0:00

The freedom to protest comes in

0:02

conflict with the freedom to learn

0:05

of other students. If you occupy a building.

0:07

There's a conflict of those freedoms. Young people

0:10

sometimes go over the

0:12

line. That's

0:14

part of youth and we ought

0:16

to be at the same time

0:18

forgiving. But I also think it's

0:20

important for them to learn to

0:22

respect others. Hello

0:28

and welcome to Ways to Change the World,

0:31

the podcast about big ideas and the events

0:33

that have helped shape them. I'm Krishnagiri Murthy

0:35

and my guest this week is one of

0:37

the most influential economists in the world. Joseph

0:40

Stiglitz was chairman of the Council of

0:42

Economic Advisors to US President Bill Clinton

0:45

and chief economist at the World Bank

0:47

before being awarded the Nobel Prize. His

0:49

latest book is called The Road to Freedom.

0:52

It explores what's gone wrong with

0:54

the dominant ideology of free markets,

0:56

what he terms neoliberalism. It

0:58

is the rebuttal to two other Nobel Prize

1:00

winning economists of the 20th century who've become

1:04

the gods of right wing free

1:06

market deregulators, Hayek and Friedman. The

1:08

Road to Freedom is of course the

1:11

counterpoint to Hayek's Road to Serfdom and

1:13

it argues a good society can be

1:15

created through what he calls

1:17

progressive capitalism. Professor Stiglitz is

1:20

now based at Columbia University in New York

1:22

where freedom of speech and the right to

1:24

protest has also been making news in recent

1:26

weeks. Thank you very much for joining us.

1:28

It's nice to be here. We'll get to

1:30

freedom of speech and protest in

1:32

a moment but you've got some

1:34

big ideas which take on

1:36

the dominant ideology of the

1:38

post-war consensus. That's right. That

1:41

dominant ideology as you mentioned

1:43

was neoliberalism and let's

1:46

parse that word out neo-met

1:48

new liberalism is freeing. It

1:51

was an attempt to update

1:53

to the 20th century the

1:56

liberal ideas of the 19th century but it

1:58

wasn't really much change. And it was

2:01

really a set of simple, I

2:03

would say, simplistic ideas that

2:06

said that if you ripped

2:08

away regulations, lower

2:11

taxes, let unfettered markets

2:13

rip, you'd have growth

2:16

and trickle down economics would ensure

2:18

that even though a lot

2:21

of the benefits of that growth would go to the

2:23

top, everybody would be

2:25

better off. There is this

2:27

sort of entrenched sense in all of our

2:29

thinking and discourse that freeing

2:32

the markets in some way frees

2:34

people. That's right. And

2:36

even the words that the

2:39

right has used, free enterprise,

2:41

free markets, suggest

2:44

that there is a link between

2:47

freedom and this

2:49

neoliberal capitalism. And

2:52

both Hayek and Friedman thought that

2:55

this kind of economic

2:57

freedom would not only liberate the

2:59

economy and make it more efficient,

3:01

more perform better, but

3:03

was necessary if we're going to have

3:06

political freedom. One of the things

3:08

I argue in the book is they were wrong

3:10

both in their economics and

3:12

in their politics. I mean, it is

3:14

the problem that for decades we have

3:16

had these polarized views of

3:19

you can either have total freedom in which

3:21

the market runs amok or you can have

3:24

communism or dictatorship. And

3:27

the truth is that you have to

3:29

be somewhere in between the two. To

3:31

remind us of that, I begin

3:33

by talking about the Ten Commandments, a set

3:36

of regulations, thou should

3:38

not steal, that

3:40

took away the freedom of the thief

3:42

and the murderer but

3:44

gave the rest of society so much

3:47

freedom. Now, in the 21st

3:49

century, the trade-offs are a lot

3:51

more subtle. Thou should not pollute.

3:54

Pollution takes

3:58

away the freedom of somebody with that. even

4:00

to live but is putting

4:02

in jeopardy our whole world. So

4:05

by restricting the freedom of

4:07

the polluters we are enhancing

4:09

the freedom of the rest

4:11

of our society and that's

4:13

really one of the big

4:15

ideas in the book that

4:18

to put it as Isaiah Brolin the great

4:20

philosopher put it, freedom for

4:22

the wolves is often meant death

4:24

for the sheep. So does that mean you can't

4:27

ever have a world in which everybody's free? Well

4:30

you have to think very carefully

4:32

about how one person's freedom

4:34

impinges that of another. It's

4:36

all trade-offs. It's all not

4:38

all trade-offs because there I

4:40

also talk about some circumstances

4:43

where a little bit

4:45

of coercion can actually increase

4:48

everybody's freedom. So I mean

4:50

well just to go back a bit before

4:52

that in a way I mean do you believe that free

4:54

markets are the roads of serfdom.

