JON STEWART: But it's the only thing on there. I'd like to think we bring enough value to the property. Like if they're looking at it as. purely a real estate transaction, I think we bring a lot of value. But that may not be their consideration. I don't know. They may sell the whole fucking place for parts. I just don't know.

And we'll deal with it when we do. But I'm so happy and proud of everybody. that works over there. Like they want to do that. Knock themselves out. As Jay Leno would say about Doritos, go ahead, crunch all you want. We'll make more. So we'll figure that out when the time comes. and where we have to do it. But like I say, that is without--. I have no knowledge. We've all got a surmisal about like who actually is owning it.

and what his ideology is. But ideology may not play a part. I just don't know. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Hmm. One could hope. JON STEWART: One could hope. Yes, what else we got? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Trump now claims. the Epstein files were actually written. by Obama, Biden, and Comey. JON STEWART: Sure. No, that makes total sense. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yeah. Is this the biggest cover up in American history. or just another Tuesday Trump dump? JON STEWART: Oh, god, I don't fucking know. The whole thing is so abjectly ridiculous.

We talked about it on The Daily Show last night, Occam's razor. Like there's not that many people. who are on video dancing with Jeffrey Epstein. and with his arm around him and on the plane as the president. of the United States. So the idea that--. I understand what he's doing. He's doing the whole like it's just like Hunter's laptop. And you're like, OK. GILLIAN SPEAR: The lady doth protest too much. JON STEWART: I mean, the whole thing is fucking insane.

And the idea that he's like, why are. we still talking about that? Anyway, about the 2020 election, that was stolen, you know. All right. GILLIAN SPEAR: And Rosie O'Donnell. JON STEWART: And Rosie O'Donnell. And then Alan Dershowitz is suddenly all over TV going, I know everybody on the list. I'm not on it. LAUREN WALKER: I was there. JON STEWART: Everybody's on the list. I was there, but I'm not allowed to tell anybody. I'm under confidentiality. And you're like, what were you Epstein's lawyer? Like what do you mean confidentiality? And you got this other--.

I'm sure Ghislaine Maxwell's in jail going like, so what am I in jail for again? It's the opposite of a nothing burger. But this is--. I just don't understand why they cant-- or just. like fucking prosecute the people that are prosecutable. And let's be done with this. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: It's a great conspiracy, huh? JON STEWART: Man, man, man. Once again, hell of a week. How do they get in touch with us, Brittany?

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, we are WeeklyShowPod. Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Bluesky, we. are WeeklyShowPodcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment. on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: There you go. Nicely done. Guys, thank you guys so much. Excellent as always. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedovic, video editor and engineer Rob Vitolo, who saved the show today. I just want to point out that people don't understand. Video editing, sound editing, audio editor, and engineer Nicole Boyce. I was on-- we had a guy calling in from Africa. We had someone calling in from--.

I don't know where--. GILLIAN SPEAR: Tulsa. JON STEWART: She was in Tulsa. And yet I was the one who like--. every time I talked, it just went [BABBLING]. Rob fixed it up, pressed a couple of buttons, had me throw the computer out the window, and then pull it back into the window. And all fixed up. Researcher and associate producer Gillian Spear. As always, executive producers Chris McShane and Caity Gray. We will see you guys next week. Enjoy this beautiful July thunderstorm.

All right, bye. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast, is produced by Paramount. Audio and Busboy Productions. [ROCK MUSIC].