3641 - Labor, Anti-Trust and the History of Corporate Franchises w/ Brian Callaci

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Majority Report with Sam Seder

Episode 3641: Labor, Anti-Trust and the History of Corporate Franchises w/ Brian Callaci
Date: May 11, 2026
Featured Guest: Brian Callaci (Chief Economist, Open Markets; Author of Chain of Command: The Rise and Cruel Reign of the Franchise Economy)

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the rise and evolution of corporate franchising in the U.S and its impacts on labor, antitrust, and economic power. Host Sam Seder interviews Brian Callaci, whose research unpacks how franchises like McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts carved out models that centralize control while shedding accountability—reshaping not only fast food, but the broader distribution of corporate power in the American economy. The discussion dives deep into the history, legal strategies, and labor ramifications of franchising, highlighting how these developments connect to broader trends in antitrust and worker rights.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Franchise Model: Control Without Accountability

[25:34 - 27:20]

• Brian Callaci explains how franchises were designed to provide corporations centralized control over operations (pricing, branding, procedures), while franchisees and their workers shoulder the legal and financial risks.
• Franchising is seen as "the extreme version" of a larger pattern—think temp agencies and gig work—of corporations distancing themselves legally from direct employment and responsibility.
• Quote:

  “Franchising is the whole thing outsourced. McDonald’s franchises almost all of their restaurants… run by these nominally independent franchisees who really have no discretion over pretty much anything in the business. But yet, they declare that these workers are not their own employees.”
  — Brian Callaci [25:50]

2. Historical Roots: The Legal Engineering of Modern Franchising

[29:14 - 32:13]

• The post-WWII era saw figures like Ray Kroc (McDonald's) and William Rosenberg (Dunkin' Donuts) intentionally creating business models that preserved corporate control but disclaimed workplace liability.
• Originally, antitrust law frowned on such arrangements, seeing them as large corporations dominating "independent" entrepreneurs.
• Franchise lawyers and lobbyists campaigned to change judicial interpretations without new legislation, eventually succeeding as antitrust doctrine shifted.

3. The Turning Point: Continental TV v. Sylvania (1977)

[36:13 - 39:40]

• The Sylvania Supreme Court case marked a seismic change. The Court prioritized "efficiency" over the independence of small business franchisees, allowing franchisors wide latitude in controlling franchises.
• Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion ignored concerns for business autonomy, focusing instead on economic output and prices.
• Quote:

  “What that allowed the franchisors to do… was just that creates the loophole where you can get all of your—they legalized these kinds of controlling contracts.”
  — Brian Callaci [37:42]

4. The Chicago School & Robert Bork: Redefining Antitrust

[42:08 - 44:32]

• Bork and University of Chicago thinkers shifted antitrust away from questions of concentrated power and democracy, focusing solely on consumer prices and output.
• This allowed companies to increase control over franchisees and workers as long as prices didn’t rise—weakening labor and antitrust protections by design.
• Quote:

  “Economists became much more prominent in antitrust cases. It became… removed from fundamental questions of democracy, power, citizenship… and became this narrow game of did the price wiggle up or down…”
  — Brian Callaci [42:27]

5. The Fight for 15 and the Obama-Era Joint Employer Doctrine

[47:19 - 52:07]

• By the 2010s, digital tools enabled even tighter franchise control, making the idea of independent franchisees increasingly fictional.
• The "Fight for 15" movement pushed the Obama administration to recognize joint employment—holding McDonald’s and franchisors responsible for labor violations at franchises.
• Subsequent changes in administration saw these advances repealed (Trump), reinstated (Biden), and (as of this episode) threatened again by a new Trump administration.
• Quote:

  “Only McDonald’s can finance these wage increases. Only McDonald’s has the ability to alter, you know, the working conditions at the franchise restaurant.”
  — Brian Callaci [47:54]

6. The Need for Legislative Solutions & Future Reform

[52:07 - 57:03]

• Callaci underscores the need for federal legislation addressing joint employment and closing legal loopholes that allow for “control without responsibility.”
• There is growing momentum to revisit antitrust through the FTC and at the state level, but progress is fragile and subject to administrative changes.
• Quote:

  “If we come at them from both sides—on the antitrust and the labor side and the, you know, liability side… then they won’t have to make a choice. Do you want the control or do you want to be accountable? But you can’t have it both ways.”
  — Brian Callaci [53:18]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Franchising’s Origin:
  “None of this happened… in secret. The actors involved… were pretty open about what they were trying to do. They said that that was the goal: We want the control, we don’t want the liability.”
  — Brian Callaci [29:14]

• Systemic Impact:
  “There are layers and layers and… controlling things from far afield and creating legal obstacles to that.”
  — Sam Seder [27:27]

• Legal Irony:
  “It is sort of ironic that the Small Business association ends up meeting only with these massive corporations… to determine whether they’re going to give their small business loans to these massive corporations.”
  — Sam Seder [46:29]

• On State-Level Reform:
  “The wonderful thing… about antitrust is that there is no federal preemption. So states can make their own antitrust laws that are stronger.”
  — Brian Callaci [56:00]

---

Important Timestamps

• [25:34] Topic Introduction: Franchises, labor, and corporate structure.
• [29:14] Franchising post-WWII and the aim for control without liability.
• [36:12] The Sylvania case and Supreme Court's shift toward franchisor power.
• [42:08] The rise of the Chicago School and its long-term impact.
• [47:19] The Fight for 15 and the Obama administration’s joint employer doctrine.
• [50:02 - 52:07] Discussion of back-and-forth reversals under different administrations.
• [52:30] Need for statutory (legislative) reform for lasting change.
• [55:33] The future of antitrust reform and the role of state-level action.

---

Tone & Language

The episode balances irreverence with deep policy analysis. Sam Seder’s tone is humorous and probing, often highlighting real-world implications for workers, the shifting landscape of corporate power, and the inertia of regulatory institutions. Brian Callaci brings academic insight with clear, accessible language, making complex legal and economic concepts relatable for a broad audience.

---

Takeaway

This conversation reveals how the franchise model architected a profound transformation of corporate power, labor rights, and antitrust law—spanning over 70 years. The flexibility and ambiguity of franchise law have allowed corporations to profit from near-total control while shifting risk and responsibility onto weaker parties. Genuine reform, the hosts argue, will require both legislative fixes and a renewed legal understanding that places democracy and accountability above pure economic output.

---

For More

• Book: Chain of Command: The Rise and Cruel Reign of the Franchise Economy by Brian Callaci
• Podcast: majority.fm

---

Transcript

[A]

Hey folks, how's it going? Oh, all right. You know, I got up at 5:30 this morning and it was not my plan, but I did because my cat decided it's time for you to wake up, Sam. And this is like the double edged sword of finding a cat food that your cat absolutely loves is that they'll wake you up at 5:30 in the morning to go do it, to go get fed. I think part of the reason actually he seems to have adjusted to what do you call it, spring forward the daylight savings time for like a week in there. I think he was confused as to like what time he was supposed to eat. But. But I'm very happy that I found a cat food for my cat that my cat loves and is incredibly healthy. And what am I talking about? I'm talking about Smalls. Smalls is fresh, gently cooked food. It is made without preservatives, provides like a balanced diet for your cat. Less shedding, fewer hairballs and more silky shine. The nutrients and Smalls are digestible so less junk comes out the other end, if you know what I'm saying. Decidedly less stinky poops. I've said it. Smalls cat food leads to high protein and improved hydration. The big thing for me with Smalls is the food is great and they also have some great snacks. But my cat goes ballistic for this broth and it doesn't matter. I'll give it to him straight. I'll give it to him as a treat with the food on and on and he loves it. And sometimes I will even and I will cop to this, pour a little bit on my hand and he licks it right off my hand because I have a theory that he will get attached to my smell and I'm going to train him. I have all sorts of dreams for my cat, but the good news is he loves his food. And right now if you want to invest in your cat's health, Smalls is giving you a 60% off your cat's first order plus free shipping and free treats for life when you go to smalls.com majority. If your cat doesn't like it, Smalls will refund 100% of your your order. Trust me, your cat's gonna love the taste of Smalls and you're gonna love that your house no longer smells like a litter box all the time. That's 60% off plus free shipping and free treats for life when you go to smalls.com majority. We'll put that info in the podcast and YouTube descriptions and @majority fm. And now time for the show the Majority Report with Sam Cedar. It is Monday, May 11, 2026. 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 Colacci, chief economist at Open Markets, author of the new book Chain of Command, the rise and cruel reign of the Franchise economy. Also on the program today, Trump and Netanyahu say the Iran war is not over after Iran basically says the Iran war is not over. Also we should leave. We've lost. Israel meanwhile continues to bomb Lebanon despite the supposed ceasefire there. And oil prices surge on the Iranians clearly ready to continue this war in wake of the Republican appointed Virginia Supreme Court ruling which negated redistricting referendum. Democrats consider following the Republican pack the court playbook. Meanwhile, Alabama next up to ask the Supreme Court to disenfranchise more black voters. Keir Starmock in a panic across the pond as they say this in wake of a ton of labor, local labor losses, vows to sort of brenter get closer to the eu. I don't know. I came up with that. It didn't. It's Monday. The Department of Education. What's that? Rejoin. Rejoinish. It's not totally. The Department of Education now on a hiring spree after firing over half its staff over the past year and a half because Competence is job 1000. Tennessee signs a law forcing doctors to provide data on the trans care they provide. All this and more on today's Majority Report. Welcome ladies and gentlemen, it is Monday. Thanks so much for joining us. Emma Vigeland out today, supposedly sick, but I mean I'm sort of. She look, I mean somebody, I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna cast dispersions, but Thursday night sound like a lot of partying going on. Was there a big win for her team yesterday? Oh, that's weird. I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I don't. What was that? The football game or I forget what sport is it? I forget what those animals call it. I can't remember sports. I was reading. Yeah, sorry. I was writing poetry and I decided I didn't follow the sports games of the weekend. Thanks for joining us folks. You know the, the big story you keep seeing over and over again, at least I do, is there is a certain percentage of economists and oil traders and financial types who are coming out and saying we're headed to a global recession. And then there's a Like I would say 50% of what I note on that are stories about why isn't the stock market responding to the fact that it looks like there's going to be a global recession, but maybe there isn't. And then there's, I would say another 20%, which brings us to about 95%, those 20 remaining 20%, like, well, I've figured out how to find opportunities in this. And then there's 5%, really closer to 1% who are like Kevin Hassett and he is the National Economic Council director. And I don't know, maybe he thinks he's going to get fired by Trump and desperately wants to keep his job. You understand, that's all it is now they're all just coming out and figuring out what will keep them in their jobs. And more often than not, it's because they've got some type of side scam going. Whether it was Kristi Noem or Sean Duffy who was able to find time in his very busy schedule as transportation director of the country. You remember all the planes crashing, you remember now the fuel shortages. He's been in that job for I would say probably 12 months now, maybe less. I mean, he was confirmed I don't know when, but it couldn't have been too much earlier than in May of 2025. And this is important. He was able to find seven months time to shoot a TV show, but with his family, that's the point for family is first. But Kevin Hassett, getting back to him, here he is on cnbc and you could call this boot licking, but I actually think the licking is more comprehensive

[B]

in between the toes you've seen over time is that earnings surprises are positively correlated. So if you have a couple of quarters in a row of earnings surprises that people tend to not jack up their earnings forecast as well much and you get another one. And so I think that Ed's forecast, while the White House doesn't have an official S and P forecast, it seems consistent with the trajectory of earnings, I can say at the very least. And that's all happening because of AI and because the Trump tax cuts and so on. I think that one of the things that's happening is that the world is changing so fast right now that President Trump has sort of taken every problem on earth and got 100% at fixing it. And I think that that's can be stressful for people to see so much change going on. But the bottom line is that in the end, when we look at what happens for elections, that people positive for

[A]

one Second, I want to. I want to go back because I didn't set this up. Exactly. He's explaining why, despite the fact that he's out here smiling so hard, why consumer confidence is at its lowest ebb in, like, decades. And we have rising credit card debt. People are starting to stress out about work and, and of course, oil prices are through the roof. Fill up a gas tank. Like, my Subaru is like, it's like a small investment in. It's like a semester of college at this point to fill up your gas tank. He's explaining why consumer sentiment is down. And his. Aside from saying, like, we've had so many surprise earnings bumps that, like, people are factoring in and that's why we see earnings expectations lower. But go back and you'll. You'll hear him explain why consumer sentiment is down. It's because they're so, like, agitated by all the winning.

