Jason Hartman talks about the city of Los Angeles and how they’re considering selling properties to close the budget gap. He continues the conversation by saying that Americans want to buy a house because of the pandemic and mentioned corporations that are relocating their headquarters and how they should move as much to places that are friendly to the environment as a landlord. In the show’s interview section, Jason talks to Casey Mulligan, an economics professor at the University of Chicago, and former chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration. He is also the author of the best-selling book The Redistribution Recession: How Labor Market Distortions Contracted the Economy and the new book You’re Hired!: Untold Successes and Failures of a Populist President. They talk about the advantage of Twitter to the president, trade, and regulatory budget.
Welcome to the creating wealth show with Jason Hartman. You’re about to learn a new slant on investing some exciting techniques and fresh new approaches to the world’s most historically proven asset class that will enable you to create more wealth and freedom than you ever thought possible. Jason is a genuine self made multimillionaire who’s actually been there and done it. He’s a successful investor, lender, developer and entrepreneur who’s owned properties in 11 states had hundreds of tenants and been involved in thousands of real estate transactions, this program will help you follow in Jason’s footsteps on the road to your financial independence day. You really can do it on now. here’s your host, Jason Hartman with the complete solution for real estate investors.
Jason Hartman 0:54
Welcome to Episode 1581 1581. Thank you for joining me today from 189 countries worldwide. And how many countries are there worldwide? Well, it depends who you ask, is the Vatican a country is Monaco country? You know, there are some there’s some gray areas, right? Is Palestine a country? You know, there’s a big one, that’s a dispute. There we go. There we go. But 189 I’d say we got pretty good coverage. Can’t wait to welcome listeners from North Korea and Cuba, when when they get access to the internet. Do you know in North Korea, for the very few people who are allowed to access the internet? There are? I think it’s 24 approved government government approved websites. And hey, even though we have a lot more choices here, in these democratic countries in the east and the west, but I’ll call them westernized countries, even if they may be in the east. Because you know, they’re democratic. Right. So I’ll give them that sort of that broad brush. Sorry if I’ve offended anyone. Maybe I have I probably have. So that’s not my intent. Sometimes it is, but not that time. Anyway. So you know, we’ve got the sensors here and in in our world, right. And in many of these countries, we’ve got big tech, we’ve got big tech companies censoring us. Yes, they are censoring us all the time, the thought police reminiscent of the TASS news agency in the former Soviet Union, and guess what, I looked up the TASS news agency, and I went to their website, they still exist. So even after the fall of the Soviet Union, I guess, Mother Russia is still going to have the TASS news agency or not still going to have they do have it’s still out there. But probably not censoring quite as much as well, Facebook and YouTube, and Google. So there you go. It’s a crazy world we live in nowadays. But hey, our guest today, our guest today, let me tell you about our guest today, I think you’ll enjoy this interview is a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, Chicago, and a former chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in a presidential administration that you are very familiar with. But I will not say which presidential administration yet. But yeah, Chief Economist Ron, that’s pretty good. Pretty good. We get people some big, big fat resumes on this show, don’t we? And we’re going to talk about the redistribution, recession. And I think this will be fascinating, fascinating, and may influence your thoughts on the upcoming election. Yes, but wow.
