WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:03.000 Picture you're at the circus staring up at the 00:00:03.000 --> 00:00:06.040 high wire. Oh, yeah. That tension. Right. The 00:00:06.040 --> 00:00:08.859 acrobat steps out onto the line, and it's totally 00:00:08.859 --> 00:00:11.519 thrilling. But, you know, the tension you feel 00:00:11.519 --> 00:00:13.900 in your gut isn't just about their skill. No, 00:00:14.060 --> 00:00:16.379 not at all. It's about what is, or I guess what 00:00:16.379 --> 00:00:18.199 isn't, underneath them. You're looking to see 00:00:18.199 --> 00:00:20.679 if there's a safety net or, I mean, if it's just 00:00:20.679 --> 00:00:23.589 the hard ground waiting below. Exactly. And for 00:00:23.589 --> 00:00:26.570 a long time, the narrative of the American economy 00:00:26.570 --> 00:00:29.050 has felt a lot like watching people on that high 00:00:29.050 --> 00:00:31.089 wire. That's a really good way to put it. Yeah, 00:00:31.089 --> 00:00:33.310 we celebrate the individual balance, you know, 00:00:33.310 --> 00:00:36.189 the sheer grit of getting across the line. But 00:00:36.189 --> 00:00:38.710 we rarely stop to talk about the net. Like who 00:00:38.710 --> 00:00:41.469 builds it? Who maintains it? Right. And what 00:00:41.469 --> 00:00:44.810 happens when a sudden gust of wind like something 00:00:44.810 --> 00:00:47.009 totally out of the acrobats control comes along? 00:00:47.049 --> 00:00:48.789 Right. Because the wind doesn't care how good 00:00:48.789 --> 00:00:52.109 your balance is. Exactly. Welcome to the deep 00:00:52.109 --> 00:00:54.969 dive. Today, we are bringing you a fascinating 00:00:54.969 --> 00:00:58.130 exploration of that exact tension. It really 00:00:58.130 --> 00:01:00.630 is a fascinating one. It is. We're looking at 00:01:00.630 --> 00:01:04.010 a single, incredibly focused source today. It's 00:01:04.010 --> 00:01:07.129 a Wikipedia article detailing a 2006 nonfiction 00:01:07.129 --> 00:01:10.049 economics book called Altogether Now, Common 00:01:10.049 --> 00:01:12.670 Sense for a Fair Economy. And our mission today. 00:01:12.859 --> 00:01:15.519 for you listening isn't just to give you a basic 00:01:15.519 --> 00:01:17.640 book summary. Right. We're going way beyond that. 00:01:17.680 --> 00:01:20.680 Yeah. We are here to decode a very specific lens 00:01:20.680 --> 00:01:23.420 through which we can view the entire United States 00:01:23.420 --> 00:01:26.260 economic system. We're exploring a framework 00:01:26.260 --> 00:01:30.140 for evaluating how societies handle, well, risk. 00:01:30.319 --> 00:01:32.500 So just to set the baseline for you, this book 00:01:32.500 --> 00:01:34.719 was published back in 2006 by Barrett Kohler 00:01:34.719 --> 00:01:37.819 Publishers, and it is exactly one hundred and 00:01:37.819 --> 00:01:41.239 fifty four pages long, which is honestly essentially 00:01:41.239 --> 00:01:44.219 the perfect length for a focused manifesto style 00:01:44.219 --> 00:01:46.040 argument. It's definitely meant to be highly 00:01:46.040 --> 00:01:48.459 readable, not a dense textbook. Exactly. And 00:01:48.459 --> 00:01:50.980 it was written by Jared Bernstein, which actually 00:01:50.980 --> 00:01:52.700 brings up a really important piece of context 00:01:52.700 --> 00:01:54.900 from the source text. Oh, right. Let's get into 00:01:54.900 --> 00:01:56.980 that. Yeah. So the text identifies Jared Bernstein 00:01:56.980 --> 00:01:59.239 as the chief economist and economic policy advisor 00:01:59.239 --> 00:02:02.310 to Vice President Joe Biden. OK, so we need to 00:02:02.310 --> 00:02:05.409 pause right here for a second. Because Bernstein 00:02:05.409 --> 00:02:08.250 is so closely tied to a specific administration. 