Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to another episode of the Odd Lots podcast.
Speaker 1: I'm Joe wisn't thal Unfortunately my normal co host, Tracy
Speaker 1: Alloway isn't here today, so it'll just be me. But
Speaker 1: if she were here today, I would call back to
Speaker 1: mind several weeks ago when we were talking about Game Stop,
Speaker 1: and I complained in some of those episodes about the
Speaker 1: Game Stop story, and I complained that throughout the Game
Speaker 1: Stop story that numerous people were offering up their uninformed
Speaker 1: takes on the subject. Everybody seemed to have something they
Speaker 1: wanted to say about it, something about class warfare or
Speaker 1: something about the structure of the market. And by and large,
Speaker 1: most of those were not particularly interesting or informed, and
Speaker 1: Tracy got mad at me for take policing, so to speak.
Speaker 1: But there was one, um, one thing I read that
Speaker 1: definitely caught my attention and UH sort of surprised me
Speaker 1: when I saw it, and that was a piece in
Speaker 1: UH the UK magazine The Spectator titled corruption for Everybody.
Speaker 1: And the author of that piece is the well known
Speaker 1: philosopher Slavoy Jack. He's at the University of London and
Speaker 1: the University of Lubeleana Slovenian professor Offer, author of numerous books.
Speaker 1: Filmmaker created the documentary widely viewed titled The Perverts Guide
Speaker 1: to Ideology and a sort of well known leftist Marxist
Speaker 1: psychoanalyst philosopher talking about game stop realier treating me, and
Speaker 1: so I thought, why don't we get him on the
Speaker 1: show and talk about stocks and the market and the
Speaker 1: economy in the world today and anything else that's on
Speaker 1: his mind. And so he's here today and I'm so
Speaker 1: very excited to bring in uh Slavoya Jack. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. What made you write about
Speaker 1: the story? You don't normally like write something about a
Speaker 1: stock or the stock market. What was it about this
Speaker 1: that suddenly like captured everyone's attention and you wrote this
Speaker 1: essay the corruption for everybody? It was the memory of
Speaker 1: as I said in the text of Chroad Elections a
Speaker 1: year ago, this really happened. It's not my imagination, although
Speaker 1: I love imaginary examples. I invented that a guy there
Speaker 1: an extra I learned he was well known ector in
Speaker 1: Croat national theater, made presidential campaign who had said the
Speaker 1: problem now is that corruption is limited to those who
Speaker 1: are inside. But I promise corruption for everybody I love,
Speaker 1: that everybody will be able to be corrupted, and so on.
Speaker 1: We'll get pas short their piece of the pipe in
Speaker 1: the corruption. And I thought, isn't something similar at work
Speaker 1: in wolstred Bets againstock stuff and graven and travel. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't want to be accused of bluffing too much,
Speaker 1: so let me just make a very brief two points
Speaker 1: of self presentation. First, I don't think I know I
Speaker 1: try to reach stuff and shown, but that I know
Speaker 1: too much about all the technical details about economy, you know.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is that what fascinated me in
Speaker 1: a Gainstock story is a certain logic that I saw
Speaker 1: in it, which is, on the one hand, I know
Speaker 1: there is a very interesting vision in it, vision of
Speaker 1: a truly popular or populist capital vision every one of
Speaker 1: us can do it. On the other hand, what in
Speaker 1: tres me more? And that's they in my domain ideology
Speaker 1: even more interesting. So it's not the version of everybody
Speaker 1: can do it. If you have a permanent drop in
Speaker 1: the morning, you work, or you work from all whatever,
Speaker 1: and g I was in the evening, anybody can do
Speaker 1: it and so on and so on. What interested to
Speaker 1: me is again two crucial features. The first one is
Speaker 1: that it's the counterpoint of experts, and that's why they succeeded.
Speaker 1: What do you mean by this? You know there was
Speaker 1: a certain tendency among others. I don't trust him in
Speaker 1: a mask proposed this and didn't two guys, a lady
Speaker 1: and the men already you must know this better than me,
Speaker 1: already a year a year and a half ago, didn't
Speaker 1: they propose an algorithm, a program which enables you to
Speaker 1: play the stock market. And it got certain pennic on
Speaker 1: Wall Street because the rumor was that the algorithm which
Speaker 1: the texts the market, proposes investments that's on average. On average,
Speaker 1: there are always exceptions, and we stay slightly better job
Speaker 1: than your stock market representatives. So who needs Wall Street
Speaker 1: when algorithm can do it better? What interested me here
Speaker 1: is dead on Street Best and then game Stop. It's
Speaker 1: not this, but it's in some way a counterpoint because
Speaker 1: what I find so immensely attractive I was tended to
Speaker 1: play it with game Stock best is that let's say
Speaker 1: you are a perfect scientist, at least if I doubt it.
Speaker 1: Stock market games are science. You know all the tendencies
Speaker 1: to players, You know the influence of whether and someone like, okay,
Speaker 1: you can play this game professionally, But isn't the big
Speaker 1: revolution of game stock that they consciously didn't want at
Speaker 1: a certain trend and to know too much. Their strongest
Speaker 1: card was, we don't know it. We're going to introduce scares.
Speaker 1: Let's pick up on GameStop or whatever, and nobody will
Speaker 1: know why did we pick up this one. This will
Speaker 1: then introduce fantasy scales and so on. Stocks will go
Speaker 1: up down and so on. And the idea is we
Speaker 1: basically I simplify it a little bit, I know, but
Speaker 1: the basic idea is we don't care what really goes on.
Speaker 1: This game stock has a certain new product or whatever.
Speaker 1: We just want to shock the market. What big things are.
Speaker 1: Success is not the reality of production, but the enigmatic
Speaker 1: character of our act People will immed day it is,
Speaker 1: then it will go down. And you know google short
Speaker 1: term speculators. When things go up and down quickly, if
Speaker 1: you're intelligent here you can run quite a lot. So
Speaker 1: this is what interests me, and especially again this reaction
Speaker 1: to the idea of expert knowledge, and that's what they find.
Speaker 1: It's a regel yer. Things always fascinate me when a
Speaker 1: certain tendency, as it were, falls apart into its opposites.
Speaker 1: For example, we thought trapically goes with democracy. Yes, but
Speaker 1: we have today China. And it's not only China where
Speaker 1: I will be very brief what shocked me so much
Speaker 1: today in China. Let's not exaggerate the success of China,
Speaker 1: because when Chinese are now proud, you see we did it,
Speaker 1: Covide with ominated it. Yeah, but I always like to
Speaker 1: annoy my Chinese friends by telling them, waiter minute, there
Speaker 1: is a country which you want to swallow, but they
Speaker 1: don't want to be swallowed by you, which did even better.
Speaker 1: It's Iwan, Taiwan. It is the true miracle in COVID.
Speaker 1: China combines what seems incredible for us, the wildest capitalism
Speaker 1: speculations blah blah, and strong authoritarian power. It is as
Speaker 1: if we and something similar second to me here. So
Speaker 1: I'm here very realistic. I'm not playing an old Marxist
Speaker 1: to cortual decadence. There is something strangely very liberating in this.
Speaker 1: I think that on the one time, you have what
Speaker 1: I call ironically a communist tendency on the on the
Speaker 1: wall street in stock exchange, because you know, if you
Speaker 1: really can trust algorithms, then why do we need to
Speaker 1: stop exchanges at all. On the other hand, one of
Speaker 1: my sevant anecdotes from Stalinism. I read it Insiders Memoirs,
Speaker 1: and people noticed that, you know, Stalin got many evenings
Speaker 1: one thousand names of everybody who will be condemned to death, liquidated,
Speaker 1: And of course Staling didn't have time to study all
Speaker 1: the cases, but like every fifty yes name something like
Speaker 1: that got a part of and they asked him, but
Speaker 1: why do you decide for that guy? You know what
Speaker 1: Stalin said? He said, I don't know. It just adds
Speaker 1: the enigma. People will think that I was thinking that
Speaker 1: I have some mysterious reasons, and so on and so on.
Speaker 1: That's so fascinating for me. The very gesture of arbitrarily
Speaker 1: deciding something racist the mystery and soon makes the game run.
Speaker 1: So to just to define myself to shop your public,
Speaker 1: I think COVID and pandemics, other pandemics and the global
Speaker 1: warming and so on will demand from us. I use
Speaker 1: this term to provoke people some kind of communition. Don't
Speaker 1: be afraid by this. I mean God forsake us, no China.
Speaker 1: What I mean is simply some kind of social control,
Speaker 1: but not safe control in economy. Limit the market, not
Speaker 1: abolished the market. I know the efficiency of the market,
Speaker 1: but look at what Biden did now one trillion, nine
Speaker 1: hundred millions. Sorry, no way can you justify this with
Speaker 1: capitalist logic. But at the same time, now comes the
Speaker 1: beauty when people ask me, what what time of the
Speaker 1: communist you are? As played? No joke, moderately conservative problemists first,
Speaker 1: moderately we never master the game. We do something, the
Speaker 1: effect could be the opposite. To Valence volen Svant, it's
Speaker 1: always violent error. That's why I am fast. You know
Speaker 1: who is at this point my favorite politician in the world,
Speaker 1: maybe looks on our set the new after Morales and
Speaker 1: Linera now the new trillion elected president of Bolivia. She
Speaker 1: was the true master of moderate but nonetheless economic miracle
Speaker 1: during the Morals years. And she was radical leftist but
Speaker 1: very cautious, moderate conservative. And surprise, surprise, it was not
Speaker 1: the traversant custom story. You know, it's not the usual story.
Speaker 1: Radical Lef's this take it over and then in one
Speaker 1: year they screw it up for ten years and they
Speaker 1: did it. Let'stis who are aware that we are slowly
Speaker 1: pushed towards more, but who are at the same time
Speaker 1: aware that police would be extremely What interests me the
Speaker 1: morning costa life change for ordinary when the enthusiasm over
Speaker 1: really this year something. I want to go back to
Speaker 1: this idea of the disconnect and just going back to
Speaker 1: stocks for a second, even though the conversation is much
Speaker 1: deeper than that, This disconnect between the thing, the company,
Speaker 1: game stop, and then the stock itself completely divorced from
Speaker 1: any sort of like underlying reality of production. And I
Speaker 1: think we're in an age in which, at least in
Speaker 1: the US, there is an extraordinary amount of speculation. Speculation
Speaker 1: is in the air. People are buying everything stocks and
Speaker 1: collectibles and uh commodities, and I'm curate crypto currencies, and
Speaker 1: I'm sort of like curious your take on what it
Speaker 1: says when we get this sort of like further for
Speaker 1: the public for speculation in general taking over consuming so
Speaker 1: many people's minds. First, I will say that, yes, strange
Speaker 1: things are going on in the sense that you remember
Speaker 1: this was a stock for many economies. They tried to
Speaker 1: provide explanations. I read them. I don't think they were
Speaker 1: good explanations. You remember in United Kingdom and the US
Speaker 1: the same day when it was announced that we are
Speaker 1: in the greatest crisis after the big one Late plenty,
Speaker 1: early service com many new unemployed, production failed for thirty
Speaker 1: percent and so on, stock market went up. How is
Speaker 1: he the crisis in production and so on did not
Speaker 1: reflect itself in stock market? Now. I think that there
Speaker 1: are many explanations. One was that most of this upward
Speaker 1: movement was just reflecting to make a big companies. I
Speaker 1: think that something is happening here and it's not necessarily bad.
Speaker 1: This shows that not only capitalism the way we knew
Speaker 1: it were in some mediate way. Nonetheless, stock market variations
Speaker 1: reflect what happens in so called real economy, but that
Speaker 1: you can treat a little bit, but at the end
Speaker 1: point reality strikes, bites back or the host. You know,
Speaker 1: it's interesting that this obsession with find the settlement of accounts.
Speaker 1: We can speculate, but it's all shocks term. But at
Speaker 1: the end reality strikes that we will have to pay.
Speaker 1: Do you know that this is what two big opponents,
Speaker 1: liberals and orthodox Marxist share March's idea is at the end,
Speaker 1: crisis will strike it back. Liberals I mean not political liberals,
Speaker 1: But market liberals also claim you can feed only up
Speaker 1: to some extent. At the end you have to pay
Speaker 1: the price to this. My answer is still the wonderful
Speaker 1: saying you must all as everybody knows it. By John
Speaker 1: Minard Games, we said, don't mention in the long term
Speaker 1: too much. In the long term we are all depical.
Speaker 1: The magic of capitalism is precisely this eternal post coverment. Yes,
Speaker 1: capitalism is beat or fictions, but these fictions can produce themselves,
Speaker 1: and there is no natural limit. Well, okay, makes people
Speaker 1: say ecology when nature is disintegrating too much? Is it
Speaker 1: a certain limit? But not necessarily for capitalism. Listens, is
Speaker 1: this incredible plasticity of reinventing itself just changing investment into
Speaker 1: But what on saying is that this is for me
Speaker 1: a strength of capitalism. A progressive society should also my
Speaker 1: vision of what to provokee my friends, I called capitalism
Speaker 1: communism should also should retain this element of incredible plasticity.
Speaker 1: I'm fascinated by all these magnesses of the market. You
Speaker 1: know what this my big opponent today, It's this conservative reaction,
Speaker 1: like that things are getting too wild. We need to
Speaker 1: return to some socials. I call it six more natural,
Speaker 1: stable way of life, either traditional patriarchal or exist more
Speaker 1: stable society or smaller organic communities, and shawon and shawon. No,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I think that capitalism, let's be
Speaker 1: frank retained, it's great revolutionary strength. What is going on today? Now?
Speaker 1: I'm in the mood of ironically, of course, phraising capitalism,
Speaker 1: me to LGBT plus and so on. I spoke with
Speaker 1: some global historians, people who still exist but not empty speculators,
Speaker 1: who look at the entire history of Tumanity, and they
Speaker 1: told me, no, no, look in a bombastic marchis very
Speaker 1: very realistically and they told me March made one mistake
Speaker 1: when he simply talked about primitive three class societies. No,
Speaker 1: the first big break is there, as many people know, Neolithic,
Speaker 1: that is to say, pass it from no much school
Speaker 1: settlements with agricultural buildings and so on and so on.
Speaker 1: This is before classes emerged at that point with neolytics,
Speaker 1: before class society. This almost eternal for us. Patriarchal order
Speaker 1: with traditional roles of men women emerges. The capitalism is
Speaker 1: ruining this today with me to everybody class and so on.
Speaker 1: Exchange not only the vision which was in all class societies,
Speaker 1: but even earlier from neolithic That's how radical it is
Speaker 1: what's going on today in capitalism. We still should build
Speaker 1: on this destructive, creative power of capitalism. There is no
Speaker 1: progress without going through capitalism. Also capitalism in its craziest,
Speaker 1: the craziest speculations, plasticity of human relations, and so on
Speaker 1: and so on. The temptation is so strong today, especially
Speaker 1: with glowing economic crisis, and want to say, no, we
Speaker 1: meant too far into someone modest organic ray or life. No,
Speaker 1: we should go to the end. You know, it's interesting
Speaker 1: you mentioned the Biden stimulus and one point nine trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: I'm curious if you think there's what sort of divergence
Speaker 1: you're seeing between what's going on in the US versus
Speaker 1: what's going on in Europe, where we don't see that
Speaker 1: level of ambition, where despite the sort of praise for
Speaker 1: off of the public health system, the vaccine rollout does
Speaker 1: not seem to be going as well as it is
Speaker 1: in the United States. Is this a turning point between
Speaker 1: sort of the trajectories for what, uh, you're the American
Speaker 1: politics and economics versus versus Europe. I must admit that
Speaker 1: I am unabatied le eurocentric in the sense that nonetheless
Speaker 1: European community with all its limitations. I told to some
Speaker 1: of my leftist friends who shouted to shout at me,
Speaker 1: I was sold, was beaten. But I told them, whatever
Speaker 1: you can say critical about Western Europe, but can you
Speaker 1: imagine now, I will be pathetic, bombastic any period in
Speaker 1: the history of humanity where so many people lived such
Speaker 1: a relatively reach welfare, safe and free life as they
Speaker 1: did till recent crisis in Europe. But the tragedy is
Speaker 1: that now and not because of some external reasons, Europe
Speaker 1: is slowly falling apart. First, there is not enough unity
Speaker 1: parts of Europe, especially banks to which I belong, which
Speaker 1: made me say it that year in my own country.
Speaker 1: In some circles I repeatedly used for this new populist
Speaker 1: right ring exis of Europe. It is Poland, Hungary, Slovenia.
Speaker 1: Use the term I love it. That this is the
Speaker 1: true excess of it. This is ruining Europe from within.
Speaker 1: But it's not just blaming us. Europe itself is becoming
Speaker 1: more and more keen operative. You remember three years ago
Speaker 1: to when the crisis in Catalumbia. Europe was unable best
Speaker 1: homogeneous politics to reactively with refugee crisis a couple of
Speaker 1: years ago. It was the same. Now with vaccinations. It's
Speaker 1: the same. And I find this very said because today
Speaker 1: something that would resemble Europe a larger than nations state
Speaker 1: community with all its hipocrisy, keating and so on. But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: the values are the values with which should be universal
Speaker 1: values today, like when Europe said no, everybody should get
Speaker 1: vaccine proportionally, no state should be privileged, and so on
Speaker 1: and so on and so on. But you know what
Speaker 1: I don't worry about. In Europe and especially in the
Speaker 1: United States, people say, oh my god, but this is crazy.
Speaker 1: The moment of reckoning will come like one brillion, nine
Speaker 1: hundred billions, who when we'll pay this No money is virtual,
Speaker 1: you can manipulate. I don't believe in this protection. Then
Speaker 1: a deal would come from whom I always state a
Speaker 1: very simplified example, I hope you agree World worth two
Speaker 1: My dog who's was doing this like crazy, unproductively spending
Speaker 1: money and there was no sentiment of account. After the war,
Speaker 1: the greatest period of welfare came back. So I don't
Speaker 1: believe in this basic liberal in the market sense, conservative
Speaker 1: liberal instinct that you cannot spend money just like that.
Speaker 1: You can't. You must do it in an intelligence pretty goods,
Speaker 1: but you can't remember world work. Do how much United
Speaker 1: States were spending? You can't do it. I think we
Speaker 1: shouldn't be afraid of this. I would if you ask
Speaker 1: me much more worthy. It is some idealist but noeltheless
Speaker 1: about the possible collective, ideological and psychological impact of the
Speaker 1: COVID christis race of violence, disintegration of the social community,
Speaker 1: you know in the United States. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: you can say, and let's be frank, I'm afraid it's
Speaker 1: true that attacks from all bad things. The pandemic. Did
Speaker 1: you got to read of Trump because of the pandemic?
Speaker 1: I doubt if he would lost the elections without the pandemic.
Speaker 1: But at the same time, don't underestimate I hope Trump
Speaker 1: people will slowly lose ground, But nonetheless, don't underestimate the
Speaker 1: state of an ideological civil war you are in. And
Speaker 1: this is now emerging all around. And I don't agree
Speaker 1: with people who say some Republicans who were critical of Trump,
Speaker 1: do you remember they say, but they should be excluded
Speaker 1: we should find a larger unity. No, sorry, you cannot.
Speaker 1: There are certain limits. For example, a propos Hitler in
Speaker 1: nty one. You shouldn't say, oh, but maybe we are
Speaker 1: too exclusive. Everybody makes mistake. No, there are points in
Speaker 1: politics where the only way to nied it is true
Speaker 1: an even more radical division. You said the lady, No, sorry, guys,
Speaker 1: not with you and a dow leader dust this. Then
Speaker 1: you built a new unity. I just doubt if Biden
Speaker 1: will be able to do it. What about you know?
Speaker 1: Like one of the questions that arose in the last
Speaker 1: couple of years is whether there can be some sort
Speaker 1: of like actual I guess I would say class based
Speaker 1: politics of the U S or class based realignment, or
Speaker 1: some sort of reinvigoration of the US labor movement in
Speaker 1: some way or another. Is that plausible in some sense? Yes,
Speaker 1: it's necessary, And that's what Berney Sanders. Although his success
Speaker 1: was limited deep at some level, he was very wise. Here,
Speaker 1: you know, I really good relas ago a speech by
Speaker 1: him where he wore a Democratic party against these just
Speaker 1: focusing undecided me the classes. You know, we shouldn't go
Speaker 1: too much that. No, when he said how true targets
Speaker 1: should be those who are white, and not only white
Speaker 1: people who would have otherwise voted for Trump. Don't focus
Speaker 1: too much, although don't neglect then on traditional matches and
Speaker 1: probably matches idea of a working class. You know, you know,
Speaker 1: it would be very interesting too to analyze the model,
Speaker 1: the image which determined our reception of what real working
Speaker 1: class is. At some point it was still workers or
Speaker 1: miners or whatever. Today I claimed, it's crucial to think
Speaker 1: in broader terms. If the pandemic make something clear, it
Speaker 1: is that not only the role of precarious workers, not
Speaker 1: only the role of those who work in the service
Speaker 1: like workers and soon and so on, but also new
Speaker 1: forms of colonization. It's no longer the classical exploit exploitation.
Speaker 1: For example, like a friend in Ecuador who told me,
Speaker 1: don't talk only about working class. You have many native
Speaker 1: communities in Ecuador who are not employed by western beach companies.
Speaker 1: They are not formally exploited that like I'm a capitalist,
Speaker 1: classical formula, I pay you away to what I keep
Speaker 1: the extra profit. No, they are in some sense ecological proletarians.
Speaker 1: The way international companies also their own equatorians are ruining
Speaker 1: in the plenishing the country of its natural resources. They
Speaker 1: are ruining the environment. They are exploited in this sense.
Speaker 1: They are also complain. You must remember in Canada that
Speaker 1: with frecking oil and so Native Americans communal life was ruined.
Speaker 1: So we sa these We have the whole problem of
Speaker 1: unpaid labor. All this should be brought together. Why I
Speaker 1: hope you will agree of this. This is what I
Speaker 1: always find. I've written about it a lot, what I
Speaker 1: always found crucial. Some Italian left this your editions trying
Speaker 1: to conceptualize this. You know, Marxist classical scheme of development
Speaker 1: was from rent to profit. In early capitalism, you were
Speaker 1: weaving at your end. The capitalists give you the rule
Speaker 1: and just took the rent. You are not formally employed paid,
Speaker 1: But isn't it now with this new mostly digital big
Speaker 1: companies Microsoft, Amazon, How did they get as rich as
Speaker 1: they are? First? The people employed by being grades are
Speaker 1: probably as far as I not so not so badly paid.
Speaker 1: You cannot say they are exploited or what I'm think.
Speaker 1: It's what I call in marchis terms, a new period
Speaker 1: of the privatization of commons. Now that we talk on
Speaker 1: the way, we have to use as our comments the
Speaker 1: common space within which communicate. We have to use Microsoft
Speaker 1: mostly now. If you want to buy a book, you
Speaker 1: have to rely on Amazon. If you want to have
Speaker 1: personal chet communications, Facebook and so on and so on.
Speaker 1: So this guy, I think, get the rent from controlling
Speaker 1: our comments. This is something new. You cannot cover it
Speaker 1: with the traditional form of exploitation. Things have to be
Speaker 1: a rittle. It's not simply some lefty stream. Let's return
Speaker 1: to old trade union class politics. I will give you
Speaker 1: probably the not typical but nonetheless important example from my
Speaker 1: own as your beloved ex President Trumpet have said, shitch
Speaker 1: hold of a country, Slovenia. You know that here when
Speaker 1: the strike I'm mostly skeptical. Why because, if I may
Speaker 1: use this old lendin Is term, those who can afford
Speaker 1: to strike in Slovenia today are mostly what Lendin called
Speaker 1: workers aristocracy, privileged workers mostly in state administration and state
Speaker 1: apparatus institutions. Doctors, policemen, grudges up to appoint teachers universities.
Speaker 1: They bickmail us like doctors say we don't want to
Speaker 1: strike and if you don't raise our salaries whatever. It's
Speaker 1: the same with policemen with grudgis and so on. You
Speaker 1: see my point. To be able to go on strike
Speaker 1: today means an incredibly pretty leached position in privately owned factors,
Speaker 1: and nobody dares to go to strike because they mostly
Speaker 1: tell you how, guys, I lose the factory, I moved
Speaker 1: to to China. You know, so again thinks served to
Speaker 1: be resought. I don't believe in this return to the
Speaker 1: old nostalgic notion of working. Plus, I wanna go back
Speaker 1: to something you said, um very early on, and I
Speaker 1: thought it was interesting, so I didn't want to forget it.
Speaker 1: You talked about the implications of algorithms, and this idea
Speaker 1: is like, Okay, if you can have an algorithm and
Speaker 1: many people work on them, you could beat the market.
Speaker 1: And I know that, like, and you know that people
Speaker 1: talk about this and older, older sort of communist society
Speaker 1: is like, well, why can't we just have And you
Speaker 1: mentioned it a computer or an algorithm established the superior
Speaker 1: division of resources, the sort of ultimate, the ultimate distribution.
Speaker 1: And I'm curious, like where you see that going? And
Speaker 1: do you think that that does open the door for
Speaker 1: more state level or corporate level superior distribution of resources. No,
Speaker 1: it doesn't. I think it would mean Unfortunately, I don't
Speaker 1: like this term. It's too pathetic for me, alienation. But
Speaker 1: nonetheless the situation would get out of control because okay,
Speaker 1: you can say society controls it rationality, but always thinking
Speaker 1: realistic term, what does it mean society control list some
Speaker 1: state organism, which interests are behind it, and so on.
Speaker 1: I don't believe in me. Also, let me conclude in
Speaker 1: a slightly more or less this way. You know who
Speaker 1: was a very interesting guy an early lestis from the
Speaker 1: period of French Revolution, an englishman quote I think Earl
Speaker 1: or Lord of Lauderdale. He was an English nobleman, but
Speaker 1: went to France, joined the Jacobins, you know, and he
Speaker 1: gave a wonderful example against this logic which is behind
Speaker 1: algorithms controlling the logic of universal commodification. You can go
Speaker 1: in this direction to the end. Like I remember already
Speaker 1: twenties thirty years ago, some feminists claimed that women doing
Speaker 1: the homework and so on, it's simply the unpaid labor,
Speaker 1: so let's treat it as a source of value. Women
Speaker 1: should get a certain salary for doing this. The idea
Speaker 1: was even absolute communification of nature itself, like there was
Speaker 1: an absurd proposal to measure all the fresh what us
Speaker 1: in a state and then put a price on it,
Speaker 1: you know, But it's Lauderdale demonstrates in this chance you
Speaker 1: get false wealth emotions. He gives a wonderful example at
Speaker 1: that time. But example is today for actual than ever
Speaker 1: emerging a small town where they have nice strings, nice river,
Speaker 1: enough water, nobody worries about water. Water is like it's there.
Speaker 1: Then imagine he imagines a factory with uh, that's some
Speaker 1: technical chemical staff for you to the river. So what
Speaker 1: happens is that some people introduce some machines to clean
Speaker 1: the water and are selling water. Now from the standpoint
Speaker 1: of value, if you measure wealth by value, although for
Speaker 1: the majority of people things got poor. They have to
Speaker 1: pay for water. But free water before didn't count as
Speaker 1: value because it didn't exist as a market entity. So
Speaker 1: now formally society is much richard because you know, more
Speaker 1: capital terms around, more things around the market. And it's
Speaker 1: the same today we maybe even with air it will
Speaker 1: become the same. In China, they're already on the edge
Speaker 1: of it, you know, they saidest thing I learned now
Speaker 1: to three days ago they had again a terrible sand storm.
Speaker 1: The air was yellow in Beijin, you know, which is
Speaker 1: now the new driving local for poor people. Eurism there
Speaker 1: one day trips and the only thing they promise you
Speaker 1: we take you out of Beisin to a place where
Speaker 1: you will be able to see the blue sky often.
Speaker 1: So what I'm saying is that how much of our
Speaker 1: wealth is this type of fake wealth, wealth which doesn't
Speaker 1: make our lives rich. So I don't think the solution
Speaker 1: is to modify everything in a more just rate. Women's
Speaker 1: labor should be commodified, they should be paid for nature
Speaker 1: and someone. No. I think that we should aim as
Speaker 1: much as possible towards freely available things, not freely in
Speaker 1: the sense they cost lating. They cost a lot, but
Speaker 1: it can be done. If there is a lesson from
Speaker 1: the pandemic is that I don't care if you also
Speaker 1: use privac companies doctors, but somehow healthcare should be universal,
Speaker 1: should be internationally cooperated and automatically available to all, or vaccine.
Speaker 1: I suppark here those who claim okay, let the state.
Speaker 1: The big companies like Size and Shone make billions, but
Speaker 1: basically the formulas itself, the formula should be nationalized rendered three.
Speaker 1: I don't think this will ruin capitalism. This will not
Speaker 1: introduced some kind of communist there or but you know
Speaker 1: we should. The lesson today from this crisis, global warning
Speaker 1: and the warm and pandemic is that there are that.
Speaker 1: It's not as people will only say, forget about your
Speaker 1: pride but interest, don't be an egotist, think about the
Speaker 1: common good. But today isn't it more and more to
Speaker 1: hear that as a good egotists you should think about
Speaker 1: common good if you get about you about your own family.
Speaker 1: That's why I was told there unfortunately a minority that.
Speaker 1: For example, when before the governor of California, she convinced
Speaker 1: many rich people that if you put the more into
Speaker 1: police protection, protection, environment, men, schooling, you're even if you
Speaker 1: are leach, your life will be better. You will be
Speaker 1: able to stroll around threely, your children playing without you
Speaker 1: will not be obliged to leave in guaranting exclusive societies
Speaker 1: and shoon and savant. So for me, I never liked
Speaker 1: moralist approach. No, we should refer to the utmost dirty
Speaker 1: egotist moment aspects of people. It's in our egotist interest
Speaker 1: to approach these problems collective. So final question and they
Speaker 1: will go, I just want to drill down on that
Speaker 1: one last thing. So it is a phenomenon. If you like,
Speaker 1: listen to any business leader these days, especially with a
Speaker 1: big company, they all certainly want to talk about something bigger.
Speaker 1: They want to talk about the environment or education. Why
Speaker 1: are we in this age where this is the preferred
Speaker 1: mode of conversation, the preferred mode of expressing themselves. I
Speaker 1: think I will provide you an extremely simple answer. That
Speaker 1: we are dealing here with what I've written often about this,
Speaker 1: with what in psycho analysis is called fetishists denial. We
Speaker 1: know this, but we don't really believe it. For example, ecology, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we all know it, global warming and so on. But
Speaker 1: did you notice how people media reportant It's always either
Speaker 1: a little bit in future, if we don't do something
Speaker 1: now intent twenty years it will happen, or it's another
Speaker 1: place on north and south goal and so it's not
Speaker 1: yet here in it's to an incredible level. We rationally
Speaker 1: know it, but we don't believe it. That's why pandemic.
Speaker 1: I will say something horrible. I like it because it's
Speaker 1: just really chattened. You cannot say if we do nothing, pandemic,
Speaker 1: no pandemic did cheat us. You know here I'm a pessimist, optimist, specimist,
Speaker 1: optimists because pandemic may awaken us, a little bit pessimist
Speaker 1: because obviously we will need much more things like pandemic
Speaker 1: to really awaken us. And I think I wouldn't worry
Speaker 1: that this will not come if you ask me. Look,
Speaker 1: nobody knows what is happening. Just to conclude, did you
Speaker 1: notice the strange temporality of the pandemic in the spring,
Speaker 1: even your big fauci use, the favorite temporary limit was
Speaker 1: two weeks. You remember in March a year and it was,
Speaker 1: let's it will be back for two weeks, then it
Speaker 1: will be getting better a little bit later in summer
Speaker 1: the preferred period of two months. For two months, it
Speaker 1: will be tough, then better. In the fall it was
Speaker 1: half a year now foud she said in two thousand
Speaker 1: twenty two, masks will still be used, and so on
Speaker 1: and so on. What is so horrible is this disorientation.
Speaker 1: But maybe this will awaken us a little bit. I
Speaker 1: hope that we are in a crisis. You know, people
Speaker 1: often talk about you know who said this is the
Speaker 1: wonderful formula? George Orwell in some of his pretty wells
Speaker 1: were too. He said let's many let's this talk all
Speaker 1: the time about the need for social change, but it's
Speaker 1: again of superstitious activity to make it sure that nothing
Speaker 1: really changed. We are still at that level. Mostly On
Speaker 1: that note, Uh, thank you so much for our joining us.
Speaker 1: I'm grateful to you. Thanks very much. Thank you well.
Speaker 1: I wish I wish Tracy were here so that I
Speaker 1: could bounce some ideas back and forth from her. But honestly,
Speaker 1: here solo, I don't have um, you know, no obvious
Speaker 1: some may points other than that. I will be thinking
Speaker 1: about that discussion for a while, though, I did think,
Speaker 1: you know, going back to that first question, how's interesting
Speaker 1: is I remember, you know, during the GameStop stuff, all
Speaker 1: these people telling about how it is kind of class
Speaker 1: warfare or something radical, and he really seemed to take
Speaker 1: that even further than most of them, really talking about
Speaker 1: how radical it was, the arbitrary nous of it, the
Speaker 1: radical nous of arbitrary market moves, the radicalism of capitalism.
Speaker 1: Very provocative discussion. Really enjoyed it. But beyond that, not
Speaker 1: much else obvious to say. So with uh that, with
Speaker 1: all that, this has been another episode of the Odd
Speaker 1: Loves podcast. I'm Joe wasn't thought. You can follow me
Speaker 1: on Twitter at The Stalwart. My normal co host, Tracy Alloway,
Speaker 1: you should follow her at Tracy Alloway. Follow our producer
Speaker 1: Laura Carlson at Laura M. Carlson. Follow the Bloomberg head
Speaker 1: of podcast, Francesca Levie at Francesca Today, and check out
Speaker 1: all of our podcasts at Bloomberg under the handle at podcasts.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening.