TopPodcast.com
Menu
  • Home
  • Top Charts
  • Top Networks
  • Top Apps
  • Top Independents
  • Top Podfluencers
  • Top Picks
    • Top Business Podcasts
    • Top True Crime Podcasts
    • Top Finance Podcasts
    • Top Comedy Podcasts
    • Top Music Podcasts
    • Top Womens Podcasts
    • Top Kids Podcasts
    • Top Sports Podcasts
    • Top News Podcasts
    • Top Tech Podcasts
    • Top Crypto Podcasts
    • Top Entrepreneurial Podcasts
    • Top Fantasy Sports Podcasts
    • Top Political Podcasts
    • Top Science Podcasts
    • Top Self Help Podcasts
    • Top Sports Betting Podcasts
    • Top Stocks Podcasts
  • Podcast News
  • About Us
  • Podcast Advertising
  • Contact
Not in our directory?
Add Show Here
Podcast Equipment
Center

toppodcastlogoOur TOPPODCAST Picks

  • Comedy
  • Crypto
  • Sports
  • News
  • Politics
  • True Crime
  • Business
  • Finance

Follow Us

toppodcastlogoStay Connected

    View Top 200 Chart
    Back to Rankings Page
    News

    The Coffee Klatch with Robert Reich

    Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich exposes where power lies in our system — and how it’s used and abused.

    robertreich.substack.com

    Advertise

    Copyright: © Robert Reich

    • Apple Podcasts
    • Google Play
    • Spotify

    Latest Episodes:
    My coffee klatsch with Heather Mar 19, 2022
    Show notes

    This morning I had coffee with my colleague Heather Lofthouse, who runs Inequality Media. We talked about generational change (boomers; millennials, and today’s children), and the idea of progress. Feel free to pull up a chair.

    I’ve enjoyed experimenting with this Substack newsletter — including sending you my written posts, drawings, and audio recordings, and exchanging comments with you. Would you find it interesting if I added informal conversations (such as this morning’s coffee klatch with Heather)? Please chime in with thoughts and ideas below, as always.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    PS: Could Putin pull America back together? Mar 17, 2022
    Show notes

    Okay, I’m going to go out on a limb today and suggest something that would have seemed utter nonsense as late as a month ago: I’m seeing the stirrings in Washington of a new era of … I’m not sure what to call it. “Unity” is way too strong. “Bipartisanship” is premature. “De-partisanship” is too clunky.

    But something new seems to be happening, and Vladimir Putin is responsible.

    Don’t get me wrong. Democrats and Republicans won’t join hands and sing Kumbaya anytime soon. Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy will continue to ambush Democrats every chance they get. Expect bitter battles over background checks, immigration reform, civil rights protections, and Ketanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Trump won’t stop telling his big lie. Your Fox News-obsessed Uncle Bob will remain in his hermetically sealed alternative universe.

    Yet ever since the run-up to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, I’ve noticed something in Washington that I haven’t seen since in three decades –- a quiet understanding that we’re on the cusp of a new Cold War, potentially even a hot one. Which requires that we join together in order to survive.

    It’s a subtle shift – more of tone than anything else. I saw it yesterday when Volodymyr Zelensky addressed Congress from Ukraine. When he showed lawmakers a gut-wrenching video of the war’s consequences, many eyes filled with tears. The lawmakers shared, according to Maine’s independent Senator Angus King, “a collective holding of breath.” That Republicans and Democrats shared anything — that they were even capable of a collective emotion — is itself remarkable.

    With bipartisan support, Ukraine is receiving unprecedented military and humanitarian aid to fight Putin’s war, including anti-aircraft systems that many experts say can defend against bombs and missiles from Russia’s land-based weaponry.

    Beyond Ukraine, you can also discern the shift in a series of recent across-the-aisle agreements. After literally two hundred failed attempts, the Senate just passed an anti-lynching law. The Senate has also given sexual misconduct claims firmer legal footing with a new law ending forced arbitration in sexual assault and harassment cases. The Senate also just approved sweeping postal reform. And unanimously decided to keep Daylight Savings Time year-round. And it has given the green light to long-awaited reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act as part of a massive spending bill.

    I’m hearing from Senate staffers that they’re close to bipartisan agreement to strengthen antitrust laws. Also on a measure to expand semiconductor manufacturing in America, as part of a new China competitiveness bill. And another measure to limit the cost of insulin.

    Okay, none of this is as dramatic as protecting voting rights or controlling prescription drug costs. But compared to the last few years, it’s extraordinary. (You may not have heard much about these initiatives because the media only picks up on bitter conflict and name-calling.)

    Something new is happening in Washington, and I think I know why.

    You see, I came to Washington in 1974, in the Ford administration, and then worked in the Carter administration. The Cold War was raging during those years, serving as a kind of silent backdrop for everything else. Democrats and Republicans had different views on a host of issues, but we worked together because it was assumed that we had to. We faced a common threat.

    The Cold War had produced an array of bipartisan legislation involving huge investments in America — legislation that was justified by the Soviet threat but in reality had much more to do with the needs of the nation. The National Interstate and Defense Highway Act was designed to “permit quick evacuation of target areas” in case of nuclear attack and get munitions rapidly from city to city. Of course, in subsequent years it proved indispensable to America’s economic growth.

    America’s huge investment in higher education in the late 1950s was spurred by the Soviets’ Sputnik satellite. The official purpose of the National Defense Education Act, as it was named, was to “insure trained manpower of sufficient quality and quantity to meet the national defense needs of the United States.” But it trained an entire generation of math and science teachers, and expanded access to higher education.

    The Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Administration served as America’s de facto incubator for new technologies. It was critical to the creation of the Internet as well as new materials technologies. John F. Kennedy launched the race to the moon in 1962 so that space wouldn’t be “governed by a hostile flag of conquest” (i.e., the Soviet Union). But it did much more than this for America.

    Then, in November 1989, the Berlin Wall came down. And in December 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed.

    Just three years later, Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House -- and instigated the angriest and most divisive chapter in modern American political history. I was there. I remember the change in Washington, as if a storm had swept in. Weeks before, Republican members of Congress occasionally gave me a hard time, but they were generally civil. Suddenly, I was treated as if I were the enemy.

    Looking back, I can’t help wonder if the Cold War had held America together — gave us common purpose, reminded us of our interdependence. With its end, perhaps we had nowhere to turn except on each other. If the Cold War had not ended, I doubt Gingrich would have been able to launch a new internal war inside America. Had the Soviet menace remained, I doubt Donald Trump would have been able to take up Gingrich’s mantle of hate and conspiracy.

    Putin has brought a fractured NATO together. Maybe he’s bringing America back together too. It’s the thinnest of silver linings to the human disaster he’s creating, but perhaps he’ll have the same effect on the U.S. as the old Soviet Union did on America’s sense of who we are. What do you think?


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Office Hours: What's the Democrats' message? Mar 16, 2022
    Show notes

    Welcome to Wednesday, friends.

    Biden’s advisers are saying that the crisis in Ukraine presents a chance for a reset — Biden’s best opportunity to restore his standing before the November midterms.

    But what’s the message for the reset?

    Despite falling coronavirus positivity rates, a bipartisan infrastructure package, and rising employment numbers — and even foreign policy leadership — Biden’s approval ratings remain in the 40s. With inflation soaring and gas prices spiking, the Democrats could soon find themselves in the basement.

    Biden’s advisers point to the State of the Union address — which emphasized pragmatism over bold progressive goals — as a blueprint for his message in coming months. They note that, according to their research, cutting drug costs was among the most popular proposals in the speech. But this is a policy, not a message.

    The problem isn’t just Biden. To Democrats, a “message” consists of policies they’ve enacted or want to enact. Republicans don’t bother with policies. For seventy years they’ve stayed relentlessly “on message” with a narrative about Democrats as socialists and communists who want to take away peoples’ freedoms. More recently they’ve also used thinly-veiled racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, and transphobia to suggest that Democrats are allowing the nation to be taken over by “them.”

    Democrats offer white papers and they talk in paragraphs. Republicans offer fearful stories and talk in bumper stickers.

    Republicans have their own message problems, of course. As long as the former guy retains his grip on the GOP, Democrats have a chance to remind up-for-grabs voters what is at stake this year and beyond.

    So today’s Office Hours question: What should be the Democrats’ message in coming months? (Please give us your thoughts in the comments section below. I’ve got some ideas, and will chime in as well.)


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    How to stop big oil from profiteering off Putin? Mar 15, 2022
    Show notes

    Hello friends, and welcome to Tuesday.

    This morning I filled my car with gas costing over five dollars a gallon. My car is a Mini Cooper that I bought years ago, partly because it wasn’t a gas guzzler. Now it’s guzzling dollars. But when I consider what’s happening in Ukraine, I say what the hell. It’s a small sacrifice.

    Yet guess who’s making no sacrifice at all — in fact, who’s reaping a giant windfall from this crisis?

    As crude oil prices hit levels not seen in more than 13 years, Big Oil has hit a gusher. Even before Putin’s war, oil prices had begun to rise due to the recovery in global demand and tight inventories. Last year, when Americans were already struggling to pay their heating bills and fill up their gas tanks, the biggest oil companies (Shell, Chevron, BP, and Exxon) posted profits totaling $75 billion. This year, courtesy of Vladimir Putin, Big Oil is on the way to a far bigger bonanza.

    How are the oil companies using all this windfall? I can assure you they’re not investing in renewables. They’re not even increasing oil production. As Chevron’s top executive Mike Wirth said in September, “we could afford to invest more” but “the equity market is not sending a signal that says they think we ought to be doing that.” Translated: Wall Street says the way to maximize profits is to limit supply and push up prices instead.

    So they’re buying back their own stock in order to give their stock prices even more of a boost. Last year they spent $38 billion on stock buybacks — their biggest buyback spending spree since 2008. This year, thanks largely to Putin, the oil giants are planning to buy back at least $22 billion more.

    Make no mistake. This is a direct redistribution from consumers who are paying through the nose at the gas pump to Big Oil’s investors and top executives (whose compensation packages are larded with shares of stock and stock options).

    Though it’s seldom discussed in the media, lower-income earners and their families bear the brunt of the burden of higher gas prices. Not only are lower-income people less likely to be able to work from home, they’re also more likely to commute for longer distances between work and home in order to afford less expensive housing.

    Big oil companies could absorb the higher costs of crude oil. The reason they’re not is because they’re so big they don’t have to. They don’t worry about losing market share to competitors. So they’re passing on the higher costs to consumers in the form of higher prices, and pocketing record profits.

    It’s the same old story in this country: when crisis strikes, the poor and working class are on the frontlines while the biggest corporations and their investors and top brass rake it in.

    What to do? Hit Big Oil with a windfall profits tax.

    Days ago, the European Union advised its members to seek a windfall profits tax on oil companies taking advantage of this very grave emergency to raise their prices.

    Democrats just introduced similar legislation here in the United States. The bill —introduced by Senator Sheldon Whitehouse and Representative Ro Khanna — would tax the largest oil companies, which are recording their biggest profits in years, and use the money to provide quarterly checks to Americans facing sticker shock as inflation continues to skyrocket.

    (The bill would require oil companies producing or importing at least 300,000 barrels of oil per day to pay a per-barrel tax equal to half the difference between the current price of a barrel and the average price from the years 2015 to 2019. This is hardly confiscatory. Those were years when energy companies were already recording large profits. Quarterly rebates to consumers would phase out for individuals earning more than $75,000 or couples earning $150,000.)

    Republicans will balk at any tax increase on Big Oil, of course. (They’re even holding up the nomination of Sarah Bloom Raskin to the Fed because she’s had the temerity to speak out about the systemic risks that climate change poses to our economy. ) But a windfall profits tax on Big Oil is exactly what Democrats must do to help average working people through this fuel crisis. It’s good policy, it’s good politics, and it’s the right thing to do.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Helplessness in the face of evil Mar 14, 2022
    Show notes

    It’s like watching a three-hundred-pound bully beat up a kid half his size, for no reason — bloodying the poor kid, pulverizing him. Yet you don’t dare try to stop the mayhem because the bully has a gun that he’ll use on you if you intervene.

    You look for police, but there are none.

    You round up your friends, who join you in shouting at the bully. But he pays no attention. They threaten that if he doesn’t stop they’ll no longer go bowling with him or invite him out for drinks. Their threats have no effect. The bully continues beating up the kid.

    Your friends refuse to take further action. They don’t want to provoke his wrath. They’re as afraid of the bully’s gun as you are.

    By now the kid is desperate. You give him some water. He pleads for a knife. You slip him some brass knuckles.

    The kid puts up a good fight. You marvel at the kid’s courage and stamina in the face of such brutality. Maybe he can hold the bully off for a while, you think.

    But the kid’s resistance infuriates the bully even further. The bully clobbers the kid with everything he has.

    The barbarism is occurring in front of your eyes. It’s revolting to watch. Every moral fiber of your being shouts “do something!” Yet you’re paralyzed. It’s suicide if you intervene, but it’s moral suicide if you don’t.

    You want to believe the kid can force the bully to retreat, but you know the kid doesn’t stand a chance.

    You can no longer bear witness to this slaughter. You have to avert your eyes. Or you have to act. What do you do?


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Putin and Trump have convinced me I was wrong about the twenty-first century Mar 12, 2022
    Show notes

    I used to believe several things about the twenty-first century that Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and Donald Trump’s election in 2016 have shown me are false. I assumed:

    Nationalism is disappearing. I expected globalization would blur borders, create economic interdependence among nations and regions, and extend a modern consumer and artistic culture worldwide.

    I was wrong. Both Putin and Trump have exploited xenophobic nationalism to build their power. (Putin’s aggression has also ignited an inspiring patriotism in Ukraine.)

    Nations can no longer control what their citizens know. I assumed that emerging digital technologies, including the Internet, would make it impossible to control worldwide flows of information and knowledge. Tyrants could no longer keep their people in the dark or hoodwink them with propaganda.

    Wrong again. Trump filled the media with lies, as has Putin. Putin has also cut off Russian citizens from the truth about what’s occurring in Ukraine.

    Advanced nations will no longer war over geographic territory. I thought that in the “new economy” land was becoming less valuable than technological knowhow and innovation. Competition among nations would therefore be over the development of cutting-edge inventions.

    I was only partly right. While skills and innovation are critical, land still provides access to critical raw materials and buffers against potential foreign aggressors.

    Major nuclear powers will never risk war against each other because of the certainty of “mutually assured destruction.”I bought the conventional wisdom that nuclear war was unthinkable.

    I fear I was wrong. Putin is now resorting to dangerous nuclear brinksmanship.

    Civilization will never again be held hostage by crazy isolated men with the power to wreak havoc. I assumed this was a phenomenon of the twentieth century, and that twenty-first century governments, even totalitarian ones, would constrain tyrants.

    Trump and Putin have convinced me I was mistaken. Thankfully, America booted Trump out of office — but his threat to democracy remains.

    Advances in warfare, such as cyber-warfare and precision weapons, will minimize civilian casualties.I was persuaded by specialists in defense strategy that it no longer made sense for sophisticated powers to target civilians.

    Utterly wrong. Civilian casualties in Ukraine are mounting.

    Democracy is inevitable. I formed this belief in the early 1990s when the Soviet Union had imploded and China was still poor. It seemed to me that totalitarian regimes didn’t stand a chance in the new technologically driven, globalized world. Sure, petty dictatorships would remain in some retrograde regions. But modernity came with democracy, and democracy with modernity.

    Both Trump and Putin have shown how wrong I was on this, too.

    Meanwhile, Ukrainians are showing that Trump’s and Putin’s efforts to turn back the clock on the twenty-first century can only be addressed with a democracy powerful enough to counteract autocrats like them.

    They are also displaying with inspiring clarity that democracy cannot be taken for granted. Democracy is not a spectator sport. It’s not what governments do. Democracy is what people do.

    Ukrainians are reminding us that democracy survives only if people are willing to sacrifice for it. Some sacrifices are smaller than others. You may have to stand in line for hours to vote, as did tens of thousands of Black people in America’s 2020 election. You may have to march and protest and even risk your life so others may vote, as did iconic civil rights leaders like the late John Lewis and Martin Luther King, Jr.

    You may have to knock on hundreds of doors to get out the vote. Or organize thousands to make your voices heard. And stand up against the powerful who don’t want your voices heard.

    You may have to fight a war to protect democracy from those who would destroy it.

    The people of Ukraine are also reminding us that democracy is the single most important legacy we have inherited from previous generations who strengthened it and who risked their lives to preserve it. It will be the most significant legacy we leave to future generations — unless we allow it to be suppressed by those who fear it, or we become too complacent to care.

    Putin and Trump have convinced me I was wrong about how far we had come in the twenty-first century. Technology, globalization, and modern systems of governance haven’t altered the ways of tyranny. But I, like millions of others around the world, have been inspired by the Ukrainian people — who are reteaching us lessons we once knew.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    The best thing for American children that nobody's talking about Mar 10, 2022
    Show notes

    Among the most heartrending casualties in Ukraine are the children. So far, a million of them have fled the nation. Many are on their own, without parents or relatives to protect them. The 6 million who remain in Ukraine are in grave danger of being maimed or killed. Yesterday Ukraine accused Russia of bombing a children’s hospital.

    Of all the victims of war, children are the most innocent. If they survive, their physical and psychological injuries may last a lifetime.

    Children are also the most innocent casualties of poverty.

    I’ve been so fixated on Ukraine lately that I haven’t shared with you something important we’ve just learned about how to dramatically reduce child poverty here in the United States.

    From July 15, 2021 to December 15, 2021, the United States conducted a remarkable experiment. It was called the expanded Child Tax Credit. It featured direct monthly payments to families of up to $300 per child under 6 and $250 per month for children between 6 and 17 – phasing out for families earning more than $112,000 a year.

    We didn’t think of it as an experiment. It was simply part of the American Rescue Plan designed to help Americans survive the pandemic. It turned out to be a real-world experiment because we now know what happened before, during, and after it. This has given us an astonishingly precise understanding of its effects.

    Before the experiment, America’s child poverty rate was among the highest of all advanced nations. Nearly 16 percent of our children under 5 were impoverished.

    During the experiment, child poverty in America dropped by roughly a third, down to 12 percent. The number of households with kids reporting not having enough to eat also fell by about a third.

    After the experiment, the rate of child poverty rose again, from 12 percent to 17 percent. More than a third of families with children in the U.S. now say they are struggling to cover ordinary costs (food, utilities, housing).

    Naysayers predicted the payments would cause people not to work. That didn’t happen. In fact, researchers found that during these five months self-employment among lower-income families actually increased.

    Other naysayers said the cost of the program would be prohibitive. Not so. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that permanently expanding the Child Tax Credit would cost $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. That’s less than what America’s rich and big corporations will save over the next ten years from the Trump Republican tax cut, which went into effect in 2018. Repeal it, and there’s plenty of money to pay for our children.

    Besides, the future cost to America of not reducing child poverty is astronomical, considering everything from social services to lost productivity.

    So why did the experiment end? Because the votes of 60 senators were needed to extend it (the filibuster requires sixty votes even to get to an actual vote), and 50 Republican senators and two Democratic senators didn’t want to.

    At this moment, millions of Ukrainian children are hungry or homeless. Tragically, there is very little we can do for them. At this moment, millions of American children are hungry or homeless. But we can alleviate their suffering. We now know how, because between July 15, 2021 and December 15, 2021 we conducted an experiment that worked. If we were a sane and decent society we would turn that experiment into the law of the land. We still can. Will we?


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Office Hours: War fever Mar 09, 2022
    Show notes

    I’m becoming increasingly worried that a growing segment of the American public is pushing for a war with Russia. Needless to say, that would be suicidal.

    This morning I saw an open open letter to the Biden administration signed by a group of 27 foreign policy heavyweights, calling for a limited no-fly zone over Ukraine — “starting with protection for humanitarian corridors that were agreed upon in talks between Russian and Ukrainian officials.” The proposal sounds reasonable until you think about how this “limited” no-fly zone would be enforced. NATO would have to engage Russian forces that violate it. That would mean war.

    There’s also the question of whether Poland will donate to Ukraine Russian-made MiG-29 fighter jets, which Ukraine pilots know how to fly, in return for America supplying fighter jets to Poland. This also brings NATO frighteningly close to war with Russia.

    So today’s Office Hours question: Should we worry that America and the West are heading toward a war with Russia? If so, how do we avoid it?

    ***

    Having read through your comments, I want to thank you for your thoughtfulness. I'm as spooked by this as any of you, having spent the first ten years of my life worrying that the Soviet Union would drop a bomb on America at any moment. I even remember urging my father to build a bomb shelter (to which his wise response was "not unless you, Bobby, are willing to kill neighbors who will want to crowd into it").

    American foreign policy is dominated by two metaphoric enemies -- either Hitler (whom appeasement only encouraged) and Ho Chi Min (whose nationalism had nothing to do with Soviet expansionism). Putin seems to exist more in the former camp, which means we need to do everything possible to make his invasion of Ukraine as painful as possible for him. But there's also an element of ethnic nationalism to his aggression, which suggests he might be willing to settle for Russian-dominated parts of Ukraine and not threaten NATO.

    I'm no expert in foreign policy, but I do think it important for us to be clear-eyed about all this and succumb neither to war-mongering jingoism that could lead to nuclear annihilation (as exemplified by today's letter from foreign-policy heavyweights calling for a "limited" no-fly zone) nor to a naive isolationism. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said today that the U.S. wants to get fighter jets to Ukraine “in the right way,” which leaves open the door to helping Poland supply them to Ukraine. Is this a slippery slope? At what point does the U.S. become a combatant?

    Like many of you, I trust Biden and his foreign policy advisers. I think they've done an excellent job so far. And I'm thankful that the former guy is far from the Oval Office. But I'm still deeply worried.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Five ways Putin's war could (possibly) make America better Mar 08, 2022
    Show notes

    Nothing good comes from war except, on occasion, the prevention of something even worse. As pressure increases on the Biden Administration to take more aggressive action against Putin, the question is how to minimize the collateral damage to Americans and use the crisis to move toward a more humane future. Here are five possible ways.

    1. Help Americans endure higher fuel prices. The best way to stop Putin’s war machine would be to put economic sanctions on anyone buying Russian oil or gas, because oil and gas revenue makes up about half of the Kremlin’s budget. But such sanctions would also drive the prices of oil and natural gas through the roof. (Biden’s decision today to stop imports of Russian oil to the U.S. will have far less consequence because only a tiny fraction of the oil we use comes from Russia.)

    Gas prices in America are already topping four dollars a gallon (here in California, five dollars). That’s less of a problem for higher-wage workers who can work from home, but it’s a huge burden on lower-wage workers who have to make longer and longer commutes.

    What to do? Help Americans caught in the energy squeeze. Revive the refundable expanded Child Tax Credit, which enabled millions of poor and working-class families to survive the COVID recession.

    2. Move the nation toward green energy. Oil companies are pocketing windfall profits while their lobbyists are using the crisis to demand that the U.S. build new Liquid Natural Gas terminals, allow more oil pipelines, and approve new leasing of federal lands for oil drilling. That’s the exact opposite of what we need to do.

    However we invest in new energy infrastructure, none of it will have an immediate impact on energy prices. The practical longer-term choice is between an energy infrastructure that supports the production of more fossil fuels (such as the additional LNG terminals, pipelines, and oil leases that energy lobbyists are now pushing) or one that moves the nation more quickly to renewable energy sources (such as subsidies for electric cars, batteries, and charging stations).

    Now is the time to redouble our efforts toward the latter. We need to use this opportunity to build more of the green infrastructure America needs for the long term.

    Meanwhile, there’s no reason American oil producers should enjoy windfall profits from rising energy prices. Congress should enact a windfall profits tax on them, and use the proceeds for additional green infrastructure. (The European Union is urging member countries to do exactly this. Why can’t we?)

    3. Trim the military-industrial complex. Though the U.S. and other Western allies have stopped short of sending troops to Ukraine, they are sending weapons. Even Sweden, a non-NATO member, has announced it will send anti-tank weapons, helmets and body armor to Ukraine. Finland has pledged assault rifles and anti-tank weapons. In America, budget analysts expect defense spending in the 2023 federal budget to rise to between 3.5 percent and 4 percent of GDP.

    All this military spending comes at the expense of domestic priorities in the United States and abroad. It also increases the likelihood of armed conflict. The big winners: U.S. aerospace and defense contractors that are making many of these weapons systems and whose share prices are surging.

    America’s defense budget is already bloated — bigger than the next ten defense budgets put together. There’s no reason for more defense spending. If anything, we should use the current crisis to reexamine defense spending and make our armed forces more efficient — using the savings to finance more humanitarian aid around the world.

    4. Put democracy and human rights at the center of American foreign policy. In one way, Putin’s war is elevating democracy and human rights in U.S. foreign policy. That’s why Biden has unified and mobilized much of the rest of the free world. But in pursuit of oil sources to replace Russian oil, America seems to be recalibrating its emphasis on human rights. That would be a tragic mistake.

    This past weekend Biden officials met in Venezuela with the government of President Nicolás Maduro. Why? Because Venezuela’s petroleum exports are seen as a potential substitute for Russian oil. But Maduro’s government has been responsible for extrajudicial executions and short-term forced disappearances. It has jailed opponents, prosecuted civilians in military courts, tortured detainees, and cracked down on protesters. Judicial authorities have participated or been complicit in the abuses. Maduro used a state of emergency implemented in response to Covid-19 as a pretext to intensify his control over the population.

    Last year, a United Nations fact-finding mission concluded that the Maduro regime has committed crimes against humanity. The exodus of Venezuelans fleeing repression and the humanitarian emergency represents the largest migration crisis in recent Latin American history.

    Biden’s advisers are also discussing a possible visit to Saudi Arabia to help repair relations and convince the Kingdom to pump more oil. Saudi Arabia is also among the world’s worst abusers of human rights. According to the CIA, Saudi Arabia’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was directly involved in the murder and dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi.

    Abandoning democracy and human rights around the rest of the world is no way to protect democracy and human rights in Ukraine.

    5. Protect and expand voting rights in America. The same goes for the United States itself. Let’s use this crisis to reaffirm our commitment to voting rights.

    Last weekend, Vice President Kamala Harris visited Selma, Alabama. Standing by the iconic Edmund Pettus Bridge that was the site of a violent clash between civil rights leaders and segregationist police in 1965, she drew a parallel between the Americans who marched for their rights and the Ukrainians fighting for their nation’s survival against an invading Russian military.

    “Today, the eyes of the world are on Ukraine and the brave people who are fighting to protect their country and their democracy. And their bravery is a reminder that freedom and democracy can never be taken for granted by any of us.”

    The fight in Ukraine should galvanize America to protect voting rights. Whether it’s a Black activist being beaten by a police officer or a mother marching across a muddy field fleeing violence, the brutality is the same.

    Months after the original Selma march, Congress passed the Voting Rights Act. In 2013, the Supreme Court gutted the Act — arguing that protections for Black voters were no longer needed in states with deep histories of discrimination. In the years since, states have moved methodically to make access to ballots more difficult. That effort has accelerated since the 2020 election, in light of Trump’s big lie.

    The Senate is now sitting on two measures that would reverse these state efforts and make it easier for all Americans to vote — the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act. But fifty Republican senators and two Democratic senators (Krysten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia) stand in the way.

    Putin’s war against Ukraine’s democracy should remind all of us of how fundamental the struggle for democracy is to America’s own purpose and ideals, and enact these two measures necessary to protect voting rights in America.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    What's the difference between Russian and American oligarchs? Mar 07, 2022
    Show notes

    We’re sanctioning Russian oligarchs up the wazoo, hoping it’s a way to get Putin to stop his deadly attack on Ukraine. But for this tactic to work (1) the U.S. and our allies must be able to locate and tie up Russian oligarchic wealth, and (2) Russian oligarchs must have enough power to stop Putin. Let’s take them one at a time:

    Can we locate and tie up the wealth of Russian oligarchs?

    Anecdotally, sanctions on the oligarchs appear to be working. Last Sunday, billionaire industrialist Oleg Deripaska (on the U.S. sanctions list) and banker Mikhail Fridman (on the EU’s) both publicly urged an end to Putin’s war. Billionaire businessman Roman Abramovich has put his British soccer club up for sale and vowed to donate the proceeds to “all victims of the war in Ukraine.” Banker and entrepreneur Oleg Tinkov told his 634,000 Instagram followers last week that “innocent people are dying in Ukraine now, every day, this is unthinkable and unacceptable.”

    But are these sanctions really biting? This is where a comparison of Russian oligarchs with American oligarchs comes in.

    While Russian oligarchs (Russia’s richest 0.01 percent) have hidden an estimated $200 billion offshore (over half of their financial wealth), American oligarchs — America’s 765 billionaires — have hidden $1.2 trillion (about 4 percent of their wealth), mostly to avoid paying taxes on it.

    While American oligarchs park their income and wealth in tax havens such as the Cayman Islands, Russian oligarchs have hidden their most valuable assets in the United States and Europe. The reason they do so is telling: Western democracies follow the rule of law. Under such laws, before a government can seize property it must follow lengthy and elaborate legal processes. As a result, American and European governments are finding their hands tied in actually taking control of the assets of Russian oligarchs.

    American law makes it difficult even to discover what Russian oligarchs own in the United States because they’ve hidden their assets behind complex trusts and shell corporations. American laws governing taxes, corporations, transportation, and banking are wonderfully convenient for the world’s oligarchs. One out of every six aircraft in the United States, for example, is registered through trusts, Delaware corporations, and even post office box addresses, making it almost impossible to discover their true owners.

    This isn’t an argument against sanctioning Russian oligarchs. It’s just that we need to be clear-eyed about how difficult it is to do so.

    [Russian oligarch Roman Abramovich’s yacht:

    [American billionaire Rick Caruso’s yacht:

    Do Russia’s oligarchs have enough political clout in Russia to stop Putin’s aggression, or perhaps even depose him?

    American oligarchs have enormous political clout. In the 2012 presidential election (the most recent for which we have detailed data on individual contributions), the richest 0.01 percent of Americans (that is, the richest 1 percent of the richest 1 percent) accounted for 40 percent of all campaign contributions. (See the graph below.)

    What have American oligarchs got out of these campaign contributions? The lowest tax rates on the highest incomes in over a generation — and the lowest among all wealthy nations. They’ve also gotten an IRS so starved of resources it’s barely able to enforce the law.

    Russian oligarchs who have pledged loyalty to Putin arguably have less political power in Russia than do American oligarchs in the U.S. In Putin’s Russia, power is exercised by a narrow circle of officials and generals appointed by Putin, whom he has drawn largely from the former KGB. According to several Russian specialists I’ve spoken with over the last few days, this circle has become very small in recent months, now numbering perhaps a half dozen.

    We should use whatever means at our disposal to make Vladimir Putin end the brutal war he started. But it is proving difficult to use sanctions on specific oligarchs to get Putin to stop. Perhaps we should be more ambitious. My Berkeley colleague Gabriel Zucman recommends that the United States and the European Union freeze all offshore holdings of Russian nationals in excess of $10 million. This would affect about 10,000 to 20,000 Russians who have benefitted the most from Putin’s rule.

    Meanwhile, blanket sanctions against the Russian economy are having an effect. Over the past week they have caused the ruble to collapse and decimated Russian markets. But the major burden has fallen on ordinary Russians, many of whom have already suffered from Putin’s brutal regime.

    As we’ve seen in North Korea and Iran, dictatorships don’t depend on popular approval. In fact, widespread hardship can lead to even more repression and violence. We should remind ourselves that Putin is not synonymous with the Russian people. Xenophobia of whatever form has no place in the fight against vicious authoritarianism.

    PS: Here’s a video that I and my terrific colleagues at Inequality Media did on the meaning and functioning of oligarchy in both the U.S. and Russia.


    This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robertreich.substack.com/subscribe

    Previous 1 38 39 40 41 42 48 Next

    Related Podcasts

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters

    1

    Inside Strategic Coach: Connecting Entrepreneurs With What Really Matters Business
    WSJ Your Money Briefing

    2

    WSJ Your Money Briefing Business
    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task

    3

    FORTUNE Unfiltered with Aaron Task Business
    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women

    4

    FORTUNE OnStage Presents: The Most Powerful Women Business
    Slate Money

    5

    Slate Money Business
    In The Dark – The New Yorker

    6

    In The Dark – The New Yorker Business News
    footer-logo

    Contact Us

    Toll Free: 844-670-7747

    Links

    • Home
    • Top Charts
    • Networks
    • Apps
    • Independents Podcasts
    • Podcast Advertising
    • Podcast News
    • Contact Us
    • About Us
    • Analytics & Insights

    Stay Connected

      Privacy, Terms of Use & Our Code of Ethics Protecting Content Creators Copyrights