00:02:08.830 --> 00:02:12.069 This book is deeply rooted in contemporary politics. 00:02:12.389 --> 00:02:14.889 It definitely is. So our goal today, and we want 00:02:14.889 --> 00:02:16.849 to be super clear about this to you listening, 00:02:17.150 --> 00:02:19.530 is not to debate whether his politics are right 00:02:19.530 --> 00:02:22.250 or wrong. Absolutely not. We are strictly remaining 00:02:22.250 --> 00:02:25.150 impartial. We aren't endorsing the author's political 00:02:25.150 --> 00:02:27.729 viewpoints. And we're definitely not taking a 00:02:27.729 --> 00:02:29.669 left -wing or right -wing stance here. Right. 00:02:30.009 --> 00:02:32.770 We are simply peeking under the hood at the actual 00:02:32.770 --> 00:02:35.129 economic mechanics of his argument. We just want 00:02:35.129 --> 00:02:37.490 to understand how he builds his case exactly 00:02:37.490 --> 00:02:40.180 as it's presented. in the source text. The focus 00:02:40.180 --> 00:02:42.520 is entirely on the structure of the theory. Okay, 00:02:42.520 --> 00:02:44.900 let's unpack this. Because rather than jumping 00:02:44.900 --> 00:02:48.120 straight into heavy, dense macroeconomic policy, 00:02:48.240 --> 00:02:50.199 which, let's be honest, can make anyone's eyes 00:02:50.199 --> 00:02:52.620 glaze over. Totally. But he doesn't do that. 00:02:52.719 --> 00:02:55.680 The author frames his central thesis in this 00:02:55.680 --> 00:02:58.759 catchy, almost pop culture kind of way. It really 00:02:58.759 --> 00:03:01.680 does. He uses two acronyms to define the basic 00:03:01.680 --> 00:03:03.879 difference in contemporary political thinking, 00:03:04.219 --> 00:03:08.110 and those are WITT and YOYO. All right, so W 00:03:08.110 --> 00:03:11.090 -I -T -T, spelled W -I -T -T, stands for we're 00:03:11.090 --> 00:03:14.270 in this together. Okay. And yo -o -yo, spelled 00:03:14.270 --> 00:03:17.409 Y -O -Y -O, stands for you're on your own. You're 00:03:17.409 --> 00:03:20.849 on your own, wow. Yeah. And the text outlines 00:03:20.849 --> 00:03:24.250 that the book promotes the W -I -T -T ideal. 00:03:24.310 --> 00:03:27.110 Right. While describing the faults of a yo -yo 00:03:27.110 --> 00:03:29.060 -yo attitude. You know, when I was reading this, 00:03:29.240 --> 00:03:31.479 a visual immediately popped into my head. Oh, 00:03:31.539 --> 00:03:33.659 yeah. What was it? Well, I was wondering, is 00:03:33.659 --> 00:03:37.080 yo -yo -yo just the economic version of an every 00:03:37.080 --> 00:03:39.680 -person -for -themselves lifeboat scenario? Oh, 00:03:39.800 --> 00:03:41.960 interesting. Like, where you guard your own rations, 00:03:42.060 --> 00:03:44.280 and then W -I -T -T is, I don't know, deciding 00:03:44.280 --> 00:03:46.379 to build a bigger boat together. I mean, that 00:03:46.379 --> 00:03:48.759 analogy captures the mechanics really well. Yeah. 00:03:49.020 --> 00:03:51.099 Yeah, because think about it. In the yo -yo -y 00:03:51.099 --> 00:03:53.280 lifeboat, You might have your own provisions. 00:03:53.659 --> 00:03:55.719 You have your own life jacket. Right. And your 00:03:55.719 --> 00:03:58.159 survival is entirely dependent on your individual 00:03:58.159 --> 00:04:01.139 resources. If your section of the boat springs 00:04:01.139 --> 00:04:03.699 a leak. That's your problem to bail out. Exactly. 