booktv.org. >> hello and welcome to look sandwiched in. we are in new haven free public library in new haven, connecticut. my name is isaac and we are joined now by our guest professor noam chomsky who's in arizona. so welcome professor chomsky. >> pleasure. >> we are grateful to have you here this evening for the special edition in the shoes of author talks and i should note to a point else that noam

chomsky is just by the evidence an incredibly devoted person, devoted to service and has been doing tons of these talks and his been busy all day with these talks. so we'll try to keep you entertained. if you like change the subject and need to, please feel free to do so. there are a lot of people at this event and there are likely a lot of people streaming on facebook scientist but a lot of question and will try to get to those that we can in the time that we have. professor chomsky needs no introduction but for those who are unfamiliar he's widely considered the founder of modern linguistics. his contributions in that field have influenced departments and philosophy, cognitive science, computer science, psychology and beyond. he's among the most cited scholars in modern history and is also written widely on politics and became known in the '60s for protesting the

vietnam war. beginning most probably with this as in the new yorker review of books in 1967 1967 title responsibility of intellectuals his political work has chelsea often unspoken assumptions driving american political commentary. he is professor emeritus mit where he taught for over 50 years and since the fall of 2070 he has been professor in the department of linguistics at the university of arizona. this program is called books and was in usually drink much, , kennedy book sandwich in during lunch kind of talk and the main impetus for the talk was the recent book with marv waterstone, "consequences of capitalism." report into that i want to briefly ask about language. when you were interviewed by the "new york times" in 1979, and i hope they quoted you accurately, you asked whether there's a ak between your scientific and political work, and you were quoted as saying there's no direct connection between them but that perhaps in some measure

they derive from certain basic assumptions and attitudes with regard to yemen nature. can you expand on what those beliefs are about human nature and its potential and how you see those qualities indicated in the human capacity for language? >> there's actual, actually classic discussion of this, so the crucial issue of the crucial element of human life, it's the most salient element, which is already discussed by galileo and of the great scientists in the 17th century and since, is the language as an inherently creative aspect, our language capacity enables us to construct infinitely many new thoughts in our minds, and even to convey to

others who have access to our minds, what are their innermost workings. galileo and his contemporaries, many successors, have regarded this as one of the most amazing facts about the world altogether. actually, galileo regarded the alphabet as the most stupendous human achievement, because it was able to record this astonishing process. i think that's right. the use of language is normally creative, innovative, e-voting new thoughts in cartesian terms where incited and inclined to talk in certain ways but not compelled the innovation. the creativity comes from, well, this was linked plausibly to the

conception of human freedom, that a fundamental classical liberalism was based on, around the same time, some of the same people like bill humboldt, was based on the assumption that any external infringement on a person's right to the free exercise of his or her abilities is intolerable. in fact, that was the basis for the strong, bitter opposition of the working class in the early industrial revolution to the attack on human dignity imposed by wage labor, which they call wage slavery. same conception. so there's that kind of link. it's not a logical link but it's a link in a kind of conception

of the core of human nature. >> so for the last several years you have taught this class at the university of arizona with geographer marv waterstone, and the lectures for the class were compiled for the book that he had behind me that hopefully the audience can see, "consequences of capitalism: manufacturing discontent and resistance." published by haymarket. so the book starts with the discussion of grime skis concept of hegemonic common sense and david humes observation which you note that nothing is more surprising quote then easiness with which the many are governed by the few and implicit submission with which men resigned own sentiments and passions to those of the rumors, unquote. you say this is the case just as much in dictatorships led by force as in countries like the u.s. with the ability to use force to suppress dissent is

relatively limited. in the u.s. and sent has to be engineered in the words of edward bernays, and others also telling you include the 17th century philosopher john locke is that the greatest part and that no and, therefore, they must believe. so i know you talked about this countless times over the years but can you give us may be an example or two of this engineering of consent? maybe its it's history for w it functions. i'm curious how you see hegemonic common sense in operation today. >> well, let's take a look at 9/11, the anniversary of 9/11. coinciding with the anniversary of the invasion of afghanistan and iraq. a lot of commentary about it of course, lots of discussion about

20 years and so on. pretty obvious that the most important interview that could be presented on the 20th anniversary would be with the person who called himself the decider and was the decider, the person who initiated the war in afghanistan quickly transcended to the war in iraq, , devastatig for the countries involved and so on. obvious, isn't it? well, i managed to ferret out one interview with george w. bush. it was in the "washington post," major newspaper, in the style section. it was a story about -- it was on a 20th anniversary and it described this lovable, goofy

grandpa who has fun with his children and looks at all the portraits he painted of the great meeting you. there's a side mention of there were these couple of wars, but at least he's not as bad as trump who called his opponents evil. bush never did that. so it wasn't too bad, a couple million people killed, millions of refugees, two countries destroyed, ethnic conflicts and elicited -- spread over the whole region. he didn't call his opponents evil. so that takes care of the decider. well, that, in a way that encapsulates the nature of the flood of commentary, time of material about the cost to us, you know, trillions of dollars

spent, american lives lost. what was achieved? there's some side mention that other people didn't too well either, but that sets up a framework for thinking. and, in fact, it's pursued it. it's not the first time the united states didn't invent it when the british were running the world, they handled it the same way. >> there are a few people who are saying if you could speak closer to the microphone, that would be helpful, but i can hear you. so you've already covered a lot of things i wanted to ask about one of the questions i was getting a lot leading up to questions that people have for you was about the departure, the u.s. departure from afghanistan. many in the media who didn't seem to comment a lot about what

was happening in afghanistan over the last few years were really upset and frustrated by the departure, the leading u.s. soldiers, and paid a lot of attention to it. it seemed like it merited attention but is at the kind of case of certain attention is being paid to an event when it's kind of convenient? are you surprised that biden actually went through with withdrawing u.s. soldiers? >> that's a very interesting story. right now there's a closed senate hearing on the withdrawal in which the republican party is lambasting biden for one of the worst tragedies in history, which gets reported but some things messed.

president trump in february 2020 totally betrayed the afghan people and the afghan government, made a private arrangement, didn't even invite any afghans, made an arrangement to quote with draw in may of 2021. worst possible time, right at the start of the fighting season, and to do it with no conditions. taliban could do anything they like, just not shoot an american soldiers because that would look good for him. that was his agreement. the republican party en masse praised him for this historic achievement, magnificent achievement. actually that remained on their webpage up until the actual effects of the withdrawal were

shown what biden, then of course they took off their webpage. since then they have been denouncing biden for actually improving on what trump, the hideous betrayal of trump's that they were praising, by delaying it a couple of months and bring in afghans. and now just follow the senate proceedings. one after another is giving up. he has to be impeached, a horrible atrocity, how could anybody do this? i mean, there's no work, you can't call it hypocrisy, it isn't anywhere near strong enough. i mean, it's so beyond shameful that you can't even find a word to describe it. you can see the same about the media. i mean, they are condemning it, to. they condemn the worst proposal? nothing.

in fact, the whole idea that this was a surprise is ridiculous. i can't if you want send you back to videos i had a couple of months earlier addicting the obvious, as soon as the u.s. withdraws, the afghan government which is just a mass of corruption will disappear, probably taking most of the funds with them, the afghan army which is mostly on paper, others who haven't been paid, others don't want to fight for a foreign power, will collapse of course. i mean come anybody who wasn't burdened by intelligence information could see this. and i mean burdened by it. if you look at the way intelligence is created, we have plenty of evidence of this from vietnam and other places. the people on the ground know what's going on and they give

accurate reports. they give them to people up a little higher in the chain of command, gets modified into what they want to hear. the next guy wants to hear. by the time it gets to the top it may have no relation to what's happening. we have seen this over and over, but if you are not burdened by the system and you just look at the obvious facts, which it's not hard to find. of course this is going to happen. it's a duplicate of what happened in iraq. the u.s. created this huge army, hundreds of thousands of people heavily armed, a couple hundred jihadis waving rifles, came towards them in pickup trucks. the officers ran away. the troops ran away, left the weapons on the ground.

the taliban who are marching in to kabul, if a look at the photos, look like special forces from nato. why? because they have all the u.s. equipment. they themselves had rifles and sneakers. it happens over and over, for pretty obvious political reasons. i mean, if you occupied by a foreign power and driven into the army and told to fight and kill your fellow citizens because the foreign power want you to do, so was that which you would do? >> it is quite striking and it can be enough to make a person question his or her sanity, because hearing that the taliban was coming very close to recapturing, retaking the country, seeing the people were, the people were surprised was

really hard to wrap my head around. i'm not a military expert. i don't spend a lot of time studying these intelligence reports. i don't have access to them and it don't spend a huge amount of time following the news but just from reading the "new york times" vocational you tell the taliban was making, they had been it seemed like capturing cities throughout the past to 12 months. so then to hear john kirby say a few days before the taliban takeover that the afghan army could hold up if they just tried hard was hard to know. why see, easy being serious? >> why doesn't he pick up a rifle and go there himself and find out? why should they fight for him? >> yeah. so in the context of trying to cut through distractions and better understand the truth, i

wanted to ask you to return to someone you've mentioned, and that's donald trump. the republican party that he's kind of taken over in large part and also the january 6th insurrection. so that "washington post" article that you pointed out about the interview with bush was very interesting because it said basically bush may have invaded iraq on false pretenses but at least he didn't inspire and insurrection. as you said at least he didn't call his domestic adversaries evil. you talk in the book, "consequences of capitalism", about robert jackson in the u.s. prosecutor in nuremberg and his reference to the metaphoric poison chalice been handed to the defendants, and you explain if we sip from this we are guilty of similar crimes. where to suffer the same fate, otherwise we should concede the judicial proceeding is a farce. this is victors justice.

i guess i'm wondering if you can help establish some continuity in the historical narrative, you know, what brings us from 9/11 to january 6th to the present and going forward? >> well, let's start with robert jackson, chief prosecutor at nuremberg. what you quoted was his address to the tribunal saying, as you said, we are handing these defendants a poison chalice. if we sip from it we must suffer the same fate. crucial element in nuremberg was what they called the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes, and that includes all of the consequences that followed your that's aggression, crime of aggression.

there is a treaty called the united nations charter which is the basis for international law. it bars the threat or use of force in international affairs, except under conditions that apply. there is something called the u.s. constitution, which everybody is supposed to worship, especially if you are on the right, carry it around in your pocket, and so on. if anybody bothers to read it, article six says that treaties entered into by the united states government are the supreme law of the land, and anyone who violates them has to be brought to justice. well, there's a treaty, the u.n. charter, the major treaty. every u.s. president violates it. some violate it extremely

remember, it says threat or use of force. have you ever heard of threat the force from u.s. president? okay, how about use of force come like invading afghanistan and invading iraq? in brief, george bush, dick cheney, the rest of them, obama, they are all guilty of violating the u.s. constitution. have you ever seen a big writeup about it? occasionally just for fun i write about it, but occasionally for fun i have brought it up at talks at law schools, good law schools, faculty seminars. people listen and say, kind of interesting, , let's go on to te next topic. okay, i'm sure you can find plenty of analogs right where you are. well, that's what gramsci called

hegemonic common sense. it's just hoping to us, yes, working of criminals. we don't have to pay attention to the constitution. we can kill anybody we like. i mean, let's go on with that. suppose that i ran right now was carrying out a global assassination campaign in which the leaders sat down every tuesday morning, read a little bit of the islamic equivalent of st. augustine, just war, and then judiciously decided who they're going to assassinate today. namely, of the many people around the world who they consider might be a threat to them, which ones should we assassinate today? how would the australian press react to that? how do they react when it actually happens? during the obama administration, it's exactly what was described. obama, brennan, sat down tuesday

morning, , read a chapter from . augustine, pondered the question, , who should we murder today? and one of the people who we think might turn out to be a threat to us, maybe some collateral damage if people happened to be standing across the street, that's called drone warfare, okay? just goes on. it's our right. we have the right to be criminals, murderers, do whatever we like because we say we are good. in fact, it's interesting to look at the commentary on the iraq war or the afghan war. take iraq. there are people who are greatly honored for having opposed the iraq war, like barack obama, most prominent of them, who

described the war as a strategic blunder. well, i think we heard that phrase before. go back to nazi germany. got plenty of general -- plenty of top generals who said it's a strategic blunder to create operation to invade the east two front war or to knock england out first. we honor them as great heroes? if we have i haven't seen it. in fact, we regard it as criminal. that's them, this is us. let's take the invasion of afghanistan. everyone is supposed to love the fact global opinion was mostly against it, but what do they know? the anglosphere was in favor of it, the united states, england, australia, that's what matters.

no international authorization. what do the afghans think about it? kind of an interesting question. we have evidence about it. there was an anti-taliban afghan resistance with some very famous and honored figures leading it, like abdul -- later murdered by the taliban here he condemned the invasion. he said it's, the americans just want to kill a lot of afghans. it's going to undermine our efforts which are succeeding to overthrow the government from within. the americans are doing it because they want to show their muscle and intimidate everyone. he was backed by a meeting of a thousand tribal elders, , got together, issued a declaration 30 similar to this by the main

women's group which were supposed to be concerned about afghan women, major women's group issued a similar declaration saying yes, we want to overthrow the taliban, but it's the responsibility of the afghan people, not invaders from the outside. did this bother anyone? hasn't even been reported? well, actually if you look closely, a little bit of reporting, the interview was recorded in the guardian, london, but it has no effect. they don't count. they are what sometimes in called on people, not real people come just people who are in the way. >> it striking, the consistency with which the wars in afghanistan and iraq, the u.s.

wars there, i refer to as disasters or mistakes, fundamental errors, rather than great immoralities. there is a word -- >> there is a word called crime, supreme international crime. that's part of the poisoned chalice. nothing that the u.s. or britain or australia does can be called a crime. maybe it can be a mistake. in our innocence we didn't understand something. it couldn't be a crime. crimes are for others. >> you've talked a lot in recent years about two very major threats to the survival of the human species in its present form, global warming and nuclear weapons. i also saw a recent interview with you where you refer to a third, what the w.h.o. and some

others have called infodemic. so especially since the election of trump and with the decline of print media there's been more discussion about the spread of misinformation, bad information, propaganda, fake news. so this is something, i guess i'm wondering, this is something you spent a lot of your career on. can you talk about where you see where you see the sources of this infodemic being? >> it is worse than dissemination of inaccurate news. there is actually been a virtual collapse of the environment for rational discussion. not over the whole society but substantially. there's just no arena of rational discourse on almost anything. take the covid epidemic.

very serious. it's not as bad as what you just mentioned. it's not bad as heating the environment, nuclear weapons, but it's pretty severe the latest estimate of deaths by london economists, careful estimate, says it's probably around 15 million people and increasing. it's not trivial. the united states just past the half-million mark. well, it's actually higher. that's the count of deaths. the actual ones are a couple hundred thousand higher. take a look everyday in the "new york times," probably other newspapers, they publish a map, global map, of the global hotspots. ..

covid-19 created by china to

destroy the united states. the vaccine was invented by state authorities. they want to put a chip for trump fosters as they worship trump. there is no rational discourse. this is incidentally very large based on the republican party. the majority of republicans say they don't want to be vaccinated. this is a hoax. take something more serious, then destroying the environment to research majors and they gave people choices. >> to ranks in terms of urgency.

>> the republicans and democrats. period the very last one was very was global warming. the top was illegal immigrants. it incidentally became a problem on november 4, up until then the debt was fine. republicans were creating for rich people, it's no problem. november 4 biden ticket over to help others. it's not that the people whose leave it. it's what they hear in which they contained. if you listen to the murdoch tv station, fox news and the murdoch press and when you're

stuck and not that's what you believe. the real problems in terrible problems they suddenly became a problem and at the bottom of the list is destroying the environment in which. all are signs of the corrupt not only rational discourse but general social collapse. the social order is collapsing. it didn't just happen by itself. it happened because of the plague. set in motion 20 years ago. we discussed that in the book. it's a plague of liberalism. it started in the 70s and instituted but it took off with dragon and if you look at the

prescriptions is perfectly obvious what is going to happen. reagan's inaugural address. the government is the problem, not the solution. in taken out of the hands of government. they don't stop being made, where are they going to be made. in the private sector. there could be made by corporate trainees which is what corporations are. unaccountable to the public in its partially accountable to the public and the controlled somewhat in the private tyrannies in the second point was milton freedman, the economical who pronounced appropriations have one responsibility to their owners. , the state shareholders.

nothing else. corporate rates are the gift from the public. there is plenty of opportunities that come as a gift. but they don't have any responsibility just as themselves. and put these two things together in decisions to private tierney's that have no responsibility other to enrich themselves through the private sector comes along and says there's no society as individuals to help manage on the market to survive. the first step in any possible defense against this assault. first step is first to attack labor unions with the majors in

order to corporations, one way and defend themselves. in organizing. put all this together, you have to be a genius to figure out what is going to happen. in 40 years later it was studying by the ryan's corporation. super respectable corporation. they tried to estimate the transfer of wealth, robbery as you call it. the transfer of wealth from the 90% of the population and working class to the very top and it turns out the fraction of 1%. the estimate was about $60 trillion during the four years of liberalism. it's an underestimate and

included other things which are on the front pages when reagan came in. he opened the spigot to businesses to do whatever they like, they had been illegal before the treasury department opened it up. probably another tens of trillions of dollars they change the rules on corporate management which the government set. allowing ceos compensated with stock options. anything that you can do to raise the stock, like buyback stocks, they ruin the corporation but good for you, get a higher income. as a result executives were committed to pick their own

board food what do you think is going to happen. take a look at the figures. ceos have salaries that skyrocketed caring top management with them. extending to the public sector. university presidents and so on. the majority of the population gets by from payday to payday and precarious existence. it's a major assault on the population. australia, europe, not as severe as the united states but severe. people are angry, dissolution, resentful, very easy prey to demagogues in the trump variety. in distress for everything.

i'm not sure i believe what the center of disease control says about the pandemic. critics in washington, i don't believe anything that they say. you have a breakdown of the social order. happen very much of the way. it's very hard to chase. >> unfortunately we are still having some problems, people hearing you and i'm not sure if the problem, it may be on our end. i apologize. there is somebody that is asking about wanting to hear your thoughts as they relate to the title of the book, consequences of capitalism what does it mean and what can be done. it seems to me that is exactly what you have been discussing. is that right? >> first of all there are many different kinds of capitalism. a very broad concept.

the fact of the matter is, the so-called communist states are capitalist. soviet russia, communist china. different variants seek capitalism. as we discussed in the book and the list the second world war was from two periods, quite different periods of how the state capitalist system worked. first was the first couple of decades as to the second world war and sometimes called regimented capitalism. basically moderately social democratic. in the united states a new deal not allowed to use the word social in the united states, that is illegal in most of the rest of the world. and in the u.s. there was a period in the

history of capitalism in military and group, financial crises to speak of. the banks were banks that serve the general public. the taxes on corporate sector, up to 90%. plenty of laws. it is basically the way it was. there was a business backlash that tried to destroy this by the late 70s. then came along reagan and thatcher and then the radical libertarian liberal assault. those are two different kinds of capitalism. for example during the first phase at the minimum wage track productivity.

it stopped in the late 70s. as i continued to minimum wage, that would be three times the size it is. but it stopped. you do not have roughly 70% of the population of living from paycheck to paycheck. you did not have the top one tenth of 1% doubling from 10% to 20%. these are aspects of a different kind of capitalism. at the very least we can move towards a moderately beneficial form of capitalism. it is still capitalism. still based on the principle that certain people are masters and others are servants and slaves who follow the orders.

that is called having a job, having a job means spending most of your waking hours in a condition of subordination to a master that stalin never achieved. stalin could not tell you at 3:00 o'clock you could go to the bathroom for five minutes or here's the close you have to wear or here's the path you have to take from this point in the warehouse to the other point. stalin could not do that. and president xi china cannot do that. that was bitterly opposed in rome that is recognized there is no assault on human rights and dignity and subordinated to a master. of course the excluded slaves,

women and someone. but that was the principal. and for working people in the early industrial revolution through the 19th century. finally they got it been out of their heads but that something at the surface. why should you take orders from a master most of your waking life. there's other ways to organize. production can be organized and have cooperative in various kinds. in working people and farmers the vast majority wanted to create commonwealth where people will cooperate to organize life communities without masters.

it was crushed by plenty of violence and also by plenty of ideology doctrine imposing common sense. in peripheral positions. but it did come forth of those among the consequences of capitalism. >> i imagine people are usually struck when they hear these kinds of ideas about wage slavery, at least in this country and i highly recommend to anyone who is listening that is not familiar with the talking 1970 called government in the future which i find very useful. we retraced a lot of these ideas that were talking about, you've kind of given and demonstrated exposition of classical humble and basically make the argument that liberal ideas in their

essence are not in the way that they developed are profoundly anticapitalist. in this book professor waterstone speaks about marks and wage slavery. i am wondering what aspects of marx's work do you find useful in which aspects do you find not so useful? >> marv, my colleague is more of a marxist guy than i am. he's the one that talked about mostly p review should ask him. i have crossed liberals, people like jon stewart reading intellectual figures of the 19th century. highly regarded one of the most honored intellectuals. his view in a properly ordered

society there should be no masters in their servants. production, social life should be organized in the participants in a democratic discipline tory and abraham lincoln and the republican party of the ones who use the term wage slavery, not workers who have never heard of marx. it was the republican party considered intolerable except as a tempering major to become free. the republican party talking about individual freedom to become individually free. but the working people in the united states were talking about collective freedom in a cooperative commonwealth. far beyond the republican party

classical liberalism. i think those are ideas that we should resurrect. there is plenty to learn from marx. it's the most important part to the historical analyses which are pretty insightful and many of the concepts, fundamental concepts like alienated labor and someone. which incidentally were fairly common in the late rationalist early romantic. i love to pick one of his efforts if an organism creates a beautiful work of command we may admire what he did but he destroys what he is. mainly a tool in the hands of

others. and nothing is more important than to allow a person's capacities in every aspect of life. that was taken from the liberties famous work. of their own tradition. i pointed adam smith repeatedly was anticapitalist in his fundamental sentiments and perspectives. taking a look at the famous words invisible hand which you study in every economic quest. you study the way he used the term, it's pretty easy to find out. he used it twice. it's not hard to find. once a wealth of nations with

his other major book moral sentiment. the wealth of the nation is discussing international trade and he says the merchants and manufacturers might make greater profit. but their commitment to their own country would lead them to prefer to invest in consume at home. by an invisible hand and one would be spared to be anachronistic of what we call liberal globalization, that is one use. the other use is moral sentiments where he discusses an experiment, what would happen if

a cultural country accrued all the land to himself, it wouldn't matter too much because the landlord and because of his concern for others and his desire to be admired by others would make sure to distribute this property so everybody would be pretty well off. as if an invisible hand, we would get relative justice. is that what you taught and economic? is that capitalist ideology? not exactly. those are the two uses. >> i know our time is short and i certainly don't want to waste it by asking about something that may be is not all that

important. but there is a question submitted by somebody about overpopulation. i do here overpopulation written about and discussed occasionally and a lot of people, some people have asked me personally do think it's ethical or moral to have children because of global warming and my response has been, having children is natural to human beings and it's important that we find hope in children. you have anything a little more to say about overpopulation. you have any thoughts about it? >> there is a well-known solution to population. it works very well for rich countries. it is called education of women. everywhere we've tried education of women whether in rich countries in europe and poor countries like the province of

india run by the left. you get a very short decline in infertility. if women have choices and understanding, planning unit lower fertility. so you solve the problem with the population. you don't need force, unity normal humanity, educating women. it's interesting on this. if the right wing claims to be strongly opposed to abortion. a huge issue. are they opposed to abortion. there in favor of abortion and illegal harmful abortion. that is a consequence of opposing family-planning, contraception, fanning legal

practices, more abortion, more danger than a postabortion. of course there a poster child were welfare. so what happens when child welfare is born in the family. if you look at the abortion issue rapid in the united states. it's a very interesting history. you go back to the 1970s. the right wing is not a postabortion. ronald reagan covered california. one of the most strongest pro-choice legislation to the country. george h. w. bush, the first bush strongly pro-choice. and the candidate is the same. by the 1980s some people that will become passionately a

postabortion, what happened in awakening? , something very simple. chief republican strategist they recognize that they pretend, i stress pretend, to be antiabortion they pick up the evangelical, huge that to the united states. and furthermore it can be a cover for racism. a lot of this started because southern racist, when schools had to be opened up they started segregating religious groups with government funding. the court stepped in and said that's in violation of the law. here is a way to get your

segregated racist schools without further leading the law. schools that took christian values like abortion. we are not racist. except we are of course. the change from the 70s to the 80s. one aspect of the liberal program. an essential aspect. if you are going to get people to accept to a liberal assault, you have to shift attention away from economic issues to cultural issues. abortion, guns, then you can maybe get people excited. >> sense were winding down i wanted to ask, i don't know if you have time but yesterday house democrats announced a plan to raise taxes by more than

2 trillion. but they did not choose, they don't want to institute a wealth tax that buy-in and favored. surprisingly most americans seem to favor a wealth tax. but clearly the democrats are not a monologue. but i'm curious how you assess the performance since biden selection. >> they have to recognize that 50% of the senate which is republican, are opposed to anything that might help anyone. for very good reason, strategic regions. if the biden a administration is positive for the country. they will get credit for it. into 2025, they have to make sure that the country suffers as much as possible.

anything that might help the general population there gonna buy it 100%. the question is what about the other 50%. republicans have a redlined which they made very explicit. nothing in the world can raise taxes on the wealthy or the corporate sector. period one legislative achievement of the trump administration was a tech scam which radically reduce taxes on the very wealthy and corporations. that can't be touched. that is a redlined in a number called moderate democrats meaning right wing democrats go along with that. so you can't touch that. you can't have a wealth tax and

you can't have majors which reduce subsidies to fossil fuel industry. think what that means. you read the report that just came out, can't stop subsidies to fossil fuel industry. we have to resolve this catastrophe to ensure more profits to the corporate funders in the next couple of years. if you put a bunch of these together, the bill if any bill passes, probably none but if any bill passes it's going to be very watered-down. >> we do have to wind down. we have tons of questions and i think, i hope it's a testament to the interest that your work is generated and continues to generate for people. i want to encourage people, he

is after giving talks all the time and giving interviews and writing papers, please follow him and follow other people who are speaking out i just want to thank you so much for joining us. my thanks to everyone who attended. if you like this talk, you can watch other discussions on the public library youtube page. i hope you will join us for future programs. there is a quick survey on your way out that could help us inform programming at the library. i would l a weekly