Mike Green: The Fourth Turning and Reimagining the American Dream

[@tcpwiz1]

Mike Green always brings a thoughtful, well read perspective to a though provoking discussion.

[@jwatson181]

The entire conversation could boiled down to why has the FED screwed the middle class and savers?

[@katrosper]

brilliant conversation guys. Has me questioning and thinking on many on my foundational premises. Just want to say thank you.

[@pstolee]

One of the best interviews I have heard in a long time. Eye-opening. 2 hours better spent than most university courses I have ever taken. What a gift ! Thank you gentleman.

[@Main.Account]

Ok, mind kind of blown. Gotta watch it again to try an assimilate the points made. As Mike very eloquently pointed out again and again, many of the ways we as a society think about things is just plain wrong. The bit at the end is absolutely a must watch. The phrase “divided we fall” has never been more salient than now. It’s time for us to recognize how we are being manipulated by enemies of our society.

[@jeffdafoe]

It's very enjoyable listening to intellectuals discuss such a broad range of topics related to finance. There's so much extra, fascinating information packed in, such as Crassus and his fire brigade.

[@emcardleinvest]

One of my favorite conversations. Coming back to it once again. Thank you.

[@tracygwendolyn1]

This is a wonderful conversation, thoughtful and nuanced. Thank you so much 🙏

[@shadwills8594]

Certainly one of the most thoughtful conversations on economics I have heard.

[@Iamthepossum]

Fabulous discussion...thoroughly enjoyed. Thank you for allowing us to be part of this.

[@George-jm4rn]

Great conversation! Messrs. Green and Butler are thoughtful people whose insights are valued. I did part company with them in their discussion of higher ed (most particularly Mr. Green's views). As a former college president, I disagree strongly with the higher ed debt model and the massive public subsidies given to private elite institutions that primarily serve the privileged class. That said, it's refreshing to hear people talk seriously and deeply about issues that too often are either ignored or politicized. Thank you, Messrs. Green and Butler, for allowing us to listen in on a stimulating, provocative conservation.

[@joshbrooks5326]

Flippin' Mike Green is so flippin' smart, I have to listen to his interviews three times at 0.75x speed. Brilliant, just brilliant.

[@vm-bz1cd]

As always, wonderful listening to Mike 👏

[@Fishfly93]

What a wonderful conversation. Thank you

[@dmiroflsup]

Amazing discussion! So great to listen to Mike on topics that are (largely) unrelated to the markets. So much of what Mike says is so logical and self-evident that it is just bewildering and stupefying to see these ideas get universally shouted down (at least on social media)

[@alexholmes1947]

Mike Green for President

[@erikforshult8576]

Thanks for a well balanced and deep inquiry into the world of economics.

[@michaelmolzberger4504]

Incredibly interesting, timely, and important.

[@johndiggs5926]

Great discussion, back and forth, and in some areas debate around such a complex issue...a template others should follow

[@prestondavis9587]

Mike Drop (see what I did there?): 1:21:57 “The private sector labor has no negotiating power, the public sector labor has all the negotiating power-no wonder we feel we’re getting screwed.” In California, the median public full-time employee, in TOTAL compensation, makes more than the median private sector full time employee. So who’s working for whom? Is this what’s good for society? If we’re talking about expending public funds, yes, we’re entitled (that’s right, I said it) to this discussion, and we get to choose our own course, without being called a socialist.

[@Clubrat]

Mike Green would make a great president

[@Carutsu]

1:06 I agree, I think the main issue was not the bailouts, they were mostly profitable but the moral hazard it introduced. Furthermore the lack of social safety net got in full display. If the US had a proper regard for human life it wouldn't be hostage for corrupt capitalists that use workers as hostages. "Save me or I'll starve all these people" must be abolished. Edit: 5:40 Mr. Green I think we finally see eye to eye. I've been trying to communicate this to you through my brief twiter rants on your feed. While I'm certain I didn't make you change your mind, I'm more than happy to see a man I mostly admire point blame to the right problems rather than clichés. We can change this broken system. Edit 2: (sorry you are just making laods of good points) 10:35 exactly that's why it's stupid for thew capital class to keep denying help for individuals. Even if ultimately the capital class gets these profits at least you covered basic human needs and alleviated suffering. I do not believe in long time deficit spending, that's why we need proper progressive taxation. Another problem the US has had is the reliance of the US dollar on the foreign economy. It's no longer tenable and unfortunately the amount of dollar denominated debt makes the dollar stubbornly strong for the domestic economy which leads to capital escaping to jurisdictions with lower human labor costs. Edit 3: (final one I promise) 14:00 YES! exactly, no man is an island. Nothing of our current system is state of nature, it's policy choices and public systems that reflect values that we can influence. Finally seeing some of the ideas I advocate reflected on important, public, prominent people in finance makes me stupidly happy and hopeful for a change. We can implement a less greedy exploitative system. Even if only for your own self-interested capital preservation. When you take everything from people and have nothing else to aspire or lose, that's when people's head start to roll off.

[@_zack__2671]

Great discussion, thank you

[@prof.higgins3154]

Mike Green’s knowledge and awareness is impressive, to say the least. However, his belief that the U.S. is more secure than other countries because of its geography (an ocean East & West and friendly neighbors North & South) has become irrelevant today. When North-Korea boasts that its nuclear missiles can reach the U.S. West Coast, when China and Russia ICBM’s can easily reach virtually any point on the continental U.S. the oceans offer very little protection, unfortunately. Also, the borders may be invasion-proof from a military standpoint, but much less so from a people standpoint. The U.S. has close to 15 million illegal immigrants, the highest in the world as a percentage of total population. The biggest threat to the U.S. is internal division and fragmentation - as Mike later correctly points out.

[@lochlansavage4137]

Would appreciate time stamps. Did Mike Green give book recommendations?

[@sugershakify]

Best way I have found to understand how modern central bank economist think is they are driving a car down a straight road by looking in the rear view mirror and patting themselves on the back for what a great job they are doing .... until the road makes a turn.... then throw up their hands that no one could have possibly seen or known there was a turn in the road.

[@Kid_Ikaris]

Forever learning from the man who has taken the Spice.

[@samikhatib2158]

Is Mike green on Twitter ? Who can share his handle?

[@ifh4030]

@profplum99

[@HenryChoiOMD]

Can Mike run for an office?

[@Jindo44]

This interviews confirms that Mike Green has a chartalist view of money. I think it is Vincent Deluard who wrote a nice piece about it in one of his instos newsletters.

[@ifh4030]

I'm surprised I wasn't familiar with that term. I appreciate you using it as it makes the concept/perspective more concrete and easier to contrast with opposing ones.

[@jamesmorton7881]

We have not real need for most jobs, as currently defined. As Marx observed, what to do with the new found leisure. . . . . .

[@ferelgreat]

Quite a curricular argument based on a false premise. Mike green says he's a capitalist but in the same breath says we could use a bit of forceful tweaking from the same state that has exacerbated concentration of wealth in the hand of a few.

[@gunarannders7797]

Mike Green is far from being a human paraquat. Quite the opposite.

[@Gr8erThan8]

Sorry man, these convos always lame af. You two are the defunct economists Keynes was talking about. 2 simple thought traps you both fell into: 1) in a capitalist system one person gets all resources.

[@celestialoutcomes1742]

Mike Green does not stay employed long at funds bc his insights are off target.

[@dyutimandas]

totally disagree with the host's arguments on genetic luck. Society is served better if those with better intelligence or capabilities are rewarded more. Whether the intelligence is from genetic luck or acquired is less relevant.

[@rgordillorm]

The problem with this argument is that those with gifted with intelligence whom are rewarded for their better skill are often also coupled with other anti-social disorders gene expressions ( www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2016/09/16/gene-marks-21-percent-of-ceos-are-psychopaths-only-21-percent/?outputType=amp). The traits that allowed them to accumulate money and by extension power all too often lead to an elite class with an individualistic view at the expense of society. If genes pass on to the next generation we want to redistribute that wealth back in order to minimize the impact of that particularly effective but ultimately hostile gene pool. Not every billionaire is Bill Gates!

[@dyutimandas]

@@rgordillorm unless talent is rewarded it'll migrate to where it is. The brain drain that America has benefitted from is a testament to that. Whether the talent is genetic or acquired is of secondary consideration, can't be determined other than "social studies research" generating "minority reports". Dynasty formation can be easily checked by taxing inheritance as ordinary income.

[@adambutler8214]

@@dyutimandas This is Adam (the host). I agree that it may be useful to reward individuals as a function of their productive capacity. However, the shape of the reward function is an open question. And rewards that accrue from productive capacity should be tied exclusively to the individual, and return to the commons at death. Note that this process does not require that wealth is transferred to the public sector. It can be recycled back to the private sector via auctions, etc. But even by your logic, why should it be inheritable? Also, we should recognize that the above represents an incentive policy encourage and maximize productivity and innovation. But let's not pretend it isn't a lottery. I assume you actually don't disagree with the assertion that genetic gifts + environmental factors represent good fortune (i.e. luck)?

[@dyutimandas]

@@adambutler8214 ​thanks for your considerate response. If the reward is for contribution then the shape of the reward function should be proportional to the contribution and not an arbitrary open question, right? Inheritance is just another form of gift. Are you proposing banning gifts? And who is to say that inheritance is unearned? Should a housewife be able to inherit her husband’s property? The earnings were because of her husband’s talents, not hers. You would not be able to recognize joint property either, because you want the reward to accrue exclusively to the individual. An aside: For some reason I am reminded of George Clooney in the movie The Descendants: leave them enough so that they can do something, but not so much that they do nothing. You suggest that the property should return to the commons. Which commons, why not the global commons? Because immediate society played a greater role in the acquisition of the property. So did the family. I do not understand your comment about auctions: even if sold off who gets the proceeds? Luck is something that we do not understand. What exists is not luck but opportunities. There might be opportunities all around us, but we need two things: (1) ability to recognize the opportunity, and (2) ability to exploit the opportunity once we recognize it. If we do not recognize any opportunity we might be tempted to say we were not lucky. But it’s impossible to determine if the opportunity did not exist or we lacked the ability to recognize it. Since we do not understand luck I do not see why we should either reward or penalize it. Above I was talking about rewarding contributions, not innate talent (although I did write talent and not contributions, thanks for not challenging that). Whether the person was able to make the contribution because of genetic luck or individual effort or what fraction of each is intangible and should not enter the equation. Looking forward to your thoughts.

[@dyutimandas]

the response is below the fold: somehow the spacings got enlarged.

[@michaelspickard9805]

I love Mike Green but he knows very little about Calvinism...probably only what he was taught in college. C'mon Mike, I know you can do better!

[@trotro80]

Ok, go read Max Weber.

[@togoni]

Or Marx

[@johnm6404]

wow what a boring conversation and boring tone.

[@ifh4030]

Agreed. They should have had car crash scenes from action movies playing on screen while they talked. That would have held my attention better and allowed me to take them more seriously.

[@BrianFrenchinternet-marketing]

Conversation degrades by host "into all talent (doesn't exist) and is a function of luck". Pretty much a worthless discussion at that point.

[@Samklemens]

Agree. After about the 1 hour mark it became rather repetitive. Also, the idea that everything depends on genetics? That just seems absurd. You could have someone who is very gifted but also lazy, and an average person who works their ass off can crush them. I wonder where this idea came from, that genetics determines all?