Has the Washington establishment failed the world

[Music]

[Music]

the first time i came to washington

from the glorious place that i grew up

which was new jersey which

thank you thank you um everybody has

that jersey

envy um uh

we came down and i i don’t remember a

lot about it but i do remember that one

night we went to

dinner at a restaurant called blackie’s

steakhouse do any of you remember black

estega

i may not be the oldest one in the room

it closed i think about uh 14 years ago

something like that but we went there

because my dad said well you know

presidents go here and maybe you’ll see

somebody j

edgar hoover goes here with his

boyfriend it’s really cool

and and so you know they thought i was

going to be mesmerized by that but what

i was really mesmerized by was that

there was a

teletype machine in the lobby and it

just it did the wire services and it

just you know you could stand in front

of it news stories would come you know

from everywhere in the world

and i had a pretty dark imagination and

so i kind of thought well if i stand in

front of this

i will be the first one to know when the

russians attack us

you know i didn’t really recognize

that the russian attack would take a

long time to come and when it did

it would be in the form of tweets and a

reality star

but something clicked in me and i

thought this is the place i want to be i

want to be in washington there’s so much

going on here that’s exciting this is

the center of power

and so i did the things that you do to

go and become a washington insider you

know i

went to the right kind of schools and i

studied history and those kind of things

and the very first job i got

was as the press secretary to a

congressman a guy named steven solars of

brooklyn

even even more glorious than new jersey

a really

a good guy and i i came down here and i

got to know

the system a little bit and then i went

back to new york and i worked in media

and i worked on wall street

all those things that sort of feed the

path in washington i came back

i was a senior official in the clinton

administration i was

deputy under secretary of commerce for

international trade policy development

where i learned that the longer your

title the less power you have in the

government

and then for about half a year i was

acting under secretary for international

trade

and then i did all those other things

that you do if you’re gonna be in the

washington establishment i

taught at georgetown i taught at

columbia i wrote books i was the

managing director of

kissinger associates i founded a

consultancy i then ran foreign policy

magazine

and so you know i was rewarded in the

way that you are rewarded

uh when you come here to washington and

i got my own table

at the four seasons breakfast restaurant

um

and so they would say mr roskoff let me

show you to your table and that’s

kind of as glorious as it got for me um

here in washington of course now you

know like everybody else i have a

podcast i

am they’re like 400 of you and i’m sure

they’re 300

podcasts um but uh

good good luck to you all uh uh

the the the reality though

is that now as i look back on it on a

more serious note

having made my way through that and i

came here in 1979 so it’s 40 years

i’m ashamed i’m ashamed

to be a member of the washington

establishment

i believe the past 40 years will go down

in history

as 40 years in which the united states

of america

lost its way and in which it was

led in this

dangerous journey by the washington

establishment

and i don’t say that in a partisan way

um i was a member of the clinton

administration i’m a democrat

uh but i also worked for henry kissinger

i’m a

uh you know wanted to be a centrist you

know because i thought everybody would

like me because i was a centrist you

know who would

as it turns out everybody hates you

because you’re a centrist

but the reality is um

i i think we had it wrong as a centrist

too

because what started to happen shortly

after i got to washington

is that we lost track of the things that

was

that were making america great we had

this vision of ourselves we came out of

world war ii

half of all world trade went through the

united states uh we were booming

uh inequality was far falling social

mobility was rising 90

of the people born in the 1940s uh

ended up earning more money than their

parents 70

of the people born in that decade ended

up having more education than their

parents

so there was economic mobility there was

social mobility income inequality

hit lowest levels in history in 1957 and

1967

particularly income inequality in the

united states was at the lowest level

that there was

so there was leadership there was

economic growth

there was prosperity but it benefited

everybody people at the bottom benefited

people at the top benefited

when there was top line growth it passed

on in wages

this was the model and we started to

take it for granted

and then in the 1980s something changed

and in that era you can call it the

onset of corporate capitalism the onset

of gordon gekko capitalism

uh what happened was we started to

change in our values we we first changed

by looking at different metrics you know

we said well

if gdp is going up and the stock market

is going up and the bond market is going

up and the wealthiest people are getting

well

then everybody else will benefit that

was trickle down economics of course

we’ve subsequently learned it doesn’t

work you know that’s that was that was

a myth but in

pursuing that myth we started to put

into place

laws and policies that benefited the few

to the expense of the many we put into

place

tax cuts that benefited the few at the

expense of the many

we passed laws that benefited the few at

the expense of the many

and when the clinton administration came

around

you know we thought well you know we’ll

we’ll fix some of this stuff but we also

said we’re going to be centrists and

we’re going to take the third way

and i have to be honest with you in

retrospect

