3623 - Trump's Epstein Email Problem; Anti-Trust Import to Socialists w/ Ryan Cooper

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder – Episode 3623

Trump’s Epstein Email Problem; Anti-Trust Import to Socialists w/ Ryan Cooper
Date: November 12, 2025

---

Overview

This episode of The Majority Report dives into two headline issues:

1. The newly released Jeffrey Epstein emails that name Donald Trump and shed light on his relationship with Epstein and the victims.
2. An in-depth discussion with Ryan Cooper (The American Prospect) on the intersection of socialism and antitrust policy, the risk of a government bailout for the AI sector, and the case for Chuck Schumer stepping down as Senate Majority Leader.

Sam Seder, with guest Ryan Cooper, breaks down these complex topics with sharp political analysis, historical context, and a healthy dose of irreverence.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Breaking News: Epstein Emails Link Trump to Victims

[06:27–19:00]

• House Oversight Committee Releases New Emails:

  • Democrats published emails written by Epstein that mention Trump by name and situate him directly in the context with victims, Ghislaine Maxwell, and author Michael Wolff, spanning roughly 15 years.
  • These documents were obtained via bipartisan subpoena of Epstein’s estate (per Kaitlan Collins, CNN [07:02]).

• Dissection of Key Emails:

  • April 2, 2011: Epstein to Ghislaine Maxwell: “I want you to realize that the dog that hasn’t barked is Trump. [Victim Name Redacted] spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, etc. I’m 75% there.”

    • Sam Seder: “Let’s be clear...there’s no way to read this where it doesn’t look like Donald Trump certainly knew what was going on.” [08:33]
    • The “dog that hasn’t barked” is explained as an idiom from Sherlock Holmes, meaning Trump’s silence is meaningful because he knew the people involved. [19:21]

  • December 15, 2015: Email between Epstein and Wolff as Trump enters the presidential race. Wolff discusses potential CNN questions about Trump’s relationship with Epstein.

    • Ryan Cooper: “Wolf wrote back, I think you should let him hang himself... If he says he hasn’t been on the plane or to the House, that gives you a valuable PR and political currency.”
    • Discussion points out oddness—why would denying visits be “currency” if the denial were true? [14:53]

  • January 31, 2019: Epstein to Wolff regarding Mar-a-Lago:

    • Epstein: “Trump said he asked me to resign. Never a member ever. Of course, he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop.”
    • Sam Seder: “If he knows that Ghislaine is getting [girls]...and he says 'stop,' he’s a real Bruce Wayne. Not 'never do that again,' but rather stop the ongoing thing you’re doing that I am aware of.” [16:22]

  • The emails paint a picture of Trump’s familiarity with Epstein’s activities, and possible complicity or willful ignorance.

• Political Implications:

  • The revelations are likely to place further pressure on House Republicans and the Senate regarding ongoing investigations and the possible release of the full Epstein files.
  • This may shake up alignments in the House, making it harder for Republican stragglers to avoid the issue. [19:00]
  • Emma Viglin: Highlights related investigative reporting on intelligence ties to Epstein by Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim (“drop site”). [18:49]

---

2. Interview: Ryan Cooper on the Socialist Case for Antitrust

[28:46–51:32]

• Origins of the Debate:

  • Seder and Cooper reference Matt Bruenig’s critique (in response to Barry Lynn’s book “Cornered”) that antitrust, while valuable, isn’t a substitute for the welfare state or true socialism. [29:16]
  • Bruenig’s main point: antitrust can’t replace robust wealth redistribution and public provision.

• Ryan Cooper’s Response/Argument:

  • Markets are “technologies” that require regulation to function competitively—neither pure capitalist nor fully socialist societies can dispense with them entirely.
    • “Markets don’t work without regulation...to create competition. Without it, you don’t get low prices or high quality.” [30:38]
  • He cites Greenland’s public/private fishery sector and China’s state-owned companies (especially in solar and EVs) as examples where competition—even among state actors—yields efficiency and progress.
    • “China does antitrust with a sort of a public option...and they’ve just totally dominated in solar, EVs.” [33:53]

• Antitrust as Political and Economic Tool:

  • Excess economic concentration not only corrupts the market but also breeds politically dangerous oligarchy; antitrust can check this even before full socialist transformation.
  • Ryan Cooper: “There is a level at which wealth concentration becomes like a national security emergency...” [48:34]
  • Public ownership/social wealth funds (Bruenig's suggestion) may be ideal for equality, but antitrust is a necessary step to break up entrenched power blocking progress.
    • “If you want to get hardcore equality, antitrust is not going to get there...To get something like that, you would need a more socialist policy.” [37:46]
  • Cites the Nordics and cooperative models (like Finland’s grocery coops) as proof of pragmatic combinations of competition and public ownership. [43:05]
  • Vigorous antitrust enforcement—as in the Biden years—can weaken the ability of monopolists to block welfare or egalitarian reform. [45:16]

---

3. Government Bailouts and the A.I. Sector

[51:32–61:03]

• Sam Altman (OpenAI) and Government as ‘Insurer’:

  • Altman, asked about AI’s economic impact, casually suggests the federal government may become “the insurer of last resort” for the AI sector. [52:26]
    • Sam Seder, mockingly: “I have a problem with any of the ‘resorts’ that they are hanging out there.”
  • Seder and Cooper criticize the notion that speculative, unproven AI ventures are already laying claim to government backstops, noting the parallel with the 2008 bank bailout.
    • “This is a classic situation in highly unequal countries...the only thing to invest in is a company that not only has low profits, but negative profits, setting money on fire...” [54:48]

• Bankruptcy and Bailout Logic:

  • Cooper: When companies mismanage and lose huge sums, they're supposed to go bankrupt. “That’s kind of the entire point of capitalism...” [56:33]
  • Government intervention is appropriate to prevent systemic collapse (as in banking), not just to bail out “too big to fail” tech darlings or their investors.

• Current Risks:

  • Thus far, most AI investments are funded through tech giants' profits, but rising debt and speculation could change that, making a future tech-driven crash more possible.
    • “So far at least...most of this stuff has been funded out of profits, not debt...That has been changing though...” [59:06]

---

4. The Weakness of Senate Democratic Leadership (Chuck Schumer)

[63:04–70:17]

• Case for Schumer’s Ouster:

  • Cooper argues that Schumer leads by promising inaction—he’s a “concierge” for Senators who don’t want to make tough votes or enact discipline. [64:20]
    • Sam Seder: “He’s not there to lead. He’s there to provide...Broadway show tickets, or...buff your shoes.”
  • Senate Democrats lack the procedural tools and party will to enforce discipline, especially compared to Republicans, who keep their caucus tight partly via their handling of committee assignments and lack of seniority-based entitlements.
    • “Republicans are part of a movement that is contesting for power...Democrats just don’t have anyone like that.” [68:41]
  • The filibuster and ‘big tent’ culture devalue formal leadership roles, further entrenching stasis.

• Recent Example of Defensive Weakness:

  • Schumer and Senate Dems cave on the government funding resolution, sneaking in provisions that let senators subpoenaed during the January 6 investigation sue for damages and harm small hemp producers. [66:27]
    • “That is not exactly a deterrent to doing it again next time.” [66:27]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• Sam Seder [08:33]:
  “There’s no way to read this where it doesn’t look like Donald Trump certainly knew what was going on. Never mind that they were best friends.”