[B]

What's happening is that the world is changing so fast right now that President Trump has sort of taken every problem on earth and got 100% at fixing it. And I think that that can be stressful for people to see so much change going on. But the bottom line is that in the end, when we look at what happens for elections, that people look at their wallets, they see how they're doing. You know, the economy is growing very strong, incomes are growing. You and I have talked about Ray Fair for 20 years, Fair of Yale says GDP in the second quarter is the thing that tells you what's going to happen in the election. And so I think that right now, Republicans should feel very, very good about the trajectory of the economy.

[A]

You know what they say? More money, more problems.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Yeah. Well, I mean, that's the thing, is that your folks are so. Are so their head spinning with so many, so many world problems being solved that they're making them nervous about the economy.

[C]

The problem is when a guy like Hasset says people vote with their pocketbooks, they think of their pocketbooks as, like, what their investments are doing. Yeah. And normal people look at, actually, this is what I have to do to pay my rent and actual expenses for this month.

[A]

Wages are up by something like 3 1/2 percent. The problem is inflation's up by 4%. And so you don't have to be a math whiz. I, off the top of my head, can say, I mean, I. Because I am a math whiz, that it's a hat. You're losing a half a percentage of. Of your real spending power in that scenario. But you don't even have to be a math whiz like myself. You don't have to know specifically. You just have to know you're losing. To the extent that your wages are going up, you're paying for stuff, it buys less anyways. And it is quite clear that an increasing number of economists and just sort of world observers think that we are headed into something that is going to be far more problematic. Put up this oil reserves. You recall last week, Rory Robertson, was that his name? Johnson. Johnson was on the program talking about oil reserves is the first one. And he said once the oil reserves runs out, that's when we're going to start to see prices rise exponentially and perhaps shortages. And here's the world oil reserves. You will notice that now we only have data here for the past five years, but it seems rather dramatic. Operational floor level is the minimum level required to keep pipelines functioning in refineries operating. And it suggested by September we're going to reach that. By June of 2026, we're going to be at operational stress level. This is according to those hippies over JP Morgan commodities.

[C]

So is Trump doing degrowth?

[A]

Exactly. But the amazing thing is, is that while he's doing this, he's also effectively unilaterally banned wind energy in the country. Like, literally not. We're not going to have any more growth in wind power. Rolling back existing wind power and wind power that was in, forgive the pun, the pipelines,

[C]

Some kind of like a, I don't know, hurting ourselves.

[A]

Yeah, well, here's the problem with that formulation is like it's unclear who's on team ourselves.

[C]

Yeah.

[A]

Like this is a mistake that I think, like many people still operate under is that they're judging success or failure based upon an assumption as to what the agenda is. And it's quite clear Trump administration has a very different agenda than we're going to make our country great again by. In whatever means. You know, there may be some positives that you see in there. I'm not sure what they would be, but. But we'll talk more about agendas and intent and the value of that later in the program. We start to talk about Marjorie Taylor Greene. In a moment, we're going to be talking to Brian Calichi, chief economist at Open Markets and author of a new book, Chain of Command, the Rise and Cruel Reign of the Franchise Economy. First, a word from our sponsors, folks. I'm not a big fan of cooking. I'll do it occasionally. I also feel bad if I'm ordering in all the time particularly for Saul. I want to eat healthy. I want to give him healthy food. He is super into protein now because he's hit that age where he's starting to be conscious of his muscles. Then he's doing some rock climbing and which is perfect because factor meals has an all protein plan and I have not done that yet. We've just basically relied on the chef specials. But that's the beauty of factor. You can get delicious meals. Like I had like a chicken with like mashed potatoes. What do you call it? Garlic. Garlic mashed potatoes and a Cajun shrimp dish were two of my favorites most recently. But here's the beauty. It takes two minutes. This is not frozen. It's fresh food delivered to you. I'll get like three meals a week for two, two people. So six meals put in your fridge and you have. It takes two minutes to heat up. I want to thank factor for supporting the majority report. If you go to factor meals.com majority50off, majority50off and use the code majority50off, you will get 50% off in free daily greens per box. Every meal is crafted with functional ingredients. Lean proteins, colorful vegetables, whole foods, fruits, healthy fats, the other stuff, no artificial colors, no artificial sweeteners, no high fructose corn syrup, no refined seed oils. Just nutrient dense food. It is fresh, it is never frozen and ready in two minutes. They have over 100 rotating weekly meals. Factor shops, preps, cooks and delivers straight to your door so you have more time for everything else you love. For me, it's napping, honestly. Go over to factor meals and check out those meals because they look delicious and they are delicious and they're so easy to prepare. Head to factor meals.com Majority5O off and use the code Majority5O off Majority50OFF to get 50% off and free daily greens per box with a new subscription only while supplies last until September 27, 2026. See the website for more details. Also, You know, I used to. I used to have a wallet that I had forever. It looked shredded, it looked ugly, it was fat. I'm like a front wallet guy because it's the best place to put it because you don't get back problems. You don't get. Doesn't seem as bulky. It's just I might have to pickpocket and it's harder to pickpocket. But I realized at one point, like, I didn't want to be like my father and walk around with wallet that was completely overstuffed and was, you know, 50 years old Father's Day is coming up, folks. And you can do a favor for your dad and. What am I talking about? Ridge wallet. Ridge was built by a father and son designed to meet the same standard dad set every day. Holy shit. Oh, I thought I didn't have my wallet on me. Check it out. I got like, I was nervous. I got like, I don't know, 10 cards in here. And you can keep your cash here. I'm not a cash in my wallet gap, but you can keep your cash right here. People don't use cash anymore. Wait, can you see that? It's like a little don't show your cards. No, I didn't show the cards. It's great. And in fact the other day I was at a like a hotel lobby bar thing and guy comes up paying my tab, take the wallet. I goes, I have the same wallet. And he pulls out his Ridge and he's like. I put it in my. When I get on the subway, I put it in my front pocket and it's protected, It's RFID protected. So nobody's coming along with an RFID sweeper. And I know those are real things because Saul has one and he uses it. Uses it. He uses it to try and change the TV channels on people's TV thing. But you can also like, he can clone fobs and stuff like that. And it's super easy. The guy's 13 and he's using it. So. But Ridge has got great wallets. And this is a key. This is. Oh well, literally I keep my keys in this. It basically looks like, I don't know, it's. So it keeps the keys together like this. I use a color coded system with. You don't need to do that. The Ridge, it's all part of a kit that they call their daily driver kit. They got all sorts of different styles that are really crazy hot rod. Lone wolf Thunderbird Ridge wallets are made from aluminum, titanium and carbon filter. They have over 50 colors and styles choose from. They are unique, they are slim and they are modern. And they hold up to 12 cards plus cash. Ridge has a tracker card too that you can put in in the wallet which I have. So you're not going to lose your wallet. Somebody takes it, you'll be able to track them down. Ridge has free shipping and a 99 day risk free trial lifetime warranty on all their products for a limited time. Ridge is running a huge faul father's day sale where you can get up to 40% off their best gear. Just head to ridge.com MajorityReport don't miss out on one of the biggest discounts of the year. That's Ridge R I d g e ridge.com MajorityReport for up to 40% off after the purchase. They're going to ask you where you heard about them. Say tell them that you heard them at the majority port. Check it out. We'll put the link in the podcast and YouTube description and then be quick break and be right back with Brian Calichi. Sam. We are back. Sam Cedar on the Majority Report. Emma Vigeland is out today. Want to welcome to the program Brian Kolachi, chief economist at Open Markets, author of the new book Chain of Command, Chains of Command, I should say, the Rise and Cruel Reign of the Franchise Economy. Brian, welcome to the program. You came to this, this topic of franchises and their relationship between corporations, franchisees and their employers from organizing what was 10, 15 years ago, the fight for 15. Let's start there and then work, sort of swing back around to this history of the franchise and what it was developed for.

[D]

Sure thing. Yeah. So, you know, I wouldn't exaggerate my role on the Pfeiffer 15. I was, you know, a mid level, a staff person. I was assigned to do some research at that time just to sort of figure out the franchising structure which is not that far afield from other low wage industries. The economist David Weil has this wonderful term, the Fisher's workplace, to describe these kinds of industries, whether it's temp agencies or whether it's the way Uber misclassifies drivers as independent contractors. He just had these layers where workers cannot access, you know, cannot exercise any power or hold accountable the corporation that really controls their working conditions. And then so franchising is an example of this, but also sort of the extreme version beyond anything any of us had encountered before, because it's not like a house, a hospital outsourcing its janitorial services. I mean, franchising is the whole thing is outsourced. So McDonald's franchises almost all of their restaurants and they're run by these nominally independent franchisees who really have no discretion over pretty much anything in the business. You know, prices are controlled, supplies are controlled. The precise way the cashier has to greet the customer is controlled centrally. But that but yet, you know, they declare that these workers are not their own employees. They belong to these independent franchisees. And so yeah, when I became an economist, I went to grad school, I had no intention of working on franchising. But you know, once I saw what the economics literature said about franchising. Yeah, they mostly, oh, no, this is just efficient to do it this way. And it seemed to me, and kind of obvious, and it seems obvious to anyone who's worked in fast food and other franchise industries that a big part of this is the legal. The advantages of that legal structure to sort of deny both franchisees, the small business, you know, employers and workers from having any access to recourse, accountability, or their rights that are supposed to be guaranteed under other bodies of law.

[A]

Yeah. You know, what occurred to me as I was reading through your stuff was the. That what you were saying earlier that there is this sort of broader dynamic where the capitalist class, and it works both from, like, an employment standpoint where, like you say, with, like, Uber, and in employing temp agencies, this dynamic of control but no accountability. You also see that in the context of, like, landlords, like, they want to distance themselves as much as possible from everything except for where the check goes. And so there are layers and layers and that there is, you know, controlling things from far afield and creating legal obstacles to that. And we see this across the board, whether it's, you know, like, frankly, the Supreme Court cutting off access to workers and consumers and citizens to get some type of redress against corporations. That. That dynamic permeates all this stuff. And that's what I. One of the things I found most fascinating about this. But let's talk about the history of the development of franchises, because they. They start. It seems like the idea sort of like, is developed as a way of control, and then the lack of liability comes in as a. As an innovation almost. So let's start with that. The early franchises, it was a Dunkin Donuts, which I was also excited to see.

[D]

Yeah, yeah. Fellow New Englander there. Yeah. So, yeah. The way that I was surprised to see as I started researching the book, none of this happened. It wasn't a secret conspiracy. To the benefit of the book. The actors involved who were trying to create this business model with, again, all the control, none of the liability, were pretty open about what they were trying to do. They said that that was the goal. We want the control, we don't want the liability. So the time period that we're talking about when this really takes off is Post World War II, really, starting in the early 1950s. People like the famous Ray Kroc of McDonald's, William Rosenberg of Dunkin Donuts and other entrepreneurs, Glenn Bell of Taco Bell, creating these business models. And at that time, you know, we had just gotten to The New Deal. So we had, you know, this whole body of regulatory structures that, oh, we know how to hold people accountable, we know how to hold corporations accountable for their actions. It's because we know what a corporation is. They own assets and they employ workers. They have big factories like gm, US Steel. That's how you get a union. You know, you go get, go against this big corporation that owns things and employs people. And so what the franchisors started talking about at that time, so this early version of what we would now call move fast and break things is, well, we don't want that. How can we get the same kind of corporate empire but without all that liability? And they figured out they could do it by licensing their trademark. So you want, rather than expanding by building a bunch of McDonald's restaurants and having them have employees, they decided, well, we're going to do this by licensing independent business owners to operate the McDonald's and then we'll just tell them exactly everything they have to do. But if anything goes wrong, if their employees try to get a wage increase or if they try to form a union, or if there's some kind of product safety issue or what have you, well, that'll be their problem. But the problem was, and they were again very open about this as well, is that that wasn't really legal. And what surprised me to learn initially is that this was actually an antitrust issue, not so much a labor issue. Now antitrust, this is the mid 20th century, it's the Warren Court. Antitrust courts and legislators look very, they don't. They frown upon this idea of a large corporation dominating and controlling an independent entrepreneur as if they are an employee. Now this seems very commonplace to us. This is how Uber and Lyft and Doordash do it. But Uber and Lyft are built on this sort of legal architecture that the franchise franchising community developed in the 1960s and 1970s by filing a bunch of antitrust cases, by doing sort of public propaganda to basically overturn the idea that there's any meaning to this idea of being an independent business owner, that all we should care about when it comes to these kinds of contractual controls that substitute for ownership and owning things will treat that as liberalize their treatment of the interest laws. And they won that there was no legislation passed. They didn't have to persuade any Congress to do anything, just the judiciary, you know, as part of, as part of this lobbying effort and considered part of, you know, the so called Chicago School revolutionary antitrust just did it for him.

[A]

Yeah, I wanted to, I want to talk about, I want to talk about that because it is, it's, it's almost as if like just one side showed up to a fight and they were able to, you know, the official is there going like you're the only one punching, so you win. And that's basically what happened there. I want, just before we get to that, because I want to talk about Continental Sylvania case, which, which is like, sort of like one of the turning points. But what, what was it? Was there something in particular or maybe did each sort of like franchisor have their own thing they wanted to avoid? But was it, I mean, was it unions? Was it labor costs? Was there increasing liability? Because it feels like liability wasn't quite like product liability. Wasn't then what it was going to be starting in like the 70s, 80s, maybe 90s? Was it just like labor costs or was it also just sort of the headaches of. Because the franchisor is doing most of the sourcing and negotiating of inputs. Right. Like McDonald's says, we're going to need as much hamburger as you have and you know, we're going to farm it out to a logistics company to say like, the burgers go there, the burgers go there, but we buy it all and we just resell it to you. So it's not like that's what they're trying to avoid. Was it labor specifically?

[D]

Yeah, so labor was a big one. And I would say because it's particularly because in the early decades of franchising, a lot of these were single unit owner operators and some chains, particularly Subway, still operate very much this way. It really is a genuine mom and pop. So they were concerned particularly about their franchisees, the small business operators being considered employees under a variety of different kinds of laws. Franchisees, for example, tried to form franchisee associations. They still do, but they don't have collective bargaining rights as a union would, because they're not employees in the same sense. So I'll just say one of the parts of the book I've basically memorized is this moment at congressional hearing before the Senate Antitrust Anti Monopoly Committee where the franchisor association basically tells Congress, look, we should be able to control our franchisees to the same extent as if they were our employees. And the general counsel, guy named Jerry S. Cohen for the subcommittee responds. He's sort of incredulous. Well, how can that be? The argument you're giving us is that franchising is this way to save the small business, save the small entrepreneur. But if these franchisees are told exactly what product they have to buy, what price they have to charge, exactly how they have to operate, well, they're not really an independent business person at all. They're really part of your operation. That's sort of the legal structure, legal struggle. That's. That that's going on. Yeah, so that seems obvious, right?

[A]

Like, I mean, if I own a McDonald's and I can't say, you know what, I want to do Shamrock shakes all the time, and so I'm putting green dye in my. In my vanilla shakes, and McDonald's corporate says you can't do that.

[D]

Yeah.

[A]

You can only have Shamrock shakes until March 23rd, and that's it. No more after that. Like, whoa, how can you say, I'm an independent businessman, I can't even decide to slightly change my shakes. You tell me the price I got to pay, you tell my employees what they have to say when somebody walks up to the counter. I mean, like, there's no independence whatsoever. So that takes us to Sylvania case, because this is where franchisors start to. Franchisors start. Start to get their cake and eat it too.

[D]

Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, and that's. This is also a fascinating aspect, what I found researching the book is that. So that if, you know, in like, antitrust land for antitrust lawyers, for economists, this is the case that transforms, you know, antitrust law in sort of a more pro corporate, you know, defendant friendly, you know, corporate, defendant friendly direction. And it's. Yeah, it's a Supreme Court case, basically. It's a franchiser of TVs, and they tried to restrict the territories in which the dealers, the franchisees, can sell the TVs. It was very similar to a case 10 years before that where the court had ruled that the independent business owner had just a fundamental right to dispose of their products as they saw fit. And the Continental TV versus GT Sylvania was decided by Lewis Powell, the author of the famous Powell memo.

[A]

OK, we should say this is 1977. Lewis Powell wrote a memo before he became Supreme Court justice appointed by Nixon, which was basically used as the blueprint to. To build the Heritage Foundation. It was largely in response to sort of like fears of what was happening in the 60s, particularly around the environmental stuff. And like, corporate America has to reengage in this, has to unify and fight back against what's happening, you know, all these takings that are happening. And Nixon was so impressed, he put them on the supreme court. And so 1977, we get this Sylvania case.

[D]

Yeah. And the case is the franchisors win. They overturn the previous precedents that are protected small business owners. And it's interesting. So yeah, considered the most important case in antitrust, the birth of this so called Chicago school that we're still grappling with in antitrust. But there was a concurring opinion from Justice White who just pointed out to the, to the Justice. Oh, and the key thing about the case is that it completely removed all of these concerns with, you know, the autonomy or independence of an independent business person, of an entrepreneur. And instead all we care about is efficiency. And I'm going to bracket for a second. I don't think when they say efficiency they mean real efficiency. But that's a whole nother conversation. But you know, basically the economic, if the price goes down, the output goes up. That's all we care about. We don't care about this, you know, sentimental stuff about independent business owners. But what that allowed the franchisors to do subsequently was just that creates the loophole where you can get all of your, they legalize these kinds of controlling contracts. But then, so right after Sylvania you start to see some of the smarter people in the franchising community say, wait a minute, we just won this pretty profound right to control these independent contractors. Sooner or later some judge is going to look at that control and say, you look like an employer. Or you know, for example, remember a few years ago Domino's had that 30 minute, you know, 30 minutes or less or your pizza's free. Guess what the delivery drivers are going to do when you, when you make that a requirement. They're going to go through red lights, they're going to speed. So that, so the French are just, oh, we might be on the hook for, you know, if they hit and kill someone, that might, we might be because it's our rule that's causing the accident so that there's, they spend the next, you know, what is it now, 40 years after Slovenia or Slovania trying to, well, we don't want that to that control to come with any consequences. And that's where we are today. They sort of been able to have it both ways. And other companies like Doordash and all these gig, you know, so called gig employers have done the same thing. But it all comes back to this legal effort of very smart lawyers, very smart lobbyists building this business model in the 1960s and 1970s.

[A]

Okay. And so, and I want to get to the sort of the second part where it's like, oh, we succeeded in getting control, and now how do we shed the liability that's oftenest. That. That's almost always associated with that type of control. But let's talk about Bork, because we have on this program for years, in interviewing people about antitrust, talked about how, without any laws changing, the Borkian view of antitrust became ascendant, particularly in the Reagan era, but was obviously percolating out of University of Chicago in particular, and largely, again, because there was no. I'm sure legal scholars would have a better sense of this, but at least once you cross a threshold of what a layperson knows, there was no movement in the law to push back on this insurgent sort of University of Chicago legal movement to make antitrust less about the questions of democracy, less about the questions of concentrated wealth and power, both economic and political, and more just about what will presumably benefit the consumer in a very narrow, narrow sense. Very often doesn't. But that's just a question of, like, you know, a fact as opposed to principle. There was no legal pushback there. So how does, like, that insurgent legal movement influence the Supreme Court? Is it just simply because there's no real cohesive legal movement to push back and retain what we had already and express it in, I guess, like that era's modern perspective on democracy? I mean, once you have democracy, it's very easy, or at least that type of antitrust, probably pretty easy at one point to start to take it for granted and not appreciate what it was like before.