that third way was a bit of a sellout

essentially what it was was saying we

will win

by being a little bit like reagan we

will win by

embracing a little bit of reaganomics

and when you look at it

it wasn’t just that we

proposed certain kinds of policies i for

example was involved in the advocacy of

free trade

and as i sit and look back on it now you

know we said well rising tide lifts all

boats

without a heck of a lot of evidence that

it did and without any concern for the

disruptions that might be caused when

that rising tide swamped

other boats you know when the clinton

administration got elected

we looked at things like welfare reform

and that seemed

you know sound and sensible but it was

also a dog whistle wasn’t it

welfare reform was also a way of of

saying we are

we are going to be a little bit tougher

on the poorest and on minorities and

although i don’t think that was in the

heart of bill clinton

i do think that was how we won power

and bill clinton also put into place

economic officials bob rubin larry

summers other economic officials

who danced essentially to the music of

wall street

we looked at macro economic indicators

we looked at top line indicators where

and we said well if the stock market’s

doing well the bond market’s doing well

the gdp is growing then things are going

to be fine but we also put into place

new laws there there was a

a decision to allow hedge funds and

others to

not pay taxes on their carried interest

there was

the repeal of the glass-steagall

provisions which

kept banks from growing too large out of

size

and these kinds of things then continued

with george w

bush’s administration and dick cheney

and a bunch of energy cronies setting

energy policy or

the military-industrial complex driving

us into

um oil wars and you know don’t you know

look at military-industrial complex as a

kind of a radical term right that’s an

eisenhower term from 1960. that’s not

some

wacky socialist term but that’s what led

us into wars that cost

three trillion dollars but some people

benefited from those wars

and the tax changes took place and

deregulation took place and

the obama administration came in and i

think the obama administration may be

the most liberal administration

of the past 50 years but barack obama

took more money

from wall street than any presidential

candidate

in history and when wall street reforms

were seen after 2009 through dodd-frank

they were not implemented the agencies

that needed computers were not even

given the computers that they needed

and right now when you look at it we’re

right back in exactly the same situation

with

bad debt and too big to fail

institutions 10 years later

and that’s because of things that

happened back

then and along the way there are other

kinds of acts that you don’t know in the

reagan administration there was the

elimination of the fairness doctrine

which ultimately led us

into the world of competing information

bubbles that were in or there was the

telecom act of 1996

which essentially said to dot-com

companies you can be a media company

without having the responsibilities of

being a media company

and there were um uh laws that were

passed or approved by the the uh the

congress or

um decisions made by the supreme court

citizens united is one that comes to

mind

where um the supreme court essentially

said that money is speech

and that meant that you couldn’t

regulate the amount of money going into

politics well who does that benefit it

benefits people with money it says

if money is speech the people with more

money have more speech

and you know i can go on and on with the

list of these things

um and i’ll be happy to meet you later

if you want another hour or two of this

but but i’m sure you look forward to

that

but um but but you know when you

look at them there are consequences and

the consequences are that the united

states economy is broken now

the united states society is broken

now inequality is at the worst levels

since before 1929 before the crash

the top 0.1 percent of the population

the top one percent of the population

make the same percentage of of wealth

and income that they made

before then three people bill gates

warren buffett

and jeff bezos have a net worth

equivalent to the bottom

50 percent of the population the top

five percent of the population has a net

worth equivalent

to the bottom two-thirds of the

population

and income mobility and educational

mobility have fallen whereas

in the 40s 90 percent of people thought

that they would and ended up making more

than their parents

now it’s 40 or 50 percent uh in the 40s

where

um something like 70 percent ended up

with a better education than their

parents

now it’s 40 um the bottom

fifth stay in the bottom fifth when they

rank the top 10 economies in the world

in terms of income mobility we the place

of the american dream ranked at the

bottom

with the united kingdom and by the way

if you are born into the top fifth

you tend to stay in the top fifth uh the

odds are much better in your favor

in fact the best indicator of how you

will do in getting into a college

is your zip code uh in other words it’s

the place that you are from and it’s

worse if you’re in a minority

the average the median net worth of a

white family in america is 147 thousand

dollars

the medium net worth of a black family

in america is thirty five hundred

dollars

it’s a little more than that for a

latino family but it’s still

one twenty second of what it is for a

white family

so if you’re black or you’re latino or

you’re poor in general or you are a

woman in our society

you are doing worse and according to a

recent brookings institution study

you are stuck it is not changing

and you know i have to say this you know

we can look at this and we can talk

about it like it’s the weather

but it’s not the weather it’s a choice

it’s a choice that all of us

are making as a country it’s a choice

that the establishment has made in the

united states