• Ryan Cooper [45:16]: “If you think that antitrust doesn’t inspire corporate rage, you are definitely wrong...the whole of Silicon Valley was driven to an absolute frenzy of hatred by Lina Khan.”

• Sam Seder [56:33]:
  “When a company makes terrible decisions and loses lots of money and has no viable business model, it’s supposed to go bankrupt. That’s like kind of the entire point of capitalism...”

• Ryan Cooper [48:34]:
  “There is a level at which wealth concentration becomes like a national security emergency—not only impossible to have a functioning democracy, but you will have crazy policy...”

• Sam Seder [64:20]:
  “[Schumer's] not there to lead, he’s there to provide, like, you know… Broadway show tickets, or… I got a great place to buff your shoes. Like, he’s not doing anything as a leader.”

• Emma Viglin [18:49]:
  “Check out Drop Site—Murtaza Hussain and Ryan Grim have been doing really great work on the intelligence connections of Epstein…”

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Epstein Email Breakdown: 06:27–19:00
• Historical Lens on Antitrust & Socialism: 28:46–37:46
• Political Importance of Antitrust for Socialist Aims: 39:56–51:32
• AI Bailout Discussion (Sam Altman/‘Insurer of Last Resort’): 51:32–61:03
• Senate Dem Leadership & Schumer: 63:04–70:17

---

Tone & Atmosphere

• The episode blends policy wonkery with signature Majority Report irreverence: sharp critique, humor, and a healthy skepticism of establishment narratives.
• The hosts are forthright in their analysis, often sarcastic about centrist politicians and billionaire “innovators”.
• There’s recurring in-studio banter, especially during transitions, maintaining a friendly but oppositional tone to political and corporate power.

---

Conclusion

This episode provides a deep dive into explosive political developments (Trump-Epstein), while situating contemporary policy debates around antitrust, welfare, and socialism in both historical and practical contexts. Ryan Cooper’s perspective on antitrust as an essential precondition for socialist reform and democratic vitality is nuanced and well-argued, and the discussion highlights both political and structural weaknesses of the Democratic Party leadership. The show is a must-listen for anyone seeking trenchant, informed, and critical progressive analysis of current events.

Transcript

[Sam Seder]

You are listening to a free version of the Majority Report. Support this [e-mail] and get an extra hour of content daily. It is Wednesday, November 12, 2025. My name is Sam Seder. This is the five time award winning Majority Report. We are broadcasting live steps from the industrially ravaged Gowanus Canal in the heartland of America, downtown Brooklyn, usa. On the program today, Ryan Cooper, writer at the American Prospect on the relationship between socialism, antitrust and also on the potential of a government bailout for AI and also why we should say bye bye to Chuck Schumer. Also on the program today, newly released Epstein emails say Trump knew and spent hours with the Epstein victims and knew what was going on. House to vote on ending the government shutdown today. Also supposedly at 4pm Adelita Graballa to be sworn in today by Mike Johnson. Venezuela orders a massive mobilization in response to multiple US Warships and an aircraft carrier being moved into the region. Jack Schlossberg, Kennedy Air he's the grandson of jfk. That's correct. Announces he will run for the seat to be vacated by Gerald Nadler. So see who else jumps into that race. Feel maybe we're done with the Kennedys. I don't know. Secretary Transportation Duffy has no timeline to restore full flights as ICE leaves Chicago. DHS pretends it helped crime numbers go down there. Trump regime set to sign a new defense pact with Saudi Arabia. And in wake of his 50 year mortgage fiasco, Bill Pulte is being investigated by Fannie Mae investigators for snooping through Democratic mortgage records that was the basis of their attacks on Letitia James and also Linda Cook, the Fed member of the Fed. All this and more on today's majority report. Who's Lisa Cook? Lisa Cook, Sorry, apologies. Long week, ladies and gentlemen, a long week here. Brian went to Benihana's last night, so he's a little bit wiped out. Yeah, me and all the vets, we went to many.

[Brian]

Honey.

[Sam Seder]

Hana, There you go. Okay. Crazy radical lunatic says Sam, you sound like a disappointed dad. Well, that's, I mean everybody's doing their best and just being corrected from yesterday. I tried to remember the name of the doctrine of discovery, which in a, in a phone conversation we had yesterday with somebody talking about the ongoing project of colonization that is this country. And the doctrine of discovery still remains within the context of our laws in this country, not necessarily statutory, but as ruled upon by the courts last cited by Ginsburg in 2005, I think. And it wasn't directly the doctrine of discovery. It was how the doctrine of discovery became canon within the context of US Law. And she cited that, if that makes sense. All right, let's get to the big story of the day. Well, the second big story of the day, in many, in some respects, they're related because as you know, the government, they're, they're going to vote on restarting the government today. It's also going to require Mike Johnson to swear in Gravalha, I'm sorry, I can't pronounce it. Grijalva. And Mike Johnson's going to swear her in. At that moment, there'll be theoretically 100218 votes to force legislation to the floor. And it's going to take a couple of days. I think Johnson has a couple of days after that vote is made or that petition is addressed. And then eventually the House will vote on whether to release the Epstein files. Then remember, that legislation will go to the Senate and the pressure will be on the Senate and who knows, they may never take it up. In the meantime, investigators on the Government Oversight Committee, House Oversight Committee, Democrats, I should say, released emails that were written by Jeffrey Epstein. And there's actually a couple other emails sort of embedded in these emails. Right. Like you email me, I reply to you. I can see both your email to me and my email. Here is Caitlin Collins teeing this up.

[Ryan Cooper]

CNN Breaking news.

[Sam Seder]

All right, we do have breaking news in the Jeffrey Epstein investigation.

[Ryan Cooper]

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee minutes ago literally releasing emails that they say.

[Sam Seder]

Were written by Jeffrey Epstein that explicitly, specifically mentioned Donald Trump by name and in context that we really haven't heard before. Let's get right to Kaitlan Collins who's got this reporting. Caitlin, what are you learning?

[Kaitlan Collins]

Yeah, John, these are emails that show Jeffrey Epstein mentioning Donald Trump by name multiple times and private correspondence that he had with people including Ghislaine Maxwell, obviously his longtime associate and accomplice, and also the author Michael Wolff in a time span of about the last 15 years or so in these emails. Now, these are coming out from the House Oversight Committee. They had issued a bipartisan subpoena to Jeffrey Epstein's estate, John, as you know, earlier this year. And so they've gotten their hands on a trove of documents. And these are emails that included Jeffrey Epstein on them. They were sent either to him or from him that mentioned Donald Trump before he was in office.

[Sam Seder]

All right, let's, let's read these emails and maybe we can put them up on. You have these tear sheets, right? And let's be clear, like there's no way to read this where it doesn't look like Donald Trump was. Certainly knew what was going on. Never mind that they were best friends. And I think, you know, on cnn, they're just going to let the email speak for themselves and you can. Here is the first one. This is from GMAX. GMAX 1. That is Ghislaine Maxwell. No, this is from Jeffrey. 2. Oh, no, no, I'm sorry. The first one is. Oh, no, no. Yes. The first one is. Okay, the first one on the thread. So we're going to read from the bottom up, I guess.

