It's available as a free download in PDF form from his publisher, Cambridge University Press. There's also a YouTube video worth watching of his May 2026 presentation at the National Nordic Museum in Seattle. I call Robert the Energizer Bunny on steroids and speed. He's a compelling performer delivering a message wholly in tune with that of "Reimagining Economics". He brought down the house twice this past weekend with presentations at the American Swedish Institute and the 2026 annual gathering of FinnFest USA in Minneapolis. You owe it to yourself to check Robert out. You won't be disappointed.
Nick and I are both old enough to remember that "Trickle Down Economics" was first called "Voodoo Economics" by the first George Bush and the majority of Establishment Republicans. It only takes about five minutes of thought to see why. If I'm a business owner and fewer customers are buying my goods or services, when I receive a tax cut will I go out and hire more employees to sit around and do nothing simply because I'm supposed to be a noble job creator? Of course not. Demand for my goods or services will determine my hiring and if my customers have less money to spend, demand will be down and I will not be hiring. The way to increase demand is to raise the wages of my customers and potential customers. Unfortunately, for three generations now, we've all been marinating in propaganda celebrating and worshipping the obscenely rich as our noble economic saviors.
Brian, good job!! It didn't even take 5 minutes to get this. You explained it so well, elementary students could understand it and could grow up with a better idea of what is right for our economy and that of the world.
I remember 40 years ago when I made 2.01 an hour as a waitress and people would say ,”why should I tip you , you make a salary! A salary! 2.01 an hour! But I could work at night and my husband in day because we had a baby and wanted to be the one who raised him, not a sitter. But that’s what fit the schedule. It was insulting. And at the end of the night you cleaned the whole restaurant for 2.01 a hour. That pissed me off!
Mary, it's stunning to me that you are one of the few Trumps that were handed a majority of the brain cells. How does that even happen? Is it a function of the childhood environment? Being loved and cherished and emotionally enriched?
Regardless, you are willing and able to dive into any subject outside your own comfort zone. You take the time and energy needed to learn from others in their field of expertise. This is an admirable quality that is sadly (or not in Donald's case) missing from the majority of the Trump lineage.
We had an alternative to neoclassical/neoliberal wrongheaded economics about a decade ago introduced by economist and professor, Dr. Stephanie Kelton where she explained the branch of modern monetary economics, commonly called MMT. She wrote a book called "The Deficit Myth" and she was an econ advisor to Bernie Sanders. The book is about understanding how our monetary system works in reality, dispelling entrenched myths, and how implementing this understanding into policy can lead to a caring government benefitting its citizens. Its economics is descriptive. She did interviews on different networks and traveled all around the world explaining the monetary system of sovereign countries that issued their own currencies. UK and Australia have MMT advocates today promoting her findings. But the US has ignored these economists largely because the neoliberal/neoclassical economic mindset is so entrenched. Even the most well respected academics, economists, professionals from all walks, media personalities continue, 24/7 to make empirically and provably inaccurate statements and claims to invoke the public to have 'skin in the game' for their arguments and proposals. It never ends. Like Nick, MMT economists are adamantly apposed to the neoclassical/neoliberal economics still taught in colleges and universities. Other leading proponents of MMT are Warren Mosler (its founder), Randall Wray, Richard Murphy, Steve Keen, and so many more scholars in this area. You Tube carries many MMT podcasts (Richard Murphy is excellent) and there are also many proponents who write substacks (Jim Byrnes' MMT 101). I would encourage those who are interested to start with Dr. Kelton's book and research from there.
Thanks, Mary for your interview with Nick who sounds as though he may be interested in the modern monetary economists promoting the peoples' economy offering social benefits.
In addition to my comment above and to address Nick's concerns about a stagnant minimum wage and its deleterious consequences, modern monetary economists (MMT) advocate a federal jobs guarantee program that would employ those who have lost jobs, rehiring them immediately into public service work. This would provide them with income and the retraining required when they are displaced by trade shocks. These jobs are provided in concert with the states' needs for workers. Most importantly, to answer Nick's concern about the minimum wage, the federal govt can set the minimum wage for this program that they are paying wages for and set the base rate for states to follow. Job guarantee proponents advocate that employment should be a human right.
At last someone challeging Neo-leberalism economics. A intellectual challenge of the status quo in economics is necessary to change how we view the world. It takes a few generations but remember the Heritage Foundation was established in the late 70's with money for Adolph Coors. Rich promoting what makes a few obtain weather while others are far behind.
If you haven't seen it already, I suggest that anyone interested in this argument presented from another perspective check out UC-Berkeley's Robert Strand's "Nordic Capitalism"
That was an excellent economics discussion. It does seem that when people get an idea in their heads, it is hard to shake it, particularly when the idea could lead someone to riches for almost no effort, as "Neo-liberalism" did. I was so lucky that my economics professor in the early '70s did not agree with Milton Friedman's ideas. She also believed that the economy should work to benefit everyone, not just those who wanted to be rich. She believed in significant inheritance taxes, a strong progressive income tax structure, and a minimum wage that kept up with inflation and the cost of living. I bet she would have gotten along well with Nick Hanauer. I can't wait to read his book when it comes out!!
The assumptions taught in Econ 101 are laughable. First, we assume humans are rational (rotflmao). Then, even though we acknowledge the existence of market structures, we assume perfect competition (each firm is too small to influence the market) most of the time. In fact, for most of my undergraduate career, we assumed perfect competition. There may have been one or two classes in grad school specifically about different market structures. The existence of monopoly power for firms is part of the reason they have such a major influence on the poltical system, imo. Of course, the increasing wealth/income/power inequality paved the way for people to be seduced by yout uncle, Mary. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
Its too bad that economics is such a dry and abstracted field of philosophies.
But, yes - an adopted economic framework only proposes how we agree on what "value" means, and how we exchange it between each other on a fair and equitable basis.
Take the rules for the Parker Brothers board game Monopoly. Everybody plays it differently. Many people follow the convention that if you land on free parking, you get all the money in the bank thats been accumulated from paid penalties and taxes.
But, the official rules say its only a place to temporarily drop out and watch the rest of the players go bankrupt - as you continue to collect rent from them without landing on someone else's property yourself.
Same with hotels and houses. The official rules say up to 4 houses and 1 hotel could be built on a property. But, peoole go nuts building them beyond those limits, and multiply the charges on their property cards.
Everybody collectively chooses what rules to abide by without basing it on any science.
Mathematics is the language of relationships betwern things - nothing more and nothing less. That's why its good practice to base an economic theory on math - because it can quantify the relationships betwern people and the ways they interact and trade things.
The Lincoln series has gone into some of that explaining how the federal reserve and American currency arouse.
Roger Martin, the former Dean of the Rothman School of Management at UofT, believes companies should be run by customer-driven capitalism, where the mandate for a company is to solely to get more customers. In this way, the general public steers how companies behave through their voting dollars.
Prior to that, management capitalism prevailed since the great depression where decisions were made in the self interest of bosses, kinda like what Trump is doing in his presidency.
Mary, thank you for this conversation on the economy. As your guest said:
“The more money people earn, the more they spend, which leads to greater consumer demand. This, in turn, fosters more hiring and ultimately increases wages—a positive feedback loop that benefits everyone.”
This is exactly what FDR meant by a New Deal economy. It put people back to work, at fewer hours, so more people could have a job, and fewer workers would work 60 to 80 hours a week for poverty wages.
It raised the minimum wage and taxed companies and the wealthy at high rates with deductions for companies that spent money on research and development, expanding their workforce and reducing Upper management’s salaries to around 20 times their employees’ earnings. It worked. As you said, higher wages and more people able to work for a decent wage eventually rewarded everyone—more disposable income that workers used to lift sales of goods and services, leading to the largest middle class in the USA.
And several generations later, that proven outcome was tossed away.
I wish Democrats would be able to explain that economic history to the general population, especially young adults who have no idea of that history and how it slowly lifted people from wealth inequality that created the Great Depression, and lifted Americans out of starvation and poverty to prosperity.
Maybe a blitz of that history lesson with the slogan “ Prosperity for All”
Thanks for ending on a hopeful note. We so much need for this to happen.
It's available as a free download in PDF form from his publisher, Cambridge University Press. There's also a YouTube video worth watching of his May 2026 presentation at the National Nordic Museum in Seattle. I call Robert the Energizer Bunny on steroids and speed. He's a compelling performer delivering a message wholly in tune with that of "Reimagining Economics". He brought down the house twice this past weekend with presentations at the American Swedish Institute and the 2026 annual gathering of FinnFest USA in Minneapolis. You owe it to yourself to check Robert out. You won't be disappointed.
Nick and I are both old enough to remember that "Trickle Down Economics" was first called "Voodoo Economics" by the first George Bush and the majority of Establishment Republicans. It only takes about five minutes of thought to see why. If I'm a business owner and fewer customers are buying my goods or services, when I receive a tax cut will I go out and hire more employees to sit around and do nothing simply because I'm supposed to be a noble job creator? Of course not. Demand for my goods or services will determine my hiring and if my customers have less money to spend, demand will be down and I will not be hiring. The way to increase demand is to raise the wages of my customers and potential customers. Unfortunately, for three generations now, we've all been marinating in propaganda celebrating and worshipping the obscenely rich as our noble economic saviors.
Brian, good job!! It didn't even take 5 minutes to get this. You explained it so well, elementary students could understand it and could grow up with a better idea of what is right for our economy and that of the world.
I remember 40 years ago when I made 2.01 an hour as a waitress and people would say ,”why should I tip you , you make a salary! A salary! 2.01 an hour! But I could work at night and my husband in day because we had a baby and wanted to be the one who raised him, not a sitter. But that’s what fit the schedule. It was insulting. And at the end of the night you cleaned the whole restaurant for 2.01 a hour. That pissed me off!
Mary, it's stunning to me that you are one of the few Trumps that were handed a majority of the brain cells. How does that even happen? Is it a function of the childhood environment? Being loved and cherished and emotionally enriched?
Regardless, you are willing and able to dive into any subject outside your own comfort zone. You take the time and energy needed to learn from others in their field of expertise. This is an admirable quality that is sadly (or not in Donald's case) missing from the majority of the Trump lineage.
Cheers to you and your massive brain power!!
We had an alternative to neoclassical/neoliberal wrongheaded economics about a decade ago introduced by economist and professor, Dr. Stephanie Kelton where she explained the branch of modern monetary economics, commonly called MMT. She wrote a book called "The Deficit Myth" and she was an econ advisor to Bernie Sanders. The book is about understanding how our monetary system works in reality, dispelling entrenched myths, and how implementing this understanding into policy can lead to a caring government benefitting its citizens. Its economics is descriptive. She did interviews on different networks and traveled all around the world explaining the monetary system of sovereign countries that issued their own currencies. UK and Australia have MMT advocates today promoting her findings. But the US has ignored these economists largely because the neoliberal/neoclassical economic mindset is so entrenched. Even the most well respected academics, economists, professionals from all walks, media personalities continue, 24/7 to make empirically and provably inaccurate statements and claims to invoke the public to have 'skin in the game' for their arguments and proposals. It never ends. Like Nick, MMT economists are adamantly apposed to the neoclassical/neoliberal economics still taught in colleges and universities. Other leading proponents of MMT are Warren Mosler (its founder), Randall Wray, Richard Murphy, Steve Keen, and so many more scholars in this area. You Tube carries many MMT podcasts (Richard Murphy is excellent) and there are also many proponents who write substacks (Jim Byrnes' MMT 101). I would encourage those who are interested to start with Dr. Kelton's book and research from there.
Thanks, Mary for your interview with Nick who sounds as though he may be interested in the modern monetary economists promoting the peoples' economy offering social benefits.
In addition to my comment above and to address Nick's concerns about a stagnant minimum wage and its deleterious consequences, modern monetary economists (MMT) advocate a federal jobs guarantee program that would employ those who have lost jobs, rehiring them immediately into public service work. This would provide them with income and the retraining required when they are displaced by trade shocks. These jobs are provided in concert with the states' needs for workers. Most importantly, to answer Nick's concern about the minimum wage, the federal govt can set the minimum wage for this program that they are paying wages for and set the base rate for states to follow. Job guarantee proponents advocate that employment should be a human right.
At last someone challeging Neo-leberalism economics. A intellectual challenge of the status quo in economics is necessary to change how we view the world. It takes a few generations but remember the Heritage Foundation was established in the late 70's with money for Adolph Coors. Rich promoting what makes a few obtain weather while others are far behind.
If you haven't seen it already, I suggest that anyone interested in this argument presented from another perspective check out UC-Berkeley's Robert Strand's "Nordic Capitalism"
"The pitchforks are coming......" Daily Kos published his article many years ago.
That was an excellent economics discussion. It does seem that when people get an idea in their heads, it is hard to shake it, particularly when the idea could lead someone to riches for almost no effort, as "Neo-liberalism" did. I was so lucky that my economics professor in the early '70s did not agree with Milton Friedman's ideas. She also believed that the economy should work to benefit everyone, not just those who wanted to be rich. She believed in significant inheritance taxes, a strong progressive income tax structure, and a minimum wage that kept up with inflation and the cost of living. I bet she would have gotten along well with Nick Hanauer. I can't wait to read his book when it comes out!!
Hello Mary... This Is Excellent... Thank You....
Loved this podcast discussion and looking forward to more of them like this.
The assumptions taught in Econ 101 are laughable. First, we assume humans are rational (rotflmao). Then, even though we acknowledge the existence of market structures, we assume perfect competition (each firm is too small to influence the market) most of the time. In fact, for most of my undergraduate career, we assumed perfect competition. There may have been one or two classes in grad school specifically about different market structures. The existence of monopoly power for firms is part of the reason they have such a major influence on the poltical system, imo. Of course, the increasing wealth/income/power inequality paved the way for people to be seduced by yout uncle, Mary. That's my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
PS: I taught economics at Howard University for 38 years.
An excellent and timely article Mary!
Its too bad that economics is such a dry and abstracted field of philosophies.
But, yes - an adopted economic framework only proposes how we agree on what "value" means, and how we exchange it between each other on a fair and equitable basis.
Take the rules for the Parker Brothers board game Monopoly. Everybody plays it differently. Many people follow the convention that if you land on free parking, you get all the money in the bank thats been accumulated from paid penalties and taxes.
But, the official rules say its only a place to temporarily drop out and watch the rest of the players go bankrupt - as you continue to collect rent from them without landing on someone else's property yourself.
Same with hotels and houses. The official rules say up to 4 houses and 1 hotel could be built on a property. But, peoole go nuts building them beyond those limits, and multiply the charges on their property cards.
Everybody collectively chooses what rules to abide by without basing it on any science.
Mathematics is the language of relationships betwern things - nothing more and nothing less. That's why its good practice to base an economic theory on math - because it can quantify the relationships betwern people and the ways they interact and trade things.
The Lincoln series has gone into some of that explaining how the federal reserve and American currency arouse.
Personally, I like Modern Monetary Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Monetary_Theory
But, there are others like Stakeholder Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_theory
Or, the Experience Economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_economy
Roger Martin, the former Dean of the Rothman School of Management at UofT, believes companies should be run by customer-driven capitalism, where the mandate for a company is to solely to get more customers. In this way, the general public steers how companies behave through their voting dollars.
https://hbr.org/2010/01/the-age-of-customer-capitalism
And, co-ops where everybody shares the responsibilities to meet common needs:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative
Our current systems are based on Keynesian Econoomics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Shareholder capitalism came into practice around 1970.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_capitalism
Prior to that, management capitalism prevailed since the great depression where decisions were made in the self interest of bosses, kinda like what Trump is doing in his presidency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93managerial_class
Mary, thank you for this conversation on the economy. As your guest said:
“The more money people earn, the more they spend, which leads to greater consumer demand. This, in turn, fosters more hiring and ultimately increases wages—a positive feedback loop that benefits everyone.”
This is exactly what FDR meant by a New Deal economy. It put people back to work, at fewer hours, so more people could have a job, and fewer workers would work 60 to 80 hours a week for poverty wages.
It raised the minimum wage and taxed companies and the wealthy at high rates with deductions for companies that spent money on research and development, expanding their workforce and reducing Upper management’s salaries to around 20 times their employees’ earnings. It worked. As you said, higher wages and more people able to work for a decent wage eventually rewarded everyone—more disposable income that workers used to lift sales of goods and services, leading to the largest middle class in the USA.
And several generations later, that proven outcome was tossed away.
I wish Democrats would be able to explain that economic history to the general population, especially young adults who have no idea of that history and how it slowly lifted people from wealth inequality that created the Great Depression, and lifted Americans out of starvation and poverty to prosperity.
Maybe a blitz of that history lesson with the slogan “ Prosperity for All”
Good substantial talk. Thank you.