
Episode 213
How Washington Works in the New Gilded Age | David Wessel

Episode 213
David Wessel
How Washington Works in the New Gilded Age | David Wessel
summary
In Episode 213 of Hidden Forces, Demetri Kofinas speaks with David Wessel, a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy. David is also the author of a new book titled, “Only the Rich Can Play: How Washington Works in the New Gilded Age.”
In the book, Wessel tells the story of the creation of a lucrative tax break in which wealthy elites attend to one another, under the guise of social justice and redistribution. This tax break, known as “Opportunity Zones,” was sold as a way to incentivizing people to invest in distressed, low-income communities, with the official purpose of spurring economic growth and job creation, but which in practice, seems to have served primarily as yet another tax loophole in an already convoluted tax code full of them.
The first part of today’s conversation is spent discussing the Opportunity Zone provision itself, the story of its creation and implementation into law, and what this tells us about how financial and political power is wielded in Washington. The second part includes a discussion about political corruption, corporate concentration, the current infrastructure bill and its associated tax provisions, as well as the upcoming elections and Trump’s chances in 2024.
You can access the second part of this episode, as well as the transcript and rundown to this week’s conversation through the Hidden Forces Supercast Page. All subscribers gain access to our premium feed, which can be easily added to your favorite podcast application.
If you enjoyed listening to today’s episode of Hidden Forces you can help support the show by doing the following:
Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | SoundCloud | YouTube | CastBox | RSS Feed
Write us a review on Apple Podcasts
Subscribe to our mailing list through the Hidden Forces Website
Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas
Editor & Engineer: Stylianos Nicolaou
Subscribe & Support the Podcast at https://hiddenforces.supercast.com
Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod
Follow Demetri on Twitter at @Kofinas
Episode Recorded on 09/29/2021
bio
David Wessel is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at Brookings and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, the mission of which is to improve the quality of fiscal and monetary policies and public understanding of them. He joined Brookings in December 2013 after 30 years on the staff of The Wall Street Journal where, most recently, he was economics editor and wrote the weekly Capital column. He is the author of two New York Times best-sellers: “In Fed We Trust: Ben Bernanke’s War on the Great Panic” (2009) and “Red Ink: Inside the High Stakes Politics of the Federal Budget” (2012.) He has shared two Pulitzer Prizes, one in 1984 for a Boston Globe series on the persistence of racism in Boston and the other in 2003 for Wall Street Journal stories on corporate scandals. David has served as a member of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Data Users Advisory Committee. He also has taught in the Dartmouth Tuck School of Business Global 2030 executive education program and in the journalism program at Princeton University. A native of New Haven, Conn., and a product of its public schools, David is a 1975 graduate of Haverford College. He was a Knight-Bagehot Fellow in Business and Economics Journalism at Columbia University in 1980-81.
transcript
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Quo modo autem optimum, si bonum praeterea nullum est? Aliter enim nosmet ipsos nosse non possumus. His singulis copiose responderi solet, sed quae perspicua sunt longa esse non debent. Ut alios omittam, hunc appello, quem ille unum secutus est. Nam illud vehementer repugnat, eundem beatum esse et multis malis oppressum. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Sed residamus, inquit, si placet. Quae est igitur causa istarum angustiarum?
Sed nunc, quod agimus; Vitae autem degendae ratio maxime quidem illis placuit quieta. -delector enim, quamquam te non possum, ut ais, corrumpere, delector, inquam, et familia vestra et nomine. Quae quidem vel cum periculo est quaerenda vobis; Inde sermone vario sex illa a Dipylo stadia confecimus. Suo genere perveniant ad extremum;
Refert tamen, quo modo. Solum praeterea formosum, solum liberum, solum civem, stultost; Quantum Aristoxeni ingenium consumptum videmus in musicis? Atque his de rebus et splendida est eorum et illustris oratio. At cum de plurimis eadem dicit, tum certe de maximis. Dicet pro me ipsa virtus nec dubitabit isti vestro beato M. At, illa, ut vobis placet, partem quandam tuetur, reliquam deserit. Ergo id est convenienter naturae vivere, a natura discedere.
Dolor ergo, id est summum malum, metuetur semper, etiamsi non aderit; Satis est tibi in te, satis in legibus, satis in mediocribus amicitiis praesidii. Quid, si etiam iucunda memoria est praeteritorum malorum? Nam Metrodorum non puto ipsum professum, sed, cum appellaretur ab Epicuro, repudiare tantum beneficium noluisse; Hic ambiguo ludimur. Dic in quovis conventu te omnia facere, ne doleas. Philosophi autem in suis lectulis plerumque moriuntur. Quid ad utilitatem tantae pecuniae? Conclusum est enim contra Cyrenaicos satis acute, nihil ad Epicurum.
Full Episode
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Sextilio Rufo, cum is rem ad amicos ita deferret, se esse heredem Q. Duo Reges: constructio interrete. Non est ista, inquam, Piso, magna dissensio. Quae diligentissime contra Aristonem dicuntur a Chryippo. Ergo ita: non posse honeste vivi, nisi honeste vivatur? Id enim natura desiderat. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias; Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus;
Idcirco enim non desideraret, quia, quod dolore caret, id in voluptate est. Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis? Quis non odit sordidos, vanos, leves, futtiles? Quod non faceret, si in voluptate summum bonum poneret. Tum mihi Piso: Quid ergo? Quamquam te quidem video minime esse deterritum. Iam id ipsum absurdum, maximum malum neglegi. Polycratem Samium felicem appellabant. Confecta res esset. Sin tantum modo ad indicia veteris memoriae cognoscenda, curiosorum.
Cum id fugiunt, re eadem defendunt, quae Peripatetici, verba. Nihil minus, contraque illa hereditate dives ob eamque rem laetus. Claudii libidini, qui tum erat summo ne imperio, dederetur. An est aliquid per se ipsum flagitiosum, etiamsi nulla comitetur infamia?
Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Non est enim vitium in oratione solum, sed etiam in moribus. Verum hoc idem saepe faciamus. Multoque hoc melius nos veriusque quam Stoici. Quis istud possit, inquit, negare?
intelligence report
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Tum, Quintus et Pomponius cum idem se velle dixissent, Piso exorsus est. Oratio me istius philosophi non offendit; Duo Reges: constructio interrete. At ille non pertimuit saneque fidenter: Istis quidem ipsis verbis, inquit; Apparet statim, quae sint officia, quae actiones. Conferam tecum, quam cuique verso rem subicias;
Ab hoc autem quaedam non melius quam veteres, quaedam omnino relicta. Primum in nostrane potestate est, quid meminerimus? Dempta enim aeternitate nihilo beatior Iuppiter quam Epicurus; Primum cur ista res digna odio est, nisi quod est turpis? Nam si amitti vita beata potest, beata esse non potest. Et non ex maxima parte de tota iudicabis? Hoc est non modo cor non habere, sed ne palatum quidem. Virtutis, magnitudinis animi, patientiae, fortitudinis fomentis dolor mitigari solet. Cur igitur easdem res, inquam, Peripateticis dicentibus verbum nullum est, quod non intellegatur? Quid turpius quam sapientis vitam ex insipientium sermone pendere? Cur, nisi quod turpis oratio est?
Beatum, inquit. Nihil ad rem! Ne sit sane; Quamvis enim depravatae non sint, pravae tamen esse possunt. Atqui reperies, inquit, in hoc quidem pertinacem; Traditur, inquit, ab Epicuro ratio neglegendi doloris. Id enim volumus, id contendimus, ut officii fructus sit ipsum officium. Qui enim existimabit posse se miserum esse beatus non erit. Pugnant Stoici cum Peripateticis.
Tu autem, si tibi illa probabantur, cur non propriis verbis ea tenebas? Quod quidem iam fit etiam in Academia. Equidem e Cn. An vero, inquit, quisquam potest probare, quod perceptfum, quod. Si est nihil nisi corpus, summa erunt illa: valitudo, vacuitas doloris, pulchritudo, cetera. Hoc ipsum elegantius poni meliusque potuit. Ille vero, si insipiens-quo certe, quoniam tyrannus -, numquam beatus; Quid, si non sensus modo ei sit datus, verum etiam animus hominis? Quae cum essent dicta, finem fecimus et ambulandi et disputandi.
related episodes
Episode 160
Tom Burgis
Rise of a New Kleptocracy: How Dirty Money is Conquering the World | Tom Burgis
Episode 72
Senator Bob Kerrey
9/11 Terror Attacks & the Saudi Government Connection | Sen. Bob Kerrey
Video
content locked
or Subscribe to Access Premium Content
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam et a te perfici istam disputationem volo, nec tua mihi oratio longa videri potest. Sequitur disserendi ratio cognitioque naturae; Vos autem cum perspicuis dubia debeatis illustrare, dubiis perspicua conamini tollere. Quid igitur dubitamus in tota eius natura quaerere quid sit effectum? Duo Reges: constructio interrete.
Duarum enim vitarum nobis erunt instituta capienda. Nam aliquando posse recte fieri dicunt nulla expectata nec quaesita voluptate.
Quae cum essent dicta, discessimus. Quid censes in Latino fore? Nemo nostrum istius generis asotos iucunde putat vivere. Potius inflammat, ut coercendi magis quam dedocendi esse videantur. At iam decimum annum in spelunca iacet. Sin kakan malitiam dixisses, ad aliud nos unum certum vitium consuetudo Latina traduceret. Neque enim civitas in seditione beata esse potest nec in discordia dominorum domus;
Comprehensum, quod cognitum non habet? Quid ergo aliud intellegetur nisi uti ne quae pars naturae neglegatur? Est, ut dicis, inquit; Quae fere omnia appellantur uno ingenii nomine, easque virtutes qui habent, ingeniosi vocantur. An est aliquid, quod te sua sponte delectet? Color egregius, integra valitudo, summa gratia, vita denique conferta voluptatum omnium varietate. Ut optime, secundum naturam affectum esse possit. Quod, inquit, quamquam voluptatibus quibusdam est saepe iucundius, tamen expetitur propter voluptatem.