[Ryan Cooper]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

The first one is from Jeffrey Epstein. His. His email was G. Vacation or yeah, G, I guess Jeffrey Epstein. I don't know what his middle name is. Vacation to gmax. This is April 2, 2011, years after he got a sweetheart deal from Alex Acosta, who was at the time the Attorney General or the. In the U.S. attorney's office. I think it was in Florida. And then subsequently became Donald Trump's Labor Secretary. Just an incredible coincidence.

[Emma Viglin]

Also, Pam Bondi never looked into it as victims wanted her to when she took over the role.

[Sam Seder]

And so he writes to Ghislaine Maxwell, I want you to realize that that dog hasn't barked. Is Trump that the dog that hasn't barked? Yeah, I want you to realize that the dog that hasn't barked is Trump. So now I think that's probably an idiom. I don't think he actually thinks that Donald Trump is a dog. He's just saying that somebody who hasn't spoken is Donald Trump. And then it's redacted the victim's name. Spent hours at my house with him. He has never once been mentioned. Police chief, etc. I'm 75% there. I don't know what that means.

[Emma Viglin]

Me neither. I can't decipher that. I'd be curious what the police chief, et cetera. I'm 75%.

[Sam Seder]

We'd have to go back and see what was going on contemporaneous in 2011. It sounds like there was like another investigation or some other controversy that was coming up during that time.

[Emma Viglin]

It's.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, and the person who hasn't been mentioned or has spoken is Trump. And this was obvious not just to Jeffrey Epstein, it was obviously obvious to Ghislaine Maxwell because she wrote back. I've been thinking about that.

[Ryan Cooper]

Mm.

[Sam Seder]

And interestingly enough, too, there is a. There is something else in this that I can't quite figure out why. But underneath his email is a. What do you call it? Like A disclosure that you see when you get stuff from attorneys. The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney client, privileged, may constitute. Inside information is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein. Unauthorized use. I mean, that is. He's really covered his bases there. That's in all my emails when I send for booking requests.

[Emma Viglin]

There you go.

[Sam Seder]

Exactly. But you should take off the part where it's Jeffrey Epstein's property because people get really freaked out. That's why we have trouble booking people. Brian Vacation name used to have juice in this town. Exactly. So, okay, that's 2011. Now let's jump to January 31, 2019. And of course, Donald Trump is the president and Michael Wolf is sort of canoodling around with him. Actually, let's do. I think we want to do the. The other one first. Yeah, let's do the one from 2015. So he's had a relationship with Michael Wolff at least since 2015. Michael Wolfe, incidentally, absolute garbage man. 1216, 2015. This is as Donald Trump enters into the race. Right. He's been in the race now in 2015 for about probably five months. And it's looking like he's going to win, or at the very least, it's like looking like they're going to have a tough time. Yeah. On Tuesday, December 15, Michael Wolf writes, I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you, either on air or in a scrum afterwards. So that may be after the debate. Actually, there may have been a debate December 15th. We could probably check on that. And so Wolf is fishing around for Epstein, and if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be says Jeffrey Epstein? Now, what this also indicates is like, it could be a completely academic. A completely academic exercise.

[Ryan Cooper]

Right.

[Sam Seder]

Jeff Rabbit's gonna be like, well, I'm completely out of contact with Donald Trump. I have no ability to actually inform, respond to this. But just, you know, for a thought experiment, what would you suggest that I tell him to say? That was the presidential debate and there was a debate that night. Okay. And. And then Wolf wrote back, I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or to the House, then that gives you a valuable PR in political currency. Now, why would that give him political currency? If it's true that he hadn't been on the plane or to the House, then why would that in any way it might give you any type of political currency? That's weird.

[Emma Viglin]

Say it's the plane or the house, not and the house. So he's been to both.

[Sam Seder]

You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or if it looks like he really could win, you could save him generating a debt. Save him from what? I mean, Epstein, I guess, could say, like, oh, no, he never did. He did. Never came. I never was friends with him. I didn't know him friends with them. And then he would owe you a debt. Why would he owe you a debt if you said that if that was the case? That's so weird. Of course, it is possible that when asked, he'll say, jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in the Trump regime. And holy crap, that's what he said. Sounds like they know him. Yeah, he's a great guy. Deny, deny, deny. I got it. So then, four years later, I think by this point, Jeffrey Epstein is about to go to jail. Right? Or January 31, 2019, I think he's about to go to jail and Trump is out there. I would have bet you that there was a.

[Emma Viglin]

Yeah, July of 2019.

[Ryan Cooper]

It was okay.

[Sam Seder]

So this is when things are heating up. Trump gets asked about Epstein, I bet, and claims that he asked him to resign from the club. And so Epstein writes to Michael Wolf, something victim, Mar a Lago. It could have been, like, regarding blank Mar a Lago. Then there's another long, redacted thing, a whole sentence. Trump said, he asked me to resign. Never a member ever. So he was never a member of the club ever. Trump probably made it up. I asked him to resign as a way of, like, pretending like they had a falling out. And then he says, of course he knew about the girls as he asked Ghislaine to stop. Now he asked Ghislaine to stop. What about the girls? He's complained that they stole a girl. Like, I think he said that, right? Virginia G3. But he asked Ghislaine to stop, which means it was ongoing. And he knew it was ongoing. We don't know why he asked him to stop. Maybe he was just mad. Like, how come I keep hiring all these young women that you keep taking? But if he knows that Ghislaine is getting them and essentially, like, I don't know what he thinks that Ghislaine is doing other than trafficking them. And he says, stop. He's a real Bruce Wayne. Not never do that again, but rather stop the ongoing thing you're doing that I am aware of. We'll see if this has any resonance on the right. They've all been squawking about it for so long and now you know, they run for the hills. But we'll see now this guy's been talked about for years.

[Emma Viglin]

I'd also just point out check out drop site who is Mertaza and Hassan and Ryan Grimm have been doing really great work on the intelligence connections of Epstein at this exact same time. It's crazy.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

There's like pictures of him. Where was he the Kota.

[Brian]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Was he in the Cote d'? Ivoire somewhere in Africa. I forget. Yes. Like negotiating some type of like like I haven't read that piece but.

[Brian]

Are.

[Sam Seder]

You still talking about Jeffrey Epstein? I'm told by international socialist Sam the dog that didn't bark comes from a Sherlock Holmes story in fact. Which fact? Guard dog didn't bark is a key clue indicating that the intruder was known to the dog used as a motif to indicate lack of response significant in understanding a situation or drawing conclusions. Epstein was a bigly into English lit and a former teacher of young girls. We will talk more about this I would imagine in the coming days. It's going to create a lot of pressure a on we're going to see less opportunity for any of those three Republicans who are voting with the 20 with the Democrats to drop out and in fact we may see more Republicans now signing on to this discharge petition and then this type of information is going to put more pressure on the Senate as well to take up the the legislation. We'll see in a moment. We're going to be talking to Ryan Cooper writer and managing editor at the American Prospect. Couple words from our sponsor. You guys know particularly these days it's an insane time and I feel like I am constantly feeling overwhelmed by a bunch of different stuff. I have a list of to do things that is a mile long and if I can knock one off a week I am happy.

[Ryan Cooper]

But.

[Sam Seder]

There are some things on that to do list yours anyways that you need to get done and I'm talking about estate planning trust and will turns estate planning from a when I have time to task into a quick straightforward process ensuring you're protecting your family's future today go to trustandwill.com majority get 20% off. They're simple secure expert backed estate planning services. It took me a couple of years before my daughter after my daughter was born to get a will and it was the entire time that I was I felt like I had a sort of Damocles over my head. I was like I got to do this, I got to do this, I got to do this. I was intimidated. It took a long time. I wish Trust and Will was around because it makes it so much easier. I've noodle around on this site and it is super straightforward, super easy to use. You go in, they ask you questions, step by step by step makes it super easy. And all the information, all your documents are securely stored with bank level encryption on their site. Each Will or Trust is state specific, they are legally valid and they are customized to your needs. Like I say, I've walked through this process and it was super easy to use, very straightforward, far less complicated than I think you assume. And I will tell you, once you do this, the sense of relief in not having this hanging over your head is going to be amazing. It gets an overall rating of excellent. Thousands of five star reviews on trustpilot. Add some peace of mind to your future with Trust and will go to trust and will.com majority you get 20% off. That's 20% off at trust and Will comm slash majority. Check it out. Also, doesn't matter whether you're still planting some of your warmer zones. You can be planting outside or if you want some trees inside. I'm trying to get Brian to get a fig tree in his house. Oh yeah, it's not gonna be that hard to get me to do it. Nope, doesn't matter whether you're planting now or later. Fast Growing Trees has everything you need to make your dream yard a reality. You can also order, I think now and get it delivered early spring, get there early so you don't get the, you don't, you get the full selection of apple trees they have there. And of course they have the best quality and selection of plants and they deliver them straight to your door. Fast Growing Trees is America's largest online nursery. Has over 1600 unique trees and plants all locally grown in the US and cared for by experts. And they know how to do it right. Order online, get your plants delivered directly to your door in just a few days without ever leaving home. And plants make a great gift. Their alive and thrive guarantee ensures your plants arrive happy and healthy and ready to thrive. This is one of those companies that I was using for years before they became a sponsor and I was super psyched. The best thing about this is that you don't have to go to a, you don't go to a big box store, you don't go to a, you know, a home improvement store. Get their Meager, really uncared for garbage plants, with all due respect. And you don't put it in the back of your Subaru and have it tip over and have all the dirt on the back and then you get home and the thing falls apart. Anyways. This is all hypothetical. Hypothetical. But the point is you get a huge selection of plants and trees. They have a 14 point quality checklist, sure as you're getting the best quality plants ever. Each plant is cared for individually based on its needs, from watering routines to the amount of sunlight, giving your plants the care they deserve from the time they start growing to when they ship to your home. Fast Growing Trees makes it super easy to order online. Your plants are delivered, like I say, in just a few days, no experience necessary. At Fast growing Trees, every plant comes with instructions and tips so you'll be able to care for your new plants so they can grow to their fullest potential. I mean, hosia pears, bloomerangs, those are amazing. Actually, you should look that up.

[Ryan Cooper]

A bloomerang.

[Sam Seder]

Yes, it is a lilac that blooms both in April and in July. This season they have the best deals for your yard, including up to half a ton. Ha. Up to half off tons of plants and other deals. You get 15% off your next purchase when using the code majority at checkout. That's 15% off your next purchase at fast growingtrees.com using the code majority at checkout. Now is still a great time to plant use majority to save. Today offer is valid for limited time because they get in there, they establish for their roots. In a couple weeks they go dormant and springtime they're off to the races. Offers valid for limited time. Terms and conditions may apply. Check out the link below or in the show notes support the Majority report. We'll put that in the podcast and YouTube description. All right, quick break. When we come back, Ryan Cooper. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Viglin out this entire week. Joining us, welcoming back to the program, Ryan Cooper, writer and managing editor at the American Prospect. Ryan, welcome back to the program.

[Ryan Cooper]

Glad to be here.

[Sam Seder]

So I've been wanting to talk to you about this piece that you wrote over a month ago now and then since then you've written a couple pieces I wanted to talk to you about. So I figured we roll them all into one. But you made an argument, I think maybe in part in response to Matt Brunig's piece over at the argument.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

Making the case for the socialist, case for antitrust. And some of these ideas you know, I've been talking about for a while, but I wanted to walk us through this. Particularly relevant in that. And you had mentioned that Lina Khan had supported Zoran Mamdani and she was officially appointed co chair of the transition team, I guess it was last week. So obviously Mamdani both respects her as an administrator, but also in terms of, like, the type of people that she is going to be oriented towards when they start to fill out this administration. But just for a starting point, give us a sense of what Matt Bruinig was writing, because he was writing a review of something that Barry Lynn had written. Barry Lynn was sort of, maybe, I think it's fair to say, like the godfather of the sort of more modern antitrust revival movement. I mean, Lyn was at this. I think we interviewed him on this. I think I may have interviewed him at Air America, but certainly in the early days of this iteration of the majority report, talking about antitrust.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah. So, you know, Matt, who I respect a lot and I think I consider a good friend of mine, he is coming at it from a little bit of a different angle for me. So he's talking about this book, Cornered. I think it was written by Lyn in 2010. And the book makes some good points about how consolidation can cause problems in the marketplace. But I do think one of Bruinig's points is well taken in the sense that I think that Lyn and some of the antitrust crew, they tend to think that you can get everything that you, you know, want to get politically with just antitrust, kind of overstate the case a little bit. And so Bruining saying that, you know, antitrust is no replacement for the welfare state, that's his main thing. And, you know, that's fair enough. But what, what I'm saying is that, you know, insofar as you have a market, an economy of any sort, whether it's capitalist or socialist or whatever, a market is an important technology that can be useful depending on the context. But one of the lessons that the antitrust people teach us, that is totally correct, is that markets don't work without regulation. And they don't work without regulation in particular to create competition, you know, because like, otherwise, all the sort of, you know, Econ 101 stuff about how markets are supposed to produce good outcomes, like, you know, low prices, high quality, all that sort of thing, that just doesn't happen. And so, you know, actually one thing I did, ironically, funded by Matt Bruning, was I traveled to Greenland where they have a whole bunch of state owned companies. The, the biggest company in the country is called Royal Greenland and it's owned by the government and it does fishing. It deploys like 10% of the workforce of Greenland, but it's not a monopoly either. They have private sector competition and I think that that serves an important purpose for Greenland and that it keeps the state owned company honest. And I think an even more relevant example of the value of this sort of markets as a technology that are basically created by the government is in China. You know, you look at how does China do antitrust and they do antitrust with a sort of a public option almost. They have a bunch of state owned companies that participate in the EV and the solar space and in the battery space. And they also extend all of these, you know, low cost loans to, you know, different regions. And the intention of this is to create lots of different companies that will then compete like cats in a sack, you know, to create, you know, the lowest cost, the highest volume of, of, of, you know, solar evs, whatever. And they've just totally dominated. You know, you look at Chinese solar production and installation and beating the rest of the world put together, it's like 60 odd percent of the entire global production and installation of solar panels and.

[Sam Seder]

They went from like zero to 60. It feels like this happened in the past like six years essentially. Yeah, I mean it probably was, you know, probably closer to 10. But, but, but nevertheless all. Let me just back up just a little bit here because just so that folks can understand the sort of the nuance here, the antitrust folks argue that concentration of economic power is both problematic in the economic realm because it doesn't produce the best outcomes in the market, it corrupts the markets. But it's also problematic in a political sense too because oligarchs are basically the end game of that type of problem. They also traditionally have a problem with state monopolies as well, which is where sometimes that bumps up against a socialist perspective on, on things. I'm getting a little bit of feedback. You getting that as well? Okay, I don't know what that is. All right, you know what, can we, should I reconnect here? All right, we're going to take a quick break and fix this. Apologies. Right.

[Ryan Cooper]

It.

[Sam Seder]

I think there's, I think mercury might be in rising or whatever, whatever. The thing with the technology retrograde. Something, something's happening but. All right, so Ryan, my point being that socialists often, or I should say antitrust folks often have a similar problem with a government monopoly in instances. And so the idea that Markets are important. Whether it's at a socialist or a capitalist economy or some type of mix for that matter, they function much better. Is your argument under the auspices of antitrust? Yeah, yeah.

[Ryan Cooper]

And I mean, it varies like on the, you know, circumstances. Like there's your classic natural monopoly, like a power producer. You know, like, you really can't realistically have competition between, like, electricity grids. That would be senseless. And so, you know, then you basically have your. Your comp. Distinction between, you know, regulated monopoly in the private hands or the state just doing it itself. You know, I would favor the latter competition.

[Sam Seder]

But.

[Ryan Cooper]

But situation that is. But yeah, I mean, you know, you. You look at. Compare the United States with our sort of national champions like Boeing. You know, we have a. Our. Our. Our great airline manufacturer, and it's it. They just end up, you know, sort of too big to fail. And it's better to have, you know, a number of different companies, you know, even if you sort of have to, you know, bend the quote unquote rules of economics to make sure that they sort of stick around and keep fighting each other. But I don't think necessarily that socialists and antitrusts would disagree on that too much. I think a lot of the disagreement comes back to Barry Lynn. Kind of comes out of the Jeffersonian tradition. And when you're talking about concentrated money and, you know, like Jefferson wanted to be everyone to be a yeoman farmer, you know, that that's the way that we're going to ensure we have political liberty, that everybody's got their own little piece of land and so we can't be like, coerced by the marketplace. And like, that's just not remotely. Nobody lives like that anymore. Not even farmers live like that anymore. And, you know, I think again, you know, Bernie has a point in that, like, concentrated economic power is bad. Big monopolies are bad. Elon Musk is bad. You look at the level of oligarchy in this country has gone completely crazy. But if you really want to get hardcore equality, any trust is not going to get there. You look at the Haiti of the New deal in the 40s and the 50s, it was still a highly concentrated ownership class of people. They owned a lot less as a percentage of the economy. But it was still the case that the bottom 40, 50% of Americans owned essentially nothing, maybe a house, but not big chunks of the great corporations and so on. To get something like that, you would need a more socialist policy, like a social wealth fund, like what Bruinig says that the government owns all the companies through the stock market and then holds those in trust on behalf of the whole population.

[Sam Seder]

But again, well, speak to also as a, the function of antitrust in the context of if one was wanted to get to some type of more socialist economy or full on socialism, I don't know where we stop, at what point it becomes actually socialist as opposed to where along that line of a mixed economy we get to. But regardless of where your endpoint is, talk about the utility of antitrust in that journey.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah, so I think it's just something that as a socialist, I would think as far as keeping the market sector of the economy sort of thriving and dynamic and not dominated by a bunch of sluggish, you know, behemoths that are like managed very improperly. You know, in my reporting on business, I think that there's, there's kind of a, Economists talk a lot about efficiencies of scale, that if you have a bigger company then by definition you're going to have a more efficient company because you can like buy larger quantities of supplies and so on. And I think that's true up to a point. I think you see a lot of just terrible mismanagement in companies that get so big that they just have many, many different divisions and they don't really know where their profits are coming from. And so to keep business sort of streamlined, you want to have like, have them broken up into sort of reasonably logical sectors and to have at least three to four to five competitors for each one. You're talking about like cell phones or something like that and to, you know, just, just make sure that the, the economy is ticking over. And you know, if you're a socialist, one of those things could involve the public ownership of, of companies like, like Zoran's idea of starting up a city run grocery store in New York City. That's a, that's kind of a crazy place to compete because that's a really cutthroat industry with very low margins. But on the other hand, if you're ambitious, you know, and you want to prove that you can make this work, it's not crazy. You know, there are places where the market is not serving the population of New York. There are food deserts in New York City where, you know, because of the low income of the neighborhoods and so on and so forth, that there are not, you know, fresh vegetables that are readily available at a decent price for New Yorkers. And that's something the city absolutely could do if it were sufficiently determined and competent. This is something that cities all across the world have done, including in red states. You know, I think you may have discussed this before on the show.

[Sam Seder]

Yep.

[Ryan Cooper]

But you know, there's this little eerie Kansas, I believe they got a little city run grocery store and it's because the only private one closed up. And so all the Pakis in New.

[Sam Seder]

Hampshire are government run.

[Brian]

Yeah, yeah.

[Ryan Cooper]

It's not a crazy idea. You know, it's just a question in of. Of competence and determination. And that's in all my reporting on the Nordics that I've done. Funded again by Matt Brunig. That is the secret sauce of the Nordics. That's how they really get the goods. It's like you set out these really extreme ideological objectives of getting your equality up. We want to have a cooperative grocery store that accounts for half the market. That's actually the case in Finland. It's not government run, but it's not capitalist either. It's owned by the membership. It's like REI, if REI were not fake. And yeah, you just have to have a really, you know, efficient business with, you know, a management team that knows what they're doing and good supply chain and all that sort of stuff.

[Sam Seder]

As a political matter too, it seems to me that the strength of antitrust is that we have laws on the books today that allow for much more rigorous antitrust enforcement and application than we've had in the really prior to the Biden administration. The Biden administration really took advantage of what the laws as passed allow for. And ostensibly it seems to me that if you have rigorous antitrust, you theoretically should be able to disempower some of the most powerful political players because they've gotten so because of their ability to concentrate wealth and any further reforms, if you want to call it, or introduction of socialist policies have less of a hurdle, it seems to me, because you have less incumbent power from those formerly who are monopolizing things.

[Ryan Cooper]

I think that's absolutely the case. You know, one thing Brunig mentions in his article is that, you know, he thinks that antitrust was appealing to, you know, the Democratic Party because it allowed you to do something that was egalitarian without having to propose new benefit programs or to raise taxes. And I think there's probably something to that. You know, like Democrats have been allergic to, you know, welfare and taxation. You know, the real like penny anti stuff like Clinton raised it on the rich a little bit, Obama raised on the rich a little bit. But the type of broad based tax increases you would need to fund a proper welfare state. Democrats don't really like to think about that. On the other hand, you know, if you think that antitrust doesn't, you know, inspire corporate rage, like, you are definitely wrong. You know, the, the, the whole of Silicon Valley was driven to an absolute frenzy of hatred by Lena Khan. And you know, I think if you can really criticize them for anything, it's that they didn't go hard enough, you know, that, that they, they did a lot of enforcement and stuff and it did a lot of good, but it did not, it did not fundamentally break the power of these giant oligarchs. And what you need to do, you know, if you're going to do this, like it's quite risky, I think, and you need to go whole hog or not at all maybe, you know, to make sure that they don't, they don't, they can't come after you in fact afterwards because they don't have the money anymore.

[Sam Seder]

I think part of the argument that Harris's campaign, one of the areas where they stumbled was that some of those incumbent interests came rushing back in and saw Harris as an opportunity to get rid of the antitrust regime that was there and you know, indication that to the extent that there was a project started, it had not been completed or those people wouldn't have had that ability perhaps to influence her campaign in the way they did. I mean, that's the point, right? Is that like the Democrats ostensibly are allergic to these type of taxation in this type of redistribution because I don't know what just changed. Are you plugged in to that redistribution? And because their donor class essentially has enough money that, and that they can sort of influence those Democrats to have that temerity when it comes to redistribution and welfare state, et cetera, et cetera. And perhaps over time, and particularly like you say, if they go whole hog under a rigorous antitrust regime, those people just don't have the outsized wealth or influence that it takes to sort of stop the power of a more broad based movement, I guess.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah, the, you know, I, I, I would love to see someone, I forget who it was. Jim Fisk, I think said of Teddy Roosevelt like that we bought him and the son of a B word didn't stay bought, you know, and that he did a lot of antitrust stuff after, you know, promising not to or you know, taking money to that effect. But, but yeah, you know, it's a, I feel like, you know, Democrats have, have thought they could sort of have their cake and eat it too as far as big money and doing sort of quasi populist policy, you know, that like we'll sort of nibble around the edges but at the same time when it comes for, you know, elections against Donald Trump, we'll run back to Reid Hoffman and the rest of our sort of pet billionaires and ask for contributions because you know, he's like bad and whatnot. And yeah, I think that that was a foolish bet that it didn't work out. A lot of these same, you know, a lot of formerly liberal billionaires, people who at least made liberal noises, like Elon Musk even was not nearly such a crazy reactionary back in like 2018 when he was posting, you know, LGBT content on formerly Twitter. And yeah, you know, I think my definite, where the antitrust people I think are definitely correct is that, you know, it may not be the case where you know, you'll never get to full equality, where all the citizenry has an exactly equal proportion of the national wealth with antitrust. But I do think there is a level at which wealth concentration becomes like a national security emergency, that it's actually not, you know, not only impossible to have a functioning democracy, but like you will have crazy policy that some of these billionaires will go out of their minds and it will cause they will have so much power that they'll be able to just devastate the entire country. I mean, basically that's my story of Elon Musk.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[Ryan Cooper]

You know, it's a guy who just directly interferes with, you know, American national security policy. Going and saying to, you know, Ukraine while they're like under attack by the Russians, like we're taking your Internet and they don't even do anything to him because he has too much money. It's like, okay, nobody should be allowed to have that much money and nobody should be. Again, to the antitrust point, we should not be so dependent on one guys companies with their federal contracts for the military and other agencies that we don't have any other options. And he's just got the whole government over a barrel. It's totally unacceptable. And you know, we need to cultivate something whether it's again another private company or the government just building these devices themselves as they used to, you know, back before World War II, they used to build tons of ships. It was state owned, state run and they were of high quality. But at any rate, you know.

[Sam Seder]

No, I, I, I agree. And let's, let's pivot to, since we're talking about Silicon Valley, you wrote a piece that I think was it at least in part inspired by this Exchange. This is clip number 16. And it's. It was Sam Alfman who's the guy.

[Ryan Cooper]

Who.

[Sam Seder]

Found Open I a AI Sorry, it's one of those days. And he's being interviewed by Tyler Cohen at the Roots of Progress Institute and Big Think Conference. I guess, or I'm not sure exactly what it is, but here he is. It feels like he knows something that maybe the rest of us didn't know. Let's. Let's play this clip some level.

[Brian]

When something gets sufficiently huge, whether or not they are on paper, the federal government is kind of the insurer of last resort, as we've seen in various financial crises and insurance companies screwing things up. So I guess given the magnitude of what I expect AI economic impact to look like, sort of, I do think the government ends up as like the insurer of last resort. But I don't. I think I mean that in a different way than you mean that. And I don't expect them to actually be like writing the policies in the way that maybe they do for nuclear.

[Sam Seder]

And there's a big difference between the.

[Ryan Cooper]

Government being the insurer of last resort and the insurer of first resort.

[Sam Seder]

Last resort's inevitable, but I'm worried they'll become the insurer of first resort and that I don't want to. Okay, I have a problem with any of the resorts that they are hanging out there. And let's just be clear. You know, the government bailed out the banks. They didn't have to bail out the banks in the way that they did in 2008. They could have bailed out the homeowners, and the homeowners were still obligated to pay the banks. So everybody would have gotten paid as opposed to bailing out the banks and then saying, do your best to bail out the homeowners. Your executive editor at the American Prospect has written about this extensively over the years and wrote a book on it, in fact. But the, the idea that this you can start your own sort of enterprise that really is like sort of almost in many respects a solution looking for a problem, put so much money into it because the people around this guy have so much money, they don't know where to put it to get a good return. Like, literally, it's like we need to start a new sector of the economy because we have so much money that it's just. It's driving me nuts that my billions of dollars are not making more billions of dollars in and of themselves. We've got to create this sort of like this sector of the Economy that has produced no returns, but is now, he's saying, going to be so big that we can't let it fail.

[Ryan Cooper]

It's a classic situation. I think that you end up in highly unequal countries with a very bad income distribution, which was the case in 1920s America where, you know, the what do you invest in? You invest in mass production technology, mass production, mass consumption economy. But if it's very unequal, then the working class doesn't have enough money that would justify investment in new businesses, selling new products to mass consumption base. And so you paper over the cracks with a few for a few years with borrowing, you know, increase in, you know, credit card debt, that sort of thing. But eventually it all blows up. And that's exactly what happened in 2008 and that's exactly what happened in 1929, and it might be happening again. Yeah. The only thing to invest in is a company that not only has low profits as negative profits, setting money on fire in unprecedented quantities, tens of billions of dollars a quarter. The last time I saw 13 billion in quarter three. But yeah, I mean, so in the sense of a bailout of the whole economy, it's definitely true that if there is a recession that's touched off by some company imploding, the government should step in with Keynesian stimulus to restore full employment and production. But that's a very different thing from saying that this company, one individual company, OpenAI, or the banks that lent to them, like the banks that lent to all these subprime mortgage originators and whatnot back in the housing bubble, that that company needs to be preserved at all costs.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[Ryan Cooper]

I think sometimes bankruptcies are salutary. When a company makes terrible decisions and loses lots of money and has no viable business model, it's supposed to go bankrupt. That's like kind of the entire point of capitalism that you are rewarded when you succeed and you're punished when you fail. And there's no conflict between. You could say you step in at the point at which it becomes like a systemic issue, a galloping crisis, and you backstop the liquidity of the whole system. But that doesn't mean that you have to step in and preserve the shareholders, especially of individual companies that blew themselves up.

[Sam Seder]

I'm also unclear as to like, what is. I mean, I understand in the context of the financial crisis of 2008, I mean, there was obviously it was built upon the crisis came out of sort of like bets upon bets upon bets and side bets essentially. And it threatened the infrastructure of our banking system. I'm not saying that we couldn't allow some banks to go under and whatnot, but I can understand the idea of like, well, the banking system is pretty integral to the functioning of society. And while, you know, I think there was a better way to sort of save the banking system, you could have also started by saving the people who theoretically owed the banks money and just giving them the money to pay the banks. I'm like, what do we. Why is a I systemic? Like, like what? Like, like what, what is it about OpenAI that if OpenAI disappeared tomorrow, aside from people losing a lot of money and people who probably had plenty of money to lose, frankly, what, what is, how is that too big to fail in the context of society? Like, I just don't get the relationship here between AI and, you know, you could tell me that it's like the only thing propping up the stock market. Well then you know what, dude, you shouldn't have gone to the track. Like, you know, but, but I don't understand how it is integrated in our economic system as it were. Like the way that, you know, banks were.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah, I mean all say up front that I'm not super like down on this forensic financials of all of these companies. What happened after 2008 was like you just sort of look under the hood and there's this festering pile of incomprehensible financial contracts that nobody had been paying attention to. But I do think so far at least, there is one big difference with the AI situation now as compared to 2008, and that is that most of this stuff has been funded out of profits, not debt. You have Facebook and Google and the rest of the big players in technology who all just print money. They make tens, hundreds of billions of dollars in profits and they're spending it all on data centers because they think AI is going to be the next big thing. We saw this happen just a couple of years ago. Facebook took its tens of billions of dollars in profits and spent it on what it thought was going to be the next big thing, namely the metaverse. And that turned out to be a big pile of garbage that nobody wanted. And it really didn't have any effect on anyone because it wasn't connected. It had all been funded through profits and not debt. That has been changing though, in the last little bit in that we're seeing a lot more lending happening in this space. And so you could imagine it, it coming to be like all of these data center expansions and whatnot being funded by loans from the big banks to where if they all default, they go bad, then you could have a systemic panic. So far, we're not in that situation. And yeah, again, just as you said, if it does happen, you'd hope that financial regulators would clamp down on this to stop them from making terrible loans that are going to blow up in the first place. I don't think.

[Sam Seder]

I'm sure the Trump administration, financial regulators, regulators are definitely on the job to make sure that there's no loans going to all of the people who put him in office.

[Ryan Cooper]

No, no. Yeah. Is that trustworthy guy, that Bill Pulte? He's on it. He's on it, exactly.

[Brian]

Yeah.

[Sam Seder]

I mean, Russ Moat is trying to bankrupt the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Does the FDIC even work anymore? Like, who, like, theoretically, would it be regulators at the Fed? Like, who would be. Is there any, like the, Is there any sort of, like, active regulation of the banks right now? They didn't. They already, like, sort of loosen capital requirements? I mean, to the extent that there are regulators there, they just seem to be in charge of shutting down the regulation machine.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah, we saw Trump's guy at the SEC basically say, you know, come on, fraudsters, we're not going to enforce these rules anymore. You know, Biden was really, you know, Gary Gensler was harshing. Everyone's mellow with all, you know, by putting people in, prosecuting them for committing crimes. We can't be having that, not in this country. Yeah, it's a good question as to what. Who would be nominally in charge of this? I guess it would depend on how the financial contracts were structured, because, like, it might be the sec, it might be the CFTC or the occ. It's a great thing about American government, by the way, that we don't have one financial regulator that would just be like, okay, it's this guy. No, we gotta divide it up in, like, four or five different agencies.

[Sam Seder]

Much easier to avoid regulation that way, I suspect. Yeah.

[Ryan Cooper]

And then there's more, you know, seats for Trump's cronies to be more positions that can be filled by various goons. You know, you gotta have a nice diversity of goons in your second Trump administration. You can't just have one financial mission.

[Sam Seder]

Accomplished in that respect. All right, well, one last thing you wrote this week. Time for Chuck Schumer to step down as leader. We're hearing a lot about that. It's been something that I've been also talking about for. I don't know, how long has he been Senate? When was he nominated?

[Emma Viglin]

We have a Giant tapestry about it in the studio.

[Sam Seder]

Yes. Listener. Like in the last, like, like four cycles ago, the Chuck stops here, I think, is the. The poster. But my sense is that there is sort of like. I mean, I think Bernie Sanders said this, like, you know, who's going to be leader if he's not doing it? It seems like nobody wants that job except for Chuck Schumer.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah. I mean, I'm not, you know, sort of party to the internal discussions among the Democratic senators, but he does seem like he got the job basically by promising that he would not, as Harry Reid did before him, force them to do anything.

[Sam Seder]

Yes. Honestly, that's why he is like a freaking. That's how I say he's a concierge. Like, he's not there to lead. He's there to provide like, you know.

[Ryan Cooper]

Show.

[Sam Seder]

You know, Broadway show tickets or do you need, like, you know, I got a great place that'll do your buff. Your shoes. Like, he's not doing anything as a leader.

[Ryan Cooper]

I mean, he's doing maybe some sort of rotating villain calculations, you know, to make people line up to eat it on these votes and make sure that they're either retiring or that they're going to be up for reelection in the longest possible distance away. But, yeah, you know, I mean, it's. It's just. I would like to point out, by the way, that I wrote this article before the big Democratic cave from the eight senators to reopen the government and give millions of dollars to Ted Cruz.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, we should say that the millions of dollars, Ted Cruz. It's not just a clean cr. There's a couple of things that have been snuck in there, including one that basically wipes out hemp farms that produce any type of hemp that has 0.1% th say or don't want to get demonetized or pointed. And also another provision that allows senators who were maligned by the response to January 6th to sue the government for like, up to like a million dollars. Is that what it is?

[Ryan Cooper]

I don't know the details exactly, but yeah, people who are subpoenaed by Jack Smith. Yeah, they can. They can now get damages for basically being implicated in a treasonous plot to overthrow the Constitution. They're now getting paid for that. You know, it's a great.

[Sam Seder]

That is not exactly a deterrent to doing it again next time.

[Ryan Cooper]

Yeah, but, you know, it's true that what Bernie said, that nobody wants to do it. It's a thankless job. You know, the part sort of doesn't even exist in the way that a European party does. Like, there's no way to discipline these senators more or less because they don't have. It's not like back in the old days where the party would control their funding and whatnot. It's just people freelancing for the most part.

[Sam Seder]

But isn't the, it seems to me the reason why the Republicans have a lot more discipline in addition to them being a much more homogenous party? Right. I mean, there's really like, you don't have to guess. If you take a, if you take 10 Republican voters, there's eight of them. And you could probably list exactly what their positions are on just about any issue. I mean, the, you know, like, it's quite simple and maybe it's nine out of ten. You could, you could guess. So A, they don't have that. They have, you know, they don't have the same sort of like, big tent as it were, of ideological difference and policy difference. But they also don't have seniority in their, amongst their ranks. They don't go by seniority. And so there's an opportunity for the leader to go like, hey, guess what, committee you're not. You're no longer, you're not the chair of this committee, or hey, you're not going to be on this committee. And it seems to me like that's the leverage. Right? I mean, you can, you can exercise some party discipline because there are, in fact, some goodies that you get if you toe the line. And Harry Reid, again, was able to impose some measure of party discipline.

[Ryan Cooper]

One. Yeah, he was. No, I don't think it's impossible. You know, it's just that Senate Democrats don't want that.

[Sam Seder]

Right.

[Ryan Cooper]

And I think also, you know, there's a dynamic here with the filibuster in that it really devalues being on those committees, that it more or less doesn't matter, at least doesn't matter nearly as much like being ahead of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate or something like that. That used to be a really important position. That'd be people like waiting on your beck and call. You know, you could really govern. You could direct resources across the country. You could make a big difference. And that's kind of not really the case anymore when you don't pass normal legislation, the normal budgetary stuff, and instead everything gets rushed through in these continuing resolutions or these reconciliation bills that are 3,000 pages long and just stuffed with everyone's pet projects have built up over the last couple years. It makes it less attractive, but I do think, you know, fundamentally, it's a characterological thing. You know, Republicans are part of a movement that is, you know, contesting for power. You know, they have a leader, Donald Trump, who tells them what to do and will threaten their lives if they don't, you know, and literally does that. Mitt Romney was spending $5,000 a day on security. And, you know, Democrats just don't have anyone like that. You know, there's not a sort of party leader who, you know, has sort of like risen to the top to make, to make the case for. Here's what we should do. You know, Joe Biden wasn't really like that. Obama probably was, but he's been long gone. And you obviously didn't see that ad.

[Sam Seder]

That Hakeem Jeffries put out with the bat. So maybe we'll send that over to you. Ryan. Ryan Cooper, writer, managing editor at the American Prospect. We're going to link to those pieces that we talked about today. Really appreciate your time today.

[Ryan Cooper]

My pleasure. Thanks for the invite.

[Sam Seder]

All right, folks, that's it for the first half of the program. I anticipate a tremendous amount of technical difficulties as we move into the fun half of the program. There was some masterful producing going on behind the scenes here during that. Just a reminder, it's your support that can make this show possible. And the more members we get, the more we can upgrade the technical stuff that we have going on. Join themjorityreport.com when you do not only help this show survive and thrive, you get the, you get the fun half and you get to IM us. Paul Smenis says, I think it's good.

[Kaitlan Collins]

I think it's good.

[Sam Seder]

And also, don't forget, just coffee co, op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate. Use the coupon code majority get 10% off and you can buy the majority report blend. Just coffee co op. Matt, what's happened? How do. What was going on with his backdrop? How did he do that?

[Emma Viglin]

Oh, just a little bit of.

[Sam Seder]

Did he do that?

[Emma Viglin]

No, I did that.

[Sam Seder]

Oh, yeah?

[Emma Viglin]

Yeah. Because I feel like you don't want to leave people with a green screen.

[Sam Seder]

No, absolutely not. But I was gonna say something. You really sure you want to do that green screen?

[Emma Viglin]

I was gonna try to find an American Prospect 1, but I struck out on the Google image search. They. They didn't have.

[Sam Seder]

Why wouldn't we use our own.

[Emma Viglin]

We should do that for everybody in our universe.

[Sam Seder]

Why not?

[Emma Viglin]

Well, because most people don't have green screens.

[Sam Seder]

I'll add it to the email. If you have a green Screen, please set it up. Here is a Link to purchase one from B& H Photo.

[Emma Viglin]

Yesterday, Left Reckoning debuted its new afternoon showtime. Kathryn Liu talking about the PMC and Nick Bolan talking about orphan wells in Oklahoma. Because it turns out that all those risk takers that give us our energy in the oil industry don't actually like to clean up after themselves. And they depend on you to clean up the wells that aren't produced anymore. So, great interview there. Go subscribe to left reckoning on YouTube.

[Sam Seder]

Okay, let's go to the fun half. Three months from now, six months from now, nine months from now. And I don't think it's going to be the same as it looks like in six months from now. And I don't know if it's necessarily going to be better six months from now than it is three months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow.

[Ryan Cooper]

What?

[Sam Seder]

What is that going on? It's nuts.

[Ryan Cooper]

Wait a second.

[Sam Seder]

Hold on. Hold on for a second. Unpack. Emma, welcome to the program. Fun Half. Matt, goo. Fun Half. What is up, everyone? Fun path.

[Brian]

No.

[Sam Seder]

McKee, you did it. Fun Half.

[Kaitlan Collins]

Let's go, Brandon.

[Sam Seder]

Let's go, Brandon. Fun Half. Bradley, you want to say hello? Sorry to disappoint everyone. I'm just a random guy. It's all the boys today.

[Ryan Cooper]

Fundamentally false. No.

[Kaitlan Collins]

I'm sorry.

[Ryan Cooper]

Women.

[Sam Seder]

Stop talking for a second. Let me finish.

[Ryan Cooper]

Where is this coming from?

[Sam Seder]

Dude, But. Dude, you want to smoke this seven egg? Yes. Hi.

[Ryan Cooper]

Me. You safe?

[Sam Seder]

Yes.

[Ryan Cooper]

Is this me? Is it me?

[Sam Seder]

It is you.

[Ryan Cooper]

If it's me. Hello.

[Sam Seder]

This may think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind?

[Ryan Cooper]

We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism.

[Sam Seder]

I'm gonna go start right. Libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says. Of course.

[Kaitlan Collins]

Gobbledy cook.

[Sam Seder]

We nailed him.

[Kaitlan Collins]

So what's 79 plus 21 challenge?

[Ryan Cooper]

Man, I'm positively quivering.

[Sam Seder]

I believe 96. I want to say 8, 5, 7, 2, 1 0. 855-011-SHORT. 3, 8, 9, 11.

[Ryan Cooper]

For instance.

[Kaitlan Collins]

$3,400. $1900. 5, 4.

[Sam Seder]

$3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually, you're making me think less of wait. But let me say this poop.

[Brian]

Call it satire.

[Ryan Cooper]

Sam goes satire on top of it all. My favorite part about you is just.

[Sam Seder]

Like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We see you. All right, folks, folks, folks.

[Kaitlan Collins]

It's just the week being weeded out. Obviously.

[Sam Seder]

Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I, I, I don't know. But you should know, people just don't.

[Emma Viglin]

Like to entertain ideas anymore.

[Sam Seder]

I have a question. Who cares?

[Ryan Cooper]

Our chat is enabled, folks.

[Sam Seder]

I love it.

[Kaitlan Collins]

I do love that.

[Sam Seder]

Gotta jump, gotta be quick. I gotta jump.

[Ryan Cooper]

I'm losing it, bro.

[Sam Seder]

Two o', clock, we're already late, and the guy being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous. Like, what is wrong with you?

[Ryan Cooper]

Love you. Bye.

[Sam Seder]

Love you. Bye. Bye.