Timothy Grady

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Greetings and welcome to the United States Transhumanist Party Virtual
Enlightenment Salon. My name is Jannati Stolieroth the second and
I am the Chairman of the US Transhumanist Party. Here
we hold conversations with some of the world's leading thinkers
in longevity, science, technology, philosophy, and politics. Like the philosophers

(00:22):
of the Age of Enlightenment, we aim to connect every
field of human endeavor and arrive at new insights to
achieve longer lives, greater rationality, and the progress of our civilization.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
Greetings, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to our US Transhumanist
Party Virtual Enlightenment Salon. Today is Sunday, November twenty third,
twenty twenty five, and we have a fascinating conversation in
store for you with one of the candidates whom we
have recently endorsed via the vote of our members that

(00:55):
transpired between August and early September of two thousand and
twenty five. So joining us today is our panel of
distinguished US Transhumanist Party officers and members, including our director
of Visual Art Art Ramon Garcia, our member from Texas
who heads the Texas Transhumanist Party, Alan Crowley, and we

(01:19):
will have Daniel Tweed joining us shortly. Daniel Tweed is
our director of Community and Citizen Science and our twenty
twenty four US Vice presidential candidate. Daniel is here at present,
so welcome Daniel. And our special guest for today is

(01:39):
Timothy Grady. Timothy Grady is running for governor of Ohio.
Our members voted by a significant margin to endorse him.
We announced that endorsement on September fourth, two thousand, twenty five.
And also I would like to share with you Timothy
Grady's campaign web site, which is tim gradyfo Ohio dot com.

(02:03):
So please visit it check it out to learn about
mister Grady's campaign stances. So Tim Grady, welcome, and please
tell us a bit more about yourself, why you're running
for governor of Ohio, and perhaps some events that have
transpired either in your history leading up to the campaign

(02:27):
or in the campaign thus far.

Speaker 3 (02:31):
Hi, I am sim Gray in the Bank, candid forgivernor
of hard Time twenty six Thank you for having me.
Thank you also for the endorsement. I have been a
follower of the Transhumanist Party since twenty sixteen. I've always
been interested in the power of technology to advance humanity
and to provide a better, more prosperous life and world

(02:56):
for all of us. So it to me seems like
a natural fit. Why I sought out an endorsement. One
of the reasons I am running for governor is well
because it is the lowest practical office for me to
run for to advance my goals of mobilizing the people

(03:18):
of Ohio, people of America to demand a better system,
a better politics, a better government, more responsive, less corrupt.
Running for governor, people often say, you know, aim for
a lower office first, this is the office with the
most reached. It's the office with the most power to
get stuff done that will allow me to inspire more people.

(03:43):
And we have over just five months. I launched my
campaign at the end of June. We have continued to
grow and inspire people. I've met many people who across
from the local spectrum are interested in getting involved in

(04:03):
supporting this campaign. And in one of the things I
often do, I want more people to run for office,
and I am helping other people get involved to run
as independents, as Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, whatever. I want more
people to run for office. I'm trying to show that
it can be done. I am literally a random person,
and I am successfully running forgevernor in fact, I kind

(04:27):
of like my chances right now. But I'm also running
because and mobilizing people because I think we are in
a pretty dire situation politically. Our country is more divided
than it has been in I think over a century
at least, we have stagnated. We've won out of ideas.

(04:51):
It seems from the Democrats and Republicans they've been having
the same fights for decades and getting nowhere, evolving into
basically negative partisanship as the only way to keep going,
to keep staying in power. People don't vote for a
party anymore. They vote against the other party, and that's

(05:13):
not what we need. We need vision, we need inspiration,
We need people who see a future for this country
and are ready to fight for that. That's kind of
one of my slogans, fight for the future, fight for
our future, because I believe there's a future for this country.
I believe there's a great future for this country and
for all of humanity. And one of the beautiful things

(05:37):
about democracy is that we get to choose. At the
end of the day, it's not your party infrastructure, it's
not how much money you have or can spend. It's
one person, one vote, and everyone has agency, everyone has choice,
and really the biggest problem is the coordination problem of

(05:57):
getting everyone to realize that, yeah, this is our power,
not just our power, but our responsibility. And that's more
background me. I have been in the independent, third party
centrist political space for over a decade. Not because I

(06:18):
really like politics. I actually find it very frustrating and
a terrible drain on time. But I'm in it because
I think there is something I can do for this world.
I think we can have a better politics, and so
I feel an obligation to act to do that. In

(06:40):
twenty eighteen, I was a Libertarian candidate for state representative.
I was never a part of the Libertarian party. I
was a state representative candidate for because of the very
special situation which I could do. It help them get
a choice on the ballot without officially becoming part of
their party under Ohio law. But I have supported other Libertarians.

(07:05):
I've supported and worked with Green's Independence, Democrats, and Republicans.
I have managed local campaigns for Democrats for state representative,
for mayor of my city because I live in a
very red district and I believe in having more choices,
and I want good choices on the bounce. I want

(07:26):
serious campaigns. I live in a district in a county
where most of the elections go uncontested because and that
is not what democracy is about.

Speaker 4 (07:38):
That.

Speaker 3 (07:38):
I mean, democracy is really about giving people choices to
kind of aggregate knowledge for people making the best possible choices.
And if you don't give good choices to choose from,
you're not really using that power to the best of
its ability. And throughout most of the country, throughout Ohio especially,

(07:59):
we're not too party system where one party system divided geographically,
all of Ohio statewide is an extremely Republican area. But
we are also so gerrymandered that there are places where
it's only Democrats are on the boot, only Democrats can run,
or only Republicans can win. Some counties, some cities are

(08:24):
entirely Democrat controlled. Anywhere you go, it's really one party
and that breeds corruption, it breeds a lack of accountability,
and it does not make for a competitive free market
of ideas, which is what we need. I joined the
Forward Party at the end of twenty twenty two. I

(08:47):
eventually in October or November of twenty twenty three, eventually
was elected chair of the Ohio Ford Party and oversaw
it for the next fifteen months, trying to build it
from a very informal group of like ten to twelve
people active and doubling tripling a number of active volunteers,

(09:11):
getting our by laws, having our state convention, electing at
board because it's very important to have democracy. And in
January twenty twenty five, I left. I resigned the Forward
Party chair Oha Forward Party Chair to really try and
pursue something like this, because as chair of the Oha

(09:34):
Forward Party, I wasn't really supposed to have strong opinions,
not supposed to avoid stuff, and that was my role
more administrative, and I get that, but we also needed
people who would be out there articulating a vision for
the future, taking policy stances, and that's what I wanted

(09:55):
to do. I think party building is very important to me.
Building a new political party matters. I think it's what
we need, and I think this is the historical moment
in which that is possible, with democratic and Republican party
approval at historic lows. Internal divisions within those Party, more

(10:17):
Americans than ever identifying as independent, more Americans than ever,
saying that they would support a new political party given
the choice. We need to build that choice, though, because
you cannot beat something with nothing. So that's what I'm
out here for, to unite people around a common vision
and to build the infrastructure and mobilize the people to

(10:40):
get that done. As I said, I launched my campaign
in late June. It has gone much better than I
could have ever expected, though still obviously like to be
going a little faster. I was endorsed by Transhumanist Party

(11:01):
and the Private Party, who you are in alliance with
the All Hands for the All Hands Coalition which.

Speaker 2 (11:10):
All Hands for a free future.

Speaker 3 (11:12):
Yes, and I love that, and I think your party,
Pirate Party, other parties generally are coalescing around this idea
which is no longer represented by in the democratic Republican
parties of basically freedom classical liberalism, one might say, but

(11:33):
also a commitment to technology, to the future, to caring
about the future, to caring about future generations and the
world that we're building just as much as the present,
and also understanding that solving problems means actually looking at

(11:56):
the data, looking at technology, trying to engineer better solutions,
not just limit ourselves to fund this defund that taxes,
don't tax that. It's more holistic, more recognizing the power
of humanity to overcome and what we have overcome. It's
more optimistic. It is more focused on what we can do,

(12:21):
what we can be, rather than what divides us. To
be an independent candidate, I must collect five thousand signatures
valid signatures by May fourth. We've collected over eleven hundred
so far. Now heading into winter will probably shift our

(12:44):
collection focus. Really, the plan is to collect a ton
in March and April as we build up our volunteer capacity.
We've had dozens and dozens of volunteer sign outs. It's
just a lot of them are political neophytes. Because we
are attracting new people who haven't got involved in six
or four because they don't feel represented, and we get
we have to train them how to canvas, how to

(13:06):
be comfortable canvassing, how to talk about candidates, how to
talk about ideas. So we're building out that campaign infrastructure.
We're getting the message out there. We've got in news
stories published nationally an ap locally spectrum. One of our
local news at Ohio News. We are building coalitions with

(13:30):
other candidates. Ideally, I want more independence, but I am
working with the Libertarians, and I am not officially working
with the Libertarian Party. I want to be clear that
they have their own gubernatorial candidate eventually, and they need
to get three percent of the vote Twain and I
want them to get three percent to be able to

(13:52):
maintain their party status. But I am working with Libertarians
on an individual basis, Democrats on an individual basis, Republicans
on an individual basis, to build a broad coalition that
supports change, supports reform, because that's what we need. We
need more choices. And I think there's something else I

(14:14):
wanted to highlight, but I think I will call it
that's me in a nutshell.

