>> AND NOW DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IS MAKING GAINS THIS ELECTION CYCLE IN THE UNITED STATES, AND NOWHERE IS THAT MORE EVIDENCE THAN IN NEW YORK CITY, WHERE MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI HAS BUILT HIS EARLY AGENDA AROUND RENT FREEZES, CITY- RUN GROCERY STORES, AND UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE.

IN HIS LATEST ESSAY, THE CONSUMER SOCIALISM TRAP, IDREES KAHLOON, A STAFF WRITER AT THE ATLANTIC EXAMINES WHAT HE CALLS A NEWS FOCUS ON SOCIALISM ON LOWERING THE COST OF LIVING.

HE TALKS WITH MICHEL MARTIN ABOUT HOW THIS IS RESONATING WITH VIEWERS AND WHY HE IS NOT CONVINCED THEY CAN DELIVER ON ALL THEIR PROMISES.

>> THANKS, BYIAN THAT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WAS.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> IF PEOPLE HAVE OBSERVED POLITICS, THEY WILL HAVE OBSERVED A NUMBER OF CANDIDATES GENERALLY CONSIDERED OF THE LEFT, NEW YORK CITY MAYOR ZOHRAN MAMDANI, SEATTLE MAYOR KATIE WILSON AND WASHINGTON, D. C. THE MAYORAL CANDIDATE ARE RUNNING ON A VAGUELY SIMILAR PLATFORM --THEY WOULD SAY AFFORDABILITY.

LOWERING THE COST OF EVERYDAY LIFE.

YOU'RE CALLING THIS CONSUMER SOCIALISM.

CAN YOU BRIEFLY DESCRIBE, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT, AND HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE SOCIALISM THAT MANY PEOPLE.

EITHER LOVE OR HATE DEPENDING ON THEIR POINT OF VIEW.

>> YEAH SO, TRADITIONAL SOCIALISM IS ALL ABOUT SEIZING THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION, ENDING CAPITALISMS AS WE KNOW IT.

AND CONSUMER SOCIALISM IS SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS IT'S NOT ABOUT ENDING CAPITALISM AS WE KNOW IT, BUT IT IS ABOUT SOCIALIZING THE COSTS OF CONSUMPTION, MEANING CERTAIN SETS OF GOODS THAT ARE DEEMED ESSENTIAL, HOUSING, CHILD CARE, HEALTH CARE, ARE TOO IMPORTANT TO BE LEFT TO THE MARKET AND THEREFORE NEED TO BE SUBSIDIZED FOR ALL REALLY THROUGH A STATE PROGRAM.

AND WHAT'S NEW ABOUT THESE CANDIDATES THAT YOU MENTIONED IS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO THIS NOW AT THE CITY LEVEL.

AND THIS IS JUST AN EXPERIMENT THAT I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WILL SEE HOW WELL IT GOES, BUT IT'S DEFINITELY CAUGHT ON.

>> AND WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S CAUGHT ON?

WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT IT IS RESONATING?

>> I THINK PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT AFFORDABILITY.

THAT'S BEEN TRUE FOR THE LAST THROUGH YEARS.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN UPSET EVER SINCE COVID AND THE INFLATION IT CAUSED.

WE'VE SEEN THAT MESSAGE OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHETHER REPUBLICANS ARE RUNNING AGAINST CANDIDATES.

DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO BE DOING IT NOW.

AND THERE THIS ARGUMENT THAT ACTUALLY ALL WE NEED TO DO IS JUST SET, YOU KNOW, THE RENT LOWER.

ALL WE NEED TO DO IS SUBSIDIZE CHILD CARE, AND WE CAN FIX THIS.

WE CAN FOUND GOVERNMENT-RUN GROCERY STORES AND FIX THIS PROBLEM DIRECTLY WITHOUT HAVING TO RESORT TO THE MARKET.

>> AND HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT FROM THE --I WOULD SAY THE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM THAT EXISTS IN PARTS OF EUROPE.

HEALTH CARE, FOR EXAMPLE.

I KNOW THAT THERE ARE POLITICIANS IN THE UNITED STATES LIKE RON JOHNSON, THE WISCONSIN REPUBLICAN SENATOR RON JOHNSON IS REALLY CRITICAL OF THESE SCHEMES.

HE CALLS IT FREE MONEY.

BUT OTHER PLACES CALL IT A PUBLIC GOOD.

SO HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?

>> THAT IS DEFINITELY WHAT PEOPLE ASPIRE TO.

THEY POINT TO SCANDINAVIA AND COUNTRIES LIKE THAT.

THIS IS JUST THE MODEL WE ARE DOING.

AND THERE ARE A FEW IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES.

THE MOST IMPORTANT THAT COMES TO MIND IN SCANDINAVIA, TAXES ARE VERY HIGH FOR EVERYONE.

IF YOU ARE A WORKING CLASS PERSON, YOU ARE PAYING 40%, MAYBE 50 DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH YOU ARE EARNING TO TAXES TO FUND THESE UNIVERSAL PROGRAMS.

THE WAY THAT AMERICAN POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT THESE PROGRAMS IS THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT UNLESS YOU'RE EXTREMELY WEALTHY, UNLESS YOU OWN A SECOND HOME IN MANHATTAN, OR YOU ARE A BILLIONAIRE OR A MULTIMILLIONAIRE.

ALL THE MONEY THAT IS NECESSARY CAN BE RAISED ON THE BACKS OF THOSE PEOPLE.

AND THAT'S NOT THE SCANDINAVIAN MODEL.

AND SO THAT IS ONE REASON THAT I THINK THAT THE PROMISES THAT ARE BEING MADE AT THE CITY LEVEL MIGHT NOT TOTALLY PAN OUT, BECAUSE YOU HAVE THIS KIND OF BROAD-BASED SOCIAL PROGRAM THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE ROLLING OUT ON A VERY NARROW TAX BASE, ABOUT A TAX BASE THAT'S QUITE MOBILE.

THAT'S ONE DIFFERENCE.

I THINK THE SECOND IS PEOPLE TEND TO THINK OF --SCANDINAVIA IS A VERY NICE PLACE TO LIVE.

PEOPLE ARE THERE ARE VERY HAPPY.

BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A MARKET ECONOMY.

IT IS CERTAINLY A CAPITALIST.

IT MIGHT BE DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM IN THE SENSE THE SAFETY NET IS VERY, VERY LARGE, BUT THESE ARE COUNTRIES THAT DEPEND ON THE PROSPERITY OF THEIR BUSINESSES IN ORDER TO SUSTAIN THE LIFESTYLE THAT THEY HAVE.

>> YOU'RE BEING VERY NICE NOW, BUT YOU'RE A LITTLE SNARKY IN YOUR PIECE IN THE ATLANTIC.

YOU SAY "CONSUMER SOCIALISM TRIES TO HAVE IT ALL -- UNIVERSAL SOCIAL PROVISIONS WITHOUT UNIVERSALLY STEEP TAXES.

IT REMAINS LIKE OTHER FORMS OF SOCIALISM A SUPREME OPTIMISM OF STATE PLANNERS TO SHAPE MARKETS.

WHERE THE OLD CENTRAL PLANNERS FAILED, THE NEW ONES THINK THEY WILL SUCCEED. "

IS THE NEW DIFFERENCE THAT TAXES ARE HIGH AND THEY THINK THEY CAN CONCENTRATE THE COSTS OF THIS ON A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE, SORE IT SOMETHING ELSE?

>> YEAH, NO.

I THINK THE TAX PROBLEM IS DUE TO THE SCANDINAVIA EXPERIMENT.

RENT FREEZES ARE SOMETHING ALMOST NOW ECONOMIST AGREES IS A GOOD IDEA.

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU SET PRICES BELOW WHAT THE MARKET WILL SUSTAIN, YOU CAUSE SHORTAGES.

YOU SEE THAT ALREADY IN NEW YORK THERE IS A LOT OF RENT CONTROL IN NEW YORK, A LOT OF RENT STABILIZATION IN NEW YORK THAT HAS NOT MADE PRICES LOWER.

IT HAS ENCOURAGED PEOPLE TO STAY IN THEIR UNITS.

SAN FRANCISCO, THIS IS A WELL STUDIED PROGRAM OF RENT CONTROL THAT WAS LAUNCHED.

IT'S A BIT LIKE SQUEEZING A BALLOON.

YOU CAN CAUSE RENTS TO BE LOWER IN SPECIFIC UNITS, BUT EVERYWHERE ELSE RENTS INCREASE.

SO THE SOLUTION TO THE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY CRISIS IS BUILDING MORE HOUSING.

IT'S NOT FREEZING PRICES.

AND SIMILARLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE PLANNED WITH GROCERY STORES, FOR EXAMPLE, GROCERIES ARE VERY COMPETITIVE, VERY LOW MARGIN BUSINESS.

THE PROBLEM WITH AFFORDABILITY AND GROCERIES IS NOT THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY PROFITS.

PROFIT MARGINS ARE 2 OR 3%.

SO THERE IS THIS KIND OF OPTIMISM THAT IF ONLY THE GOVERNMENT COULD INTERVENE IN THESE AFFAIRS AND COULD ONLY SET THINGS, THEN THINGS WOULD WORK PROPERLY.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE TRUE AT ALL.

>> WHY CAN'T THEY JUST TRY THINGS, THOUGH?

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE IS A REALLY SORT OF A DIFFERENT ATTITUDE ABOUT INNOVATION IN GOVERNMENT THAN WE HAVE ABOUT INNOVATION IN, SAY, TECHNOLOGY FOR EXAMPLE.

DRIVERLESS CARS, RIGHT?

YOU'VE RAISED THAT A COUPLE OF DECADES AGO.

PEOPLE WOULD BE LIKE THAT'S CRAZY.

OR THAT'S SOME SCI-FI STUFF.

BUT WE DO IT.

OR AT LEAST IT'S IN THE OFFING.

SO WHY CAN'T PEOPLE SIMILARLY INNOVATE WITH SOMETHING IN GOVERNMENT, OR TRY?

JUST TRY.

>> I THINK THAT THEY SHOULD.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR GOVERNMENT TO FUND BASIC RESEARCH AND ENCOURAGE SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT AND INNOVATION AND ALL THESE KINDS OF IDEAS.

AND ONE OF THE GREAT THINGS ABOUT AMERICA IS MANY STATES CAN TRY DIFFERENT THINGS, AND WE CAN LEARN THE RESULTS.

AND I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE DO HAVE SOME WORK EXAMPLES OF RENT CONTROL IN CITIES AND IT HASN'T WORKED QUITE AS WELL.

WE DO HAVE -- IT'S ONE THING TO INNOVATE WHEN THERE IS A CLEAR FAILURE.

SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE MILITARY RUNS GROCERY STORES IN ITS OWN BASES BECAUSE THAT IS --IT NEEDS TO DO THAT.

IN RURAL PARTS OF AMERICA, THERE HAVE BEEN EXPERIMENTS WITH GOVERNMENT-RUN GROCERY STORES TO MEET A MARKET FAILURE.

AND I GUESS IN THIS CASE, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH GOVERNMENTAL INNOVATION AND ALL, BUT I DO WANT IT TO RUN IN THE SAME DIRECTION OF WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM PRIOR EXPERIMENTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST SAYING, WELL, THIS TIME IT WILL BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE HAVE THE RIGHT INTENTIONS AND THE RIGHT WILL.

>> HOUSING IS A BIG PART OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

HOUSING AND SUPPLY IS ESSENTIAL TO THAT, RIGHT?

BUT THAT TAKES A LONG TIME.

YOU CAN'T JUST THROW UP HOUSING, AND PEOPLE NEED RELIEF.

NOW WHAT'S SO TERRIBLE ABOUT OFFERING A SHORT-TERM SOLUTION WHILE YOU'RE DEVELOPING A LONG-TERM --A LONG-TERM ANSWER.

>> YEAH, SO THIS IS AN ARGUMENT PEOPLE MAKE THAT ONE MAMDANI HAS PROMISED, GEORGE IN WASHINGTON, D. C. HAS PROMISED IS YES, THERE WILL BE RENT FREEZES NOW, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN EXCHANGE.

AS YOU SAID, WE'RE GOING BUILD A LOT MORE HOUSING AND WE'RE GOING FIX THINGS THIS MARKETIZED WHICH.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS IF THAT DOES HAPPEN, THAT WILL AT LEAST BE HALF GOOD.

IF THIS IS A TEMPORARY MEASURE ONLY TO GET US TO THE POINT WHERE WE BUILD ENOUGH HOUSING THAT PRICES SETTLE ON THEIR OWN, THAT COULD BE GOOD.

BUT MY WORRY IS THAT IT IS VERY EASY TO FREEZE THE RENT.

THAT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED IN NEW YORK.

IT IS MUCH HARDER TO ACTUALLY GET THE GEARS OF GOVERNMENT UNWOUND SO THAT YOU CAN BUILD MORE HOUSING.

AND TO, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, HASN'T REALLY STARTED HAPPENING IN NEW YORK.

AS YOU SAY, IT TAKES TIME THAT WOULD BE MY WORRY.

THESE PROBLEMS HAVE BUILT UP OVER 30, 40 YEARS.

THEY ARE ENCODED IN THE LAWS OF CITIES THAT MAKE IT VERY, VERY HARD TO BUILD.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE TEMPORARY MEASURE I WORRY WORKS AS A ONE-WAY RATCHET.

SO WHAT IS IMPOSED TODAY, YOU SEE THIS WITH NEW YORK'S RENT CONTROLS HAVE, EXTENSIVE.

THEY'RE VERY HARD TO DIAL BACK IN THE FUTURE.

>> CHILD CARE.

WHAT ABOUT THAT?

>> THE SOCIALISTS LIKE MAMDANI, GEORGE, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS, ET CETERA, THEY OFFER -- THEY WANT UNIVERSAL CHILD CARE, AND THEY WANT IT TO BE 7% IS THE MAXIMUM THAT EVERY FAMILY WOULD PAY.

AND BEYOND THAT, THE GOVERNMENT WOULD SUBSIDIZE THAT.

I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THE DESIGN OF THE POLICY AS WELL.

SO QUEBEC, FOR EXAMPLE, IMPLEMENTING UNIVERSAL CHILD CHILD CARE THAT IS FREE, TO THE POINT OF DOLLARS PER DAY.

A LOT OF PEOPLE DID GET CHILD CARE, AND FEMALE LABOR SUPPLY, THE AMOUNT OF WOMEN WORKING IN THE WORKFORCE INCREASE A LOT.

WHAT WE ALSO SAW IN THE LONG RUN IS THE KIDS WHO WENT TO THE PROGRAMS HAD NEGATIVE OUTCOMES.

THEY HAD WORSE BEHAVIOR.

THEY WERE MORE LIKELY TO GO TO JAIL.

THEY HAD WORSE EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES.

WHY WAS THAT?

BECAUSE THE QUALITY OF THE CARE THAT WAS GIVEN WAS NOT HIGH ENOUGH TO IMPROVE THEIR LIFE OUTCOMES.

>> BUT THE MAIN ARGUMENT YOU MAKE IS A LOT OF THE PROGRAMS THAT BENEFIT END UP BENEFITTING MIDDLE AND UPPER INCOME FAMILIES MORE THAN THE PEOPLE WHO NEED HELP, OR PERHAPS NEED THAT HELP THE MOST.

BUT THE OTHER ARGUMENT THERE IS THAT'S HOW YOU CREATE BUY-IN.

THERE ARE SOCIAL PROGRAMS IN THIS COUNTRY THAT EVERYBODY PAYS INTO AND EVERYBODY BENEFITS FROM, YOU KNOW, LIKE SOCIAL SECURITY.

AND PART OF THE REASON IT HAS THE KIND OF SUPPORT THAT IT HAS, IT'S SOMETHING THAT EVERYBODY FEELS INVESTED IN BECAUSE EVERYBODY PARTICIPATES IN IT, RIGHT.

SO THAT'S THE ARGUMENT.

PART OF THE PROBLEM WITH THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THIS COUNTRY IS LACKING SOCIAL COHESION AT THE MOMENT.

WHAT WOULD YOU SAY ABOUT THAT?

>> SO LET ME ANSWER IN A SLIGHT SLIGHTLY TANGENTIAL WAY.

ONE THING I BELIEVE AMERICA HAS TOO MUCH OF AND COULD AMELIORATE QUITE EASILY IS CHILD POVERTY.

>> UH-HUH.

>> SO THE NUMBER OF KIDS WHO LIVE IN POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY IS EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH GIVEN SO RICH WE ARE.

THE SOLUTION TO THAT THAT A LOT OF THE ECONOMISTS LIKE THAT I BELIEVE IN IS EXPAND CHILD TAX CREDIT, BASICALLY, A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF CASH GIVEN TO FAMILIES THAT ENABLES THEM TO LIVE ABOVE THE POVERTY LEVEL.

WE EXPERIMENTED WITH THAT DURING THE BIDEN YEARS.

IN 2021, WE PASSED THE EXPANDED CHILD TAX CREDIT, WHICH HAD THE EFFECT OF SLASHING CHILD POVERTY IN HALF.

AND TO MY MIND, THAT WAS GREAT AS PUBLIC POLICY OUTCOME.

WHAT I WAS EXTREMELY SURPRISED BY IS HOW UNPOPULAR THAT PROGRAM WAS.

THROUGHOUT ITS EXISTENCE, IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A VERY POPULAR PROGRAM.

IT WAS SEEN AS TOO MUCH SPENDING, AND THAT DISAPPOINTED ME BECAUSE I THINK THE OUTCOMES WERE VERY CLEAR, VERY IMMEDIATELY OBSERVABLE.

BUT IT GOT TRAPPED IN THE KIND OF PARTISAN DIVIDE THAT SO MANY THINGS DO.

AND I GUESS I WONDER IF THIS POLICY WOULD SUFFER THE SAME FATE.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, FOR ME, DIFFERENT FAMILIES OF DIFFERENT DESIRES FOR HOW THEY WANT CARE TO BE DONE.

SOME WANT A CENTER-BASED CARE THAT ALLOWS -- THAT REQUIRES PAYMENT.

SOME WOULD PREFER A GRANDMOTHER OR PAYMENT TO TAKE CARE OF THIS PERSON.

IN MY VIEW, IF PEOPLE SAY THAT THEY WANT CHILDREN TO BE TAKEN CARE OF BY RELATIVES BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONE NEARBY, THAT WE SHOULDN'T ONLY FORCE THE SUBSIDIES INTO CENTER-BASED CARE, AND WE SHOULD ALSO OFFER AT LEAST AN EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY USING RELATIVES TO CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN.

>> IT JUST IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE THING ABOUT THESE CANDIDATES, AS FLAWED AS YOU MAY THINK THEIR PROGRAMMATIC IDEAS ARE, AT LEAST THEY'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS.

AND WHY IS IT WE AREN'T AS A SOCIETY ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS MORE BROADLY.

WHY CAN'T THEY ASK THESE BIGGER QUESTIONS?

>> I THINK THEY CAN ASK THESE QUESTIONS, AND I CAN CRITIQUE THEM.

I THINK THAT THE ANSWERS THEY ARE POSING TO THESE AFFORDABILITY QUESTIONS I DON'T THINK WILL BE THE FINAL SOLUTIONS, AND I THINK THEY HAVE THE RISK OF MAKING THINGS WORSE.

AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, THE INTERVENTIONS IN THE HOUSING MARKET, ET CETERA, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY EXPENSIVE, AND YOU JUST IMPOSE A SUBSIDY, AND YOU DON'T CONSIDER EXPANSIONS OF SUPPLY, WHAT YOU WILL DO IS INCREASE THE PRICE THAT IS PAID BOTH BY THE GOVERNMENT AND EVENTUALLY BY ORDINARY PEOPLE.

AND SO THESE INTERVENTIONS I THINK ARE ATTRACTIVE, BUT I DON'T THINK ULTIMATELY THEY ARE THE RIGHT POLICY SOLUTIONS.

>> THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS YOU FOCUSED ON THE CITIES, BECAUSE THE CITY LEADERS AND POTENTIAL CITY LEADERS ARE THE ONES POSING THEM.

BUT YOU ALSO RAISED THE BIDEN ERA CHILD TAX CREDIT INCREASE, WHICH SUGGESTS IF YOU BROADEN THESE IDEAS OUT, THAT YOU CAN HAVE MORE SUCCESSFUL OUTCOMES.

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT'S NOT HAPPENING, OR AT LEAST IT'S NOT HAPPENING AT THE MOMENT?

IS IT THE LABEL LIKE SOCIALISM IS SO DEMEANED, HAS SUCH A NEGATIVE CONNOTATION IN THIS COUNTRY THAT PEOPLE AREN'T WILLING TO DISCUSS THESE THINGS?

WHAT'S YOUR THEORY ABOUT IT?

>> SO I THINK THAT ON SOME OF THESE PROBLEMS, YOU DON'T NEED A SOCIALISM LABEL.

AND ACTUALLY, A LOT OF REGIONAL WILL BE GOOD.

HOUSING, FOR EXAMPLE.

NEW YORK CITY EXISTS IN A REGION, NEW JERSEY, ET CETERA, WEST CHESTER, ALL THOSE PLACES.

AND IF BUILDING ONLY HAPPENS IN ONE OF THOSE PLACE, BUT WEST CHESTER SAYS WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYMORE, THAT'S A PROBLEM, RIGHT.

SO IN THAT CASE YOU DO NEED A REGIONAL COME PAT IN ORDER TO DEAL WITH THE HOUSING PROBLEM.

SAME WITH SAN FRANCISCO, MARIN COUNTY, AND THE PLACES THAT SURROUND IT THERE.

SO I THINK THAT ACTUALLY YOU WOULD.

YOU WOULD ACTUALLY IMPROVE THINGS A LOT IF YOU SAID THAT WE ARE GOING TO BIND HOUSING POLICY DECISIONS AND MAKE THESE COUNTIES BUILD MORE HOUSING.

AND THAT THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO FIXING A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE YOU TO BE A SOCIALIST OR A CAPITALIST OR EVEN TO ARGUE ABOUT THESE THINGS.

BUT THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF EFFECTIVE POLICY MAKE.

>> IF YOUR PIECE, YOU LOOK AT EARLIER MOMENTS WHEN GOVERNMENT TRIED TO MAKE EVERYDAY LIFE MORE AFFORDABLE, ACTUALLY MAKE THE QUALITY OF LIFE BETTER, FOR MORE PEOPLE THROUGH EXPANDED SOCIAL PROGRAMS, OR AT LEAST WHAT DID YOU CALL IT?

SEWER SOCIALISM WHERE PEOPLE ACTUALLY FOCUSED ON FIXING BASIC THINGS LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE.

ARE THERE LESSONS YOU THINK THAT PEOPLE COULD DRAW FROM THE ERAS IN WHICH OR THE PROJECTS THAT WERE SUCCESSFUL, THAT THEY COULD IMPLEMENT NOW?

>> YEAH.

THE SEWER SOCIALISTS WERE IN CHARGE OF MILWAUKEE FOR A LONG TIME.

AND THEY WERE QUITE POPULAR.

THEY WERE IN GOVERNMENT FOR 40 YEARS.

THEY FOCUSED ON BUILDING PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE.

SEWER SYSTEM FAMOUSLY, BUT ALSO LIBRARIES, ET CETERA.

I THINK THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL ENOUGH THAT ALL OF THEIR IDEAS DON'T SEEM PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CRAZY OR CONTROVERSIAL TODAY.

AND I GUESS, YOU KNOW, FOR ME PERSONALLY, I THOUGHT THAT THE EXPANSIONS OF THE GREAT SOCIETY UNDER LYNDON JOHNSON ARE PROBABLY THE BIGGEST STEP FORWARD THE COUNTRY HAS TAKEN IN DEALING WITH POVERTY, AND DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS THAT PEOPLE WHO DON'T MAKE AS MUCH MONEY HAVE DEALT WITH.

AND I GUESS ONE REASON THAT I HAVE TAKEN AGAINST THE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE TODAY IS THAT I DON'T SEE THEM AS VERY IN LINE WITH GREAT SOCIETY THINKING.

THEY'RE NOT AS LASER-FOCUSED ON PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH POVERTY AND THE WORKING CLASS AND WHAT THEY ACTUALLY NEED.

AND IN PART BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU SUBSIDIZE, IF YOU FREEZE RENT, YOU'RE FREEZING RENT ON A PLACE.

YOU'RE NOT FREEZING RENT FOR A PERSON.

SIMILARLY, IF YOU SAY THAT THE GROCERY STORE IS CHEAPER, WE HAVE THE FOOD STAMPS PROGRAM THAT'S QUITE SUCCESSFUL.

SOME STATES DO HAVE TOP-UPS.

IF WHAT YOU'RE WORRIED ABOUT IS PEOPLE AT THE BOTTOM NOT DOING WELL ENOUGH, THAT TO ME SEEMS LIKE A BETTER FOCUS FOR GOVERNMENT AND ONE THAT'S A BIT MORE SUSTAINABLE, WHEREAS I THINK THAT THE NEW FOCUS IS ON HOW DO WE ELIMINATE OR AT LEAST CUSHION THE COSTS OF LIFE FOR, YOU KNOW, MIDDLE -- UPPER MIDDLE CLASS AMERICANS AS WELL.

AND THERE I THINK IF YOU'RE GOING TAX WIDELY ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DO IT, THEN IT'S SUSTAINABLE.

BUT IF YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO EVEN ADMIT THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO.

>> SO BEFORE WE LET YOU GO, IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT YOU WOULD ASK POLICYMAKERS TO FOCUS ON, WHAT WOULD IT BE, AND HOW WOULD YOU WANT THEM TO APPROACH IT?

>> SO JUST GENERALLY, WHEN THEY APPROACH POLICY, I THINK THAT THEY HAVE TO ALWAYS CONSIDER THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS.

YOU ESTABLISH A POLICY GOAL.

YOU SAY OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO SUBSIDIZE, WE'RE GOING TO RELIEVE ALL STUDENT DEBT.

WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT ACTION?

WHAT IS THE --YOU KNOW, IN THE LONG RUN, WHAT DOES IT MEAN THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE ACCRUED THIS DEBT NO LONGER PAY IT COMPARED TO PEOPLE WHO DID PAY IT.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

SO I THINK THAT THAT IS THE FIRST THING THAT I WOULD ARGUE.

AND THEN THE SECOND ON A CONCRETE POLICY MATTER IS A LOT OF THIS DYSFUNCTION IS ROOTED IN HOUSING, AND THE SOLUTION TO HOUSING BEING EXPENSIVE IS TO BUILD MORE OF IT.

AND THAT'S JUST AN ECONOMIC LAW OF GRAVITY.

AND YOU CAN TRY TO, YOU KNOW, LEGISLATE WAYS TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING WIN.

I THINK THAT'S --YOU KNOW, MAYBE IF THERE IS ONE PIECE OF ADVICE THAT I GIVE, IT'S THAT.

>> IDREES KAHLOON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR TALKING WITH US.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

>