Couple of quick things here. I don’t have time to go into them. Because our guest today, we’ve got a fairly long segment with him. But guess what? Los Angeles, my former home the City of Angels? Well, not quite. But that’s the name anyway, is considering selling a bunch of their properties to close their $600 million budget gap. Yes, they have so poorly managed their city, that they’ve got to sell off all these government owned properties. But hey, why the heck should the government own all those properties in the first place? that’s problematic in a whole different way. But we won’t even go there. And one of our team members, Naresh posted an article that says and this is from Yahoo money for in 10. Americans want to buy a house because of the pandemic because of the pandemic. See, people are homesteading. they’ve realized what I said back in February that the home is the center of the universe. And it is and that means that you’ve got a lot Good stuff going for your investment in if you’re buying properties through our platform and through our group, then you know, the likelihood is you’re going to have some nice profitable experiences with those properties. Everything is pointing that way. Everything right now. Now, that could certainly change. But Wow, there’s just a lot of a lot of tail waste a lot of wind at your back, meaning good news for you investors really good news. And here’s one more Gulf Stream. You know, those really cool private jets that they make. That’s the private jet company Gulf Stream. They make those 60 and $80 million private jets they make cheaper ones do But hey, who’s counting? 10 million here. 10 million there. What’s the big deal? Well, they already had a plant in Georgia. They also have a facility in Long Beach, where I also used to live in Long Beach. And they are shutting it down. They are leaving Long Beach. Because guess what Long Beach happens to be in the Socialist Republic of California. They are taking 700 jobs with them from Long Beach, California to Georgia. Good decision, Gulfstream. Good decision. And hey, Charles Schwab, leaving San Francisco to move to Dallas, another good decision. Get out of these business, unfriendly jurisdictions, they are terrible. And here’s one more for you. Sarah, one of our team members, you’ve heard her on the show, she posted an article in our private content group and this one is interesting. Portland, has now approved, they say an option. But I don’t quite know what that means. You know, that probably isn’t much of an option. It’s a, hey, you know, there’s a gun to your head. But, you know, it’s optional if you want to do this, but, you know, I do have a gun to your head. Right? That’s, that’s the way the government works. You know, they don’t really give options, you know, they just decide on things. Anyway, this option in quotes, is to have landlords pay for tenant relocation fees for any rent increase until the end of March. So yeah, that went into effect. This rule goes into effect immediately, and applies to any rent increase between September and march 31 of 2021. Tenants must provide written notice that they can’t afford the higher rent, and we’ll need to move. And I guess the landlord will now have to pay the tenants relocation fees. Wow. Get out of Portland.
While they’re just trying to make the housing supply shortage even worse, that’s what they’re gonna do. That’s what they’re gonna do because you reward things you want, and punish things you don’t want. And then you get the exact opposite of that, right. So yes, landlords are not going to be interested in buying properties in Portland, because they’re attacking landlords, just like California and New York, and all the others that don’t know what to do. Yep, yep. Now, oh, here’s another article from Motley Fool. And Naresh, thanks for posting this one. It says Portland landlords must now pay relocation costs of tenants who can’t afford the rent. So one article says option and that’s well, that’s from Oregon live.com. And the other article from Motley Fool, which is not imbedded in the Oregon disaster, says that tenant landlords must pay the relocation fees. I’m going with that one. I think they probably must pay the relocation fees. I doubt it’s really an option. But yeah, wow. Just just crazy, folks, no matter what you do, follow my advice, and move as much of your life to places environments, jurisdictions, governments that are not desperate, and that are friendly to your cause. As a landlord, as a business person, as a citizen, whatever it is, just vote with your feet. That’s what you need to do. You need to vote with your feet. And it may take time it took me a long time to leave the Socialist Republic of California but I finally did it. never looked back. You know, I remember one of our local market specialists from Atlanta at the time right about when I was either had just moved or was about to move I can’t remember was talking to Sarah You know who’s on our team? Sarah said, Yeah, Jason will be back in California in six months? No, not so much. Not so much. One of the best decisions in my life was to, to make the move. So if you’re in New York or New Jersey, or California or Oregon or Washington State, you know, maybe not all of Washington State, but at least in Seattle, get the hell out of there. Get out, get out, get out, get out while you still can. You know, it’s, it’s crazy what’s happening. Okay. Hey, without further ado, let’s get to our guest. Of course, if you need us, you know where to reach us. I’ve told you too many times, I don’t need to say where to reach us again. You can figure it out. Because we’re here for you. And Gosh, we got some, we got some we got a couple of good webinars coming up. I’m going to announce soon. So carve a little extra time out of your schedule, maybe next week for an hour, because we got a couple good webinars, we’re gonna we’re gonna share with your real soon here real soon. So that’s coming up.
And let’s go to our guest and let’s, let’s find out I already know, but let’s find out the presidential administration. This guest was the economic adviser to Alright, here we go. It’s my pleasure to welcome Casey mogan. He’s a professor of economics at the University of Chicago, former chief economist for the Council of Economic Advisers in the Trump administration, and the author of the best selling book, the redistribution recession, how labor market distortions contracted the economy and the new book, you’re hired untold successes and failures of a populist president Casey, welcome. How are you?
Casey Mulligan 11:50
My pleasure to be here?
Jason Hartman 11:51
It’s good to have you and you are actually located in Chicago, right?
Casey Mulligan 11:55
Jason Hartman 11:55
antastic. So Casey, tell us about the you, you’re hired book. Let’s start with that.
Casey Mulligan 12:00
you know, I had the honor and great fun of working in Trump’s White House for a year, a year off of my university position. And I saw so many things there that that none of nobody’s told about. And, you know, the white house belongs to the American people, I thought they deserved to know what’s really happening there. And I had a lot of fun telling retelling those stories. So that that’s the genesis of the book. And the book has about the president and policy. You know, I was a policy analyst, economic policy analyst. So that was my context with him. And I go through different policy issues, different types of regulation, immigration, trade. And now, you know, how the President discussed those with us how he dealt with them how he thought about them?
Jason Hartman 12:49
Well, I think even the most left leaning person would have to agree that the media does not like Trump. And Trump does not like the media. So they’re, they’re not giving him a fair trial. And the court of public opinion, are that right?
Casey Mulligan 13:02
Well, that’s how he got where he got by serving the the flyover country that people normally aren’t part of those institutions. Right. And so it is a bit of a battle from the people who are traditionally used to controlling things and, and the people in flyover country with Trump as their representative. So that’s one reason why Twitter is so important for him because it allows him to bypass all the information middlemen, if you will,
Jason Hartman 13:27
you know, I gotta say, regardless of who the President is, what party they’re with, I like the fact that they can talk directly to the people. Now, liberals hate that, you know, I’ve had guests on my show, who say, Oh, we should ban him from using Twitter. And it’s really unpresidential. Now Obama, of course, use Twitter, and very successfully as a campaign tool, what would be the problem of the president talking directly to the people? How could someone possibly object to that?
Casey Mulligan 13:58
Well, there’s a lot of things that aren’t supposed to be said. And that’s why I would say our one big reason our president was hired by the people they like it that he says what’s not supposed to be said. But But nonetheless, true?
Jason Hartman 14:10
Yeah, yeah. Okay. Well, you’ve got some fantastic photos. Why don’t you take us through your slides a little bit. And let’s let’s look at some of those and, and tell us about some of these meetings you were in.
Casey Mulligan 14:20
This is a photo I was the last guy walking in the meeting. You can see me there. This was a meeting about a health regulation. And I like to use a disk introduce what it’s like to meet meet demand. Before I’ve met the presidents of major universities. I’ve met some presidents of major companies. Anytime you meet somebody like that, if you have you noticed that that’s a talented person. You’re not shocked that they got where they got because they have some pretty impressive talents. And the President is like that. You see that he’s a talented person. The thing that really amazed me and caught me off guard is his ability to manage social network. You can say a few words and That can put dozens of people in the line thousands of people, millions of people, and he would do that in this meeting. For example, Kudlow was supposed to be there, but the gentleman sitting in the front, Brian, he came out of those spot. Brian was a very good health expert for the President. And the President just wanted to let people know that you should be coming to the meetings, not sending your subordinates. So he said to Brian, he turns to Brian and says, You’re better looking than cuttable. And the ladies, you can see Kellyanne and I can’t quite see Mercedes and Sarah Huckabee, but they immediately object and say, No, he’s not, we think Larry’s really great looking. And then he kind of leans over to see them. And he says, Can we at least agree that Brian is stronger? And we all had a good laugh? But we got the message that you know, you’re not supposed to skip your your meetings combos should have been there? Sure. Okay, that’s the type of things that nicknames and so on that,
Jason Hartman 15:55
You know, obviously, very successful business person. So he’s conducted lots of meetings over the years. And so you know, obviously has a talent for organizing a vision, getting people to rally around a vision, you know, getting things done. I mean, he’s a, he’s a get it done kind of guy, for sure. But take us through some of the specifics covered in your books a little bit too, and, and feel free to thumb through slides. And anecdotes are great, too. But I’ll let you control the slides. But I certainly want to ask you about redistribution. And I want to ask you about his populist outlook, and why that’s good, why cutting regulations is good. Why the left is so just so opposed to all of these things,
Casey Mulligan 16:40
He’s not an idealogue. And I call him an experimenter. That’s not the words that he would use, but I call him an experimenter. It’s not like he has an ideology, and then tries to derive from that those principles or ideology, what he needs to do. He believes in trying stuff, I think in business, they might these days, they might call it fast failure. So you try something, you monitor the feedback. So you’re not married to what you’re trying quite the opposite. Right? You try it. And if it doesn’t work, you get it out of there, and you go another direction. And he does a lot of that. And once you understand that, that’s how he operates. I’m showing Marconi here in this picture, because Marconi was really famous instance of that, over 100 years ago, he invented the radio, really. And he said in his Nobel Peace Prize speech, he said, I don’t know how this stuff works, I just know that it does. I tried many different combinations. And I found some work and you theoretical physicists, you figure out how these darn waves do it, but I got a machine that works. I found it by experimentation. And the President is very much like that. And he doesn’t want you to know that. So maybe I’m in trouble for telling you this. Because if you thought that he wasn’t serious about what he was doing, and that would kind of Ruin what he’s trying to do. So he’ll be very bombastic and act like that this is exactly what’s happening. And kind of like yesterday, when he said, we’re done, we’re not negotiating about stimulus for the election. And then today, here we are negotiating again, he was able to get to some quite successful policies. And the one I start with in the book is the individual mandate, which is a terrible idea. But it took a while for people to discover in Washington, at least, how terrible it is.
Jason Hartman 18:16
So tell us about the individual mandate,
Casey Mulligan 18:19
The individual mandate was actually invented. Some people say it was invented by Republicans, it got bipartisan support enough for a while there, which is to force people to buy health insurance. And the theory is, and it really is a theory, as opposed to experience, the theory is that health insurance markets can’t work. Unless people are forced to buy it. The reason being that the people who are healthy won’t buy it. And then without the people being healthy, it’s too expensive. And then nobody buys it. That’s the theory, again, emphasis on theory. And that theory was pushed very hard in the form of Obamacare. That became the law of the land, he had to buy health insurance or pay a big penalty.
Jason Hartman 18:55
Right. Well, the penalty is smaller than the cost of the insurance. So a lot of people just elected to pay the penalty if that was even enforced.
Casey Mulligan 19:03
Right? Well, the penalty started out small, but it was ramping up until the President got rid of it. The President took both views on this. I mean, they experts and told them, you know, the story I’m more or less told you. He tried that for a few days in terms of a political travel loan, and he realized, no, people hate this. I would be best to be a champion of getting rid of it and which he did. And later on, we gave it some thought and realize, you know, when somebody turns down subsidized health insurance, I guess the White House ought to send them a thank you note because they save all of us money. And the individual mandate is completely backwards in that regard. It punishes people for turning down subsidized coverage. So by getting rid of it, you know, the people who were being forced in the insurance, they were thankful, and it was good for the budget. It’s kind of a win win policy, and he discovered it that way and every day since he’s been bright, or let me say every other day, he brags about I got rid of the minimum individual mandate. He really did. That was a big accomplishment.
Jason Hartman 20:00
Can you, we even classify Trump as a conservative. A lot of people say he used to be a liberal, obviously, he was friends with Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats. But he’s sort of not he’s not that really that easy to pigeonhole, if you will, to try to give him a description. Now, the fact that he picked Pence is his VP, you know, that obviously leans very much to the right. But I mean, would it be fair to classify this as a conservative or Republican, a lot of people in the room are gonna establishment obviously hate him? Where would you go with that
Casey Mulligan 20:31
As I said, he’s not an ideologue. So right, there is a little bit hard to pin him down, because he tries things. Now he has a life experience, and some taught him some lessons. And you might say those lessons kind of lean, conservative or Republican, for example, how much regulation interferes with doing business, the idea that he’s used repeatedly, including in the COVID prices, the idea that, you know, big government can’t possibly know what’s going on in the ground, it’s better to delegate some of these decisions to the more local level where there’s a better chance that there’s real information there. He did that a number of areas before COVID, for example, and housing, a lot of these things around health care, he delegated to the States. And then when COVID came along, it’s very natural for him. Again, the experiment or hadn’t successful experiments, delegating things to states before he tried it again with COVID. And that that’s kind of a republican approach to things right, that putting all the power in Washington is a mistake.
Jason Hartman 21:28
Yeah, no question about it. Talk to us a bit about trade. Everybody cries that protectionism and tariffs, terrible for the economy? Well, not everybody, half the people, I guess, I should say, you know, certainly the media that’s got the loudest voice, unfortunately, you know, but but it just seems like, I mean, I’m, you know, I want to think of myself as a libertarian, but can’t have truly free trade without the parties being equally yoked. Now, of course, that’s a biblical concept. But if you look at the Chinese, they, you know, for example, they don’t pay the same wages, they don’t have the same regulations, environmental or occupational, they don’t have OSHA, they don’t have the EPA. So how can you trade fairly when the playing field is so uneven? I mean, free trade is fine as a concept. If each side is equally yoked, if you will.
Casey Mulligan 22:21
I appreciate the question is rather theoretical. I mean, the fact is that the special interests are deeply in mesh there and that and this is not new. I draw the comparison in the book between Reagan and Trump. They’re very different on the rhetoric, Trump calls himself the terror of man, right? Whereas you Look, listen to ronald reagan on YouTube talk about free trade. He says it’s so beautifully, couldn’t be better said than ronald reagan says it, but the fact is, they were both had protectionist pressures on them and they succumb to those protectionist pressures. No question. There’s two differences. One is, you might say a little more cosmetic Reagan was going against, so to speak, Japan, that was the thing in the 80s. Now it’s China. Apparently, that’s changing the labels. Now, apparently, there’s an important difference there. You know, Japan is a democracy was a democracy. Japan didn’t have military still doesn’t. Whereas China, obviously there are national security concerns with them so that there would be a reason to be tougher on China than we were on Japan. But anyway, they’ve approached them very similarly, the real substantive differences that Reagan used quoters, so where were Trump, as we all know, ad nauseum. He put tariffs on various imported products, which he might not advertise this, but it raises the prices that we pay here for those products. And where does the money go goes into Treasury what reagan did, but quotas on imported products, for example, a limit on how many cars Japanese companies could send here, and that raise prices that consumers paid in the United States. But where did that money go went to the Japanese companies. And they’re both protectionist, they were both motivated by trying to win votes in Michigan, and similar places. But one of them was at least out of money for our people, and the other just gave money to the foreign company. So that’s why there’s no trade really
Jason Hartman 24:02
That’s a really interesting point, a quota could have the same effect as a tariff, but the quota doesn’t bring any money into the country. It makes consumers pay higher prices yet, the country doesn’t get the money with the tariffs in theory, the consumer would pay a higher price, but at least the country would get paid back.
Casey Mulligan 24:22
That was much more the America first. Even people at my job under Reagan had told me they said, Hey, the Japanese companies came to the White House and they say please do a quota. And they Reagan gave it to them. And that’s why Reagan didn’t have a trade war with Japan. Because he was paying in effect he was paying the Japanese companies so that they’re not going to want to fight back. In fact, they were asking for these things.
Jason Hartman 24:46
And by the way, I think that is the reason I you know, I may be way off on this but I think that was the reason that really the Lexus and Acura brands were created because they couldn’t get more they could only get a quote of cars, you know Toyota and Honda. So they had to create new brands to have a new quota that they you know, this whole whole new company this you know, Lexus line and the Acura line. And now if you see that happening, you see like Hyundai, they have Genesis, but that’s more of a marketing thing, which is fine. That makes sense. They’re not doing that for the quota thing nowadays, right?
Casey Mulligan 25:24
Yeah. I mean, General Motors and Ford and Chrysler got a little burn there. They of course, wanted those quotas back in the 80s.
Jason Hartman 25:29
Of course, they did. Yeah,
Casey Mulligan 25:31
And they were caught on the number of cars. So the Japanese said, Okay, we’re living on how many cars we can send, well, we’re going to make more money. And one way we can really leverage making more money would be to whatever cards we send, they’ll be luxury cars. So they Japan got into the luxury car market in a way they’ve never done before. Yeah. And the quote is really encouraged them to do that. And, and I guess they got the last laugh because they’ve kept that foothold in the luxury market. Now, here we are. 30, 40 years later.
Jason Hartman 25:57
Yeah, very interesting. Okay. What else do you want us to know,
Casey Mulligan 26:01
I think it’s good to talk about the regulatory budget. I mean, he’s done so much on regulation. We couldn’t finish it in the three hour talk.
Jason Hartman 26:08
What is the graph shows though. So he’s running the government like a business, which that’s what it is, it should be run like a business to, to an extent.
Casey Mulligan 26:17
We had never done that before. And in fact, hardly any countries in the world, do it even now, to have a budget for the regulators say to them, where CEO would say to his vice presidents, Hey, guys, you have a budget, go out there and make your company better, but stay within your budget. And if you have an idea that needs more budget, come to me and hand and explain why. And Trump is the first one to do that with the federal government. Each of the regulators, which are the cabinet members are given a budget on how much they can regulate. And if they think they need more room to regulate, they need to come hand in hand and ask, ask for an exception or an expansion. And this has really helped propel a whole bunch of deregulation, hundreds of regulations have been taken out. And the one that I had a graph here is about the regulation of who can manufacture generic drugs and emphasize generic generic drugs are drugs that been around a long time that they’re off patent already. So it’s not like we’re learning about how safe they are, who can take them or how effective they are. But nonetheless, they act for generations, the FDA had been in the business of handing out permission to manufacture a generic drug. And they were stingy on that permission, and really how they’re so they’re a few companies, foreign companies, Chinese companies, or Israeli companies who had a monopoly on a generic drug, which is like my mind blowing oxymoron. But that’s what they had done and generic drugs, which most drugs we take. Prescription drugs are generic drugs. We were paying brand name prices for generic products.
Jason Hartman 27:45
So the government was basically a co conspirator in a cartel.
Casey Mulligan 27:51
Jason Hartman 27:52
hey could they could charge ridiculously high prices, because they limited competition. So the existing entrance, or the existing market participants could just gain market share. And there’s no startup culture, there’s no innovation. Yeah, it’s terrible. So and that’s basically how Wall Street and the banking system works to folks. There’s like zero startup culture on Wall Street. Because of all this regulation, just benefiting goldman sachs and all the entrenched interest of JP Morgan, the criminals that JP Morgan, I mean, they just got a 900 and $20 million fine or something like that. absolutely ridiculous for manipulating the silver market.
Casey Mulligan 28:31
Yeah. I mean, you’re right on Jason. Yeah. This is an example from prescription drugs. But industry after industry, after industry has protections like this that come from regulations that limit competition and allow them to go to the back. And when Trump pulled out some of these restrictions on manufacturing generic drugs, immediately saw the stock of say Tebow, which is a Israeli generic drug manufacturer, their stock crashed, and the analysts all said, Oh, no, the Trump is allowing more competition in the generic drug market, too bad for our company, which was raking in the money hand over fist.
Jason Hartman 29:06
So I guess those companies will go and encourage the media because they spend so much money on the media. They’re such big advertisers. They’ll encourage the media to bash Trump, they’ll have their lobbyists go out and do whatever they can, you know, this is draining the swamp is no easy job.
Casey Mulligan 29:25
Well, when when the data came out, which we knew, economics says and you know, this is how this works. Jason, as you explained, we knew that drug prices were going to be coming down. And sure enough, we saw that year 2018. I remember the day I got the data January 10 2019. We got the 2018 data instead of the first time in 46 years, the average price for prescription drugs as measured by the CPI to the standard way we measure price changes that come down first time in 46 years.
Jason Hartman 29:53
Yeah, so in real dollars, the price dropped and the first time in 41 years, the average amount Americans actually had a real dollar pay increase 41 years since 1977. It took until Trump made that happen 41 years later, adjusted for inflation, so yeah, unbelievable. But what are your thoughts for the upcoming election? All of this seems like, you know, he would be handily reelected. But that’s not the world we live in is it?
Casey Mulligan 30:22
It would seem that he would, you know, these days, it’s really hard to know, you know, we know the response to the polls, but polls are not the same as voting. And that’s why I gotta say, I really don’t know, the polls look very bad for Trump very good for Biden. But again, polls is not voting. We know that Democrats are pretty unwilling to go out of the house to do things relative to Republicans, right now. They’re to go to a restaurant.
Jason Hartman 30:48
hey go to the house to do writing. Well, most of them, sorry, sorry, Joe Biden campaign rallies, writing, same thing.
Casey Mulligan 30:56
Most of them don’t. I mean, it’s disproportionate Democrat, but most democrats are at home this Hold up. And that’s going to be tough on Biden. And so we’ll see if he can get as good turnout at the polls as at the ballot box as he has in these various polls, which are usually conducted by phone, it’s much easier, from a democratic point of view to answer the phone and answer some questions during COVID than it is to get out of house, go to your polling place and cast your vote.
Jason Hartman 31:22
Also, I think a pollster has, to some degree, the same type of mentality and personality as a journalist. Right. That’s a left leaning career field. So the pulse of the same thing in 2016. So we’ll see, we’ll see. We’ll see.
Casey Mulligan 31:40
What’s disappointing is mean, some serious social scientists should be out there and trying to figure out how big is the bias? And now I don’t see it, maybe they did. And they don’t want to tell us
Jason Hartman 31:49
Social sciences, though, isn’t a career field that attracts Republicans. That’s not that’s just not they’re more interested in business, and, you know, get different kinds of things. It’s just a different brain. Right? It’s a different type of mind. Yeah, interesting. So you’re looking in here, you know, it says here, America will never be a socialist country. Chapter Three, White House analysis and marketing shifts in the 2020 campaign. thoughts on that?
Casey Mulligan 32:19
Now, that was an interesting story. I, my little hobby, you could say it, I read all these laws. A lot of people in my profession, they’re too busy to read the law. So they read what the New York Times says about the law. And then the New York Times called them up and asked him what they think. And they say what they read the New York Times last week, but I was reading, I read these different laws that are in progress. And I was reading Medicare for all Medicare for all has actually been around for 40 years, which is was the major unpassed legislation in Congress right now. And I read in there that they want to eliminate private health insurance. They think that private sector is essentially evil. And in fact, there’s parts of it that says exactly that. It’s morally wrong way of running a market, and therefore the government should monopolize it. And I was telling people in the White House this and they couldn’t believe it, because they they were just thinking like, no, if you want to win election, you don’t say that. But I said it says that it says it, you got to look and I would show them the copy of that page. And they’re like, wow. And so eventually, after a bunch of conversations like that, we got into this President’s speech. And then the president said, Medicare for All will take away private health insurance. And immediately this White House correspondent for CNN said that was the biggest lie in presidential history. Obviously, he hadn’t read the Medicare for all either. This was in October of 2018. But we kept us out of the bag. The President got it up, got it out there. CNN never apologized. But they did start to acknowledge it. Yeah, Medicare for all does eliminate and outlaw private health insurance. And then CNN. To their credit, they asked Kamala Harris, hey, you’re this co sponsor of this bill that takes away private health insurance. Tell us about that. Tell us about why you don’t want people to have private health insurance. And she at that moment, she kissed her presidential run goodbye. She was the so called leading candidate till the moment she was asked that question and then she was one of the first to drop out.
Jason Hartman 34:17
Well, all she has to do is get Joe Biden elected. And two months later, she’ll be president because he’s probably not gonna fulfill his term. I don’t think he can. I don’t think he can do the job today, much less two months from now three months from now. We’ll see though we’ll see anything else you’d like people to know, just in general, you know, the workplace distortions in the labor market, whatever. Just anything else you’d like people to know as we wrap it up.
Casey Mulligan 34:44
Yeah, this started happening in a big way and not in the last recession with Obama. This idea that we need extra help for people who are poor and unemployed and I say extra. We already had a system for years of supporting people. are poor and unemployed, and that system kind of evolved to try to manage the different trade offs. And Obama very much shifted that trade off. And then in this pandemic, we very much shifted even more to the point, as a lot of people know, by now, most of the unemployed could earn more by not working and working. And that’s not fair. But it’s also very wasteful. Really, you’re asking people what pay step forward and help produce and you’re gonna have to pay for stepping forward that that is completely backward, wasteful, perverted, like what can I say? is it’s an economic perversion? Yes, become very popular.
Jason Hartman 35:37
One of the one of the greatest concepts, it just sums it up so well, is simply what gets rewarded gets repeated. Yes, you know, you’re going to get a repeat repeat behavior while your rewards. So that’s, unfortunately, how that works. So yeah, I agree. I agree. give out your website and tell people where they can find out more. And of course, the books are available in all the usual places with great reviews.
Casey Mulligan 36:00
Yeah, I have a website, you’re hired trump.com, where you can of course, buy the book, read some of the reviews, I’ve put some excerpts in the Wall Street Journal, you can just link to those or watch a little video where I discuss some of these things. Jason lets me I’ll put this video there as well. This is a good place to really hear about the things that you should have heard about, but you weren’t told about our president, what’s been going on in Washington.
Jason Hartman 36:24
Good stuff, Casey mogan. Thanks so much for joining us.
Thank you so much for listening. Please be sure to subscribe so that you don’t miss any episodes. Be sure to check out the show’s specific website and our general website heart and Mediacom for appropriate disclaimers and Terms of Service. Remember that guest opinions are their own. And if you require specific legal or tax advice, or advice and any other specialized area, please consult an appropriate professional. And we also very much appreciate you reviewing the show. Please go to iTunes or Stitcher Radio or whatever platform you’re using and write a review for the show we would very much appreciate that. And be sure to make it official and subscribe so you do not miss any episodes. We look forward to seeing you on the next episode.