Well, now we're getting someplace.
The seminar is making progress.
What we're seeing here is that we- >> I love your condescension,
it's hilarious, go ahead, finish out.
>> That's a video dating back to 2011 when Cenk was hosting an MSNBC show and
happened to interview Peter Morici, a libertarian economist.
And lucky for us, Morici just penned an op-ed for market watch that
basically tried to make a point that we're gonna need to work harder,
we're gonna need to work longer to sustain the economy, and that's a great thing.
Don't believe me?
Well, before we get to more fun clips featuring Cenk debating him,
let's get to the op-ed itself.
The headline is, Americans may have to start working younger and retire older.
That might be a good thing.
So- >> Already a disaster.
>> So that might be a good thing, Cenk, anyway.
>> Yeah, for corporate America.
>> Exactly.
So he says, going forward, China will suffer from fewer workers,
fiscal challenges to support more seniors, and
also higher capital costs as resources are diverted.
And as a result, he writes, China for
years has been moving up the technology ladder with strength in green energy,
computer chipmaking, and now a world-class electric vehicle industry.
Such higher value activities mean that China's economy can still grow
with fewer workers.
So that's mild, right?
But he's setting something up.
He continues to write, Western governments will be further challenged to finance
investments to mitigate climate change, infrastructure, investments in R and
D and defense without imposing declining living standards
on the working age population through taxes or inflation.
Textbook policy remedies,
from subsidies to support more children to government-financed and
industry-mandated childcare, haven't worked.
>> Made it up.
>> Wait, no, no, not only did he make it up, what childcare?
What childcare?
What are you talking about?
>> Well, the only thing that I thought the same exact thing when I read that, and
I was, wait, where's your facts for that, Mr Professor, right?
You just asserted it with no facts to back you up whatsoever.
And I was, the only thing I could think of that he's talking about is maybe the child
tax credit that they did in the first covert relief bill under Biden.
But hold on.
>> One year, one year, one year? I'm so sick of people bringing that up as
if it was, a long lasting progressive policy that Biden accomplished and
we should all give him a round of applause.
It was one year.
One year.
>> I know, but the reason people bring it up and
try to give him credit is because it was a stunning success.
>> No, no, it was a success, it had expired.
>> No, but my point is that Morici is saying, no, they definitely don't work.
What do you mean? The one year we did it,
everybody loved it, and it helped the economy,
there's now lower unemployment than there's ever been.
So what's your evidence that government programs to help people with childcare
don't work?
You just made it up.
>> So he also discussed how critical technological advancements and
modern financial markets have been spurring productivity and economic growth,
but now that slowing population growth poses a threat to wealth, Peter thinks
the answer is to start workers young, even younger, and never let them stop.
So here's what he writes.
To raise the half of humanity living in poverty with the requisite goods and
energy, avert or mitigate flooding coastal cities and
severe weather and sustain living standards in developed economies,
two things appear clear, people will have to work longer, and
a smaller population consuming fewer resources will be a welcome development.
Okay, I'm going to read that again.
I want you to really absorb what he's arguing here, okay?
Two things appear clear, people will have to work longer, and
a smaller population consuming fewer resources will be a welcome development.
>> Yeah, so look-.
>> You're gonna have to work longer for less.
That is what he's saying there, right?
>> Yeah, well, he's definitely saying you got to work longer, back to the mines.
67 is too young to retire, that's literally his claim.
And look, if you notice, he keeps going back to climate change and clean energy.
He does it throughout the entire article, as if he cares.
All right, if you put together a climate change proposal,
I would be shocked if he wasn't massively opposed to it.
So he's trying to, this is such an amateur way, but it's like from the old school,
from the 1990s, well, actually through the 2010s, too, when I debated
him where he'd be like, I am doing this for the youngs, for the youths.
I hear they care about climate change, and if you care about climate change,
you're gonna want to work till 80.
Wait, what?
[LAUGH].
Okay, total turn there.
No, one thing has nothing to do with the other, and
I don't believe you care about climate change at all.
>> So then he goes on to say, these annoying progressives,
they keep bringing up this issue about how not everyone has a similar job.
Some people, they're pushing paper, they're sitting at desks,
they're comfortable.
It's cushy there's not a whole lot of hard labor.
There are other people who do difficult manual labor, right?
Construction jobs.
That always comes to mind.
And so how are you gonna ask construction workers to work even longer?
I mean, it really does take a toll on the body.
Let's go to graphic six here.
He doesn't offer any solutions, let's just be clear.
He doesn't offer any solutions, but
he does juxtapose American culture to Japanese culture by writing, the Japanese
already have faced the problems of an aging population and declining workforce.
Japan has sustained per-capita incomes by accepting immigrants from poorer nations,
which I have no problem with, I think that's actually a good thing,
working smarter, redesigning physical tasks so that older workers can do them.
>> My God.
>> And flexing their superior acumen with robotics.
>> So, I mean, he's literally arguing we should do like Japan,
make it easier for older people.
>> For elderly people.
>> Right?
And drive them back into the offices, because the corporate machines-
>> Or work sites.
>> Need more fodder, okay?
So remember we've been showing you on the show,
Sarah Huckabee Sanders did it in Arkansas.
And many other Republicans are now saying, lower the age of child labor in America.
So we drive the kids back into the factories, right?
And now they're saying also raise the age so you have to work into the 70s.
Now, we're not gonna pay you well.
No, no, no, that's not the answer, okay?
We're always gonna make it so that you could barely subsist, right?
>> And that's a good thing. >> And all the way into your 70s and 80s,
and that's such a good thing, like Japan did.
We're gonna bring in the robots and they're gonna reengineer your work so
that you could still kind of do it when you're like 90.
>> But what about mental decline?
Because that's something else that people unfortunately experience as they
get older.
And here's what he has to say about that.
Until now,
treatments have focused on removing plaque from the brain after dementia begins.
But medical researchers are closing in on the equivalent of statins,
which often avert heart disease before it can develop, for the brain.
We could take these medications in our 50s to keep us working at near top
level well into our 70s.
He writes this with a straight face.
By the way,
this is his solution to elderly people experiencing mental decline,
who might have to still work because our economy is so disgustingly rigged.
He responds to that with healthcare drugs.
You got to take drugs in a country where our health care system is broken.
It's broken.
It is astronomically expensive to get the healthcare that Americans need,
especially as they get older.
But he's like, just take some statins.
>> To be fair to my old friend Professor Morici, there is someone still working
with dementia in their 80s, that's senator Dianne Feinstein.
>> She should have taken some statins.
>> Well, he don't really care as long as she votes for the corporate agenda,
which she does.
She does.
But guys, this is a twofer, and that's why this is particularly this episode.
One, you're never gonna get a break.
The corporate machines need you to work,
they will literally work you to death, okay?
But two, that also means we're not gonna give you Social Security, okay?
Because we already spent it in the tax cuts for the rich, for
the defense contractors, all the subsidies we gave to the old.
>> There will be a civil war.
>> It's gone, it's gone.
And so what we're gonna do is we're just gonna take your Social Security and
make you work late into your 70s.
And we care about solving dementia not for you, but so that-.
>> For your boss.
>> We'll have more of you widgets to plug into our corporate machine.
>> That's exactly right.
So if you didn't already think that this guy was awful,
I remember booking him on the show a lot back in the day when I was a guest booker.
These are like early years of TYT.
He has gone into many debates with Cenk for obvious reasons.
So let's go back to his debate with Cenk specifically on MSNBC, which was
about a poll showing just how progressive Americans are on these economic issues.
So Cenk, in the context of that interview, showed this poll or
showed this on the screen, let me show you what it says, what America wants.
So according to that poll,
55% said that it was totally unacceptable to cut unemployment benefits.
56% said it was totally unacceptable to cut head start.
59% said it was unacceptable to cut student loans.
So you can see it.
List goes on and on.
77% were against cutting Social Security.
All of this makes sense, obviously, that's from 2011,
the results haven't changed much.
Most Americans want economic prosperity,
cutting these programs is the antithesis of that.
So that is what they were debating about.
Let's watch more of the video.
>> I look at that poll and I think, God, can it get any clearer?
Am I missing something?
It looks like the American people are pretty darn liberal based on those
numbers.
>> I think you're missing a lot.
Americans tend to be more moderate than leaders of either
party will acknowledge or than either Fox or MSNBC will embrace.
>> Professor, I'm going to challenge you with facts.
The facts I just gave, a great majority of us want to raise taxes on people
making over 100,000 because we're in a real budget mess, why don't we do it?
>> Well, now we're getting someplace.
The seminar is making progress.
What we're seeing here is that we-.
>> I love your condescension, it's hilarious, go ahead, finish.
>> I'm trying to bring you along now.
What we're seeing here is that-. >> I have shown you the numbers,
you haven't shown anything yet.
Go ahead.
>> No, I've shown quite a bit, you just don't want to acknowledge it.
>> Economist Peter Morici, thank you for your time, even though you-.
>> Thank you for having me.
>> I appreciate it, even though you've been completely and utterly wrong,
as are you not supportive at all.
>> As were you [INAUDIBLE].
>> Okay, but my favorite part of that interaction, Cenk,
was when he tried to do a gotcha on you and didn't do his homework and
really fully understand who he was talking to.
So let's just watch that quick moment, and then you can comment.
>> The Republicans spent millions upon millions of dollars that they raised from
incredibly rich people,
so that they could do ads pretending to be on the side of the American people.
What did they campaign on?
We showed it earlier in the show.
They said, we're gonna create jobs.
They come in, they don't create jobs at all.
They trick the American people.
You know that in elections.
It turns out commercials make a difference.
>> [CROSSTALK].
>> They get their way.
I mean, the Democratic Party is the party of Wall Street.
>> Look, I actually agree with that, but
then you're agreeing with me that they're too conservative.
All right, professor, we got to go.
>> [LAUGH]. >> Okay.
>> Take care.
>> No, but he's saying they're the party of Wall Street,
that means they're too conservative.
He's, that's ridiculous.
>> I know.
>> But you just said it, okay?
So, all right, my favorite part of all that was two things that happened
behind the scenes, and this is interesting, actually one was public,
the other one was behind the scenes.
So immediately, writes an article about that all the way back in 2011, so
that's a dozen years ago, okay?
And I don't know if the writer is right wing or just an establishment person.
And remember, a dozen years ago,
the progressives were not anywhere near as strong as they are now.
And almost everyone in media was, like, super establishment, right?
>> Yeah. >> And so they lit into me saying,
this was uncivil.
How dare he, right?
And the last line was sarcastically civil with an exclamation point, okay?
And they're so funny, they think that if you bring on these guests that are lying,
the right thing to do, the civil thing to do is just let them lie.
>> Yeah, no, no, [INAUDIBLE].
>> Right?
>> Absolutely.
>> Now when they say, Kaitlan Collins didn't challenge Trump enough,
that's why it's hilarious, because, no, in cable news, the etiquette for
decade after decade was, don't challenge any of the guests.
And everybody's supposed to have it like an orgy of agreement.
So now, the behind the scenes thing, when that guest came on, our producers booked
him thinking that he agreed with me, and it turns out he didn't, and
we had what I thought was a super fun and interesting exchange, right?
My executive producer comes out after this show and lights into the booker,
and he's, and, Cenk, don't worry, we'll never have him on again.
I'm like, why?
>> My God, come on.
>> Why?
That was an interesting discussion.
I love having him on.
>> Not allowed.
No interesting discussions.
>> Isn't that interesting?
So that's at MSNBC.
No, everyone has to agree, just like at Fox News.
>> That's incredible.
That is incredible.
All right, well, check out our YouTube library of videos to watch other exchanges
that Cenk had with Peter Morici, because I did book him a lot.
And look, to Morici's credit, he was down to debate.
He would come on the show knowing full well what your stance was,
knowing that he was walking into a debate.
>> That's why didn't mind them at all.
An exchange of ideas, especially when you're right, helps completely.
You don't want an exchange of ideas when you're wrong and
you don't have the facts on your side, so I don't mind it at all.
And I love to debate people that are wrong.