and they made the choice because it was

in their self-interest because they said

i will get rich doing this

or i will have the money i need to run

for office doing this

you can’t run for president unless you

have a billion dollars behind you

well you can’t get a billion dollars

unless you’ve got rich people behind you

and so the money primary is all of a

sudden more important than any of the

other primaries that take place

later on uh you know how it works on

capitol hill

with funding and now you’ve got you know

the kind of

apotheosis of this or maybe we call it

the nadir of this

where not only do you have the

government working for the one percent

with a tax cut for the one percent that

didn’t benefit

anybody else but you’ve actually got the

president not just working for the one

percent but for himself and for his

family

you know so that he is you know selling

white house memorabilia

and he is doing deals with countries in

terms of foreign policy that he would do

deals with in terms of real estate

and you may say that’s anathema to me

that’s terrible

but that’s 40 years of history we have

been

led to this he is a symptom he is not a

leader he couldn’t conceivably be a

leader under

any definition of the word um

but

but you have to ask yourself what do we

do about it you know and

and i remember when i went there to

blackies we also then went the next

next day to the national archive and i

tend to you know when i look at things

like this my reaction is

go back to the basics what’s the social

contract is the social contract in

america

to make america the wealthiest country

in the world to create wealth is that

why we’ve come together

as a society um you know is that the

metric we use because the metrics that

we use

uh like gdp which by the way when it was

created

in the commerce department uh by kuznets

in the 1930s he said don’t use this as

an indicator

of economic health you know but we all

as a country we sort of treated that

like one of those tags on a mattress we

tore it off we said forget that

we’re gonna we’re gonna use that but you

know if you use gdp

as a metric it can be great for

corporations it can be great for rich

people and it can be really bad for

everybody else in fact

there are some incentives for it to be

really bad for everybody else so

what’s the social contract and i went i

looked the declaration of independence

there are 22 words in the declaration of

independence that actually speak to it

it’s more of a political document but of

course you know them and you know that

at the end they say we are endowed by

our creator with certain inalienable

rights and among these are life liberty

and the pursuit of happiness the

constitution by the way also goes all

the way up to 22 words devoted to this

but it gives us sort of five areas

including the public welfare

uh tranquility uh security and so forth

that we are coming together to create

well that may not be

um enough but i found that if you go

back a little bit further

back beyond the declaration back beyond

the constitution

to the words that inspired them both of

john locke

uh who wrote during the glorious

revolution in england in the 17th

century

and he wrote about life liberty and

property and there’s been a lot of

discussion about that

but at the second half of the paragraph

in which he wrote about that

he then said once your own security is

taken care of

you then should look after the security

of others once your own security is

taken care of

you then should help those in need and

you should never act

in a way that infringes on the health

or life and limb or liberty of other

people in your society in other words

the reason we are in this is to help

one another it’s not to be the richest

the reason we are in this is to work

together

as a society to improve the quality of

life

for everybody and there are people

seeking metrics that are better examples

of this whether it’s bhutan and it’s

gross national happiness or it’s

economists like joe stiglitz

who’ve been working on this for a while

there are ways to say

yes we are going to look at how we

improve quality of life in the united

states

and we are going to take money out of

politics and we are going to

tax people in a way that is

proportionate to their wealth and we are

going to tax corporations

in a way that’s proportionate to their

health and you might think oh my god

socialist socialists alexandria

ocasio-cortez

um you know um

you know but but of course the marginal

tax rate

when the marginal tax rate was 90 that

was dwight eisenhower

you know that not exactly socialist and

when general lucius clay

led the us forces in europe

restructuring the german economy which

became one of those wacky

socialist economies it was the u.s army

that said to the germans

you must have labor unions uh on the

board of your company

general lucius clay did that so having

fair tax rates or having responsive

governance systems in businesses is not

something

that is radical it’s something that’s

american

it’s something that’s traditional it’s

something that goes back to eisenhower

or general lucius clay

or franklin roosevelt or the declaration

of independence

or john locke it’s it’s a radical idea

in the history of society

um but it’s not radical in the united

states it’s just that we have

drifted as a society towards greed

and drifted away from purpose

and what and

what i want to say today is enough

my generation those of you who remember

blackie’s steakhouse

it’s time to get off the stage we have

we have contributed we can kibbits from

the wings

but it is time for new people who

recognize

the nature of our changing society who

see how technology is changing jobs who

see how technology is changing

productivity and who are not tainted

by this broken system to get back to the

business

that was mandated as our mission

in the 17th century and in the 18th

century

and when america had a generation we

called the greatest generation

thank you very much

[音乐]

[音乐

] 我第一次

从我长大的光荣的地方来到华盛顿,

那是新泽西,

谢谢谢谢,嗯,每个人都

羡慕那件球衣

,嗯,我们下来了,我不太记得

它,但我记得有一天

晚上我们去

一家名为 blackie’s steakhouse 的餐厅吃晚饭

,你们有谁记得 black

estega

我可能不是房间里最老的那个,

它关门了我想呃 14 年前

类似的事情,但我们去了

因为我爸爸说得很好,你知道

总统去这里,也许你会看到

有人 j

edgar hoover 和他的男朋友一起去

这里真的很酷

,所以你知道他们以为我

会被迷住,但

我真的被迷住了 顺便说

一句

,大厅里有一台电传打字机,

它只是提供电报服务,它

只是你知道你可以站在

它前面,新闻故事会

从世界各地传来你知道的

,我有一个非常黑暗的想象力和

所以我觉得如果我

站在这个前面

我会是第一个知道俄罗斯

何时攻击我们的人

你知道我并没有真正

意识到俄罗斯的攻击需要

很长时间才能发生以及它何时发生

将以推文和真人秀明星的形式出现,

但有些东西在我身上点击,我

认为这是我想成为的地方 我

想在华盛顿

这里发生了很多事情,令人兴奋,这

是权力的中心

,所以我 做了你做的事情

,成为华盛顿的内幕,你

知道我

去了正确的学校,我

学习历史和那些东西

,我得到的第一份工作

是担任国会议员的新闻秘书,

一个名叫

布鲁克林的 steven Solars

甚至比新泽西更光彩

一个

非常好的人,我来到这里,我

这个系统有了一点了解,然后我

回到纽约,我在媒体工作

,我在华尔街工作

所有那些可以养活t的东西 他

在华盛顿的道路

我回来了 那一年,我

担任国际贸易部代理副部长

,然后我做了你在华盛顿机构所做的所有其他事情

在乔治城任教 我在哥伦比亚任教

创办了一家

咨询公司,然后我经营外交政策

杂志

,所以你知道我得到了回报,

就像

你来华盛顿时

得到的那样,我

在四季早餐餐厅有自己的餐桌,

,所以他们会说罗斯科夫先生 让

我带你去你的餐桌,

这对我来说就像

在华盛顿一样光荣,当然现在你

知道像其他人一样,我有一个 podca

我是他们就像你们中的 400 个,我敢肯定

他们是 300 个

播客

是 1979 年来到这里的

美利坚合众国

迷失了方向,在华盛顿当局的

带领下进行了这次

危险的旅程

,我并不是说以党派的方式,

嗯,我是克林顿政府的成员,

我是民主党人,

嗯,但我也工作过 对于亨利·基辛格来说,

我是一个

呃,你知道想成为一个中间派,你

知道,因为我认为每个人都会

喜欢我,因为我是一个中间派,你

知道谁会

因为事实证明每个人都讨厌你,

因为你是一个中间派,

但现实是 嗯,我

认为我们作为中间派也犯了错误,

因为开始

在我到达华盛顿后不久

,我们忘记了

让美国变得伟大的事情 我们

对自己有这样的愿景 我们从二战中走出来

世界贸易的一半经过

美国 呃 我们正在蓬勃发展

呃 不平等程度大大下降 社会

流动性正在上升

1940 年代出生的人中有 90 人

最终比他们的父母赚更多的钱

那个十年出生的人中有 70 人最终

比他们的父母接受了更多的教育,

所以有经济流动性 有

社会流动性 收入不平等

在 1957 年和 1967 年达到历史最低水平,

特别是美国的收入不平等

处于最低水平

因此有领导,有

经济增长,

有繁荣,但它惠及

每一个人,底层的

人受益于上层的人

当收入增长时受益,它通过工资传递

这是模型,我们开始

认为它是理所当然的

,然后 在 1980 年代发生了一些变化

,在那个时代,你可以称之为

企业资本主义的

开始 戈登壁虎资本主义的开始

呃发生的事情是我们开始

改变我们的价值观 我们首先

通过查看不同的指标来改变你知道

我们说得好

如果 gdp 上涨,

股市上涨,债券市场

上涨,最富有的人越来越

好,

那么其他人都会受益,这

是涓涓细流的经济当然

我们后来了解到它

不起作用你知道那是 那是

一个神话,但在

追求这个神话的过程中,我们开始

制定有利于少数人的法律和政策,

以牺牲多数人为代价我们实施了

有利于少数人的减税政策,

我们通过了 以牺牲多数人为代价让少数人受益

当克林顿政府出现

时,

你知道我们想得很好,你知道

我们会解决一些问题,但我们也

说过我们会成为 cen Tris,

我们将采取第三种方式

,我必须对你说实话,

回想起来

,第三种方式有点卖光了,

基本上就是说

我们会赢

,有点像里根,

我们会赢

拥抱一点里根经济学

,当你看到

它时,不仅仅是我们

提出了某些类型的政策,

例如,我参与了自由贸易的倡导

,当我坐下来回顾它时,你

知道我们说得很好 rising tide lifts all

boats

without a heck of a lot of evidence that

it did and without any concern for the

disruptions that might be caused when

that rising tide swamped

other boats you know when the clinton

administration got elected

we looked at things like welfare reform

and 这似乎

你知道的声音和明智的,但它

也是一个狗哨不是它

福利改革也是一种

说法,

我们将对最贫穷的人和少数族裔采取更强硬的态度

虽然我不 th

比尔克林顿心中的墨水

我确实认为这就是我们赢得权力的方式

,比尔克林顿也让

经济官员鲍勃鲁宾拉

里萨默斯其他经济

官员基本上是随着华尔街的音乐跳舞

我们研究了宏观经济

指标 查看了顶级指标

,我们说如果股票市场

表现良好债券市场表现良好

国内生产总值正在增长,那么一切

都会好起来,但我们也制定了

新法律,

决定允许对冲基金和

其他人

不为其附带权益纳税

,废除了玻璃斯蒂格尔

条款,该条款

防止银行规模过大,

然后

乔治·w·

布什政府和迪克·切尼

以及一群能源亲信继续进行此类事情 制定

能源政策

或军工联合体将

我们

推向石油战争,你知道吗?你不知道吗?

将军工联合体视为

ak 这是一个激进的术语,它

是 1960 年的艾森豪威尔术语。这不是

什么古怪的社会主义术语,但这就是导致

我们陷入耗资

3 万亿美元的战争的原因,但有些人

从这些战争中受益

,税收变化发生了,

管制放松了

, 奥巴马政府上台了,我

认为奥巴马政府可能是过去 50 年

来最自由的政府

,但巴拉克奥巴马

从华尔街拿的钱比历史上任何一位总统

候选人

都多 没有

实施需要计算机的机构甚至没有

提供他们需要的计算机,

而现在,当你看到它时,

我们又回到了完全相同的情况,

坏账,10 年后机构太大而不能倒闭

,那是因为 在当时和沿途发生的事情中,

还有

其他你在里根政府不知道的行为

公平原则

的消除最终将我们

带入了竞争信息

泡沫的世界,或者存在

1996 年的电信法案,

该法案实质上对 dot-com 公司说,

你可以成为一家媒体公司,

而无需承担

成为 一家媒体公司

,嗯,

嗯,国会通过或批准的法律,或者

最高法院

做出的决定 你不能很好地

控制进入政治的资金数量

谁这样做会使它

有利于有钱的人 它说

如果金钱是言论 有更多钱的人有更多

言论 你知道我可以继续

列出 这些东西,

嗯,

如果你想要再等一两个小时,我很乐意稍后见到你,

但我相信你很期待

但是嗯,但你知道当你

看的时候 他们有后果

,后果是

美国经济现在崩溃了

,美国社会现在崩溃

了 与他们之前获得的财富和收入的相同百分比

比尔·盖茨

沃伦·巴菲特

和杰夫·贝索斯 三个人的净资产

相当于

人口中底层 50% 人口的前

5% 的净

资产

相当于底层 三分之二的

人口

和收入流动性和教育

流动性下降了,而

在 40 年代,90% 的人

认为他们会

比他们的父母

挣得更多,现在是 40% 或

50% 最后

得到比他们父母更好的教育

现在是 40 um 倒数

第五名 当他们排在前 10 名时留在倒数第五名

世界经济

在收入流动性方面我们

美国梦的地方与英国排名

垫底,顺便说一句,

如果你出生在前五名,

你往往会留在前五名,嗯,

几率要好得多 对你

有利 事实上,你将如何进入大学的最佳指标

是你的邮政编码,嗯,换句话说

,它是你来自的地方,

如果你是少数人

,平均净资产中位数的平均值会更糟

美国的一个白人家庭是 14.7 万美元 美国

一个黑人家庭的中等净资产

是 3500

美元 比拉丁裔家庭多一点,

但仍然

是白人家庭的 20 秒,

所以如果 你是黑人,或者你是拉丁裔,或者

你很穷,或者你

是我们社会中的女人

这个你知道

我们可以 看看这个,我们可以

像谈论天气一样谈论它,

但这不是天气,

这是一个选择,这是我们所有人

作为一个国家正在做出的选择

,这是美国的机构

做出的选择,他们做出了选择 因为这

符合他们的自身利益,因为他们说

这样做我会变得富有,

或者我将拥有竞选公职所需的钱

这样做

你不能竞选总统,除非你

身后有十亿美元,否则

你可以” 除非你有富人支持,否则不会获得 10 亿美元

,所以金钱初选

突然比以后发生的任何

其他初选都重要,

你知道它在

国会

山如何运作 你已经知道

这种神化,或者我们

称之为最低点

,你不仅让

政府为百分之一的人工作,

为百分之一的人减税,这对其

他人没有好处,而且 你实际上得到了

总统不仅为百分之一的人工作,

而且为他自己和他的

家人工作

你可能会说这对我来说

是一种诅咒,这太可怕了,

但这是 40 年的历史,我们

引导到了这个地步,他是一个症状,他不是一个

领导者,在

任何这个词的定义下,他都无法成为领导者,

但你有 问问你自己

我们该怎么

做 回到基础 什么

是社会契约 是美国的社会契约

让美国成为世界上最富有的

国家 创造财富的

原因是我们

作为一个社会走到一起的原因 你知道的是

我们使用的衡量标准是因为 我们使用的指标,

比如 gdp,顺便说一下,当它是

由库兹涅茨

在 1930 年代在商务部创建时,他说不要用它作为

经济健康的指标,你知道,但我们

作为一个国家,我们有点 把它

当作床垫上的一个标签我们

把它撕掉我们说忘记

我们要使用它但是你

知道如果你使用gdp

作为衡量标准它对

公司来说可能很棒它对富人来说可能很棒

人,这对其他人来说真的很糟糕

事实上

有一些诱因让它

对其他人真的很糟糕所以

社会契约是什么,我去了我

看了独立宣言独立宣言中

有 22 个字实际上

说它更像是一份政治文件,但

你当然认识他们,你

知道最后他们说我们

的造物主赋予了我们某些不可剥夺的

权利,其中包括生命自由

和追求幸福的

宪法 顺便说一句,也

一直到22个字,

但它给了我们五个领域,

包括公益

呃安宁呃安全等等

,我们一起创造

好的,可能还

不够,但是 我发现,如果你再

回到宣言之外,再回到宪法之外,

回到激发他们灵感的话语

上 并且对此进行了很多

讨论,

但是在他所写的段落的后半部分

他接着说,一旦您自己的安全得到照顾,那么一旦您自己的安全

得到照顾,

就应该照顾

他人的安全

那么你们中的一些人应该帮助那些需要帮助的人,并且

你们永远不应该

以侵犯你们社会中其他人的健康

或生命、肢体或自由的方式行事,

换句话说,我们 这样做是为了

互相帮助,不是为了成为最富有

的人,我们参与其中的原因是

作为一个社会共同努力,以改善每个人的生活质量,

并且有人

寻求衡量标准的更好例子

,无论是不丹 它是

国民幸福总值,或者是

像乔斯蒂格利茨这样的经济学家

,他们已经研究了一段时间

,有办法说

是的

出于

政治目的,我们将以

与他们的财富成比例的方式向人们征税,我们

将以

与他们的健康成比例的方式向公司征税

,你可能会想,天哪,

社会主义社会主义者亚历山大·

奥卡西奥-科尔特斯,

嗯,你知道的 嗯,

你知道,但是

当边际税率为 90 时,边际税率当然

是德怀特·艾森豪威尔,

你知道那不完全是社会主义者,

卢修斯·克莱将军在欧洲领导美军时

重组德国经济,使其

成为那些古怪的

社会主义经济体之一,是美国军队

对德国人说,

你们必须有

工会 在企业

中不是激进的东西,

而是美国的东西,是传统的

东西,它可以追溯到艾森豪威尔或卢修斯·

克莱将军

或富兰克林·罗斯福,或

独立宣言

或约翰·洛克,这

是社会历史上的激进思想,

嗯,但是 这在美国并不激进,

只是我们

作为一个社会已经朝着贪婪

和目标

漂移了 我们有

我们已经贡献了我们可以

从翅膀开始,

但现在是时候让新人

认识na了 了解我们不断变化的社会的真实性,他们

看到技术如何改变工作,他们

看到技术如何改变

生产力,并且没有

被这个破碎的系统所污染,以回到

我们

在 17 世纪和 18

世纪被授权为使命的业务

, 当美国有一代人时,我们

称之为最伟大的一代

,非常感谢