Podcasts about Roosevelt Institute

What makes a company good—and who gets to decide? Economist Lenore Palladino joins Nick and Goldy to dismantle the myth of shareholder primacy and explain how our current system of corporate governance has warped innovation, deepened inequality, and undermined democracy. Drawing from her new book Good Company: Economic Policy after Shareholder Primacy, Palladino outlines a bold vision for how we can redesign the rules of the game—so corporations serve workers, communities, and the public good, not just wealthy shareholders. Lenore Palladino is an assistant professor of economics and public policy at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, a senior fellow of the Roosevelt Institute, and a research associate at the Political Economy Research Institute. Social Media: @lenorepalladino.bsky.social @lenorepalladino Further reading:  Good Company: Economic Policy after Shareholder Primacy Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: The Pitch

My interview with Randi starts at 25 mins Stand Up is a daily podcast that I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more RANDI WEINGARTEN is president of the 1.8 million-member AFT, which represents teachers; paraprofessionals and school-related personnel; higher education faculty and staff; nurses and other healthcare professionals; local, state and federal government employees; and early childhood educators. The AFT is dedicated to the belief that every person in America deserves the freedom to thrive, fueled by opportunity, justice and a voice in our democracy. This freedom is achieved through an economy that works for all, including the ability to form a union; great public schools and affordable higher education; healthcare as a right; retirement security; the right to vote and civil rights; a vibrant democracy; and safe, welcoming and healthy environments and communities. The AFT and its members advance these principles through community engagement, organizing, collective bargaining and political activism, and especially through members' work—we care, fight, show up and vote. Prior to her election as AFT president in 2008, Weingarten served for 11 years as president of the United Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2, representing approximately 200,000 educators in the New York City public school system, as well as home child care providers and other workers in health, law and education. Weingarten is the recipient of many commendations; she was included in Washingtonian's 2021 Washington's Most Influential People, City & State New York's 2021 New York City Labor Power 100, and Washington Life's 2018 Power 100 list of prominent leaders, and in 2017 received the Roosevelt Institute's FDR Distinguished Public Service Award. In 2013, the New York Observer named Weingarten one of the most influential New Yorkers of the past 25 years. Weingarten has led the AFT's efforts to strengthen public education for all children and to address the crisis in the teaching profession caused by deep disinvestment and the deprofessionalization of teaching. Through the AFT's Fund Our Future campaign, AFT members and leaders throughout the country are fighting for adequate investment in public education. Parents and many others have joined the AFT's efforts to end the overuse and misuse of standardized tests, and to fix—not close—struggling schools, something Weingarten has advocated since her involvement in the creation of New York City's Chancellor's District, which dramatically improved achievement in what had been some of the city's lowest-performing schools. Weingarten has launched major efforts to place real education reform high on the nation's and her union's agendas. She created the AFT Innovation Fund, a groundbreaking initiative to support sustainable, innovative and collaborative education reform projects developed by members and their local unions. At Weingarten's direction, the AFT developed a model to transform teacher evaluations from a way of simply rating teachers to a tool for continuous improvement and feedback. This model is used to align tenure and due process, so that tenure serves as a guarantee of fairness, not of a job for life. Weingarten led an AFT committee that called for all prospective teachers to meet a high entry standard—as in medicine or law—so that they're prepared from the day they enter the classroom. Weingarten oversaw the development of the AFT's Quality Education Agenda, which advocates for reforms grounded in evidence, equity, scalability and sustainability. She promotes what she calls “solution-driven unionism”—an approach to collective bargaining and collective action that unites the interests of union members and those they serve in the pursuit of solutions that benefit students, schools and communities. Under Weingarten's leadership, the AFT continues to grow and expand its voice as a union of professionals. Nationwide, the AFT is the second-largest union of nurses and other health professionals and the largest higher education union, representing 230,000 higher education faculty, professional staff and graduate employees. Weingarten helped source millions of dollars of personal protective equipment for nurses and health professionals experiencing shortages as they served on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. Weingarten is an advocate for a New Deal for Higher Education, a campaign calling for substantial federal investment in higher education that would prioritize teaching, research and student supports; provide sustainable careers with professional voice for all faculty and staff; allow all students to attend regardless of ability to pay; create academic environments free of racism and other forms of bigotry; and cancel student debt. The AFT provides our members tools and information they can use to manage their federal student loan debt, including having that debt forgiven, while advocating for solutions to the escalating cost of higher education, predatory loan practices, and terrible loan servicing that is holding people back. The AFT and a broad array of parent and community partners across the country have collaborated on events to advance a community- and educator-driven agenda for public school reform. Weingarten spearheaded the development of Share My Lesson, the United States' largest free collection of lesson plans, classroom activities, and teaching strategies and resources created by educators, for educators—all at no cost. The AFT has a long-standing partnership with First Book, which has provided 5 million free and reduced-price books to children. Weingarten and the AFT were asked to lead a partnership to transform McDowell County, W.Va., one of the poorest counties in the United States. The AFT has assembled more than 100 partners not only to improve the quality of education provided to children in the county, but to focus on jobs, transportation, recreation, housing, healthcare and social services. Weingarten believes the rural way of life is worth fighting for, and the AFT's experience in McDowell County informs the work Weingarten is advancing to help rural communities thrive—through education, healthcare and economic opportunities. The AFT supports the strategic establishment of 25,000 community schools where students and families can access tailored health services and social services in one place, and marginalized communities can have access to services and support. Weingarten views this goal as especially vital to help children, families and communities recover from the wide-ranging impacts of the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing recession. When the COVID-19 crisis hit, the AFT worked with scientists and health professionals to develop a blueprint for reopening schools. The AFT continues to advocate for the funding and necessary testing and safety protocols to ensure in-person learning is safe.  During the Trump administration, Weingarten led the AFT's efforts to oppose Trump and Betsy DeVos' fervent attempts to defund and destabilize public education and to stand up to the administration's racist policies and attacks on facts and democracy. In 2012-13, Weingarten served on an education reform commission convened by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, which made a series of recommendations to improve teaching and learning. She was appointed to the Equity and Excellence Commission, a federal advisory committee chartered by Congress to examine and make recommendations concerning the disparities in educational opportunities that give rise to the achievement gap. For 10 years, while president of the UFT, Weingarten chaired New York City's Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella organization for the city's 100-plus public sector unions, including those representing higher education and other public service employees. As chair of the MLC, she coordinated labor negotiations and bargaining for benefits on behalf of the MLC unions' 365,000 members. From 1986 to 1998, Weingarten served as counsel to UFT President Sandra Feldman, taking a lead role in contract negotiations and enforcement, and in lawsuits in which the union fought for adequate school funding and building conditions. A teacher of history at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn's Crown Heights neighborhood from 1991 to 1997, Weingarten helped her students win several state and national awards debating constitutional issues. Elected as the local union's assistant secretary in 1995 and as treasurer two years later, she became UFT president after Feldman became president of the AFT. Weingarten was elected to her first full term as UFT president in 1998 and was re-elected three times. Weingarten's column “What Matters Most” appears in the New York Times' Sunday Review the third Sunday of each month. You can follow her on Twitter at @rweingarten (Twitter.com/rweingarten) and on Facebook (Facebook.com/randi.weingarten.9). Weingarten holds degrees from Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Cardozo School of Law. She worked as a lawyer for the Wall Street firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan from 1983 to 1986. She is an active member of the Democratic National Committee and numerous professional, civic and philanthropic organizations. Born in 1957 and raised in Rockland County, N.Y., Weingarten now resides in the Inwood neighborhood of New York City. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi-Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing

Part of the reason why we wanted to start the Rethinking Economics series is that I think many aspects of economics, economic thinking, and economic institutions need reforming. And one of the main areas where this reform needs to happen is antitrust. Antitrust has become a popular and, as of late, bipartisan issue. Antitrust laws give the government power to regulate, manage competition, prevent monopolies, and stop harm to consumers. Antitrust powers were first vested with the government with the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, when businesses first began to reach their “giant” status. After 1890, there were some pretty substantive reforms to antitrust power that at times strengthened the government's ability to intervene in the economy, and at other times weakened it. I will let you, the listeners, determine whether you think the government has too much or too little power to intervene in markets, but what is undeniable is the growth of gargantuan companies like Google and Amazon, while the gap between the rich and the impoverished widens. And I'm sure many of you listening think these two phenomena are inextricably linked. So, how can the state better shape markets and market structures to shrink this gap?My guest today helps us reimagine the goals of antitrust and how it can be used to form innovation ecosystems to the benefit of society. Mr. Ahuja is a lawyer, researcher, and political organizer. He initially began his career as an antitrust lawyer at Latham and Watkins, where he mainly worked on competition and market structure cases. After a brief stint working for Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, Mr. Ahuja became a Fellow with the Department of Energy, where he worked on reducing market barriers in solar energy. Mr. Ahuja is currently an affiliate of the University of Oxford and a Fellow at Harvard University's Growth Lab, where he researches and teaches antitrust and green development. He has written numerous publications that have appeared in newspapers and journals such as the Financial Times, Promarket, the Roosevelt Institute, and the Cambridge University Press. Mr. Ahuja earned his master's from Harvard in Public Policy and Oxford University in Law, and is currently a Ph.D candidate at Oxford.Together, we discussed Mr. Ahuja's innovation-as-capabilities approach to antitrust, green industrial policy, and how the state can shape markets and go beyond simply correcting market failures.To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/

Three Visions of Where Democrats Went Wrong | The Ezra Klein Show - Zephyr Teachout and Saikat ChakrabartiREALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comElizabeth Wilkins, President and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute and alumn of the White House and Lina Khan's Federal Trade Commission, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Elizabeth discuss why the left has reacted critically to the abundance agenda, her agreement with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's emphasis on enhancing state capacity, and how to restore faith in government. They explore the tension between technocratic fixes and populist demands, the need for effective political storytelling, and why "small," tangible wins like banning junk fees and non-competes matter as much as big legislative wins.  

Donald Trump isn't sure that migrants are entitled to due process, or if he needs to uphold the Constitution. He says he'll check with Attorney General Pam Bondi though and get back to us. That's just one of many bonkers moments from the president's sit down interview with NBC's Meet the Press. It's Funday Monday folks! The Roosevelt Institute's director of industrial policy and trade Dr. Todd Tucker joins Emma and Sam to break down the impact of the Trump administration's tariffs, as well as what a progressive tariffs regime might look like. Trump seems to see trade deficits as a zero sum game that he's asking Americans to make a huge sacrifice to win, though it's not clear why. In the Fun Half, we hear from the head of the Port of L.A. who is raising the alarm about slowdown in global trade, which could lead to shortages of goods in the U.S. and a reduction in workers needed at ports and in shipping. At the same time, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy is practically begging people to become air traffic controllers because of a shortage of them at the FAA. This is after Duffy reportedly got into a shouting match with Musk about DOGE's targeting of the FAA. Chuck Schumer tries to take a victory lap over Trump's abysmal approval rating, but, whoops! His approval rating is also in the toilet. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Fast Growing Trees: Get 15% off your first purchase FastGrowingTrees.com/majority Cozy Earth: Get up to 40% off at CozyEarth.com with code MAJORITYREPORT at checkout. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

"Silent Echoes" is a transformative podcast series exploring the profound interplay between silence, inner strength, and resilience. Each episode reflects on the powerful words of Howard Thurman: "In the stillness of quiet, if we listen, we can hear the whisper of the heart giving strength to weakness, courage to fear, hope to despair." Walter Earl Fluker is the senior editor of The Howard Thurman Papers Project and a well-known figure in the theory and practice of ethical leadership. Dr. Fluker holds the position of Distinguished Professor of the Howard Thurman Center at Hartford International University for Religion & Peace and previously served as Dean's Professor of Spirituality, Ethics, and Leadership at Emory University's Candler School of Theology. At Morehouse College, he was the founding director of the Andrew Young Center for Global Leadershipand the Coca-Cola Professorship of Leadership Studies. He is the Martin Luther King, Jr. professor emeritus of ethical leadership at Boston University and the editor of the Howard Thurman Papers Project where he developed an acclaimed Massive Online Operating Course titled Ethical Leadership: Character, Civility, and Community. His organization, Walter Earl Fluker & Associates, Inc., continues to advance this mission.A sought-after consultant, speaker, and workshop leader, Dr. Fluker has shared his expertise at various institutions and organizations worldwide. Recently, he was honored with the 2023 Roosevelt Institute's Four Freedoms Award of Worship, along with Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi, the late activist Ady Barkan, Congressman Bennie Thompson, and former Executive Director of the American Library Association Tracie D. Hall. Dr. Fluker is a prolific author, with notable works including Ethical Leadership: The Questfor Character, Civility, and Community (2009) and The Ground Has Shifted: The Future of the Black Church in Post-Racial America (2016). He also edited the five-volume documentary edition The Papers of Howard Washington Thurman, the four-volume Walking with God: The Sermon Series of Howard Thurman (2020–2023), and The Unfinished Search for Common Ground (2023).He earned a BA in philosophy and biblical studies from Trinity College, an MDiv from Garrett-Evangelical Seminary, and a PhD in social ethics from BU. He holds an honorary Doctor of Humanities from Lees-McRae College and a Doctor of Laws honoris causa from Boston University.

REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comCost Disease Socialism: How Subsidizing Costs While Restricting Supply Drives America's Fiscal Imbalance - Niskanen CenterThe rise of the abundance faction - Niskanen CenterThe Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality: Lindsey, Brink, Teles, Steven M.: 9780190627768: Amazon.com: BooksFelicia Wong, Principal at the Roosevelt Institute, and Steve Teles, Senior Fellow at the Niskanen Center and Johns Hopkins University Professor, return to The Realignment. Felicia, Steve, and Marshall debate and discuss the tensions between the rising "Abundance Agenda" faction and left populists, the role of unions, whether one can focus on increasing the supply of scarce goods and lowering prices while also addressing inequality, how to increase the effectiveness of government, and what a synthesis of different parts of the center to left spectrum could look like in 2028 and beyond.

REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.com Felicia Wong, the outgoing president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Felicia discuss what the Biden presidency means for the left, where the conversation on "post-neoliberalism" stands after Donald Trump's 2024 victory, the need for new communication strategies in the emerging policy environment, how left and right populism will compete for working class voters, and the new politics of immigration.

On this day of many holidays, enjoy some of our favorite recent conversations:As part of our centennial series Michael Kazin, professor of history at Georgetown University, editor emeritus of Dissent and the author of several books, including What It Took to Win: A History of the Democratic Party (FSG, 2022) and American Dreamers: How the Left Changed a Nation (Knopf, 2011), traces the history of socialism in America.As our centennial series continues, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University, chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute, and author of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society (W.W.Norton, 2024), reviews the history of American capitalism and the ebb and flow of regulation.John Marks, social entrepreneur, founder of Search for Common Ground and Common Ground Productions, founder and managing director of Confluence International, visiting scholar at Leiden University and the author of From Vision to Action: Remaking the World Through Social Entrepreneurship (Columbia University Press, 2024), talks about his work in conflict resolution and finding common ground.Jim O'Grady, freelance podcast reporter, producer, and editor, talks about how he looks to a Catholic saint for spiritual guidance, and listeners call in to share their favorite saint or other spiritual guide. These interviews were lightly edited for time and clarity; the original web versions are available here:100 Years of Things: American Socialism (October 28, 2024)100 Years of 100 Things: American Capitalism (November 1, 2024)The Business of Peace-Building (October 1, 2024)How Saints Can Help Us Sinners (September 16, 2024)

The divide between Democrats and Republicans is deeper than ever, making it difficult to find common ground on crucial issues like migration, the economy, social policies, and Ukraine. Also within the parties debates rage over topics like America's role in the world, abortion, and the U.S. relationship with Israel. Social media and online echo chambers push urban and rural areas further apart. René Cuperus, who researched polarization and the disconnect between voters and decision makers in the Netherlands, talks to Sara Polak of Leiden University and Dario Fazzi of the Roosevelt Institute of American Studies about internal divisions in the United States and why Europe should pay attention. This podcast was recorded on President's Night 2024, an American election night event hosted by the Netherlands Atlantic Association, BKB Het Campagnebureau and The John Adams Institute.

As our centennial series continues, Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University, chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute, and author of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society  (W.W.Norton, 2024), reviews the history of American capitalism and the ebb and flow of regulation.

Amid the threat of “Project 2025”, ongoing genocide in Gaza, and a nation-wide battle over reproductive rights, to name a few major issues, the climate crisis has been considerably sidelined in the US election taking place on November 5th. But even if it's not grabbing headlines, what the United States does — or does not do — on climate has profound implications for the entire world.   So where does climate stand in this election? With Kamala Harris praising both the Green New Deal and her role as a champion of fracking, how should we understand the Democratic position on climate? What is the legacy of the Inflation Reduction Act, and does it even register with voters? What, if anything, is the future of the Green New Deal? And, for the many people who don't feel represented by either major party, is a third party, or not voting, the answer? These are big questions — here to help us answer them are two brilliant guests, journalist Kate Aronoff and Democratic strategist Waleed Shahid. In this special episode, Adrienne, Kate and Waleed unpack the chaos and the stakes of the US election, and what it means for climate action in the US and beyond. Kate Aronoff is a journalist, Staff Writer at the New Republic and Fellow at The Roosevelt Institute. She is also the author of books including Overheated: How capitalism broke the planet — and how we fight back (2021), and A Planet To Win: Why We Need a Green New Deal (2019).  Waleed Shahid is a Democratic strategist and movement organiser. He previously served as the Director of Communications for the Justice Democrats, the political initiative that worked to elect “The Squad” and helped to launch The Green New Deal in the US. NOTES AND FURTHER READING Kate Aronoff, "Green Industrial Policy's Unfinished Business: A Publicly Managed Fossil Fuel Wind-Down", Roosevelt Institute Kate Aronoff, "The IRA Is An Invitation to Organizers", Dissent Magazine Waleed Shahid, "Democrats, Parties and Palestine: Five stages of political grief", Convergence Waleed Shahid, "What The Left Can Learn From Jamaal Bowman's Loss", The Nation

Nobel laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz joins Democracy Sausage to talk about the global economy and freedom. In light of the recent court ruling on Google, how can we use economics to drive innovation and efficiencies? Is it possible to make capitalism work better to stop abuses of market power? And how can we allow for freedoms without curtailing the freedoms of others? On this episode of Democracy Sausage, high-profile economist and author Professor Joseph Stiglitz joins Professor Mark Kenny to discuss freedom and the winners and losers of the global economy. Joseph Stiglitz is a Professor at Columbia University, Chief Economist of The Roosevelt Institute, co-founder of the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD) and the co-chair of the OECD High-Level Expert Group on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress. He is a Nobel Laureate, former World Bank Chief Economist, and best-selling author. His latest book is The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society. He was in Australia for a speaking tour with The Australia Institute. Mark Kenny is the Director of the ANU Australian Studies Institute. He came to the University after a high-profile journalistic career including six years as chief political correspondent and national affairs editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age and The Canberra Times. Democracy Sausage with Mark Kenny is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to democracysausage@anu.edu.au. This podcast is produced by The Australian National University. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alasdair speaks to Jonas Algers about steel decarbonisation; what the options are, where there are challenges, and what is happening so far.  Jonas Algers is a PhD candidate at Lund University, Sweden, researching steel decarbonisation policy.  Further reading: 'Leading with Industrial Policy: Lessons for Decarbonization from Swedish Green Steel', Roosevelt Institute, 2024'Phase-in and phase-out policies in the global steel transition', Climate Policy, 2024'Building a stronger steel transition: Global cooperation and procurement in construction', One Earth, 2023'Paris compatible steel capacity: Contraction and replacement for zero emissions', Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Lund university, 2023Click here to read our investigation into the UK biomass supply chain, or watch a clip from the BBC Newsnight documentary.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit www.americanprestigepod.comDanny and Derek welcome to the podcast J.W. Mason, associate professor of economics at John Jay College and fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, to help us make sense of the last several days of volatility in global markets and whether it's time to “crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside.”

David Callahan is a prolific creator and thinker within Democratic politics. He helped start the progressive think tank Demos in the late 90s, founded the media outlet Inside Philanthropy as a Consumer Reports of sorts into the world of charitable giving, and more recently created Blue Tent - an advisory group to help progressive donors get the most bang for their buck. In this conversation, David talks his early days in politics focused on foreign policy, his next stint as a think-tanker trying to pull the Democratic Party left, and why he's more recently been focused on the world of political giving. David is one of the most informed people on the planet on all facets of the political donor world and provides a tour de force on both the current state of play and future trends to better understand how our politics are funded.IN THIS EPISODEGrowing up in New York as the child of academics...An early experience that showed David he was not cut out to be an activist...A formative year spent at the liberal magazine, The American Prospect...David talks getting his PhD and his recommendations for those considering academia...David helps found the progressive think tank Demos and talks the role of think tanks in American politics...What led David to start Inside Philanthropy, a media outlet dedicated to understanding political fundraising...The disturbing trend in political giving that led David to start Blue Tent, a resource for progressive donors...How David and Blue Tent determine where donors will get the most bang for their buck...Why David is an advocate of giving to organizations instead of candidates...David on the phenomenon of "rage giving"...Are donors pulling Democratic candidates to the left?Has Democratic giving fallen off this cycle?David's concern about too many advocacy groups and donor fragmentation on the left compared to more unanimity on the right...David de-mystifies the world of big "donor advisors"...David on the Soros factor on the left...The rough balance of spending from the right vs. spending from the left...The types of operatives who succeed in the donor advising space...The political novel David wrote in the late 90s that eerily predicted elements of both the 9/11 attacks and the rise of a Donald Trump-like politician...AND AOC, Stacey Abrams, Miriam Adelson, The American Enterprise Institute, The American Liberties Project, The American Prospect Magazine, Arabella Advisors, Joe Biden, bioethics, Michael Bloomberg, bureaucratic machinations, the Cato Institute, the Center for Voter Information, Bill Clinton, The Committee on States, credential firepower, the DLC, The Democracy Alliance, Michael Dukakis, The Economic Policy Institute, effective altruism, Federalist Society, Marcus Flowers, Focus for Democracy, Fredrick Forsyth, Forward Montana, Give Well, giving circles, Al Gore, Lindsey Graham, Stanley Greenberg, Jamie Harrison, Hastings-on-Hudson, the Heritage Foundation, Hezbollah, Indian Point Power Plant, Indivisible, the Koch Brothers, LUCHA, Mitch McConnell, Amy McGrath, Michigan United, Mind the Gap, Dustin Moskovitz, Movement Voter Project, neoliberal mindsets, The New America Foundation, Paul Nitze, NYPIRG, Beto O'Rourke, Open Markets, RCTs, Ronald Reagan, The Roosevelt Institute, Run for Something, saber-rattling, Sandinistas, Adam Schiff, Star Wars, the States Project, Swing Left, Marjorie Taylor Greene, transactional donors, Way to Win, Working America & more!

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz joins Nick and Goldy to talk about his new book, "The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society.” Stiglitz challenges the orthodox economic theories that have shaped our understanding of capitalism and argues for a new approach called progressive capitalism. Stiglitz also discusses the flaws of neoliberalism, popular misconceptions about freedom, and the widespread benefits of addressing issues like climate change and inequality. He shares insights on the need for a broader set of economic policies that prioritize the well-being of all people, not just the wealthy. Their discussion sheds light on the evolving landscape of economic thought and the hope for a more equitable and sustainable future. Joseph Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize-winning economist and the best-selling author of multiple books on economics. He was also chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Clinton and chief economist of the World Bank. He now teaches at Columbia University and is chief economist of the Roosevelt Institute. His latest book, The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society, delves into the failures of the neoliberal economic model and presents a comprehensive critique of how "free" markets have led to various crises, including financial instability, inequality, and social unrest. Twitter: @JosephEStiglitz Further reading:  The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society More from Joseph Stiglitz:  People, Power, and Profits: Progressive Capitalism for an Age of Discontent For Good Measure: An Agenda for Moving Beyond GDP Globalization and Its Discontents Revisited: Anti-Globalization in the Era of Trump The Price of Inequality Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

Part I. The Road to Freedom Guest: Joseph E. Stiglitz is a Nobel Prize–winning economist.  He served as chief economist of the World Bank.  Currently, he teaches at Columbia University and a Senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute.  He is the author of several books including his latest, The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society. Part II. Biden's Move to Seal the Border  Guest: Todd Miller is an independent journalist and author of several books including Border Patrol Nation, Storming the Wall, Empire of Borders, and his latest Build Bridges, Not Walls: A Journey to a World Without Borders.   Photo credit: Wikimedia commons The post The Road to Freedom with Nobel Prize Economist Joseph Stiglitz. Then, Biden Closes the Border appeared first on KPFA.

Noah Smith & Brad DeLong Record the Podcast We, at Least, Would Like to Listen to!; Aspirationally Bi-Weekly (Meaning Every Other Week); Aspirationally an hour...Key Insights:* A number of years ago, Brad DeLong said that it was time to “pass the baton” to “The Left”. How's that working out for us? #actually, he had said that we had passed the baton—that the absence since January 21, 2009 (or possibly January 21, 1993) of Republican negotiating partners meant that sensible centrism produced nothing—that Barack Obama had proposed John McCain's climate policy, Mitt Romney's health care policy, George H.W. Bush's entitlement-and-budget policy, Ronald Reagan's tax policy, and Gerald Ford's foreign policy, and had gotten precisely zero Republican votes for any of those. Therefore the only choice we had was to pass the baton to the Left in the hopes that they could energize the base and the disaffected to win majorities, and then offer strong support where there policies were better than the status quo.* But my major initial take was that the major task was to resurrect a sensible center-right, in which I wished the Niskanen Center good luck, but was not optimistic.* But everyone heard “Brad DeLong says neoliberals should ‘bend the knee'” to THE LEFT…* That is interesting…* Should neoliberals bend the knee?* How has the left been doing with its baton? Not well at all, for anyone who defines “THE LEFT” to consist of former Bernie staffers who regard Elizabeth Warren as a neoliberal sellout.* It has, once again, never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. * But the conditions that required passing the baton to the left—High Mitch McConnellism, Republican unity saying “NO!” to everything by every Republican to make the Black president look like a weak failure—no longer hold.* And the principal adversaries to good governance and a bright American future are reactionary theocrats, neofascist grifters, and true-believer right-neoliberals to the right and cost-disease socialists to the left.* But in the middle, made up of ex-left-neoliberals and nearly all other right-thinking Americans, are we supply-side progressives.* Instead, there is a governing coalition, in the Senate, composed of 70 senators, 50 Democrats and 20 Republicans, from Bernie Sanders through J.D. Vance—a supply-side progressive or supply-side Americanist coalition.* It is therefore time to snatch the baton back, and give it to the supply-side progressivist policy-politics core, and then grab as many people to run alongside that core in the race as we possibly can.* The Niskanen Center cannot be at the heart of the supply-side progressivist agenda because they are incrementalists and critics by nature.* The principal business of “Leftist” activists over the past five years really has been and continues to be to try to grease the skids for the return of neofascism—just as the principal business of Ralph Nader and Naderites in 2000 was to grease the skids for upper-class tax cuts, catastrophic financial deregulation, and forever wars.* &, as always, HEXAPODIA!References:* Beauchamp, Zack. 2019. "A Clinton-Era Centrist Democrat Explains Why It's Time to Give Democratic Socialists a Chance." Vox. March 4, 2019. .* Black, Bill. 2019. "Brad DeLong's Stunning Concession: Neoliberals Should Pass the Baton & Let the Left Lead." Naked Capitalism. March 5. .* DeLong, J. Bradford. 2019. “David Walsh went to the Niskanen Center conference. He got hives…” Twitter. February 25. .* DeLong, J. Bradford. 2019. "Carville & Hunt: Two Old White Guys Podcast." Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality. March 11. .* DeLong, J. Bradford. 2019. "I Said 'Pass the Baton' to Those Further Left Than I, Not 'Bend the Knee.'" Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality. March 27. .* Elmaazi, Mohamed. 2019. "Famous Neoliberal Economist Says Centrism Has Failed." The Canary. March 15, 2019. .* O'Reilly, Timothy. 2019. "This Interview with Brad DeLong is Very Compelling." LinkedIn. .* Douthat, Ross. 2019. "What's Left of the Center-Left?" New York Times. March 5. .* Drum, Kevin. 2019. "A Neoliberal Says It's Time for Neoliberals to Pack It In." Mother Jones. March 5. .* Hundt, Reed, Brad DeLong, & Joshua Cohen. 2019."Neoliberalism and Its Discontents." Commonwealth Club. March 5. .* Konczal, Mike. 2019. "The Failures of Neoliberalism Are Bigger Than Politics." Roosevelt Institute. March 5. .&* Vinge, Vernor. 1999. A Deepness in the Sky. New York: Tor Books. . Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

 Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 700 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Check out StandUpwithPete.com to learn more RANDI WEINGARTEN is president of the 1.7 million-member AFT, which represents teachers; paraprofessionals and school-related personnel; higher education faculty and staff; nurses and other healthcare professionals; local, state and federal government employees; and early childhood educators. The AFT is dedicated to the belief that every person in America deserves the freedom to thrive, fueled by opportunity, justice and a voice in our democracy. This freedom is achieved through an economy that works for all, including the ability to form a union; great public schools and affordable higher education; healthcare as a right; retirement security; the right to vote and civil rights; a vibrant democracy; and safe, welcoming and healthy environments and communities. The AFT and its members advance these principles through community engagement, organizing, collective bargaining and political activism, and especially through members' work—we care, fight, show up and vote. Prior to her election as AFT president in 2008, Weingarten served for 11 years as president of the United Federation of Teachers, AFT Local 2, representing approximately 200,000 educators in the New York City public school system, as well as home child care providers and other workers in health, law and education. Weingarten is the recipient of many commendations; she was included in Washingtonian's 2021 Washington's Most Influential People, City & State New York's 2021 New York City Labor Power 100, and Washington Life's 2018 Power 100 list of prominent leaders, and in 2017 received the Roosevelt Institute's FDR Distinguished Public Service Award. In 2013, the New York Observer named Weingarten one of the most influential New Yorkers of the past 25 years. Weingarten has led the AFT's efforts to strengthen public education for all children and to address the crisis in the teaching profession caused by deep disinvestment and the deprofessionalization of teaching. Through the AFT's Fund Our Future campaign, AFT members and leaders throughout the country are fighting for adequate investment in public education. Parents and many others have joined the AFT's efforts to end the overuse and misuse of standardized tests, and to fix—not close—struggling schools, something Weingarten has advocated since her involvement in the creation of New York City's Chancellor's District, which dramatically improved achievement in what had been some of the city's lowest-performing schools. Weingarten has launched major efforts to place real education reform high on the nation's and her union's agendas. She created the AFT Innovation Fund, a groundbreaking initiative to support sustainable, innovative and collaborative education reform projects developed by members and their local unions. At Weingarten's direction, the AFT developed a model to transform teacher evaluations from a way of simply rating teachers to a tool for continuous improvement and feedback. This model is used to align tenure and due process, so that tenure serves as a guarantee of fairness, not of a job for life. Weingarten led an AFT committee that called for all prospective teachers to meet a high entry standard—as in medicine or law—so that they're prepared from the day they enter the classroom. Weingarten oversaw the development of the AFT's Quality Education Agenda, which advocates for reforms grounded in evidence, equity, scalability and sustainability. She promotes what she calls “solution-driven unionism”—an approach to collective bargaining and collective action that unites the interests of union members and those they serve in the pursuit of solutions that benefit students, schools and communities. Under Weingarten's leadership, the AFT continues to grow and expand its voice as a union of professionals. Nationwide, the AFT is the second-largest union of nurses and other health professionals and the largest higher education union, representing 230,000 higher education faculty, professional staff and graduate employees. Weingarten helped source millions of dollars of personal protective equipment for nurses and health professionals experiencing shortages as they served on the frontlines of the coronavirus pandemic. Weingarten is an advocate for a New Deal for Higher Education, a campaign calling for substantial federal investment in higher education that would prioritize teaching, research and student supports; provide sustainable careers with professional voice for all faculty and staff; allow all students to attend regardless of ability to pay; create academic environments free of racism and other forms of bigotry; and cancel student debt. The AFT provides our members tools and information they can use to manage their federal student loan debt, including having that debt forgiven, while advocating for solutions to the escalating cost of higher education, predatory loan practices, and terrible loan servicing that is holding people back. The AFT and a broad array of parent and community partners across the country have collaborated on events to advance a community- and educator-driven agenda for public school reform. Weingarten spearheaded the development of Share My Lesson, the United States' largest free collection of lesson plans, classroom activities, and teaching strategies and resources created by educators, for educators—all at no cost. The AFT has a long-standing partnership with First Book, which has provided 5 million free and reduced-price books to children. Weingarten and the AFT were asked to lead a partnership to transform McDowell County, W.Va., one of the poorest counties in the United States. The AFT has assembled more than 100 partners not only to improve the quality of education provided to children in the county, but to focus on jobs, transportation, recreation, housing, healthcare and social services. Weingarten believes the rural way of life is worth fighting for, and the AFT's experience in McDowell County informs the work Weingarten is advancing to help rural communities thrive—through education, healthcare and economic opportunities. The AFT supports the strategic establishment of 25,000 community schools where students and families can access tailored health services and social services in one place, and marginalized communities can have access to services and support. Weingarten views this goal as especially vital to help children, families and communities recover from the wide-ranging impacts of the coronavirus pandemic and ensuing recession. When the COVID-19 crisis hit, the AFT worked with scientists and health professionals to develop a blueprint for reopening schools. The AFT continues to advocate for the funding and necessary testing and safety protocols to ensure in-person learning is safe.  During the Trump administration, Weingarten led the AFT's efforts to oppose Trump and Betsy DeVos' fervent attempts to defund and destabilize public education and to stand up to the administration's racist policies and attacks on facts and democracy. In 2012-13, Weingarten served on an education reform commission convened by New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, which made a series of recommendations to improve teaching and learning. She was appointed to the Equity and Excellence Commission, a federal advisory committee chartered by Congress to examine and make recommendations concerning the disparities in educational opportunities that give rise to the achievement gap. For 10 years, while president of the UFT, Weingarten chaired New York City's Municipal Labor Committee, an umbrella organization for the city's 100-plus public sector unions, including those representing higher education and other public service employees. As chair of the MLC, she coordinated labor negotiations and bargaining for benefits on behalf of the MLC unions' 365,000 members. From 1986 to 1998, Weingarten served as counsel to UFT President Sandra Feldman, taking a lead role in contract negotiations and enforcement, and in lawsuits in which the union fought for adequate school funding and building conditions. A teacher of history at Clara Barton High School in Brooklyn's Crown Heights neighborhood from 1991 to 1997, Weingarten helped her students win several state and national awards debating constitutional issues. Elected as the local union's assistant secretary in 1995 and as treasurer two years later, she became UFT president after Feldman became president of the AFT. Weingarten was elected to her first full term as UFT president in 1998 and was re-elected three times. Weingarten's column “What Matters Most” appears in the New York Times' Sunday Review the third Sunday of each month. You can follow her on Twitter at @rweingarten (Twitter.com/rweingarten) and on Facebook (Facebook.com/randi.weingarten.9). Weingarten holds degrees from Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations and the Cardozo School of Law. She worked as a lawyer for the Wall Street firm of Stroock & Stroock & Lavan from 1983 to 1986. She is an active member of the Democratic National Committee and numerous professional, civic and philanthropic organizations. Born in 1957 and raised in Rockland County, N.Y., Weingarten now resides in the Inwood neighborhood of New York City. The Stand Up Community Chat is always active with other Stand Up Subscribers on the Discord Platform.   Join us Thursday's at 8EST for our Weekly Happy Hour Hangout!  Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art 

In the right circumstances, progressive groups can work with progressive insiders in government to win big policy changes. In this episode, we consider “inside-outside campaigns,” including what makes them possible and some of the inevitable tensions that they create, for example about when and how to compromise when a coalition doesn't have enough power to win all its demands. Stephanie and Deepak reflect on their own experiences with living wage campaigns and federal policy, including the campaign to pass the Affordable Care Act in the Obama years. Deepak then talks to Felicia Wong, who played a key role in making the Biden economic agenda much more progressive than most observers expected. Felicia runs the Roosevelt Institute, which has worked to overturn the dominant neoliberal consensus in Washington. Felicia was also among the most progressive members on the Biden transition team and oversaw the appointment of over a hundred officials in key government positions. In a wide-ranging conversation, she explains how Occupy Wall Street, the Fight for $15, and coalitions pushing for a Green New Deal and expanded investments in childcare and home care reshaped the terrain, and how work at the level of ideas, narrative, and organizing came together to shift the parameters of the possible on economic policy. Deepak and Felicia also explore the concept of “policy feedback loops” – how policy can be a vehicle for altering power relations in society, and why the right has been better at this in recent years than progressives. Episode 8 transcript

The economist Joseph Stiglitz has devoted his life to exposing the limits of markets. He tells Steve about winning an argument with fellow Nobel laureate Milton Friedman, why small governments don't lead to more freedom, and why he's not afraid to be an advocate. SOURCE:Joseph Stiglitz, professor at Columbia University and chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute. RESOURCES:The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society, by Joseph Stiglitz (2024)."Equilibrium in Competitive Insurance Markets: An Essay on the Economics of Imperfect Information," by Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2010)."Hirsh: The Missing Link on Obama's Economic Team," by Michael Hirsh (Newsweek, 2008).Globalization and Its Discontents, by Joseph Stiglitz (2002).Two Lucky People: Memoirs, by Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman (1998)."On Value Maximization and Alternative Objectives of the Firm," by Sanford Grossman and Joseph Stiglitz (The Journal of Finance, 1977). EXTRAS:"Remembering Daniel Kahneman," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024)."Ninety-Eight Years of Economic Wisdom," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2023).

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel laureate in economics, university professor at Columbia University, chief economist at the Roosevelt Institute, and author of The Road to Freedom: Economics and the Good Society (W.W.Norton, 2024), argues the neoliberal idea of freedom has led to economic crises and social unrest and argues for a more humane, 21st-century reframing of the concept.

0:08 — J.W. Mason, associate professor of economics at John Jay College, and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. 0:33 — Ethan Varian is a reporter covering housing for The Mercury News and East Bay Times. Vishnu Pendyala is an Assistant Professor of Applied Data Science at San Jose State University. The post New CPI Report Out; Plus, San Jose's AI Pilot Program to Track Down Homeless Encampments appeared first on KPFA.

AUDREY JAQUISS interviews RHIANA GUNN-WRIGHT, Climate Policy Director of the Roosevelt Institute. They delve into discussions on the intersection of climate policy with issues such as white supremacy, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and economic concerns. Gunn-Wright explores the importance of universality in climate policy and strategies for navigating reactionary political landscapes. 

In this episode, we go deep on industrial policy with Todd Tucker of the Roosevelt Institute. We discuss what it is, why it's needed, what Biden's particular version of it looks like, and how it could evolve if he wins a second term. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Milioni di pakistani sono chiamati a votare per il rinnovo del Parlamento. Le nuove elezioni in Pakistan si svolgono all'ombra di presunti brogli, con il politico più popolare del Paese in carcere e il candidato favorito dai militari che potrebbe vincere. Ne parliamo con Filippo Boni, professore di Relazioni internazionali presso la Open University nel Regno Unito.Il premier israeliano Netanyahu ha rifiutato il piano di Hamas per il cessate il fuoco nella Striscia di Gaza, sostenendo che le richieste del gruppo islamista porterebbero a un altro massacro e ribadendo che l'obiettivo di Israele è la "vittoria totale" contro Hamas. Gli aggiornamenti Nello Del Gatto, giornalista e analista da Gerusalemme per Radio 24.Sul fronte americano, Antony Blinken, il segretario di Stato, risponde in conferenza stampa a Netanyahu: "Israele non ha licenza di disumanizzare gli altri". Sentiamo l'opinione di Dario Fazzi, docente di relazioni transatlantiche, insegna all’Università di Leiden (Paesi Bassi) e al Roosevelt Institute for American Studies.

Rhiana Gunn-Wright was one of the architects of the Green New Deal, and today works as the climate policy director for the Roosevelt Institute. In this episode we get into the nuances of the IRA, how to handle climate being a "culture war" issue, what's going on with anti-renewables, and what the climate movement loses when it turns its back on justice issues and particularly when it turns its back on the Black community. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Chris has spent a lot of time recently thinking about the arc of progress in America. In thinking about all of this, a paradox has been heavy on his mind: while the U.S. has gotten incredibly more progressive over the past few decades, we're also in the midst of a marked authoritarian movement that's showing no signs of slowing down. What does this moment mean for the progressive movement and its future? Our guest this week points out, “what an incredible gift [it is] to be alive at a time when we have such a chance to make a difference.” Deepak Bhargava is a senior fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, a distinguished Lecturer at the CUNY School of Labor and Urban Studies and is co-author of “Practical Radicals: Seven Strategies to Change the World.” He joins WITHpod to discuss the trajectory of coalition movements, the state of the progressive movement in 2024, immigration reform and more.

Over the past few decades, economists have gathered a lot of empirical evidence supporting the underlying truth of middle-out economics: that a thriving middle class is the cause of economic growth. Our friends at the Roosevelt Institute have produced a new report which outlines the events that led to our new understanding of how the economy really works. Suzanne Kahn, Vice President of the Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute, joins us to talk about what's in the report and share how the progressive economic policies of the Biden Administration could mark a lasting shift away from neoliberal, trickle-down economics and toward a new era of middle-out economics. Suzanne Kahn serves as the Vice President of the Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute, where she oversees and manages projects to develop critical research and policy to rebalance power in our society and economy. Previously, Suzanne was Roosevelt's director of education, jobs, and worker power and the Great Democracy Initiative. Her research and writing focus on building a network of robust public goods—for example public higher education—and labor organizations that together can empower workers to counter corporate power in the labor market and public sphere. Suzanne Kahn @SuzMKahn Roosevelt Institute @rooseveltinst Think Tank at the Roosevelt Institute @RooseveltFwd   Sea Change: How a New Economics Went Mainstream https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/sea-change  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

If you are frustrated with how expensive everything feels right now, you're not alone. Inflation has fallen from last year's high, but prices haven't. And while the rise in prices of goods has slowed, people are pretty unhappy with the economy right now. But a lot of experts are saying the economy is in a good spot right now. So why doesn't it feel that way? Weeds host Jonquilyn Hill discusses with Vox senior correspondent Emily Stewart and Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute.  Read More: Inflation in the US isn't the issue. High prices are here to stay. - Vox  Sign up for The Big Squeeze newsletter - Vox  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you're curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There have been a lot of bad takes on inflation out there in the media, from wild speculation about its causes to absurd predictions about when and how the wave of price increases would finally come to an end. But now just about everyone agrees that after two years of rising prices, inflation has finally slowed down. And while there's still a long way to go, the situation is dramatically better now than it was even six months ago. Mike Konczal from the Roosevelt Institute recently did some research into the disinflation we've been seeing, and he returns to the show to tell us what's really bringing prices back down to earth. Mike Konczal is director of Macroeconomic Analysis at the Roosevelt Institute, where he focuses on full employment, inequality, and the role of public power in a democracy. Twitter: @mtkonczal Supply-Side Expansion Has Driven the Decline in Inflation https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/supply-side-expansion-has-driven-the-decline-in-inflation  How Goldilocks Came to the U.S. Economy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/inflation-unemployment-phillips-recession.html  Pre-Order Nick's new book, Corporate Bullsh*t https://www.corporatebsbook.com Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

0:08 — J.W. Mason, associate professor of economics at John Jay College, and a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute. 0:33 — Alexei Koseff, is a reporter for Calmatters covering CA state politics. 0:45 — Kelly Trout, is Research Director at Oil Change International and co-author of the report “Planet Wreckers: How 20 Countries' Oil and Gas Extraction Plans Risk Locking in Climate Chaos.”   The post New Inflation Numbers, CA Bills Headed to Final Vote; Plus, New Research Predicts Oil & Gas Expansion appeared first on KPFA.

In this episode, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project shares a progressive vision for permitting reform and the factors that could speed up the US clean-energy buildout.(PDF transcript)(Active transcript)Text transcript:David RobertsTo achieve its Paris climate targets, the US is going to have to build out an enormous amount of clean energy and clean-energy infrastructure in coming years. But that buildout is going slowly — painfully, excruciatingly slowly — relative to the pace that is necessary.This has given rise to considerable debate on the left over what, exactly, is slowing things down. Much of that debate has come to focus on permitting, and more specifically, on permitting under the National Environmental Protection Act, or NEPA.A deal that would have put some restrictions on NEPA in exchange for reforms to transmission planning was effectively killed by progressives toward the end of the last congressional session, leading many people inside and outside the climate movement to accuse progressives of being The Problem. They are so attached to slowing down fossil fuel development with NEPA, the accusation goes, that they are willing to live with it slowing clean energy. And that's a bad trade.Progressives, not surprisingly, disagree! Their take on the whole permitting debate is summarized in a new paper from the Roosevelt Institute and the Climate and Community Project: “A Progressive Vision for Permitting Reform.”The title is slightly misleading, since one of the central points of the paper is that permitting under NEPA is only a small piece of the puzzle — there are many other factors that play a role in slowing clean energy, and many other reforms that could do more to speed it up. I called up one of the paper's co-authors, Johanna Bozuwa of the Climate and Community Project, to ask her about those other reforms, the larger political debate, and the progressive community's take on speed. All right, then. With no further ado, Johanna Bozuwa from the Climate and Community Project. Welcome to Volts, and thank you so much for coming.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me, David.David RobertsThis is a hot topic, as you're well aware, permitting and the larger issues around it. And so, before we jump into specifics, I wanted to start with a few sort of broad, call them philosophical, questions.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsAs you know, progressives have been under quite a bit of fire lately, not only from their typical opponents on the right and in the fossil fuel industry, but from a lot of sort of centrists and even a lot of sort of allies in the climate movement. For — I think the general idea is they are too attached to stopping fossil fuels and not yet supportive enough of building out renewable energy. And the mechanisms that they rely on to slow and stop fossil fuels are also slowing and stopping renewable energy. And so I think the general critique is that they ought to swing around and be more pro-building and loosen these requirements, et cetera, et cetera. I'm sure you've heard all this.Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsSo I guess I'd just start with this question. Is, do you think the progressive — and by the way, I meant to say this by way of a caveat, I'm going to be sort of using you as a spokesperson for progressivism, which I think we both realize is ridiculous.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly.David RobertsProgressives are heterogeneous just like anybody else. There's no official progressive position. But as a crude, let's just say as a crude instrument here, we're going to ask you to speak for that perspective as you see it.Johanna BozuwaPerfect.David RobertsSo in your opinion, do you think progressives have taken it into their heart that things are moving too slowly and they desperately need to move faster?Johanna BozuwaMy answer to that question is that I think speed is progressive. You know, David, I don't need to tell this to you or any of the people that listen to this podcast or even progressives. We're dealing with the existential threat of the climate crisis and lives are on the line. And so I think that as progressives, we do need to take the speed question seriously. And I think what I would push back on is the fact that people have this myopic focus on permitting as the thing that's slowing everything down. And especially when I'm talking about permitting, NEPA permitting.David RobertsRight. We're going to definitely get to that.Johanna BozuwaYeah. And I just think that when it comes to this question of "Do progressives believe in speed?" I think that they actually very much do. And one of the things that I get frustrated with sometimes, when I hear these arguments like "Oh, progressives don't want to build anything," I think what progressives are interested in is building the right thing. And if we think about the United States and how our energy system rolls out today, we have a real issue that fossil fuels can expand at the same time as renewable energy is expanding. Like when it comes to fossil fuels, we can actually export that.We are now the biggest net exporter of LNG and crude oil. And I think that progressives are particularly aware that if we do the wrong thing on permitting then we're actually not only expanding renewable energy — and maybe poorly done renewable energy — but also the fossil fuel industry knows how to use these tools so much better than our renewable energy developers. And we are going to see just a massive expansion that we absolutely don't need right now. If we think the climate crisis matters.David RobertsWhat about the argument which goes like this: Fossil fuels are reaching sort of a structural peak and decline. Renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper and cheaper. It's on the rise. So if you just, all things being equal, make it easier to build everything across the board, renewable energy will win that race and so it's worth doing.Johanna BozuwaI just don't think that argument is true, look at how much power the fossil fuel industry still has in making these decisions. Like if we look at who is behind the recent push for permitting reform: It was largely the oil and gas industry. There's definitely some more nuance that's there, but they have significant power to move things and move them faster than the clean energy world. It's a question of when you're rolling back some of these bedrock environmental laws that the pie — it's not that the part of renewable energy in the pie is getting bigger. It's that even if we are getting more renewable energy, the pie itself has expanded so that we're having fossil fuels and renewables expanding at the same time.And it's not fully pushing out the power of the fossil fuel industry.David RobertsWell, then, how about this? And this is the final philosophical question before we get down to some nuts and bolts. Do you agree that there are going to be trade-offs as we pursue speed? This is, of course, the big discussion right now is that if you really double down on speed, if you really pursue speed with everything you've got, there are inevitably going to be some trade-offs, some other progressive values that have to take a backseat. And that might be other environmental impacts. It might be impacts on communities. It might be, you know, name it. It might be that we have to loosen up a little bit on those other things.Do you think that there are those trade-offs?Johanna BozuwaI think that there are some trade-offs. You, I think, had my colleague, Thea Riofrancos, on the pod some time ago talking about lithium extraction, right? And the fact that if we are going to decarbonize our transportation sector, it is going to take extraction in order to accomplish that. Right. And there are substantial and significant impacts that has in terms of water contamination in some of the most drought-impacted parts of the United States, that is something that we need to be thinking about. And I think what my hesitation is when it comes to so much of this conversation is that we're talking about deregulation as the way to do speed instead of actually talking about planning and coordination.And from my perspective, it's the planning and coordination that allows us to think through the decisions we're making with a far better sense of what's happening instead of a "get government out of the way, we'll figure it out" project that — it didn't really do great things for the planet. Are we going to do that again and trying to fix it? That seems like a silly mistake to make.David RobertsYeah, that's a really important distinction. I'm glad we get that out up front. Because I hate when we go from, "Yes, there are trade-offs" to therefore "Let it rip, let everything go." As Thea said on the podcast, we can acknowledge those trade-offs and thoughtfully try to minimize them through planning.Johanna BozuwaExactly.David RobertsSo let's start with this. As you say, there's this sort of what we're calling the permitting debate, quote unquote. Permitting debate is actually a bunch of debates and they're all kind of getting squished together under this notion of permitting. But in fact, there's a lot of things going on here other than permitting. So maybe talk just a little bit about all the disparate things that are now sort of getting lumped together under that rubric.Johanna BozuwaExactly. So I think just to put a point on it, often when people are talking about permitting, they're talking about this unfocused conversation about cutting red tape. But really what it comes down to is where the fight is right now in particular on the national stage is around NEPA. So the National Environmental Policy Act, but wrapped up into all of their arguments are all these other pieces that actually are maybe more of the problem than particularly NEPA. So, you know, four of them, just to start us off, obviously we do have NEPA. That's part of the permitting process.We have local and state zoning permits, approvals, things like that. You know, going to Georgia County to make sure that you can put something through. Then you have third, these contracts or arrangements that are actually between private organizations. David, I know you had folks talking about internet connection queues — that often is part of the permitting debate, but it's actually about who gets to go onto the transmission that's being built.David RobertsLet me pause there because I want to make a point that I'm not sure everybody understands and I'm not even sure we made it in that pod. But the ISOs, the ...Johanna BozuwaIndependent service operators. I know I always mess it up. RTOs. ISOs.David RobertsYes, I know. ISOs and RTOs. I could never call that to mind. But anyway, the ones who are sort of running the transmission systems and running these queues are not public organizations. Those are not state organizations. They are private consortia of transmission organizations and utilities and things like that. So it's not something that the state can come in and just directly change. I just think that's worth sort of putting on the record.Johanna BozuwaI think that's a really important point and I think we'll probably dig into this further. But the idea that and I think you talked about this on the pod last time, but there are so many different kind of private actors that are operating within the RTOs and ISOs with not actually a huge amount of oversight, as it currently stands.David RobertsYes, or transparency.Johanna BozuwaOr transparency.David RobertsOr accountability, really.Johanna BozuwaYeah, exactly. And it turns out if we're looking at what's really miring the buildout of renewable energy, a solid amount of it is right there. Is in the interconnection queues. I think it was Southwest PowerPool — takes like eight years sometimes to get the developer to get their project through. And those are for projects that already have their offtaker and have all their permitting in place. So it just feels quite misguided for us to spend all of this time talking about permitting when we could be actually diagnosing the problem —David RobertsAnd you said there was a fourth.Johanna Bozuwa— and there's a fourth. The fourth one, I would say, is just operation and construction permits, like some of the pollution discharge stuff that is at some of these more local levels. And those four don't even include some of the other things that stop things, which is like access to capital, utility squabbles, supply chain slowdowns, these whole host of other issues that are just being swept under the rug because it's very alluring to say, guess what? I have the one quick fix to make sure that renewable energy gets built in the United States.David RobertsAnd local NIMBYism. I'd throw that in.Johanna BozuwaYeah, yeah, local NIMBYism, absolutely. Add it to the pile, exactly. So and NEPA's not going to do things about local NIMBYism in the same way that's the local and state zoning stuff.David RobertsYeah, I think people really want, for obvious reasons, they're frustrated by everything going so slowly and everybody wants there to be sort of like something to cut the Gordian knot, sort of one, as you said, one weird trick. And that's, I think, why people are grasping onto NEPA because it seems like that's one big thing we can argue about and change. But as you say, the reasons here are very disparate. But let's just take a second to talk about NEPA. I go back and forth on this, but is it, do you think the progressive position that NEPA is okay "as is" and doesn't need any changes?Like, do you think there are problems with NEPA and how it's administered?Johanna BozuwaOkay. My feeling on this is that the case about NEPA is overstated, especially as we describe so many other things, even outside of the permitting process that matters. But if we're going to talk about NEPA, I think overall the projects are going through pretty quickly. There was a new study, actually, this month by, I think, David Adelman that did a really comprehensive look at wind and solar NEPA reviews over the past ten years, and he found that less than 5% of Wind and solar projects required. The EIS, like the Environmental Impact Statement, which is the one that takes the most time usually, can be two and a half years or whatever, but they're going through with categorical exclusions or some of these faster ways to move wind and solar projects through, or just projects in general.And he found that there was very little litigation involved, which is often like the dog whistle, I feel like, of some of these folks who are calling for permitting.David RobertsYeah, I was surprised when I looked at that study. It's a relatively low percentage of those projects that get litigated after they're done.Johanna BozuwaRight, exactly. And I think if I were to make any improvements to NEPA, the thing I would do is bulk up the administrative state. Jamie Gibbs Pleune wrote a kind of corresponding piece of research to our permitting report where she investigated and talked about NEPA in particular with Roosevelt. But she was looking at another paper and found of 40,000 NEPA decisions that the US Forest Service looked at, the biggest causes of delays were actually from a lack of experienced staff, budget instability, and honestly, delays from the applicants themselves not getting their stuff in on time. So I just feel as if we're going to do anything to make NEPA better, give the BLM, give US Forest Service, give EPA far more funds, training, staff empowerment that's going to actually move these projects even faster through the pipeline when they're actually moving relatively quickly.And these places have experienced chronic understaffing and lack of empowerment. So there is work to be done there. I don't want to understate that, but I think that it's a reasonable thing for us to accomplish without rolling back and applying a very neoliberal frame to how we get this job done.David RobertsYeah, I would say it does seem like NEPA has sprawled a bit since it was passed. Originally, it was supposed to be major projects that came under NEPA review, and the court basically decided that all projects were under NEPA review. And so there's just thousands and thousands now that just have these little sort of not very long delays because they get these categorical exemptions. But there's just a lot of — it's very sprawling, it seems like, and unfocused. This is one of those areas where I feel like there are procedures of the administrative state that could work better and more effectively.But at this point, liberals, they've just been under assault for so long. And liberals just know if you open this can of worms, if you open it up to review, there's just a pool of piranhas that want to go in and strip it bare. And so they just don't open it for review. Like, there's so many things like this. Like, if we could have a good faith process of actually trying to do what NEPA is supposed to do better than NEPA does it, I feel like, yeah, there's stuff we could improve, but Joe Manchin doesn't want to improve it.Johanna BozuwaWe don't want Joe Manchin in charge of what NEPA looks like and what's the more muscular version that takes into consideration the real-life climate impacts. Because I don't know when you're talking there, David, a thing that comes up for me is the reality that we will have more things happening on the ground. Like, let's say you put transmission in, we have a wildfire crisis. Now all of a sudden, the stakes are higher when it comes to these things like environmental review that are very material that I think also aren't talked about as much as they should be. And so, yeah, I can imagine things being shifted and changed within NEPA so that it works better for the current context.But I think that, as you describe it, could be a real political problem for us to do that type of work right now. And we have other mechanisms that can move us much more quickly in the interim. Like, is this really the thing we want to be spending our time on as progressives? The answer is no.David RobertsAnd I also think if you look at the reforms that were sort of ended up getting jammed through, like of all the thoughtful things you could do to NEPA to make it work better, just a sort of — page limit, like a page limit on reviews: Seems like it's such a blunt instrument. It's such a crude way of approaching this.Johanna BozuwaOh, and I think it's going to get them into serious trouble. If you want a thing that is going to increase litigation, try adding an arbitrary deadline and page limit to something with no administrative capacity.David RobertsOkay. We could do a whole pod on NEPA, but I don't want to get too — our whole point is it's not the sole or even main impediment here. So at a slightly more granular level, let's talk about what you think is actually slowing down clean energy infrastructure build out. And there's a few categories your report covers starting with transmission, which is, I think, the big one.Johanna BozuwaYeah, totally. And I would agree with you. I mean, transmission planning is kind of in shambles in this country. It's not up to the job.David RobertsYeah, I don't think literally anybody on any side of anything would disagree with you about that.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I think there are a couple of reasons for that. One is that multistate transmission buildouts are incredibly hard to do in a federalized system. We just have so many different actors that are vying to hold on to their particular part of the market, especially with our vertically integrated utilities that don't have much interest in allowing other utilities into their service territory. And in deregulated states, utilities are kind of out of the picture for deciding where new generation is being built. So there's not a lot of efficiencies that are built into that. So we just get this really haphazard development, if development at all, of our transmission system, which I think is just quite a failure.There are so many clear opportunities to do much more clear planning around this.David RobertsYes. And then what about big large-scale renewable energy projects like big solar, wind, geothermal, what is in practice, slowing down their build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so I think that when it comes to some of these larger scale projects around solar or wind, you're running again into projects that aren't thinking strategically about where they're being placed. So if we're looking at the amount of land that we're going to need with the energy transition right. Wind and solar take more space up than one natural gas plant. And I think that there's just like a clear lack of land use planning when it comes to these larger scale projects when we could be doing it far better. Right. And thinking about what are the areas that make sense and are going to limit the amount of impact on our landscape and on communities and actually deploy it in those areas.And I actually think there are answers to that question.David RobertsWell, we're not to answers yet. We're dwelling on problems.Johanna BozuwaOkay, all right —David RobertsSo how does that slow down? I mean, what does that manifest as? How does that slow down the build out?Johanna BozuwaYeah, well, the way that that manifests is that you're putting big renewable energy projects in tension with things like agriculture. You're putting big renewable projects in tension with our biodiversity goals. And so those are the things that are going to potentially mire the development and deployment of these larger scale projects — in addition to getting them attached to the transmission and making sure that it's colocated with the transmission we need.David RobertsYes, the aforementioned interconnection queue issue, which alone is like, "That's a lot of years," which as you say, that's a lot of years tacked on the end of all the other stuff they have to go through. Like once they have to go through all that other stuff, then they get in the interconnection queue and wait and wither, etc. And then another thing you take on here is a big piece of the clean energy buildout, which I think a lot of people don't really think about as much, maybe don't enjoy thinking about as much, which is the sort of minerals and metals aspect of it. A big part of IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, is an attempt to onshore supply chains so that China does not dominate them.But that means onshoring some mines and some minerals processing which are not necessarily environmentally friendly, not necessarily things people like having in their backyard. So what's slowing those things down?Johanna BozuwaI guess I would say there are two pieces that are happening. One is just that this is a pretty new area and there are so many price fluctuations that are happening. There's all of these big mining companies that are shifting ownership, trying to figure out financing. Right? So there's a lot that's happening there. And mining companies are not the best known for having perfect environmental impact statements or anything like that, that's going to get them mired right. And then you add in the fact that as we talked about earlier, a lot of where these lithium reserves are is also in extremely — like the likelihood for drought is a lot higher if you're looking, for instance, at the Salton Sea in California or, you know, over in Nevada, these are places that we actually have to be extremely careful about. And also it just takes a really long time to build a mine like this isn't something that happens the next day. Right. It's like 10 to 15 years in the future type thing. So it is a longer time frame that's going to be even longer if we aren't thinking, again, about who is impacted, how they are going to be impacted by the mining itself. What is that going to do to air quality, water quality, all of these different things?It's a really big part of the permitting discussion, or of the transition discussion in particular that is being discounted in the United States.David RobertsAnd one more bit on problems, before we transition to recommendations. I noticed that one thing you don't get into a lot in the report is the expression of those state and local level permitting issues. And a lot of those I think, are tied to environmental review. And a lot — like, for instance, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is just sort of like legendarily at this point, a tool for local NIMBYs to stop things happening. Like we just read a story that was bouncing around Twitter a few days ago about these wealthy people — I forget what county they were in — but they were suing because someone had moved a playground closer to their house.They didn't like the sound of the kids playing and so they sued. And part of it was that the city had not done a proper environmental review under CEQA of moving the playground. And you hear stories like that all the time. Do you think you said that NEPA is not as big a problem as people say? Do you think state level environmental review is a serious problem, a serious barrier, at least in some places?Johanna BozuwaI think it just really depends on the place. And I think that's part of why as we were writing a national paper, being able to dig into the detail and differentiations between all of these different places seemed like a big haul for a small paper. So yeah, I think that there are these pieces at the local level, the zoning things, right? People are historic preservation boards that are saying like, "No rooftop solar because we don't like the look of it." Yeah, that's some BS in my mind and I think we do need to figure out how to manage that.And I think what this comes into conversation with is a little bit of like, what is the community review process? What does that look like and how do we manage that?David RobertsContemplating the variety and number of those instruments at the state and local level is really overwhelming and really does make the problem feel so intractable because it's just like, as you say in a federalist system, it's like every bit of reform is not just one bit, it's 50 bits. Every bit is 50 fights.Johanna BozuwaTotally agree. And I think that's why we get stuck in these gridlocks sometimes. And also when we get to solutions, I think there are some examples that we can draw on and utilize our little multi tool of ideas of how to move this forward.David RobertsFinal thing before that, because I forgot about this bit, but actually it's worth making a note that it's actually easier for fossil fuel infrastructure to get NEPA permits than it is for clean energy projects. It's something you note in the paper. If anything, NEPA is easier on these pipelines and stuff. Even though Joe Manchin is complaining ceaselessly about it.Johanna BozuwaYes, and I mean, I think that's why in particular, people who have been fighting the fossil fuel industry for so long, look to this group of folks, more center left folks, that are saying "Repeal NEPA, let's do it, we want to build." They're saying, "Oh my gosh. What you're doing by saying that is saying that the West Virginian that I have been fighting alongside is going to be decimated by this pipeline that's being passed now." So there are really high stakes and in a lot of the permitting process that we saw at the federal level, it also implicated the Mountain Valley pipeline.Right. And that type of infrastructure getting a pass when it couldn't even get some of its permits at the state level to just go forth is a really, I think, scary potential because that locks us into decades of extraction.David RobertsYeah, I feel like that was not covered well when this whole thing happened. You know, the Mountain Valley Pipeline: It's not that it was like stuck unfairly in a bureaucratic tangle. It just sort of straightforwardly was polluting and so it couldn't get the permits, the permits were rejected. It wasn't like stuck in some queue or something. It was just straightforwardly a polluting project that could not qualify under US law to go on. And it was just like jammed through. So I feel like the outrage of that didn't really penetrate partially because everybody's on this like "everything needs to go faster tip" and so they just kind of slotted it under there.But we don't want things that straightforwardly fail environmental review going forward do we?Johanna BozuwaExactly, like, I would like, that the Cuyahoga River does not catch on fire again. And that's the reason we have environmental review and NEPA. And also I would like it to be able to stop more fossil fuel infrastructure.David RobertsYeah, I know. And this is the other thing too, as though we're supposed to have some sort of content neutral opinions about permitting as such. I'm just like, "Well, I want more good stuff and less bad stuff. Can I have that opinion?"Johanna BozuwaExactly. That's so crucial too, where there are ways for us to stop permitting new fossil fuel infrastructure and permit the hell out of good renewable energy projects. That's a political possibility that Biden actually had signed up for and now is stepping back on.David RobertsYeah, I mean, it's politically tough, but let's be positive here. You have a lot of recommendations in here, all of which are juicy, all of which could probably have a podcast of their own on them. There's no way we can cover them all. But you sort of have your principles and recommendations grouped under three headings. And the first one, which I think is the one that is most directly germane to the speed question, is enabling more coordination and planning. And I think this is a huge thing. This is one of my soapboxes I get on all the time.I really want the climate movement to take this up is that we've had decades and decades of for lack of a better term, neoliberalism and this sort of instinctive free market stuff. And it's not like any major developed economy actually stops planning. What happens when you claim you're not planning and you claim you're being a free market is you just move planning behind closed doors or bury it in the tax code where no one can see it or understand what's happening. And then that results in whoever has the most power and money winning the planning fights.So I'm done with my soapbox. Let's talk about restoring our ability to do public, transparent, cooperative planning. Let's talk about a few of the items under here. And first is just land use planning. What do you mean by that and what would it look like?Johanna BozuwaSo, land use planning, as we talked about earlier, it turns out that one fossil fuel plant is a lot smaller than the types of assets that we need to build. That's just a reality of what we're working with. And so that necessitates far more land use planning to think about how do we get the most out of the least amount of space that is going to do the best for keeping the lights on. And so there are examples of how we can do this type of land planning. And one example I want to bring up actually is in California.So there was the Desert Renewable Energy Plan that was basically where states and federal agencies came together and they were looking at the Mojave and Colorado desert area. It's like 22 million acres.David RobertsVery sunny.Johanna BozuwaYeah, very sunny, exactly. Very sunny, very good for some solar. And what they did is that they coordinated a plan for this entire region so that it was prescreened for issues. So they said, okay, we're going to look at the biodiversity impacts of things being put here. We're going to look at the cultural or tribal impacts, the environmental potential impacts. And so after they did that kind of, what's called often like a programmatic study, that meant that the developers that came in to build the stuff there don't have to go through some more involved environmental impact assessment or study because it's already done.And so that meant that because they had done all of that work ahead of time, projects are getting approved so much faster. They're getting approved in less than ten months. And have, I think it's been now this zone has been around for about ten years and I don't think there is one litigation case. So that is just such a good example of land use planning where it's like thinking ahead of what we need and how we're going to do it. And that still does allow for private developers to come in, even though I might even argue that we could do even more planning and fill in the gaps with some public transmission or public renewable energy.But we can get into that later.David RobertsAnd we did an example from California, so I think now we're constitutionally obliged to do one from Texas too.Johanna BozuwaAbsolutely. Well, exactly. Thank you for setting me up so neatly, David, for the Competitive Renewable Energy Zones of Texas, which was such a success. So this is a very similar situation where the legislature directed the PUC, the Public Utilities Commission to plan where new generation and transmission was going to be located, routed, all of this. And so by doing so, they allowed for this proliferation of wind in Texas, a place where you might not expect a massive amount of wind to be. And I was reading a study the other day that said that in the past ten years, the CREZ line, so the Competitive Renewable Energy Zone, represents 23% of all new high voltage lines in the US.David RobertsGood grief.Johanna BozuwaRight?David RobertsYeah. They're actually building I mean, I don't know if people know this, they're actually building transmission in Texas. I'll just talk about how transmission never gets built. They're building it there because —Johanna BozuwaThey had a plan.David RobertsThey planned in advance. Yes, they had zones where it got approved and so you didn't have to then go there and do the entire like a transmission developer didn't have to go somewhere and then do the entire thing. Right. Do the entire review, do the entire land use review and the environmental review. They didn't have to start over every time that stuff was done in advance.Okay, point made. There more land use coordination and planning. That's the states doing it. But you could imagine the feds getting into that somewhat. You have these jurisdictional issues and federalism issues that are a bit of a tangle, but it does seem like the feds at the very least could do some informational, advisory planning and assessment on a bigger level, don't you think?Johanna BozuwaOh, absolutely. Actually, we do have a lot of private land in this country. Absolutely. But there is a lot of land that is owned by the federal government. So they're actually implicating a lot of this already. And it makes far more sense for an actor that has that kind of meso level understanding of what we need to build to be involved in those processes and be doing kind of a national assessment of where should those zones be. Like CREZ that's going to have all of these benefits and is going to allow for the most kind of efficient way for us to be deploying renewable energy while also taking into consideration these biodiversity, tribal nation relations and all of these things.That's a good role for the federal government to actually play.David RobertsOkay, we're going to pass quickly by two of these since I've done pods on them. But as you say, one is the interconnection process, which is probably the biggest thing right now, slowing down renewable energy getting built. I did a whole pod on that with RMI's Chaz Teplin a few weeks ago.Johanna BozuwaA fantastic one.David RobertsReally encourage everybody to go listen to that. There's a lot of recommendations in there for how to improve the interconnection process, how to improve things in batches. To return to a theme here, a lot of that has to do with just more and better planning on the ISO's parts.Once again, like, think in advance a little bit and you can skip some of this case by case stuff, but I encourage people to go listen to that pod. Another one, which we've touched on slightly, which I also did a pod on, is just and I think this is so important is just the capacity of the agencies that are doing these reviews. These are at the state level and at the federal level. These agencies have been cut to the bone. They're all, all understaffed, desperately behind, and that, of course, makes things go slower. So all these people who are whinging about reviews, if they're not talking about bulking up agency capacity, I just have trouble taking them seriously because that is the lowest hanging fruit you could do.But I did a whole pod on that several weeks ago about government capacity and about some of the provisions in the IRA that are meant to bulk up capacity at these agencies. It's just a matter of money and hiring. So we're going to check that one off the list. Let's talk a little bit about this next recommendation, which is about more publicly owned energy and transmission. What do you mean by that? What would that look like?Johanna BozuwaYeah, so this is kind of trying to answer the question of building where private companies will not, right? Like, we do have this problem of not having the long-range solution in the mind's eye, right? And we have this system in which there isn't a lot of this coordination that's in the mind's eye of a developer, right? Like, they're focused on their development, whereas the state government, federal government, has a little bit more of like, "Okay, what are we trying to accomplish? We are trying to handle the climate crisis. And that means we need to move as quickly as possible to deploy as much renewable energy as possible.And it turns out we actually do have some capacity and to actually build this ourselves." And we've done this in the past, admittedly, in a much less dense energy system. But the New Deal is a really good example of this, where the U.S. either directly financed or built itself a massive amount of transmission and energy infrastructure, like the Rural Electrification Administration that FDR put in place. It electrified 80% of the United States land mass in ten years. And when we're talking about the climate crisis, I would like to go at that clip. So I think if there are ways for us where we have a standstill where things aren't getting built fast enough, where can the federal government, the state government come in with a little political muscle and do that building?And I think that there are additional kind of benefits to doing this too, which include the fact that if you're building public renewables, for instance, you're also probably going to value having higher and better-paid jobs. You are probably going to, in comparison to a private developer, probably thinking a little bit more about some of those community benefits. And I think that there's a real win there that actually kind of creates a baseline for the rest of the private industry in a good way too.David RobertsInstead of just nudging and incentivizing private developers to do these things, we could just do them.Johanna BozuwaWe could just do them and we can also show them the way a little bit too. Right. Like right now, right. We just have the Inflation Reduction Act. Fabulous. We love the climate investments. It's so great. And also it just largely relies on tax incentives, right. And in those it's like you get a little bit more if you use local steel and if you have high wage jobs, all these things. And we could also just do that, build some public renewables and make it happen ourselves. And also when you have, particularly from a job perspective, right, like a public renewables entity that's building these developments with high wage work, that means that the private developers are afraid that they're going to lose all of their workers.So then they have to raise their wages too, which is a good thing.David RobertsRace to the top, I think they call that.Johanna BozuwaI would love a race to the top instead of a race to the bottom in our renewable energy world.David RobertsYes. Okay, we got to keep moving here. There's a long list. The next one is something we covered, I think, on the Thea Riofrancos post, which is just we know we have to build a lot of stuff, but that's not a fixed quantity of stuff we have to build. Right. We can be more efficient with how we use materials. We can try to build in a less material intensive way. So, you know, what Theo was talking about is encourage more walking and biking and multimodal transportation rather than cars, cars, cars. Like that's a choice. And there are other choices we could make to build a clean, but the less material intensive version of clean.There's a lot of different ways we can guide things in that direction.Johanna BozuwaOh yeah, absolutely.David RobertsEveryone should go listen to that podcast, too. This pod is like an advertisement for all my other pods.Johanna BozuwaI love it, I love it. Yeah. And just to kind of emphasize, the more that we can invest in efficiency, the fewer transmission lines we might have to build, right? Like if we have a bunch of houses that aggressively go in on multi units. Like, we're having more people housed in multi units. We're creating urban density. We're making the houses that we already have more efficient. All of those things accumulate and make it so that we actually don't have to do the same level of massive deployment, which is a huge win. So we have to — I think it's like questioning some of the assumptions, too, of how much do we need to build.David RobertsRight. Maybe not all our private vehicles need to be the size of military tanks and weigh three tons. This segues perfectly into the next one, which I feel like is underappreciated, which is supporting distributed energy resources. Talk about why that's part of going faster here. How does that fit into this picture?Johanna BozuwaSo let's say we're able to add rooftop solar to a lot of the rooftops that are around and implement microgrids and put in storage. These are all, again, things that are going to be a lot easier probably to deploy because they're smaller. There's less of this zoning permitting etc. that has to happen when it comes to some of the bigger stuff, where you're going to maybe need environmental review. And so by making those investments in distributed energy resources, you're actually lightening the load again on transmission development.David RobertsRight. It's kind of a piece of the previous one, really.Johanna BozuwaTotally.David RobertsIt's about being less material intensive.Johanna BozuwaExactly. And I also think the added benefit of doing that, of course, is the fact that we live in unreliable times and it adds additional reliability potential by having things like microgrids deployed.David RobertsYes, many future pods on that particular subject are in the works, are cooking in the Volts oven. Let's go to the second big category here, and this is where I have a little bit of skepticism. So this category is "Enhance community participation and consent." So this is what I want to talk about: You say, let's bring communities in more and earlier. And of course, I think most people, at least most people in my world, when they hear "more community involvement," their palms start sweating. They envision these local zoning meetings with old people shouting at city officials.They envision nothing ever getting done, everything getting blocked, NIMBY's everywhere. You have this sentence where it says, "Strengthening community participation early in the process will likely move projects forward faster without as much community opposition." Do we know that to be true? I want that to be true. I like the idea of it. Do we know that?Johanna BozuwaGreat question. It's worth interrogating. I'm going to borrow a little bit from my colleague that we've already referenced today, Thea Riofrancos, that she often says which is "Sometimes going fast isn't actually fast." So, you know, if we streamline, right, or NEPA gets streamlined or many of these other permitting processes, you cut the red tape and therefore you are steamrolling communities affected by the infrastructure. You're potentially hardening them against the project. And when they feel mad or disenfranchised, chances are they're going to throw the book at you. They're going to throw the book to stop the project. We talked about these arbitrary dates set by some of the permitting system.You're actually putting yourself up for far more potential litigation and drawn out legal battles because you actually haven't done the work that's necessary to bring that group on side, nor do you have all of your ducks in a row. So I think that there is a justification for defraying conflict and making our odds better at doing that. I'm not saying that we're not going to run into problems and there isn't going to be this annoying mob of Karens that's going to show up every once in a while. But I do think that our odds do look better when we do involve community.David RobertsThere's a cynical point of view here which says communities are always going to have their Karens. There's always going to be somebody who objects, no matter how early, no matter how much you consult, there's always going to be somebody who doesn't want something near them. The only way in the end to overcome this problem is to take those instruments of delay out of their hands, including the litigation tool, including the environmental review tool, including the community review tool, and just get a little bit more Chinese about the whole thing. Just go do stuff, even if — bulldoze, basically.I know we want to resist that conclusion, but I wish we knew better. I wish we had better models of moving quickly.Johanna BozuwaSo I think actually, since you mentioned the Chinese, I'm going to mention the Danish. And I think that part of this is actually like — we have this problem, right, that we know that deploying renewable energy, deploying clean energy is just incredibly important for the climate crisis. But the benefits are diffuse where the potential negative is pretty concentrated when it comes to these things. And so I think one question we can ask or the permit reviewers or whatever it is, or how we're thinking about developing these projects, is getting in their shoes and asking, what is in it for me?We can pay people to have some of this stuff, right? So the Danish government in the 1990s was building out a bunch of wind. And so one of the ways that they incentivized this wind development was by incentivizing that part of it is owned by the local government to give them a revenue stream. And that actually helped to limit the controversy. And you'll see that in Denmark, people have kind of higher concepts or like the polling is better for wind. And I was talking with this professor, Nick Pevzner from University of Pennsylvania, who was discussing this really interesting particular instance in which in one of these towns where they were going to be around the offshore wind, they actually brought in landscape architects to design the offshore wind. So that it would be aesthetically pleasing.David RobertsThe Danes give a shi-, give a dang, about how things look like. What a thought.Johanna BozuwaHuge difference.David RobertsYes, I know. You look at what's the one waste incineration plant in the middle of the town that's like gorgeous. It's got a laser display, I think it's got a ski hill on it. All these kind of things. It seems like we don't care here in the US. How ugly things are. Witness any sort of midsize town or strip mall or the periphery of any city. Everything's just like plain and ugly. Like what if we made things look nice that might improve community —Johanna BozuwaWe deserve nice things. Communities deserve nice things.David RobertsWe can have nice things. And you talk about we should do what's called a "Cumulative impact analysis."Johanna BozuwaYes.David RobertsAgain, to me on first blush that sounds like oh, bigger and more analysis: Surely that's going to slow things down. So how do you see that working?Johanna BozuwaWell, again, this kind of takes us to our planning. Right. Like cumulative impact analysis which New Jersey and New York have put in place is this way to discern not just the impact of the project but the accumulated impact of that project and what's already come to date. And I think what you would find in cumulative impact in these places, is that actually it's doing some of what we were talking about before, which is trying to fight off the bad and build more of the good. So that's a way to stop new fossil fuel infrastructure but maybe see benefit around solar or something like that.These are actually tools that, yes, as you say, at first glance you might think, "Oh my gosh, more? Really?" But what it's doing is assuring some of that larger meso level discerning and also in a lot of ways these are environmental justice tools too. Right. The reason that they're doing that is because it has so consistently been the same community that has had to shoulder the coal plant, then the gas plant, then the pipeline, then another cement factory. Right. And so they're trying to say, "Okay wait, this is out of control. Let's think about where we're putting this and how that's going to burden people."David RobertsSo the last category here is "Empower a just transition." And I don't think we need to go piece by piece through here since these are very familiar asks from progressive climate people, which is just stop permitting new fossil fuel facilities. Protect the communities that are getting hurt by fossil fuel pollution and set emission reduction targets that will phase out fossil fuels. I think those are all pretty straightforward. I do think the point here, though the larger point you're making with this section is worth underlining because it seems obvious to me, but also frequently left out of this debate, which is if you want to get renewable energy built faster: One way you could do that is through statute and regulation forcing fossil fuel out. Like, nothing's going to speed up renewable energy more than forcing fossil fuels out. Right. It seems so obvious, but it's weirdly left out here.Johanna BozuwaVery weirdly left out. It's a bizarre kind of development that we've seen in the climate realm, right? The IRA, for instance, that is a bill that is great. It creates a lot of carrots, but basically no sticks. And the reality is we need sticks if we're actually going to do this, right, as we were talking about at the kind of outset of the show, we can't let just the entire pie keep on getting bigger and bigger. We actually need to get rid of the fossil fuels. That's the point of what we're doing here. They're the reason that we have the climate crisis.And so, the best way to get rid of them is to just regulate them out of existence, like eliminate them. And I also think there's a certain amount of private industry hates regulation, but they do love certainty. So what is more certain than a decarbonization mandate that says, like, well, you need to be done by this date? And that actually gets us to more of the displacement than when we just say "Build, build, build just hopefully build the right thing for us, please please."David RobertsYes, I think that's true on several micro levels and it's true on a macro level too. One thing that would help us go faster is if we could just clearly articulate our goals. But we're sort of just hampered by having to beg Joe Manchin for his vote. And to get Joe Manchin's vote, you have to pretend that the whole pie is going to get bigger, that everything's going to grow. That's explicitly the grounds upon which he voted yes on Iraq. He sets it outright. He's like, I voted yes because I thought it was going to grow renewable energy and fossil fuels.In some sense, politically, we can't just come out and say the goal is to get rid of fossil fuels. That's where we're headed. It would just help everybody, private developers, state and local governments, if we were just on the same friggin page. Instead of sort of like backing into this, we're just backing into everything we do. Trying to sort of like wink wink at one another. Like we know what we're doing, they don't know what we're doing. It's just a bunch of confusion.Johanna BozuwaRight? And I think that it's also a little bit laughable because they obviously know what we're trying to do, right? Like, we're not really hiding the bag. And I think that this speaks to the need for us to be like, this is a 20-year fight, we're not done with the fight the progressive left needs to keep — we can't just have IRA and think that we're done and can wipe our hands. I mean, even this conversation that has come up on permitting shows that people are hungry and need more. And the question is okay, how do we build the actual political power so that Manchin isn't the one that's in the driver's seat?David RobertsYes.Johanna BozuwaI think one kind of last thing on this kind of community consent piece or community engagement that makes me really nervous to tie us back to the permitting realm, right. Is that the people who are potentially going to be railroaded by infrastructure that they don't want is rural America. And if you are pissing off rural parts of the United States right now, that's a very short-sighted game to be playing, right. Because you are potentially taking these rural folk who have just been beaten back again and again, and you're turning them to the right, to a growing fascist right, and giving away a massive voting bloc that is going to be crucial for us to continue to win and win again and keep winning until we actually solve the climate crisis.So I think when it comes to this kind of larger political project that we're doing on from a progressive perspective, we have to be wary of this idea that this is — not a get it fixed quick scheme.David RobertsYes. We do not want to tick off these particular communities any more than they're ticked off. I think if you talk to Biden administration officials sort of behind the scenes, they will tell you that part of the design of IRA, part of the thinking behind it is we need to flood these areas of the country that were hollowed out by neoliberalism, hollowed out by globalism. We need to flood them with new economic activity and new development or else our democracy is screwed. But it is also the case that you can't just go stomping things down here and there, willy-nilly, without community consent.They need to have a feeling that they're involved in where and how this is done.Johanna BozuwaYeah, we're trying to bring them into the fight for a populist amazing future, and shoving this down their throats I just don't think is the most effective tactic. And if you look back to the New Deal, right, so much of it was workers. It was people that were in more of rural America. There were so many of these folks who were standing up and fighting. And if we're not setting ourselves up for that same kind of sea change, then I'm afraid we're not going to be able to win this thing.David RobertsOkay. We are just about out of time. So just to kind of review, this is just, I think the point of your report, point of all this is to say the question of speed is not the same as the question of permitting. Technically speaking, permitting is a relatively small piece of the puzzle here. There's lots of other things we could be doing to speed things up that have nothing technically to do with NEPA or even technically to do with permitting. And we've reviewed a lot of them here, and I would commend people to your report to get a fuller picture of them and to think about them.But let me finish, I guess with, this is all a vision. I love this vision, but politics are politics and we live in a fallen world, et cetera, et cetera. So toward the end of last session, there was this chance to have a permitting deal, and basically it was these sort of arbitrary caps on NEPA reviews, the length of NEPA reviews and the Mountain Valley pipeline in exchange for some pretty substantial transmission stuff, some pretty substantial stuff on transmission, federal transmission planning. The progressive movement rallied to kill that. They called it Manchin's dirty deal. They rallied, they killed it.And what ended up happening was the NEPA stuff squeezed through somewhere else. The Mountain Valley pipeline squeezed through somewhere else, and the transmission stuff died. Looking back on that, do you think that was the right political move for the progressive movement to fight that bill? And more broadly, do you think the progressive movement is prepared to sort of make the political trade-offs which are going to be necessary since a lot of this stuff that you list in your report is just going to be very difficult with today's current political distribution of power?Johanna BozuwaYeah, great question, and I think my answer is that the progressive movement still did the right thing. We needed to fight — or the progressive movement folks who were in those fights needed to fight off and make very clear the MVP is not something that we can have — this permitting that's going to expand. It was a big toad to swallow. And I think if we look at some of the transmission stuff, like, sure, it was fine. Was it the things that we were fully looking for? I think it was Hickenlooper's bill, big wires that was in some of those kind of final fights, right.With the Fiscal Responsibility Act, his bill included something like a 30% interregional transfer. The DOE says we need a 120% increase in interregional transfer. That's just not even at the scale that we need, and we'd be giving up so much for it. So, yeah, we didn't fully win that fight, but I think that from what I'm hearing, kind of at the congressional level, there is the potential for another bite at the apple on transmission. There is still some, as we said earlier, right, everyone agrees that transmission is a boondoggle right now and a hot mess. So I think that should be one of the things that we're thinking about as the progressive movement.How do we do that? Right? But I don't think I would go back in time and say "Eh, we should just accept Manchin's deal." I think that it was an important political flag to stamp in the ground that, no, we actually don't believe that we should be expanding fossil fuels and renewable energy at the same time because that's not what we need to do. Saying all that, I do think there are things that we can be doing right now to advance transmission. For instance, FERC is looking at some of these interconnection issues right now. Biden should not rest on his laurels until he gets someone approved and appointed to the FERC board.David RobertsHey, there's Joe Manchin again being a jerk.Johanna BozuwaI know, it's so true. But there are things and again, we've already talked on this pod about stuff that can be done at the state level, too. We still have some cards to play in our hand to accelerate and prove our case increasingly and build the case for more federal implementation, too.David RobertsJohanna, thanks so much for coming on. I feel like lately the progressive environmental left has appeared in mainstream media and social media more as a weird caricature viewed from a distance than been able to speak for itself. So I'm glad to be able to have you on so we can talk through a little bit about how progressives see this and the larger issues at play and their specific recommendations, all of which I think are great. So people should check out your report. And thanks for sharing your time with us.Johanna BozuwaThank you so much for having me today, David. It's lovely.David RobertsThank you for listening to the Volts podcast. It is ad-free, powered entirely by listeners like you. If you value conversations like this, please consider becoming a paid Volts subscriber at volts.wtf. Yes, that's volts.wtf so that I can continue doing this work. Thank you so much, and I'll see you next time. Get full access to Volts at www.volts.wtf/subscribe

Industrial Policy (IP) has dominated conversations in economic and political circles thanks to President Biden's big investments in manufacturing, infrastructure, and working Americans. But according to today's guest, development economist Isabel Estevez, the conversation around IP is too narrow. IP is not just about manufacturing and clean energy, she argues—smart IP also encompasses policies that improve outcomes for people, like reducing child poverty and cleaning our drinking water. Isabel Estevez is the Deputy Director of Industrial Policy and Trade at the Roosevelt Institute. She conducts research at the intersection of industrial and trade policy, with a focus on the transformation and decarbonization of heavy industries, such as steel and aluminum. Twitter: @Isabel_Estevez_ Industrial Transformations https://www.phenomenalworld.org/analysis/industrial-transformations  The American Industrial Policy Series https://rooseveltinstitute.org/think-tank/climate-and-economic-transformation/the-american-industrial-policy-series  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

“Bidenomics” is closely aligned with many—probably even most—of the middle-out economic principles that we discuss on this podcast every week. Much to our surprise and delight, Joe Biden has become the first President in 40 years to reject trickle-down economics in favor of building the economy from the middle out, and the results speak for themselves: Since the pandemic began, America has seen the strongest growth of any leading economy in the world. The economy has added 13 million jobs, inflation has fallen for 12 straight months, and a recession is no longer on the horizon. National Economic Council Deputy Director Bharat Ramamurti returns to the show to explain why Bidenomics has been so successful. Bharat Ramamurti is the Deputy Director of National Economic Council (NEC) for The White House. He previously served as a Member of the Congressional Oversight Commission for the CARES Act, and as the Managing Director of the Corporate Power program at the Roosevelt Institute.  Twitter: @BharatRamamurti Bidenomics is Working https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/06/28/bidenomics-is-working-the-presidents-plan-grows-the-economy-from-the-middle-out-and-bottom-up-not-the-top-down  The Transformation at the Heart of Biden's Middle-Out Economic Agenda https://prospect.org/economy/2023-02-09-biden-middle-out-agenda  Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

It's Independence Day but hosts of The New Abnormal are not in a patriotic mood. Hosts Andy Levy and Danielle Moodie discuss last week's “grifting ass” Supreme Court decisions, including the student debt, anti-LGBTQ same-sex website, and affirmative action rulings—and Danielle makes the case for students of color filing a lawsuit against universities for their legacy student practices. Also on this episode: Andy plays a game of American “20 questions” with David Roth, editor at and co-owner of Defector and co-host of the Distraction Podcast, and Jeb Lund, a journalist whose writing has appeared in such places as The Guardian Vice Rolling Stone, Gawker, and The New Republic, each whom answer questions like ‘what was the best year in American history?' ‘who is the most annoying president in American history?' and ‘how is Donald Trump celebrating the July 4th holiday?' Then, on a serious note: Alí R. Bustamante, deputy director of the Worker Power and Economic Security program at The Roosevelt Institute, reveals a hard truth: The American economy isn't functioning “in any Democratic way.” Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Over the last two seasons, Felicia and Michael have talked with politicians, superstar activists, and renowned academics—from Senator Elizabeth Warren to economist Thomas Piketty. In this final episode of How to Save a Country, they're taking a look back, and hashing out debates they've had between themselves along the way: What's the real difference between “progressive” and “liberal”? What big projects should the left set their sights on, and which are politically out of reach? And how well does “the middle out” work as a descriptor for post-neoliberalism? And later, they play back some of the boldest ideas guests have discussed on the show, including expanding the House of Representatives (a pet cause of Michael's). “I hope that in the years to come, we can look back on this capsule of conversations that we've had over the last few seasons and see that we captured a moment in time. Right on the cusp of changing the economic paradigm, but before that paradigm was fully instantiated,” says Felicia.  “And I hope that we can see these conversations as a prelude maybe to a new way of organizing, organizing our economy, organizing our democracy, organizing and fighting for our vision of freedom.” Presented by the Roosevelt Institute, The New Republic, and PRX. Generous funding for this podcast was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network. Views expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of its funders. You can find transcripts and related resources for every episode at howtosaveacountry.org.

What do people mean when they talk about freedom? Throughout history, that question has often had dark answers, as Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Jefferson Cowie explains in this episode. “Going all the way back to Athenian democracy is the freedom to enslave, the freedom to oppress, the freedom to dominate,” he tells Felicia and Michael. In his book, Freedom's Dominion: A Saga of White Resistance to Federal Power—which won the 2023 Pulitzer for History—Jefferson argues that this kind of freedom is deeply American, and explores the story of one place that exemplifies it: Barbour County, Alabama. Jefferson takes Michael and Felicia on a journey through the county's history, highlighting the treatment of the Muscogee Nation, political dynamics during the Reconstruction Era, and the political career of four-time Alabama governor and Barbour County native George Wallace. And later, Jefferson, Felicia, and Michael discuss the present-day fight over freedom, and the role historians have in this moment of political instability. Presented by the Roosevelt Institute, The New Republic, and PRX. Generous funding for this podcast was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network. Views expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of its funders. You can find transcripts and related resources for every episode at howtosaveacountry.org.

Chris Hughes is a senior fellow at the Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy at The New School, and he is also the co-founder of the Economic Security Project and a senior advisor at the Roosevelt Institute. Previously, he was also the publisher of The New Republic and is a co-founder of Facebook. Chris joins Macro Musings to talk about his work on Arthur Burns' tenure as Fed Chair and the lessons we can learn from it as applied to today's inflation experience. Specifically, David and Chris also discuss Arthur Burns' view of the economy and inflation, how his perspective on business psychology impacted these views, Burns' view of fiscal and industrial policy as a tool for combating inflation, and a lot more.   Transcript for this week's episode.   Chris's Twitter: @chrishughes Chris's website   David Beckworth's Twitter: @DavidBeckworth Follow us on Twitter: @Macro_Musings   Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our new Macro Musings merch!   Related Links:   *Rethinking Arthur Bruns, the “Worst” Fed Chair in History* by Chris Hughes   *Digital Dollars: Critical Design Choices and Effects of a Central Bank Digital Currency* by Chris Hughes

Almost a decade ago, economist Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century changed the way many people understood capitalism and inequality. In the years since, his research and ideas have helped jolt our politics out of autopilot and elevate solutions like a wealth tax into the mainstream. This episode—recorded in Paris following a panel discussion Thomas and Felicia participated in with historian Gary Gerstle—is about what comes next. “I think it's important that progressives . . . start thinking again not only about next week, but also about next decade and next century,” Thomas tells Felicia. He talks about the possibility of a universal basic inheritance, the battle for progressive taxation, and what he sees as the key to prosperity: “much more investment in education, human capital, public infrastructure.” Presented by the Roosevelt Institute, The New Republic, and PRX. Generous funding for this podcast was provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and Omidyar Network. Views expressed in this podcast do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of its funders. You can find transcripts and related resources for every episode at howtosaveacountry.org.

Silicon Valley Bank's recent failure marked the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history and the largest since the 2008 financial crisis. The run on the bank sent shockwaves through the financial world. Nearly 94% of its total deposits were uninsured, according to S&P Global Market Intelligence data as of year-end 2022. The series of events leading to its demise have been described by some as the perfect storm. Was it the result of Trump-era rollbacks of Dodd-Frank regulations, increased rate hikes, insufficient risk management, or a combination of factors? Mike Konczal is director of macroeconomic analysis at the Roosevelt Institute, where he focuses on economics, inequality and the role of public power in a democracy. He's also the author of the book “Freedom from the Market” and a co-author, with Joseph Stiglitz, of “Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy.” He joins WITHpod to break down what happened to SVB, FDIC intervention, what made the financial institution so peculiar, what its failure says about the state of the economy and more.

Earlier this week, the Biden administration announced that companies could begin applying for funding under the CHIPS and Science Act, but only if they met certain conditions including limiting stock buybacks, providing childcare to workers, and profit sharing with the government. According to Felicia Wong, CEO of the liberal-leaning Roosevelt Institute think tank, this could herald a new embrace of industrial policy by Biden to push forward his agenda. And, a look into a new report that details the growing extent of the racial disparity in home ownership in America.

Earlier this week, the Biden administration announced that companies could begin applying for funding under the CHIPS and Science Act, but only if they met certain conditions including limiting stock buybacks, providing childcare to workers, and profit sharing with the government. According to Felicia Wong, CEO of the liberal-leaning Roosevelt Institute think tank, this could herald a new embrace of industrial policy by Biden to push forward his agenda. And, a look into a new report that details the growing extent of the racial disparity in home ownership in America.

For most of last year economists and pundits engaged in a long, circular debate about why inflation was spiking around the world, and who was to blame for those skyrocketing prices. Economic experts at the Roosevelt Institute (including past guest Joseph Stiglitz) have finally revealed the root causes of global inflation in a new report. Stiglitz's co-author, Ira Regmi, shares what they've learned. Ira Regmi is the Program Manager for the Macroeconomic Analysis program at the Roosevelt Institute. They support the team's work on fiscal and monetary policy, unemployment, and growth to ensure an economy that works for all. Twitter: @Regmi_Ira The Causes of and Responses to Today's Inflation https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/the-causes-of-and-responses-to-todays-inflation    Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

(Originally aired August 2022) Vox senior correspondent Dylan Matthews sits down with Felicia Wong (@FeliciaWongRI), president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, to talk about a new era of industrial policy. They discuss the theory of modern supply-side economics, the passage of the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts, and how much common ground exists between the political left and the right. Hosts: Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt), senior correspondent, Vox Credits: Sofi LaLonde, producer and engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director  Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

With only a week to go until the US midterm elections, inflation is the issue at the top of most voters' minds. As Democrats and Republicans make their cases for who can get prices to come down, one thing remains true: High prices are not going to go away overnight. Economists Mike Konczal (@rortybomb) of the Roosevelt Institute and Michael Strain (@MichaelRStrain) of the American Enterprise Institute discuss how we got here and the least painful way out of this. References: Is the cure for inflation worse than the disease? Today, Explained: The devil's bargain on inflation To beat inflation, the Fed might have to trigger a recession What aren't we doing to fix inflation?  Student Loan Forgiveness Plan Won't Make Inflation Worse—Even If It Adds $400 Billion To Deficit, Goldman Says  Hosts: Jonquilyn Hill (@jonquilynhill)  Credits: Sofi LaLonde, producer Efim Shapiro, engineer Libby Nelson, editorial adviser A.M. Hall, deputy editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Over the past few years, we've seen enormous shifts in the ideological and intellectual foundations of government policy. Trillions of dollars have been allocated through programs including the Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPS Act, and the American Rescue Plan. At the same time, we're seeing inflation at levels unseen since the late 70s. Have we arrived in a new economic era? For over three decades, the Roosevelt Institute has fought to “develop progressive ideas and bold leadership in the service of restoring America's promise of opportunity for all.” The president and CEO of the think tank, Felicia Wong, joins WITHpod to discuss how we got to this moment, the importance of economic freedom, the need to rethink public investment and more.

In the past few months, Joe Biden's agenda has gone from a failed promise to real legislation.Taken together, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Inflation Reduction Act (along with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act) have the potential to put America on a path to decarbonization, develop some of the most advanced and crucial supply chains in the world, and build all kinds of next-generation technologies. It's hard to overstate just how transformative these plans could be if they are carried out in the right way.But that's a big “if.” Because Biden's legacy will not be written just in tax code and regulatory law. All of this legislation is about building things in the real world — from wind farms to semiconductor manufacturing plants to electric vehicle charging stations and so much more. Which means the hard work isn't over. It's just beginning.Felicia Wong is the president and chief executive of the Roosevelt Institute and someone who has had an unusually clear read of the Biden administration from the beginning. Wong has been arguing that Biden wants to fundamentally reshape the productive capacity of the economy. And now he's gotten approval of bills that have the potential to do just that. But Wong is also realistic about the obstacles in the way of realizing that project. And so the question at the center of this conversation is: What will it take to turn the Biden agenda from written legislation into lived reality?We also discuss the death of the “care infrastructure” for helping families that was at the heart of the Build Back Better proposal, the challenges of building up the American semiconductor industry, why some progressives view these bills as “corporate welfare,” the conservative argument that government shouldn't be “picking winners and losers,” how these bills could respond to America's deep regional inequalities, how to address the problem of NIMBYism, what participatory budgeting and worker cooperatives can teach us about better ways to represent community voices, why we should want the government to take bigger risks even if that means more government failure, and much moreMentioned:“All Biden Has to Do Now Is Change the Way We Live” by Ezra KleinBook recommendations:The Middle Out by Michael TomaskyElite Capture by Olúfẹ́mi O. TáíwòChords of Change (forthcoming 2023) by Deepak Bhargava and Stephanie LuceThoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.You can find transcripts (posted midday) and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast, and you can find Ezra on Twitter @ezraklein. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.​​ “The Ezra Klein Show” is produced by Annie Galvin and Rogé Karma. Fact-checking by Michelle Harris, Mary Marge Locker and Kate Sinclair. Original music by Isaac Jones. Mixing by Carole Sabouraud and Isaac Jones. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta. Special thanks to Kristin Lin and Kristina Samulewski.

Vox senior correspondent Dylan Matthews sits down with Felicia Wong (@FeliciaWongRI), president and CEO of the Roosevelt Institute, to talk about a new era of industrial policy. They discuss the theory of modern supply-side economics, the passage of the Inflation Reduction and CHIPS acts, and how much common ground exists between the political left and the right. Hosts: Dylan Matthews (@dylanmatt), senior correspondent, Vox Credits: Sofi LaLonde, producer and engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director  Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices