Above is an overview of the new economics from the Roosevelt Institute. Here's the Sea Change report referenced in the video. Skip ahead to where the talk begins at 3:15.
There is a “new” (actually, mostly old) economic worldview coming into view. We’re now in a “post-neoliberal” era. Hopefully this is good political news. Watch the video to find out. The new economics should be a political winner for the center in that it feels more intuitively correct to people on the right and left ends of the political spectrum, the “populist” voters so loathed by political centrists. The message to rural voters in particular needs to be that they have to take responsibility for the economy themselves, rather than electing an autocrat who will magically make America great again. These voters need to participate in creating a better democratic system through a process of deep economic localism. The key to this strategy is that local monetary and economic control needs to come first, not democracy, education reform, or social or environmental justice—in other words, all of the usual progressive priorities. It is a strategy that applies to developing nations, as well, since it is clear that economic development has stalled on a global scale. It will take much higher levels of social trust and better democracies to improve the quality of life for working people everywhere, whether they are in developing nations, or in the rural areas or inner cities of developed nations. But in nations like the United States, where political gridlock is endemic, a focus on hyper-localism needs to be the foundation of all other progress.
At minute 56 the speakers talk about the need for a name for the new economics rather than “post-neoliberalism.” I’m personally happy with “supply-side progressivism.” It is arguable to what extent the Roosevelt Institute itself can be said to advocate for supply-side progressivism.
Other names include:
— President Joe Biden’s team calls the new economics “Bidenomics.”
— Harvard economist Dani Rodrik writing in Project Syndicate has called it “productivism” (“for lack of a better word.”)
— “Social democracy” is politically toxic messaging in the United States, and also inadequate for the reasons overviewed on this website and in the video.
— In early 2024, the Liberal Patriot promoted a newish “liberal nationalism” with a “post-neoliberal” industrial policy. At the end of 2024, the LP is now calling the new economics “supply-side progressivism,” but Ruy Teixeira’s claim that the Democratic Party is not embracing this new-and-improved industrial policy because of the left wing of the party is absurd. The Democratic party has roughly as many neoliberals as the Republican party ever did, and they have been slow to change their free-market thinking the way Elizabeth Warren did in the early 1990s.
— The mission of Oren Cass’s conservative think tank, American Compass, aligns broadly with my own views, including their “conservative” economics. I also agree with American Compass’s aim of elevating the role of technical colleges in society, as well as other aspects of their educational agenda. Hopefully that agreement is an indicator of the potential the center has to pull more voters in from the poles, but it’s admittedly a complicated conversation.
At minutes 17:50 and 55:40 the speakers note how the new economics focuses more on power balancing between economic classes rather than measurements like inflation, GDP, trade balances or stocks. There is also more attention to the need for breadth, diversity, and self-sufficiency in national economies, all of which requires the input of all economic stakeholders at all levels of society and government. For these reasons and more, I call it “accountable economics.” In this view, better economics requires better democracy. It is long past time, therefore, to put the “political” back into political economy.