Back in 2016, Joan Williams, distinguished professor of law (emerita) at UC Law San Francisco, wrote an essay for the Harvard Business Review on why President Donald Trump attracted so many non-college voters. It went viral with almost four million views, becoming the most-read article in the 90-year history of the publication.

Williams’ new book, Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back, outlines how the seemingly common view that her fellow progressives must abandon their social causes to win back those non-college-educated voters is wrong. What is required, she argues, is a renewed understanding of class. She introduces her conceptualization of the “diploma divide,” or the gap between Americans with and without college degrees. Her worldview divides the electorate into three class-based groups: the college-educated, upper-class “Brahmin left”, the low-income working (middle) class, and the right-wing merchant class, which pushes for economic policies that benefit the rich. Her argument is that a new coalition between the latter two has shifted politics to the right.

In this week’s Capitalisn’t episode, Luigi and Bethany invite Williams to discuss whether our society indeed breaks down so neatly. If it does, how does her breakdown help us understand recent electoral shifts and trends in populism and why the left is on the losing end of both? As she writes in her book and discusses in the episode, “[the Brahmin] left’s anger is coded as righteous. Why is non-elite anger discounted as “grievance?” Together, their conversation sheds light on how the left can win back voters without compromising on progressive values.Over the last four years, Capitalisn’t has interviewed conservative thinkers like Oren Cass, Patrick Deneen, and Sohrab Ahmari to understand how the political right developed a new platform after President Joe Biden’s victory in 2020. With this episode, we begin the same project with the left by asking: What could be the economic basis for a new progressive platform?

Show Notes:

Read an excerpt from Joan Williams' new book, “Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back,” out now at St. Martin's Press
Quiz: “Are You in a Class Bubble?”
What So Many People Don’t Get About the U.S. Working Class, by Joan Williams, Harvard Business Review, November 10, 2016

Lina Khan recently concluded her term as one of the Biden administration’s most controversial leaders. Her tenure as chair of the Federal Trade Commission raised the profile of the relatively obscure antitrust agency charged with protecting competition. Her anti-monopoly outlook and more aggressive enforcement strategies, particularly toward Big Tech market power and protecting workers, earned the ire of the business community and the dedicated vitriol of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.

Khan began her term as the youngest-ever appointee of the FTC. She initially rose to prominence for her 2017 Yale Law Journal article, “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” which went viral among the antitrust community for its argument that scholars and regulators must look beyond prices to understand what constitutes a harm from a lack of competition, especially in today’s digital economy where many services are nominally provided for free to consumers. Fresh out of law school, Khan appeared on a Capitalisn’t episode in our first season and wrote for our sister publication at the Stigler Center, ProMarket, as far back as 2018. She also delivered two keynote addresses at the Stigler Center’s annual Antitrust and Competition Conferences while FTC chair.

On this episode, Khan returns to Capitalisn’t to reflect on her tenure, her vision of capitalism, and how her approach to enforcing existing laws with new thinking may have impacted the everyday lives of Americans. How does she respond to her critics, who include major Democratic business leaders? How does she view the new Trump administration, which is continuing many of her transformative policies, including revised merger guidelines and major lawsuits? As a senator, Vice President JD Vance said she was “one of the few people in the Biden administration actually doing a pretty good job.” Reflecting on her work, Khan also touches upon how conflicts of interest among corporate lawyers and consultants, former bureaucrats, and academics distort policymaking, court rulings, and market outcomes. Finally, she highlights the antitrust issues to pay attention to moving forward, such as algorithmic collusion.

Show Notes: Also, check out ProMarket’s series on the future of the Neo-Brandesian movement, of which Lina Khan is an emblematic figure.

The rule of law is essential to the flourishing of liberal democracy and capitalism. Yet, it is now under pressure in the United States, and corporate law firms are in the eye of the storm. Over the last few weeks, President Donald Trump has issued executive orders against several prominent law firms that represented his political adversaries and promoted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Some of these law firms have caved into the administration’s demands to end such practices and provide pro bono services to the government, whereas others are fighting back.