00:04:03.939 --> 00:04:06.219 Yeah. But in the WIT boat, the resources are 00:04:06.219 --> 00:04:09.400 pooled. But, and this is key, so is the labor 00:04:09.400 --> 00:04:11.759 of rowing and bailing water. OK, but wait. I 00:04:11.759 --> 00:04:13.360 have to push back here for a second. Go for it. 00:04:13.469 --> 00:04:16.170 The pull yourself up by your bootstraps narrative 00:04:16.170 --> 00:04:18.810 is basically the foundation of the American economy. 00:04:18.970 --> 00:04:21.449 It really is, yeah. We culturally celebrate the 00:04:21.449 --> 00:04:23.449 self -made individual. You're on your own is 00:04:23.449 --> 00:04:26.589 kind of our whole thing. Right. So how does the 00:04:26.589 --> 00:04:29.329 book reconcile that deeply ingrained cultural 00:04:29.329 --> 00:04:32.910 identity with the idea that yo -yo is somehow 00:04:32.910 --> 00:04:36.029 a fault? Well, what's fascinating here is where 00:04:36.029 --> 00:04:39.709 he draws the line between personal effort and 00:04:39.709 --> 00:04:42.449 systemic shock. OK, what do you mean by systemic 00:04:42.449 --> 00:04:45.089 shock? So the book doesn't necessarily dismiss 00:04:45.089 --> 00:04:48.350 hard work. It argues that the bootstrap mentality 00:04:48.350 --> 00:04:51.529 functions totally fine when the economy is relatively 00:04:51.529 --> 00:04:53.870 stable and insulated. When things are going well, 00:04:54.089 --> 00:04:56.670 basically. Right. But it argues that it becomes 00:04:56.670 --> 00:04:59.870 a flawed or even weaponized excuse when massive 00:04:59.870 --> 00:05:02.720 systemic shifts occur. Oh, I see. Yeah, you can't 00:05:02.720 --> 00:05:04.279 really pull yourself up by your bootstraps if 00:05:04.279 --> 00:05:07.300 a macroeconomic tidal wave just washed away the 00:05:07.300 --> 00:05:09.939 entire factory you work in. Wow. OK. So it takes 00:05:09.939 --> 00:05:11.959 the conversation completely out of the realm 00:05:11.959 --> 00:05:14.860 of spreadsheets and like individual morality. 00:05:15.079 --> 00:05:17.800 Exactly. It's asking whether a localized economic 00:05:17.800 --> 00:05:20.300 collapse is a personal failing or a structural 00:05:20.300 --> 00:05:24.399 one. It moves economic policy from mere GDP projections 00:05:24.399 --> 00:05:27.779 into a question of shared societal values. Yes. 00:05:27.879 --> 00:05:30.259 And it forces the reader to ask a tough question. 00:05:31.069 --> 00:05:34.410 has the bootstraps narrative morphed into a systemic 00:05:34.410 --> 00:05:37.649 shedding of responsibility? A shedding of responsibility? 00:05:37.850 --> 00:05:40.790 That's a heavy phrase. It is. The book argues 00:05:40.790 --> 00:05:42.709 that there are deep -rooted problems within the 00:05:42.709 --> 00:05:45.329 U .S. economic system, and it says the yo -yo 00:05:45.329 --> 00:05:48.189 mindset is the engine driving those vulnerabilities. 00:05:48.610 --> 00:05:51.310 So what's the alternative, then? Well, the proposed 00:05:51.310 --> 00:05:54.230 collaborative solution Bernstein offers is a 00:05:54.230 --> 00:05:56.829 system where economic risk is, quote, shouldered 00:05:56.829 --> 00:05:59.089 equally at all levels. Shoulder equally at all 00:05:59.089 --> 00:06:01.569 levels. I mean, that sounds great in a 154 -page 00:06:01.569 --> 00:06:03.750 book. Right. That's a nice sound bite. But how 00:06:03.750 --> 00:06:06.629 does this actually apply to the real world? Because 00:06:06.629 --> 00:06:09.310 economics hits people in their wallets. It does. 00:06:09.550 --> 00:06:12.149 And the source notes that Bernstein uses three 00:06:12.149 --> 00:06:15.430 specific issues as case examples to show how 00:06:15.430 --> 00:06:17.769 we might shift government policy from yo -yo 00:06:17.769 --> 00:06:21.050 -yo to W -I -T -T. Yes, the three pillars. Right. 