NTK: The New Economic Paradigm We Need Right Now

Subbasement of the Ministry of Snark in Washington, D.C. and from other undisclosed locations

across America and around the world. Hello and welcome to Need To Know, I am David Rothko of your host, this week as every

“week we're going to sit down with somebody who we think you need to hear from a news”

maker, influencer who's got a perspective that's important this week we are especially fortunate to have with us, a great guy who I've known and I was thinking about this year, almost 30 years, believe it or not, I have aged during that time, he has not, which is deeply deeply troubling to me, and I claim into a casket every night, whatever it is, my friend vampire, it's working, so our guest is Nick Hanauer and you may have heard of him because

he's a very successful business person, but he is also one of the smartest and best philanthropists and thinkers about what's going on in our society, anywhere he leads, number of ventures including

“ventricle, civic ventures, he's got the results of a lot of his work at a website called”

MarketsBilt for Humans.org, so that ought to get you in the direction that he is thinking, and if you want a little more and a deep dive into that, if you go to democracy, the journal of ideas, you will find an article by him and Eric Beinhocker called Market Humanism, a new paradigm for a new era, and it's just great because it's not just economic theory or political theory, it's how we've got to approach the problems we're facing in a completely different way, and so

as I welcome you, Nick, I want to congratulate you, really great. Thank you, thank you so much.

A lot of work went into that, like 15 years. Well, you know, I have never, I know, but you don't

have having known you during that time and having had a lot of conversations with you. The conversations have been, you know, these guys have got this wrong. The neoliberals have got this wrong. The neoliberals and the Democratic Party, the Republican Party, you know, they're playing in, you know, between the 40-yard lines or something like that of thought, and they're ignoring the fact that the outcomes are bad for most people, correct? And that the system isn't working for most people,

and I know, because I've watched how you've done it, that you've gone out and you connected with smart people, Nobel Prize winners, leading thinkers, you put together discussions, you've done outreach, and the, these things now, what's available at MarketBiltzburghumans.org, or in this article, really represents an incredibly concise culmination of that thinking. Yeah, and maybe you two years of grinding. Yeah, yeah, but talk a little bit about why. Yeah, so, you know, to make an

extraordinarily long and boring story as short as possible, um, you know, for the longest time, I had a suspicion that the way in which we understood economic cause and effect just wasn't right,

that the existing academic orthodoxy didn't make any sense, and that started with my first

icon, one of one course in college that I actually, it's the only course in college that I dropped, I got about a third of the way into it, and thought, well, this is not useful. This is not what

“actually happens on Planet Earth, and that, and that I think was a consequence of the fact that I”

went to work for the family business when I was like seven years old. I mean, I worked through junior high school high school college, and so by the time I got to college, I had a pretty fair understanding of how the world actually worked. I was more sophisticated than your typical college kid, and, you know, those like supply and demand curves and all that stuff, it's just like, this is just not true. I took the icon one in one course because I thought, well, this is going to be so

useful in my life, and it was many years later, that sort of feeling stayed with me, but many years later, as I began to enter politics and saw how powerfully these ideas shaped what we believed,

I just began to think, this is just can't be right, and then I had a lucky break in about 2006,

“which is I came across a book by my now collaborator, a guy named Eric Binehacker, who is a professor”

at Oxford University called the Origins of Wealth. In that book, he used modern sort of modern theory to demolish new classical economics, and you know, I mean, the short story of that is that new classical economics is based on a bunch of fundamental assumptions about how the world works, that the economy is an equilibrium, that people are reliably selfish and rational, that GDP is a good measure of growth, all sorts of things, and all of those things were

conjectures, cooked up by people from as far back as, I mean, utility theory, Jeremy Bentham thought

up in 1787, by the way, and during Bentham Bio Accounts was a very smart man, but also a very strange man, not somebody who understood people very well, but you know, that way of understanding

“was highly tractable to mathematics, and so they got incorporated in how we think about economics”

and the rest of the history, and you know, Eric used modern scholarship to show that that was none of that was true, and that in many ways contemporary economists have made huge category errors. So by way of example, seeing the economy as an equilibrium system, and an equilibrium system means, if one thing goes up, another thing has to come down, right, they're closed systems, and that's a category or because the economy is not an equilibrium system, it's a complex

adaptive system, it's like an ecology, it's actually a form of ecology, and in those systems, those systems are not characterized by decreasing returns, they're kept characterized by increasing returns, and so in that old framework to use one of the canonical examples, it is true by definition that if you raise them in a more way, you have fewer jobs, because if the economy is a parade of optimally equilibrium, it has to work that way.

There's no alternative, and because all academic economists have sort of accepted that view, even economists on the left believe that there was this mechanical inverse relationship between how much you paid people on how many jobs there were. Although, if you see it as an ecology, claiming that when you raise, when you increase wages, you decrease jobs would be like saying that when plants grow animal shrink, this is obviously not true, right, and so that began a long

collaboration with Eric where we began to recognize that somebody had to excavate all of this modern scholarship, and put it together into a new framework that could compete with the old paradigm, and that is what we have done with this, which is called, you know, this booklet, which is called Markets Bill for Humans, and is reflected in that article, and if you understand

the punchline is, that if you understand the economy in a 20-first century way, if you strip away

the ideology and replace it with empiricism, it fundamentally changes how you see economic cause and effect, and neoliberalism has been so pernicious, because it basically has coded anything good for normal people as a threat to economic growth, and anything good for rich people, as an unemployed good. So, well, right, and you know, part of that is because some of the economists are co-opted, and part of it is because you know, you know, when something becomes a

mainstream view in your academic economists, you don't get a job if you're speaking outside the main strain, right, but you know, I mean, I read these booklets and I've watched this whole thing, and

“you know, I think the main reaction, and it's brilliant work, and I strongly encourage people”

to read it for its intellectual content, but I think, you know, the average person is like, okay, fine, Jeremy Bentham, you know, I don't know Jeremy Bentham his, I don't know about these things. What does it mean for me? What does it mean for my politics? And I think, you know, at the core of it, and this is laid out in your article, and in a good way, at the core of it, these traditional economists view markets almost as if they exist in nature, that markets are just

the thing that's around us, and the governments are things that mess with markets, and, and they

correct in my view, is that both markets and governments are part a construct of the social

“contract that people enter into. In other words, there is no, you know, markets exist as we”

want them to to serve us. Governments exist as we want them to to serve us, and so the core question and it's implicit in the title of the article, it's implicit in the way that I frame that is to what it. Why, what do we want them to be doing? Correct. And the, you know, the, the, the Friedman argument as well, we want them to grow because that is a good end of itself. And

we will know that they are doing well because, you know, rich people are getting rich. That's right.

I mean, that's, that's the basic heuristic that we ended up with. Then anything that increases cap returns to capital must be good by definition. And in fact, the word efficiency when it's used in economic terms simply means returns to capital. Right. They're not taking about efficient for workers. They're not talking about efficient for the market. They're not talking about efficient for the community. They're talking about the efficiency for the owners of capital. And so we, we ended up with an

economy where the highest good is returns to capital. And everything else is subsidiary to that.

And that is completely insane. It's completely insane and unnecessary. And and, by the way, I just want to add bad for growth. On top of everything else, it actually, when you adopt that way of doing organizing markets, the system grows slower than when you adopt what we call a more middle out approach. We're, you know, what we think is that the purpose of that any economic system is human flourishing. That's the point. That's the point. The reason we enter into the social

contract to go 100 years before Jeremy Bentham, and to get into lock and hobs and Ryan that is to have a better life. Correct. And the whole reason we do this is, and a point that you make

“in this thing, which I think is a great point. But the super controversial these days can't believe”

that it is, but it is. Is that we are social people. That we act, you know, we act, in ways that should benefit each other, because that then benefits us. No, I mean, you know, neoliberalism teaches that the highest sort of the highest social good is competitive behavior, greed, right? This is Milton Friedman, right? The greed is good, that the purpose of the corporation is to enrich shareholders and any deviation from that is bad for everybody. And this is crazy nonsense,

because humanity's superpower is there a capacity to cooperate at scale. You know, lions are very, very competitive, but lions cannot build good tarps. And the reason that humans dominate planet Earth is our extraordinary capacity to cooperate with non kin. And when you understand what prosperity is in a modern way, not GDP or money, these are simply, you know, means of, you know, connecting institutions, essentially. Real prosperity in human societies is the accumulation

of solutions to human problems. And complex or problems require high levels of cooperation. And we have evolved over millions of years to be extremely effective cooperators. And so an economic system, which rewards sociopathy, which is what we have today. I mean, neoliberalism actually confers us a strategic advantage on the worst people. That's an economy, which becomes corrupt,

“concentrated, and actually slows down. I think what few people remember is that in the era where”

tax rates were highest on rich people, where unionization was most dense, where regulations were most regulated, where corporations were most regulated, GDP growth rates were almost double what they are today. Right? It's not that organizing or society around human flourishing is a trade-off against growth. It actually is the thing that makes the economy grow faster. Right, but you know,

So if GDP is your metric, and that's, you know, people run political campaigns and they say,

I will push up the GDP. It's going to push everything in a sort of the stock marketism that's going to push it in a different way. And even in those times when the GDP went up, which is good enough, there were other metrics that say the system was working. There was upward mobility. The upward mobility was better in those systems. The opportunities for people at every level of society were better within those systems. And there's a whole scholarly debate about Joe Stiglet's and others

“have gotten into it. How do you measure happiness? How do you measure the good at society?”

And there was a worthwhile discussion. But the problem is, for the past 40 years, particularly in

the United States, we've essentially, and both parties, take in the extreme view, which is this neoliberal view. And there is another effect. And you deal with it also in the article. And the other effect is that it is essentially corrosive to democracy. That's right. Because what happens is the people at the top get more and more. And in our system, the people with the most can influence political outcomes, the most. And they then via regulatory capture and other kinds

of policy capture rig the system further, tax levels and other kinds of things. So they benefit more. So they have more so that they have more influence. And it's a vicious cycle that is de-democratizing in the United States of America. So I thought maybe talk about that.

“Yeah, I mean, I think that's one of the, you know, I think that it's fair to say that neoliberalism,”

the existing economic orthodoxy is not just incredibly unfriendly to democracy, but it's incredibly unfriendly to all of the existential crises that the world faces. Climate inequality and democracy. And that's because it naturally leads away from, it leads towards oligarchy and the concentration of wealth and power at the top. And away from dealing with the solutions that the broad-based society faces. Yeah, I don't want to make sweeping statements about billionaires.

You're a sane billionaire. There are a couple others. You know, you wouldn't fill a fund with. But no, but what happens is that those people with more power also have some weird ideas, you know,

“if Peter Teele says women shouldn't vote or, you know, democracy is not a great thing. But they're”

gaining more power and you end up with Donald Trump saying, you know, we've had vaccines for 250 years. Maybe we won't anymore. Yeah. And so they're all these other sort of side effects of this, which are also terribly toxic for us. That's right. Yeah. And you know, and again, I mentioned it,

but part of the problem is that we live in a society which rewards the behavior of the worst people.

Right. Like if you are a sociopath and truly do not care about other people, you have a huge advantage in American business today. No, it's true. And by the way, elsewhere in the world, if you're a Russian oligarch, it's almost definitional that you committed some crime on the way. 100%. Right. Right. Absolutely. And you know, and what Donald Trump is done, of course, is created a permission structure for the worst people to begin to show their true colors. Right. You know, before Trump,

it was much harder to act as sociopathically as many people are doing right now. But because Trump is such a sociopath and because there's effectively no bottom to his to what norms or laws more go till break, other people feel like that's that's fine too. And so we have ended up in a society where like everything is being corrupted. You know, and you know, we have entire industries now that are based on human misery. And effectively monetizing humanities, deepest vulnerabilities,

whether their protection markets, social media, our entire food industry is organized around using scientists to create food, which is both poisonous to us and that humans can simply not stop eating. Right. All of it is not just permitted, but encouraged by the existing economic framework.

by definition, which means a company that does $10 billion in sales, or you're creating cancer,

“making people commit suicide is fine. It's good. Well, there are other sort of”

short-hand versions on the path to neoliberalism that we've come to accept like all taxes are bad. Yes. And, you know, these are crazy. I saw you have just sort of slightly off the point, but I saw you had a thing on Instagram the other day talking about social security. Yes. And it was just to me, and by the way, for those of you who are listening to this, this is not a very, very theory when you get to the back of the book and there are some references

to it in the article. There's some very concrete points that you may that a candidate could run on

and say, you know, here's a way to fix something. Like, you know, like every other OECD country, maybe everybody should have health care. But talk a little bit about the social security example, because it's so contrary to the doctrine that we've been fed. Right. So once you recognize that, you know, the economy grows, as we say, from the middle out, that it's the broad participation of the vast majority of people that is where growth comes from, and that how much money rich people

have is really secondary to that. We have plenty of capital. I mean, just to be clear, the world is a washing capital. But you have this problem with social security, is it when it was created so many decades ago, about 85% of all income was captured by the cap, right, that you pay, you pay social

“security tax up to a capital point. It's 12.4% today. Today, it is not, it is, I think a tiny bit less”

than 50% of all income. And all of the income that rich people like me make isn't taxed at all, right, because what's happened is that even rich people in the old days got their income from, got their income from income, right, from wages. Today, all your income is capital gains, business path, fast-throughs, dividends, et cetera. And so for somebody who makes $185,000 a year, 12.4% of your income is devoted to social security. If you make $18 million a year,

effectively zero percent of your income is devoted to social security, because you probably don't pay any wages. And so the idea is incredibly simple, is you have the rate from 12.4 to 6.2. And then you extend the tax to all income at all levels. And in that way, rich people end up paying their fair share, which is about 6%. And 95% of Americans get a 6% tax cut.

GDP probably grows an additional 2% a year. And you never have to worry about whether

their social security will be unfunded ever again. It's just, it's fixed, done. If you're enjoying this episode and want to get even more out of the DSR network,

“you need to check out our sub-stack. The DSR network sub-stack is the absolute best way to follow”

deep state radio. The DSR daily, where it's matter, need to know, sila consciousness, AI, energy, and climate, and the daily blast. Sign up to get notified every time a new episode drops and stay up to date on the latest news and expert analysis. Right now, we're offering 20% off of a DSR network membership. Payed members get an ad free listening experience, select episodes two days early, 50% off of David's need to know sub-stack, and more. To get your 20% off,

go to DSR network.substack.com/ogist26. That's DSR network.substack.com/ogist26. Yeah, and to give you a sense of how broken our system is. This is something where politician could stand up and say, "I have a proposal that will reduce cost to 85% of you and improve the quality of life and spend the economy for 100% of you." And people say, "That's politically toxic." Because it's the people in the top top category who are going

to say, "Well, wait a minute, I'm going to pay more, and they're the ones who write the checks in front of the campaign." That's right. And so you end up with all these sort of self-defeating things, and I wish we could talk about this more and more. But in the last 15 minutes we've got,

because the system is rigged. And what you are proposing is we should unreg the system. That's right. And we should focus it on outcomes that benefits society more broadly, right? Yes. And David, you know, there are two forces in my opinion, two forces in American life that are rigging the system. The first is just Yucky greedy people.

And the world will never be rid of Yucky greedy people. They will endure forever.

Evil, you cannot eliminate evil. You can back it into a corner. It's like Voldemort, right? The Chamber of Commerce is not going to quit saying raising wages kills jobs. No academic study, no amount of empirical evidence. We'll get them to stop saying that because they don't say it

“because it's true. They say it because it's the best thing they've ever found to keep wages low”

and profit high, right? They say it because it's effective. But that will always be with us. But the other thing that really screwed Americans over the last 50 years is this profound

misunderstanding about economic cause and effect. So not only do you have the Yucky rich people

saying we don't want to pay more tax. You had academic economists saying, "No, they're right. We shouldn't pay tax," which is completely insane. Let me illustrate this in the clearest way I know how. As you may recall, me and my gang we cooked up the $15 minimum wage, right? 2012, 1314. There are 18,000 professional economists in the United States of America. Not one wrote in support. Not one. And I had a conversation with a well-known left-wing economist a couple

of weeks ago. I'm not going to mention this day. Who told me that when we did it, he had a conference call with some of these guys and they all thought we had lost our minds. There was one

“guy who was like, "No, I think it'll work out." But these are the leftiest economists in the country.”

They all thought we had lost our minds. Why? Because even the leftiest believed that the economies is afraid to walk the only equilibrium and there has to be this massive amount of job loss if you're going to raise them in a way to that much. And it is very hard to make progress. And by the way, every single democratic politician we talked to thought we had lost our minds too. I mean, I made the rounds and washing D.C. I have a lot of access as you know. So I met with a lot of people.

And you know, everybody thought we were crazy. And today they're like, "Oh, you know, I guess you weren't, I guess you were right." But you know, this is the problem. This is what American space is, it's not just the yucky rich people that are making things harder for them. It is a consensus within the policy-making surface circles into the democratic party as well as the Republican party that doing these things will be bad for the economy. And that is what's insane. And that

is why this work is so important. We cannot make the yucky rich people go, go, go away. They will

always be there. Yeah. I mean, I have to say, obviously, I've lived in Washington 35 years. I agree

with your analysis. But it's a little worse than you said. Because they're, well, because all those 18,000 economists are employed someplace. And if they're employed in the lefty think tank, the lefty think tank has to raise money from somebody. Yes. And so they're trying to go to a bunch of rich people. And the rich people are going to say, "Well, you know, that might not be really great

“for my interests." And so that's why it's a lot easier. That's why I was in the Clinton”

administration, but Clinton administration, the Obama administration, were awash in neoliberals. Because once you left the government, you had to get a job someplace. And so you worked on Wall Street or you worked in a think tank. And all those places were influenced by not just people who are, you know, yucky rich people. But they were also influenced by the sort of prevailing wisdom that you didn't want to do anything that hurt corporate interests. Correct. You know,

that big, you know, what's good for business is good for America. It is true that what is good for business is good for America. But what we've conflated is what's good for business owners. Right?

corporations were created thousand years ago to serve the state. You know, the objective of the reason you created the fiction of a corporation so that could go on living. What's so you could have economic activity that continued to benefit the state on an ongoing basis. What happened was in the middle of the early part of the 19th century in the U.S. We started having a bunch of rulings and then you had the fortune commitment in which you started to say corporations had the same

right as people. And that inevitably led to a tension in the system where you were actually weighing the rights of corporations against everybody else's rights in court cases and they had more money. They won the court cases. The majority of times the 14th amendment has been used in a court case has been to defend the right of corporations not of individual people. Even though it's about

equal protection under the law. But anyway, to get to another key point of this in the debate

of the moment in America right now in the politics of America, there's this debate within the Democratic, I mean the magas lost its mind and a lot of people realized that and it's got approval

“ratings, I think the last approval rating I saw with independence of Trump was like 18%.”

You know, it's like, which is effectively zero, right? But the question is what's next? Correct. And there is this kind of internal tension. There's the residual neoliberals within the Democratic party who are saying, "Okay, let's just go back to this," and you know, I mean you saw third

ways that what we're going to spend 15 million dollars to tell people how bad, you know, the social

aggressives and socialism is, right? And there's this debate, you know, because if you look at people who are under 30, the majority of them are actually more sympathetic to socialism than they are to capitalism. And it has nothing to do with, if you're over 50, you think socialism is the Soviet Union, right? Yes. But if you're under 30 or you're under 40, socialism is Norway and Holland. And it's people who get free education and free healthcare, and they don't

go bankrupt when they get sick. And so it's a different kind of a thing. But there's still this

“stigma associated with it. And as I read it, I think what we're in search of terminology that”

is not stigmatized. And market humanism, I have an idea, isn't it? You see, you see how I did that, right? But, but, but, but anyway, I make the... No, exactly. So look, I am incredibly sympathetic to the people who are drifting toward socialism. But, I think that as a party, we can do better than harking back to an idea, which was cooked up in 1846. I think we can move our ideas into the 21st century. And that's the first thing. And the second thing is that socialism is a terrible brand

in the broader, like just as a matter of political fact, you will have a very difficult time winning national elections under that brand. And it's not necessary because you can have a market economy that is irretrievably focused on human flourishing. And that is organized around the proposition that a thriving middle class is the cause of economic growth and political stability. And that is what we have seek to create in this booklet, right? And it's not just, by the way,

it's thriving middle class, because you always say that, and you did talk about middle out.

Yeah, but I also think you sell yourself short, because you also talk about a strong social safety net. So you're not abandoning the people. No, the bottom either. No, no, no, no, no, no,

“absolutely not. And look, here's the thing that the new economics teaches. So within the old”

economic framework, including more people in the economy, is this liberal luxury to be afforded if and when we have growth with the new economics shows, is that that's both wrong and backwards, that inclusion, that look, the economy is people. The more people you include robustly in the economy, the bigger it gets than faster grows. It's not complicated. So, I mean, to use a dirty word, you know, DEI, diversity equity inclusion, we have seen those as moral imperatives. It's not true.

than an economy, which is not diverse. And David, I'm not making a claim, I'm not making a

social claim. There's evidence for that. The math is very, very clear. Inclusion is the thing that drives economic growth. It doesn't hold economic growth back. And so, you know, all of this stuff, like we have seen, we have looked at all of this stuff in this ass backwards way for a really long time. And, you know, it should not surprise us because, you know, for thousands of years, humans have evolved moral constructs. You know, the 10 commandments, you could think of

as a moral construct. You can also think of it as an economic platform. Right? That, if you follow

the 10 commandments, you will have a high functioning prosper society. We'll stop. It just how it works.

Right. It's all societies do because in all societies, for all of human history, up until now, by the way, and I'm going to ask you one last question associated with this, the fundamental unit of economics is human beings, and the economic contributors and their

“economic beneficiaries, and you have to figure out how to treat that. But my last question,”

because you've just framed it for me this way, and I'm on end with it is, we may be on the verge of an economy where that's not true. And if, in fact, AI changes what labor is and changes what

the role of people are in society, then we have to ask, you know, how do, what is, how do government

step in, how do we regulate, how do we create a society? Yeah, I think in your article, you mentioned AI, sovereign both funds, and people talk about UBI. But the point is, as we're tackling those problems, we have to have a paradigm in mind. And if the neoliberal paradigm in mind is what's in mind, then you're going to end up with what we've had. And, you know, when you work, right. But when you said markets are people, the economy is people. The economy is people. I thought of the sci-fi movie

from the 70s, Soilin Green, where we run out of everything, and people are fed this green substance, and at the very end, chalked in Heston goes, Soilin Green is people. Sorry, foil on the work, right? Yeah. But essentially, the society is eating its own people. Yes. And in neoliberalism, society eats its own people. Yeah, more increasingly, we probably think that was a swell idea. Right. Right. Right. But I mean, I mean, perfect sense. Right. Right. But, but, but I think in market

humanism, you realize the objective of having creating, regulating markets, having creating and regulating governments is to serve people collectively, not individually, not capital. Right. And, you know, look, I think the coming, I do not have confidence in my personal ability to forecast how AI is going to change society. I'm old enough to have lived through some of these transitions.

“I'm old enough to remember that when computers came along, people had a lot of the same”

worries. You, as are you, correct? I remember. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to tell you that. Yes. Yeah. I'm sorry to hear about it. Anyway, you know, like I remember the, the, I brought a calculator, I got a calculator in high school. I brought it to high school, and like people, they lost their minds, right? Like, this was going to disrupt everything. And, and so it's hard to say exactly what's going to happen. But what I can guarantee you is that if we don't have an

economic framework, that is that is completely committed to the notion that the point of policy is human flourishing, not capital, not capital efficiency, then whatever happens will be terror. If, you know, like it will, it will be harmful to the majority of citizens. We will socialize the losses, and we will, and we will privatize the benefits, as we, as we often do. Yeah, you're right that I live through this, and I, you know, said the story once before, but I'm saying it to everybody,

so that they will listen to you. In like 1998, I'm on a plane, and I meet this guy Nick Henner,

“and he says, why don't we, we talked for a while, and we think that's how we met. And he says,”

why don't you join me in some friends for dinner? And I was like, I don't know if it ain't Seattle, it was where the plane was going. And so I went and I joined this, and he seated me with these

to never she. And on my left was a guy who I sort of knew through something I'll send Craig McCaw,

who's family had a big cellular thing. And I knew he was on his way to being a billionaire. And the guy on my right was like playing with his food, and he was some friend of Nick's, and I,

“he didn't talk much. And sort of like 30 minutes into the meal, I said, so, so what do you do?”

And he said, oh, yeah, I've got this thing that I started a couple years ago, and we're going to

sell books on the internet. And I said, that's a stupidest idea I've ever heard. People, people, people, people aren't going to, people aren't going to, people aren't going to, well, Nick didn't think it was stupid, and, and, and, and has benefited from that. And so on that side of the table, there was Nick,

“Greg McCaw, and Jeff Bezos, and me, three of whom are billionaires. So don't take my word for it.”

Okay, Nick's perspective is the right perspective to have on this. And, you know, if you go to

markets of builtforhumans.org, you can get the book, right? You can download it for free, download it for free, and I encourage you to do it. And it's the little pamphlet version there as well. Which is a little pamphlet version. You did it. You did a little version that was a short thing. No, I know. No, that's right. This is the little version. That's now the little version. The book, which is like this, that comes out hopefully next year. So, okay. Well, in any event, go to markets builtforhumans.org.

“I think it is extremely worthwhile. Or, go and read this article, market humanism, a new paradigm for”

new era, which is at democracy, a journal of ideas. And, and follow what Nick's doing. Thank you. This is really sort of the cutting edge effort to deal with the core issue, which is what's the paradigm. Yeah. And that may seem irrelevant until you start realizing it affects everything about your life, economics, jobs, politics, everything. So, I'm delighted to see again, and have this conversation, which I know will continue. But for now, thank you very much, Nick. Thank you so much.

Thank you for your generous introduction and the rest of it. Well, it's a real pleasure. And thank everybody for listening, and we'll be back, of course, each and every week with more. Here, and on all of our other podcasts, and on all of our other shows in YouTube, and in Instagram, I'm a TikTok, and I'm on sub-stack, and I'm where you get your podcasts. So, find it someplace, enjoy it, and we'll see you around. Bye-bye.