4:56

They are the things that leads people being

4:58

enslaved. What I believe is that the

5:01

inequality and the deprivation that

5:03

we've seen out of free

5:06

markets, so-called free markets has

5:09

put us on the road

5:11

to serfdom to authoritarian to

5:13

populist. Let me put it a little

5:15

bit more carefully, they create a

5:18

fertile field. There are

5:20

other factors that contribute to

5:23

it but they create a fertile field

5:25

and it's a field that demagogues

5:28

will try to till and

5:31

there is in

5:33

many countries including the United States a

5:36

rich supply of demagogues willing

5:40

and in some cases able to fill

5:42

these fields and we wound up unlucky

5:44

in the United States with somebody like Donald Trump.

5:46

But isn't it also quite confusing if you're trying

5:49

to understand what's going on because you

5:51

know some of these right-wing

5:53

populists are talking about market interventions

5:55

to protect the home markets so

5:57

Trump with his protectionist ideas. Now

6:00

some of this is sort of, well, are you on

6:02

the same turf? Are you talking the same language? Yeah.

6:05

So what is interesting is

6:07

that the right today has

6:10

abandoned neoliberalism

6:13

in many essential ways while

6:16

embracing it in others. And you're

6:18

right. It is very confusing. They

6:20

do not have a coherent intellectual

6:23

philosophy. So they talk about freedom.

6:26

The main

6:29

extreme Republican caucus is called

6:31

the Freedom Caucus in Congress. But

6:34

they are perfectly willing,

6:37

enthusiastic about interfering with women's

6:39

right to make a choice,

6:42

their reproductive rights. They're perfectly

6:44

willing to interfere

6:46

with other people's rights.

6:49

So they don't, and

6:52

they are not supportive of free

6:54

trade. So they do

6:57

not have a coherent philosophy today.

6:59

They're opportunists. But it's

7:02

exactly that opportunism that has

7:04

been created by the discontent

7:06

of the last 40 years

7:09

of failed neoliberalism. Well, can you also then talk

7:11

about free trade? Because it is free trade. I

7:13

mean, the assumption, again, is that all free trade

7:15

is a good thing and that

7:17

it's part of sort of deregulation and freeing

7:19

and makes everybody richer. There was a little

7:21

bit of a charade in calling

7:23

all this free trade. The free trade

7:26

agreements were really managed trade agreements. And

7:28

they were managed for the benefit of

7:30

corporate interest, multinationals, multinational

7:33

financial companies. So

7:36

there was a little bit of a charade in calling

7:38

it free trade. Example

7:41

of an important

7:43

provision was intellectual

7:45

property rights, pharmaceuticals, restricting

7:49

the movement of ideas

7:51

across boundaries. So

7:54

it was really a managed trade

7:57

regime. Interestingly, economic.

8:00

Trump theory had said that

8:02

while free trade could

8:04

have beneficial effects,

8:06

so large that the

8:09

winners could compensate the

8:11

losers. It also said

8:13

that there would be losers, and

8:16

unless you provided that

8:18

compensation, and unfortunately, the

8:20

Republicans especially refused to

8:23

provide that compensation. Yes,

8:25

so is the danger to your side of

8:27

the argument if you like, that people like

8:29

Trump are saying things that are appealing to

8:31

the losers? They are saying

8:33

things. He's a con man, and

8:36

they are saying things that are attractive, but

8:38

he's not delivering. He

8:41

says, I feel your pain. I

8:44

want to help you. Then what does

8:46

he do? He wants to take away their health care. He

8:50

has a tax reform that benefits the billionaires, but

8:53

not ordinary people. But he does it in the

8:55

language of saying, I'll protect your jobs. Did

8:57

he create jobs in

9:00

those places where he promised, it

9:03

was a failure, and the slogan

9:05

of Trump was, Make America Great

9:07

Again. It's looking back in the

9:10

past, the Biden administration has been

9:12

looking forward and asking, what are

9:14

the jobs for the 21st century?