00:06:21.129 --> 00:06:23.329 And those are globalization, health care, and 00:06:23.329 --> 00:06:25.529 income inequality. So let's look at the underlying 00:06:25.529 --> 00:06:28.730 logic of why he chose those three specific areas. 00:06:29.069 --> 00:06:31.629 Yeah, why those three? Because they are the primary 00:06:31.629 --> 00:06:34.610 generators of economic risk for the average person, 00:06:35.629 --> 00:06:38.550 and crucially, they are largely outside of any 00:06:38.550 --> 00:06:40.689 individual's control. Okay, let's take the first 00:06:40.689 --> 00:06:43.810 one then. Globalization. Sure. Usually I feel 00:06:43.810 --> 00:06:46.189 like globalization feels like an abstract weather 00:06:46.189 --> 00:06:48.610 pattern, you know. Yeah, like a storm happening 00:06:48.610 --> 00:06:51.670 somewhere else. Exactly. A factory moves overseas, 00:06:51.670 --> 00:06:54.870 and we tend to view it as just this inevitability 00:06:54.870 --> 00:06:57.350 of the modern world. Right. But viewing it through 00:06:57.350 --> 00:07:01.009 this WITT lens implies that the negative side 00:07:01.009 --> 00:07:04.389 effects, like massive job displacement in a specific 00:07:04.389 --> 00:07:07.550 town, shouldn't just fall solely on the shoulders 00:07:07.550 --> 00:07:09.930 of the individual worker who got laid off. If 00:07:09.930 --> 00:07:12.019 we connect this to the bigger picture. under 00:07:12.019 --> 00:07:15.759 a yo -yo model. The risk of a global market shift 00:07:15.759 --> 00:07:18.839 is borne entirely by, let's say, a 50 -year -old 00:07:18.839 --> 00:07:22.060 machinist. OK. The broader economy gets cheaper 00:07:22.060 --> 00:07:24.180 imported goods. Yeah, everyone likes cheaper 00:07:24.180 --> 00:07:26.779 goods. But that machinist is told, hey, you're 00:07:26.779 --> 00:07:28.519 on your own to figure out how to transition into 00:07:28.519 --> 00:07:31.699 a new industry. They absorb 100 % of the downside. 00:07:32.079 --> 00:07:33.959 So for the listener, what does the alternative 00:07:33.959 --> 00:07:37.079 actually look like? How do you shoulder the risk 00:07:37.079 --> 00:07:40.220 of international trade equally? Well, in a WITT 00:07:40.220 --> 00:07:43.279 framework, the philosophy is that since the country 00:07:43.279 --> 00:07:46.300 as a whole benefits from the efficiencies of 00:07:46.300 --> 00:07:49.279 globalization, which we do, right, then the country 00:07:49.279 --> 00:07:51.720 as a whole must absorb the collateral damage. 00:07:52.439 --> 00:07:55.339 Interesting. Mechanically, what is that? Mechanically, 00:07:55.339 --> 00:07:57.560 that might look like robust trade adjustment 00:07:57.560 --> 00:08:00.420 assistance. It means systemic retraining programs 00:08:00.420 --> 00:08:02.879 that are actually funded by the state. Oh, or 00:08:02.879 --> 00:08:04.779 like wage insurance. Exactly. Wage insurance 00:08:04.779 --> 00:08:07.259 that protects a worker's income while they transition. 00:08:07.500 --> 00:08:09.899 So the state recognizes that the overall economy 00:08:09.899 --> 00:08:12.519 gained. So a fraction of that systemic gain is 00:08:12.519 --> 00:08:14.839 redirected to support the displaced worker. The 00:08:14.839 --> 00:08:17.420 risk is pooled. That makes a lot of sense. It's 00:08:17.420 --> 00:08:19.560 shifting the burden from the micro level to the 00:08:19.560 --> 00:08:22.680 macro level. Precisely. So if globalization is 00:08:22.680 --> 00:08:25.199 about the risk of where you work, the second 00:08:25.199 --> 00:08:28.139 pillar Bernstein targets is the risk inherent 00:08:28.139 --> 00:08:30.939 in simply being human, which is health care. 00:08:31.100 --> 00:08:33.879 Health care is perhaps the ultimate stress test 00:08:33.879 --> 00:08:37.960 for this WITT versus yo -yo -yo framework. Why 00:08:37.960 --> 00:08:40.240 is that? Because biological illness is inherently 00:08:40.240 --> 00:08:42.700 random. Right. You can't control if you get sick. 00:08:42.980 --> 00:08:45.759 Exactly. In a yo -yo -yo system, your health 00:08:45.759 --> 00:08:48.559 care is often tied to your specific employer 00:08:48.559 --> 00:08:52.179 or your ability to pay exorbitant individual 00:08:52.179 --> 00:08:54.419 premiums. And if you get sick, you're on your 00:08:54.419 --> 00:08:56.779 own to manage the financial ruin. Yeah. It's 00:08:56.779 --> 00:08:59.690 the high wire without the net. and the economic 00:08:59.690 --> 00:09:03.610 mechanics of a WITT approach to healthcare fundamentally 00:09:03.610 --> 00:09:07.950 rely on broadening the actuarial risk pool. The 00:09:07.950 --> 00:09:10.590 actuarial risk pool. Let's break that down. Sure. 00:09:11.090 --> 00:09:13.490 Insurance, at its core, works best when everyone 00:09:13.490 --> 00:09:16.769 is in the same pool. The healthy subsidize the 00:09:16.769 --> 00:09:19.129 sick, right? With the understanding that the 00:09:19.129 --> 00:09:21.590 roles might reverse tomorrow, I might be healthy 00:09:21.590 --> 00:09:24.610 today, but sick next year. Exactly. But a yo 00:09:24.610 --> 00:09:27.389 -yo approach fragments those tools. It often 00:09:27.389 --> 00:09:29.490 leaves the most vulnerable individuals to bear 00:09:29.490 --> 00:09:32.629 the highest costs alone. Wow. Yeah. Whereas a 00:09:32.629 --> 00:09:35.070 WITT policy, according to the sources framework, 00:09:35.590 --> 00:09:37.389 demands that the financial risk of illness be 00:09:37.389 --> 00:09:40.169 spread across the entire population. Which mitigates 00:09:40.169 --> 00:09:42.769 the catastrophic financial blow to any single 00:09:42.769 --> 00:09:45.779 household. OK. Which brings us to the third and 00:09:45.779 --> 00:09:49.299 probably the thorniest pillar in the book, income 00:09:49.299 --> 00:09:52.200 inequality. It's definitely a complex one. Because 00:09:52.200 --> 00:09:55.019 globalization and health care feel like identifiable 00:09:55.019 --> 00:09:57.620 events, right? Like you lose a job or you get 00:09:57.620 --> 00:10:00.279 sick. Yeah, there's a clear inciting incident. 00:10:00.659 --> 00:10:03.700 But income inequality is a slow, creeping condition. 00:10:04.240 --> 00:10:07.340 So how does the book frame wage disparity as 00:10:07.340 --> 00:10:09.840 an issue of risk? Well, this raises an important 00:10:09.840 --> 00:10:12.639 question about how we define economic stability 00:10:12.639 --> 00:10:16.279 in the first place. In a yo -yo economy, wage 00:10:16.279 --> 00:10:19.080 stagnation is framed as a personal deficit. Oh, 00:10:19.080 --> 00:10:21.039 like if you aren't making enough, it's your fault. 00:10:21.159 --> 00:10:23.039 Right. If your wages aren't keeping up with inflation 00:10:23.039 --> 00:10:26.139 or productivity, the yo -yo response is simply 00:10:26.139 --> 00:10:28.659 that you need to acquire better skills or just 00:10:28.659 --> 00:10:31.200 work harder. But if productivity across the entire 00:10:31.200 --> 00:10:34.179 economy is going up and the wages for, say, the 00:10:34.179 --> 00:10:36.779 bottom 80 percent are just staying flat. Which 00:10:36.779 --> 00:10:38.870 is often what we see. then that's not a million 00:10:38.870 --> 00:10:41.029 individual failures, that's a structural feature. 00:10:41.370 --> 00:10:43.629 Precisely the point Bernstein's framework makes. 00:10:44.549 --> 00:10:47.070 Relying on a polarized economy, where the majority 00:10:47.070 --> 00:10:50.429 of workers have no financial buffer, that is 00:10:50.429 --> 00:10:52.889 a systemic vulnerability. It's basically structural 00:10:52.889 --> 00:10:56.750 risk. Yes. The WITT approach argues that the 00:10:56.750 --> 00:10:59.429 rules of the game are skewed. Yeah. So mechanically, 00:10:59.649 --> 00:11:01.929 addressing this means intervening to rebalance 00:11:01.929 --> 00:11:04.169 the power dynamic between labor and capital. 00:11:04.330 --> 00:11:06.990 OK, so we are talking about policies like systemic 00:11:06.990 --> 00:11:10.149 wage floors or maybe strengthening collective 00:11:10.149 --> 00:11:13.929 bargaining rights. Yes, exactly. A WITT model 00:11:13.929 --> 00:11:18.509 views unions or minimum wage laws not as like 00:11:18.509 --> 00:11:21.440 market interferences. OK. but as necessary risk 00:11:21.440 --> 00:11:23.720 mitigation tools. They ensure that the wealth 00:11:23.720 --> 00:11:26.080 generated by increased productivity is distributed 00:11:26.080 --> 00:11:28.679 more evenly. Which in turn creates a more resilient 00:11:28.679 --> 00:11:31.080 consumer base, right? Right. When the risk of 00:11:31.080 --> 00:11:33.379 poverty is reduced to the bottom, the entire 00:11:33.379 --> 00:11:35.840 economic structure is theoretically way more 00:11:35.840 --> 00:11:37.860 stable. Honestly, it's a massive paradigm shift. 00:11:37.960 --> 00:11:40.480 It really is. It's essentially rewiring how we 00:11:40.480 --> 00:11:43.200 perceive economic hardship. Like demanding that 00:11:43.200 --> 00:11:45.700 we treat localized pain as a symptom of a much 00:11:45.700 --> 00:11:48.419 larger systemic issue. Yeah, that's exactly the 00:11:48.419 --> 00:11:51.919 thesis. But introducing a framework that challenges 00:11:51.919 --> 00:11:55.860 such a deeply ingrained cultural ethos, I mean, 00:11:56.000 --> 00:11:58.480 that is a bold move. Oh, absolutely. You're trying 00:11:58.480 --> 00:12:01.580 to turn a massive ship with a relatively small 00:12:01.580 --> 00:12:04.940 steering wheel in a 154 page book. Right. It's 00:12:04.940 --> 00:12:07.240 quite the task. So did this theoretical message 00:12:07.240 --> 00:12:10.960 actually resonate with anyone back in 2006? The 00:12:10.960 --> 00:12:13.580 media landscape's reaction at the time is highly 00:12:13.580 --> 00:12:16.620 revealing, actually. It clearly struck a nerve. 00:12:16.740 --> 00:12:18.620 Yeah. The source notes that the book received 00:12:18.620 --> 00:12:22.080 a generally positive reception across a surprisingly 00:12:22.080 --> 00:12:24.620 wide variety of publications. It didn't just 00:12:24.620 --> 00:12:26.879 stay trapped in academic circles. No. I mean, 00:12:26.879 --> 00:12:29.139 you do see specialized journals reviewing it, 00:12:29.159 --> 00:12:31.740 like New Labor Forum and a journal called Community 00:12:31.740 --> 00:12:35.019 Development by Taylor and Francis. But then excerpts 00:12:35.019 --> 00:12:36.539 were actually published in The New York Times. 00:12:36.779 --> 00:12:38.720 And what is particularly telling isn't just who 00:12:38.720 --> 00:12:41.279 reviewed it, but the vocabulary they adopted. 00:12:41.519 --> 00:12:44.220 Oh, yeah. The specific review titles cited in 00:12:44.220 --> 00:12:46.740 the source text act as a total barometer for 00:12:46.740 --> 00:12:49.279 how the book's rhetoric was absorbed. They really 00:12:49.279 --> 00:12:52.240 reflect the provocative nature of the W -I -T 00:12:52.240 --> 00:12:55.279 -T versus yo -yo -oh. framework. I totally noticed 00:12:55.279 --> 00:12:57.299 that. Here's where it gets really interesting. 00:12:57.639 --> 00:13:00.320 The term yo -yo -yo -o was clearly picked up 00:13:00.320 --> 00:13:03.840 by reviewers as a powerful, almost weaponized 00:13:03.840 --> 00:13:06.360 critique of certain policies. Definitely weaponized. 00:13:06.600 --> 00:13:08.639 Like, one review from the Charleston Gazette 00:13:08.639 --> 00:13:11.620 was literally titled, A Philosophy of Failure. 00:13:12.100 --> 00:13:14.659 Yo -yo -yos in charge don't want government to 00:13:14.659 --> 00:13:17.940 work. Wow. And the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 00:13:17.940 --> 00:13:21.080 ran a piece titled, Yo -yo -yos had us on a string, 00:13:21.120 --> 00:13:23.220 but that may be changing. That's a clever title. 00:13:23.500 --> 00:13:26.259 It is. And the Providence Journal went with bewitched 00:13:26.259 --> 00:13:29.679 by bad economics. It's incredibly sticky. Bernstein 00:13:29.679 --> 00:13:31.879 managed to create a label that gave reviewers 00:13:31.879 --> 00:13:35.639 a very simple shorthand for a very complex macroeconomic 00:13:35.639 --> 00:13:38.039 debate. He really did. It provided a vocabulary 00:13:38.039 --> 00:13:40.480 for frustration that was clearly already simmering 00:13:40.480 --> 00:13:43.159 in 2006. Right. Because you also see coverage 00:13:43.159 --> 00:13:45.440 in the Industrial Worker and the American Prospect 00:13:45.440 --> 00:13:47.740 had a piece called How Capitalism Works Now. 00:13:47.860 --> 00:13:50.360 And the fact that labor focused magazines and 00:13:50.360 --> 00:13:52.509 mainstream newspapers were all utilizing the 00:13:52.509 --> 00:13:55.289 same framing. It just shows how universal the 00:13:55.289 --> 00:13:57.509 anxiety around economic risk was at the time 00:13:57.509 --> 00:13:59.850 of publication. Everyone was feeling it. Yeah. 00:14:00.149 --> 00:14:02.830 The question of who bears the risk was a critical 00:14:02.830 --> 00:14:04.970 pressure point. And again, remaining neutral 00:14:04.970 --> 00:14:07.789 here, regardless of whether you personally believe 00:14:07.789 --> 00:14:10.529 a yo -ve -o -yo approach builds character or 00:14:10.529 --> 00:14:13.029 a w -i -t -t approach builds better communities. 00:14:13.429 --> 00:14:16.230 Right. The rhetorical effectiveness of this framework 00:14:16.230 --> 00:14:19.490 is undeniable. The author successfully forced 00:14:19.490 --> 00:14:22.029 the media to debate the philosophy behind the 00:14:22.029 --> 00:14:24.889 math. It made the invisible structures of the 00:14:24.889 --> 00:14:27.350 economy visible. It's like everyone was looking 00:14:27.350 --> 00:14:29.830 up at that acrobat on the high wire, realizing 00:14:29.830 --> 00:14:32.289 the wind was picking up and suddenly demanding 00:14:32.289 --> 00:14:34.990 to know who is actually in charge of the safety 00:14:34.990 --> 00:14:37.070 net. That is the core of the tension right there. 00:14:37.230 --> 00:14:40.409 Do we weave the net together or do we leave each 00:14:40.409 --> 00:14:42.809 individual to calculate their own terminal velocity? 00:14:42.929 --> 00:14:45.549 Terminal velocity. Man, that's dark but accurate. 00:14:45.789 --> 00:14:47.470 So let's bring all of this together. Let's do 00:14:47.470 --> 00:14:50.629 it. We've taken a deep dive into a 2006 book 00:14:50.629 --> 00:14:53.149 altogether now that attempts to fundamentally 00:14:53.149 --> 00:14:57.500 reframe the U .S. economy. It argues for moving 00:14:57.500 --> 00:15:00.299 away from a you're on your own mentality to it. 00:15:00.460 --> 00:15:02.639 We're in this together collaborative model. And 00:15:02.639 --> 00:15:05.139 it specifically targets those massive structural 00:15:05.139 --> 00:15:08.669 forces. Right. globalization, healthcare, and 00:15:08.669 --> 00:15:11.330 income inequality, positioning them as the prime 00:15:11.330 --> 00:15:13.850 areas where individual risk needs to be transformed 00:15:13.850 --> 00:15:16.909 into shared systemic responsibility. Exactly. 00:15:17.429 --> 00:15:19.909 So to you listening, Lennox Time, you're reading 00:15:19.909 --> 00:15:23.429 the news or you hear a debate about a new trade 00:15:23.429 --> 00:15:25.990 tariff, a healthcare overhaul, or a shift in 00:15:25.990 --> 00:15:27.789 labor laws. Ask yourself the question. Yeah, 00:15:27.870 --> 00:15:31.350 ask yourself. Is the underlying philosophy of 00:15:31.350 --> 00:15:34.649 this proposal a W -I -T -T policy, or is it a 00:15:34.649 --> 00:15:37.330 yo -yo -why -yo policy, who is actually being 00:15:37.330 --> 00:15:40.129 asked to carry the risk? And I actually want 00:15:40.129 --> 00:15:42.289 to leave you with one final lingering provocative 00:15:42.289 --> 00:15:44.970 thought to mull over on your own. Oh, what's 00:15:44.970 --> 00:15:47.629 that? Well, keep in mind, this book and its warnings 00:15:47.629 --> 00:15:50.509 about economic risk were published in 2006. Right. 00:15:51.070 --> 00:15:53.230 If the author believed we were facing deep -rooted 00:15:53.230 --> 00:15:56.110 economic vulnerabilities based on a yo -yo mentality 00:15:56.110 --> 00:15:59.879 back then. Consider the massive, unforeseen global 00:15:59.879 --> 00:16:01.960 financial shocks that arrived just a few years 00:16:01.960 --> 00:16:05.080 later in 2008. Oh, wow. The financial crisis. 00:16:05.240 --> 00:16:07.440 Exactly. That crisis stress -tested this exact 00:16:07.440 --> 00:16:10.000 philosophy on a massive global scale. It really 00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:13.019 did. So the question is, when a catastrophic 00:16:13.019 --> 00:16:17.000 shock hits, does a society naturally pivot toward 00:16:17.000 --> 00:16:21.620 a WITT mindset to survive? Or does fear cause 00:16:21.620 --> 00:16:25.059 people to retreat even further into a yo -yo 00:16:25.059 --> 00:16:27.419 -yo mentality? Does the sudden gust of wind make 00:16:27.419 --> 00:16:29.519 us grab onto each other, or does it make us push 00:16:29.519 --> 00:16:31.720 each other off the wire to save ourselves? It 00:16:31.720 --> 00:16:33.960 is a really fascinating question to ponder. It 00:16:33.960 --> 00:16:36.019 really is. Thank you so much for joining us on 00:16:36.019 --> 00:16:38.820 this deep dive into the underlying currents of 00:16:38.820 --> 00:16:41.139 economic philosophy. It's been great. Keep looking 00:16:41.139 --> 00:16:43.159 at the architecture of the arguments around you, 00:16:43.259 --> 00:16:45.620 keep asking who bears the risk, and keep questioning 00:16:45.620 --> 00:16:47.200 the frameworks. We'll catch you next time.