[D]

Yeah, absolutely. So, yeah, the Borking view, I mean, so partly, yeah, the University of Chicago, they were very well funded, very disciplined, and very well organized, and it did take them, you know, several decades. This stuff, you know, intellectually, sort of gets started in the late 1950s, 1960s.

[A]

It's all coming out of Milton Friedman and that type of stuff.

[D]

Yeah, exactly. And Aaron Director and Posner at Stigler. So they're all working on this stuff, and they. They have a plan and they have a lot of money behind them. But I think one thing that they had an easier task in the sense that by the 1960s, 1970s, unfortunately, antitrust is already becoming very technocratic. I'm an economist. I love being an economist. I think we have a lot to add to society. But economists became much more prominent in antitrust cases. It became much more technical and removed from these fundamental questions of democracy, power, citizenship, those kinds of things. And it became this narrow game of did the price wiggle up or down by so much percent or did output go up? And they're very slippery, by the way, these consumer welfare folks, about what they really mean when they say consumer welfare. It doesn't mean as we would in common sense consider the welfare of the consumer as a person. But yeah, I think people, other groups just didn't. Weren't focused on antitrust as an issue of political economy. The labor movement was focused on the National Labor Relations Board and the Department of Labor. I don't think they foresaw that this loophole being opened by Slovenia would decades later not just encompass franchising, but a lot of other industries that have low wage workers. So I think that a lot of the groups you would have expected to be pushing back, the franchisees themselves sometimes have been very well organized. At other times not so much. So that was also. They were never able to mount the same kind of effective opposition or, or they were, but only in certain places and times. So yeah, it was just, you know, you have a very concerted, disciplined, organized group of powerful and wealthy people pushing, especially when you do it through the courts, as opposed to having to actually persuade people to legislative action.

[A]

Yeah.

[D]

And also the last thing I'll say about Chicago doctrine is that it's very administrable. It's very simple. A judge, you know, who has no training in economics or you know, can just sort of. Or antitrust. He just sort of low. I think I know what, I know what to do here. You know, this isn't that complicated. Yeah. So it gives, it gives. It's a very. It was a very powerful set of. Set of tools.

[A]

Okay. So they establish control over their franchise ease. And when are they able to really shed their liability? Like what? Just what's the. Is there a Sylvania moment when it comes to shedding liability in the courts or does that just sort of come administered bit by bit?

[D]

That comes sort of bit by bit. And yeah, again, in a way that people don't necessarily. People who should be paying attention or you know, in retrospect, no one knew how this was going to shake out. You know, the 1960s, I would say as early as 1965. So here's the example. The first time that franchisors are sort of able to get this. We can have it both ways. Issue is actually not with labor liability office with a Small Business administration. So the SBA was formed in the 1950s to support small business and they initially, through the mid-1960s, they do not give loans to franchisers. And the logic is that this is. I have the SBA administrator Eugene Foley saying this, this looks like not financing or extending credit to a small business, a small independent business. This looks like we're financing the distribution outlets of McDonald's or Dunkin Donuts. We don't want to finance stuck in notice. We want to finance independent small business owners. And these contracts, franchisees have to submit their contracts. And they're so full of these controls that there's no way that we can, within our mission as sba, extend this credit. The franchisors mounted a lobbying effort and they were able to persuade the sba and by. The SBA never talked to franchisees, they only talked to franchisers and they revised their lending standards now that McDonald's. So now McDonald's can access these loans. And the guy who ran these hearings for the SBA shortly thereafter became the Washington Council for the International Franchise association for the next 40 years.

[A]

All right, well, he landed softly for a lifetime landing of softness. I mean, it is sort of ironic that the Small Business association ends up meeting only with these massive corporations to determine whether they're going to give their small business loans to these massive corporations essentially or to their benefit anyways. Okay, and so then let's jump ahead to the fight for 15, because that's when the Obama National Labor Relations Board makes a determination that really flips stuff.

[D]

Yeah. So, yeah, by that time, the control has gotten so intense, and particularly in the 1990s with the Internet. So even in the 1970s, 1980s, franchise owners who want to control their franchisees, you're still relying on in person store visits, phone, fax, you know, like postal mailed computer reports. But once you get the Internet, the surveillance gets really intense. I mean, McDonald's corporate is able to monitor individual employees at a McDonald's restaurant. You know, how long does it take you to move in real time?

[A]

Practically, probably real time.

[D]

Yeah, through those cash registers. I mean. Yeah, it is an intense level of control. So now even the sort of. The fiction, which was already pretty ludicrous in the 1970s about these being independent businesses is now, I mean, come on, it's just, it looks a little bit like a joke. So by. Yeah, by the 2010s, but also it hasn't been tested at all in any kind of court. So in the 2010s, with the fight for 15, you know, that was the big union effort, is the big union effort to organize fast food. They finally called the question and immediately, you know, the workers and the union and allied organizations don't bother with this franchisor franchisee. Distinction. They say right away, no, no, no. Only McDonald's can finance these wage increases. Only McDonald's has the ability to alter, you know, the working conditions at the franchise restaurant. The franchisee has no power to do any of this. Yeah, so that, so that, that was when, that was when it finally would help some with some people, like particularly at the Department of Labor, David Weil, you know, who, who spearheaded a lot of the. Drawing attention to franchising these similar business models. That's, that's really the first time it seems like people really woke up like, wow, this is. We've really unleashed this Pandora's box of how can we let companies have these control without responsibility business models.

[A]

And so wait, so was it the Labor Department, I guess. Yes, I'm sorry, it was the Labor Department who then rules essentially that there is joint ownership or joint employment. And, and so just walk us through, like at that point, then we're. There was able to be pressure put upon the corporations. And then, of course, Trump is in office, but then Biden's back in office. And then, of course, Trump is back in office. Well, that saga ends in February of 2026, essentially, or at least for the time being. But just walk us through those, those, those different points as it goes back and forth.

[D]

Yeah, sure. Yeah. So, yeah, for the first time in the 2000 teens, the workers in the fight for 15, you know, presented, you know, sort of new facts to both the Department of Labor, which does wage and hour laws and overtime and that kind of thing, and the National Labor Relations Board, which is the body that governs union rights. And so they're moving sort of in parallel tracks. The Department of Labor makes a new rule that finds this idea of joint employer, where it's not just the franchisee who's on the hook for overtime violations under the Department of Labor, and it's not just the franchisee who has to bargain with workers under the Natural Labor Relations Act. McDonald's has to come to the table, too. So that's what joint employment sort of, that's what that doctrine. And you know, it's a little more complicated, but in a nutshell, that's what it means. So, yeah, the first time that question really been called was with the 515 in the 2000 and tens. So there's two things that happen, particularly at the National Labor Relations Board. There's a case called Browning Ferris that is not franchising, but establishes this new doctrine for when, you know, when employers are joint employers, which is rather than sort of direct and immediate Control over, you know, I'm going to fire this guy. I'm going to cut this one's hours. More indirect means of control, like, you know, a recommendation to a franchisee, you know, so and so, you know, didn't is not moving the customers through the drive thru fast enough. You should do something about that. And then the franchisee does the firing. Right. It's a similar, it's the same thing, but there's different mechanisms. So that's Brown and Ferris. And then the National Labor Relations Board files a suit against McDonald's holding not just the franchisees for a numerous labor law violations, but also McDonald's. And that stuff is still sort of working its way through the NLRB process. When Trump's elected the first time they abandoned the case. They settled it without any finding a joint employer things. So things are just kind of dead to the Trump years. Then Biden comes in, new nlrb, new dol. I get things just go back to the way they were under the Obama years. And guess what, now we have another problem with Trump for the second time. So it's been sort of frustrating back and forth since, since the initial Obama era ruling of joint employment.

[A]

All right, so wrapping up here. Yeah. In the event that Democrats and it's not a guarantee with Democrats, but it's certainly a guarantee that it's not going to happen with Republicans. Get back into office and control. It sounds like we need legislation that defines this.

[D]

Yeah, we do. So yeah, that's a tough environment to pass legislation in. But yeah, we need a statute. We certainly need a statutory fix at some point soon. So we don't have this swinging back. And also employers need some certainty about what is an employee. It can't just keep swinging back and forth administration to administration. But the second thing is the other area where the Biden administration made a lot of progress was they also started to revisit some of these Chicago school antitrust doctrines. So they were doing things like under, under Lina Khan's FTC Commissioner Alvaro Bedoya gave a fantastic speech where he just laid out like, well, if you're using these kinds of contractual controls under antitrust, they're called vertical restraints in technical terms, to misclassify independent contractors as employee art. Sorry. To misclassify employees as independent contractors. That's also an antitrust issue that should be addressed by the FTC Section 5 authority, which is unfair methods of competition. They did some similar things to sort of, you know, maybe not pass new rules, but to address this idea of control without responsibility. So I think you Know, to wrap it up, you know, the way franchisors have been able to have their cake and eat it too. If we come at them from both sides on the antitrust and the labor side and the, you know, liability side, I guess three sides, that sort of narrows there, then they won't have to make a choice. Do you want the control or do you want to be accountable? But you can't have it both ways.

[A]

This may be a little bit outside your portfolio, but on that antitrust side, it really felt over the past couple of years, I mean, the antitrust movement has been percolating, I would say, for over a decade now. Well, probably 14, 15 years, I mean, in earnest. And there's a lot more sensitivity to the fact that we left our prior notion of antitrust and the arguments to return. And again, this is a mirror image of what happened in the 60s and the 70s with what was coming out of Chicago school in that, you know, sometimes with these legal movements, it's really just one player on the field. And is it your sense that, like that, that that there again, this might be outside your portfolio as it's coming more from the legal institution, but that there is still momentum in pushing that. And what would it take from a statute, like, what would it take for this to sort of really turn in terms of the franchisees? Like, because I don't think antitrust is caught up to where we. The heights, if you were, we reached on the labor side, but those heights were not as durable because Trump comes in, he reverses it. But if we get it within the legal institution, there's a certain amount of momentum that continues to go. What's your sense of that?

[D]

Yeah, so I think, you know, just like the Chicago school, this stuff is going to percolate up, you know, with law students as they saying about science progresses one funeral at a time. You need to get new cohorts of lawyers and litigators and judges who have different understandings, better understandings of how the economy really works. So I think that's a big part of it. And new legislation is essential. But in the meantime, one thing that maybe is a cause for a little bit of optimism on the antitrust side of things is a lot of judges don't really have, whether right, whether they're right wing or left wing, Republicans or Democrats don't have super well formed doctrinaire ideas about antitrust. So I think some of them can be moved by good arguments that are rooted in past cases. A lot of the stuff I'm talking about A lot of it is, particularly under the Federal Trade Commission act rather than the Sherman Act. The major antitrust law is still good law. We can still move forward on some of these things. But, yeah, ultimately, federal legislation, whatever can be done. The other thing, a wonderful thing about antitrust is that there is no federal preemption. So states can make their own antitrust laws that are stronger. On these issues of controlling small businesses. There's a lot that can be done there. And then on the labor side, yeah, I mean, pass the PRO act or something better than the pro Act. And in the meantime, you know, we need, yeah, we need. We just need to reverse some of the, you know, win again and administratively reverse some of those bad joint employer rulings.

[A]

Brian Kolachi, the book is Chains of Command the Rise and Cruel Reign of the Franchise Economy. Thanks so much for your time today. We'll put a link to that at Majority FM and in our podcast and YouTube descriptions. Really appreciate it.

[D]

Thanks for having me.

[A]

All right, folks, that's it for this half of the program. It's Monday, and that means that we're headed into Monday's fun half. Emma Viglan will not be joining us today, but she'll be back tomorrow. Well, that was. I just anticipated something passive aggressive coming. No, no, it wasn't at all. Now it made me feel like it was passive aggressive after you started laughing. That. Matt, I wonder, do you ever have moments where you think about, like somewhere in corporate McDonald's headquarters, there's a file that says Matleck and like assesses your friar work back from when you were a kid?

[C]

I would like it if there was like a big file that was collecting all of the things that me and the other people on headsets would say about the people coming through the drive thru because we basically just made fun of them.

[A]

Is that right?

[C]

Yeah, yeah. People. There's this thing people say about, like, yeah, no one's really thinking about you, but when it comes to McDonald's, in my experience, when people come to the drive thru, we'd make fun of them immediately after they were done making their order. If they made a single flub of pronunciation or even if they had a funny voice, we would make fun of them immediately.

[A]

So you would say like, oh, my God, they called it a MC Chicken.

[C]

Exactly. Or like, if they ordered something a stupid way. There's a simpler way.

[A]

Like, what would that.

[C]

Just like ordering, like, oh, not.

[A]

Not organizing your drink order with exactly your food order.

[C]

So, like being inefficient.

[A]

So, yeah. So they're like, I'll have one cheeseburger and fries and oh, and then another cheeseburger. Yeah. Everyone's just like, oh, my God, this is the first time you've ordered at McDonald's.

[C]

Get out more.

[A]

Organize your, your burgers.

[C]

No, we don't have Whoppers here.

[A]

I would love, love to hear recordings of that.

[C]

I would too. It'd be worth the sort of like, Palantir panopathy. That would require keeping that stuff for 25 years.

[A]

Austentatious says I want to nominate that interview for best of. That was fascinating. I've never thought about the intersection between franchisees and antitrust. Noted. Do you have that?

[D]

I'm on it, boss.

[A]

Okay. You're like, oh, shoot, I was supposed to start this list three months ago, didn't we?

[C]

Best of that one about the Nixon administration and McDonald's franchises. Do we? Best of that one. You remember that interview?

[A]

I think so. Was that part of, like, you know what? That came up in this book and I meant to ask him about it. Nixon had a, like a, like a black employment thing and he was like pushing franchises, sort of black capitalism. Yeah.

[C]

Through like McDonald's franchisees type of thing.

[A]

Folks, it's your support that makes this show possible. You can become a [e-mail] when you do, you not only get the free show free of commercials, but you also get the fun half. And you can IM us on the fun half. I just want to note, I already got six things in the best of list from this year. From this year.

[C]

Damn, I need to do a pretty mid year best of.

[A]

That's right. Somebody's bucking for a day off.

[C]

Take a June, Christmas in July.

[A]

Maybe we'll do that. Maybe we'll do an extended July 4th is on a Saturday. This year, actually. This country. Yeah. This year's. This year's. The calendar has been so messed up this year. So messed up. Also, folks, just coffee, co op, fair trade coffee, hot chocolate, use the coupon code, majority get 10% off. Matt, what's happening in the Matt Leckian media universe?

[C]

Yeah, brand new Jacobin show for everyone who subscribes. Over at the Jacobin Meg YouTube channel, we talked with Bronco March Teach about his piece going into how Peter Thiel got a little bump back into politics from none other than Jeffrey Epstein, who said he needed to develop a world sense and start looking into, you know, doing deals with people like Ehud Barak. So check that out and talk about those emails and where we're at. Now that Epstein is dead and Peter Thiel is a one of the primary government contractors in our surveillance state. Check that out@Jacobin YouTube channel.

[A]

Speaking of Peter Thiel, did you see that article that JD Vance there was a lobbyist paying people 100 bucks a pop to be was it in Iowa? It was in Iowa, yeah. To fill the room in Iowa for him.

[C]

Jeez.

[A]

And then also somebody else just I am this and you know, it's worth mentioning on we'll talk more about it probably in the fun half, but maybe we'll wait for Emma to come back to talk about this, but a week or two ago we had Chris Rob on and he is running in Pennsylvania. Is it fourth? I can't remember exactly which district it is in Pennsylvania. And I had interviewed him, I didn't realize it like 20 years ago when he was a blogger. And he's since been a Pennsylvania state rep and he's running for Congress in the third. And it's just been revealed that Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, has been playing in the background in that primary and apparently really worried about Chris Robb winning. And I mean we, we had him on, obviously supportive of of him great policies. Chris Rob. But that gives us, I think, you know, for me, that story tells me a, Chris Robb is definitely the person I want to win that primary and B, there's a lot more problems with Josh Piro than just his virulent Zionism. I don't think we actually covered it on air, but we had on the

[D]

sound sheet for a while.

[A]

He was was it the state treasurer of Pennsylvania that he went and got unions to back the Republican because the Democrat said something mean about him or something real petty? Exactly. Yeah. She, she apparently has been sort of dishing the tea on Twitter too. So yeah, maybe we'll oh AOCs to rally with Chris Robb this week in Pennsylvania's third. That's good. All right, folks, look, we're going to head into the fun half and we're going to do that now, 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 months from now, but I think around 18 months out, we're going to look back and go like, wow, what, what is that going on? It's nuts. Wait a second. Hold on for, hold on for a second. Emma, welcome to the program. What is up Everyone. Fun. No, Mickey.

[D]

You did it.

[A]

Fun. Pat.

[D]

Let's go.

[C]

Brandon.

[A]

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

[D]

Fundamentally false. No.

[A]

I'm sorry.

[B]

Women.

[A]

Stop talking for a second and let me finish.

[D]

Where is this coming from?

[B]

Dude?

[A]

But.

[D]

Dude.

[A]

You want to smoke this? Citadel. Yes.

[D]

Hi.

[A]

Me. Is me. Yes. Is this me?

[D]

Is it me?

[A]

It is you? Is this me? Hello?

[B]

It's me.

[A]

I think it is you. Who is you? No sound. Every single freaking day. What's on your mind? We can discuss free markets and we can discuss capitalism. I'm gonna go libertarians. They're so stupid. Though common sense says of course. Gobbledygook. We nailed him. So what's 79? 21 challenge. Man.

[D]

I'm positively quivering.

[A]

I believe 96. I want to say. 8572-103550-11038, 911. For instance.

[D]

$3,400.

[A]

1900. 5, 4. $3 trillion. Sold. It's a zero sum game. Actually.

[D]

You're making me think less.

[A]

But. But let me say this poop. You can call it satire.

[B]

Sam goes satire on top of it all.

[A]

My favorite part about you is just like every day, all day, like everything you do. Without a doubt. Hey, buddy. We seen you. All right, folks. Folks, Folks. It's just the week being weeded out. Obviously. Yeah. Sun's out, guns out. I. I don't know.

[D]

But you should know,

[A]

people just don't

[C]

like to entertain ideas anymore.

[A]

I have a question. Who cares? Our chat is enabled, folks. I love it. I do love that. Gotta jump. Gotta be quick. I gotta jump. I'm losing it, bro. Two o'. Clock. We're already late and the guy's being a dick. So screw him. Sent to a gulag. Outrageous. Like, what is wrong with you? Love you.

[D]

Bye.

[A]

Love you. Bye. Bye.