Homo economicus is the figurative human being used in economic modeling. But the term defines human nature as perfectly rational, perfectly logical, and always self-interested. Does that sound like any real humans you know? Nope, we didn’t think so either. So we invited Professor Samuel Bowles to join Nick and Goldy in throwing a funeral for homo economicus, and all the flawed economic thinking that he’s inspired over the years.

Samuel Bowles is a Research Professor at the Santa Fe Institute where he heads the Behavioral Sciences Program. His work on cultural evolution have challenged the conventional economic assumption that people are motivated entirely by self-interest. His most recent books are ‘The Moral Economy: Why good laws are no substitute for good citizens’ and ‘A Cooperative Species: Human reciprocity and its revolution’.

‘Spock goes shopping’ was based on a thought experiment in Eric Beinhocker’s book ‘The Origin of Wealth’: https://www.indiebound.org/book/9781422121030

‘Homo Economicus’ Must Die

Home

https://yalebooksblog.co.uk/2016/10/11/the-moral-economy-homo-economicus-becomes-human/

 

David Goldstein:           What’s the consequence if you think that people are entirely selfish?

Nick Hanauer:               This basic assumption that economists have made has entered the culture and the consciousness of people, and what we have done, over generations is that, we have taught people to believe that people are perfectly selfish and rational.

David Goldstein:           The effortless system would fall apart indeed, any social system would fall apart if the people were psychopathic as described [00:00:30] by Homo Economicus.

Speaker 3:                    From the offices of Civic Ventures in downtown Seattle, this is Pitchfork Economics with Nick Hanauer, an honest conversation about how to make capitalism work for everyone.

Nick Hanauer:               I’m Nick Hanauer, founder of Civic Ventures.

David Goldstein:           I’m David Goldstein, [00:01:00] senior fellow at Civic Ventures.

Nick Hanauer:               So in this episode of Pitchfork Economics, we’re going to make the claim that Homo Economicus must die.

David Goldstein:           Oh, my god, who’s that, Nick? Who’s this guy you want to kill?

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah, it’s really mean here, but in the interests of full transparency, I think we should just say that if you’re still with us in Pitchfork Economics, that means you’re somewhat [00:01:30] wonky and care a lot about these subjects, and this episode will be wonkier still.

David Goldstein:           Right, so consider, we’ve talked about Homo Economicus in previous episodes in the past, consider that your bachelor’s degree. On this episode, you’re going to get your masters.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah exactly. We’re going deep on this episode on one of the most important assumptions that undergirds neo-classical economics, which is the assumption that economists make about [00:02:00] how human beings behave.

David Goldstein:           So to be clear, we’re making more than just the assertion that that behavioral model of Homo Economicus is wrong. In this episode we are actually saying, it must die.

Nick Hanauer:               Yes.

David Goldstein:           It is bad, it is destructive.

Nick Hanauer:               Yes.

David Goldstein:           It is the cause of harm.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah. So Homo Economicus, just to remind everybody is a simplifying assumption that neo-classical economists make, [00:02:30] about what humans are and how they behave. Basically it assumes that people are perfectly selfish, and perfectly rational, and that we are utility maximization machines, that we have consistent preferences, that we have no biases, or the biases are randomly distributed. We use probabilistic reasoning. That we are frame and context-independent. [00:03:00] That we can do things like exponential discounting, and that we have infinite cognitive abilities, we have time and infinite willpower, and information and attention are broadly distributed.

Nick Hanauer:               Now here’s the thing is that we now know that with scientific certainty, that none of those things are true, that in fact the last 40 years of behavioral, psychological and sociological research [00:03:30] shows unambiguously that people are not Homo Economicus, that we are actually Homo Sapiens and that we are other-regarding, reciprocal, approximating, heuristic, emotional and moral. The distinction, the difference between these two behavioral models has profound implications for economics.

Speaker 4:                    Okay, so before we tear down the totally [00:04:00] perfect logical person Homo Economicus has pegged us all as, let’s build a map, after all it’s always best to know exactly what you’re dealing with. Thankfully we can do it with a little TV break.

James T. Kirk:                Space, a final frontier. These are the voyages of the Starship Enterprise. It’s five-year mission to explore strange new worlds, [00:04:30] to seek out new life, and new civilizations. To boldly go where no man has gone before.

Sarah:                           Hi, my name’s Sarah [inaudible 00:04:38], and I’m a producer here at Pitchfork Economics, and that, as you may already know is the classic sci-fi television show, Star Trek.

Sarah:                           As nice a show as it is, I’m not just bringing it up for fun, I want to talk about one of the characters, specifically a dude named Spock. He’s a half-Vulcan, [00:05:00] half-human officer on the Starship Enterprise and he’s really got the whole sci-fi look down. He’s got he pointed ears, the eyebrows that were drawn on with a ruler, and he’s got a perfect sense of logic.

Spock:                          How close will we come to the nearest Klingon outpost if we continue on our present course?

Speaker 8:                    Ah, 1 par six, sir, close enough to smell them.

Spock:                          That is illogical Anson. Odors cannot travel through the vacuum of space.

Sarah:                           Which does came in handy on the Starfleet Enterprise, don’t get me wrong. I mean when your battling [00:05:30] hyper-logical androids, or you need someone willing to sacrifice themself for the greater good, you’ve got your guy. But what happens when you ask Spock to go to a grocery store, like friend of the pod Eric [inaudible 00:05:43] does in his book, The Origin of Well. Let’s say he walks into your local chain store and sees a carton of tomatoes. Going by Spock, logic is next series of thoughts are going to be something along the lines of tomatoes.

Sarah:                           I have a well defined preference [00:06:00] for tomatoes compared to literally everything else I could buy in the world including bread, milk and a vacation in Spain. Furthermore, I have well defined preferences for everything I could possibly buy at any point in the future. Since the future is uncertain, I have assigned probabilities to those potential purchases. In the traditional economics model, all these well defined preferences are also ordered very logically, so if I prefer tomatoes to carrots and prefer carrots to green beans, I will always take the tomatoes over the green beans. Likewise, if [00:06:30] I prefer tomatoes to carrots, I won’t suddenly go for the tomatoes simply because I saw some green beans.

Sarah:                           That’s a lot to think about. Let’s compare that to say Captain Kirk’s thoughts upon seeing a tomato. “Hmm. Tomatoes, they look nice and pretty fresh. I’m kind of feeling a salad tonight. Price looks okay too.” Puts some in the shopping basket, continues on his day.

Sarah:                           I’m not trying to say that Spock or logic don’t have their uses, [00:07:00] but the idea that a regular person is always going to be perfectly logical, is going to calculate their desire for tomatoes versus green beans in a flow chart and bring that along to the grocery store every time they go shopping, is ridiculous. I mean it’s something that Star Trek itself points out again and again.

Dr McCoy:                    Spock, remind me to tell you that I’m sick and tired of your logic.

Spock:                          That is the most illogical attitude.

Speaker 10:                  Orbit in one minute [inaudible 00:07:27].

Sarah:                           Because making people hyper-logical removes their humanity. [00:07:30] It makes a person a data point, like that tomato. I don’t know about you, but I like to imagine I’m a little more complex than my preference in veggies. My thoughts and emotions are what sway my opinions, not the stock price of green beams. As Spock says …

Spock:                          Logic is the beginning of wisdom, Valeris, not the end.

Nick Hanauer:               So we’re going to expand on these distinctions with [00:08:00] our friend, the Economist, Sam Bowles. Sam Bowles has pioneered a lot of the research on human behavior and may have singlehandedly, killed Homo Economicus himself. So it should be an interesting conversation.

Sam Bowles:                 Hey Nick, how are you?

Nick Hanauer:               I’m great. Well, we’re a few minutes early. Is that all right?

Sam Bowles:                 That’s fine. Yeah. I just [00:08:30] had to kick some people out of my house.

Nick Hanauer:               Thank you so much for taking the time to join us. I’m joined by my colleague, David Goldstein.

David Goldstein:           Hi Sam.

Nick Hanauer:               Hi David.

David Goldstein:           I just want to let you know that I’ve had to go through a whole education process the last couple of years, and you might be the most cited researcher in everything I’ve read. I see your name pop up more times than anybody else.

Nick Hanauer:               That’s right. If it’s not Bowles, it’s [Guintess 00:08:59].

David Goldstein:           Right. It’s Bowles and Guintess together.

Nick Hanauer:               [00:09:00] Anyways, so let’s start out. This episode is devoted to the idea of Homo Economicus. The episode is entitled Homo Economicus Must Die, which sounds dire and mean. So let’s start by you explaining to us what the neoclassical sort of orthodox conception of Homo Economicus is.

Sam Bowles:                 Nick, I have to disagree [00:09:30] with it right at the start. Homo Economicus dead.

Nick Hanauer:               It’s already dead.

Sam Bowles:                 We can talk about something else but maybe I’ll have to explain why I say that, but Homo Economicus, as a matter of the science of economics and so on, simply is no longer part of the discourse of the people who do research in the relevant areas. But of course you’re right that it lives on in public pronouncements. It certainly lives on in the textbooks and in the fields of economics where [00:10:00] people are not actually studying the factual basis for human behavior, it’s alive and well.

Sam Bowles:                 So here’s the basic idea. It starts in a reasonable place. It says when we see people acting, they’re trying to accomplish something, so our actions are purposeful. Then we want to find a way of formally modeling, that is using mathematics or using precise language, formally modeling how that works. So far, so good.

Sam Bowles:                 Then we go a bit further and we make two assumptions about how [00:10:30] they go about doing that. The first is how they think, and the second is what they think about. The how they think it simply says that we try to think of the thing which is the most likely or the utility associated with these various outcomes. We weight them by their probabilities and that’s called the maximization of expected utility. So now we could think about, “Well, is that really what people do?” Well, maybe when you buy a house [00:11:00] you do that kind of thing. You do a lot of thinking about how much you’re going to enjoy living there and so on. You may not do it accurately, you may have misinformation, but there are probably some realms of our life in which we kind of do that-

Nick Hanauer:               Or attempt to do that.

Sam Bowles:                 Yes. Attempt to do that. We maybe don’t do it accurately, but there are vast other parts of our lives, in which we essentially we work according to rules of thumb. What we decide to eat and where we decided to go when we [00:11:30] take a walk or … all of these things, they’re habit. Or a lot of the stuff we decide to do, we decide viscerally. Again, this shouldn’t be news to all of us. We act on impulse. We act because of anger, affection, fear and so on. These are things which of course are known by psychologists but are just coming to be known by economists, that visceral behavior is really fundamental.

Sam Bowles:                 What’s important about visceral behavior is it’s not forward-looking. [00:12:00] It doesn’t say, “Oh, if I do this, then that consequence will follow.” When I run in terror from a snake, I don’t think, “Oh, if I don’t run, I might be bitten by the snake therefore I should run.” We, fortunately for human beings, we have an immediate reaction if we see something dangerous. We draw back from it.

Sam Bowles:                 So human beings are equipped with lots of physical reactions to things, which part of the reason why we survive as a species. So [00:12:30] the idea that we think about all of these futures and the probability that they may come about because of our actions, as I say, probably covers some of our activity, but not all.

Nick Hanauer:               So we’re not the perfectly rational, perfectly informed, perfectly probabilistic Vulcans that Homo Economicus says we are. That’s just not how we think. Hell, I didn’t even think that way when I bought my house. We just walked through it for 20 minutes and made an offer. But what about the second part, Sam? What [00:13:00] we think about.

Sam Bowles:                 The second part, we think about ourselves that’s who we think about. We don’t think about others except insofar as they’re instrumental to our projects. Now as I say, a whole series of experiments over the past 30 years where people have to divide things and they have to put their money down on certain options as opposed to others, have shown that very few people are consistently selfish in this way. The majority of people violate that assumption in these experiments. [00:13:30] So we say, “Well it doesn’t seem to be true in the experiments.” Then you look at society and you say, “Well of course it’s not true.” I mean think of all the cases from very everyday ones, for example, obeying the law when you don’t have to, when you could get away with it. Everything from that to the fireman who entered the international trade towers, when they knew those towers were coming down. I mean those people, of course were doing a heroic altruistic thing. I’m sure many of them thought they would probably die and they did. [00:14:00] But anything from the everyday kindness we show to others, including respect for their needs and so on, is part of our own observation.

Sam Bowles:                 Now again, there’s a backup, which the true believers in Homo Economicus, will then say, “Well, you know, I don’t know about your experiments.” By the way, mostly they don’t know because they [inaudible 00:14:24]. Your introspection and your description of what your neighbors are like and so on, well, that’s [00:14:30] not what I see out there. I see basically we’re being pretty selfish. But the clincher here, which is supposed to shut me up, is that natural selection could not have produced the kind of species that you’re talking about. It just couldn’t happen. What’s the logic there?

Sam Bowles:                 Well, according to natural selection, the kinds of behaviors, the kind of ways of dealing with others that they’re going to spread, are those that help the reproductive success, that is number of children [00:15:00] surviving to reproductive age, also known as biological fitness. So if I do something that sacrifices my biological fitness, helping you, for example, in some way, that reduces my ability to have children, then of course, and suppose you don’t do that, well then you’re going to have more kids than me and they’re going to be more people like you in the next generation. If that goes on for three or four or five generations, it turns out most of the people [00:15:30] are going to be like you and very few like me. So that’s the argument.

Sam Bowles:                 That was thought to be the clincher until of course, recent evidence began to accumulate. There are lots of animals, not just humans, that engage in helping behaviors, jointly parenting the offspring and so on. In the case of humans, our ancestors fought a lot of battles. Now, guess which groups might win those battles?

Nick Hanauer:               Cooperative groups.

Sam Bowles:                 The groups in which people are [00:16:00] willing to say, “As a matter of fact, I’m going to help you out.” So the groups that had cooperators in them, in which the altruistic people had not been eliminated or reduced to insignificance. Those are the groups that were going to survive those contests.

Sam Bowles:                 The same would be true even if they weren’t having conflicts with other groups because surviving in this highly volatile climate required a group to cooperate. So the groups that survived these tremendous changes in temperature, for example, were probably [00:16:30] the ones with a lot of cooperators in them.

David Goldstein:           Okay. So Homo Economicus, is just scientifically wrong on both the how and the what. We’re not perfectly selfish creatures. We’ve actually evolved to be one of the most cooperative species on the planet. But so what? What are the real world consequences of getting human behaviors so wrong?

Sam Bowles:                 So the idea that has come through economics in the last 300 years is that there’s nothing really wrong with self-interest as long as we can harness [00:17:00] it, as long as we can channel it. Right after the stock market crash of 1987, I know it’s hard to remember if it’s that far back, but we do have them from time to time. The New York Times had a headline which said, “Ban greed?” No, harness it.”

Sam Bowles:                 It went on to say, there’s nothing wrong with greed as long as we can channel it towards social ends. That’s basically the paradigm that we now have in economics for public policy. [00:17:30] Ban greed? No, harness it. There’s a lot wrong with that, and I think perhaps the most important is this, if you treat people as if they’re entirely selfish, they tend to act that way.

