Jamee Moudud on the Intellectual Roots of Zohranomics

Summary

---

Odd Lots: Jamee Moudud on the Intellectual Roots of Zohranomics

Date: February 21, 2026
Hosts: Joe Weisenthal and Tracy Alloway
Guest: Jamee Moudud, Professor of Economics at Sarah Lawrence College

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Joe and Tracy dive into the intellectual history of economic thought to better understand the “heterodox” economic ideas surfacing in New York City’s politics—specifically, those surrounding Mayor Zoran Mamdani’s approach (“Zohranomics”). They’re joined by Professor Jamee Moudud, an expert in law, political economy, and the history of economic thought, to demystify terms like “orthodox” and “heterodox” economics, to critique how neoclassical thinking became dominant, and to examine how politics and law have always shaped economic outcomes.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Setting the Stage: Economic Orthodoxy vs. Heterodoxy

• Snowstorms and Mayors: Joe and Tracy open with a lighthearted reflection on NYC’s new mayor passing the “snowstorm test”—but point out that real judgment will come via economic policies, not snow removal.
• Central Economic Challenges: Affordability is the central topic, and Mamdani's proposals—especially around rent control and government intervention—are the kind that traditional economists often reject as “heterodox.” (03:02)
• Defining the Terms: Tracy admits to limited background in theory, teeing up Jamie to dig into the intellectual roots of today’s economic debates.

---

2. Intellectual History: From Classical to Neoclassical (07:20–14:15)

What is Economic Orthodoxy?

• Jamie: “The orthodoxy is neoclassical economics. It comes from an intellectual tradition which... is not really what Adam Smith was doing.” (07:35)

• Myth of Adam Smith: Moudud disputes the common notion that Adam Smith is the progenitor of modern neoclassical theory:

  “The expression ‘invisible hand’ appears just once in The Wealth of Nations. Smith’s conception was very different—he saw markets as embedded in institutions and law, not as ‘natural’ or eternal phenomena.” —Jamee Moudud (07:35–09:52)

Classical Political Economy vs. Neoclassical Economics

• Classical (Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Physiocrats): Saw economics as intertwined with politics and law—“the economy is profoundly a product of history.”
• Neoclassical: Treats the economy as timeless, governed by inviolable laws (like gravity), and essentially pre-political—a view that emerged in the late 19th century and became dominant by the post-WWII era.

The Shift to “The Economy as Math”

• Transition: Around the 1940s and post-WWII, economics becomes dominated by mathematicians and engineers, modeling the economy as a machine run by “cyborgs”—pre-programmed, rational and all-knowing agents. (16:15)
• Downsides: By mid-1980s, concerns arise that graduate economics programs are producing “idiot savants”—technically skilled but disconnected from social and historical realities. (18:17)

---

3. Economics is Always Political

• Institutions: Even as neoclassical economics treats “the economy” as apolitical, political economy’s classical tradition understood markets rest on legal and institutional frameworks.
• Notable Quote:

  “The market is not some place where equal actors meet to create contracts. That was not in Smith, Ricardo, or Marx.”—Jamee Moudud (10:57)

• Law and Social Norms: Laws create the property rights that underpin markets; thus, market outcomes are always already political.
• Example: The rights of industrialists to pollute are legal, not “market failures”—they’re the result of specific laws (30:00).

---

4. Heterodox Policy in Practice: What About Zohranomics?

• Taxing the Rich and Rent Control:

  “This small increase in the billionaire stock is going to tank the economy? … If so, capitalism would have been dead a long time ago…" —Jamee Moudud (23:26)

  • Moudud notes that progressive taxes and stronger regulations were, in fact, common and coincided with booming postwar economies.
• Orthodoxy as a “False Debate”: The dichotomy between “market vs. intervention” is misleading; in practice, all economies are structured through policy decisions—either implicitly (laissez-faire) or explicitly.
• Affordability as Political: Choosing not to intervene in housing markets is as political as imposing rent control (31:54).

---

5. Market Failures: A Critique of Neoclassical Framing (29:25–32:00)

• Pollution as Example: Pollution is not just an occasional market failure; it’s ubiquitous and is allowed or restricted via property rights and law.
• Quote:

  “Market failures don’t actually exist… If market failures are ubiquitous, then they’re not ‘failures.’ They’re features set by legal design.” —Jamee Moudud (29:50)

---

6. How Policy Can Be Evidence-Based, Not Just Ideological

• Neoclassical Policy Is Deductive: Policies arise from theoretical models that often don’t reflect reality.

  “How are you designing a policy based on a theory… which has not been subjected to any kind of intellectual engagement with reality?” —Jamee Moudud (39:29)

• Institutionalist Approach: Draws on historical, social, and legal realities—not just abstract deduction.

---

7. Contemporary Applications and Limitations (40:40–47:09)

Multiple Paths from the Same Analysis

• Joe: Even if you accept that politics pervades economics, you might conclude that current restrictions (e.g. zoning, labor laws) are what make affordability so hard, and thus liberalizing is warranted.
• Jamie: “That’s always been the case. … There are always impediments. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t push for policy change.” (42:14)
• Lessons from History: Past struggles (like passing progressive taxation) show progress happens despite entrenched opposition.

Limits, Design, and Policy Advice

• Jamie is clear:

  “Of course, there are ways to do this [rent controls, taxes] badly… But you can structure policy with compensations (e.g., tax credits for small landlords) to mitigate harm while pursuing affordability.” (46:11)

---

8. Why Has Heterodoxy Struggled in the U.S.? (47:09)

• Dominance of Orthodoxy in Public Discourse:

  “Whenever you hear an expert on CNN… they're coming from this idea that markets are prime and everything else follows.… These kinds of [heterodox] ideas are not in the public domain.”—Jamee Moudud

• Professional Training: U.S. economics education rarely requires history, reinforcing the sense of markets as timeless rather than constructed.

---

9. Europe vs. the U.S. and Constitutional Consequences (48:38–52:38)

• Long Tradition of Municipal Socialism in U.S.: Sewer socialism, New Deal, progressive taxes—much of this history is hidden from the mainstream discourse.
• Postwar Europe: After WWII, European constitutions embedded social and economic rights as bulwarks against fascism; the U.S. constitution, as a “first generation” document, lacks these explicit commitments.

  “Reducing inequality, embedding social and economic rights… super important as an insulation, at least to some extent, against a repetition of those horrors.” —Jamee Moudud (51:00)

---

10. Relative versus Absolute Gains and Social Costs (52:38–54:42)

• Market Activity: Increases total wealth but also creates social costs.

  “Market activity does generate enormous social wealth, but also enormous social costs. And so then…how to reduce social costs?” —Jamee Moudud (54:42)

---

Notable Quotes and Moments

• On Rent Control and Policy Limits:

  “If by that logic, then we shouldn’t have ever done anything anyways... There is going to be opposition.” —Jamee Moudud (45:00)

• On Teaching Economics:

  “If you just present neoclassical economics as ‘economics,’ you leave out any possibility of even understanding the world.” —Jamee Moudud (27:59)

• Joe on the Changing Role of Economists:

  “The toolkit does not entirely exist in economics to solve problems that on paper, look economic.” (57:14)

• On Politics and Economics:

  “The economy itself did not spring forth from the universe. It’s a human construction ... that's a political reality.” —Tracy Alloway (56:54–57:14)

---

Key Timestamps for Major Segments

| Timestamp | Topic/Quote | |----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------| | 03:02 | Economists’ disdain for rent control—beginning the heterodoxy thread | | 07:20–09:52 | Adam Smith and the foundations of classical vs. neoclassical economics | | 16:15–18:17 | The mathematical turn in economics, “idiot savants”, and loss of connection with reality | | 23:26 | Taxes on billionaires and the collapse myth | | 29:25–32:00 | Critique of “market failure” as a concept—pollution, law, and property rights | | 42:14 | Political impediments are constant—using history to push change | | 46:11 | Compassionate rent policy—tax credits for small landlords | | 48:38–52:38 | US vs. Europe: constitutions, welfare states, and public memory | | 52:38–54:42 | Markets create both wealth and social costs—how to frame policy responses | | 56:54–57:14 | The deeply political nature of economic systems—Tracy’s summary |

---

Conclusion & Takeaways

• Economics is Never Apolitical: Moudud urges listeners to recognize that “the market” is always shaped by law and politics. Even supposedly “neutral” policies arise from contests of power and institutional design.
• Orthodoxy is Contingent: The dominance of neoclassical thinking is the product of specific historical, political, and institutional developments, not some immutable truth.
• The Case for Heterodoxy: Zohranomics (and similar approaches) are not unprecedented or irrational—they draw on traditions in political economy long obscured by the rise of mathematical, deductive economics.
• Policy Design is Nuanced: Good policy isn't just about choosing “intervention” or “non-intervention.” It’s about evidence, history, adaptation, and recognizing the ever-present role of law.

---

For Those Who Haven’t Listened:
This episode contextualizes the heated debate over interventionist policies in NYC with a rich exploration of the intellectual, historical, and political roots of economic theory. Jamee Moudud brings nuanced, evidence-based insight, stressing the importance of understanding economics not only as a set of formulas, but as a product of law, history, and continual negotiation.

---

Transcript

[Jami Modood]

Ukg. Their hr, pay and workforce management tools help business leaders empower their people. Because when work works, everything works. Learn [e-mail] work warning.

[Commercial Announcer]

This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Underage cell prohibited. Racetracks are like Zone nicotine pouches. We all have our favorites, whether you're a fan of mint, citrus, dragon fruit, or something more subtle. Zone offers a variety of flavors available in 6 and 9 milligrams. Get intensity and flavor that lasts with Zone. Get cans mailed right to your [e-mail] zone and use promo code RADIO20 for 20% off your zone purchase.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

I see you looking, looking at me hey, what's up?

[Jami Modood]

It's Wanda Sykes. I'm here to remind you about something super important. Getting your breast screen.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Because, trust me, your breast health should be a priority. Early detection for breast cancer can change

[Tracy Alloway]

the game, which is why you should

[Joe Wiesenthal]

visit YourAttentionPlease.com to learn more. And do me a favor, if you've already had a breast cancer screening, remind

[Tracy Alloway]

your friends and family to visit YourAttentionPlease.com too.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

We gotta look out for our girls. Bloomberg audio studios podcasts radio news foreign. Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Jill Weisenthal.

[Tracy Alloway]

And I'm Tracy alloway.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Tracy, it's January 28th, I think our new mayor here in New York City, I mean, he hasn't done much, but the snowstorm seemed to go fairly well. Not too many big disruptions.

[Tracy Alloway]

I wasn't here. But you were able to walk around, get out of your apartment.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

There have been several mayors whose like, entire reputation failed because they couldn't handle a snowstorm. And so he seems to have passed the first test. So it feels like a low bar

[Tracy Alloway]

for New York mayors, I gotta say.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

My guess is if we looked at. I agree, it is a low bar, but on the other hand, it's like, okay, first big test of the new administration seems to be doing well. I don't think, however, ultimately, the Zoran Mamdani administration will be judged on snow removal. Like, this is not going to be how history probably remembers how well.

[Tracy Alloway]

No. And he certainly wasn't elected on his snow removal.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

No, no, this is capabilities.

[Tracy Alloway]

Although I did see the videos of him, you know, getting his shovel out.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And he's so good at, like, retail politics. Like, that was like, he was so good at that.

[Jami Modood]

Yeah.

[Tracy Alloway]

But speaking of tests, I mean, there are bigger tests coming up. Right. Mostly concentrated in the economic policies here.

[Jami Modood]

Right.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

I think we know, like sort of. And of course we talked to him, but like the affordability question in New York City, clearly central, one of the, if the most central topic in the campaign. And what I would say is that the very most, not all of them, but at least a handful of the ideas that he has proposed are the types of ideas that, like economists hate them. Right. So especially anything where the government is intervening in rent. The idea of, like I. There might not be a more hated idea among economists than anything that smacks rent control or anything like that.

[Tracy Alloway]

Right. So I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to. To actual economic theory and how it's developed over time. But one thing I do know is that, you know, the sort of forerunner or ancestor of a lot of traditional economic theory that we see today, like neoclassical economic theory. Adam Smith.

[Jami Modood]

Right.

[Tracy Alloway]

Talking about like the free hand of the market and how if the market is functioning like, everything should be fine.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Right, yeah. And. And I think like economists even, like, you know, almost all but the most sort of true hardcore laissez faire fair economists would say that there are areas that, you know, they call it market failure. Right, right. There are certain situations in which maybe we can't expect markets to do the job. Maybe they'd say, like, oh, it really doesn't make sense to have like private fire departments, for example. Although some people actually do propose private fire departments. But yeah, you know, even the most sort of, like true believers sort of liberal or neoclassical economics, they're like, oh, yeah, well, there are market failures.

[Tracy Alloway]

Right. In which case the government should.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And then there is a role, but only in failure, that unless that you, like, define some areas, like, okay, there's a reason why markets don't work for this particular area, but that after then sandboxing a few of those things, then it's like, okay, as much as possible, you just wanna.

[Tracy Alloway]

You wanna let them out, don't interfere.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Let the price signals do their work. Yeah.

[Tracy Alloway]

So this has become, I guess, the orthodoxy.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah.

[Tracy Alloway]

And Mamdani is very much in the.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

The heterodox.

[Tracy Alloway]

The heterodox, yeah, that's a word that always comes up when people are talking about. Well, when economists are talking about policies that they don'.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

That's right. It's a euphemism for policies that they're like. Although at least a handful of people wear that badge. But like these history. How did they become the orthodoxy, et cetera. Right. Like, it's not like the law of gravity.

[Tracy Alloway]

Right.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Or that the earth is round, which are orthodox ideas. For a good reason. There are some people who don't believe that the earth is round, but they're like, I think we, it's pretty good. We have good reason to believe it. And there are the people who don't believe that they're the round. They're not heterodox, they're cranks. Right, right. Like, that's like, there's sort of a difference. Those are cranks. And so. But where do these orthodoxies emerge from? How did some ideas get shunted into the category of heterodoxy or whatever and

[Tracy Alloway]

how did they evolve?

[Joe Wiesenthal]

I have no idea. Like, I mean, I've read a little bit about the past, but this is not much, I don't know much about this.

[Tracy Alloway]

We should talk about it.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

We should. Especially because our new mayor may in fact pursue some heterodox ideas about economic management. Anyway, I'm very excited to say we really do have the perfect guest. We're going to be speaking with Jami Modood. He is a professor of economics at Sarah Lawrence College, also a board member of the Law and Political Economy Collective, and he's written a lot about these topics, including sort of the intellectual history of some of these economic ideas. So, Jamie, thank you so much for coming on odd lots.

[Jami Modood]

Thank you so much. Joe and Tracy, what kind of stuff

[Joe Wiesenthal]

are you teaching the kids at Sarah Lawrence these days?

[Jami Modood]

So the interesting thing is I teach Introduction to Economic Theory and Policy, which is a year long lecture and that actually deals with some of these central questions, markets, money, the monetary system and so on. And I actually teach econometrics.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

When you say actually it's because people don't expect this sort of unorthodox thinker to actually do the numbers, the technical stuff.

[Jami Modood]

So it's interesting that you pose it that way because one of the things that I do teach in econometrics is method. It's not just about number crunching, but where do you get the numbers from? And so like weaving in these questions of method as we're trying to understand social and economic reality is it makes for a solid training in economics. And, you know, so those questions of method woven into the construction of theory. Yeah, that kind of informs the way I teach and why that matters. Not just as kind of an intellectual exercise, but why that matters for practical issues like what you guys were talking about.

[Tracy Alloway]

So truly the perfect guess.

[Jami Modood]

Yes.

[Tracy Alloway]

Maybe just to begin with, we could perhaps define our terms a little bit. You know, Joe and I gave a probably terrible summary of neoclassical economic thought. But in your mind, what is the orthodoxy.

[Jami Modood]

So the orthodoxy is neoclassical economics. It comes from an intellectual tradition which. So if I may differ a little bit with what you say about Adam Smith. Adam Smith is not the forerunner of neoclassical economics. The expression invisible hand. In fact, I have my students do this experiment every time because it's an 800 page book. The wealth of Nations. How many times does the expression invisible hand appear there? Once. So the point here is that there was an older idea of what markets and of capitalism are and that gets revived again in the 1920s and 30s and I'll talk about that later. But that older idea, which is called classical political economy, did not make any assumptions about human behavior, that human beings are inherently rational, that markets behave in this optimal manner at full employment. That would be neoclassical economics. Right? That knowledge is more or less a perfect. There was none of that you're talking

[Joe Wiesenthal]

about in the classical economics prior to neoclassical. Exactly what years and what thinkers are we talking about?

[Jami Modood]

We could just talk about Adam Smith.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Okay. Oh yeah, great.

[Jami Modood]

To some extent. David Ricardo, Karl Marx, the physiocrats. I mean, so you had a range of authors in a wide range who ideologically, not necessarily on the same page, but they had a vision of capitalism which. So the original name of economics was political economy. And that meant that you cannot really talk about economic questions without thinking simultaneously about politics. And many of these folks were actually trained in law. So the question of law's role in structuring the economy, this kind of lurks in that intellectual tradition. And one of the implications was that the economy is not some natural trans historical institution or thing, but it's profoundly a product of history. And I think that's where the big split arises. Because if you teach or if you study neoclassical economics, it is taught in a way by which the economy is treated as something eternal, as something almost in naturalistic terms.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And therefore, like gravity.

[Tracy Alloway]

Like gravity, the economy is always there.

[Jami Modood]

Exactly. But also like the rational individual, general equilibrium theory, all of these things are supposedly just happen. And in that sense, this idea of laissez faire, that the economy is fundamentally pre political, that it arises before politics, rather like the kernel of a walnut, in which the walnut which is the shell is if you think is constitutional law or politics, or law that emanates from politics that would encase this thing called the economy. And only under extreme sense of this neoclassical economics, if there is market failure, then the state can step in a little bit to do this, that or the other, but fundamentally leave the market be. And you're familiar with this argument this idea is not really there in Smith. And one of the things that people sometimes get surprised about, and I always tell this to my students, is read his chapter on wages in the wealth of nations, and he says very clearly that there is a difference in power between those who own property and workers who don't own property. So this idea that the market is sort of this place where equals meet to create contracts, that was not in Smith. It was not in Ricardo. And of course, you know, that was not there in Marx. But people. If you evoke Marx, then people often say, well, you talk about socialism. Well, but Smith was not a socialist.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

What was his idea?

[Tracy Alloway]

Like?

[Joe Wiesenthal]

What was his contribution? Or I admit, like, I'm like, guilty too. It's like, oh, Adam Smith, invisible hand, the butcher, butcher, blah, blah, blah. But I have been told, and I have heard that this sort of caricature that we all have of Smith is wrong. What was his project?

[Jami Modood]

So I think the way to think about it is, you know, just to sort of get out something which I think is kind of important, which is institutions. Okay, now, there have been many different readings of Adam Smith, and so I'll come to that in a little bit. But just to get it out there, when you talk about institutions, you're talking about the system of implicit and explicit social constraints within which we exist, right? So we are having this spontaneous conversation, but in the context of a building which is subject to certain zoning laws and so on. And, you know, in current zoning laws, we cannot smoke, but we were.

[Tracy Alloway]

There are certain expectations involved in this,

[Jami Modood]

but those expectations are codified in a kind of a legal framework, right? So institutions, the formal institution is law, and informal institutions are cultural norms and notions of right and wrong and justice and all this. So Adam Smith, according to, I think, is a convincing strain of thought, was an institutionalist. He understood that, yes, the sphere of private behavior, private interactions, laissez faire, actually sits on a foundation which is of human creation. The system of property rights and the system, you know, the system of power relations and all of that. So politics was already there. It's not that the economy was pre political. Now, those ideas, if you read Adam Smith, his Glasgow University lecture, that was before the wealth of nations, it's very clear that he's writing that. But what happens is the rise of neoclassical economics in the late 19th century eviscerates that history, and it changes the story. The political goes out of a political economy and it becomes economics. So the principles of economics. And so then this generation of economists are trained to think of the economy as completely separate from politics, and that in the post war period. So that leads to what is called the Walrasian General equilibrium theory. And I'll be happy to explain that better.

[Tracy Alloway]

Yeah, can I just ask. I have so many questions already, but what was the environment that actually gave rise to the neoclassical movement?

[Jami Modood]

So this is really interesting because we are talking about the late 19th century and this is a time of enormous social turmoil.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Right.

[Jami Modood]

So to think that an idealized view of markets would arise when you've got the Great depression of the 1890s and

[Tracy Alloway]

then it goes through World War I and World War II.

[Jami Modood]

Yeah, yeah. But here's the funny thing that happens in this tradition. So what is interesting about American economics is that the American Economic association is founded by institutionalists, but institutionalists not of the neoclassical kind. So they were trained, these authors like Richard T. Eli and others, they were trained in the German historical school of economics. And the method of the German historical school of economics was that theory has to be constructed in dialogue with social reality. W.E.B. du Bois trains at Berlin. I didn't know that. But as a sociologist, and he brings that method to the study of racial inequalities in this country in which he's constructing a theory of race and class by looking at actually the living standards of black people in this country. Right. So it's a particular method that was not deductive, but it was inductive. It was engaging with social reality. So what happens is that when the AEA is constructed of American Economic association, these are institutionalists of that kind, and they come to dominate American economics right through the 1930s, informing many of these economists and lawyers who are part of Roosevelt's brains trust. Many of those folks were lawyers, but you had these folks who were trained in a way by which they were absolutely opposed to this idea that the economy is pre political. What happens in the 1940s is the war, and then you had the role. And so Philip Murawski discusses this in his book. He's a historian of economic thought, machine Dreams, in which he argues that economics eventually becomes dominated by mathematicians and engineers who kind of eviscerate society and politics and history and construct the economy as a machine populated by cyborgs. Right. Pre programmed. Rational.

[Tracy Alloway]

Perfectly rational.

[Jami Modood]

Exactly. All knowing, all seeing, et cetera, et cetera. And. And that way of conceptualizing economics eclipses this older tradition and in so doing becomes dominant in the 1950s and 60s. And in this way, it was very much a state project in the sense that these folks were employed at institutions that got a lot of money from the Department of Defense. So there was a very sort of an intellectual framework is being constructed about the economy in which many of these authors were very explicitly trying to model weapon systems, input output, that kind of thing. And that how do you optimize this input output system that the flying plane, how to shoot it down, et cetera. So the economy becomes this engine and becomes increasingly more and more mathematically sophisticated, but in so doing, divorce from social reality. In 1985, 86, the National Science foundation convened a symposium on the state of economics teaching in the top graduate schools. And they were extremely concerned about what was being taught. That led to the Commission on Graduate Education and Economics. It was a survey of the top graduate programs in economics. And the article in question was published in the Journal of Economic Literature. And it was pretty dismal because it was saying that these students are learning math econ, but they cannot apply this to social reality. And the conclusion was quite interesting. They said the concern is that the profession is training idiots, savants. That was an exact term in the J E L article.

[Tracy Alloway]

It's not the worst thing that's ever been said about economists.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah, that's true. That's true.

[Jami Modood]

So this issue of the way by which the discipline itself has sort of captured the narrative in which math becomes rigor as opposed to history and society. And so then government intervention and non intervention become the sort of flashpoints of the fight. But it's a false debate, I would argue. UKG their HR pay and workforce management

[Commercial Announcer]

tools help business leaders empower their people.

[Jami Modood]

Because when work works, everything works. Learn [e-mail] work warning.

[Commercial Announcer]

This product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Underage sale prohibited. Golf courses are like Zone nicotine pouches. We all have our favorites, whether you're a fan of mint, citrus, dragon fruit or something more subtle. Zone offers a variety of flavors available in 6 and 9 milligrams. Get intensity and flavor that lasts with Zone, get cans mailed right to your [e-mail] zone and use promo code RADIO20 for 20% off your zone purchase.

[Jami Modood]

The world is transforming faster than ever, and standing still isn't an option. At Oppenheimer, we're working at the forefront of the innovation economy to invest where progress begins. Finding opportunities that build and protect wealth for individuals and institutions that want a seat at the edge of tomorrow. Put the power of Oppenheimer thinking to work for you. Wealth management, capital markets, investment banking.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Can we talk a little bit more about the post war Environment coming out of the 1940s. My impulse, I feel like if I were there, it's like, you know, governments can be absolute monsters. Right.

[Jami Modood]

And you're talking about the McCarthy.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

No, I'm talking about the rise of militaristic dictators all around the world. True, like, true. These sort of like monstrous creations. Of course the first half of the 20th century was like characterized by the rise of like with strong industrial policies. My impulse, like, I think if I had been around in the 1940, I was like, oh, we need to like come up with an economics that constrains the state as much as possible because we've just witnessed how the state can be absolutely monstrous and destructive. And of course right before that is the Great Depression, et cetera. Like, I don't know, I just, in my mind I would have a lot of sympathy for that view at the time.

[Jami Modood]

Sure. Here's the thing though. So this, I discussed this in one of the chapters in my book and I had a lot of fun writing about this, is that if you look at post second World War European reconstruction, it involved, it's not less affairs, not at all. It involved industrial and social policies, right? The mobilization of central banks. And actually the US Congress had two studies done on European Central Bank's role in mobilizing finance and credit to promote industrial and social policies. The reconstruction, building of hospitals, et cetera, et cetera, and the export economies in France and Germany and so on. So you did have pretty strong state, but these were social democratic states. And this is an important point. So for example, the bank of France is nationalized in 1945 or 44. And the National Credit Council, which is at the core of the BoF, has in it different constituents of French society, unions, employers, farmers and so on, who are sort of involved in planning the allocation of credit to different sectors of society. Across the border in Germany you have the kfw, which is a public bank again with different stakeholders, including unions. And they are involved in sort of the economic and social reconstruction through credit allocation. But these were democratic states. I hear you, but in the sense that for sure you can have industrial policy of a type which is consistent with authoritarianism, and all of us would be opposed to authoritarianism. But there was industrial policy of a social democratic kind also. And we have plenty of examples of those just from post war Europe.

[Tracy Alloway]

So just to better understand, maybe we could apply some of the theory to current economic policies. When you look at Mamdani's agenda, you know, things like freeze on rent or I think right now the hot topic is attacks on billionaires.

[Jami Modood]

Right.

[Tracy Alloway]

How does that fit into the intellectual history of economics? And I guess how heterodox is it versus the orthodoxy that we've been talking about?

[Jami Modood]

Well, I mean it's, it's, it's a, it's a big question in the sense that I can answer it in two, two ways. One is the narrative that this is going to tank the economy. So let's just talk about the tax part. Let's just get that out of the way. This small increase in the billionaire stock is going to tank the economy. And my responses were, geez, then capitalism would have been dead a long time ago because the 16th Amendment would have killed American capitalism.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Wait, remind, what's the, is that the one that gave the federal government the ability to.

[Jami Modood]

Well, that was the 16th amendment really legalized income taxes. Right. And so if you look at, across the western world, like in the US tax rates were actually much more progressive. In the, as you know, in the 50s and 60s, other countries had this growth of more progressive taxes, Britain and France and so on. None of that led to the collapse of capitalism.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And the many people say those were the golden ages of capitalism.

[Jami Modood]

Okay. So the question really is not the tax per se, but what is it being used for? And. Right, and so that's a separate conversation, but is that necessarily, is that contrary to orthodoxy? And yes, in a way it is because it comes back to this idea that analytically, I mean, every textbook will tell you, well, you've got this self contained black box called the economy, which equilibrates at general equilibrium, the production possibility, frontier, Pareto optimality, all these sort of aspects of orthodoxy. So any act of state intervention into it will automatically generate some negative outcomes. Right. So from that standpoint, I would say that it is profoundly opposed to the orthodoxy, this way of thinking about it. But if we think of the orthodoxy as a touchstone or as a gold standard, then of course you would say, well, these are outlandish ideas, but if you don't fall into that. And then you would say, well yeah, but this has been done. So what is so weird about it?

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Can we go back? I want to talk more about the present tense. But we can't just like jump over the war completely without a. You have, you've already talked about reconstruction. No, no, no, no. But sorry, I want to go back to the war, not reconstruction. You're reading or you did read Wages of Destruction.

[Tracy Alloway]

Right. Which is why I mentioned, I mean, German industrial policy.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

But it occurs to me there's Something I think is very interesting and I think about it a lot, and I'd love your take on this. Like, if we hear like someone is an economist these days, right, they come up with a bunch of big ideas, they have theories and they run tests and write papers and try to influence. But when you think of the economists in the Department of War, in whatever country was fighting at the time, et cetera, it seemed like a more humble profession in the sense a lot of the jobs seem to just be counting, not even advanced mathematics per se, but the job seemed to be a sort of very. The people who keep track of the resources within the economy. And those were the economists, which sounds to me very different than the picture that we would often get in our head today. If you hear that someone is an economist, is that fair? Is that a fair understanding of history?

[Jami Modood]

I'm not sure that I agree.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Okay, that's fine.

[Jami Modood]

Because I think that, I mean, in some sense there's truth to what you're saying, because a lot of these economists who were involved in war planning, that's exactly what they were doing. I mean, you know. Yeah, they were actually. But they were actually doing math modeling. I mean, the whole mathematization of post war, you know, math econ. I mean, all of that really came from, like, sophisticated mathematical models. So it did come from that. But I think maybe what you might be getting at over here. But you know, just tell me what you're trying to say about this. What I'm hearing is that this notion that the economy is an engine and the economist is like this technician who's just like tinkering around with things, right? And I think this idea. And so that's how the economist is kind of constructing this engine, as opposed to an economist who is actually attempting to fix the engine, but also trying to see what the component parts are built. In other words, society. This is history.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

I'm going to take what you said and make it what I meant to say.

[Jami Modood]

Okay.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Because I'm going to.

[Tracy Alloway]

That's cheating, Jack.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

That's what I meant. Oh, that's exactly how I meant to put it. Okay, thank you for validating my perspective on this.

[Jami Modood]

Okay. And I think those reflect two very rival methodologies.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Okay.

[Jami Modood]

So I think that one of the things that so often gets missed out in the teaching of economics and in the learning of economics is that the students don't learn methods. They could say that. I mean, a textbook should say, okay, this is neoclassical economics. Here is a method that is used, and here is this alternative call it whatever you like to. I generally don't use heterodox economics. I say critical political economy or you know, that kind of thing. It employs a different method and here's why it matters. Now if you just do like spend a few chapters on that, that already sets the stage for an intelligent conversation. But if you don't do that, and it's just that this is economics, then what happens is it kind of leaves out any possibility of even understanding the world. Right? So the Chinese economic miracle, the Japanese economic miracle, those are seen as somehow, I don't know, that they were cheating. Right, right. This notion that these countries were cheating as opposed to saying, well, they use, no, they use industrial policy of a certain kind. So did Sweden of a different kind in the post war period. And can we learn something from that? Theoretically? And what does that say about the relationship between politics and economics? Which is exactly where we started out with. And I think that's the way the conversation should go.

[Tracy Alloway]

Can you just remind me very quickly, but how does neoclassical economics actually explain the fact that we do have market failures? Right? Because in theory, if the market is perfectly functioning and always generating an optimal outcome, always at equilibrium between supply and demand or whatever, they shouldn't be happening, right? And yet throughout history we have market failures all the time.

[Jami Modood]

So that's the way where I would say that market failures don't actually exist. Because think about one instance of what is often characterized as market failure. Pollution. Now pollution is ubiquitous. I mean, any act of production involves inputs of raw materials which are extracted from somewhere. Then you've got a physical chemical process, out comes an output and it could be an intangible output, it could be the output from your computer, right? And then there's waste, there's pollution. So now if pollution and waste are ubiquitous and if market failures are ubiquitous, then they're not market failures. Logically, they are the legal design or the property rights that enabled the owner of the factory to actually dump chemical waste. Or for Google to take your. And my private data, right? That brings you straight back to the fact that the social cost that industry can inflict depends on the legal design of industry. So before the National Environmental Policy act of 69, industry had far greater leeway to dump more chemical waste than after that. So I would just say that, yeah, I think we need to move away from this notion of market failure. And then, you know, so that's the usual debate. Well, okay, so you've got market failure. Then do we want state intervention or not? And I argue in the book that that's a bit of like a family debate between liberals and conservatives because both sides agree that there's market failure. And then one side said, well, we should probably not have state intervention. And the other side says the opposite. My point is there are always social costs and politics through the law is going to be structuring the composition and level of those costs. And so I think that's where the conversation I think should go to.

[Tracy Alloway]

So it's a political decision about which costs to minimize or avoid versus an economic cost.

[Jami Modood]

Yeah, I mean it's always been that. And that's where I think in that sense, if you come back to issues of affordability and such, I would say that if you let housing prices be whatever they are so that people lose their homes, that's as much a political structure ring of real estate as otherwise. You see what I'm saying? Sure. Yeah. So it's not any which way politics is there. The question is who's benefiting and who's losing. This is, I think for me this is the question.

[Commercial Announcer]

Warning this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Underage cell, prohibited racetracks are like Zone nicotine pouches. We all have our favorites. Whether you're a fan of mint, citrus, dragon fruit or something more subtle. Zone offers a variety of flavors available in 6 and 9 milligrams. Get intensity and flavor that lasts With Zone get cans mailed right to your [e-mail] zone and use promo code RADIO20 for 20% off your zone purchase.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

We believe in starting with your financial goals, not a formula. At Oppenheimer we put the full strength of our long standing expertise to work understanding your life and your ambitions and designing the precise strategies that build and protect your wealth. With confidence across this generation and the next. Put the power of Oppenheimer thinking to work for you. Wealth management, capital markets, investment banking.

[Commercial Announcer]

Support for the show comes from Public, the investing platform for those who take it seriously. On public, you can build a multi asset portfolio of stocks, bonds, options, crypto and now generated assets which allow you to turn any idea into an investable index. With AI, it all starts with your prompt. From renewable energy companies with high free cash flow to semiconductor suppliers growing revenue over 20% year over year. You can literally type any prompt and put the AI to work. It screens thousands of stocks, builds a one of a kind index and lets you back test it against the S&P 500. Then you can invest in a few clicks. Generated assets are like ETFs with infinite possibilities, completely Customizable and based on your thesis, not someone else's. Go to public.com podcast and earn an uncapped 1% bonus when you transfer your portfolio. That's public.com podcast paid for by Public Investing Brokerage Services by Open to the Public Investing Inc. Member FINRA and SIPC Advisory Services by Public Advisors llc. SEC Registered Advisor Generated Assets is an interactive analysis tool. Output is for informational purposes only and is not an investment recommendation or advice. Complete disclosures [e-mail] disclosures okay, so there

[Joe Wiesenthal]

are some things where markets work very well. Right. You know, if we want to have really good bagels, then there's a good chance that like a good way to get there is you have a lot of bakery entrepreneurs.

[Jami Modood]

Absolutely.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And they're competing on price and quality and so forth, et cetera.

[Jami Modood]

Sure.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

But then they're going to emit waste. So let's just go back to the pollution example in the process. And we say like, okay, the market worked really well in the creation of the bagel. But we have this problem which is that they're creating. They're creating waste that has to be solved. And even that's benign. You know, it's like, of course anyone is. But there's going to be some waste involved. Even it's not the most polluting thing. So we need some sort of like, okay, so then the neoclassical economics. Yeah, there's market failure. This is why we have. We have to have a public. The sanitation workers. Right. Because otherwise they'd all just be dumping it out on the street. And so, okay, so we have public sanitation workers. You reframe this and you're like, no, market failure isn't the right way to think about it. It's endemic to production. It's part of how market works. It's not failure. What do we then do with this information? So that we know we no longer conceive of these sort of like edge cases of mostly markets work or frequently markets can work. But then you get market failures. You flip this entire thing on the head and like, market failures are not a useful thing. Okay, we accept that premise. Then what do we do with that new. We have this new lens and then what do we see?

[Jami Modood]

Some of those social costs would need to be internalized, in other words, as they always have been throughout the history of capitalism. Again, so this is not just an arbitrary statement. But if you look at throughout the history of capitalism, this Janus faced nature of capitalist activity, wealth creation on the one hand, and social costs on the other hand. And then in various moments in time, some of those social costs were extremely high in terms of the rates charged on something on the other Munvie, Illinois, 1877 landmark Supreme Court case came out of the Interstate Commerce Act Commission, which put caps on railroads and on grain elevators. Because what was happening was that the farmers were storing, they were charging extremely. They were being charged extremely high rates by grain storage, elevators and railroads. And what was happening was the price for food was rising. So the Illinois state legislature put a cap on that went up to the Supreme Court. And so there was this whole idea, and the Supreme Court ruled in favor of price caps on these rates charge because they said, well, this is of social importance. Food should be affordable. There's a very long history of this in American constitutional history that is basically exemplifying the basic point that at some points and in various points, some of these social costs were deemed too high. And then in some way they had to either be internalized or maybe smaller businesses could not internalize some of these costs. Okay, give them some kind of a tax credit. You see what I'm saying? There's intelligent ways of thinking about public policy. So Mamdani's policies, whatever they may be, they may affect, I don't know, smaller businesses differently from a larger one. So the ones that have less cash flow, they can get a tax credit as a write off, right? I mean, you can think about all of these kinds of policies. At least that's the way I think about it in practical terms.

[Tracy Alloway]

I'm trying to think how to frame this question, and I probably won't get it right, but here goes. We've been doing a lot of episodes on Venezuela recently. And so if I think about some famous heterodox economic policy that perhaps went kind of wrong, that would be a good example. When you're thinking of designing actual economic policy, if you're doing it prioritizing politics or on a political basis, and you don't have that sort of scientific rational framework that is so endemic in neoclassical thought. Does that help you design policy? Is that a useful framework for you?

[Jami Modood]

I guess the question is what defines science? So the way, for example, the institutional economists that I was talking about, the way they designed policy was on the basis of theory that was evidence based, social reality, historical reality, court cases, this kind of thing. Neoclassical economics doesn't do policy that way though, or theory. It's deductive, it assumes so it's constructing this model on the basis of no evidence. So neoclassical economics on the basis of

[Tracy Alloway]

a reality that does not in Fact exist.

[Jami Modood]

Exactly. Thank you for putting it that way, because that already exemplifies the problem, which is that how on earth are you designing a policy based on a theory for which you have. Which has not been subjected to any kind of theoretical, any kind of intellectual engagement with reality? In the wake of the financial crisis of 2007, 2008, when prominent neoclassical economists were asked, wait a second, are you now going to rethink your models? Because this should not have happened per the neoclassical framework, they said, no. And I think that's the problem here, that policy is being designed in this particular way on the basis of theory of this nature. But if you bring in a more engaged way of thinking about policy and politics, then the nature of the politics matters. I mean, who. Who you know, is it an authoritarian state? Is it a democratic state? So I don't like authoritarianism.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Sure.

[Jami Modood]

So I think policy should reflect theory on the basis of democratic principles in some. In a broad sense.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

You know, going back to the contemporary debates about housing in New York City right now, and there are others who might buy exactly what you're saying at the conceptual lens, and they would say, you know what? Jami is completely correct about everything. The problem is that existing politics have made it too hard to build. The problem is that existing politics have made it so that we're paying too much for labor, et cetera. The problem is that existing landlords control, have too much influence and are constraining the building of new. It strikes me as there are many versions of your framework that to take it to specific policies that don't necessarily lead to. And therefore rent control is okay. That you could say, look, there's. Our current system is riven with politics and that the way to engage democratically and the way to think about this is we need to liberalize. The solution to affordability is getting rid of some of these zoning laws, et cetera. It seems to me like that you could agree with sort of your conceptualization of some of these challenges and yet still arrive at very different outcomes in terms of a policy response. In fact, Zoran himself may even agree with that, because we know that he is more liberal than, say, many on the left when it comes to the role of private capital for developing new housing.

[Jami Modood]

Okay. So my response is that if we. This is true, first of all, to concede. I think in any kind of a discussion, you concede what the other person is saying. And this is true about the sort of impediments of current politics and power structures, this and the other. But that's always been the case. It's always been the case. And so, like, if we thought of that as the supreme impediment to actually making things better, then we would have abandoned society, would have abandoned any attempts to, let's say, have safer cars. Sure, because the automobile industry fought tooth and nail against seat belts for decades, making them safer, you know, the whole design of cars. So the point here is, it's not as though that proposing a policy implies that you wave a magic wand and it just happens there are going to be insuperable problems and there's going to be impediments, but that's always been the case. That doesn't mean that, you know, you cannot lose track of the fact that lack of affordability in this country and elsewhere in the world has seriously eroded democracy, as we know, and has fueled authoritarian politics. There's a clear relationship here between economic insecurity and authoritarianism, undeniably.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Just to press further on this, however. So one of the things that the housing people love to say is that there was a rule change several years ago, ironically, it was under the Cuomo administration, there was a rule change that made it harder for landlords to raise the rent of a rent stabilized building. And after the tenant left and then so then the new tenant comes in, they like can't move it up by much. Meanwhile, we have inflation. And so we have this effect, at least according to many housing people, where a lot of supply has been taken off the market because they can't raise the rent, the law prevents them from raising the rent and their maintenance costs have gone up. And so like, these are no longer economical to run right now. Again, like, my point is not. They're right, they're wrong, whatever. My point is that all of this could be true and all of this framework can be very helpful, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that Zoron is right to, to take a stronger line on what you can just do by fiat in terms of price constraints.

[Jami Modood]

Well, I, you know, yeah, it does. I mean, I think, I would disagree.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Okay, great.

[Jami Modood]

Because I think that if by that logic, then we shouldn't have ever done anything anyways, right? So we could have, you know, so for example, opposition. I mean, so like sort of moving this sort of the discussion a little bit away from housing. But let's say to taxation, right? We were talking about taxation earlier on. There was massive opposition during the Gilded Age that if you have progressive taxation, if you even have the 16th amendment, this is going to destroy the whole Society. And so the struggles in that Gilded Age period which ultimately led to the 16th Amendment, exemplifies the point that. Yeah, I mean, there are going to be, There is going to be opposition.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

So just. Well, then what is the limiting principle? Or maybe you say, okay, there are different methods to doing economics and you say the new classicals of one method and other people of other methods. How do we know? Like, okay, let's say we want to impose more stringent caps on how much you can raise rent. We don't know. It could go well and it could go bad. Right. I assume you would agree that there are ways to do this very badly.

[Jami Modood]

Yeah, of course.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

So what are the methods that we could employ that the neoclassicals are blind to, such that we can get this policy?

[Jami Modood]

We could, for example, provide. So for the smaller landlords, the ones or the less main or the ones who are, they don't have enough cash to fix the leaks, upkeep the building, that they could be given tax credits. Right. So that compensation for the rent control would be that. Okay, if you're a large real estate corporation and you've got lots of cash flow, then clearly you do have the cash flow to deal with the problems. But if you're a smaller landlord, then you could be given some kind of a tax credit, you could be given some kind of public subsidy that could deal with that kind of an issue. Which brings you straight back to the question of the public financing of all of this.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Right.

[Jami Modood]

So that's the way at least I would tentatively think about the issue since

[Tracy Alloway]

we've been talking about politics for basically this entire discussion. I want to talk about political realities for right now. What are the constraints that have prevented this kind of heterodox policy from becoming the norm in a place like America?

[Jami Modood]

Well, that's a great question. And I think, I think the issue is that these kinds of ideas are not in the public domain. And so whenever you use the word economics, let's say it comes up, let's say, who are the experts who come say, let's say to cnn, they're already coming implicitly, even if they don't say it from this idea that markets are sort of prime and then everything else follows afterwards. So, I mean, in order to push back against that, you need to have more conversations about the discipline of the economy.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

I invited you on.

[Jami Modood]

Thank you for that. Thank you. I think that these kinds of conversations are helpful because at least it opens up the space for thinking about that. Well, I mean, okay, so when you're talking about foundational questions like the market economy. What exactly do you mean by that? And you know, so those are the kinds of questions, I think. So coming back to your question, that's an impediment, because if you're going to say that, well, I want to make some aspect of social services, I don't know, affordable or something, then you'll always come up to this impediment that, well, are you a state interventionist? Whereas this is the free market and that's the lingua franca. And that's the hard part of it, that to say that, well, okay, to push the conversation farther as opposed to saying, well, okay, if you think of markets in different ways, then it may be hard to make the change, but at least the market is not pre political. So for me, that's the problem.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

What's the basic gist of why Europe and the US from the historian perspective, sort of went different directions. And obviously the democratic socialist the democratic socialist tradition, obviously much more robust in Europe. I mean, it's never really, you know, it doesn't have as nearly as much history in the US Et cetera. Union's much more robust throughout Europe. How did that like, generally speaking, except for maybe like a couple decades, partly it just there's no any sort of like socialist tradition ever really took root in the US So first of all,

[Jami Modood]

we do have a long history of municipal socialism called sewer socialism in this country. I mean, so there's, you know, of, so, you know, in other words, you know, a lot has been written actually that what Mamdani is doing here, it's actually pretty there's a long history behind that. Gale Radford has written about this, a historian, I think the issue is and so that's the first point. The second point is that if you look at and this comes back, I think, Tracy, to your question, which is that in the public discourse, we don't know, there's a kind of an idea that the New Deal was an outlier and therefore we need to basically go back to some pre New Deal, romanticize small government. You know, Steve Bannon makes this kind of that's why the attack against the administrative state is premised on this. The problem is that many legal historians and legal economic historians have pointed out this is not true, that the US Developed a very robust developmental state in the Reconstruction period. So there's a really a lot of history there that is not part of the public domain and the discourse on economics, because the teaching of economics does not require students to actually require not as an elective, but require them to actually read economic history in most places in their training. So they don't know the history. And so this new notion of the market prevails and then they don't know their own history. I don't think that's any different in Europe and we can talk about that. But there are interesting issues here. So for example, the American, historically, the American taxation system was much more progressive than in Europe.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah, right.

[Jami Modood]

So there is that. But I think what happens in the post war period, post second World war period is that that kind of sent a jolt for a lot of people. And I think that kind of revived the left in some sense because fascism and there was a clear understanding that massive inequality was one of the ingredients of the rise of fascist movements in the 1920s and 30s. And so reducing inequality, embedding social and economic rights and constitutions, I'm thinking here with the German constitution, super important as a kind of insulation, at least to some extent against a repetition of those horrors. So this created a kind of a different social model based on these progressive constitutions. We haven't had that our Constitution is a first generation constitution. And in that way there are no explicit commitments to economic and social rights, human dignity. The expression, I don't think appears in the US Constitution. It does appear in a lot of these European constitutions. And that matters. You have the rights of personhood, the 14th Amendment, but you know very well that how that's been weaponized for corporate personhood and so on. That's I think, part of the story as to why the welfare state has been somewhat more robust. Though it's also seen fractures in Europe than here, where that has not been the case. We're still stuck with this constitution, which at least in my view is not a very good constitution.

[Tracy Alloway]

I wasn't expecting constitutional analysis to come into this conversation, but I think it does illustrate your point about the intertwining of politics and the economy. Can I ask one more thing? And maybe it doesn't even make sense or fit into this conversation, but when I think about laissez faire markets or economics, there seems to be an emphasis on absolute gains. So positive sum outcomes where it, you know, two countries start trading with each other, guns and butter, whatever, both the countries are better off. It doesn't matter how much better off they are relative to each other. When we think about heterodox economics and the importance of politics, are we basically saying that every policy decision the emphasis is much more on relative gains versus absolute gains?

[Jami Modood]

I'm not aware of that, Tracey, at least not from my standpoint. I do think that markets and the sort of private initiatives in markets that does generate wealth. I mean, you go back to Smith, he says that. So in that sense it's true that market activity does generate enormous social wealth. Yes, it does. But what people tend to forget is that there's also a flip side to that, the social costs. And so we have to then think about, okay, can we somehow how do we reduce some of those social costs in terms of affordability or pollution or climate crisis? That's, I think, saying that, okay, markets are great, but what are they sort of embedded on that infrastructure that I was talking about that is sort of leading to massive emissions of greenhouse gases? I mean, that's clearly unsustainable and we all know that. So I feel like I don't know that I would necessarily think about it in terms of positive or negative sum gains. I would just say that market activity does generate rate enormous social wealth, but also enormous social costs. And so then that's where I think the conversation has to go to how to reduce our social costs.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Jami Modud, thank you so much for it's really fascinating conversation. Appreciate your time.

[Jami Modood]

Okay,

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Tracy, we should do more intellectual history episodes. I really like that topic. I don't know, like, I think I'm

[Tracy Alloway]

still scarred from doing international relations at college. And whenever someone talks about intellectual histories of particular theories, I kind of, I get nervous.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Let's just make the whole. I, I'd be down to make the whole podcast that. No, I do think this is like, really interesting. Look, I think this is a very timely conversation because one thing, you know, he mentioned Bannon there at the end. One thing that I feel is that regardless of where many people are on the political spectrum these days, there seems to be a deep intuition that many people have about the corrosive effects of society on inequality or the corrosive effects of inequality on, on society. And I thought your question was really good, which is like many people, economists could say, like, look, you're better off too in this relationship, you Uber driver. Like, maybe you feel that you're. Maybe people find it to not be great work, but the alternative is nothing or whatever.

[Tracy Alloway]

You're not a billionaire, but at least you're employed.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

You're employed, right? And this is something. And a lot of people say, look, everyone is on paper or maybe even in reality better off from this set of transactions, right? But then it aggregates up to something that I think people find to be very destabilizing Right.

[Tracy Alloway]

So intuitively, a lot of people seem unhappy with their current situation.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

So the transaction makes everyone happier in the micro sense. But then when everyone, when it all scales out, this sort of like, deep inequality, who has the means to create, who has the ability to like, actually do something, who is just sort of. Who is not in that position. I think it feels very, again, destabilizing.

[Tracy Alloway]

Yeah, I do think. I mean, to Jami's point, like, it. It does feel like so much of it just boils down to politics. Right?

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah. Right.

[Tracy Alloway]

Like the economy itself, to go back to how we began, this conversation did not spring forth from the universe. It was. It's a human construction and we put a lot of thought and effort into how it actually works. And that's a political. That. That's.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah, it's a political reality.

[Tracy Alloway]

That's a political reality.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah. And like, you know, we could talk all this stuff and like, the contrast with Chinese industri policy, I think, is very helpful for two reasons. One is, okay, you can look at various things and say, well, this is actually very effective and there is a role for the public sector and so forth, but it's like we're all at each other's throats, right? Then you're never going to have any, like, hope of, like, operationalizing these ideas. And this is why I've said this before. Like, I feel like there are certain societal problems that truly, like, precede economics. The. The toolkit does not entirely exist in economics to solve problems that on paper, look economic.

[Tracy Alloway]

Right. This, I think, is important because in the neoclassical perspective, so everything springs from the economy and the focus is on the economy itself. Meanwhile, as a society, you might want to prioritize different outcomes. Like, maybe we should all be happy. I would like to prioritize everyone's happiness. And to your point, if we're all focused on relative gains, if free market capitalism is increasing inequality, then that might not necessarily do that.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

We should prioritize everyone getting off their devices and reading. And then I think we'll have touch grass. We'll have better outcomes.

[Tracy Alloway]

Yeah, we're getting dangerously close to like, talking about Bhutan and National.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah, but, you know, we gotta debunk. I've read some pretty.

[Tracy Alloway]

Yeah, I know, I know. That's why we should stop. Shall we leave it there?

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Yeah, let's leave it there.

[Tracy Alloway]

All right. This has been another episode of the Odd Lots podcast. I'm Tracy Alloway. You can follow me at Tracy Alloway.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

And I'm Joe Wiesenthal. You can follow me at thestalworks. Follow our producers Carmen Rodriguez at carmenarmandasho, Bennett at Dashbot and Kalebrooks at Kalebrooks and for more Odd Lots content go to bloomberg.com oddlots or the Daily newsletter and all of our episodes and you can chat about all of these topics 24. 7 in our Discord, Discord, GG Oddlots

[Tracy Alloway]

and if you enjoy Odd Lots, if you want us to do more episodes on the intellectual history of economics, then please leave us a positive review on your favorite question podcast platform. And remember, if you are a Bloomberg subscriber, you can listen to all of our episodes absolutely ad free. All you need to do is find the Bloomberg Channel on Apple Podcasts and follow the instructions there. Thanks for listening.

[Commercial Announcer]

Warning this product contains nicotine. Nicotine is an addictive chemical. Underage cell prohibited Racetracks are like Zone nicotine pouches. We all have our favorites. Whether you're a fan of mint, citrus, dragon fruit or something more subtle. Zone offers a variety of flavors available in 6 and 9 milligrams. Get intensity and flavor that lasts with Zone. Get cans mailed right to your [e-mail] zone and use promo code RADIO20 for 20% off your zone purchase. Pro drivers live for race day, but for small business owners, every day is race day. That's why Gulling Pro with Lenovo Pro matters one on one advice. IT solutions and customized hardware powered by Intel Core Ultra processors keep your business on the right track. Business goes pro with Lenovo Pro.

[Joe Wiesenthal]

Sign up for [e-mail] Pro Lenovo Lenovo

[Commercial Announcer]

Lego Star wars just made the jump to hyperspace Introducing the LEGO Smart Brick. New LEGO Star wars sets with smart bricks inspire your child's imagination, taking their play to uncharted regions of the galaxy with responsive lights, a color recognition scanner, a synthesizer, and an accelerometer, your child's play doesn't just come alive, it allows the LEGO Star wars galaxy to play back. May the Force be with you. Shop LEGO Star wars sets now on lego.com or in lego retail stores.