9:18

And it's focusing on things

9:20

like chips, the green

9:22

transition. It's

9:24

a future-oriented industrial

9:26

policy, rather than

9:28

trying to protect us against

9:31

the changes that have

9:33

already left many

9:36

places behind.

9:39

Right, but aren't you also really

9:41

criticizing center-left politics as well,

9:44

because you're saying that they're not going far enough? For

9:46

the United States, one views

9:48

it in a little bit of

9:50

historical context. When Bill Clinton was

9:52

running for the presidency, he felt

9:54

that he needed to Redefine

9:57

where the Democratic Party was. Gray

10:00

and your relationship to get

10:02

more of those who were

10:04

in the center and central

10:06

rise. I'm bored of his

10:09

agenda and so it was.

10:11

It was a deliberate strategy

10:13

of moving away from that

10:15

progressive wow so be of

10:17

a Fdr. Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

10:19

Ah, woodshed me up. Really

10:22

try to change the country

10:24

with new labour legislation, Social

10:26

Security? I it was saying

10:28

that that was many. Years

10:30

ago, half century earlier, or

10:32

we have to move on,

10:34

and so it was an

10:36

attempt to move the Democratic

10:38

Party more to the right.

10:41

I can tell you frankly, you know

10:43

thirty forty thirty years later I think

10:45

the country is now realize that that

10:47

particular project didn't work out as well

10:49

as we had hoped. I'm I'm obviously

10:51

asking because in in this country we're

10:54

looking at the Labour Party which is

10:56

in a very similar situation is trying

10:58

to win over Isis from the rights,

11:00

is distancing itself from the philosophy of

11:02

Jeremy Corbyn was was less economically, perhaps

11:04

more on yourself. With

11:06

as a little bit skewed a little bit

11:08

wedded to some of the nineteen eighties idea

11:11

is. An end and will be on. This

11:13

is forty five years later. but for all

11:15

you basically warning. Kiss. Starmer and

11:17

and the likes of her mommy not

11:19

specifically, but politicians in his place. That.

11:22

They are in danger. Of making the same mistakes.

11:24

I. Understand where you're beginning and

11:27

you have to get elected

11:29

and but you should also

11:31

realize that if you really

11:33

want economic growth, you really

11:35

have to make more investments

11:37

in people in our and

11:39

D I E N Infrastructure.

11:42

Ah, you can tie your hands.

11:44

It's really important. to do

11:46

more for the nhs there's a

11:48

broad consensus about that but exxon

11:50

on your social policy next of

11:52

growth policy because he has a

11:54

you have a week nhs people

11:56

have to wait a long time

11:58

to get out care, they're out of

12:01

the labor force a

12:19

green transition can be a

12:21

growth you

12:30

can get a better environment and

12:33

faster economic growth What's

12:35

this progressive capitalism in your terms? It's

12:37

a broad concept and I

12:40

also sometimes use the word rejuvenated

12:42

social democracy It

12:44

entails a wide

12:46

array of institutions, our society is

12:49

too complex to have central planning

12:51

or anything like that It's a

12:53

capitalism that is regulated,

12:56

competitive, works within bounds

12:59

Not just concerned with maximizing

13:01

profits, it takes into account

13:03

the well-being of the workers,

13:05

the communities, the environment, customers

13:09

Very big departure from that

13:11

shareholder value maximization that was

13:14

Milton Friedman advocated There

13:16

are other kinds of institutions that are

13:18

really, really important, government obviously, but also

13:20

other forms of collective action unions,

13:24

civil society, class

13:27

action suits and

13:29

importantly NGOs, not-for-profits

13:33

But wouldn't all mainstream politicians in

13:35

the West now say we are

13:37

effectively progressive capitalists? We

13:39

believe in regulation, we don't allow the market

13:41

to run free without any kind of controls

13:45

We do have safety nets, we do have welfare states So

13:47

is it just a question of where you are on the

13:49

line? It is that,

13:51

but as you pointed out,

13:54

there is an inclination

13:56

of many politicians to be

13:58

not far enough not

14:01

progressive enough. And there are real

14:03

consequences of that. Not

14:05

enough investments. I mean,

14:07

doesn't a lot of it come though, the sort of the

14:10

public skepticism about government interventions

14:12

come from this idea that government doesn't do things

14:14

well? And in this country,

14:16

people will always heart back to the 1970s

14:18

and say, well, we had all

14:20

these nationalized industries, they were inefficient, they made

14:23

a mess of everything, the trains never ran

14:25

on time, and you needed competition and you

14:27

needed the private sector to come and introduce

14:30

some rigor into all of these things.

14:32

That's the neoliberal trope. And that's what

14:34

I'm trying to fight again.

14:36

But why is it untrue? All humans

14:38

are fallible and all human institutions are

14:40

gonna be fallible. And

14:42

we have to take a calm look at

14:45

public and private institutions. If

14:47

we look at private institutions, no

14:49

government has wasted money at the

14:52

scale of America's private financial institutions

14:54

in the years before 2008. And

14:58

the consequences of their misdeeds

15:00

in the years, in the trillions of

15:03

dollars, the private financial

15:05

sector failed. And then

15:07

you start thinking about other aspects,

15:10

say, of America that I know well. We

15:13

have a childhood diabetes crisis caused

15:15

by food companies trying

15:17

to get people to consume too much sugar.

15:20

Everybody has problems with their telephone

15:23

company and they're constantly complaining about

15:25

their internet company. In

15:28

America, where we don't have NHS,

15:31

health insurance and

15:33

medical care is a mess. If

15:35

you're rich, you get really good

15:37

care. If you're not, you

15:40

have my sympathy. So

15:42

if you start going down the list, tobacco

15:45

companies that produce addictive products without

15:47

telling people, I could go on

15:49

and on and on. This

15:52

is not just 1% of the

15:55

American economy. This is

15:57

embracing a very large fraction.

16:00

of the private sector of the

16:02

American economy. And similar things, not

16:04

quite so bad in Europe because

16:06

you have, quite frankly, better regulation.

16:08

You're not denying that the public

16:11

sector made a mess of things.

16:13

You're saying that the private sector

16:15

does too. Yeah. And I'm also

16:17

saying that the public sector has

16:19

some enormous successes. We're here in

16:22

part because of the government success

16:24

in developing an mRNA platform that

16:26

allowed for rapid development of the

16:28

vaccine. The internet is really

16:31

the basis of so much of

16:33

our modern society. Government. Even

16:36

the browser that was

16:39

invented by the US government.

16:41

So is it about political

16:43

leadership that transforms the dominant

16:45

ideology into persuading people that

16:48

the states can do things? That they can

16:50

do things and that we need a broad

16:53

array of institutions. We need checks and balances.

16:55

We need checks

16:57

against government and we need checks against

17:00

the private sector. And when

17:02

I talk about we need not only

17:04

checks within the government, we need checks

17:06

and balances within our society. So an

17:08

important part of checks and balances

17:11

within our society I would say is the media.

17:13

Another important part is academia,

17:16

academic freedom. So we can

17:18

have, criticize

17:20

what both the government and the private

17:22

sector does and that's what an active

17:25

media does as well. But

17:28

if you have too much agglomeration of wealth,

17:31

that checks and balances may not work out so well.

17:33

So do you believe we are victims of a sort

17:36

of a Grammsky hegemony,

17:40

a dominant ideology that is underpinned by the

17:43

media and by the governments and you know.

17:46

That's right and I'm trying to upset that in

17:48

my book. And you know one book

17:50

isn't going to upset it but

17:55

we need lots of conversations

17:57

and hopefully more. more

18:00

people will realize the situation

18:06

and change it. What's your answer to this sort

18:08

of when people go, well he's just an old

18:10

lefty in a university, he doesn't run anything, he

18:12

doesn't know how private sectors really work? What's

18:16

your answer? I've been engaged with the

18:18

private sector. I haven't been just in

18:20

an ivory tower. I spent

18:22

seven, eight years of my life as

18:25

a public servant, both the Clinton administration

18:27

and the World Bank. But

18:30

I've also been in international advisory boards

18:32

of a number of big companies.

18:35

What do you think would be the

18:37

root from progressive capitalism to greater

18:40

social freedoms, political freedoms, a

18:42

stronger democracy? If kids grow up

18:44

in poverty, they're never going to be able to

18:46

live up to their potential. They

18:49

aren't really free to live

18:51

up to their potential. If

18:53

companies can take advantage of

18:55

others, that's taking away others'

18:57

freedom. So it's both public

18:59

investments that expand everybody's

19:01

freedom and regulations that

19:04

stop anybody, including large corporations,

19:06

from harming others. Right now

19:08

we have a very

19:10

big problem with our social media exerting

19:13

digital harms. And

19:15

Europe is trying to do something about

19:17

these digital harms. America has not been

19:19

willing to undertake that so far. That's

19:22

I think the way to enhance

19:25

more freedom for more citizens.

19:27

The other sort of dominant ideology, if you

19:29

like, of the right is that if you

19:31

create these big bureaucracies, these

19:34

regulatory regimes, you create monsters.

19:38

You create people who abuse their power almost

19:40

for the sake of it. As I say,

19:42

you need checks and balances in

19:44

our society. If you think about how

19:47

our standards of living are so much

19:49

higher than they were 250 years ago

19:52

at the time of the Enlightenment,

19:54

the ideas of science, social organization,

19:56

rule of law, all those

19:58

ideas about how do we organize

20:01

a complex society have

20:03

proven their worth. Can we talk about freedom

20:05

of speech and process? Obviously you're a professor

20:07

at Columbia, we see what's been going on

20:09

there in the pro-Palestinian

20:13

protests there. What

20:15

is your view of what's been going on and the way it's been

20:17

handled by the university authorities and

20:19

the police? Most of the professors

20:21

are very disturbed. Whenever

20:24

you call in the police, our police

20:26

are sometimes a little rough. You

20:28

hope you don't normally need to call in the

20:30

police but universities are special

20:33

communities. We are supposed to reason

20:35

together, learn, we want to protect

20:38

people's freedom to speech, to

20:41

debate but also

20:44

the freedom to learn. So you

20:47

have these conflicts. One of the points

20:49

in my book is often freedoms come

20:51

in conflict, the freedom to protest comes

20:54

in conflict with the freedom to learn

20:57

of other students. If you occupy a building.

20:59

And that obviously, there's

21:02

a conflict of those freedoms and

21:06

I don't know all the details of what went

21:08

on. I do know that there's

21:11

a general sentiment that calling

21:13

in the police is something

21:16

of a last resort. I don't want a

21:18

second guess where the

21:20

negotiations were and how they

21:22

were handled but it obviously

21:25

is very upsetting. But let

21:27

me make two other points.

21:29

One of them is that Columbia University is

21:32

in the midst of a city

21:35

and at the boundaries of the university,

21:38

there are a lot of protesters. You

21:40

can't easily separate out what's

21:43

going on within the campus from

21:45

what's going out outside. In my

21:47

part of the campus where my

21:50

office is total quiet. So

21:52

you might not see that from

21:54

looking at Hamilton Hall.

21:56

So what I want to emphasize

21:59

is that it's

22:01

located in one particular place,

22:04

a small part of a very,

22:06

very large campus. The

22:08

second thing I want to

22:10

emphasize, to me, I

22:12

feel very strong

22:15

about the right to protest.

22:18

I'm proud that our students build empathy,

22:21

that they're engaged in the world. I do

22:23

want them to respect others. I'm

22:26

not sure, these weren't my students, but I'm

22:28

not sure that all of them did,

22:30

had the nature, the respect for

22:32

others that they should have had. But

22:36

protests, quite an

22:38

important part of my own life. I

22:41

was part

22:43

of the march in Washington in August

22:45

1963. Martin

22:47

Luther King's famous

22:49

march for civil rights,

22:51

for social justice,

22:54

for economics. He

22:57

gave that wonderful speech, I Have

22:59

a Dream, changed

23:03

the course of America. Yeah, I

23:05

mean, a lot of the student leaders at the moment are

23:07

talking about the Vietnam student protests and

23:10

other moments that they feel, do you

23:12

feel this is such a

23:14

moment and it should be respected as such? Because

23:17

there's a lot of criticism of it. There's a

23:19

lot of people saying there's anti-Semitism, there's intimidation. Where

23:23

do you sit in that? Yeah. There was

23:25

a really good, I

23:27

thought, op-ed in the Financial Times

23:29

today by Henry Luce, who

23:32

tried to distinguish

23:36

anti-Semitism from anti-Zionism.

23:42

And the two are at risk

23:44

of blending with each other. And

23:47

obviously, young

23:49

people sometimes go

23:52

over the line. That's

23:54

part of youth. And we

23:56

ought to be at the

23:59

same time. forgiving and say

24:01

there is a line and

24:04

you can't go over that line.

24:06

I worry about young people

24:10

18 years old getting a criminal

24:12

record that will be a stain

24:14

on them for the rest of their life but

24:17

I also think it's important for them

24:19

to learn to respect others. I

24:23

think that unfortunately

24:28

some on the right, some Republicans

24:30

whose basic

24:33

stance is anti-universities. I

24:36

should make that clear. There

24:39

is a strong

24:41

anti-liberal education

24:45

strand in the Republican party.

24:48

Speaker Johnson came up to

24:50

Columbia knowing nothing about

24:53

what is really going on and

24:55

on the steps of our library

24:58

called for the resignation of

25:00

our president. We haven't

25:02

had that kind of interference in

25:05

academic freedom since the House on

25:07

American Activities Committee with MacArthur back

25:10

in the 50s. This is a

25:13

real violation of societal norms.

25:16

They've been trying to undermine our

25:19

academic freedom. That worries you more than the

25:21

protest. That worries me much more

25:24

than the protest. But of

25:26

course the protests feed into that kind of attack

25:29

on academic freedom. They're looking for

25:33

a mechanism,

25:35

a way of

25:37

undermining our universities which

25:41

remember as I said earlier are

25:43

part of the real strength of the United

25:45

States and if they undermine

25:47

our universities, they will be undermining our future

25:51

leadership intellectually, technologically

25:55

and morally. Do your

25:57

own Jewish origins influence how you feel?

26:00

The issue at itself. they're protesting over

26:02

He Knows Will Do. Does your identity

26:04

dictates how you feel about what's going

26:06

on the Middle East or our. New.

26:09

Politics part of our

26:11

Jewish identity is concerned

26:13

about the freedom at

26:15

everybody Your we just

26:18

celebrated Passover. it is.

26:21

Ah, The holiday. That.

26:23

Celebrates the the freedom of

26:25

the Jewish people from the

26:27

slavers the way back in

26:29

Egypt. and I think when

26:32

we have that ceremony every

26:34

year we think about. A

26:36

lack of freedom elsewhere and were

26:38

it connects with with my book.

26:40

And we think about you know

26:42

the lack of freedom that the

26:44

slaves and United States at and

26:46

I think that's why we feel

26:49

about more empathy for their history.

26:51

And we think about the lack

26:53

of freedom in every part of

26:55

the world where there's been a

26:57

pressure of a you've advised many

26:59

governments institutions how I wonder whether

27:01

you look it's. Gaza. Right

27:03

now, think about what if if they were ever

27:05

to be a state. And you posted

27:07

in state it would almost. By. Definition

27:09

of be starting from scratch. It

27:11

would be the creation of a new economy. Is

27:14

not something you'd be interested in helping to

27:16

shape. When. I was at

27:19

in the World Bank. we

27:21

engaged and try to write

27:23

reports about the future of

27:26

a Palestinian state ah that

27:28

was twenty five years ago

27:31

and up things the haven't

27:33

gotten wealth and the challenge

27:35

now is even. Greater.

27:39

Ah, of course I would like to do

27:41

what I could to help. Ah,

27:43

Create a. More.

27:46

Pro of a prosperous

27:48

the I A Palestinian

27:50

state Know I think

27:52

that. it's

27:55

only through the prosperity

27:57

is an important ingredient

28:00

in achieving peace in the Middle East. Finally,

28:02

if you could change the world, where's

28:05

the magic wand? What would you do? Well,

28:09

I've already sort of given the answer. Progressive

28:12

capitalism, a rejuvenated social

28:14

democracy, at

28:17

a very high level, the whole agenda that I

28:19

talked about, public investment,

28:21

good regulation, appropriate

28:26

progressive taxation. Do you mean it will

28:28

happen? I'm optimistic that we are moving

28:30

there. This is a moment where

28:33

I would say

28:35

neoliberalism is not dead, but

28:38

it's in its death throes. That

28:40

if you read what is going

28:42

on in both the Democratic and

28:44

Republican Party, the

28:47

Democratic Party has moved towards industrial

28:49

policies, Republican Party believes

28:51

in tariffs. So

28:55

neoliberalism as an

28:58

ideology is being left behind because

29:00

it failed. And that's why I wrote the book,

29:03

because the question is, as

29:05

neoliberalism dies, what's going to replace

29:07

it? Jesus Tiggler, thank you very

29:09

much indeed. Thank you. I

29:12

hope you enjoyed that. If you did, then give us a rating

29:14

or a review and other people will be able to find this

29:17

podcast. Our producer is Shaheen Sattar.

29:19

Until next time, bye-bye.