Sam Bowles:                 The second problem with this view is, that partly for that reason, these ideas of incentivizing everything by essentially harnessing self-interest, they don’t work very [00:18:00] well and they certainly cannot address the basic problem facing humanity today. We cannot design incentives which would be good enough so that the environment will be saved for entirely selfish people who don’t care about future generations. There’s no way to design a kind of what’s called an economics, a mechanism that will do that.

Sam Bowles:                 The same is true for the production and use of knowledge. There’s no way we can get that done, spreading knowledge around, using it well and so on purely on the basis of self-interest. [00:18:30] This is one of the reasons why they have somebody to [inaudible 00:18:33]. It’s about intellectual property rights.

Nick Hanauer:               So I would have pressed farther though. I think that Homo Economicus, is actually even more pernicious of an idea then you have thus far explained because I think that, not only does telling people that people are selfish lead them to act selfishly, but that it also tells a story about [00:19:00] economic cause and effect, which is super pernicious. It’s a feedback loop, which is to say that if you embed the idea in the culture that people are essentially biologically, that we are objectively selfish and you let those people look around the world at all the prosperity and goodness in it, then they must reason logically. It must be true that billions of individual acts of selfishness magically [00:19:30] transubstantiate into prosperity and the common good. That selfishness is the cause of prosperity. Therefore the more selfish we are, the more prosperity we create.

Sam Bowles:                 Absolutely. Now in recent years, maybe the last 30 years, there’s been a new twist in economics. The new element is this; applying economic reasoning to the political sphere and to the social sphere, we now [00:20:00] say that any group that organizes must be like a cartel or a monopoly that’s trying to rip everybody off.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah. So if you were trying to build a policy framework within the context of cause and effect explanation, which grants cooperation essentially its rightful place, well, you’re going to come up with a very different list of policies than if you believe that selfishness is the cause essentially of prosperity. [00:20:30] I think that it’s so important culturally, politically and socially to make this pivot, to get people to recognize in a more reasonable way, how the world works and where prosperity comes from and what innovation is. Otherwise, we’re going to be moving backwards and not forwards.

Sam Bowles:                 Absolutely. I think in thinking about where prosperity comes from, we should think of two dimensions. My students always make fun of me because I always think in two-by-two [00:21:00] tables that’s about as complex as my mind will work. We should think about individuals as being selfish or cooperative. That’s about individual behavior. Then we should think about social systems and we have capitalism and then other social systems and so on.

Sam Bowles:                 The capitalist revolution is given credit for, and I think correctly given credit for, the vast increase in per capita income in the countries which have experienced this capitalist revolution starting with UK, expanding around the world now even [00:21:30] hitting India, China and so on. That is a capitalist phenomenon that did that. But it was not based on individual self-interest.

Nick Hanauer:               No.

Sam Bowles:                 The capitalist system would fall apart, indeed any social system would fall apart, if the people were psychopathic as described by Homo Economicus.

Nick Hanauer:               So would it be fair to say, rather than a system based on self-interest, capitalism properly operating as a system based on mutual [00:22:00] interest?

Sam Bowles:                 I think it’s based on both. I mean, I think that the evidence of an experimental nature and also introspection, does not lead me to conclude that people are not self-interested some of the time in some situations and so on. I think that self-interest is a part of the way that markets work and so on. I think the key error in Homo Economicus is the extremism of the idea that that’s all [00:22:30] that we are. I think you know, if we think about a reconstruction of the idea of who are human beings, what is society, self-interest will continue to play some role, but it will be a long with the empirically verified aspects of human behavior, which are the antithesis of self-interest. All of those things will be there. I think firms working by a combination of the two and so does capitalism. I think we could probably do better in harnessing these human beings as we really are [00:23:00] in a society which was more democratic in the way it ran its economic affairs because we can expect people to pay attention to what goes on around them and to find ways of cooperating to find solutions.

David Goldstein:           This has been so great. We’re so appreciative of your time and I hope to see you actually physically soon.

Sam Bowles:                 Yeah, I’m sure our paths will cross [inaudible 00:23:21] thinking the same way.

David Goldstein:           Yeah, I love it.

Sam Bowles:                 Okay.

David Goldstein:           Okay. Thank you so much.

Sam Bowles:                 Yeah [inaudible 00:23:27].

David Goldstein:           Bye.

Sam Bowles:                 Bye.

David Goldstein:           Bye-bye. [00:23:30] Okay, so Nick, now we know what Homo Economicus is and why it’s wrong. Let’s talk a little bit about why it matters.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah. I think that it matters into really ways. The first is that it’s just objectively untrue, right? It’s misleading the idea that people are perfectly selfish and perfectly rational. We now know with scientific certainty that that’s not true.

David Goldstein:           [00:24:00] If you have bad economic theory, that leads to bad economic policy and bad results-

Nick Hanauer:               Bad forecasts and all that kind of stuff, right? It leads you to believe things which are not true about the economy. That belief enables you to build models that actually don’t resemble the real world and they mislead you in all sorts of ways. But the-

David Goldstein:           That’s where great recessions come from.

Nick Hanauer:               Exactly. But there’s another way in which it’s a bad and consequential, which is in the normative [00:24:30] way, in the way that it affects the culture. Because if you teach people that people are selfish, then they come away believing that they should be selfish, and that is not a great thing for human societies.

David Goldstein:           And they end up behaving-

Nick Hanauer:               Selfishly.

David Goldstein:           … more selfishly. We know this because there are actual studies that show that economic students act more selfishly.

Nick Hanauer:               After you teach them economics.

David Goldstein:           Right. You take [00:25:00] Econ 101, you will be more selfish than somebody who didn’t.

Nick Hanauer:               Because the basic theoretical framework is it’s selfishness causes prosperity, and so therefore, being selfish is good. But if on the other hand we understand human beings and Homo Sapiens as they are as, yeah, of course occasionally self-interested and selfish, but largely cooperative, other regarding and reciprocal, then you have to [00:25:30] conclude that it’s cooperation largely and morality that is generating the prosperity around you. Understanding the world in that way can help you build better models and better economic policy.

Nick Hanauer:               It also will lead you to building a better culture because instead of encouraging, actively encouraging people to be selfish, you’re actively encouraging them to be cooperative and generous and other-regarding and so on and so forth. You just [00:26:00] end up in a much, much better circumstance.

David Goldstein:           So if we believe that the invisible hand wasn’t a selfish part of our nature, but the cooperative and reciprocal part of our nature, we’re going to emphasize the part of our behavior that actually leads to prosperity, leads to more trust, more cooperation, more complexity, and thus more prosperity.

Nick Hanauer:               Exactly. That’s why this matters so much. Why [00:26:30] it’s not an academic dispute over behavioral models. It’s actually a really important fight that affects people’s lived experience every day in the world.

David Goldstein:           Right. If we want to create a better world, Homo Economicus must die.

David Goldstein:           So Nick, you’ve been asking our listeners if they have any questions and we got one via email from John [Tibit 00:26:56], excuse the pronunciation if I got that wrong. [00:27:00] It’s actually more of a suggestion than a question. I’ll summarize this. He says, “It feels like you use the term workers a lot.” He’s afraid that that’s got a kind of socialist ring to it.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah, connotation.

David Goldstein:           Socialism, death panels, government control, a little terrifying to a lot of people and he wonders if maybe it would be easier on the American ear to refer to people as just people. After [00:27:30] all, that’s what we are and we all need a job. What do you think, Nick? Do you need a job?

Nick Hanauer:               I don’t need a job, which is why we use the term workers, is that there actually is a growing distinction in our economy between people who work and people who clip coupons.

David Goldstein:           So well, do you clip coupons? Well, T-bills?

Nick Hanauer:               Other people clip the coupons for me.

David Goldstein:           For [inaudible 00:27:52]. Right, you … so the distinction here, if we were to follow John’s suggestion, there’d [00:28:00] be workers. I’m a worker and your a person.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah. So one of the … So this a really interesting question of nomenclature and values and language and positioning. I guess I think one of the really interesting things that’s happened in our economy is that the term workers traditionally meant more working class people, people at the bottom end of the socioeconomic spectrum.

David Goldstein:           Distinguished from the middle class.

Nick Hanauer:               [00:28:30] Yes and from white collar workers, but over the last 40 years, one of the really- call it interesting, it’s also horrifying- things that’s happened is that everyone in the bottom nine deciles, the bottom 90% of the income spectrum has been left behind by economic growth. So folks that ordinarily would have considered themselves super upwardly mobile, white-collar and part of [00:29:00] the elite in many ways, have been left behind. I just think, it’s just accurate to call people who work for a living workers, and that’s why we’ve gotten comfort with it.

Nick Hanauer:               There is a distinction in my mind between people who work for a living and do what other people tell them to do and people who are the owners of enterprises and control capital.

David Goldstein:           And owners of capital, and this makes an important distinction which underlies [00:29:30] much of the growing income and wealth inequality in the country is that people like me who work, most of our income comes on a W2. It comes in the form of earned income from work. People like you, the bulk of your income comes from capital gains. You are-

Nick Hanauer:               Well, non-earned income.

David Goldstein:           Non-earned income.

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah.

David Goldstein:           You are earning profits on your assets, what we used to call unearned income.

Nick Hanauer:               Yes.

David Goldstein:           Why don’t we call [00:30:00] it that anymore?

Nick Hanauer:               I don’t know [inaudible 00:30:01] because-

David Goldstein:           Why do we advantage unearned income over earned income? That seems unfair.

Nick Hanauer:               I think that may be neo liberalism.

David Goldstein:           So yeah, we agree John. We understand it’s a word that could set other people off, but I dunno what. Maybe you’d prefer we distinguish instead of workers, we call them proletariat?

Nick Hanauer:               Yeah. Anyway, thanks for the question.

David Goldstein:           Again, we welcome your questions. Please email us [00:30:30] at pitchforkeconomics.com or leave us a voicemail at (731) 388-9334.

David Goldstein:           On the next episode of Pitchfork Economics, we look at spatial inequality and whether cities are killing rural America.

Speaker 3:                    [00:31:00] Pitchfork economics is produced by civic ventures. The magic happens in Seattle in partnership with Larj Media. That’s L-A-R-J Media, and the Young Turks network.

Speaker 3:                    Find us on Twitter and Facebook at Civic Action and follow our writing on medium at Civic Skunk Works. You should also follow Nick Hanauer on Twitter at @nickhanauer.

Speaker 3:                    As always, a big thank you to our guests and thank you to our team at Civic Ventures; Nick Hanauer, Zack Silk, Jasmin Weaver, Jessyn Farrell, Stephanie Ervin, David Goldstein, Paul Constant, [00:31:30] Nick Cassella and Annie Fadely. Thanks for listening.

David Goldstein:           America, I can’t say it.

Speaker 12:                  [crosstalk 00:31:39].

David Goldstein:           Rural.

Speaker 12:                  [inaudible 00:31:41].

David Goldstein:           Rural, I can’t. I had so many years of speech therapy it’s so hard to get past this.

Comments (108)
  1. Attractive portion of content. I just stumbled upon your web site and in accession capital to assert that I get actually loved account your weblog posts. Any way I will be subscribing in your feeds or even I achievement you get right of entry to consistently quickly.

  2. Hello, i read your blog occasionally and i own a similar one and i was just curious if you get a lot of spam responses?
    If so how do you stop it, any plugin or anything you
    can advise? I get so much lately it’s driving me
    mad so any support is very much appreciated.

  3. I simply want to say I’m new to weblog and seriously liked this web page. Likely I’m planning to bookmark your blog post . You really come with fabulous articles and reviews. Thanks a bunch for revealing your website page.

  4. obviously like your website but you have to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts.
    A number of them are rife with spelling issues and I to find it very bothersome to tell the truth however I will definitely
    come back again.

  5. Hey, I think your blog might be having browser compatibility issues. When I look at your blog in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, very good blog!

  6. I needed to compose you that tiny word just to thank you so much yet again for your personal pleasant knowledge you have shared on this website. This has been quite unbelievably open-handed with people like you to convey publicly what many people would have supplied as an e-book to end up making some profit for their own end, primarily given that you might have tried it in case you desired. Those tactics also acted to become fantastic way to realize that the rest have a similar desire much like my personal own to understand a whole lot more related to this problem. I am sure there are lots of more fun situations ahead for many who take a look at your blog.

  7. I do trust all the ideas you’ve presented in your post. They’re really convincing and can certainly work. Nonetheless, the posts are very quick for newbies. May you please prolong them a bit from next time? Thanks for the post.

  8. I don’t even know how I ended up here, but I thought this post was good. I don’t know who you are but certainly you’re going to a famous blogger if you aren’t already 😉 Cheers!

  9. My brother suggested I might like this blog. He was entirely right. This post truly made my day. You can not imagine simply how much time I had spent for this info! Thanks!

  10. I simply wanted to write down a note to be able to thank you for those fabulous tips you are giving out on this site. My prolonged internet research has now been compensated with extremely good facts and techniques to share with my good friends. I would admit that many of us visitors are really lucky to be in a perfect website with so many marvellous individuals with helpful principles. I feel quite blessed to have encountered your web site and look forward to some more fun times reading here. Thanks once again for a lot of things.

  11. Spot on with this write-up, I actually assume this website needs way more consideration. I’ll probably be again to learn far more, thanks for that info.

  12. My coder is trying to convince me to move to .net from PHP. I have always disliked the idea because of the expenses. But he’s tryiong none the less. I’ve been using Movable-type on a variety of websites for about a year and am worried about switching to another platform. I have heard great things about blogengine.net. Is there a way I can import all my wordpress posts into it? Any kind of help would be greatly appreciated!

  13. Hello there! Quick question that’s totally off topic. Do you know how to make your site mobile friendly? My website looks weird when viewing from my iphone4. I’m trying to find a theme or plugin that might be able to fix this problem. If you have any recommendations, please share. Thank you!

  14. Hey There. I found your weblog the usage of msn. That is a very well written article. I will make sure to bookmark it and return to read more of your helpful info. Thank you for the post. I’ll definitely comeback.

  15. Hiya! I know this is kinda off topic however , I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest writing a blog article or vice-versa? My site addresses a lot of the same topics as yours and I believe we could greatly benefit from each other. If you happen to be interested feel free to send me an e-mail. I look forward to hearing from you! Wonderful blog by the way!

  16. I am so happy to read this. This is the type of manual that needs to be given and not the random misinformation that is at the other blogs. Appreciate your sharing this greatest doc.

  17. Thanks , I’ve just been searching for info approximately this subject for a long time and yours is the greatest I have found out till now. However, what about the conclusion? Are you positive concerning the source?

  18. Thank you for another informative web site. The place else may just I am getting that type of info written in such a perfect way? I’ve a undertaking that I am simply now operating on, and I’ve been on the look out for such information.

  19. Can I just say what a relief to find a person that actually knows what they’re
    discussing on the web. You definitely know how to bring
    an issue to light and make it important. More people have to look at this and understand this side of the story.
    I was surprised you’re not more popular since you surely have the gift.

  20. Normally I do not learn article on blogs, however I wish to say that this write-up very pressured me to check out and do it!
    Your writing style has been surprised me. Thanks, quite nice post.

  21. Hola! I’ve been reading your website for a long time now and finally got the courage to go ahead and give you a shout out from Austin Tx! Just wanted to say keep up the great work!

  22. Nah postingan kali ini sangat bermanfaat, saya sering berkunjung dan membaca postingan disini. Emang keren-keren kontennya. Salah satu blog yang recommended deh.

  23. Thanks for another informative web site. Where else could I get that type of info written in such a perfect way? I’ve a project that I am just now working on, and I’ve been on the look out for such info.

  24. you’re really a just right webmaster. The website loading pace is incredible. It seems that you’re doing any distinctive trick. Also, The contents are masterpiece. you have performed a wonderful activity in this subject!

  25. Hey! This post couldn’t be written any better! Reading this post reminds me of my good old room mate! He always kept chatting about this. I will forward this article to him. Fairly certain he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!

  26. I simply needed to thank you very much once more. I do not know what I would have carried out without the entire ways revealed by you on my question. It was actually an absolute daunting condition in my view, nevertheless considering the very specialized mode you resolved that took me to cry over fulfillment. I will be happier for this work and even wish you know what an amazing job you are always putting in training many people thru a blog. Probably you haven’t encountered all of us.

  27. I do accept as true with all the concepts you have introduced on your post. They’re very convincing and will certainly work. Still, the posts are too short for beginners. May just you please extend them a bit from subsequent time? Thank you for the post.

  28. I precisely wanted to thank you very much once more. I do not know the things I would’ve tried without the entire information revealed by you over such a situation. This has been the frightening issue for me personally, nevertheless taking a look at this expert avenue you dealt with that made me to cry over fulfillment. I will be happy for the service and thus pray you know what a powerful job you were providing training many people using a blog. Probably you have never encountered all of us.

  29. This is the best blog for anyone who desires to find out about this topic. You understand so much its virtually onerous to argue with you (not that I actually would want…HaHa). You definitely put a brand new spin on a subject thats been written about for years. Nice stuff, just great!

  30. Wonderful beat ! I wish to apprentice while you amend your website, how could i subscribe for a blog website? The account helped me a acceptable deal. I had been tiny bit acquainted of this your broadcast offered bright clear idea

  31. I have read a few excellent stuff here. Definitely value bookmarking for revisiting. I surprise how much effort you set to make the sort of wonderful informative site.

  32. Just wish to say your article is as surprising. The clarity in your post is simply nice and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please keep up the gratifying work.

  33. Howdy just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your content seem to be running off the screen in Chrome. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I figured I’d post to let you know. The layout look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Cheers

  34. Thank you for another informative web site. Where else could I get that kind of info written in such an ideal way? I have a project that I am just now working on, and I have been on the look out for such information.

  35. Wow! Tһіs blog looks just liҝe my olԁ one! It’s on a totally
    diffеrent topic Ƅut it has pretty mսch the same layout ɑnd design. Excellent choice ⲟf colors!

  36. hey tһere and thank уοu ffor your info –
    I havе definitely picked ᥙp something neww from right
    һere. I did hoѡevеr expertise sevеral technical issues using
    this site, as I experienced tо reload the website а ⅼot of times preѵious tߋ Ι coulԁ get it to load properly.
    I had bеen wondering іf үour web hosting is OK?
    Noot tһat I’m complaining, Ьut sluggish loading instances tіmes
    wіll sometimеs affect your placemennt
    іn google and could damage youг һigh-quality score іf ads ɑnd marketinng ѡith
    Adwords. Well I am adding tһis RSS to my email and cⲟuld look οut for a
    lot mогe of yߋu respective іnteresting content. Ensure tat уoս update thiѕ gain veгy
    ѕoon.

  37. I am extremely impressed togetheг wih your writing abilities andd ɑlso with the structure іn your
    blog. Is tһɑt thіѕ a paid toppic оr diԁ you customize іt your self?

    Ꭼither way keеp upp tһe nice һigh quality writing,
    it іs uncommon tо look a nice blog like tis one thesе
    ԁays..

  38. Hey I know tһis is οff topic bսt I wаs wondering if you кnew of аny
    wiidgets I ϲould aɗd to myy blog tаt automatically tweet mʏ
    neᴡeѕt twitter updates. І’vе been looking for a plug-in like
    tһiѕ fοr ԛuite somе time and was hoping mɑybe уou wоuld havе some experience ԝith something ⅼike tһіs.
    Pⅼease lett me khow if үou runn int᧐ anytһing.
    І trᥙly enmjoy rreading your blog and I lοok forward tο yоur neᴡ
    updates.

  39. Hey thiѕ іѕ kinda of ooff topic but Ι ѡas ᴡanting to know if blogs ᥙse WYSIWYG
    editors oor if you hаѵe to manually code wіth HTML.
    I’m starting a blog sоon but havе no coding know-how sо
    I ԝanted tⲟ get guidance fгom someonee ѡith experience.
    Any help woulpd Ье enormously appreciated!

  40. Hmm is anyone else encountering problems with the images on this blog loading? I’m trying to figure out if its a problem on my end or if it’s the blog. Any responses would be greatly appreciated.

  41. It is actualⅼʏ a nice and uѕeful piece оf іnformation. Ӏ am glad
    that ʏou јust shared this helpful info with us.
    Рlease kеep us iformed ⅼike thіs. Thanks for sharing.

  42. Hey Ι know this is off topic but I was wondering if yοu kneѡ
    off any widgets I coսld add to my blog that automatically
    tweet mү newest twitgter updates.І’ve been loօking foг a plug-inlike tһis foг
    quite sοme tike and ѡas hoping mɑybe yߋu ԝould һave some experience with somethig ⅼike
    tһis. Please let me know iff you гun іnto anything. I tгuly enjoy
    reading youг blog ɑnd I looҝ forward to yoᥙr new updates.

  43. Hey! Do you knw іf they maқe any plugins tߋ assist with
    SEO? I’m tryіng tօ get my blog to rank for ѕome tarheted
    keywords Ƅut I’m not seeing very good results. If you know օf anny please share.
    Kudos!

  44. What’s սp to very body, it’ѕ my fiгst pay а visit oof tһis blog; tһіs website incluces amazing annd іn fаct excellent stuff
    in support of readers.

  45. Juѕt desire to ѕay your articxle is as surprising. Тhe clearness
    in youг post iss simply spectacular аnd i ϲаn assume you arе ɑn expert on this subject.
    Fіne wuth your permission ⅼet me to grab үour RSS feed to keep updatted witrh forthcoming post.
    Thanks a million and ⲣlease kеep up the gratifying ᴡork.

  46. Hello to every one, for the reason tһat I am actually keen oof reading this weblog’ѕ post too ƅe
    updayed оn a regular basis. Ιt іncludes nice
    material.

  47. An outstanding share! І’vе jist forwarded tһis onto a friend ᴡhо ᴡas conducting a lіttle reѕearch on thіs.
    And he actᥙally orԁered mе dinner due to tһe fact thаt I foսnd it for him…
    lol. So allow me to reeword this…. Thwnk YOU foг tһe meal!!
    Bᥙt yeah, tһanx foг spending thе time to talk abou tһis subject here
    on yoir web page.

  48. I’m extremely impressed with your writing skills as well as with the layout on your weblog. Is this a paid theme or did you modify it yourself? Anyway keep up the nice quality writing, it is rare to see a nice blog like this one today..

  49. Simply wish to say your article is as astonishing. The clarity in your post is simply great and i could assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine with your permission allow me to grab your RSS feed to keep updated with forthcoming post. Thanks a million and please carry on the rewarding work.

  50. I simply needed to thank you so much all over again. I do not know the things that I might have created in the absence of the actual opinions contributed by you over my question. This was the distressing difficulty in my view, but looking at this expert approach you handled it took me to jump over gladness. Extremely happier for your assistance and then trust you find out what a powerful job that you are accomplishing educating many people thru your web site. I am certain you haven’t encountered all of us.

  51. What’s Taking place i’m new to this, I stumbled upon this I have discovered It absolutely useful and it has helped me out loads. I hope to give a contribution & help other users like its helped me. Good job.

  52. I am now not positive the place you’re getting your information, however good topic. I must spend some time studying more or figuring out more. Thanks for great information I used to be searching for this info for my mission.

  53. One thing I want to discuss is that weightloss routine fast is possible by the perfect diet and exercise. People’s size not just affects the look, but also the entire quality of life. Self-esteem, depressive disorder, health risks, and also physical capabilities are affected in an increase in weight. It is possible to just make everything right and at the same time having a gain. In such a circumstance, a condition may be the offender. While a lot of food and not enough work out are usually the culprit, common medical ailments and key prescriptions might greatly enhance size. Thanks alot : ) for your post right here.

  54. I have realized that online degree is getting common because getting your college degree online has become a popular choice for many people. Quite a few people have definitely not had an opportunity to attend a normal college or university however seek the improved earning possibilities and a better job that a Bachelors Degree grants. Still some others might have a qualification in one course but would choose to pursue another thing they now have an interest in.

  55. Hello just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let you know a few of the pictures aren’t loading correctly. I’m not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I’ve tried it in two different internet browsers and both show the same results.

  56. Nice blog right here! Additionally your website loads up fast! What host are you using? Can I get your associate hyperlink for your host? I desire my site loaded up as fast as yours lol

  57. Hi, Neat post. There is a problem with your site in internet explorer, might check this¡K IE nonetheless is the marketplace chief and a large section of folks will pass over your excellent writing due to this problem.

  58. Great – I should definitely pronounce, impressed with your website. I had no trouble navigating through all tabs and related info ended up being truly simple to do to access. I recently found what I hoped for before you know it in the least. Quite unusual. Is likely to appreciate it for those who add forums or anything, web site theme . a tones way for your customer to communicate. Nice task..

  59. I like this site very much, Its a real nice post to read and get information. “There is no exercise better for the heart than reaching down and lifting people up.” by John Andrew Holmes.

  60. It¡¦s really a great and helpful piece of info. I am happy that you shared this useful info with us. Please stay us informed like this. Thank you for sharing.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *