Tom Steyer on Generational Theft and Economic Justice

Published on
February 17th, 2021
Duration
41 minutes


Tom Steyer on Generational Theft and Economic Justice

The Interview ·
Featuring Tom Steyer and Ed Harrison

Published on: February 17th, 2021 • Duration: 41 minutes

Tom Steyer, founder of NextGen America, argues that the low rate of political participation in America from younger generations is a result of older generations profiting from the system to the detriment of younger generations. In this interview with Real Vision managing editor Ed Harrison, Steyer touches on how the pandemic has exacerbated and exposed these issues and why he cannot separate these economic issues from social issues or climate change. In addition to tackling this intergenerational rift, Steyer is also keenly focused on the lack of opportunity in the banking system, which led him to starting the Beneficial State Bank. He also lends his take on regulation vs. antitrust of monopoly businesses and why he views deficit spending as an investment in America’s future rather than a sunk cost. Filmed on February 11, 2021.

Key Learnings: The current political and economic systems are broken for younger generations—they have been put at a disadvantage as older generations have been able to reap the benefits offered by the current regime at the expense of those who are younger. As long as these inter-generational tensions persist, they will continue to boil over into markets and create potentially destabilizing effects like with GameStop if left unaddressed.

Comments

Transcript

  • RQ
    Robot Q.
    24 February 2021 @ 22:25
    Moronic shallow virtue signalling nonsense, which actually sets back the cause of Gen-Z.
  • JS
    Juraj S.
    23 February 2021 @ 00:34
    NPC talking points from a billionaire, not an original thinker. You'd be better off interviewing a masked antifa activist, at least they'd have experiences that are interesting and relevant to the demographic that's getting screwed. This dude is like an AI script trained on mass media output.
  • CM
    Conal M.
    22 February 2021 @ 22:39
    I feel like Steyer is just another elitist who thinks he is some kind of hero, who doesn't even know he is getting played like a fiddle. He is just another tool the "Cathedral" uses to divide and conquer. People like him makes me want to buy more crypto.
    • GA
      Greg A.
      22 February 2021 @ 22:46
      That was my thinking exactly. It was so sickening I couldn't finish listening to it
  • SV
    Sam V.
    22 February 2021 @ 05:24
    Looking through some of the comments on here I'm surprised by some of the closed-minded objections to having Tom Steyer on the platform. Whether you agree with his politics or not, as an investor I want to be informed about a multi-factor model that feeds into our economies and Policy is definitely part of the broader chess board to take into account. Keep them coming in addition to the other content RV and, if people really insist on remaining tone deaf, just don't watch it. God knows there's plenty of other content on the platform!
  • MW
    Mark W.
    22 February 2021 @ 03:54
    This was enlightening as how out of touch with reality this guy is.
  • RD
    Richard D.
    21 February 2021 @ 18:01
    I just heard Steyer blame the exodus from Syria was due to Climate Change! Nothing to do with a years long civil war! Yet Ed did NOT question him about his claim? Very disappointing Ed. You let this person make claim after unsubstantiated claim all based on the CERTAINTY that the world as we know it is coming to an end due to Climate Change. Perhaps Ed does not know that there are MANY highly knowledgeable people who dispute the so called Science? I don't know who is right, but at least bring forth the fact that not EVERYONE believes Steyer's view of the future.
  • YB
    Yair B.
    21 February 2021 @ 00:19
    I am appalled by the amount of dislikes this video gets. The messages here were pro America, pro a capitalistic economy, and pro human rights. How can anyone, from any side of the political and social divide can vote against that is concerning to me. It shows that even the enlightened "capitalist right" can not listen to the voice of reason if it is expressed by someone with a slightly different view than them. It is the exact thing cancel culture is promoting and 117 of you fell in this trap.
    • GH
      Glen H.
      21 February 2021 @ 17:36
      I have nothing against what Tom Steyer is saying.... he does a great job outlining the problems. It’s the hypocrisy of politicians and super wealth ex hedge fund managers talking like politicians that makes me cringe. These people cannot admit that their own decisions, policies and lives have greatly contributed to the problems.
  • RD
    Richard D.
    21 February 2021 @ 08:26
    Another "Born Again" billionaire. At least Rockefeller and Carnegie funded thousands of Libraries across the country. Those have benefited people all over the country for over 100 years. Not only that but they created their wealth by creating the oil and steel businesses. Perhaps Hedge Fund Steyer's money, which he has spent copiously on political spending would be better off paying off some student loans himself. It probably effect far greater change than his political spending.
  • GH
    Glen H.
    21 February 2021 @ 01:34
    A few thoughts... The biggest cause of bifurcation in the US is the Fed and Congress. Printing money and QE drives asset prices up so the rich get richer. Most of the stimulus didn’t end up with who needed it. It ended up in the market and pork projects. Fault Congress again. Finally, if you really want to help people, then invest in their education, health and what creates jobs. Giving handouts produces people who rely on the government. Fault Congress again. Save me the political narrative. Do your job and stop buying votes AND making rich people richer. One last thing, you kill the goose laying the eggs and we’re all done
  • BD
    Brent D.
    20 February 2021 @ 21:05
    The only reason this was not a waste of 20 minutes and 30 seconds (X2 speed) is now I know the codewords to be used to hide the democratic political agenda. I agree with the lofty headline goals (equality of opportunity) but not the political methods and financial mechanics (taxation) that will be attempted to reach (equality of outcome) them.
  • TT
    Tokyo T.
    20 February 2021 @ 11:20
    When I hear these American political talks on RV, I got straight to my Bitcoin account and buy more.
  • DK
    Daniel K.
    20 February 2021 @ 00:47
    Please do not lend your credibility to these kinds of people.
  • KM
    Kelly M.
    20 February 2021 @ 00:28
    This is purely a political commercial. Not what I am paying for at all RV.
  • LA
    Linda A.
    19 February 2021 @ 04:15
    I enjoyed the interview. I like TS. Most wealthy people will not do what TS does- focus on some of the hard issues with his own time and money. Thank u!
  • JP
    John P.
    18 February 2021 @ 03:44
    Hey look, a video on a big topic of generational theft I like to discuss as a millennial .................and it's another defense of the institutions that created the problem and proposal to expand the very institutions that created the problem. No problem with the way the interview was conducted or Tom Steyer who perhaps is probably trying his best to help, but the reality is he's practicing to be a politician and this looked a lot more like that than an in depth analysis. Steyer's discussion of education inequality though is really where the irony comes out. One of the biggest reasons why millennials have complaints are massive amounts of student loan debt and completely useless degrees. Steyer literally made most of his money investing on behalf of university endowment funds. He was instrumental in getting most universities to start allocating to hedge funds. So, when the federal government writes a blank check loan to colleges charging an arm and a leg, it allows those same colleges to not divert their endowment funds to funding education or focus on student outcomes, but instead maintain their position as a fund of funds with a classroom attached (see Princeton at $3.3 million per student). This arrangement leaves universities rich, Steyer rich, and the federal government or students footing the bill. Could those endowment funds instead be used for tuition loans or scholarships? Sure, but then one might have to address which majors aren't actually worth studying. "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." BTW yes the funds Steyer managed were invested in coal and private prisons.
    • AB
      Alastair B.
      18 February 2021 @ 09:44
      But those millennials signed up for the useless degrees, and agreed to the loans. Community college courses are available if you cannot afford higher education, or vocational training schemes or apprenticeships in the UK that are often far cheaper and result in work. Being a certified plumber is far better than being a Barista with 200k in student debt and a degree in Gender Studies. The issue is how little goes into preparing young people to make these decisions, not whether there is ‘generational injustice’ at play.
    • RD
      Rick D.
      18 February 2021 @ 15:46
      You have a point Alastair, and I think your last paragraph gets to the heart of it. Hoever, I don't think it's fair to say "millennials signed up for the useless degrees, and agreed to the loans." That type of Americanized radical personal responsibility has no place when taking about someone still in their teens. (as we all were when making decisions regarding college) I'm a parent of millennials, and it's shocking to see how many of their friends' parents told their kids that their best bet of a good future and a happy life is to get in to the best (most expensive) school and to get a degree in whatever they're interested in, but maybe something useful too. Additionally, parents typically need to co-sign the loans, meaning even the system requires an "actual adult" to sign on the line. It's the parents who have failed here. You can hardly blame a teenager for listening to their *parents* when it comes to what is best for their future. Especially with a decision so large and different from their current life experiences that they are ill prepared to make any informed decision. If you think you knew more about the workforce, job placement, debt repayment, and the time value of money at age 18 than your parents in their 40s or whatever, then kudos to you. I guarantee that is not the case for the vast majority. I agree that they are not prepared well, and there needs to be better teaching for both parents and children. My (much younger) brother went to state school for $15k/year. His wife went to a prestigious private school for $100k/year. They both work in similar jobs making similar salaries. My uncle is an electrician with his own business and makes more than either of them. Needless to say, I did not encourage my kids to go to college, haha.
    • JP
      John P.
      19 February 2021 @ 00:38
      Yes Rick and Alastair I agree. But I also place some of the responsibility on the institutions. Including thhe state schools for admitting tons of students that have no reason to be in higher education. It's not simply a failure of the individual or parents but a failure of the system. This is important to acknowledge because the same people who ran the system into failure are now requesting additional funding that won't even address the problems. In many ways professors have a skewed view of the world. They have capstone courses in departments designed to transfer students into a career, but it's always about presenting the most rosy picture. (e.g. Not every psych major becomes a six figure high end therapist. ) Sometimes I feel like the problem is more insidious. A "useless degree" is not entirely useless. Many of them could serve some sort of additionally bureaucratic function in an increasingly leftist vision of government. Indeed, many gender studies degrees teach a kind douplespeak and dogmatism that is exceedingly useful for maintaining power via Kafkaesque bureaucracy and regulation in a totalitarian state. They would make great Stazi. Perhaps university professors are unconsciously teaching students to be a part of their vision of the workforce rather than the actual workforce. Perhaps liberals are bankrupting a generation in attempt to make them more dependent on the state, as serfs. Whether intentional or not, it certainly has the appearance.
  • ZM
    Zac M.
    18 February 2021 @ 22:37
    I think this is the fourth political video I've seen on RV. It won't be long until Jeremy Corbyn, AOC and Greta are "interviewed".
  • GA
    Gerald A.
    18 February 2021 @ 22:11
    If a politician is interviewed by Real Vision, their views should be challenged or cross-examined. It shouldn't be a political commercial or informercial, which this was. They should be allowed to get away with the nonsense they spew on Fox, or CNN, or MSNBC. It can be done. A generation ago, Firing LIne (with William Buckley) was able to probe the ideas of political economy fairly and in depth by asking challenging questions. That is the model for doing this type of interview correctly.
    • GA
      Gerald A.
      18 February 2021 @ 22:15
      Oops... They should NOT be allowed to...
  • MT
    Mark T.
    18 February 2021 @ 22:12
    Without even scrolling down, I could predict the types of comments some people would leave below based on the guest. Then I scrolled down and turns out I was correct.
  • EG
    Ed G.
    18 February 2021 @ 03:47
    Political conversation has no place on RV in my opinion. Just look at the result below. Limo-Libs? Snowflakes? This is the same junk one can find on thousands of websites. The argument between left and right is not winnable and we are split 50-50. Nobody is going to change their mind at this point. Stay with what you do well RV, and leave the garbage for everyone else.
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      18 February 2021 @ 20:15
      Policy is the main driver of economy. You simply cannot ignore it.
  • TE
    Thomas E.
    17 February 2021 @ 17:39
    Disclosure: I'm not a Tom Steyer fan. With that said I thought this was a good interview. I appreciate a different perspective. 1) Economic Justice - if you want outcomes to be "more equal" the first thing we need to do as a society is get fathers back in the family. The studies are clear on this that having a father in the home to help raise the children has numerous benefits including lower poverty, higher educational achievement, better social skills, lower incarceration rates, less abuse, etc. Until this is solved nothing the government does will "fix" the issue. Currently, about 25% of children are raised in single parent households. This use to be less than 5% going back to the 60's. 2) Income/Wealth Inequality - First revisit point 1. Next, people need to accept the consequences of their decisions. If you choose to use 60k of student debt to get a Master's in Gender Studies then find out you can only get a job at Starbucks then you need to live with your decision and not complain about your low income. The point is what Major you choose in college will affect your income. Become and engineer you'll get paid more than a teacher. Different races and gender have different preferences for careers. Again, numerous of studies have been done around this. Women and minorities like to Major in fields that are people/community based (think Sociology, Education, Public Administration). Men tend to pursue high paying fields like engineering, math, science, technology, and business with most of them being from the majority. However, has the wealth gap become a concern? IMO yes it has. If you own Financial assets you have done really well with the Fed as your backstop along with government guarantees as Tom pointed out. Privatize gains but socialize losses. If you want Capitalism the government needs to let business fail and take the investors down with them (I'm looking at you Citi, American Airlines, GM, etc). Also, the percentage gain going to capital vs. labor has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. Of course, globalization has much to do with this. Shifting jobs to poorer countries with less labor laws and environmental protections will always put American workers at a disadvantage. Try competing again a 10 year old in a shoe factory working 14 hours a day for $1 with no ventilation, air conditioning, or breaks breathing in shoe glue because he doesn't have the proper PPE. 3) Climate Change - the only thing I will say is that there are numerous credible scientists who work at major universities who say that the American public is being mislead about climate change. Yet, we don't hear much from these scientists. Only the scientists the media wants you to hear from. I think the proper way to address this is to say pollution is bad and we should try to find other sources of energy to diversify away from oil and gas. This would also make us self sufficient which is always a good thing. Of course one of the major sources of energy that could solve a lot of problems is Nuclear but all these Greenies never talk about that as a solution. In conclusion, less Tom Steyer and more Thomas Sowell. If more Americans studied Thomas Sowell we'd all be in a much better place.
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      17 February 2021 @ 18:39
      "1) Economic Justice - if you want outcomes to be "more equal" the first thing we need to do as a society is get fathers back in the family. The studies are clear on this that having a father in the home to help raise the children has numerous benefits including lower poverty, higher educational achievement, better social skills, lower incarceration rates, less abuse, etc. Until this is solved nothing the government does will "fix" the issue. Currently, about 25% of children are raised in single parent households. This use to be less than 5% going back to the 60's." The data in this is mixed. The casuality arrow is not as clear as you are selling it to be. But even assuming you are right, why has the black family desintegrated? may be because of a racist war that destroyed the black families? may be redlining that has prohibited non-white families from accumulating generational wealth? how about the food desserts and the horrible city planning? Individuals are shaped by their environment. We need to create better environments if we want better individuals. "2) Income/Wealth Inequality" Kida but that is not gonna just happen. As you can see those who have can do whatever and get bailed out while those that don't are just left for dead. That's why you level the plane by taxing those who have and removing burdens such as PPE, healthcare from those who are starting. So yeah proper taxation and a strong safety net. That's what we in the left have been saying. Socialism for the wealthy and rigged individualism for the poor just doesn't work. "3) Climate Change [...]" This point of yours is meaningless fearmongering. Even EXXON f'king mobile admitted they lied since the 70's. Please update your view. You are 50 years behind. Once you accept we have a HUGE problem we can discuss what we can do to address it. However, it's no longer just a little carbon tax. Those times are long past. It was a great idea when it was proposed 50 years ago but the oil interests bribed their way out of it and it's not fast enough. "less Tom Steyer and more Thomas Sowell" Oh god please not Sowell. We have to empower individuals but you do that by fostering and creating a nurturing, supportive environment not by throwing them to the wolves. There's so much an individual can do when swimming against the current.
    • TE
      Thomas E.
      17 February 2021 @ 19:24
      Carlos L. I was decent on your post so be decent on mine. After all aren't you supposed to "tolerant?" Fathers in the home - In the 60's the single mother rate in the black community was 20% - this is pre-civil rights! It was lower in the 50's and 40's as well. What explains that? It's not a legacy of racism or slavery! No one is saying they can't be married or have families just like they did in the 40's 50's and 60's and even before then. Maybe you should read some Booker T. Washington and get your facts correct! You need to define "proper taxation." Fact: the top 20% of all income earners pay 90% of all Federal Income taxes while 45% of Americans pay 0 income taxes and a good portion of them have negative income taxes (i.e. tax credits). Seems to me 20% are footing the bill for everyone! If you are talking about getting rid of carried interest, step-up basis, and increasing inheritance tax (although this can be hard for private assets) then that discussion could be had. I'm not talking about Exxon Mobile. I'm talking scientists right now who work at major universities stating that the UN is wrong about climate change and that climate change is misrepresented to the American public. There's a reason you only hear one side of the story and not the other. Not to mention as long as there's a "climate crisis" these scientists can keep on getting Federal funding for their research - conflict of interest. And yes - go read some Thomas Sowell and while you're at it some Booker T. Washington and some Larry Elder while your at it. Everything you throw at them they just destroy with facts and logic.
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      17 February 2021 @ 20:01
      Thomas E. "I was decent on your post so be decent on mine. After all aren't you supposed to "tolerant?"" Fair enough but I'm not claiming to be tolerant of everything. That's a conservative strawman. I'll be as tolerant as you are. "Fathers in the home - In the 60's the single mother rate in the black community was 20% - this is pre-civil rights! It was lower in the 50's and 40's as well. What explains that? It's not a legacy of racism or slavery! No one is saying they can't be married or have families just like they did in the 40's 50's and 60's and even before then. Maybe you should read some Booker T. Washington and get your facts correct!" What exactly does that show? Are you suggesting Black people had it easier in the 50's and 60's? because I distinctly remember they had to create a movement because the socioeconomic circumstances were terrible. Please connect the dots. It seems you have a nebulous idea that somehow black people are somehow responsible for their environment and if only they married it'd all be ok. "You need to define "proper taxation." Fact: the top 20% of all income earners pay 90% of all Federal Income taxes while 45% of Americans pay 0 income taxes and a good portion of them have negative income taxes (i.e. tax credits). Seems to me 20% are footing the bill for everyone! If you are talking about getting rid of carried interest, step-up basis, and increasing inheritance tax (although this can be hard for private assets) then that discussion could be had." First this is a known deceptive statistic for two reasons: 1) it excludes payroll taxes which disproportionally hits working people (payroll taxes are capped) and 2) it excludes all other state and local taxes, which usually are more regressive than the comparatively progressive federal income tax. But even if true it would still make sense they are getting disproportionally richer. Not only they already own most of the wealth but that wealth is growing faster and the marginal value of a dollar is vastly different between a billionaires and a starving person. Yes they should pay more. "I'm not talking about Exxon Mobile. I'm talking scientists right now who work at major universities stating that the UN is wrong about climate change and that climate change is misrepresented to the American public. There's a reason you only hear one side of the story and not the other. Not to mention as long as there's a "climate crisis" these scientists can keep on getting Federal funding for their research - conflict of interest." Please point specific instances of specific scientists that have had a conflict of interest and how their arguments are flawed. This nebulous idea that somehow all the scientists in the world from hundreds of universities from dozens of countries are coordinated for a measly 50k/yr are laying while the companies that are profiting billions from subsidies and externalizing the actual cost of their products is ludicrous. Furthermore we are seeing the effects already. This is not a controversial statement on any country but those that have poisoned the well with Murdoch media. Please start here for a decent introduction to a conservative framework for addressing climate change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0 "Everything you throw at them they just destroy with facts and logic." Please stop watching Shapiro DESTROYING THE LIBRLS WITH FACTS AND LOGIC. It's just not good for your mental health.
    • sh
      steve h.
      18 February 2021 @ 00:05
      Carlos...............SHUT UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUP!!!!!!
    • SS
      Susan S.
      18 February 2021 @ 17:16
      I'm not sure how to respond to Carlos L's comments to Thomas E. so I am doing it here. My sole comment has to do with the social justice issue. Carlos, you say that we should consider systemic racism in why the black family has disintegrated. I won't debate with you whether systemic racism exists or not. I will only say that I know of men who would move heaven and earth to be with their children, whether they face systemic racism or not. I also want to say that I think it is important to look at what happens in other parts of the world, many of which are impoverished. There are numerous charity organizations (some religious and some not) where you can sponsor a child for about $40 per month. This sponsorship helps pay for basic living expenses and education. You can also give birthday and family gifts. In doing this for six children over two decades and across continents I can tell you the father is almost always in the home. The fathers and mothers work where they can and the work is almost always of the most menial kind. Their "homes" and I use that term loosely, are often made of clay bricks or tin. The floors are usually dirt. These families do not face racism. They do face EXTREME poverty, and yet they seem to stay together. People make choices.
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      18 February 2021 @ 18:11
      Hi Susan. I think this is the intended way for us to respond to one another. There are no threads in this forum. "I'm not sure how to respond to Carlos L's comments to Thomas E. so I am doing it here. My sole comment has to do with the social justice issue. Carlos, you say that we should consider systemic racism in why the black family has disintegrated. I won't debate with you whether systemic racism exists or not. I will only say that I know of men who would move heaven and earth to be with their children, whether they face systemic racism or not." This is not as simple as you paint it. When people are sent 30yrs to rot in a jail for a non-violent drug offense how are you supposed to be there? I'm truly not trying to excuse people. But very, very few people can escape their circumstances. We need to provide better circumstances rather than pointing to the exception and pretend it's all well and good. That said, black fatherlessness is mostly a red herring designed to make you ignore the systemic issues and let the fall lie squarely on individuals. This study by the CDC show that at least 50% of black children have a father figure https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf "I also want to say that I think it is important to look at what happens in other parts of the world, many of which are impoverished. There are numerous charity organizations (some religious and some not) where you can sponsor a child for about $40 per month. This sponsorship helps pay for basic living expenses and education. You can also give birthday and family gifts. In doing this for six children over two decades and across continents I can tell you the father is almost always in the home. The fathers and mothers work where they can and the work is almost always of the most menial kind. Their "homes" and I use that term loosely, are often made of clay bricks or tin. The floors are usually dirt. These families do not face racism. They do face EXTREME poverty, and yet they seem to stay together. People make choices." Charity is good and well but charity is not a system. Being at the whim of whatever coins your lord can spare is extremely precarious and undignified position. This is why we're aiming at systemic change. I agree poverty is the main driver of the social gap these days but poverty compounds throughout history and race. That's the issue. Consequences of horrible racists laws, such as red lining in which banks were specifically prohibited to lend to black families, are still here and have not healed. Finally, I agree: People make choices. But those choices are strongly limited in scope and reach because of environment. Even those who make all the right choices can be destroyed by a sudden unexpected issue such as a medical condition, an accident or a societal breakdown. For a specific current example see Texas, how many people might die through absolutely no fault of their own but merely because their power grid operator was greedy and refused to isolate their infrastructure after 2010? Just to sum up my position: we need a strong safety net that allow individuals to make better choices. Properly regulated capital markets and a reckoning that those who are on top now are there by a compound of effort and circumstances.
  • SS
    Susan S.
    18 February 2021 @ 15:58
    Tom Steyer got no traction when he ran for President. Why do I want to hear him now? RV should stick with business content. Which is the reason I pay for an RV subscription. If I want Mr. Steyer's political views, I can google them.
    • ss
      steven s.
      18 February 2021 @ 17:14
      Agree - Real Vision doesn't need to give politicians a platform. Lowest rated videos are from Steyer, Krugman, Dan Rather, Fiorina.
  • BB
    Bob B.
    18 February 2021 @ 16:45
    'Building up' thinking better than forcing 'equality'. Humans excel with positive motivation, Creating those opportunities in an environmentally just framework seems obvious. There is an over production of elites today which deprives success at the local levels. Trickle down is an obvious myth. Trickle up looks more promising for society.
  • BB
    Bob B.
    18 February 2021 @ 16:18
    Merit is dying in the schools https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11/1_STRIDE1.pdf
  • GT
    Gerald T.
    17 February 2021 @ 20:20
    Maybe it is too soon after the election, but I'm not ready for what amounted to a stump speech. Here is something that could only come from a politician: "pay farmers to take the carbon out of the air and stick it into the ground, which they know how to do". Hmmm, I did see the article where MIT developed a prototype CO2 scrubber that can work at atmospheric concentrations but I missed the part where the farmers have them and know how to operate them. RealVision, please reinforce the normally exceptional firewall that keeps politics (and bad information) out.
    • ES
      Elizabeth S.
      18 February 2021 @ 16:09
      It makes a lot of sense to bring farmers into carbon capture since plants get most of their mass from carbon dioxide in the air during photosynthesis. I've always found carbon capture conversations that ignore plants baffling since they already exist and capture carbon as part of their natural life cycle.
  • JL
    Jason L.
    18 February 2021 @ 15:57
    This interview was a missed opportunity. It felt like a political cameo on MSNBC. It would have been nice to dig deeper into his ideas and solutions. All we got here was the glossy brochure.
  • MB
    Michael B.
    18 February 2021 @ 11:16
    I like this guy but the topic seems very left biased, more than it maybe should be
  • AP
    Antonio P.
    17 February 2021 @ 21:03
    politician garbagge, RV trying to gain political leverage?
    • CG
      Christine G.
      17 February 2021 @ 22:04
      Listen again. These are all economic issues.
    • EH
      Edward H. | Real Vision
      18 February 2021 @ 00:24
      Exactly. We are looking to speak to economic issues that politicians think about. One current politician whose ideas I want to hear on this level who follows me on Twitter and who I follow is Rand Paul. I have put in a request for him before and was turned down but believe it may be time again to ask him on.
    • RT
      Robert T.
      18 February 2021 @ 00:32
      Oh my, please, pretty please, get Rand on here. The only politician I can think of (besides possibly Ron Johnson from WI) who actually tells the truth and cares about the future of this country.
    • AB
      Alastair B.
      18 February 2021 @ 09:45
      Please keep trying, Ed. That would be excellent
  • JF
    John F.
    18 February 2021 @ 06:30
    Came for the video. Stayed for the comments.
  • HH
    HODL H.
    18 February 2021 @ 04:14
    If people want real structural change and to change the system, demand the federal reserve stop its support, asset price deflation crushes everyone and then everyone demands real change
  • HH
    HODL H.
    18 February 2021 @ 04:12
    If they just stopped paying for social security and Medicare which are two biggest costs, would be fine
  • BH
    Benji H.
    18 February 2021 @ 02:20
    Was intrigued by the title, let down by a classic politician without any specific solutions or ideas
    • BH
      Benji H.
      18 February 2021 @ 02:44
      What he failed to address is that the generational theft was created by the politicians in power, so I'm confused how the government is now the knight in shining armor coming to rescue the country from itself? No ideas here on how to solve any issue. "The $2T plan is a great one. Money is not a solution (neither is a plan) it's only a means to one. Strategy > money. The government continues to spend without targeted solutions at the issues. It stems from the lack of understanding of what causes the issues as was clearly shown in his responses to Ed's questions - it's clear he knows how to what the issues are (or at least popular narratives in the US), but this interviewed showed his lack of understanding of the causes underlying them or any real solutions to solve them. Not saying the content was bad at all, more grateful that you bring people on that normally don't get questioned in this type of format
  • MS
    Mark S.
    17 February 2021 @ 20:54
    This was an info-commercial for Steyer 2024. It was a lazy interview where Ed didn't challenge / push back / or dig into Tom's views. How can you have an interview involving the phrase "climate change" and not discuss natural gas or nuclear energy? Or the toys of billionaires...private jets, super yachts, and mega mansions? Or the effects of pesticides/fertilizers on soil and the water table? It's rich that a Californian discusses Alabama drinking water considering you can't drink tap water in CA. (Note: I am a tap water drinking Ohioan who has worked as a consultant in CA many times and has always been told to not drink the tap water in CA by locals due to the amount of pesticides in the water table.) There was a discussion on "good paying climate change jobs" but Ed didn't bring up the devastating affects of NAFTA or the chamber of commerce and their role in killing good paying union jobs. Unions helped birth 40 hour work weeks, vacation pay, sick pay, and equality.
    • EH
      Edward H. | Real Vision
      18 February 2021 @ 00:14
      Not lazy. 30 minutes that turned into 40 because of my questions. Moreover, these interviews are not to challenge as much as to understand. You just don’t agree with him.
  • KC
    Kirk C.
    18 February 2021 @ 00:00
    These limo-libs always speak in grand concepts. The public schools are closed but the private schools are open - that is a teachers union decision within the public system. Yet Tom sneaks in later that we have to create good paying union jobs to solve the economic injustice. The climate change drought in Syria, like every drought since the dawn of time, is caused by climate change which has been happening since the dawn of time.. He says the carbon needs to be sequestered by farming, yet using the updated solar forcing data there is no climate change attributable to CO2. Let's get all the limo-libs to put all their money together to solve these problems and leave us tax payers, that managed to do the hard work within a meritocracy to rise up out of what could have been a squalid life, alone. I just can not put my finger on what exact character he represents from Atlas Shrugged - LOL!
  • CG
    Christine G.
    17 February 2021 @ 22:09
    Excellent overview. But it is up against entrenched simplistic black/white views of government and business, just look at the comments.
  • MH
    Michael H.
    17 February 2021 @ 19:34
    The "pandemic" did not exacerbate the inequalities, The governments reactions to the "pandemic" did. We continue to look to our present system to solve the various issues such as economic inequality, yet it is this very system that has caused the problems through cronyism, entrenched politicians and special interests. "The government is a disease masquerading as its own cure". What we need is to have term limits and to limit political contributions by allowing only individuals to contribute to political campaigns and to limit that contribution to some nominal amount like $100 or $500. Until we remove career politicians, that are connected to wealthy special interests, from the system we will not get the changes we desire.
    • JD
      James D.
      17 February 2021 @ 19:49
      Couldn't agree more!
    • SS
      Stephen S.
      17 February 2021 @ 21:32
      Agree halfway with you. This system will not fix the problems it created. However, Government will be essential in a system that could fix some of our problems. We just need to get to a new paradigm in our way of thinking.
  • JR
    Jason R.
    17 February 2021 @ 20:13
    I thought Tom had some pretty good thoughts, and appreciate his appeal to broaden and support the middle class. Making the lower and middle classes stronger will inevitably help all Americans. It feels to me that his argument was lacking in some of the details with how to pay/finance some of these projects. It seems to me that spending billions on government involvement (err, "investment") in the green energy would lead to massive corruption and wasted resources. He seems to indicate that a large union and middle class would be developed -- while I don't think you can promise that in a capitalist economy. The most valuable thing I gathered from this is that as long as we entertain ideas presented without funding initiatives, we will continue to print more money. And politicians will continue to disregard the inevitable future consequences of doing so. It has quickly become acceptable for politicians (Red and Blue) to run deficits, to the point where it doesn't appear costs are being considered effectively.
  • CL
    Carlos L.
    17 February 2021 @ 18:21
    The amount of triggered conservative snowflakes in the comments is staggering. Capital has been winning too hard for the last 50 years. It's time for labor to catch up.
    • TE
      Thomas E.
      17 February 2021 @ 18:55
      I'm a conservative. I agree with you - capital has been winning over labor by a wide margin for quite some time. I'm not a snowflake and using that term in this forum means you loose credibility much like Patrick W below. We agree on the problem but you and I have vastly different solutions. You may want collective bargaining and higher minimum wage (I'm guessing) but that's not the route to go IMO. When companies ship jobs overseas to take advantage of lower cost of labor (i.e. less environmental and worker protections) it puts labor here in the U.S. at a disadvantage (i.e. higher environment and worker protections). So what should we do? Dis-incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. How? I don't care if you call it tariffs, taxes, fees, whatever. The only time you wouldn't implement these monetary penalties is if the jobs are in a country of comparable or higher standards than the U.S. (i.e. US companies aren't shipping jobs to the EU because the EU is much more strict than the US). You also need to limit the amount of immigration whether it be HB1 visas or illegal immigration. Smaller worker pool means more competition for workers. Also, instead of lobbying for free college (which is a waste of time and money for most people) we should be lobbying for free technical college where you actually get trained to do an actual job that actually matters instead of being indoctrinated by left-wing ideologies (90% of college professors state they are liberals or progressives).
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      17 February 2021 @ 19:26
      "I'm not a snowflake and using that term in this forum means you loose credibility much like Patrick W below" Fair enough but then can I ask of the right to stop "Enjohying the liberal tears", "triggering snowflakes" and the like? suddenly the language police is called as soon as it comes the other way. Furthermore look at the comments mostly whiny non-arguments so yeah I think most are responding from a place of complacency and propaganda rather than listening what the arguments are. Thank you for elaborating on specifics points. "We agree on the problem but you and I have vastly different solutions" probably but in some fronts it's probably not debatable at the moment. "You may want collective bargaining and higher minimum wage" I'm no fan of the minimum wage but wages are so depressed it might be a necessity. Yes collective bargaining is a must. When the power scale is so tipped it's only through united efforts that the play-field can be leveled. What else can labor do? "When companies ship jobs overseas to take advantage of lower cost of labor (i.e. less environmental and worker protections) it puts labor here in the U.S. at a disadvantage (i.e. higher environment and worker protections). So what should we do? Dis-incentivize companies to ship jobs overseas. How? I don't care if you call it tariffs, taxes, fees, whatever. The only time you wouldn't implement these monetary penalties is if the jobs are in a country of comparable or higher standards than the U.S. (i.e. US companies aren't shipping jobs to the EU because the EU is much more strict than the US)." I agree with your points somewhat. It's not as easy. In general people are better with cheaper goods, it makes most people better, that's why globalization has been so widely adopted. However the externalitiers of people with nothing to sell but labor starve is too big. That's why other initiatives such as UBI come in the picture. Loot at the trillions american companies are earning, they are creating money hand over fist, take some of that money and give it to people who are starving. For the US, the greatest economy ever to have starving working poor people is a disgrace of resource allocation. Is a mismanagement of labor resources. "You also need to limit the amount of immigration whether it be HB1 visas or illegal immigration. Smaller worker pool means more competition for workers" This is actually not true. Most economists, even more left-leaning ones, conclude that in general imigration favor everyone. More people is more demand of everything. Most immigrants are net benefit for the system because the are in taxed and in general consume less than natives. Furthermore there's a shortage of unskilled labor that immigrants cover, mostly on the agricultural sector. In fact a lot of farms are having crops waste in the fields because people are not coming to work and most Americans just don't want to do it. It's not simple clear-cut scenario. As an aside, it's a red herring, immigration to the US has been decreasing for the last decade. It's truly not the source of the problem. The problem is capital winning to hard. "Also, instead of lobbying for free college (which is a waste of time and money for most people) we should be lobbying for free technical college where you actually get trained to do an actual job that actually matters instead of being indoctrinated by left-wing ideologies (90% of college professors state they are liberals or progressives)." I agree technical college should be emphasized and it's what the administration is pushing for. However, here's where the propaganda you're consuming shows. Your immediate frame of reference is pansy liberals with their homo agenda. Liberal is such a broad umbrella these days because anything of "let people eat cake is labeled liberal". Furthermore people are not "indoctrinated" with left-wing ideologies. Most left wing causes are supported by the evidence: labor is getting screwed, minorities are getting screwed, women have unique challenges, climate change is real and urgent, trans people have always existed and we shouldn't make their lives a living hell... I swear, right wingers have the weirdest persecution complexes. It feels to me something like this: "Me strong conservative, me the foundation of the west... but me reading something immediately will turn me pansexual". Take a break buddy, it's ok to disengage from the culture war rhetoric. The culture war is merely a wedge issue to trigger you into heating anything left of Reagan. Blue-haired pan-whatever are annoying, I agree. But they are mostly used as a symbol, They are not setting federal policy. Let's focus on fixing the economy. On policy rather than feelings
  • JB
    James B.
    17 February 2021 @ 19:03
    Was hoping you would probe on Central Banks and money printing, it has just pushed up assets, causing this crisis. Only way forward I can see, new money ONLY for: 1 Local banks funding business innovation in poor areas 2 UBI with tokenisation/blockchain only on green spend (energy and food), so free market drives change.
  • BG
    Bryce G.
    17 February 2021 @ 19:03
    I know videos like this one, Krugman, that one woman who called for impeaching Trump get a lot of dislikes but please continue bringing on partisans on both aisle on occasion. It is simply impossible to understand what people actually believe from legacy news interviews these days. I can say my image of Steyer improved quite a bit from an admittedly very low level but there are a number of things in that interview that caused me to raise an eyebrow... most notably the claim that the Syrian refugee crisis was climate-caused. Like another commenter said he seems to identify the issues and ask the right questions, but he gives a lot of questionable answers. Tech and calling them natural monopolies... how can one say that social media is a such a thing when social media companies have come and gone already? Facebook was not the first. He brings up that they buy their competitors now. It's a good point. But the DOJ is already supposed to review these deals for competitive concerns and clearly does not. Regulation should come, but instead of enshrining a hegemony perhaps we should actually reinforce the existing systems? The last thing the USA needs is more 'Too Big to Fail'.
  • FC
    Frank C.
    17 February 2021 @ 18:54
    Great perspective. Keep up the balanced content RV!
  • RB
    Rahul B.
    17 February 2021 @ 14:05
    An old, white, billionaire hedge fund manager talking about economic justice. This guy spent $191 million campaigning to become President of the US. Maybe he could have used that money to bail out $191 million of student debt, rather than using it to dethrone a "mean guy", in his own words. Gosh. Because the world needs another billionaire telling us they can save us. Give it a rest.
    • MS
      Michael S.
      17 February 2021 @ 14:16
      So if someone has money, we shouldn't listen to them? Sounds like it's time to cancel your RV subscription?
    • PW
      Patrick W.
      17 February 2021 @ 15:14
      Yea, Huuuge Hyprocrite he is. - Yoda.
    • CL
      Carlos L.
      17 February 2021 @ 18:22
      Not a huge fan of Brand in general but he put the best retort to the usual imagined hypocrisy pointed by the right: “When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.” ― Russell Brand
  • TA
    Timothy A.
    17 February 2021 @ 17:48
    When I think about energy policy I think about early humans. Initially we could hunt which is a higher productivity way to get calories. You shoot a deer once a week and have leisure time the rest. Once population got large enough and game was exhausted we had had to move to lower productivity ways of getting calories, farming. Energy is like that too. Oil and Gas is like hunting, renewable are like farming. You hunt as long as you can get away with it since its a higher productivity form of energy. And with climate change, for thousands of years, human migration has been driven by climate change. Indo-Europeans went into Europe and the Middle East in 3000 B.C. due to a drought, so climate change is something humans have lived with for a long time.
    • PC
      Paul C.
      17 February 2021 @ 18:06
      That's one hell of a macro view!
  • PW
    Patrick W.
    17 February 2021 @ 15:11
    Really tired of Real Vision being really dumb about Covid... its simple... Average Year we had 100,000 flu deaths. Starting in March 2020 The Flu Just went away like magic... and now we only talk about Covid? Doesnt take an idiot to figure that out. Also those who preached Dollar Collapse & Buying Crypto (Like my self since 2011), knew the elites would either start a war, or hype a Virus when the Financial System begins to wobble..... and now here we are. Not going to re-new my Real Vision membership when it expires, web site is kinda a joke and really years behind every major trade.
    • PW
      Patrick W.
      17 February 2021 @ 15:12
      In hind site to my comment, really , all my best Financial Advice over the years I got from Conspiracy places like Zerohedge/Infowars. Everyone else is always years behind.
    • PB
      PHILLIP B.
      17 February 2021 @ 17:36
      Yes, good idea. Don't renew, please.
  • TA
    Timothy A.
    17 February 2021 @ 17:27
    So he's saying if we can get government spending to 100% of GDP, we can solve all the problems.
  • HK
    H K.
    17 February 2021 @ 17:20
    Almost every grievance mentioned here can be directly traced back to an overarching government, interference in the free markets and over-regulation (with regulatory capture by the incumbents). The solution is not doing more of what doesn't already work (regulating even more when times are good, and extract the economics from the pvt sector) but to let companies, banks, airlines and people fail.
  • LK
    Lauri K.
    17 February 2021 @ 16:55
    It's so sad that very nice people like Tom can spot all the right issues and offer the exact solutions that just make the situation worse.
  • CB
    C B.
    17 February 2021 @ 14:04
    Mr Steyer correctly identifies the failure of our public school system to deliver equal educational opportunity. But who are we holding accountable for this failure? We spend more per capita educating our children than almost any nation on earth, but have very poor educational outcomes for the dollars we spend. If Mr Steyer wants to promote economic justice, he should start by asking this question. The answer should not be about more money for the teacher's unions. It should be about reforming the existing system so it is accountable. We should demand results for the huge amount we already spend.
    • PW
      Patrick W.
      17 February 2021 @ 15:15
      He even has half the Solution, A good Internet Connection for everyone... which could then be used to self educate, but thats all Free-market stuff, this Boomer Clearly wants the same Centrally Planned System to Solve all his in-just-us issues hes crying about.
  • NR
    Nathan R.
    17 February 2021 @ 14:49
    I can watch MSNBC news for free.
    • PW
      Patrick W.
      17 February 2021 @ 15:13
      lol yea this is a Cry Baby Interview, Real Vision, really sucking lately.
  • WM
    William M.
    17 February 2021 @ 14:17
    Ed is such an excellent interviewer! Tom is so refreshingly clear about some of the biggest issues we all face ...
  • MG
    Mark G.
    17 February 2021 @ 13:04
    Great interview, and I thought Ed did a great job of letting Tom speak. And also asking some questions that forced him out of PR mode. I would have asked Tom how data privacy figures in his vision of bringing equality to the education system via technology.
  • MJ
    Matt J.
    17 February 2021 @ 11:38
    Similar to Strauss/Howe Generational Theory, then? Seems to dislike Boomers in similar ways and for similar reasons.
  • HD
    Hem D.
    17 February 2021 @ 09:13
    Thank you Ed for keeping an eye on social & economic injustice matters! Fantastic discussion to keep these matters alive & in-front as we (the fortunate ones) get giddy with markets ATH when children, especially in urban city centers, not getting basic education & food {in the richest country on this planet)! Tom so genuine/ authentic! Thank you,
  • JS
    John S.
    17 February 2021 @ 07:55
    Thank you. This is a great interview. Very different from the rest of real Vision Interviews. I think a video on social issues and economic injustice is a very important part of society. In the end, social injustice translate in history change events. Thank you again for this interview.