To discuss the financial reasons why some firms have capitulated while others have held out, and what the consequences are for the survival of the rule of law, Bethany and Luigi speak to John Morley, Augustus E. Lines Professor of Law at Yale University and an expert on the economics of law. Are Trump’s orders unconstitutional, and if so, why have so many law firms reached a deal with him? How have changes to law firms’ business models left them particularly vulnerable to a moment like this? Why are some firms more vulnerable to political attacks than others? Together, the three discuss the firms’ reciprocal agreements with the administration, the possibilities for a collective-action response, and how this moment may profoundly reshape the future of law, democracy, and capitalism in America.

Show Notes:

Watch a recording of the panel “Antitrust and the 1st Amendment” from the 2025 Stigler Center Antitrust and Competition Conference, featuring Greg Day, Eleanor Fox, and Matt Stoller, and moderated by Maciej Bernatt. The panel highlights how antitrust may stand in the way of collective action, competitive markets, and free speech.

All too often, capitalism is identified with the for-profit sector. However, one organizational form whose importance is often overlooked is nonprofits. Roughly 4% of the American economy, including most universities and hospital systems, are nonprofit.

One prominent nonprofit currently at the center of a raging debate is OpenAI, the $300 billion American artificial intelligence research organization best known for developing ChatGPT. Founded in 2015 as a donation-based nonprofit with a mission to build AI for humanity, it created a complex “hybrid capped profit” governance structure in 2019. Then, after a dramatic firing and re-hiring of CEO Sam Altman in 2023 (covered on an earlier episode of Capitalisn’t: “Who Controls AI?”), a new board of directors announced that achieving OpenAI’s mission would require far more capital than philanthropic donations could provide and initiated a process to transition to a for-profit public benefit corporation. This process has been fraught with corporate drama, including one early OpenAI investor, Elon Musk, filing a lawsuit to stop the process and launching a $97.4 billion unsolicited bid for OpenAI’s nonprofit arm.

Beyond the staggering valuation numbers at stake here–not to mention OpenAI’s open pursuit of profits over the public good–are complicated legal and philosophical questions. Namely, what happens when corporate leaders violate the founding purpose of a firm? To discuss, Luigi and Bethany are joined by Rose Chan Loui, the founding executive director of the Lowell Milken Center on Philanthropy and Nonprofits at UCLA Law and co-author of the paper "Board Control of a Charity’s Subsidiaries: The Saga of OpenAI.” Is OpenAI a “textbook case of altruism vs. greed,” as the judge overseeing the case declared? Is AI for everyone, or only for investors? Together, they discuss how money can distort purpose and philanthropy, precedents for this case, where it might go next, and how it may shape the future of capitalism itself.

Show Notes:

Read extensive coverage of the Musk-OpenAI lawsuit on ProMarket, including Luigi’s article from March 2024: “Why Musk Is Right About OpenAI.”

Guest Disclosure (provided to The Conversation for an op-ed on the case): The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in, or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article. They have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Silicon Valley’s traditionally Democratic tech leaders are turning toward President Donald Trump, but are the reasons as straightforward as lower taxes and favorable regulations? Perhaps not, if we consider the influence of a convoluted political philosophy called the “Dark Enlightenment.” Washington and Silicon Valley power players, including Vice President JD Vance, Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen, have all cited the philosophy’s ideas and one of its leading developers, Curtis Yarvin. Yarvin was reportedly present at Trump’s inaugural gala as an informal guest of honor.

In a nutshell, Dark Enlightenment rejects liberal democracy as an outdated software system incompatible with freedom and progress. Instead, it argues for breaking up the nation-state into smaller authoritarian city-states, which Yarvin calls “patchworks.” These patchworks will be controlled by tech corporations and run by CEOs. The theory is attached to another idea called accelerationism, which harnesses capitalism and technology to induce radical social change. In fact, Yarvin proposed a plan he called “RAGE”—or “Retire All Government Employees”—as far back as 2012.

So, how did this obscure and oxymoronically named philosophy reach the highest echelons of business and political power? Bethany and Luigi trace the theory from its origins to its practical manifestations in Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, Silicon Valley’s race to develop artificial intelligence, and the growing push for “Freedom Cities” unfettered from federal regulations. Are the people embracing Dark Enlightenment espousing its ideas because they genuinely believe it is the way forward for humanity? Or do they believe it because it's a way for them to make money? What does it mean for capitalism and democracy if the administration runs the federal government like a tech company?

In President Donald Trump's recent joint address to Congress, he said, "To unshackle our economy, I have directed that for every one new regulation, ten old regulations must be eliminated." Elon Musk, whom Trump has assigned to execute this vision, has argued that it is time to get rid of all regulations, or as Musk said, “regulations, basically, should be default gone.”

Joining Bethany and Luigi to discuss this intensified commitment to deregulation and laissez-faire capitalism is Sam Peltzman, perhaps the leading living expert on the economics of regulation. Peltzman is the Ralph and Dorothy Keller Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus of Economics at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business and director emeritus of the Stigler Center, which sponsors this podcast and is named after his mentor, Nobel-Prize laureate George Stigler. Together, the three of them chart a historical perspective on regulation, from Stigler’s ideas of regulatory capture to the unintended consequences of deregulatory efforts over time to today’s “chainsaw” approach to gutting federal agencies. To understand the costs and benefits of regulation, they discuss how federal agencies have recently intervened in markets, if the private sector could not have accomplished these interventions more efficiently, and if these interventions did more harm than good. Their case studies include the funding, testing, and rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine, the regulation of cryptocurrencies, the management of the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, and the role of the government in addressing climate change. In the process, they answer the trillion-dollar question: Are Trump's deregulation efforts actually efficient?

Episode Notes:

• Revisit our recent episode with Federico Sturzenegger, the Argentinian Minister for State Transformation and Deregulation
• Read the op-ed Bethany mentions writing in the wake of the financial crisis: Who Wants a 30-Year Mortgage?
• At the end of the conversation with Peltzman, Luigi asks him about his recent academic papers tracing marriage and happiness. Read these papers on the Stigler Center’s Working Paper archives: The Socio-Political Demography of Happiness (2023) and The Anatomy of Marital Happiness (2025)

Skyrocketing costs of attendance, declining enrollment, the advent of artificial intelligence, campus debates about free speech, and a crackdown on diversity initiatives: Today's universities are in a pickle. Adding to this pickle are President Trump's threats and actions on slashing research funding — the financial lifeline of modern universities. Last month, the Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted a new survey of a diverse group of university presidents who were asked if they “believe the Trump Administration is at war with higher education” — and 94% answered they strongly agree.

Luigi and Bethany speak to one academic leader with deep experience at the heart of these debates: Nicholas Dirks, former Chancellor of UC Berkeley (2013-2017) and author of the book, "City of Intellect: The Uses and Abuses of the University." Together, the three of them discuss which idea of the university is still valid in the 21st century, how fundraising changed the governance of higher education, and how universities might navigate the challenges of Trump's second administration.

Revisit our previous episodes:
Universities and Politics: Should They Mix? with Hanna Gray
The Economics of Student Protests

“Homeownership is the American Dream.” This saying is so ingrained in our zeitgeist that most Americans don't even pause to question it. However, according to the Black Knights Home Price Index, the average US home price increased nearly 80% from April 2015 to April 2023. Census data reveals that the median household income only increased by 4% during this period. Homeownership has thus become increasingly out of reach, especially for young professionals. So, how did the American Dream become an American nightmare?

In his brand new book, “Stuck: How the Privileged in the Propertied Broke the Engine of American Opportunity,” The Atlantic’s Deputy Editor Yoni Appelbaum offers a contrarian view, arguing that the crisis in American homeownership isn’t actually about cost—it’s about mobility. There are many places in America where housing remains affordable and even dirt cheap. The problem is that those affordable options are in less desirable locations, with fewer opportunities for high-quality jobs, education, and health care. Thus, young professionals continue to migrate to communities where opportunities are bountiful, but housing is not.

Appelbaum joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss how Americans got “stuck.” Why does mobility matter so much? What are the implications of reduced mobility for Americans’ faith in capitalism and the belief that our country is still the land of opportunity? If treating a home as an investment—which many of us do—means less mobility, is being “stuck” so wrong for society? Together, the three of them unpack this entangled question of mobility, homeownership, and what it means for the reformulation of the American Dream.

Capitalisn't episodes mentioned:
Shattering Immigration Myths: Data Beyond Borders, with Leah Boustan
Raj Chetty's Surprising New Insights on How Children Succeed
What Happened to the American Dream? With David Leonhardt

Read an excerpt from Appelbaum's book on ProMarket (Penguin Random House)

This week, Elon Musk—amidst his other duties of gutting United States federal government agencies as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE)—announced a hostile bid alongside a consortium of buyers to purchase control of OpenAI for $97.4 billion. OpenAI CEO Sam Altman vehemently replied that his company is not for sale.

The artificial intelligence landscape is shifting rapidly. The week prior, American tech stocks plummeted in response to claims from Chinese company DeepSeek AI that its model had matched OpenAI’s performance at a fraction of the cost. Days before that, President Donald Trump announced that OpenAI, Oracle, and Softbank would partner on an infrastructure project to power AI in the U.S. with an initial $100 billion investment. Altman himself is trying to pull off a much-touted plan to convert the nonprofit OpenAI into a for-profit entity, a development at the heart of his spat with Musk, who co-founded the startup.

Bethany and Luigi discuss the implications of this changing landscape by reflecting on a prior Capitalisn’t conversation with Luigi’s former colleague Sendhil Mullainathan (now at MIT), who forecasted over a year ago that there would be no barriers to entry in AI. Does DeepSeek’s success prove him right? How does the U.S. government’s swift move to ban DeepSeek from government devices reflect how we should weigh national interests at the risk of hindering innovation and competition? Musk has the ear of Trump and a history of animosity with Altman over the direction of OpenAI. Does Musk’s proposed hostile takeover signal that personal interests and relationships with American leadership will determine how AI develops in the U.S. from here on out? What does regulating AI in the collective interest look like, and can we escape a future where technology is consolidated in the hands of the wealthy few when billions of dollars in capital are required for its progress?

Show Notes:
On ProMarket, check out:
Why Musk Is Right About OpenAI by Luigi Zingales, March 5, 2024
Who Will Enforce AI’s Social Purpose? By Roberto Tallarita, March 16, 2024

In December 2024, Bitcoin, one of the earliest cryptocurrencies and undoubtedly the most famous, hit $2 trillion in market capitalization, bigger than Tesla, Meta, and Saudi Aramco. In this episode, Nobel Prize-winning economist and Chicago Booth finance professor Eugene Fama—widely considered the “Father of Modern Finance”—predicts it will go to zero within ten years.

Legendary investor Ray Dalio called crypto a bubble a decade ago; now, he calls it “one hell of an invention.” Larry Fink of BlackRock previously referred to Bitcoin as an index of money laundering. Today, he sees it as “a legitimate financial instrument.” Less than 36 hours after launching his own cryptocurrency before his second inauguration, United States President Donald Trump appeared to have made more than $50 billion on paper for himself and his companies. (During his first term, Trump called crypto “not money, whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air.”) Amidst this noise of crypto doubters changing tune, Fama joins Bethany and Luigi to discuss why he remains dubious about Bitcoin’s ambitions.

Bitcoin uses more electricity than many countries—around 91 terawatt-hours annually. Is this amount unsustainable? What makes its value so volatile, and what are the implications for the banking sector and our economy? If cryptocurrencies’ purpose is a reaction to an underlying distrust in financial institutions, can decentralized blockchain, the technological ledger that enables anonymous crypto exchange, fix it? Last but not least, why do supporters of a decentralized service, whose value lies in its existence outside traditional government structures, need to spend billions in lobbying to convince politicians, including the president, of its utility?

Show Notes:

1. Read ProMarket’s archives on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.
2. Revisit our prior Capitalisn’t episode with author Zeke Faux, The Capitalisn’t of Crypto: SBF and Beyond.