The Wealth of Wall Street with Oren Cass | The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart

JON STEWART: When I look at a Trump administration filled. with more right-of-center economists. and people of that thing, it feels incoherent. You sort of can't wrap your mind around what we are. and how they're designing these policies not as correctives. for pendulum swings or societal ills, but as kind of impulse, like giant baby impulse. OREN CASS: Well, I think what you. have with the Trump administration.

is President Trump. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: Right? I mean, I think. JON STEWART: Fair enough. Fair point, fair point. [MUSIC PLAYING]. Hey, everybody, welcome to The Weekly Show Podcast. My name is Jon Stewart. I am the host of this. And today-- oh, a special thing, tonight, the halftime of the podcast, we're. going to have someone do a halftime. show entirely in Latvian. They're just going to sing.

I'm still recovering from just the anger and outrage. that the right expressed over a fun musical performance. They've gotten so, so weak, so, so, thin, so feeble. that-- that they can't go 15 minutes without hearing. a country song. It just-- it hurts them. It hurts the country. It hurts the foundation that we were. built upon to have (CHUCKLING) something like that.

(NORMALLY) My favorite was somebody mentioned, you know, Trump is complaining, "the whole. thing is in Spanish.". And you're like, you know that the name of the place you live, you know the language that's derived from, right? Mar-a-Lago, yeah that ain't--. that-- that ain't from London, brother. [CHUCKLES]. But moving on to more important things, you know, I read an article just recently that I'd. been waiting for so long to read as coming.

from someone from the right, which was about how. our economy has over--. has been over-financialized. You know, that the financial services has become. too large a part and it's hurting, ultimately, the bottom line. And I-- and I'm sure that there are 50 years of-- of left wing. economists out there who saw the article. and just rolled their eyes and thought, yeah, finally. But I was excited to see it and to see. that it was written by our old pal, friend of the show--.

it's a title not bestowed on--. friend of the show, and he is joining us today. to discuss this article and to discuss these larger issues. in general, that an over-financialization. of the economy may portend for the future stability. of our economy. So I'm delighted to welcome back Oren Cass. [FUNK MUSIC]. Ladies and gentlemen, please allow.

me to reintroduce himself. His name was Oren Cass. Oren Cass. Oren, it's so nice to see you again. You are the chief economist at American Compass. And that is a-- a self-imposed title or that? OREN CASS: Self-- imposed is good. Yes, self-imposed. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES] The founder and chief economist. at American Compass think tank, contributing opinion writer. for the Financial Times and The New York Times, which is. why I wanted to talk to you. You recently wrote an op-ed in The New York Times.

And it is an op-ed I have been waiting for, young man, for-- for many, many years to come. from someone who is more-- or is classified. as more on the right. So to get into it, I want you to briefly explain, it was about the idea that the financialization of our economy. is a net negative. But I want you to give just sort. of a brief description of this op-ed.

and what motivated you to write it. OREN CASS: Sure. Well, thank you for having me on to talk about it. These-- these are always a lot of fun. JON STEWART: Always. OREN CASS: You know, financialization, I guess we probably have to define. it as-- as a starting point. It is essentially-- and there are all. sorts of technical definitions, but-- but essentially. refers to the increasing role of financial markets. in the economy, where they sort of become ends unto themselves. and people start transacting and-- and rejiggering.

and configuring businesses and taking cash out not. with any effort to create anything. valuable in the real world, simply to generate. more cash out of the activity. JON STEWART: Give some examples of what--. financialization, specifically what that might be. OREN CASS: Sure. So you see it in a lot of the kind of Wall Street firms, if you think about hedge funds, private equity funds, right? A lot of the time what they're doing is. they're-- they're collecting a whole lot of money--. and, you know, interesting question where that money comes.

from-- and then they're going out and looking for things that. they think they can buy at one price. and sell at a higher price. So if you're a hedge fund, right, in the case of what's called a high-frequency trading. hedge fund, you don't even care what you're buying and selling. You're literally building bigger fiber optic cables. to try to race your trades to the floor. faster so that you can get out in front of whoever else. is bidding on them. You make a teeny, teeny little bit on millions of transactions. and, ta-da, you've generated a profit. You haven't actually done anything useful.

You've-- you've just extracted value from somewhere else. If-- if you're a private equity firm, in a lot of cases what. you're trying to do is say, let's go out. and find a series of smaller businesses--. maybe they're privately run, maybe the people. running them aren't even just maximizing profit, maybe they're veterinarian clinics, let's say, or nursing homes. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And can you buy up a bunch of them, combine them together, maybe squeeze out-- you know, squeeze the customers a little harder, squeeze the workers a little harder, get more cash out of it.

Now you have a profit. And now can you sell it to someone else. Can you-- when you talk about financial engineering, can you do what's called a capital restructuring, so add a lot more debt to it so that you can earn more money. Now you've also added more risk, which means if something. goes wrong-- turns out firms bought by private equity funds. are five to 10 more times likely to go bankrupt. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: Well, if you're a private equity fund, OK, well, if I buy 100, I'm OK with a bunch of them going bankrupt. I can generate more profit on balance. from taking more risk even though, of course, all.

the workers at the firms that went bankrupt only. had the one job. And so you see in-- in financial markets a lot. of this kind of activity. I think it's important to say, financial markets. are important, right? Like, I think capitalism is great. JON STEWART: Generally to economists, I would say that's-- OREN CASS: There you go. JON STEWART: --the case. OREN CASS: The idea that you want to have bankers and others. who are collecting people's savings, collecting capital, finding productive ways to deploy it,

that's incredibly important. They deserve a return on doing that. I have no problem with someone making a good living, becoming rich doing that. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: The problem is that the share of the activity. on Wall Street and financial markets that actually. represents productive investment, actually causing anybody to build anything new. and useful in the world, keeps going down. And so even as financial markets, the financial sector. as a share of our economy, keeps getting bigger-- bigger. share of GDP, the biggest source of corporate profits,

the number one place that people. from top business schools go to, that keeps getting bigger. And yet, in parallel, the actual amount. of real investment happening in our economy keeps going down. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And so that's the disconnect that, first of all, I think it's just-- that is a problem in and of itself. But it also then obviously has incredible consequences. for the real economy, for the country, as we experience it. JON STEWART: This is, I think, generally a critique that. has been leveled more on the left, would you say, that that is?

And you, I think, are more associated with the right. And I guess my question is, do you still have an office--. OREN CASS: [LAUGHS]. JON STEWART: --where you are? Or have they-- once they read this op-ed, did. they put you in the mop room? Do you have a window, I guess? OREN CASS: Well, as you can see, I have lovely windows behind me. JON STEWART: I figured they weren't-- that's not. your real office. OREN CASS: No, no, this is my office. JON STEWART: Oh, OK. OREN CASS: I'm-- I'm out in the woods. We have a lot of snow on the ground. JON STEWART: Yes. OREN CASS: But no, the nice thing. about being chief economist is I guess you can--. you can say whatever you want. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS].

OREN CASS: But. JON STEWART: It dictates its own terms. Is this-- is financialization, is. it a perversion of what the markets--. is the critique that--. first of all, why do you think it happened? Why do you think that these financializations. grew faster than what you would consider to be the economy of--. of real things, jobs and industrial policy.

and those kinds of things? How did this happen? OREN CASS: Yeah, it's a great question. And the way I understand it is not quite. that it's a perversion-- and I think it's also. important to say, at the end of the day, the folks doing. a lot of this stuff on Wall Street, it's also in a lot of companies that are even operating. companies, increasingly, they try. to suck money out for shareholders. rather than build up companies. You know, it's not like they're doing anything illegal. They're not even lying about it.

It's not a scam. They are operating in the system. as we have constructed it. And so the-- the core of the problem in my mind is that. the entire premise of capitalism, you go all the way. back to Adam Smith and--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: --all the way back to the invisible hand. JON STEWART: The core of your critique. is the entire system of capitalism? OREN CASS: No, exactly the opposite. JON STEWART: Oh, OK. OREN CASS: I think that the entire system of capitalism--. and, well, this is a good point, a lot of people. say, well, this is the problem, capitalism is just broken.

and can't work. I feel exactly the opposite. I think that the basic premise of capitalism, the idea. that-- that you want to have a system where--. people are always going to pursue. their self-interest, right? So the question is, can you have a system in which people. pursuing their self-interest also. serves the public interest so that the things that generate. the most profit for you also turn out. to be good for other people? And if-- if you go all the way back. to Adam Smith and the invisible hand, this is actually exactly what he was describing.

You know, the-- the invisible hand. has become this like magic-- it's. a bad metaphor because it sounds like this magical force. Like, it doesn't matter what you. do, somehow, magically, it will work out great for everybody. JON STEWART: As long as you don't intervene. I mean-- OREN CASS: Right. JON STEWART: --wasn't the idea of that--. that governments should not intervene in-- in what these. markets will create on their own through. supply and demand and-- OREN CASS: Well, that--. JON STEWART: --the other rules. OREN CASS: --certainly not-- that was. certainly not Smith's view. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: That is what it has become for a lot. of modern economists. But if you go back, people-- the paragraph.

where Smith uses the term invisible hand--. he only uses it once--. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES]. OREN CASS: --it actually starts by noting that he's expecting. that people will prefer investing domestically. to investing in foreign countries. and that people will prefer to invest. in the ways that produce the-- the most. things of greatest value. And what he's saying is that if that's true, if somebody's. pursuing profit, the way they're. going to do it is by investing a lot domestically in creating. things of value, then it's like there's an invisible hand that.

somehow ensures that what they are. doing in their own self-interest. also serves the public interest. So he's explaining how this can work, right? JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES]. OREN CASS: This is like, at the very outset of markets, people are like, whoa, what's going on here? And he's saying, no, no, no, see, look, if the things that people are doing to earn a lot of money. also leads--. JON STEWART: Also benefits society. OREN CASS: --to good outcomes, then. this could be a great system. JON STEWART: It'll be quite stable. And the way it turned out is the invisible hand sometimes. slaps you across the face. OREN CASS: [CHUCKLES].

JON STEWART: And then that's-- OREN CASS: Well. JON STEWART: --that's the difficulty. OREN CASS: That's right. I think-- and so this goes to my point about like, what. are people doing, what's gone wrong-- is it seems. to me that people in their self-interest. are then always going to look at the system. and say like, OK, well, is there an even. easier way to make more money? Maybe that doesn't create so much. good stuff for other people. And you see over and over again throughout history. that happening. So if you go back to the Industrial Revolution, you had a period where the Industrial.

Revolution was working out horribly for most workers. I mean, people were literally getting shorter, dying earlier. And people had to say, like, gosh, we probably. need, like, some labor laws. [CHUCKLES]. JON STEWART: If you're eight years old, you shouldn't be in a factory. OREN CASS: Right. Maybe that also. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: Maybe this will work better. if one of the constraints we impose. is, if you want to make a lot of money building. big factories, you also have to use adult workers. and treat them reasonably. That-- that will work. And then, in fact, people started doing that.

And you had what I would call the much more beneficial. Industrial Revolution that led to huge productivity gains, you know, ultimately the creation of the middle class. You had the same thing at the end. of the 19th century with the giant trusts, Rockefeller and so forth. And as you had railroads and utilities, people were saying like, oh, like I. could make a lot of money if I just monopolize this thing. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: Well, that's a fair point. And that's where-- JON STEWART: Fair point. OREN CASS: --Teddy Roosevelt shows up. and says like, well, OK. Teddy Roosevelt, Republican, but this system does not work.

We actually are going to have to do trust-busting. And so I think you sort of go through these cycles where--. then what happened in the second. half of the 20th century, you have the financialization. And I think globalization are sort of parallel. A lot of people said, wow. And, you know, obviously we pursued free trade, we. deregulated financial markets. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And people said, well, this is great. The easiest way to make a lot of money. is to do this set of things that does not create good jobs,

does not necessarily produce growth. So that's what people started doing. [FUNK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: Look, the algorithm--. the algorithm is killing us. But the-- the antidote, the antidote is information. And that's where Ground News comes in. Ground News, it's this website and app. designed to give readers a better way, an easier. way to navigate the news. It pulls together every article about the same news story. from all outlets all over the world. and puts them in one place.

And not-- not-- incentivized for, like, the worst, most hostile, most partisan take. It tells you where it's coming from. A biased comparison feature highlights. specific differences in reporting from. across the political spectrum. It's-- it's an amazing learning tool. You can see starkly, in black and white, how these different organizations. and algorithms are manipulating the information that we get.

Ground News helps you understand the full picture. rather than just the slice of it these bad actors want. you to see. You can use it to stay informed. You can use it to stay engaged. You can use it to stay educated without becoming. an angry 3 AM shitposter. If you want to see the full picture, go to Ground News. They can help you, through the noise, get to the heart of the news.

Go to groundnews.com/stewart. Subscribe for 40% off the unlimited access. Vantage subscription. Discount available only for a limited time. And this brings the price down to like $5 a month. That's groundnews.com/stewart. Or scan the QR code on the screen. [FUNK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: What you are describing. feels very akin to my view. Like, as you speak, it-- it-- it feels like a salve.

to my soul. I hear what you're saying. You say, you know, financial markets that profit. is a wonderful driver of these things, but to utilize the energy of that profit motive, governments must also find ways to create. a more sustainable value for the people. through their labor and other things. That's my understanding of sort of what you would.

think is leftist economics. Isn't kind of Milton Friedman, you know, the patron saint of-- of this sort of, no, that's. not what economics and capitalism is. about, it's about pure profit? And that pure profit and the pursuit of it. is actually what will create the-- the most value. Is this a-- a rebuttal to-- to that? To Friedman? Who, I mean, if you could say in the 70s when he comes out,

that sort leads us into the deregulation of the financial. markets and leads us into globalization and all these. political policies that might lead to incredibly high, you know, capital then wins and labor kind of loses. OREN CASS: Yeah, it's definitely a rebuttal of them. I think the important thing to say in the political context, though, is that until they came along,

this wasn't a left/right fight in the way. that we think about it now. So, you know, Friedman and the other guy. who gets associated with this a lot, Friedrich Hayek. JON STEWART: Yes. And you're going to get some nasty letters. from the Hayeks, man. Those guys, they are-- they are active online, for sure. OREN CASS: Well, they-- what you find. is that Friedman and Hayek were not conservatives. And they would not have described. themselves as conservatives. In fact, Hayek, maybe his most famous essay is called. "Why I Am Not A Conservative.".

JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: Literally, that's the title of the essay. And-- and it goes to exactly what you were just describing, which is Hayek basically says the wonder. of the self-regulating market is what produces prosperity. And you just basically have to have faith that it will work. and get out of the way. And all these conservatives out there, like, don't have enough faith in that. And that's a real problem. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And so up until that period-- as you said, kind of the 70s and the 80s--. obviously conservatives and progressives were fighting.

about all sorts of things. But it wasn't the conservative view. that, well, if we just get out of the way, markets will magically fix everything. I mean, just thinking about, like, that doesn't actually. sound very conservative if you stop and think. about it for a moment. And what happened in our politics. is Ronald Reagan came along. And Reagan built this coalition. Reagan combined what you would call the free market. libertarians, the Hayeks and Friedmans, literally guys walking around with Adam Smith neckties.

JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES] Do they still sell those? OREN CASS: I don't know if they do. I-- I wanted to reference this thing, so I tried to do a little research. JON STEWART: All right. OREN CASS: I think we've moved on, maybe, from that. But-- JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --combine that with the more. traditional mainstream conservatism. and then also the Cold War hawks, right? You had a whole bunch of people all of a sudden who were like, let's go start lots of wars. JON STEWART: And it's also they viewed it as, I think, a battle between communism, which they--. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: --viewed as sort of a very blanket,

suffocating state that was dictating terms. OREN CASS: That's exactly right. That's what these groups had in common, was they all believed that the top priority was defeating. communism, whether that was in market economic terms, whether that was in social and religious terms. JON STEWART: Putting "In God We Trust". on a coin and then moving on. OREN CASS: And grand strategy from all perspectives. And I give them a lot of credit. It worked, right? They did win the Cold War. And that was very important. But that coalition then sort of lived on.

even after its animating purpose was gone. And so it's really, in a lot of ways, after the Cold War is won that things get out of control, that you start just saying, well, we're just going to keep cutting taxes no matter what. I mean, Reagan raised taxes five times. when his initial reform didn't generate the revenue he wanted. Reagan was a protectionist. Reagan slapped all sorts of tariffs and stuff. on the Japanese. After the Cold War is won, the--. this coalition sort of just keeps going. So you get the economic view that, no, no, no,

it really is just the market is the end unto itself. You know, I use the term market fundamentalism, which people think like, yeah, sure, it's a little derogatory. It doesn't sound great, but it's-- it's also. a descriptive term. I mean, what is a fundamentalism? It is a sort of overly simplistic attempt. to impose a very rigid set of beliefs, often in a way that completely misinterprets the original. texts, but that concentrates--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Are-- are you sure you're not a lefty?

OREN CASS: Ha ha. JON STEWART: You're-- you're preaching, baby. I keep trying to keep myself from going, "Amen, Oren.". Come on, brother, keep it coming. OREN CASS: Well, you're going to get. me in trouble with this, Jon. So you've gotta-- maybe we'll do a quick. five-minute interlude-- JON STEWART: All right. OREN CASS: --where I give you some. of my more conservative views. JON STEWART: We'll go back the other way. OREN CASS: But, you know, fundamentalist. in a sense of not only just reinterpreting texts, very. rigid view, but that is specifically. designed to give all of the authority. to this narrow set of people who claim a special wisdom.

over what must be done. And so this is what certainly right-of-center economics, and to some extent, I would say, broadly, economics became. It was this sort of almost priesthood where if you didn't. understand that financial deregulation and free trade. were going to be great for the typical worker, that was just because you were not sophisticated enough. JON STEWART: Or did they even care? OREN CASS: Oh, I think they did, for the most part. JON STEWART: OK. OREN CASS: In my experience, having. been in the political world for a while,

is like, yeah, there are, you know, outright bad actors, but by and large, if you're an economist, if you're even. someone running for office, in most cases, if want to work in government, you--. you may have convinced yourself of this in some way, in various ways. But at the end of the day, you-- you. are trying to do good things. And so a lot of folks really deeply believed--. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --and let's remember on the--. I mean, globalization, financialization, this. was as much Clinton as it was Bush. JON STEWART: Certainly.

OREN CASS: It was an entirely sort of--. JON STEWART: Very much Clinton. OREN CASS: --bipartisan consensus. JON STEWART: Yes. OREN CASS: And-- and so these folks, they really did believe it. JON STEWART: Let me ask you, when-- because my understanding. of sort of the shift of this was we shifted from kind. of-- if I'm thinking about it in epochs, you know, you have the New Deal epoch where. it's kind of the government decides we also have to create. a kind of framework of a safety net around.

to help, maybe, in some ways ameliorate the collateral. damage that the system may create for people. at the lower levels. And then that begins to shift in the 70s with Friedman. and those guys into this, you know, the famous Laffer curve, 1980s supply-side, trickle-down economics. Is that-- what made that switch into trickle-down?

And-- and what were they using to kind of justify that? And are the things that you're saying--. are-- is that consistent with that understanding. of those eras? OREN CASS: Yeah, I think that's a good description of the eras. I-- I would think about it more as a pendulum swinging, though. JON STEWART: OK. OREN CASS: I think it's helpful to, in general, think about what happens in our politics. The New Deal emerges in response to the Great. Depression and, you know, what had been a very minimalist. government that clearly was not serving.

people's needs at that point. And so I think with FDR, you get this real swing. of the pendulum, all the way from-- we're. much too far to one side. You come to OK, we've got to fix this, and then swing through to an overcorrection where, by the kind of Great Society-- you know, LBJ, Great. Society programs of the 60s. JON STEWART: Is that where conservatives would look at--. OK, I mean, they were against maybe the New Deal as well, but is it the Great Society that is. the cleaving point for them?

OREN CASS: You know, I think certainly. if you talk about sort of what parts of the welfare. state as it's been constructed that we would say, like, yeah, that was really good versus, ooh, that's not. so good, there's definitely a very different view of New. Deal-type social insurance, basic Social Security, Fair Labor Standards. You don't see a lot of Republicans out there saying, like, let's get back to child labor or whatever. JON STEWART: There's a couple of them. OREN CASS: There's a couple. You can find them. But, you know, by and large, I think people on the right.

would say those were good. Great Society in the 60s, I think you'd see more of a mix. I think on things like Medicare, obviously. that's widely supported. JON STEWART: Right. But wasn't. I mean, Reagan famously came out--. I don't know if you've ever heard that great recording. of Reagan talking about Medicare. as the socialist creep coming. You know, he cut advertisements against-- against Medicare. OREN CASS: No, that's right. So there's-- that is certainly where-- well, of course, if you go back to the 30s, you would have Republicans, you know, saying the same thing about Social Security.

And so you get-- JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --there's both sort of more of an acceptance. of good parts over time, more of, I think, an increasingly sharp critique of pieces that didn't work. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: But so you get in the Great Society, I would say you swing through the oh, these were good things that-- that we really should have. in this country into whoa, we're. starting to build up some stuff that is creating problems. I think you see the same thing, for instance, with organized labor, where I think. the idea of worker power--. workers having unions, et cetera,

that's a fantastic thing. By the way, Adam Smith did too. But you swing from they don't have any power. or representation at all to OK, good, they have a seat at the table, they have equal standing, to, by the 1970s, in lot of cases, they are actively leveraging that power into a lot. of quite counterproductive things, I would argue, in the economy. JON STEWART: And becoming somewhat corrupt. in and of their own self. OREN CASS: That's right. JON STEWART: And then using the money and those kinds of thing. OREN CASS: Absolutely. And so I think if you think about, you know, what's called the stagflation of the 1970s, we were in a very.

bad position economically. And what the supply-siders came in and said, which was fundamentally correct--. like, I would describe myself as a supply-sider--. is you can't just fix the economy. You can't get the growth you want just through what. had become the main government model, which is just give. people more money to spend. That, at some point, the question. is, what are the incentives for businesses to invest. and build stuff or not?

It goes back to that piece of capitalism I think we entirely. agree on, which is you do want the profit motive. driving positive behavior. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And so the basic idea of supply-side economics. is to say, look, one of the best ways. to spur growth would actually be to improve the incentives. of people to invest and build and grow businesses, that that can be good for workers, too. I think that's correct. But I think that then you pull this pendulum back. in the other direction, you do some things that are more. business-friendly, you create a better environment.

for investment, that's great. And then that swings straight all the way through to anything. that's good for corporations and leads to more profits. or reduces taxes, is always going to be better. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And same with, OK, you know, we did have overregulation in a lot of cases. Well, therefore, any-- right? And we did need various types of deregulation. Let's swing that all the way through to just the less. regulation, the better, the market will automatically work. And so I think we sort of got all the way back up. to that side of the pendulum. And now we are-- we need to swing back down again.

JON STEWART: So then it becomes, what are the tools in the arsenal that--. that can help us swing the pendulums back? And-- and does the policy discussion become, all right, are the tools, you know, tax incentives, disclosure rules, or, as you were saying, like limits on buybacks, or-- so-- so what are the tools now that we look at. or the metrics that we look at that tell us we've.

gone too far? Is it-- you know, I can point to wage growth. You know, you don't get a tremendous amount. of wage growth. Or income inequality tells me the system is out of balance. What are the tools that-- that we. can use, then, that-- that bring it. more back into that balance? OREN CASS: Yeah, so that's-- that's exactly where the rubber. meets the road on all this. And I think it's interestingly where. you start to see some of the traditional political.

divisions reemerge. Because my view is it's a real problem. if you have left and right disagreeing on the diagnosis. JON STEWART: Do they disagree still? Or is it-- it feels like there's still disagreement. OREN CASS: Less. Much, much less so. There-- there is some. So I think if you look back to the 2000s, let's say, the--. the Republican Party had really dug into a position of saying, essentially, we have achieved equal opportunity, everyone can succeed and build a great business,

and, actually, if we adjust the numbers in this way, everybody's wages are going up. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: And therefore--. you would be surprised how many people's. full-time job is to adjust the numbers to show. that wages are going up. JON STEWART: Yes, I'm sure. OREN CASS: But-- and sort of, therefore, ta-da. We-- we don't need to take action on any of these fronts. because, in fact, everything is going great. And you would also see that on things like, I think, like climate change is another quintessential example where,

well, we're not sure-- if-- if we acknowledge that climate. change is an issue, well, then, are we going to just have. to embrace the Green New Deal? Let's just say that it's not a problem. And I think we have plenty of-- of issues of that type. on both sides, I would say. We could talk about ways where, you know, the left doesn't want to say that something is a problem. because if they do, well, then what right-of-center answer do. we have to accept? JON STEWART: Sure. Well, you're seeing that now with the argument about housing.

supply, where you'd say-- you know, they want to say that this is a problem, but we don't want to also say that. overregulation might be a problem, especially. environmental regulations--. OREN CASS: Right. JON STEWART: --that may have to fix it. So you have-- I--. I see those tensions in any of the places. OREN CASS: And so my view is just that that is a very. unhealthy partisanship, right? Like, there is nothing partisan about trying. to figure out what is actually happening in the world. We should be able to reach a common description of that.

Now, we might apply different values to it, say, which parts are good versus bad. So conservatives might say we're. comfortable with a relatively higher level of inequality. than progressives might, but we shouldn't be disagreeing. on what that level is. JON STEWART: Or that it exists. OREN CASS: Exactly. That's right. Or what direction the trend is in, and so forth. And so something like financialization, I think, is a great example of this, where there are a lot of very. difficult discussions to have about, OK, what would. you do to address this.

But we should be able to agree that the scale that Wall Street. has grown to in a lot of what it's doing just. is not creating value in the world. JON STEWART: That's right. And the-- the percentage-- you know, you talk about it. in the article, you know, the idea of financialization. is sort of what percentage it takes up of economic activity. OREN CASS: Yeah. JON STEWART: And you were saying, years ago, it might have been at 10%, but it has doubled, meaning that these sort.

of financial instruments--. and is containing it so difficult? Because, in truth, I would imagine financialization. is more agile than industrial policy. Certainly investing in manufacturing or warehouses. or creating value for workers takes a much. more stable uncertainty. It's going to throw-- financialization is, hey, man, I just came up with this idea, what if we bundle mortgages.

You know, it seems much more agile--. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: --and harder to catch up to. OREN CASS: I think that's exactly right. And so that's a great sort of way. into this question of what do we do. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: Because I think one place where I, at least, perceive still very large differences between how someone. like I would think about addressing this versus folks. on the left is I think the--. the more left-of-center view tends to be, OK, we-- we essentially need to find the things that we don't. like and prescribe them and sort of construct.

a regulatory apparatus that is going to sort of keep. these things inbounds, figure out. which ones we do like versus which ones we don't like. JON STEWART: And, like in the case of 2008, saying, well, you know, maybe banks shouldn't leverage at. 35-to-1, 40. You know, creating stress tests--. OREN CASS: Yeah. JON STEWART: --that don't allow it to become a hydrogen. bomb for the economy. [FUNK MUSIC].

JON STEWART: You know I'm a traveling man. I'm a rambling man. You know I like to go. I like to see the world. Or, oh, no, wait, that's not me. I like to sit at home. But there are people out there who do like that. And let me tell you something, if you. do enjoy seeing the world, you know. that can be a little bit of this, a little bit of cheese. You've got to put a little cheese on that taco. to go see the world. But imagine if you had some kind of, like, a rewards program-- you know what I'm talking about, like. a miles program, et cetera--.

but it's a rewards program that you. pay rent through and then earn points for travel, dining, shopping, et cetera. 2026! If you're still paying rent without Bilt, come on, brother. It's a loyalty program for renters. that rewards you for your biggest monthly expense, which. is rent. With Bilt, every rent payment earns you points. You can redeem them--. flights, hotels, Lyft rides, Amazon purchases, so much more. And, by the way, starting in February, Bilt members can earn points on mortgage payments.

You get some for that. So join the loyalty program for renters at joinbilt.com/tws. That's J-O-I-N-B-I-L-T dot com slash TW. Make sure to use our URL so they know we sent you. [FUNK MUSIC]. OREN CASS: But then if you look at what Dodd-Frank actually. is right, right, it's thousands of pages generating thousands. of pages of regulations that in a lot of cases. end up doing things like saying,

well, if banks can't lend, make certain risky loans, banks will instead lend to this new set of institutions. that we will call private credit. and they will make the risky loans. And, to your point, that will typically be more agile. than the regulators will be. JON STEWART: And a lot of that stuff, though, is added in by-- to be fair, by lobbyists for. these financial institutions. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: The difficulty, again, is you also have a Congress that is-- has much more access. to the lobbyists for these very rich financial firms.

than to the people that they're sort of trying to help. avoid these catastrophes. OREN CASS: Yes. But it is important to take that as a baseline reality. when you're deciding what we should do. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] OREN CASS: Right? In other words, I do get very frustrated with my friends. on the left when they're like, no, but this would have worked better. if not for the lobbyists. I'm like, well, did you have a plan for there. not being the lobbyists? Because, if not, that's. JON STEWART: Well, poor people need better lobbyists. I've always said that. OREN CASS: I think the question of how.

you represent workers more effectively. is-- is a super-important one. JON STEWART: Well, I think the idea is, for the left, that your representatives are your lobbyists. In other words, you look to them. as a bulwark against that financial group. rather than this kind of entity to be. corrupted or swayed by it. That you kind of view it as that's the balance. OREN CASS: And that sounds fantastic. And then I would again say, and how. is that working out for you?

JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Not fair! That is not fair. OREN CASS: We conservatives are pragmatists, if nothing else. JON STEWART: So how do you design it? How do you catch up to? Because they're kicking our ass. I mean, that's the thing that-- that makes it so difficult, is they're so much more agile. Even in the way of-- let's use your sort of example of part. of financialization is in some ways like setting up microwave. towers right next to where the trading is going so that you're.

making all your money on volatility, or payment for order flow, or all these other kinds. of invented or gamifying it so that it resembles more, you know, FanDuel than it might anything. resembling the real economy. And the SEC is completely overmatched. How-- what are the things you can design to get ahead of it, in pragmatic terms?

OREN CASS: Right. So what this leads me to is just to think. is that what we really need is quite. sort of blunt, broad-based constraints. JON STEWART: Like Volcker Rule kinds of? That one page, if you're a bank, you can't use savings to finance. your, whatever, adventurism in financialization. OREN CASS: Right. So very clear lines what kinds of institutions. can and can't do. Very clear transparency and disclosure requirements. So if you are going-- if you are planning to collect 7%.

of people's investments in fees to yourself, you actually have to [CHUCKLES] publish that very clearly--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: --so that, you know, a pension fund knows. that's what you're doing. JON STEWART: Mhm. OREN CASS: Things like just stock buybacks are not allowed, which-- which was the case until 1983. It's very funny you say we should. get rid of stock buybacks. People are like, ooh, like, that's Marxist. I'm like, well, it was also US law for more than 200 years.

So, you know, we're. JON STEWART: Right. 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.

Like, I think that's-- that's the frustration. You know, you talk about--. I understand the frustration that you may have. with the left, but that's the frustration, I think, that the left has, that there's, as you said earlier, kind of this dogma, the government. doesn't pick winners and losers. And I think if you're on the left, you go, no, it does all the time, but it just picks the winners that have the most access. to it and the most money. And-- and that's our frustration.

OREN CASS: I think that's right. I think it is-- 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 Business Roundtable and Chamber of Commerce. and so forth and the right-of-center. in the Republican Party because I think there-- 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.

And we really do need to understand why it's not working. and do something about it. And the thing that I always emphasize to folks on the right. is, you know, what we have right now is not. sustainable, right? Like the cover your ears and-- and tell people things. are great. JON STEWART: What parts of it, in your mind, are-- are least sustainable? Like, what? Is it inequality? Is it-- what are the things specifically that you're. looking at that you go, man, this. is-- we're creating something that's not going to hold?

OREN CASS: So I think there's what I would call. a micro element at the personal level. and a sort of macro element at the national level. JON STEWART: OK. OREN CASS: And I'll just hit the macro one first. because it's a little quicker. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: The reality is that the US economy, it performs. great on the measures like stock market valuation. and, you know, top line GDP figures And so forth. Our actual capacity to make things, to--. to create jobs, to innovate, to compete with China,

is in sharp decline. And a-- a system that does not reward that above all else. is not going to produce the kinds of outcomes that we want. And so 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. We-- the-- the formula we have settled on. is not one that is actually conducive to the liberty. and prosperity of the United States. And I think we are on what many people rightly. feel is a downward slide that we need to--. to reverse. JON STEWART: Now wouldn't people on the right. say, no, reversing it is an artificial contrivance? That what we've learned is financialization,

financial services, legal services, tech services, that's-- 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-- they're not-- they're getting out. of the way and allowing these future markets.

to dictate our economy. OREN CASS: There-- 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 newer publications, you know, the kinds of programs younger people are.

participating in, there-- there are very few people. at this point who would say no, that things have been going. well, this is the right track. JON STEWART: Even as they point to, you know, look at our GDP, it's-- and you realize it's seven. companies and like--. OREN CASS: Right. JON STEWART: --AI data centers that we don't even know. will ever be used. OREN CASS: Yeah. No, so that's-- that's a perfect example. I think you'll find-- and again, the-- the 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-- 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-- that's a punchline, not an actual argument. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And I think you see that even. in if you sort of look at the next generation of leaders. on the right-of-center.

And listeners are free to support them or not. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] They're free to do that now. We don't-- six months from now, they may not be. free to support them or not. We don't know what's going to happen. OREN CASS: I suspect that freedom will persist just fine. JON STEWART: All right. OREN CASS: But on-- on these issues that-- that we're. talking about, if you look at what a JD 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-- the-- the newer-- it takes time, obviously, for these things to turn over in a political party. But at-- at the staff and writer. level and at the political level, I--. I think you see a pretty significant shift, certainly. on these macro questions, on the need to reindustrialize, on the need to--. to take on China and so forth. JON STEWART: 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 governing. philosophy of economics? When I look at a Trump administration filled.

with these, I'm assuming, more right-of-center. economists and people of that thing, it feels incoherent. I'm going to take 10% of Intel. You know what, I'll let you sell chips to China, but you've got to give me a cut of that. Oh, also, I'm going to put 50% tariffs on Brazil. because I don't really like the way they've treated Bolsonaro. And you sort of can't wrap your mind around what we are.

and how they're designing these policies not as correctives. for pendulum swings or societal ills, but as kind of impulse, like giant baby impulse. OREN CASS: Well, I think what you. have with the Trump administration. is President Trump. And--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: --right? I mean, I think--. JON STEWART: Fair enough. Fair point, fair point. OREN CASS: [CHUCKLES] -to-- to my point, you know, in parallel to my-- my point to the left.

about taking as a--. a baseline reality that you have the lobbyists, there's also a baseline reality that the head. of the executive branch is Donald Trump. And Trump is someone who, as you just described, tends to go in a lot of different directions. JON STEWART: I call it tantrunomics. OREN CASS: Tantrunomics. JON STEWART: Tantrunomics. OREN CASS: The-- you know, and it's important to say, I think what's so fascinating about him. as such a non-ideological person is that I think.

that actually had some real benefits in his willingness. to reject everything that had been standard Republican dogma. JON STEWART: But you can't replace it with a sort. of nihilistic and vindictive. OREN CASS: Well, so that's right. So the metaphor that I always use. is the building metaphor, right? Which is that, like, demolition is an important part. of a rebuilding process. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: If all you do is demolition and then go. find the next thing to demolish, you are less likely to be remembered as a great builder.

JON STEWART: I see. So you're saying right now we're in the East Wing. part of our economy, but we haven't. yet gotten to the ballroom. We're waiting to get to the ballroom of the economy. OREN CASS: I think it is certainly. fair to say that-- that there has been a lot of demolition. JON STEWART: Yes. OREN CASS: And I think the-- you know, the interesting thing when you mention, you know, take 10%. of this company and so forth--. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --what you see at the fundamental level is, in fact, a shift toward we are going to do industrial policy.

JON STEWART: Or a state-run capitalism. But, you know, we get into this-- this loop. now, which is how do you then prevent. the kind of kleptocracy and feeding. at the trough of the patrons of the president. You know, it's very hard to look at any rebalancing. of the economy when people can say, but the president has benefited by the tune of $4 billion. through-- through the course of this.

Isn't at the base of this we have to preserve what kind. of got America to this point, which is a baseline of there. are stable rules of the road that-- that. we will honor that allow for--. you know, they always say in the economy the worst. thing is uncertainty. Have we lost that? That-- that was our gold standard. And-- and how do you rebuild?

Before we can even tackle the kinds of remedies. that you're talking about, don't we need to rebuild kind. of that baseline stability? OREN CASS: Yes. I think that's an incredibly important point, that there are certain--. JON STEWART: Hooray! OREN CASS: [CHUCKLES] --when we think about the-- the sort. of interaction between politics and the economy, this is one of the things that was so lost. Like, it's funny, there didn't used to be. a field called economics. It was called political economy. People called Adam Smith a political economist.

And it was only really in the 20th century that you defined. this separate field of economics, which was just with math and abstract models and so forth we. can kind of say what should be done, when in reality the-- the political dimension is almost. always inseparable, certainly at the level. of what should we be doing. JON STEWART: But don't economists. try and have it both ways? I have to say, you know, one of the-- the things that. felt disingenuous about-- we talked to Richard Thaler.

last week. Which, by the way, I love talking to that. I thought it was a great conversation. But there were a lot of economists that were really. pissed-- not at him, at-- at me for ignorance. and all kinds of other things. But one of the things they were pissed about. is, you don't understand the difference. between economics and policy. But don't they want it both ways? Because they don't just study it in an ivory. tower and put it in a terrarium. They're in the room when these policies are made. You know, they are incredibly influential in designing.

the parameters of-- of our economy. And yet if you criticize that, you know, it stirs up-- they're, if I may say, very mean. They're very mean people. OREN CASS: Yes. The-- so I completely agree with that. I think in debating circles we refer to that. a motte-and-bailey, which is--. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES]. OREN CASS: --are you familiar with the motte-and-bailey? JON STEWART: I am not familiar with the motte-and-bailey. OREN CASS: Oh, let me tell you about-- let me tell you. about the motte-and-bailey. JON STEWART: I would like the motte-and-bailey. OREN CASS: The motte-and-bailey is.

the configuration of a medieval village that had--. I might get them backwards, but I. believe the motte was the small fortress on top of the hill. And then the bailey was this sort of open village area. that everybody preferred to live in. JON STEWART: OK. OREN CASS: And so you lived out in the bailey. And then if, you know, the barbarians were attacking, you could retreat into the motte. JON STEWART: Solid move. Well designed. OREN CASS: There you go. And so the motte-and-bailey form of argument. is you sort of spread out and make. these very expansive claims and sort of have a great time.

And then when you actually get attacked, you retreat to this much narrower thing--. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES]. OREN CASS: --that you can defend. JON STEWART: And then when you're in your motte, you yell insults at anybody who dares. OREN CASS: Like-- like the Monty Python. JON STEWART: Yes. OREN CASS: And then-- but, as importantly, as soon as the attackers have gone, all right, fine, and moved on, you spread right back out again. into your bailey. JON STEWART: Well, they've been baileying my motte. and I don't like it, buddy. OREN CASS: [CHUCKLES]. [FUNK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: If you're like me, you're.

a victim of your own inertia. A body at rest stays at rest. I got something I'm doing, I just keep doing it. Does it matter that it's better? No. Does it matter that it's worse? Probably not. I just keep doing it, slogging along like a snail. moving through the garden of life. That's actually pretty dark. But the point is, that's what screws me on telephone bills. Stop paying for too much wireless just. because, I don't know, that's just what I do. It's how it's always been.

That's just my company. Mint exists purely to fix that-- same coverage, same speed, just without the inflated price tag. You can change your coverage, people. Mint is the premium wireless you expect--. you know, your unlimited text, your data--. but at a fraction of what others charge. And for a limited time, you can get 50% off three-month, six-month, 12-month plans of unlimited premium wireless. The only thing keeping you from doing it is inertia, laziness.

Don't be the beanbag chair. Be the-- trying to think of something. energetic-- pogo stick? Be the pogo stick. That's probably not right. Bring your own phone number. Activate with eSIM in minutes. Start saving immediately. No long-term contracts, no hassle. With a seven-day money-back guarantee. and customer satisfaction ratings in the mid-90s, Mint makes it easy to try and see why people don't go back. Ready to stop paying more than you have to? New customers can make the switch today.

and for a limited time get unlimited premium. wireless for just $15 a month. Switch now at mintmobile.com/tws. That's mintmobile.com/tws. [FUNK MUSIC]. OREN CASS: So this is a-- a constant feature. of-- of the economics debates that I think is very important, is that, yes, there is an important, valuable discipline of economics that has useful. insights, that-- that uses both analysis. and data and so forth--. JON STEWART: Right.

OREN CASS: --to make useful points. that we should consider when we are making public policy. And then there is the actual policy-making process. And economists have-- have gotten very comfortable. asserting that their narrowly useful technical insights. dictate what policy should be. So our model shows that free trade is efficient--. JON STEWART: That's right. If you only followed them. Right. OREN CASS: --therefore, anybody who questions our prescription. of free trade is an idiot.

And it's like, well, actually, I. understand your model of free trade, here are 10 reasons why in the real world--. like, first of all, maybe I just have values for optimizing. around other things. Second of all, here's ways other people. are going to behave that you're not taking into account. Third of all, here's what's going to happen to our politics. if we do that. And if we--. JON STEWART: Yes. OREN CASS: --undermine our politics in that way--. JON STEWART: Thank you. OREN CASS: --what do you think is going to end. up happening to the economy? And so on and so forth. JON STEWART: And it creates a credibility issue--. OREN CASS: Yes.

JON STEWART: --that I think undermines, you know, rightfully so-- and I probably consider it, in the way that I think a lot of people. view the Iraq war as a kind of cleaving. point for American credibility overseas. And, again, you probably can go back. to the 60s and 70s and say the Vietnam. War did a very similar thing. I think the 2008 financial crisis--. and maybe it's been an overcorrection. against that credibility-- but it really, for something that was so devastating to the broader.

economy and to the jobs and labor and all that. and the direct result of the financialization. and instrumentation of the economy, I've been surprised at how resilient the architects of all. that remain in the economy. How is that? OREN CASS: Well, I think, at least until recently--. this goes back to the priesthood phenomenon--. they were the arbiters of it.

I mean, you can even find all sorts of great papers, unsurprisingly, about how the great financial crisis. was not their fault. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: Which are technically the authoritative--. JON STEWART: Sure. It's an a journal. If it's in the journal. OREN CASS: It's-- it's in the Journal of Financial. Regulatory Economists. It turns out that--. JON STEWART: Why wouldn't it be? OREN CASS: --they had nothing to do with it. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: But I really do think it's the double whammy. of the-- the financial fallout from. the Great Recession and the--. JON STEWART: Right.

OREN CASS: --sort of industrial fallout from free trade. with China that are these-- because that also was such. an iconic-- you know, I love quoting. Larry Summers on this point. JON STEWART: [GROANS]. OREN CASS: I think I can still do that. maybe a little bit longer. JON STEWART: [SHUDDERS] Wait, the room just got cold. I don't know what happened. OREN CASS: You know, he testified before Congress. as Secretary of the Treasury that-- you know, economists disagree on everything, on this, there's only one answer. And, you know, they kind of--. Clinton White House walked these Nobel laureates up. to the briefing room to sort of lecture people.

that if-- if you did not see how great this was, you just were not smart enough to understand it. JON STEWART: Right. You don't understand the science and you're an idiot. OREN CASS: And-- and then, even worse, it carried on. after it was obviously wrong. So, you know, I worked for-- for Mitt. Romney's presidential campaign in 2011, 2012. And Romney actually was-- because he came from more. of a business background, was-- was very focused on the China. issue and the ways that free trade with China. was clearly not working out.

And this was, you know, 10, 12 years into this debacle. And economists just absolutely denied it. They just-- that that's just not true, free trade works well for everybody. JON STEWART: And was it a misunderstanding. of that sort of capital can travel, but labor can't? Is it just the advantages that capital. had in this new, like, electronic world economy, that labor just was naturally going to get its ass kicked? OREN CASS: You know, I think that's a piece of it.

I think the-- the two other problems, though, one is they always just assume that trade would be balanced. So if a whole bunch of capital flee-- you know, heads to China to make something. cheaper in China, that's OK. There's going to be something else that we may now--. we make here now to trade for the stuff from China. And-- and it was a sort of rock-solid principle. This was actually Paul Krugman, wrote a famous essay. talking about what should we teach undergraduates. about economics.

And-- and one of the core things. was trade deficits are self-correcting. So you can't have a long-term--. I-- I was on a podcast with him last year. and mentioned this to him. He didn't remember, of course. JON STEWART: He must have been very excited to hear about it. He must have been very excited to be reminded of that article. OREN CASS: And I said, no, no, you know, I'm always, always ready to read the quote as needed. And he said, well, that was naive. And I was like, well--. JON STEWART: Oh, OK, well that's-- well, that's-- credit-- credit to him. OREN CASS: --I wish you hadn't written the accompanying essay.

suggesting that people who could not understand. your economics should be ridiculed. because ridicule is more powerful than actually. trying to argue with them. JON STEWART: Yeah. I'm aware of that as well. That's my motte-and-bailey. OREN CASS: Does the--. [LAUGHS] now you're just misusing terms left and right. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: But this-- this was sort. of the MO of-- of all of this. And so--. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --if you figure, oh, a whole bunch of stuff. will go to China, that's fine, we'll get. something else instead--. JON STEWART: Right.

OREN CASS: --maybe that could have worked out. But it turns out that-- that that was simply wrong. And then the other core assumption. under all of this economics, that the economists. hate talking about, is that all they care about is consumption. Like, quite literally, the way that economics defines the good. is having more stuff to consume. And, in fact, it defines work as the bad, right? The ideal economic outcome--. JON STEWART: Explain this. What-- what does that mean? Because I'm familiar with sort of the consumer.

index and consumer spending being 70%. of the economy and all that. But isn't work productivity, what they would define. as productivity? Or is that still only in--. defined as it is to consuming? OREN CASS: It's-- so in-- in-- in the formal economic models, it is for the sake of the consuming. And so Jason Furman, who was chair of Obama's. Council of Economic Advisors-- JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: --now teaches the intro level econ course. at Har-- at Harvard-- gave a speech a year. or two ago in Geneva at the WTO, World Trade Organization,

convening, where he specifically noted that, you. know, 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. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] So it's basically we're. all working for the weekend. OREN CASS: Well. JON STEWART: That's what we're, yeah. All right. OREN CASS: Exactly. JON STEWART: Fair enough. OREN CASS: So-- so the ideal-- if you're kind of-- they. do what they call scoring policies, we're going to run our model and see 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. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES] I think that's Elon's future. I think that's what he says is going. to happen to us through AI. OREN CASS: Well, this is an interesting question, right? Would that be good or not? JON STEWART: Right. Wouldn't that make-- see, this gets us in-- this is such. interesting because from the powers that be within. the tech world, the new billionaires. that are going to design the--. whatever dystopian world we're going to live in, they look at,

you know, the gig economy, that automation and AI, not only is it, you know, going to replace us. to certain places, it's better that it does. That they look at it in the way that-- that you're saying, which I think misses out also on that people. want to feel relevant. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: That's an important part of-- of life--. OREN CASS: Yeah. JON STEWART: --is the feeling that what.

you do through your labor matters. in the smallest of ways, whether that-- it's. that idea of we all would like to be essential workers. 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. OREN CASS: Yes. That-- so that's exactly right. And this is the-- the core of the-- 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, can align to the kinds of things they can do that allow.

them to support families. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And so we're all the way back to the Adam Smith. invisible hand thing again. Are the things that are happening in our economy. the kinds of things that generate that outcome? And economics, formally, is just completely blind to that. JON STEWART: Well, certainly financialization is, for sure. OREN CASS: Well, that's right. The financialization-- JON STEWART: Yeah. OREN CASS: --it reflects a market where the incentives. are not to do that. Economics as a field of analysis. just doesn't really have a way to measure that, right?

So when you see GDP go up, that doesn't tell you anything about. whether it is going up in a way that supports those things. or not. JON STEWART: So Oren, let me ask you this. Because I remember-- and maybe this is because it was kind. of a self-regulating proposition--. but if you remember, there was a movement--. it wasn't even that long ago, 10, 15 years ago--. that ESG movement-- OREN CASS: Mhm. JON STEWART: --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. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: Why would that be, given sort. of what we're talking about? OREN CASS: If-- if I may make a respectful. point regarding the left--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: --at this moment--. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS] Yes, OK.

OREN CASS: ESG, the--. the idea that we do need to care. about things besides profit is very important. 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. JON STEWART: Although a lot of it was-- to be fair, a lot of it was lip service. I mean, a lot it's kind of.

OREN CASS: 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. JON STEWART: I see what you're saying. OREN CASS: It was focused on the set of--. essentially, the left-of-center side of this elite that is--. is generally happy with how things are going on, but-- but wanted to impose a particular set of policy. priorities around things like climate change,

you know, a certain conception of social justice. JON STEWART: And maybe ill defining it, yeah. Although the social justice part, I've always been so surprised at the pushback. on, especially for those who talk about meritocracy. I would think-- if you think about social justice in terms. of markets, aren't these communities. that have been traditionally excluded. oftentimes explicitly by--. by the law, couldn't you just reclassify them. as emerging markets and suggest that you wanted.

to create better investment in emerging markets. to create a larger, more meritocratic system, ultimately. with more competition? Isn't-- I always viewed that as--. it was surprising to me that it was viewed so negatively. Because it's basically taking a legacy system. and kind of breaking it down. OREN CASS: Right. I mean, I think, again, if you're just putting your hat. on as a-- 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. And 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-- the profit opportunity is. And again--. JON STEWART: Short-term. Short-term. Short-term. OREN CASS: Well, which is--. [CHUCKLES] what they're looking at. And which--. JON STEWART: Now we got to our, yeah. OREN CASS: --and which connects back--.

JON STEWART: That connects us. OREN CASS: --to another of the big problems. with financialization, which is when you're making all. of your money in financial services, you know, to some extent in tech, in media, you are-- you can generate a lot of growth, but you are-- there are-- you are making the most profitable. things the boosting and lifting up of those narrow enclaves. that are already doing best. And-- and one of the most powerful. things I think we need--. and, again, I think this is where 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-- 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.

JON STEWART: Oh. 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-- that's a really hard thing, then, to engineer, isn't it? OREN CASS: Well, that, in my mind, is exactly the argument for something like tariffs, is to say if-- if all we want is the cheapest thing, then this is great. If-- if Chinese slave labor makes it, it will be cheaper. JON STEWART: The problem with 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, you know, to pay that premium. And that money may not come back to them in investment. So isn't it-- aren't we punishing the very people. we purport to help? OREN CASS: There is potential for it to be regressive. There's-- there's actually a wonderful--. I guess he's an economic historian officially,

named-- named Michael Lind who makes this point that I think. is so important and-- 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. JON STEWART: How else do you make it up? OREN CASS: 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 are 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. JON STEWART: But isn't that what--. wouldn't you say, like, the CHIPS Act, isn't that what that would be? And then so why, on the right, was. that such a controversial and-- and negative response to it? That sounds like, in terms of what you're saying,

almost the perfectly designed political program. to do such a thing. OREN CASS: Yeah. So I loved the CHIPS Act. JON STEWART: [CHUCKLES]. OREN CASS: We pushed-- we pushed. very hard for the CHIPS Act. JON STEWART: I saw that bumper sticker on your car, Oren. OREN CASS: That's right. I'm a huge hit at cocktail parties. JON STEWART: [LAUGHS]. OREN CASS: The-- ultimately, I think. something like 16 or 17 Republican senators. voted for it. And so you're right, it's something that was--. it divided the Republican Party at this point.

Because you had the-- the more old guard folks who were like, nope, that's not what we do. And you have an increasing segment. that say like, oh, yes, actually, this is what we should do. JON STEWART: And maybe more positive than tariffs, which. they support across the board. OREN CASS: So, but this is the key, is I think you can't do it all through those kinds. of policies, right? You can't go and find every industry and everything. you wish we did and design a government program to boost it. I think that kind of industrial policy. can be really valuable, where you.

have like a particular must-have thing. So semiconductors 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-- we do need something to offset that. JON STEWART: 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, you know, the kind of--. so-- 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? OREN CASS: Yeah, 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-- that's good. We should want that.

And so the sweet spot, it seems to me, is you need to have good national baselines, right? 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. And so I don't think we have it exactly right, but I would say that it is actually one of the real. benefits of the American system that--. that we have some sort of flexibility. and give and take in that--.

JON STEWART: The federalism. OREN CASS: --that I think on balance probably benefits us. JON STEWART: Right. So ultimately, as we sort of bring it all around. to a circle, you know, you describe this kind of pendulum. swing from labor to capital and all these things, that financialization is kind of a metastasized version. of what that is, and different policies. that can kind of gain it under to get it under control.

Can I ask, is-- ultimately, is it a product of A, obviously, I think it's more agile than our political system, but B, is it a function of the fetishization of growth over--. you know, and we see that in-- in a lot of areas, you know, the--. the stock ticker is down at the bottom of your screen. as though that's a-- an actual important 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 the types of stability in industrial. base that you're--. you're talking about? And is that a problem that goes all the way back. then to Friedman, which is it's about maximizing. shareholder value, and these guys coming in and working.

purely for that? OREN CASS: I'm glad you brought it. around to that because that's where I end my essay as well, is on-- on the point that there is. a-- there are all sorts of policy discussions to be had. But in the final analysis, this is also a cultural question. There have always been ways to make money that are. just not good things to do. JON STEWART: Sure. OREN CASS: That are embarrassing, frankly. JON STEWART: Greed is good. I mean, that was-- that's the catchphrase from the 80s.

OREN CASS: That's right. That was one of the transition points. There are plenty of ways to go make money that are legal. in the United States today that most people would still say, like, oh, like that's not going to be. the top thing the college kids are going to the recruiting. presentation on. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And so I don't think it's exactly. the fetishization of growth. Because I do think growth is good. I think, you know, in the periods. where the United States-- where the economy. was working best, people were absolutely. obsessed with growth. JON STEWART: Or the right metrics of growth. Maybe-- maybe it's.

OREN CASS: Yeah, exactly. So I think that's more the problem, is that-- and this. connects back to some of what especially the more market. fundamentalists got wrong, is there's. been a very concerted effort to make the case. that any pursuit of profit is productive. and anybody who makes a lot of profit, that must prove that they've done something valuable. And I think it's just--. and that is a cultural issue. As long as people believe that, it's. going to be very hard to sell them on, you know,

we need the regulation or anything else, we need to do anything differently. JON STEWART: And sadly, I worry we're. moving in the wrong direction. Because everything you're saying, if I look at sort of where the-- the weathervane is. pointing, it's to the gamification. It's to creating a more gamified financial system. And is maybe sort of crypto the poster child for--. OREN CASS: Yeah. JON STEWART: --the direction we're. moving in, that is the antithesis.

of what you're talking about? OREN CASS: It-- I think that's right. I guess that is what gives me optimism, that I think we've. finally sort of hit the reductio ad absurdum of it. is just-- it is impossible to look at what's going on. at this point and defend it. And I think people are starting to see. And, you know, it's funny that, of course, my-- my editor was like, you had. to make this more in like everyday terms, things people see. And it's finally at the point where you can do that, right? Like whether it's your experience trying to figure out. how to watch the football game or youth sports.

or now you do see young people obsessed with prediction. markets and crypto, like. JON STEWART: Kalshi and Polymarket. I mean, that's-- if you're looking. at the growth segments, that's where it all seems to be going. And that seems to be the opposite. of what we're talking about. OREN CASS: Yeah, I mean, someone pointed out, if you watched the Super Bowl ads this year, you'd think our economy was driven. entirely by chatbots, prediction markets, and weight loss drugs. JON STEWART: Right. OREN CASS: And I think there's a way in which it is so. obvious at this point that these things are not correlated.

with the actual well-being and human flourishing. that-- that is the point of all of this. that I think there is increasing potential. for a-- a political response. JON STEWART: And you have an optimism to that. because it's almost like looking. at it as financialization is sort of-- it's--. it's standing in for political failure. OREN CASS: Yes. JON STEWART: Right. Well, you have-- this conversation--. and I say this with great respect--. has convinced me to sell my Melania memecoin.

OREN CASS: [CHUCKLES] Or hold. JON STEWART: That's what I meant, hold. That's what I meant. OREN CASS: Because you've gotta remember, if you're selling it, someone else is buying it. It may be better to just-- just go down with the ship. JON STEWART: Oren, it's always such a pleasure to talk to you. Fascinating stuff. Really enjoyed reading that article. Oren Cass, chief economist, American Compass. And just thanks again for-- for joining us. and having the conversation. OREN CASS: Well, thank you for-- for wanting.

to talk about it. It's great to see you. JON STEWART: Beautiful. Nice to see you as well. [FUNK MUSIC]. JON STEWART: This episode is brought. to you by Ninja Luxe Cafe. You know, I've got a question for you guys. You know how to drink coffee sometimes, you have to leave your house? What's that supposed to be? You gotta what? Talk to people? Share their space? It's not why I'm on this Earth. No. If you'd rather not have to brave the outside world.

with the cold and the schlepping. and the people for your $20 latte with stuff in it. that is pretty sure is not edible or drinkable, or would. you rather just press a button, have one made in your own home? Home! That's what we're talking about. This episode is sponsored by Ninja Luxe Cafe. Barista Assist Technology handles the details--. grinding, weighing, brewing. You don't have to. Ninja Luxe Cafe makes cafe quality without the guesswork.

and without the drive to your coffee shop. Listeners of this show get $60 off the Ninja Luxe Cafe Premier. Series with code Stewart, exclusively on sharkninja.com. while supplies last. That's $60 off the Ninja Luxe Cafe Premier Series. with code Stewart, exclusively on sharkninja.com, while supplies last. [FUNK MUSIC].

JON STEWART: I have to say, I appreciate his ability. to-- to discuss these matters in a-- a way. that feels accessible. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Yes. CO-HOST: And not condescending. JON STEWART: And not condescending and not dickish. And I have to say, I don't know what shit I've stepped. in this week, because after talking to Richard Thaler, who. was the economist from last week, I was very pleased with the conversation. I thought, well, that was really. interesting, and spirited, and said.

some things back and forth. But I had no idea how mad the economists--. and they were fucking mad. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: They were mad. CO-HOST: I will say, though, I was looking. at a lot of the response, and they weren't. really from economists. They're just people that ride for economists, for whatever reason. JON STEWART: Wait a minute. There's a Beyhive for economists? CO-HOST: Yeah, apparently there's. people really eager to just jump in for their defense. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: The summary just seemed to be. not all economists as well. JON STEWART: But also, the summary.

seemed to be like, well, you're just fucking stupid. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Well, that too. JON STEWART: And I was like, what? I don't know if that's really a cogent critique of--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Is that constructive criticism? Not really. JON STEWART: A lot of it was just. shock, like, how can this guy have. been on television for 30 years and not understand anything? And I'm like, I mean, Richard Thayer is a Nobel. Prize winning economist. He could have very easily said, I. think you're completely misunderstanding or, big boy,

he could have handled the--. CO-HOST: He said you passed his class. JON STEWART: People were literally writing articles. like Jon Stewart is what's wrong. with the American electorate. And I'm like, I think that's hyperbolic. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I love that headline. It's like, I don't really know what I'm getting. into with this article. It could be a few things. JON STEWART: It was bad. I was just like, whoa. Was there anything that he said that that struck you as--. it's so interesting to me because it's so reflective, I.

think, of what I would consider as a more leftist view. of what the economy is. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Something that stood out. to me is that, in this conversation, he was talking about how the left and right agree. on the diagnosis. And in his article, he refers to Marco Rubio and JD Vance. as people who have talked out against financialization. But I thought it was interesting, because he cites. Marco Rubio in 2019 and JD Vance in 2023, and I haven't seen these people talking out.

against financialization recently, where the President of the United States. is benefiting so much from this grift. JON STEWART: Right. I'm against financialization, except for the Trump. eagle coin. The Trump eagle coin, get it today. CO-HOST: Yeah. I mean, Oren, he calls himself a pragmatist. But I think it's very optimistic that he always. thinks the Republican Party is right on the precipice. of doing this stuff. JON STEWART: I do think he's optimistic in that term.

And I imagine it's frustrating-- this has been, since the Keynesians kind of moved out. of a position of authority and the Reagan revolution. and deregulation moved in, I think it's probably. difficult for those on the left to hear it and not. say, like, that's what we've been. fucking saying for 50 years. Like, what? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: But you're both right. that the deregulation was a bipartisan project. that got us into this mess.

JON STEWART: That's a good point. That's always the thing. I'm always like, deregulation-- he's. like, well, Clinton-- shut up. Don't you dare talk about those guys. CO-HOST: But besides that--. JON STEWART: Besides that guy. CO-HOST: And Carter. JON STEWART: Maybe we should just only do economics. Maybe next week we should have a roundtable, like, come at. me, bro. And we should just get--. CO-HOST: All your favorites. JON STEWART: -- economists around--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Do we get to invite Furman back? JON STEWART: Furman, yes. CO-HOST: I think Larry Summers might be busy, though. JON STEWART: Yeah. It's like, how did that happen?

Like, the meanest conversation--. like, economists, they're literally, like, this group of bullies that just sit in the thing. And just, like, every time you ask them a question, it's like, well, if you understood anything. CO-HOST: It's Revenge of the Nerds. JON STEWART: I wish it was, because they. have so much power and control within the whole fucking thing. But maybe next week-- or no, next week, we're not--. are we doing anything? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: We're on vacation. JON STEWART: What? President's Day. President's Day.

We'll jump in with something more accessible, more culturally on-- we'll go engagement farming. We'll go engagement farming on the next one. CO-HOST: That's a no on the economics roundtable. JON STEWART: It's going to be a no on the economics roundtable. Brittany, what do the kids want to know this week? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: All righty. First up, Jon, can you please explain. what Jeff Bezos is doing with the Washington Post? JON STEWART: He's looksmaxing it. He's mogging it. He's hitting it in the face with a hammer to get its chin. a little bit more.

I mean, I think it's pretty clear what he's doing. I mean, talking about financialization, he's hollowing it out. Here's what I wonder-- let me ask you guys about this. Do we have a nostalgic view of the Washington Post? Because, in my mind, it was kind of New York Times, Washington Post were, like, the flagships, especially post-Watergate. CO-HOST: All the President's Men. JON STEWART: Right. CO-HOST: I mean, it's a great film. I've heard it's a book.

JON STEWART: You're a newspaper that. had a movie made out of you. There's very few that can say that-- maybe Boston Globe? CO-HOST: With Robert Redford. JON STEWART: Redford. Can I tell you, he was my guy. In the 1970s, Robert Redford was in every great movie--. Three Days of the Condor, Electric. Horseman, The Sting, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid--. CO-HOST: Jeremiah Johnson. JON STEWART: Absolutely. Whoa. You're going--. CO-HOST: I'm also a big fan. JON STEWART: You're going burly Redford with the beard.

CO-HOST: The Way We Were. JON STEWART: But he was the best. I completely forgot what I was talking about. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Washington Post. Jeff Bezos. JON STEWART: Oh, the Washington Post. CO-HOST: Robert Redford has the ability to do that. Yeah. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: There is a nostalgia. I mean, Bezos can do a lot of things. and the brand will continue. People have that recognition of the brand. And there's going to be great journalists there. despite any number of layoffs. But it's been on this trajectory for a long time.

And, I mean, media has been. JON STEWART: I think the hope was, in the grand tradition. of billionaires wasting money on newspapers, that he would have viewed it as a responsibility. to the public more than something to arbitrage. and sell off for parts. That he would say, like, well, shit, if I can spend billions. and billions on sending Katy Perry somewhat. close to the troposphere, like, maybe I can keep this thing.

going in a robust way. I think that's my disappointment. is, what the fuck else are you doing with the money. that you have other than-- like, what. better use could there be? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: There's a Melania documentary in cinemas, I've heard. [LAUGHTER]. JON STEWART: I meant other-- yes, that's also a good use of it. But I think it also shows, again, like, just because you. came up with a good way to get books to people faster. doesn't mean you care or know the first thing of running.

a quality newspaper. It's disappointing that he would-- maybe it's this. Maybe he has, like, a weird relationship with the newspaper. that, like, if it gets stronger, his body gets frailer. But as he gets pumped up, the Washington Post. must get frailer. Maybe it's a weird symbiote.

Like--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I think it's steroids, but I don't know. That's just me. CO-HOST: I think we'll never know. JON STEWART: We'll never know. What else do they want? What else do they know? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Jon, do you think. DOGE would have done a better job at releasing. the Epstein files? JON STEWART: Come on. They're such self-serving, like--. I love how, like, his whole personality right now is, I want to get to the bottom of this Epstein thing. I want to find out, what am I doing in those files.

getting a massage? Wait, how did that happen? Yeah, DOGE has always been the misguided tantrum. of entitled billionaires who come in. and suggest that the only way to discern value. is to just walk in and cut 50% of something. off without any real clear understanding. of what it provides. So I can't, fucking--. like, I'm so mad.

BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Well, Elon, he could have just released his emails. and then we would have gotten halfway there, at least. JON STEWART: I love it now that he's like, I'll. protect anybody who testifies. And you're like, yeah, now. CO-HOST: It's, like, a tweet a second about the Epstein files. JON STEWART: And it's all the same bullshit that they. always-- like, the antithesis. I'm a free speech absolutist. Somebody says something I don't like, they should be in jail. Like, the contradictions. I don't understand how you just carry around in those heads. and expect that people don't see through it. But they don't. CO-HOST: Do you think people don't see through it?

JON STEWART: I think that there are. very few people that have acolytes and are worshipped. in the way that, like--. I can't tell you how often, like, thank. you for saving free speech. And you're like, you support a president. who threatens to put people in jail. for saying the wrong thing. Like, how the fuck are you suggesting that that's. supporting free speech? It's insanity. But that's the end of it. But apparently, DOGE ended up costing.

America billions more than--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: You're kidding? JON STEWART: No, for real. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Didn't see that coming. JON STEWART: I wrote it down. All right, final one. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Last one. Jon, can my vegan wife and I please. buy you a vegan lunch in New York. City between March 6 and 11? [LAUGHTER]. Do you want me to connect them with your social secretary? JON STEWART: First of all, what an enticing offer.

[LAUGHTER]. We got ourselves a little rescue farm, and we had no idea the world we were stepping into. And it's so interesting to me that the vegan. world they describe--. I'm vegan, and you're like, no. You're a human that has a certain diet. But I had no idea what a competitive sport veganism was.

First of all, have you guys ever done it? Have you ever gone and tried to do it? CO-HOST: Yes. JON STEWART: Fucking hard. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: It is really hard, especially if you don't cook. You have to cook if you're vegan. JON STEWART: No question. No question. And it's also really hard to do it--. they always say, like, oh, you just. have more salads and stuff. The truth is you have more potato chips. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I was just about to say. the thing that I became aware of is that there's. junk food for vegans.

Like, there's a place called Slutty Vegan. They yell at you when you walk in and say, hey, slut. Like, there's definitely junk for everyone. JON STEWART: Wait, that's how they. greet you when you walk in? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: I was stunned, but I remembered where I was. CO-HOST: They're still in business. That's interesting. JON STEWART: Right. I would think they'd at least go, "hey, vegan.". No, they go with--. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: It's 50-50. Yeah. JON STEWART: It's this world where, like, it's the most unwelcoming world I think. I've ever been a part of.

It's incredibly competitive. And they're constantly stress testing whether you're. living up to the right type. It's like the first thing, if you say, like, I'm vegan-- the first thing vegans will always. say to you is, like, how long? How long have you been vegan? And you'd be like, I guess it's been, like, two years. And they're like, yeah, 15 years. I've been doing it 15 years. Then somebody else would be like, well, I knew when I was eight that it was wrong.

And then so, like, you'd be talking again. and they'd be like, do you eat honey? And I'm like, not completely. I mean, like, I have other shit. And they're like, the damage that does to bees. And at a certain point, somebody once told me, they go, you really want to fuck them up, just tell them mushrooms are more sentient than shellfish, because that's true. And just watch them implode. BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: OK, well, you're. actually really harming my relationship. to mushrooms right now. [LAUGHTER].

CO-HOST: But, just to be clear, is that a no to lunch? JON STEWART: I'll see them there. You know what? Tell them I'll meet them at the Slutty Vegan. All right. How else can they get a hold of us there? BRITTANY MEHMEDOVIC: Twitter, we are WeeklyShowPod. Instagram, Threads, TikTok, Blue. Sky, we are WeeklyShowPodcast. And you can like, subscribe, and comment. on our YouTube channel, The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. JON STEWART: Boom. We got next week off. Thank you guys so much. Enjoy your week off.

Thanks again for your wonderful help in putting these episodes. together, but also in helping me. fend off the wrath of whatever community. I've stepped in shit in. The economists came after me last week. Be on the lookout for vegan emails, because they're fucking--. CO-HOST: Oh, no. JON STEWART: They're coming, brother. Lead producer Lauren Walker, producer Brittany Mehmedovic, producer Gillian Spear, video editor and engineer. Rob Vitola, audio editor and engineer Nicole Boyce, and our executive producers Chris McShane and Katie Gray.

Thank you guys so much. Have a great week. Boy. The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart. is a Comedy Central podcast. It's produced by Paramount Audio and Busboy Productions.