← The Money with Katie Show
The Money with Katie Show
How Other Countries Used Their Darkest Hour to Radically Reform Their Economies
01:17:53
Because another, better world is possible.
Loading summary
Transcript99 lines
- [00:02]
Katie
This message is brought to you by Apple Card. Did you know Apple Card is designed to help you pay off your balance faster with smart payment suggestions? And because fees don't help you, Apple Card doesn't have any. So if your credit card isn't Apple Card, maybe it should be subject to credit approval. Apple Card issued by Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Salt Lake City Branch. Variable APRs range from 18.24% to 28.49% based on creditworthiness rates as of July 1, 2025 Terms and more at applecard.com.
- [00:33]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
As Americans, the things that we hold dear, like freedom and getting good deals, two things that we really debunked today is that we're not as free as we think we are. And we also are not getting a good deal.
- [00:48]
Katie Gaditasan
Many of our shows this year have focused on accurately diagnosing and understanding problems. Why don't things in the United States feel like they work the way that they should? And so often, why does life feel so much harder than it would need to be in the wealthiest place in the history of humanity? But this episode is about solutions. And in another sense, it's about hope. It's about hope that the problems that plague us aren't unsolvable and in fact, other places have solved them with tactics that are within reach. Today I am speaking with the author of Another World Is Possible, Natasha Hakimi Zapata. I'm challenging myself not to use the word Norway even once over the next hour because I recognize the utility of gesturing repeatedly at the actual richest country on earth. If we're talking about wealth per capita of approximately 5 million people has its limits and I've probably exhausted them. So today we're going to talk about how Singapore made housing affordable for essentially everybody, how Finland created the most impressive and equitable education system the world has ever seen, how Portugal solved drug abuse, how Estonia made the Internet a human right, how Uruguay broke records in its transition to renewable energy, and how New Zealand created a universal pension program. And yes, if you read Natasha's book, you will also get to learn about how Norway made quality childcare available to everybody. But like I said, my no Norway challenge begins now. Natasha, welcome to the Money with Katie show. I am very thrilled to talk to you today about solutions.
- [02:35]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Thanks so much for having me, Katie.
- [02:37]
Katie Gaditasan
So before we get into country specific conversation, I want to talk to you a little bit about American exceptionalism. I'm really curious how often over the course of researching and writing this book, going on tour for this book, did you encounter someone who said, well, sure, that's great for them. I'm sure that works for them, but that would never work in the United States because, you know, our special snowflake problems are just so unique and different from everybody else's.
- [03:07]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
So, as you suspect, I, of course, got this a lot, especially in terms of, like, are we too racist to have things like universal healthcare?
- [03:16]
Katie Gaditasan
Yes. No, I'm kidding.
- [03:18]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Well, I mean, one of the things I really wanted to do is I wanted to stay away only from Scandinavian countries. I did go to Norway and look at their amazing paid parental leave policy. I did go to Finland to look at their public school education system. But I wanted to offer a pretty big variety of economies and cultures and take this really global approach and, you know, look at policies that have been successful and around for at least 10 years. I had all of this data to really say we don't actually have an excuse if all of these very different places are able to address these issues that we also have in the States and that really feel intractable. And so a big part. It's important to explain as well, where the book came out of. I'm a journalist. I've been a journalist in progressive media for about 15 years now. @ the same time that I was writing and reporting on all of these issues that felt so intractable in the US Where I'm from, I was also living in a number of different places and traveling to a number of different places where they seemed like they'd gotten a lot further along on those same issues. And so the personal side, which I write about in the introduction to the book, comes from an experience with my mom. So I'm the daughter of undocumented immigrants from Mexico, Mexico and Iran. And speaking of American exceptionalism, I grew up around this idea of the American dream. And I often say my brothers and I were these, like, little American dreams that my parents had. But as we got older, that American dream that they had seemed more possible to me in some of the other places I lived in. And part of that was back to my mom and this health incident in which because she couldn't afford healthcare, health insurance, really, for large parts of her life, she had undiagnosed, untreated diabetes that was finally diagnosed as she was being rushed to the emergency room and had to have her right foot amputated. And at the same time that I was filled with this dread that many of us have felt, unfortunately, of worried about my mom's wellbeing. What was her life going to be like? How would she survive? I was also worried about how we were going to be able to afford the care she needed, the insulin she would literally need moving forward to stay alive. And I knew because I'd lived in places like the UK where I live now, that universal healthcare is possible. We can address at least that part of the issue and do so successfully.
- [05:57]
Katie Gaditasan
There's so much there. I was just with some family in San Miguel de Allende and we were talking about the Medicaid cuts. And we've been talking about this on the show a lot as well, how when you remove health care from somebody, you remove their health insurance, their ability to access that care. They don't stop needing care, they just go about accessing it in other ways. And oftentimes the other ways they are forced to access it is through emergency room care, as your mom's story so nicely illustrates. And not only are the health outcomes typically much worse, but it's a lot more expensive too. So I like to highlight that every chance we get, just to be like, we think we're doing this on the cheap and it's going to be saving money to take health care away from people. And that's just, frankly, not the case. I also think that when we have conversations like these and you made this joke about are we too racist to have universal health care, we're kind of kidding. But that is, in so many words, the argument that people make when they say, well, our country is too diverse for that. Saying that we're too diverse for something is just a nicer way of saying we assume that some population of this country is not going to want to see minority populations receive these things. And so it's like, we're kidding, but we're kind of not. The other pushback that I often hear, and I think this one actually is more legitimate that there is such low trust in the government. Trust is required for these programs to work and for buy in to happen. I'm curious if you heard that as well.
- [07:36]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
I've definitely heard that as well. And of course, like the other question I get a lot is like, can we afford this? But I always like to remind people it's the wealthiest country in the history of the planet. It's about how we allocate resources and what our priorities are.
- [07:49]
Katie Gaditasan
Drone strikes, right?
- [07:51]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Well, exactly. And what does that really cost? Not just the world, but also our country. And we're seeing that very much right now in the States. But going back to this idea of trust, I really like this concept that I think it Robbie Nelson from DSA talks about which is engines of solidarity, that these policies, especially universal programs. I'm a huge believer in universal programs, even more so after writing this book. They show us in a very real, material way that we're all in this together. We already are. But when we, we all have the same healthcare system, when we all have to send our kids to the same local school, we understand that we are materially in this together. And that can lead to more solidarity, that can lead to more trust.
- [08:42]
Katie Gaditasan
We'll be right back to this conversation with Natasha after this break. One of the best money moves I made stopped trying to figure everything out alone. As I made progress and got closer to my overall goal, I started to second guess whether I was missing anything. Like was I as on track as I thought? Were my investment allocations appropriate for me? This is the plague of the self taught personal finance nerd. Does it sound familiar? Then I worked with Domain Money's certified financial planners and I got the peace of mind that I needed. They led me through a strategic restructuring of my asset allocation, my cash cushion. And they even helped me pinpoint the perfect timing for an eventual home purchase. And it turned out it was actually later than I thought. What I love is that they don't give cookie cutter advice. They actually look at what you're trying to achieve. Then they optimize everything around that. Plus they use a flat fee structure. You know exactly what you're paying right out of the gate. Ready to stop guessing and start winning with your money? See what the experience is like for yourself by booking a free strategy session. To see if Domain Money is a good fit, head to moneywithkatie.com domain money to book your session. That's moneywithkatie.com domain Money I'm a real client of Domain Money via Money with Katie. I receive compensation and have an incentive to promote Domain Money. See important disclosures at DMNMNY co X. So let's dive into some of these country specific case studies that you have. I want to start with Singapore's Housing Development board. In the 1960s, the Singaporean government revolutionized its views on public housing. And just keep in mind here that public housing has a very different connotation in the United States as we know. But in Singapore they devoted the resources to creating just an astonishing amount of housing supply. So by 1980, 67% of Singaporeans lived in public housing. 2 in 3 people. How does buying public housing in Singapore work?
- [11:08]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
That number is actually higher. Now 80% of Singaporeans live in public housing and 90% of them are homeowners. So it's just this incredible radical experiment coming from this very unlikely place. Right. So the way that buying public housing works in Singapore is that your down payment, the way that we would in the US have a down payment and get a mortgage for an HDB Housing Development Board apartment, comes out of these mandatory employer employee contribution based savings funds for pensions. And what that means is essentially that your deposit is sort of automatically saved for you, that you most of the time don't even need to actually spend a single Singaporean dollar of your cash savings in order to buy a home. And that your monthly sort of quote unquote mortgage payments, they're HDB loans that are sort of similar, actually come out directly from that pension fund. So again, you don't even have to really think about the fact that you have these payments, that that money's coming straight out of your paycheck time.
- [12:16]
Katie Gaditasan
The housing is also aesthetically appealing. It is in many cases like very beautiful. It's just not what you think of when you think of public housing and that they make this ongoing investment. So you write about how in 2007 the home improvement program just upgraded everyone's plumbing and wiring.
- [12:37]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Yeah, there's this real sense that housing should be dignified and actually excellent regardless, for everyone. I had the privilege of interviewing Ty Kirliu, who was one of the, quote unquote, master architect of Singapore, of modern Singapore as we know it. And he designed a lot of the public housing, a lot of the HDB housing that you can still see today. And he talked about blurring this line between what looked like private or public housing. He wanted to eliminate that stigma that we have in a lot of other countries that's attached to public housing. And it's gotten to the point, point. You know, I went to different HDB units over different decades, and as Singapore has gotten significantly wealthier, the HDB housing has gotten a lot better. And as you said, they've continued to improve it through these home improvement programs and ensured that the maintenance is there, but also that the services are there. I think this is one of the things that I really loved about it is that they also that HDB chose what kind of services were available in each area, in each building, in each neighborhood, depending on what the demographics were in that area. And so, you know, if you had younger families living in a certain place, then you need more daycare centers. If you have more elderly people, you need more community centers for the elderly and things like that.
- [14:04]
Katie Gaditasan
That dreaded central planning. Sounds awful, sounds Miserable.
- [14:10]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Yeah. The other dreaded thing is that the 15 minute city, right, this has been so maligned and actually most neighborhoods in Singapore are sort of 15 minute neighborhoods, so to speak.
- [14:20]
Katie Gaditasan
One can only dream from the suburban sprawl of the U.S. well, I also, I really like and I appreciated that you highlighted the shortcomings of these programs too. You're not painting this utopian idealist picture. But I think what's funny is that I don't think the shortcomings are going to be what people are expecting. It's not run down ugly buildings. It's not some of the problems that have plagued public housing efforts in the United States. It's that the socially conservative government of Singapore now has the ability to exclude people based on their identities. So if you're gay or if you're single, the carrot of affordable housing is used to encourage heterosexual young marriage, effectively family formation that they want. I really couldn't help but notice kind of the parallel here of the US government's own discriminatory housing policies of the past. Redlining, blocking black Americans from qualifying for loans. So I guess for you, what was the biggest lesson from Singapore's radical experiment in housing?
- [15:26]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
It's to me a really good example of how we need to internalize the right lessons from these stories. That's why I outline all of these flaws in every chapter for every program. There's no policy that's perfect, there's no country that's perfect. And you know, I wouldn't want people to hear this or read my book and think, oh yeah, we should use housing to promote these sort of retrograde ideas. And I often get asked, does it matter who implements these policies? If it's the right or the left, these policies will have such a huge material impact on people's lives that we kind of just need to get there and we can always make them better. But of course it's incredibly frustrating to see what we would consider progressive ideas like student loan forgiveness be used to recruit ICE agents who are kidnapping people and destroying communities. And so again, important to internalize the right lessons about this. But there are some really important lessons about Singapore. And I chose Singapore as opposed to any other country's public. There are a few examples that are kind of more left wing in a way, but, but I wanted to show that even in a hyper capitalist context, this is a country where things that we even still take for granted in the US like public schools existing, they don't have that in Singapore. There's, they're all fees charging. It's a very pick yourself up by your own bootstraps kind of society, even more than the US in many ways. But I wanted to show that even there, there's an understanding that so many issues intersect with housing that that can actually go a really long way to stabilizing and creating a solid foundation for a society to ensure affordable housing for everyone.
- [17:05]
Katie Gaditasan
I hadn't picked up on that, but I think that's such an interesting point because typically when I think about, okay, where do we point to to be like, who has housing figured out? I always think about Vienna and red. Vienna is what created the affordable housing there. So it's like, again, you're going as pretty much as like, lefty as you possibly can. So, yeah, pretty strategic move there to be like, no, no, no. We're going to look at a socially conservative, hyper capitalist, hyper individualist place in order to prove that these things can actually work, kind of regardless of the context. So, switching gears a little bit, we're going to head over to Scandinavia. Now, I know I promised everybody in the introduction that I was not going to talk about Norway, and I'm not. I'm going to talk about Finland, Finland's education system. So in the year 2000, Finland shocks the world. Their students outperform their peers in reading in all of the world's largest economies. And this came decades after Finland did away with standardized testing, which is something that in the US Is like, sacrosanct. And this is not just a commitment to excellence and access for elementary kids. It's all university degrees. Graduate degrees are tuition free in Finland, which is, like, unthinkable. So before we get into the details, I want to talk about how Finland treats its educators, its teachers. So what is it like to be a teacher in Finland?
- [18:29]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
One of the big things that every teacher in Finland that I spoke to talked about, and they see it as a key difference between their profession in Finland and how it's treated in the US Is autonomy. They are really trusted to teach however they see fit. And a lot of that comes from the fact that they are required to get a master's degree, which, as you explained, is completely free, paid for by the state. And that ensures a really high standard of education across the board. You're having teachers that are essentially getting the same quality of education anyway. And on the other hand, their actual conditions, their labor conditions are excellent. They are only teaching four hours a day. They obviously have to do a lot of other administrative work and grading and things like that. The focus is on how they can show up as best they can. And so that doesn't mean just hours in the classroom. They have these amazing, what someone described as like palatial teachers lounges that just kind of highlights how they're valued. And that's the other thing. They're really valued by broader society overall. They're respected by not just parents, but just everyone that understands that these are the people who are in charge of educating future generations. And that also is translated into how they're compensated. So they are well compensated, especially when you take into consideration other salaries in other professions. In Finland, again, this is a profession that is well respected and that everyone knows people are having to get a master's degree in order to do. And they have teachers contracts that are negotiated with municipalities through the Trade Union of Education. And so a lot of how their salary goes up is actually with experience and time spent teaching. And it's not up to the local schools to decide what your salary is.
- [20:26]
Katie Gaditasan
I was immediately reminded of the lightning rod of teachers unions as a talking point in American politics. So Finland's Trade Union of Education, the.
- [20:41]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Majority of teachers are a part of the union in the way that they're associated with the government is that they actually get consulted because they represent basically all teachers or most of the teachers in the country. They get consulted when it comes to things like curriculum, like they get a seat at the table or whenever there's any sort of educational policy change. Like the union actually has quite a lot of power to influence these things because again, they are made up of by most of the teachers in the country.
- [21:08]
Katie Gaditasan
So something else that jumped out at me is the process of funding. Municipalities are responsible for financing 60% of their educational budgets through their municipal taxes. And then local governments receive central funding per student in each district up to about 40% of the budget, with additional money that's allocated for special needs. If you have low income students, if you have foreign students, as well as children with single parents or parents who are uneducated and not for nothing, something as simple as school lunch. The nutritional, well balanced school lunches is free for all students and has been since 1940, 43, which really makes me feel like we are living in the dark ages. But this approach to funding really struck me as kind of a core difference maker. This is something that's come up on the show several times now at this point, just the way in which we fund public schools in the United States and how it leads to these really disparate outcomes. How did you contextualize funding and the way these schools are Funded with everything else that you learned about the Finns approach to education. What role is this playing?
- [22:18]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
I'm really glad that you brought up funding models because they're so important and really make a difference to outcomes. It is an overall more equitable approach to funding education and it ensures that there's not this zip code lottery like what we have in the US because funding essentially is standardized across the country. And this has the effect of making everyone's local school the best possible school. So it comes back to this thing of these engines of solidarity. Everyone has to put their kids in their local school and so they're not moving around the way that we do in the US if we're even able to, in order to go to a better school. You know, I talked about a little bit in the book that I went to an excellent public school in the US and part of that was that it's not because I lived in an area that had a great public school, but rather one of my aunts did, which you're not really allowed to do. And so I'm really grateful for the public school education I had in the US But I'm also very aware that that's not the case for many, many people across the country. And a lot of that again comes back to how we're spending on education. We're actually spending more in terms of percentage of GDP on education than Finland is. But we're getting worse outcomes. And a lot of that has to do with the fact that a lot of that funding is going towards private education. So again, the results are really uneven across the board.
- [23:40]
Katie Gaditasan
Really. I didn't realize that a lot of it was going to private education. How does that work?
- [23:44]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Or a lot of people are getting like school vouchers to send their kids to private schools. That's public money. Some of it is also due to the fact that we're having a lot of like charter schools instead of public schools. That comes back to how underperforming schools are treated in certain places. But a big part of this is also even the fact that we have private schools. This is one of the things that Finland did during their huge educational reforms is that they actually decided to abolish private schools. And a big part of this, of the effect of this is that as someone explained to me in Finland is that if you eliminate these off ramps for the wealthy like they did in Finland with in terms of school, and I think we could kind of apply that across the board to a lot of things in the U.S. then again, you have no choice but to make the public option the best option.
- [24:36]
Katie Gaditasan
It makes perfect sense. I can't even imagine the uproar that we would see. But. But it's true. If you don't have the ability to pay for something better, then the only option is to funnel more money into making the universal thing better. It's a tough chicken or egg for sure, because I think the pushback that you would hear is like, well, the public schools aren't good enough for my child. I want my child to have the best education and they're not going to get that best education. You know, with the quality of the public school that they have access to. Property values are also really inflated if they are zoned to a school that is perceived to be quote, unquote, good or better. So kind of the tie in between the two countries, we've discussed already that you're also going to pay a lot more to live in a neighborhood that has access to a good public school. It's going to become more expensive for you. Something that I think is really interesting about the Finnish model that the American system could benefit from was its approach to higher education as well. Can you tell us a little bit more about that?
- [25:41]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Absolutely. So in Finland, at the point in which we would kind of go to high school in the States, you have these upper secondary schools which are an academic route, but they also have the option of vocational schools at a much earlier stage. And again, this is all paid for by the state. They've just extended it so that you're in school until you're 18, you could actually leave school at 16 before this. And what this means is that you can actually choose the path that's best for you, but there's no dead ends in the system. I think that's really important to point out that if, let's say at some point you do choose a vocational route and you want to go back to an academic route and get a university degree that is still open to you with state funding and state backing. Again, like all of this is well funded and encourages a kind of more holistic approach to society. Like, we need people to do a lot of different things. And if you feel that your strengths and interests lie in something that is a vocational path, then that should be supported and well compensated as well. And so there's also this kind of more modular system. I went into some of these secondary schools and it felt a lot more like going to college the way I did in the States. And you can just take a number of different classes and credits that go towards your degree, but it also means you don't get held back a year. You kind of go at your own pace and take classes that you're interested in. And again, it's about building out a more well educated society overall, regardless of the paths that people choose.
- [27:16]
Katie Gaditasan
In the US There have been attempts, right, to turn this around. No Child Left behind sticks out. The program that gave us an incredible meme, the Child Left behind meme. But what went wrong with no Child Left Behind? Where did that program air?
- [27:35]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
There are so many things that went wrong in this.
- [27:38]
Katie Gaditasan
How much time do you have.
- [27:41]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Just to highlight a few? Again, it goes back to the way that standardized testing became the norm across the board in order to actually make decisions that are linked to funding. So if a school or the students in a school underperformed on standardized tests, this would lead to more funding cuts. It's the exact opposite of what the Finns do, where they're like, okay, if there are struggling schools or struggling students, we need to fund them more. We need to actually support them more, because that will lead to a healthier overall society. But this kind of exacerbated and fast forwarded us through the mass privatization of a lot of public schools in the states. And a lot of this comes back to this thinking that we have in the US that's been really destructive, that somehow the private sector can do better than the public sector. And actually, we had this kind of shining example of public school education in the US for so long.
- [28:43]
Katie Gaditasan
We did really well.
- [28:45]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Now, being, again, a proud product of the US Public school system, we were one of the first countries to have a public school system system from the New Deal era onward that was actually universally accessible. It still technically is. But again, with no Child Left behind, the quality of that education has really gone down. Because instead of having teachers that have this teacher autonomy that we were talking about in Finland, who can decide how best to address the needs of a certain classroom, of their students in a classroom, they're mostly teaching to these tests because it's so punitive for their students to underperform on these tests.
- [29:28]
Katie Gaditasan
Okay, thank you for that. So let's shift gears again. Let's go to Portugal. This is a country that in the late 20th century had a real problem with illicit drug use. And some of the visuals that you presented in this chapter of people leaning against the sides of buildings in busy public places with needles in their arms reminded me of some of the most extreme depictions of drug abuse in the U.S. today. And the challenges that we have in major cities. So one of the first steps that their task force enacted to solve this problem was decriminalizing possession and use, though trafficking drugs was still illegal. Tell us more about how they approach this issue, because I. I know that decriminalization is another one of these kind of lightning rod ideas in the United States. And we're going to get into some of the times that this has been tried in the US but how did they do this in Portugal?
- [30:21]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
They were dealing with a dual epidemic of overdose deaths and rising HIV AIDS rates from the 1980s until about the year 2000 when they decided to pass this law. And it was so extreme that it was something like one in every hundred Portuguese people was experiencing some sort of problematic addiction, as they called it. And it just became an undeniable problem that. But this crisis had to be addressed differently. So this is around the same time that we're doing the War on Drugs.
- [30:53]
Katie Gaditasan
In the U.S. famously successful war on drugs.
- [30:57]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Right. And spreading the outcomes to that to other countries. Portugal decided to do something really different, and that was decriminalize personal drug use. So not selling drugs, but using drugs. And although this is the part of it that gets the most sort of play, because it is quite radical, the main thing about it is that it allowed drug use and addressing problematic drug use, not just drug use in general, to as a public health issue rather than a criminal justice issue. So it quite literally moved dealing with it from the Ministry of Justice to the Ministry of Health. And this allowed them to take a much more holistic approach to drug use. As some of the experts told me, one of the key successes in Portugal was that they did everything all at once. So they did everything from early intervention and education and treatment and harm reduction programs to what I think is one of the kind of most interesting parts of this policy, which is that they opened what are called dissuasion commissions, which is that if you get caught with any amount of drugs, of any illicit drug that is deemed for personal use, you get a citation kind of like you would get a speeding ticket, and you have to go and talk to someone or to two people at a dissuasion commission, which, as the name suggests, is a place where they kind of try to dissuade you. It's actually not from using any drugs ever. It's just from, like, going down a path that could be harmful. And you really just have a chat. And I've met some of the people who work there, and they're like social workers or legal experts. But what they're doing is they're again, taking a very holistic approach to drug use, which is to talk to people in this, like, very humane way and ask them, you know, what's your life like? Do you have a family history of drug use? Do you have a job? What's going on that might have led you to want to start using a certain drug? And most times they're actually letting people go without even, you know, a fine or anything like that. A lot of the times they don't deem it problematic, but in the times when it is considered problematic, they are able to put information, not force anyone, put information in front of people who may not have access to it, about treatment options, about rehab options. And this is really key when it comes to actually helping people who need the help. Hmm.
- [33:36]
Katie Gaditasan
And what were the results of the shift?
- [33:38]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
The results actually surprised everyone, even the architects of this policy, in that they had sort of hoped and expected that overdose deaths would go down. They did. They had hoped and expected that HIV and AIDS rates would go down. They did. But the thing that really shocked everyone was that actually the use and possession of illicit drugs there was like a small uptick for a minute, and then it went down. And it hasn't gone up really since then. Despite the fact that you can not legally, I should say, decriminally use any sort of drugs in Portugal, there is less drug use there than there was before this law was implemented. And the other things are, you know, the social cost of drugs, meaning, like what it holistically costs society to have people who are using drugs, it has actually gone down. Drug related prison rates, it won't surprise you to know, fell dramatically. I think it was 40% in 2001 to the latest number I had was 2019. So 16%, I think it's probably lower now. And that's compared to the US where in that same year we had 1 in 5 people detained, were detained because of drug offenses. So that's incredibly costly. And that's just one of the costs we're talking about.
- [34:51]
Katie Gaditasan
I read recently that the US incarcerates a higher percentage of its population than any other major democracy. That's pretty shameful, honestly, for a country that like, really prides itself on freedom and justice. It's like, oh, that's not a good statistic. I know that drug use, the criminalization of drugs is a big piece of that. So coming to the US for a moment, you reference Oregon's efforts to decriminalize as well as the measure was eventually reversed in the state because it didn't seem to work there. So what do you make of that?
- [35:28]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Oregon is another example of how we need to adapt lessons to our own context, but also to internalize the right lessons. So at the same time that in Oregon you had a rise in homelessness and it intersected with the fentanyl crisis. This was around the pandemic. But the same thing happened in California where they hadn't decriminalized drugs and drug use. So this was a very easy scapegoat for people who were against the idea of decriminalization. But the other thing is, as people in Portugal told me, because obviously they followed the case in Oregon, there wasn't enough time given to decriminalization and to allow the programs around. We're talking about all of these other programs that can exist once you take away the punitive aspects of things. There just wasn't enough time for the results of this to be seen. The other thing, and here's where the kind of right lessons comes into play, is that rather than these dissuasion commissions, which I think are really great and have this very personal, humane touch, Oregon spent unfortunately, a lot of money on a hotline that was really ineffective and that didn't have that same ability to really approach someone who is possibly in need and have a conversation that could change their lives.
- [36:51]
Katie Gaditasan
We will get to the rest of this conversation with Natasha after a quick break. There are some businesses people call when they need help fast. Like a plumber. If no one picks up, that potential customer isn't going to wait around while water drips through their ceiling. They're calling someone else. If you run a business, you know that every missed call is money left on the table. OpenPhone helps you connect with every customer that reaches out to you. With OpenPhone, your team can share one phone number through an app or on your computer, collaborate on customer calls and texts with a shared inbox, and say goodbye to voicemail with an AI agent that can handle calls after hours. OpenPhone is offering My List listeners 20% off your first six months at openphone.com moneywithkati that's O-P-E-N-P-H-O-N-E.com moneywithkatie and if you have existing numbers with another service, OpenPhone will port them over at no extra charge. Open Phone. No missed calls, no missed customers. We are going to go across the Atlantic again. Again, we're new to Estonia, so after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, Estonia began privatizing its industry. But they took a different approach to the Internet and to Internet access, because they felt that Internet access was a human right. What does this mean in practice?
- [38:33]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
It's so fascinating because at the same time that what this means is sort of universal access to Internet, Estonia understood that having access to Internet didn't mean anything if people one didn't have the education to use it. So there were all of these public programs. Well, public and private, because of the. They're a former Soviet country. There is sort of this emphasis on public private partnerships, which I don't always agree with, but certainly they did rely on for this. But there was a sense of, okay, we need to teach people how to use the Internet. This was like the 1990s, so people didn't even really have email accounts. Right. Or like they didn't really know as much as we do about how to use the Internet, let's say. But importantly, this resulted in a push for more accessible public services. And part of that was to put some of these services online. One of the things that I really liked about Estonia was that you could do everything from vote online, to register a marriage online, and all of it is through the same kind of citizen portal where you put in your ID number and you can access all of this information.
- [39:49]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah, that part of that chapter sounded almost unbelievably futuristic to me. This idea of the citizens portal where all of your government services live. So you mentioned voting, you mentioned registration during marriages. There's also your taxes, there's real estate, your IDs, births, working with the police, filing for government services of any kind, like everything in this one portal that is centrally managed and easy to access, easy to operate. It really made me feel like our system and our interfaces are quite primitive by comparison. And you raise the point in this chapter that the US's tendency to outsource work like this to private tech companies, to contractors, to engage in these private public partnerships, rather than retaining the public ownership of digital infrastructure and investing in it. That does seem quite central to this conversation. And you point out that we shouldn't want these private companies to have so much control and oversight over our data and our lives. And I could see someone listening to this who's maybe skeptical of the power of this state, saying the same thing about the US government especially. I would just point to what's happening right now, the way our data is being. We're being surveilled at a scale that is, like, kind of unprecedented. How do you think about the centralization of that much Power. Is this another instance of internalizing the right lessons?
- [41:23]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
In the case of its digital infrastructure for public services that is publicly owned and run through the government, that is really key. But going back to this idea of centralization of that much power, especially in the wrong hands, what's really fascinating is that there are a few things that they've put into place that actually protect abuses of power in this way. So one of them is what they call the once only principle. So it started almost as a fluke, but essentially what they've done is that the same data doesn't exist on the same servers. So just to explain this one's only principle, if you update your home address at the DMV at the equivalent of the DMV in Estonian, and they have universal healthcare, and so your healthcare is also accessible in the citizens portable, and let's say you go to the doctor and rather than have to enter your new address to them again with all of this private data that's all living in the same server in the same place, they actually just have, they've created their this system that pulls that data, borrows it from the DMV and doesn't keep it anywhere attached to your health records, but knows that that's your address when you need to. And so it's a very technical system that I spend many, many hours trying to understand and having experts explain to me. But the result of it is essentially that the data is safer because it's not all in one department, or that you're not repeating the same very private information and having it live in all of these different servers.
- [43:02]
Katie Gaditasan
Interesting. When I read about that in the book, I didn't make the connection as far as data privacy goes or data safety, but that's interesting. I want to talk about a key example of this in the United States, this kind of public private partnership issue. And when I read about them being able to file their taxes in this portal, I was like, angry flashback back. Let's talk about tax filing software. Estonians have been able to easily and freely file their taxes online for a quarter century. Americans still have a relatively archaic and fragmented process. Why is that?
- [43:41]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Like a lot of things in the States, it won't surprise you and your listeners to know that money got involved. Basically the U.S. government, the IRS, made a deal with companies like TurboTax and all of these private tax filing companies decades ago that they would not put out a public option to file your taxes. Even though this is literally the money that we are all collectively giving to our government, that we've democratically elected to fund the services that we need. Right. But it won't surprise you to know again that companies like TurboTax were lobbying against it because they're actually profiting quite significantly from Americans filing their taxes. So the average American spends about $240, but they are also benefiting, profiting from our private taxpayer data that then they're sharing with big tech companies. So again, when we have no public oversight over critical infrastructure like this, it gets used for nefarious reasons. And just to go back to this idea of oversight, another thing that has been put in, in place in Estonia that is really key to securing privacy is that citizens in that same citizen portal that we talked about can look at who has accessed their information. So what agency has pulled what data from where and even what private companies have pulled X data for. Let's say you gave them your ID number for something, wanted them to get your address, then you can see that that's what they did. That allows us to have a lot more control. As Doge or dodgy as some people have been calling it, have gone around taking all of this extremely private data that can put people at risk. It would have been great to at least know what it was.
- [45:30]
Katie Gaditasan
Right, so you're saying that there's almost like a log of those types of data poles that is transparent. You're not kind of in the dark about who has seen this and why?
- [45:39]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Exactly.
- [45:40]
Katie Gaditasan
Oh my goodness. Where does Internet as a human right and net neutrality stand now?
- [45:46]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
In the US we're at a point in which the Internet is quite ubiquitous, but whether it's free or open or affordable is another question. Right. And so you have this example again of for profit companies kind of interfering to try and get as much as they can out of something. So the Trump administration is trying to abandon or in like cut funding. It's over $40 billion worth of funding that was allocated to connect rural communities to high speed Internet. This was when Elon Musk and him were still friends. So I don't know if they're still going to go through with this, but a large, I mean, it was pretty transparent that that was so that, you know, Elon Musk could go and sell some more Starlink. And so things like that show that we're still delegating this very critical infrastructure to the private industry and they're just making a quick buck off of it. The other thing in terms of net neutrality is that in January a federal appeals court practically killed net neutrality, which opens us up to this Pay to play model in which Internet service providers can basically charge wealthier sites to not only send more traffic to their websites, but also to slow down or throttle traffic to competitors.
- [47:11]
Katie Gaditasan
Whoa.
- [47:11]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
This is going to create a situation where censorship is rampant, but also it's going to create worse access all around. It's not the end of this. It's still possible for Congress to legislate and codify net neutrality, but who knows, in this climate, maybe we should take.
- [47:29]
Katie Gaditasan
A step back and define net neutrality.
- [47:32]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
So net neutrality is defined a little bit differently depending on who you're talking to. But in this case, it means this idea that Internet service providers can't charge websites to prioritize certain content or to send certain content towards other people.
- [47:52]
Katie Gaditasan
So we're going to go somewhere else now. We're going to go to Uruguay. One critical component of any country is energy. Energy costs have almost innumerable downstream consequences in every sector of an economy. And Uruguay is a country that has never had any naturally occurring fossil fuels, which put it at an immediate energy disadvantage. And you write, quote, unlike many other countries, Uruguay never succumbed to the neoliberal wave that led governments to sell off most of their public utilities and to this day maintains state ownership over an oil refinery, telecommunications company, water and sanitation utility, and other public services. So how did this set of circumstances change their approach to developing renewables energy?
- [48:47]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
There was a point in which more than half of their energy supply came from hydroelectric dams and the rest of it came from importing fossil fuels from neighboring Argentina and Brazil. What happened was that throughout the 20th century, especially when there were droughts, which became increasingly more severe and more common because of the climate crisis and oil prices would go up, the government, again responsible for supplying electricity to its citizens through this public utility, could not keep the lights on. It was going bankrupt just trying to keep up with the energy needs of the country by importing these fossil fuels, which again fluctuated significantly in price. So it became such a key issue, and it was so incredibly disruptive to civilian life. I went to a factory in which they said, you know, for a long time, if there was a power cut, we just had to put down our tools and we couldn't do anything about it. And it was just. The day was over. Then it was similarly to Portugal and to a few other countries in the book, it became a crisis that no one could deny. And it led to this very scrappy solution, which was to, okay, keep looking for fossil fuels, even though, again, they never found them, but actually to consider something that, that we've been talking about in wealthier nations for a really long time and we have the technology for it, but it was to entirely green their grit. And what's incredible about it is that they not only did this, so it was a left wing government under Pepe Mujica from the party that's now back in charge that managed to do this, but because it was such a crisis, they actually managed to set up this cross party agreement that got all political parties in the country to agree that this was the way forward. And they had no idea how long this would take them. They think it could take them 25 years and they would be out of power. Who knew? But actually they did it in record breaking time, so under 10 years. And this is a country with significantly less resources than we have, and that many other countries, it was a pretty low income country at the time, yet managed to green their grid and have something like 97% of their energy come from still hydroelectric, but also wind, solar and biomass.
- [51:16]
Katie Gaditasan
And what are the cost implications of this?
- [51:21]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
So whenever they had dry years during these extended droughts and they didn't have enough water in their hydroelectric dams, you were talking about a threat of a $2.5 billion bill kind of looming over the government, over the public utility. Now they spend less than $700 million on average to keep the lights on. And in a country in which actually because the economy has grown quite significantly, people actually have quite a lot more consumer goods and consume more energy than they did 25 years ago, they're still able to do this relatively cheaply. Not only that, they're saving millions of dollars, they're also able to sell millions of dollars worth of excess energy to neighboring Argentina and Brazil, who they used to, you know, buy fossil fuels from. An amazing thing about the Uruguayan example is that through the public utility and through the contracts that they set up, yes, with private wind and solar farms, because they couldn't afford to do this with their own funds, they actually ensured that electricity remained a de facto public good by setting up contracts that secured all electricity generated to be sold back to the public utility, which was then also in charge of transmission. The savings that they made from this were also then used by the state to fund anti poverty measures that helped bring unprecedented prosperity. You're talking about they reduced poverty from nearly 40% in 2005, when Franco was first elected, to under 9% in 2019, around the time that they left office.
- [53:06]
Katie Gaditasan
Oh my goodness. Wow. I read Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani recently and I learned so much about Solar power, if you were to kind of zoom out and look at all of our challenges and how many of them are ultimately downstream of like energy costs are a major component of the final cost of something, that if you had practically infinite supply of the energy that you needed to accomplish these things, which comes from the sun, that it would really unlock kind of untold prosperity. And it's funny because it doesn't feel like we often talk about solar power, green energy in that context. Usually we're talking about it from the standpoint of the heat death of the planet and the way that fossil fuel use is going to cause and has been causing a climate crisis. It's kind of interesting to think about it from the opposite lens of, no, this transition isn't going to require a bunch of sacrifice and cut back and money. It's that what's on the other side of this is actually more supply and cheaper access to this stuff than you can actually probably even imagine.
- [54:21]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Yeah, it's so fascinating because I did all of these interviews and I spent about almost a month in every country that I reported on and talked to people, everyone, like people on the street to these electrical engineers that had to keep explaining to me kilowatts hour because I really don't have a brain that works this way. And I had to sort of remind myself to ask about climate change because it never really came up in these conversations, no matter if it was policymakers or people actually implement running this wind farms. And the reason for that is that Uruguay really saw this as an economic question. It was like an existentially economic question. I would argue, as you've pointed out, you know, with the heat death of the world, like there have been plenty of studies, but even a few years ago, Oxford University had a study that said that the world could save $12 trillion if we ditched fossil fuels by 2050.
- [55:18]
Katie Gaditasan
Oh my freaking goodness.
- [55:20]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Imagine if just in general we did, or sooner. I think you're absolutely right that we need to think of this as something that will change things for the better. Uruguay has certainly shown that Ramon Mendez, who is the physicist actually who was in charge from the government department that led the transition, was telling me that for him it's quite clear that there's going to come a point in which there's going to be a difference between green economies and those that are still depending on fossil fuels, and that the green economies are going to be able to prosper because they have this endless renewable supply of energy that can fuel all of these different endeavors.
- [56:03]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah, I found this quote that kind of summarizes Bastani says in in fully automated luxury communism. What is more, the wider social benefits of the shift must be be seen as running parallel to flourishing on a personal scale rather than a sacrifice to some greater good. This is the politics of the self help guru. Be precisely who you want to be embedded within a broader program for political change. You can only live your best life under this system and nothing else. So fight for it and refuse the yoke of an economic system which belongs to the past. It's a really good book. Book. Everyone should read it. So you mentioned that one of the challenges in the US is the sheer number of electric companies. And I feel like I've lived in a few unique places in this regard. I have been a resident of Texas where energy is very deregulated and there are a bunch of private companies with convoluted plans. I lived there during the deep freeze in 2021, where the state was exposed to a lot of cold weather that was not planned for and the grid basically shut down for like a week and people froze to death in their homes. It was horrific.
- [57:12]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Terrific.
- [57:12]
Katie Gaditasan
I've also lived in California where the public utility PG and E is also a publicly traded company. Everyone who listens to this show knows how I feel about PG and E. But I have to be honest, like, both of these experiences were bad. They were bad for different reasons. Bad in different ways, especially when compared to my situation where I live now in Denver, Colorado where our public utility is. Energy is cheap, right? It's pretty straightforward. What are the major obstacles right now for transition to renewables in the us?
- [57:44]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
We have a real mixed bag in the US when it comes to utilities. But I am a big believer in the need for public ownership and I just think that it's the only way to ensure that robust, essential infrastructure is accessible, affordable to everyone and not just for those who can pay it. The other kind of huge obstacle is funding political will. I mean, obviously it's a huge problem that Trump is trying to to cut $15 billion again that have already been allocated to renewable energy and other green initiatives. And it just comes back to the two things we were talking about earlier. This is an economic question, like it's an economic no brainer to transition to green energy. The other thing is, it's an existential question as you were talking about with the deep freeze with people dying and freezing to death in their homes. My family is in Los Angeles and, and the majority of the people I knew weren't, fortunately weren't affected by the recent horrific wildfires. But it's just one of many examples of how we cannot afford to continue extracting fossil fuels that fuel the climate crisis. We won't survive this planet.
- [58:55]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah, that's why they're building bunkers and trying to go to Mars. Let's go down under. I noticed in your chapter about New Zealand pretty wide disparity in the rates of elderly poverty. So almost one in four older Americans live in relative income poverty compared to one in 10 Kiwis. Why is that so?
- [59:22]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Dating back to the 1970s, New Zealand started experimenting with a universal pension. It's a universal flat rate, non contributory superannuation they call it, which means that it's essentially so to break it down, flat rate, meaning it's the same for everyone, non contributory, meaning you don't actually make contributions to it, you don't make payments based on your wages, it's paid for through general taxation. And it's universal in the sense that it's available to everyone after the age of retirement, which is about 65, there's just like a residency requirement which has recently gone up a bit. But it means as well that, that regardless of what you earned throughout your lifetime, and regardless of the fact that if you, for example, are from a historically oppressed group that has been underpaid and underappreciated in our system, or you were engaged in unpaid labor, which is often women, you know, caregiving labor, and weren't able to make contributions to pension system, you're still going to be able to count on the same exact amount as everyone else in the country when you turn 65 to have a dignified older age. That is a real game changer for people of all backgrounds. The other thing is that conditions change over a lifetime. I talked to people who were like, well, I was doing well up until a certain point and then I lost all my money because I of a crisis. But when I got to 65, I knew that I was able to count on my NZ super. That has essentially created a society in which the elderly are more appreciated than they are. I think in our home country, the.
- [61:19]
Katie Gaditasan
Cause and effect there. Do you think that it has created the society where the elderly are more appreciated or it's that they value the elderly more and so they feel that this is necessary. It just kind of strikes me that if the Estonian principle was that the Internet is a human right, this feels like the belief that retirement is a human right.
- [61:42]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
It's such a chicken and egg situation, right? And I think about this with all of these programs, did that solidarity come first or did these programs create that solidarity? Did that appreciation for older people come first or did these policies created. It's kind of hard to tell. Maybe it's a bit of both honestly. But I think another really interesting thing about the NZ super is that it's actually tied to a percentage of average wages every year. I think it doesn't fall under 40% or maybe it's around 40% for one person of the national average wage which is a lot more in line with the actual cost of living. Living. I don't want to be too mean about Social Security because it's one of.
- [62:26]
Katie Gaditasan
These still like, it's like one of the only good.
- [62:30]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Right. It's like one of these things that we still have from the New Deal era. One of the few totally. But it is not enough to live off of. And a lot of that has to do with the way that it's structured.
- [62:40]
Katie Gaditasan
Social Security does need to be reformed. I was just speaking with somebody about this yesterday actually we were talking about, I said well you obviously this is like one of the biggest cost centers for the government but you can't get rid of it. And the person was like well but it does need to be reformed because the way that it was set up, when it was set up you had many more workers for every retired person and every retired person like life expectancy was lower. So now it is kind of structured inefficiently. But I imagine that this system that you're describing where it's non contributory, it is funded through general taxation as opposed to this running out of the funds model, the trust is being depleted. I imagine this is really expensive to administer. No? How does that work?
- [63:28]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
So this is another example where we're spending more for worse results. So New Zealand actually spends about 4.9% of its GDP on old age pensions, whereas the US spends about 7.1% just on old age pensions. In terms of Social Security that has to do with how easy and how cheap it is to administer a program like this. Social Security is apparently not that expensive to administer. But the NZ super is incredibly clear cut, right. Everyone's getting the same amount, you turn a certain age. That's it.
- [64:02]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah, yeah.
- [64:03]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
And they've actually prepared for that problem that you're talking about where once you have less workers and people are living longer. So there was a point in which the treasury started to think predicted that the costs of running the NZ super would actually go up to 7% of GDP. And, and in Order to address this future problem, they set up a sovereign wealth fund called the NZ Superfund that is dedicated solely to making up for that gap in funding for a number of decades once it kicks in. And I think they already have enough money. They're just now sort of just accruing more wealth than the sovereign wealth fund. But essentially it would serve as a kind of tax smoothing mechanism in which they wouldn't have to raise taxes on workers in order to keep paying for the NC Super. It also helps this idea that we have in the States and a lot of other countries where like we may not have Social Security when we get to old age. Like it feels like it's running out. Kiwis don't really feel that way because they're like, okay, well there's been at least some provisions made for this.
- [65:09]
Katie Gaditasan
Well, and I think the non contributory element is the most striking feature here. You kind of highlighted the this a major issue with the US Public pension system is that it inherently will undermine care work for people who work inside their homes. It means your low wage worker is going to be guaranteed low wages in retirement because your public pension amount is tied to the contributions you're able to make to it. And this is where that cultural element really comes into play that those who were advising FDR on how to build Social Security recognize that Americans like and favor benefits that they feel they quote, unquote earned. Culturally, that feels like a very loaded topic that we could spend the next hour discussing, but I thought that was a really interesting component of how. I don't know if we can throw this one back to the Puritans, but it definitely feels like a roadblock. So backing up kind of overall as we zoom out and look at this body of work. And in total, I also have to say, like, you have some extremely heavy hitters that blurbed your book. Vincent Bevins, Jakarta Method Incredible. Giannis Varoufakis, who we've talked about on this show before Megan Day, obviously Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs. So you've got a lot of really, really impressive and intelligent people who have said very nice things about this book. So I think everyone should get a copy and read it themselves. But there are a couple overarching takeaways that you write about at the end of your conclusion where you lay out. These are my main insights here and I want to focus on three of them. One is public ownership, the importance of public ownership. It feels like we've talked about that a lot today. The next is that we can have so Much more than we do now that this world already exists, it's in reach, there's already a playbook. And finally, that we badly need better leadership in the United States. Pick whichever one of those is resonating most for you right now and tell me a little bit more.
- [67:11]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
I really want to go back to this idea that we can have so much more because oftentimes we're told, oh, well, we can't have nice things because all of our taxes would go up so much, all of our tax rates would go up. And I just want to point out that in a lot of cases where overspending for worse results. So just to talk about health care really briefly, 27% of household spending goes on healthcare. I know that the system that I live in now, the National Health Service, is funded by general taxation. And it's true, with a caveat that taxes are higher here, income taxes are higher. But I never have to think about spending money on healthcare like it's not a line in my budget. I don't have health insurance. I pay a maximum of nine pounds per prescription whenever I need to get my prescription renewed. And it's like that across the board. In fact, in Scotland, they don't pay anything for the prescriptions, which I'm a little jealous of that. The reality is we don't have a progressive tax system. So the real problem is that the wealthiest Americans and corporations are just like, not paying their fair share when it comes to the average American. Matt Brunig had this really great piece case in Jacobin a while ago. He compared the labor tax rate in other wealthy nations to the US and he took health insurance into consideration because especially given the Affordable Care act, by law, everyone has to have some form of health insurance, Right? And plus all these other countries for the most part have some sort of universal health care system. So it makes sense to add it in.
- [68:51]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah.
- [68:51]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
So the uk, where I live and where we have this great national health Service, the labor tax rate for a married person with two kids is around 26%. Norway, which I know you didn't want to mention, but hey, the rule is.
- [69:05]
Katie Gaditasan
That I can't say it, but you can say it.
- [69:08]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
The chapter I have on Norway is on paid parental leave and their amazing paid parental leave policy for all parents, but also their high quality, highly subsidized childcare. And they also have universal health care and a bunch of other really great things. And you're talking about a 32% labor tax rate. Finland, where they have a lot of the same things and Also this great public school education system, 38% the US when you take into consideration what we spend on health insurance, it's actually closer to 43%.
- [69:41]
Katie Gaditasan
Holy smokes.
- [69:42]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
That to me highlights that we're just getting a bad deal.
- [69:46]
Katie Gaditasan
Yeah.
- [69:46]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
And I think as well as Americans like the things that we, we hold dear like freedom and getting good deal. These are two things that we really debunked today is that we're not as free as we think we are and we also are not getting a good deal.
- [70:01]
Katie Gaditasan
This argument of like, oh, your taxes are going to go up, the taxes are going to go up. Well, yeah, probably, but what's funny is that they're going to go up. The people that are telling you the taxes are going to go up are often the rich people in the corporations. In media that is quite favorable to corporate power. That is the dynamic. That's how it works. Most media companies are reliant on corporate spending and so they're never going to meaningfully challenge corporate power in any real sense. And so when we hear the taxes are going to go up, it's like yeah, for you maybe mine will go up a little bit. But to your point, like the deal we're getting now is not a good one. And I think that if you spend any amount of time looking into this, healthcare is what radicalized me in the US that was kind of of the first major crack in the facade of my own American exceptionalism and my own belief that we live in the greatest country on earth. I went to Norway, I went to Copenhagen, I went to these places and I was like oh my goodness. I really had this crisis of identity of like I feel like I've been lied to my entire life. In the biggest picture sense. You finish the book with an emphasis on anti imperialism. And I really appreciated that you write, quote. As the foremost global power, our country has a disproportionate impact on international policy, especially in less developed nations. That power has been most often wielded for imperialist capitalist ends throughout the world at the cost of countless lives and suffering. We can and should work hard to implement progressive policies to improve Americans lives. But we must simultaneously examine how our foreign policy can often be keep other countries from achieving their own self determined progress. In other words, our politics must be both local and global and our progressivism must be international and founded in our greatest collective tool against the ongoing tyranny of imperialism solidarity. So that stuck out to me because when I was working on an episode for my other show about global capitalism, one Quote, that really resonated with me in that research. And Vincent Bevin's book Jakarta Method was a really big influence in that episode. And the shape that it took is that imperialism is the highest form of capitalism and that even our favorite examples, my beloved Norway, these Scandinavian social safety nets were still ultimately reliant on colonialism and resource extraction to make them happen. So I don't mean to undermine our entire conversation at the end, but it does feel really integral to moving forward that our benefit does not come at someone else's expense.
- [72:45]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Absolutely. So the policies that I looked at in this book are broadly redistributive, but we need to think about redistribution on a much more global scale. Like the goal isn't to become this perfect socialist island and just leave everyone else out. Especially given, as you've pointed out, that that wealth that we have in our country has come at the expense of exploitation around the world. I'm the daughter of immigrants, my dad's from Iran, my mom's from Mexico. It would be impossible for me to talk about all of these great things that I want to see in the US without acknowledging our position in the world and how we have oppressed a lot of people in a lot of other countries.
- [73:25]
Katie Gaditasan
The Jakarta Method was eye opening for me. It's another book I recommend quite emphatically, because one of the, like the angriest emails that I will receive if I ever use the word communism or reference socialism in any kind of context is from people who will say things like, don't you know how many millions of people have died under communist dictatorships or have died because of socialism around the world? And what Jakarta Method gave me was the ability to say, don't you know how many people have died because of American capitalism? Many millions of people have died because of capitalism. It is actually not even comparable. He has this map at the back of the book that shows the globe and shows in every country where the American CIA went in and violently repressed an uprising. Because the people of insert country here said, we actually don't want you to be extracting our resources anymore. We'd actually love to nationalize this natural resource that we have. And anytime that happened, we go in and we go boop nation. Nope, no, you don't get to do that. And then to sit back and be like, well, capitalism is the only system that's ever worked anywhere. It's because the. Every other attempt has been violently repressed. And I think that learning about that history and spending a lot of time confronting that over the last six to 12 months. Just in my own personal reading and curiosity has really revealed that sort of pushback about like, well, this is the only system that works. Works. Look at how many wonderful things we have. It feels very flimsy.
- [75:07]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Yeah. And you know, we live in the world that the Cold War has left us with. And in many ways what you're talking about with capitalism and how it's killed so many people, American capitalism has killed so many people across the globe, it's also killing Americans. Coming back to this idea of not having universal healthcare costs so many lives, even not having paid parental leave cost causes irreparable damage to moms and kids. Not transitioning to green energy is causing a number of health, economic and social issues, not to mention, you know, killing the planet. These are all things that we are also feeling the repercussions of. And going back again to this, the world that the Cold War left us with. Capitalism hasn't had to try that hard to do any good because there is no alternative. They've destroyed the alternative. Right. And so we have this most unhinged version of capitalism, partially because there's no competitors, because as you said, they've been brutally repressed.
- [76:12]
Katie Gaditasan
Well, that's a great uplifting note to end it on, so thank you.
- [76:15]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
Well, I, I do have an, an uplifting thing to say.
- [76:19]
Katie Gaditasan
Oh, please, please.
- [76:20]
Natasha Hakimi Zapata
There's a really great quote from James Baldwin where he talks, he says, I love America more than any other country in the world. And exactly for this reason I insist on the right to criticize her. Perpetually preach. I think that we can love where we come from and want it to be better and want it to do better in the world. A hopeful note, I hope for everyone listening, is that most of these countries turn things around in record time during the darkest moments. A lot of these policies, Uruguay's amazing green transition came out of the. This constant crisis, these rolling blackouts. Finland's education system actually came out of having very few resources and wanting to stabilize its, grow its economy in some form. The National Health service in the UK came out of the literal ashes of World War II. Singapore was turning the chapter on a colonial past. All of these moments actually led to, to stronger, more radical, even longer lasting solutions. That as we face these really difficult times in our country, we need to remember that it's. That not all hope is lost, that we can and turn things around and do so for the better.
- [77:49]
Katie Gaditasan
That is all for this week. I will see you in two weeks where we will be back with another rich Girl Roundup. Our show is a production of Morning Brew and is produced by Henna Velez and me, Katie Gaditasan, with audio engineering and sound design from Nick Torres. Devin Emery is president of Morning Brew. Content and additional fact checking comes from Scott Wilson.