Speaker 2 (14:21):
Yeah, all right, thank you very much for that overview,
And there will be a few other questions that I
will ask that may bring out the point you wanted
to highlight. First of all, I would like to bring
attention to some of our viewer comments. So, Siba Chamuza

(14:43):
are foreign ambassador from Togo rights. I'm proud to see
candidates who carry the transhumanist ideal, offering a progressive alternative
to traditional and outdated visions. He also writes, without left
right polarization, political actors could make decisions without fearing late
and focus more on effectiveness rather than fitting into predefined categories.

(15:04):
And this is one of our favorite areas of emphasis
from your campaign, moving beyond left and right and restoring
political competition, providing people some alternatives beyond this duopoly that
dominates American politics today. And along the same lines, Alan
Crowley rights more people running for office right on and

(15:28):
Daniel Tweet rights standing for office is cool now. Mike Clausine,
one of our longtime viewers', rights Ohio may have far
less pushback with getting things done with transhumanism, unlike his
state of California. And it's interesting because California has a
lot of let's say, tech inclined people, a lot of

(15:52):
tech entrepreneurs, but it also has a very burden some
institutional and regulatory climate. It's very difficult even to build
a house in California, not to mention start a technological
revolution that actually scales and benefits large numbers of people.
So I'm curious, Timothy, do you agree with Mike Lausine's

(16:17):
assessment that there might be more of an opening for
transhumanism in a state like Ohio. And it's interesting because
Daniel Tweet also characterizes Ohio as quintessentially Americana. So there's
something about the state that is emblematic of the American spirit.

(16:39):
And part of the American spirit, of course, is innovation.
It's self determination, it's being willing to take matters into
it's own hands if the institutional climate isn't working out.
So tell us a bit more about the situation in
Ohio today and what you hope to achieve for it.
You mentioned the prospects of a renaissance of sorts in Ohio,

(17:02):
so tell us more about that.

Speaker 3 (17:06):
Yeah, Okay, So I love Ohio. I'm a lifelong Ohioan
and I really enjoy its history. And I mean I'm
not even that focused on federal national politics, and I
just really focus on Ohio because I think it is
a place of so much potential, on so much history,

(17:28):
but has fallen behind because of mismanagement and has been
overlooked and ignored for far, far too long. I will
say I would also love to probably talk about moving
beyond left and right sometime in a future question, but
I will focus on how Yeah, Ohio is quintessentially to

(17:50):
me American Americana. I mean, we are an extremely diverse
state in terms of our you know, culture, industry cities.
We are one of the most urbanized states in the Union.
People don't think of it that way, but we are.
We just don't have like one big city like Chicago

(18:12):
or New York City, but we have tons of small
and medium sized cities, and these are the cities I
think are the most overlooked. But also we have you know, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati,
and they are all like very distinct styles of city.
Cleveland has a very bit of an East Coast aspect

(18:34):
to it. Columbus is a very Midwestern city. They still
call it a cowtown, even though it is becoming our
center of finance and growth and technology in Cincinnati has
very Southern United States city style and vibes. We also

(18:55):
have the appollution foothills. We have our Midwest flat farmland
in the northwest. Toledo is the city of Glass.

Speaker 5 (19:05):
We are.

Speaker 3 (19:07):
An amazing state with a lot of potential and down
in Dayton we have Red Paris and Air Force Base.
We have a history of way too many astronauts being
from Ohio, an unfair amount of astronauts. In fact that
NASA basically has an article half apologizing for it. So

(19:29):
we have the Glen NASA Center, We have the Cleveland Clinic,
which is a world leader in health care, medicine, bioscience technologies.
Toledo is a leader in glass and materials technology as
well as Akron and we used to make all the

(19:50):
tires in the world. So where still Materials Science Center.
Toledo has the largest solar panel manufacturer in North America.
Cincinnati exists, sorry since me not to be real. No,
they have lots of stuff, They have lots of businesses.

(20:10):
Materials research. Columbus is more of a center of finance,
but with OSU it's advancing technology and research hubs as well.
For some reason, we are subsidizing Intel to build a
chip factory there. We think we can be a silicon heartland.

(20:33):
Thing that is badly managed and probably not going to
happen because of incompetence and the chip boom bus cycle. Yeah,
I think Ohio has all of the potential to lead
the world in technology and innovation. And I actually think
because of our many small and medium sized cities distributed

(20:56):
throughout the state as well as having the cutting edge
and a lot of industries, we're actually better prepared for
the twenty first century economy, which is more decentralized, focused
on smaller, medium sized businesses, not the big factory world anymore.

(21:17):
And then having all of those cities, all of those
industries being well connected. And one of the things we've
done well under previous administrations is build up our public
university and community college system to the point that almost
everyone lives within ten to twenty miles of a community

(21:38):
college or university in Ohio, which allows us to what
I hope to do quickly scale up our investments in
innovation and skills in pure research. Put more money into
these things so we can help foster new industries, new economies.
So whether Ohio is more open to transhumanist ideals in California,

(22:05):
it's hard to exactly imagine. I think what we are
eventually going to be more open to is innovation. Is innovation,
is investment in the future is changed because and this
gets us to what I like to call the Rustbelt Renaissance,
because we have kind of suffered so much over the

(22:29):
last fifty years, because we have been falling apart. We
have been in a state of decay, in a state
of hollowing out. So many of our communities have suffered
ground d industrialization, and doubt worst in the Great Recession,
so many of our cities were dependent on one or

(22:49):
two factories and those shut down, and it's just been
slow or rapid decay of increases in violence and crime
and opioid overdoses and death, of despair and people moving out.
People have been leaving Ohio. And it's not great. But

(23:12):
historically where there have been bursts of innovation renaissances, which
literally means rebirth, it's after periods of great hardship, great suffering.
Because I don't know, people come away with more determination,
more understanding that change cannot just be a bad thing,

(23:36):
because change is so desperately needed that they are willing
to take risks, willing to do more, willing to work
harder because they've seen how bad it can be and
they know it can only get better and that's what
we want to do.

Speaker 2 (23:55):
So I think.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
Ohio will embrace technology and innovation, and I think what
it needs are leaders, and it just needs someone to
galvanize a movement for it, because I believe so much
in the potential of the people of Ohio and our communities.

(24:19):
But our other politicians really don't. They think they want
to go back to the past, a past that can
never exist, of big factories employing thousands of people of
you know, that industrial sort of employment, which that's it

(24:43):
can't happen today and it's not going to happen in
the future. I mean Lordstown Motors Plants GM closed its
plant there, and all of our big heavyweight politicians from
our senators, although we up to Donald Trump, we're making
prompt is that they're going to save this plant, they're
going to save this car manufacturer. They're going to find

(25:05):
someone else to move in. And seven years later, No,
they didn't. They failed. They couldn't because not even the
most powerful politicians in America can defy economic reality. And
it's happened again. A paper plant closed in Chili Coffee
and all of our politicians are like, we're going to

(25:27):
save this plant. Nope, didn't happen because they can't. You
have to look to the future. You have to understand
that the economy is changing, that technology is fundamentally shifting things,
and we can't go back where we can only go forward.
We can only fight for a future. We can't long
for a past that never even really existed. So Ohiolan's

(25:50):
are ready to embrace that. They know that our establishment
politicians politics as usual doesn't work and is not going
to work. And I think that's why I am well
positioned to not just ignite a movement, but actually win
this election because one of the things Ohio has always

(26:12):
been kind of viewed as a purple state because sometimes
we vote Democrats, sometimes we vote Republican in presidential elections.
Really we've always been pretty Republican. For the last thirty
plus years, our state government has almost entirely been controlled
by Republicans. We are pretty one party state. Democrats have
no chance.

Speaker 4 (26:32):
But.

Speaker 3 (26:34):
We're kind of purple and vote for Democrats because we
actually have a massive base of apathetic voters who don't
believe politicians can do anything for them, but sometimes get
excited about a president who has a good vision. They
got excited about Obama, and they got excited about Trump
when he followed. And really, we have millions and millions

(27:00):
of voters in Ohio. In fact, in twenty point two
four million registered voters, almost half of registered voters didn't
vote in the last goumnatory election because they didn't think
it mattered, they didn't think they had real choices, they
didn't think it would change anything. And frankly, they probably right.

(27:20):
We can mobilize these people, we can give them up,
We can give them choice. And all that you need
is a good, solid vision of the future and understanding
that the world can change for the better, that technology
and improvement can work for them, that change doesn't mean

(27:41):
someone else is worse off. You can grow the pie
for everyone. I think people have been afraid of that
for a long time.

Speaker 4 (27:49):
That.

Speaker 3 (27:50):
Any more change will mean it could mean that they
end up even worse off. But that's not how the
world works. The world works when we all improve, we
all benefit. Any improvement means we're all better off, we
are more prosperous, and people need to see that we

(28:11):
can do that. We can grow the pie for everyone.
And yeah, I think yes, Ohio is quintessentially American, and
Ohio has a very long history of innovation, of leading industry,
of leading America in flight and space, in manufacturing and

(28:31):
trains and everything, and I want to reclaim that history
but also look to the future.

Speaker 2 (28:40):
Yes, thank you very much for that answer. And to
add to that, our friend John H. Moore Life Please Rights.
He thinks more US presidents have come from Ohio than
any other state. Also Neil Armstrong and Siba Chamuza Rights.
People must choose between the traditional outdated. So what you

(29:00):
mentioned about the politicians trying to bring back the plants
that have closed, the results of which are evident, and
the progressive vision based on the advanced means of our
civilization to restore full dignity to humankind. So thank you
very much for those comments. Mike Lusine Rights. Tim is
right on the money with what he is saying, and

(29:23):
I am so loving Tim. I hope he wins. So
thank you Mike for those comments. And now since you
wanted to discuss more about moving beyond left and right
and the importance of that, I would be happy to
hear you talk about that. Daniel Tweet Rights, the biggest
majority is the disenfranchised, and it seems to me the

(29:46):
people today who are frustrated with both left wing and
right wing politics are the disenfranchised because they often can't
find a lot of candidates who would represent them and
your wor to change that, So please talk about that
to a greater extent.

Speaker 3 (30:05):
Yeah, I would love to. I just want to add, yeah,
we are tied for the most presidents. We can claim
the most presidents. However, a little fact about that is
fifty percent of them died in office. So eight Ohioans
became president, four of them died in office. So it's

(30:27):
really I Sometimes when Ohioans run for presidents, I'm like, hmm,
you're really putting your life on the line. There. That's
a fifty percent chance of dying. There another lovely fun
fact about Ohio. But yeah, I am a very much
focused on trying to bring our politics beyond left and right.

(30:52):
I'm not saying a politics that will be with a division,
but hopefully a politics that can focus on new things
to argue over them, better things to argue about, because
left versus right has really fallen apart too. We're basically
making up problems to be mad at each other for,

(31:14):
and it's not getting anything done. My background is in economics.
I have an undergraduate degree in economics, which I went
into because I originally started in computer engineering. But I
read a book called The Origin of Wealth by Eric Beinhocker,
which is about complexity economics, and I got really excited.

(31:39):
I thought, Okay, this is the future of economics, is
about to be a paradigm shift revolution in economic theory,
and I want to be part of that. And when
I got into my degree program and I actually talked
to my professors and said, hey, have you heard of
any of this? And I'm like, no, So that revolution

(31:59):
okay something it looks like I have to go make
happen myself. But complexity economics draws on complexity sciences and
works of like the Santa Fe Institute, which I really enjoy.
I'm not the best of this stuff because I'm probably
not bad, but less interested in math than I should

(32:22):
be to be really good at this stuff. But it
starts to shift. Looking at economics and a lot of
classical economics, and I don't want to oversimplify or create
a stromering here, but a lot of classical neoclassical economics
originates in mid to late eighteen hundreds theories where we

(32:44):
were mostly pilfering from the physics of the day, and
the physics of the eighteen hundreds, while good for the time,
not exactly how you would try and describe the world.
Definitely not how you would try and describe the complex
interactions of society and economy in the present world. So

(33:08):
complexity economics tries to move away from that and moves
toward looking at an economic system or society as an
evolutionary dynamic, evolving it well, ecosystem, a complex ecosystem, and
I think that really changes the dynamic Left versus right

(33:31):
is sometimes simplified to you know, it's government versus market.
But when we start to look at our economics as
an evolutionary system, government and markets aren't opposing systems for
controlling our society. They are evolved tools for how humanity

(33:56):
interacts and does things. So really what you know, My
origin drives back to the two thousand and eight financial
crisis and how economics neoliberalism went so wrong. It basically
created its own doom. It brought the world to the

(34:19):
brinket create a massive financial crisis that cost millions of
people their homes, their jobs, their savings. It Debtony had
a bomb in the economy, and the like, I'm from
around Mansfield, Ohio, and we had a GM plant that
closed in like two thousand and nine or twenty ten

(34:40):
as a result of the financial crisis, and it's like, Okay,
how do a few thousand people over leveraging homes in
Florida suddenly lead to basically the last remaining factory keeping
my city alive is shutting down. How does that happen
and how can we avoid that in the future. I

(35:03):
viewed the world as a repeating series of political economic paradigms,
which is really something that only speaks to people like
me who are obsessed with economics. But basically, the two
thousand and eight financial crisis created the politics of today.
It created a vacuum because for the twenty to thirty

(35:26):
years preceding that, everyone understood that there was a certain
way to manage an economy, and if you just trust
the politicians, trust the experts, everyone's wealth will keep going up.
But then two thousand and eight happened, and it was
revealed that that was a lie, and people rebelled against

(35:47):
establishment politicians, and everything that happened since is a continuing
rebellion against what they know to be wrong. The Tea Party,
occupy movement, the rise of Trump, the rise of Bernie Sanders,
these are reactions to the fact that establishment politicians haven't

(36:07):
been able to move beyond an economic paradigm that failed
and complexity. Economics is a better economic paradigm, but it's
not taken off. It did not have the sort of
institutional think tank millions of dollars behind it that neoliberalism

(36:27):
actually had for twenty to thirty years leading up to
it replacing Keynesianism or New Dealism. For decades, it had
that sort of waiting in the wings support and when
stagflation happened in the seventies, that was its moment to
swoop in and say, here's an alternative. That's deregulate, that's

(36:53):
focused on supply side solutions, let's cut taxes, and that
will make things better. And it was a good reaction
to the overregulation of Indianism. I don't think it's the
best reaction, but it was a solution to something. But
you can't beat something with nothing. And when the two
thousand and eight financial crisis, people grab for the things

(37:18):
that are nearest at hand, and there wasn't an alternative.
And you know what they say, never let a good
crisis go to waste. Well, we let a good crisis
go to waste because we weren't ready. And so people
turned to the nearest things at hand, and that was
the extremes. That was radicalism of the left and right,

(37:38):
which you know actually has been tried and failed. But
people forget over time, you know what the politics and
economics of the early nineteen hundreds are things, So they
turned to the extremes. I am trying to present, essentially
a new centrism that is an alternative to extremism, but

(38:04):
also an alternative to a return to neoliberalism, both of
which I think are bad. Complexity economics offers, in my opinion,
a very strong foundation for new politics and a new economics.
It offers us good policy approaches that are a little
more difficult to explain, a little more nuanced than just hey,

(38:29):
that's tax billionaires, or let's take immigrants out, let's find
someone to blame. It's a little more nuanced than that,
but we can market it and it can break our
current political divisions. Basically, Americans have become so entrenched in

(38:51):
their worldview, so geographically divided, that they have built two
perfectly unbreakable tribes that will war with each other till
the end of time if nothing else changes. But my
goal is to come here and shake up the board,
introduce new ideas, new ways of thinking that can get

(39:13):
through the partisan barriers people have built around them because
it's a new idea. I don't when they hear a
new idea, they haven't been taught how to reject it.
So when you get a new idea, people stop and
think and they start to think, hmm, okay, maybe that
that is something. Maybe I am open to something new.
And the idea is with complex economics, which we really

(39:38):
probably shouldn't. I need a new a better name, more
marketable name for whatever philosophy ideology this is radical centrism
is a maybe. But whatever it takes to get people
to start thinking about that, we can start reshuffling the
board so that so suddenly the people you hate are

(40:02):
on your side, and the people that you're on the
same side with before are suddenly you're not so aligned with,
and you start to reduce the partisanship, reduce the sectarianism
because it's no longer as clean cut as we made it.
Suddenly your neighbors or your weird uncle aren't so different

(40:28):
from you when you start rethinking, hey, maybe they're a
human being. And so that is really one of the
things that drives me politically, this idea that with new ideas,
with a new way of looking at the world. We
can jettison left right and then jettison the partisan divisions

(40:51):
that have allowed us to become so hateful, so tribal
iss so othering of others, and start thinking for our
divisions will still exist. There will be, you know, division
within complex economics, because it's not no one has all
the solutions to everything, no matter how well developed or

(41:14):
how informed you are. That's just reality. I am also
fundamentally a pluralist in that I believe no one knows everything.
So we got to be open to new ideas and change.
But I think just every forty to eighty years you
need this sort of reset. You need to bring in
a new idea, a new paradigm that establishes and over time,

(41:38):
you know, everything shows the seeds of its own destruction.
Forty sixty years from now, we're going to know a
lot more. We're going to have new theories and complexity.
You know, if it rises to dominate now forty sixty
years from now, it's it's contradictions will build up to
the point where people will say it's time for a

(42:00):
new idea, and that will be washed away too. Nothing
is permanent, that's just the way of the world. But
you're not fighting an existential war between two ideas. That's
not reality. Our ideas have always continued to evolve and
they don't trace between two definite left versus right lines.

(42:23):
That's not real. That's not the real way we it's
not real science. That's not real social change, it's not
real policy. It's not there are two options choose. It's
the world is complex. That's muddle through and keep looking
for new things. So I am fiercely independent because I

(42:47):
know that if I identified as a Republican, if I
identified it as a Democrat, even if I was still
pushing complexity economics, even if one party accepted that, which
I don't think whatever happened, but even if they did,
then the other party would just reject it offhand.

Speaker 4 (43:05):
You have to.

Speaker 3 (43:08):
Be able to reach people, and you can do that
by being something they haven't learned to hate yet. And
so there is I don't know five D chests and
why I'm doing what I'm doing and how, But yeah,
I think a genuinely new approach, genuinely new ideas can

(43:32):
sort of end the left versus right divide. And you
can call it postpartisan, you can call it radical centrism.
You can call it whatever you want, but what is
is this idea that neioliberalism doesn't work. The ideology ideologies
of the left and right, megaism whatever that is, or socialism,

(43:55):
those don't work either. So let's try and find something
that does, that is focused on the best cutting edge
research of our time, and try and figure out where
we actually differ on that.

Speaker 2 (44:13):
Yes, thank you very much for your answer, and Daniel
tweet rights Timothy gets it. He also writes that the
things we can agree on and make progress on are
far more important than past divisions. He thinks that progress
usually comes from the center, but Allen writes, no progress

(44:34):
comes from highly motivated minorities that are willing to go
the rest of the country to action. But I think
some of us who want to move beyond left and
right are in a minority right now. We are seeking
to inspire people who have natural sympathies with us, but
who wouldn't take those steps on their own. They might

(44:55):
just resign themselves to falling on one or the other
side of the left right dichotomy. And that's why for
the Transhumanist Party it has been very important not to
align ourselves with either the left or the right, because
the moment you do that, you start playing the duopolyes game.
And sometimes I've had to resist a great deal of

(45:16):
pressure to not make such alignments. But I think that
is ultimately the path to long term success, and your campaign, Timothy,
is an example of that. Now I do want to
ask you more about complexity economics. Here is again the
link to the book by Eric D. Weinhacker, The Origin

(45:40):
of Wealth, The Radical Remaking of Economics and what it
Means for Business and Society. So I myself had economics
as one of my three majors. I even had a
peer reviewed paper published on Austrian economics in the quarterly
Journal of Austrian Economics. I'm curious to hear you more

(46:04):
explain to a greater extent about complexity economics and what
key ideas distinguish it from other schools of thought. For instance,
how would you compare and contrast it to Austrian economics,
or monetarism, or Kynesianism, or even say Marxism, since there

(46:26):
are still a few people who adhere to that school
of thought, How does complexity economics relate to each of
these other schools? Where does it agree where does it
disagree with them?

Speaker 3 (46:37):
Yeah? A quick note to the earlier. Does change come
from the center? Does it come from small minorities? You know,
it's both. I describe myself as a radical centrist because
I'm not like a I mean, I'm not a moderate.
I strongly believe in what I think and I'm going

(47:00):
to fight like hell to see it get done. Yeah.
I'll probably compromise where needed, because that's normal. But I
believe in something. I'm part of a small group that
believes in it, and I'm going to try and convince
more people believe in it. And the power of our
democracy is such that just getting out there and doing

(47:22):
things can have a massive impact, especially when you're offering
something a little bit different, because it resonates and it
grows and it expands so quickly. New ideas kind of
can travel faster than just the same old thing. Like
I can get way more mileage out of just sharing
a new idea free on the internet. Then the Democrats

(47:43):
and Republicans will get spending a billion dollars on ads
hitting the same points they've been hitting for decades. But yeah,
with complexity, trying not to be I try and be
an economic pluralist as well as a political pluralist. So
I don't say the Austrian school offers nothing, the Marxism

(48:09):
offers nothing. I don't say it. But Austrian school, Mantraism, neoliberalism,
neoclassical Kinsianism, Marxism, they all kind of draw on the
same basic classical economic or more neoclassical economic framework that
does put things into the sort of physics equations of

(48:35):
supply and demand, steady state equilibrium, stuff like that, which
another thing I want to emphasize. Complexity economics is another
tool in the toolbox. Everything that has come before continues
to have a great deal of value. I mean, you
can do a lot with a supply and dematograph, you

(48:57):
can figure out a lot about the world, but complexity
starts to offer a little bit more. Again, I'm a
little bit of an economic pluralists. I forced myself to say.
I don't just think complexity is the right thing. Everything
has a little bit to offer, and king Zianism, Austrian

(49:22):
all of that, and complexity incorporates a lot of that.
We should really teach more economic history in our economic programs,
not in school, but in our economic programs. We should
really be doing that so people understand the history of
how we got here. People should be reading Smith and stuff.
But to me, in simple terms, I think complexity is

(49:48):
a little more reedom focused than other schools of thought.
It understands humanity human as information processors, and it has
a law of respect for spontaneous order or the invisible hand,

(50:10):
which I'd like to take this moment to say that
Adam Smith said the invisible hand like one time, and
it wasn't really talking about what people say it was
talking about, but it's still the concept of trying to
convey is also still quite good of spontaneous order, of
the idea that lots of people acting in pursuit of

(50:34):
their own interests or just in their own way will
result in something that was unplanned but is beneficial to all.
And Complexity tries to understand the world through that way,
understands the value of markets and decentralization and people being

(50:59):
able to make the best possible choices for themselves, because basically,
a thousand of the best trained, best educated bureaucrafts in
the world, or a thousand of the best trained educated
oligarch CEOs whatever in the world is never ever, ever

(51:21):
going to out compete in information processing or efficiency millions
and millions of people just making everyday decisions for themselves.
You can't centrally plan an economy and make it work.
It just can't. But the government doesn't have no role.

(51:41):
It has, and it's probably good to add that I don't.
I certainly have my doubts about AI, although ever being
able to compete against what billions of people inngaged in
trillions of exchanges and activities can figure out in a

(52:03):
decentralized way. But complexity doesn't say the government has no role.
It recognizes that government is an intrinsic part of society,
that society is an intrinsic part of markets, and the
government tapes things are when we intervene, we should be

(52:25):
thinking in those terms, how are we shaping the market?
How are we crafting incentives? And that that is a
lot of how modern economic policy thinks. How are we
creating incentives or disincentives? But it needs to take a
step further and understand, you know, we don't have homoeconomicists.

(52:46):
We don't have the perfect rationalizing agents. We have people
who satisfies, we have people who operate by rules of family,
have people who also their opinions and their tastes change
based off of other people, based off of government, based
off of society. So really policymaking has to be a

(53:13):
perpetual process because you know, what we found from regulating
the financial sector is that the financial sector is going
to innovate around any regulations, and sometimes for the best,
sometimes for much much worse. Sometimes you try and regulate

(53:37):
them and they create a new financial asset that can
somehow destroy the entire global financial system overnight. So you
have to be adaptive. Essentially, when it comes to the
intersection of policy and complexity, it gives a lot more

(53:57):
weight to the experimental approach to policy making, of the
idea that we try something and then if it doesn't work,
we try something else, we change it. How policy making
works now is everything is so gridlocked, so partisan. We
put everything in the world into one or two big bills,

(54:20):
we pass it with like a two vote margin, and
then we never open it up again to make changes
because if we do it all falls apart and it
will never get passed. The Affordable Care Act is a
good example of this, and that it was made with
so many compromises and had so much pork just to

(54:42):
get enough people on board, and then we passed it.
And then for the next what's it been fifteen isshu
years now, everyone has been saying, oh, we want to
change it, we want to reform it, we want to
repeal it, we want to make changes, and it just
keeps going basically as planned from the beginning because no

(55:06):
one can start opening it up to make fixes because
if you do, then you run the risk of it
totally being repealed, totally being dismantled, or being taken in
a direction that was never intended. So we don't have
that reactive policy making. We don't have policymaking that takes

(55:32):
into account what has happened, how something is being implemented
in the real world and saying, okay, we need to
make some adjustments. We don't have that. So policy making
markets it's all information inputs and outputs, and if you
don't take in new inputs on how things are actually working,

(55:56):
then you're flying blind. And it's not even like complexity
can solve that, because that is a partisan issue. It's
really this is why I am in politics, and not
just like pursuing your career in academic economics. It's because

(56:18):
actually solving the problems means building political power around new ideas,
building political consensus to make something happen. But back to
kind of how economics are complexity, policy making functions intersects.

(56:40):
It does take a preference to doing things at the
lowest practical level, decentralizing, giving more power to local governments,
local actors to implement things, and it does support us
trying things at small scales, having small sk ill rollouts

(57:00):
of multiple possible policy solutions, seeing what works and what doesn't,
shutting down the things that don't work, and then trying
to just scale up the things that do, or try
them in a new place with tweaks that matter to
the specific history, this specific geography, specific demographics of the place.

(57:23):
It's not one size fits all solutions. It's not top
down outlooks on how the world works. I mean, if
you try and look at the economy from the federal level,
then it's just okay, GDP is going up or unemployment
is going up or down. But when you dig down

(57:46):
and you say, okay, well let's look at a place
like Mansfield, Ohio, it's actually always historically like two or
three percent higher and unemployment it's GDP is always grow
way lower than nationaland if you're only looking at national
statistics and taking national policy, it doesn't solve it. So

(58:07):
if you want to solve a problem like a small
rust belt post industrial city is suffering, then big national
programs that say, Okay, we're gonna, I don't know, give
everyone healthcare. I mean it helps the people, but it
helps it doesn't solve the underlying problem in that community.

(58:28):
And so you need to give direct grant funding, in
my opinion, to that city to give it the power
to help itself help solve its own problems. Because a
city that is rapidly de industrializing depopulating, it can't tax
itself out of collapse. That's just going to make it

(58:51):
less desirable. So it does need outside inputs, and that
becomes what the role of the state government or the
federal government is. It's more about collecting and distributing money,
setting standards and kind of collecting, centralizing information and analyzing

(59:12):
that and giving that information in a usable format to communities.
So it's not as fun or exciting as confidently saying, oh,
I'm going to impose tariffs and America will reindustrialize, or
I'm going to tax billionaires and somehow that will make

(59:34):
everyone more equal or more equitably miserable. Perhaps now it's
a little more complex, it's a little more okay, we
have to solve everything at the local level. We have
to get people involved in solving their own problems, because
that's how it's going to work. We get Even the

(59:58):
most powerful, well managed government in the world cannot get
anything done meaningfully if it doesn't have the support and
the shared vision of basically everyone else in the society,
which is again another reason why I am in politics,
because I believe very strongly in the power of campaigns.

(01:00:23):
I think democracy is our American heritage. Where other countries
have whatever national identity is a little more religious identity
or something. America has because it is a nation of immigrants,
of many ideas, of constant movement and immigration, so you
don't even have those like family ties. You can be

(01:00:45):
in the same country but thousands of miles apart. What
has united us as a country is our ideals, not
our institutions as such, non traditions. It's our ideals. It's democracy.
It's the idea that we organize ourselves by saying, let's
talk this out and set a vision. So I run

(01:01:05):
for office because I understand from a complexity viewpoint that
it's not just what the government sets the rules, or
it's not just how corporations act, it's how the people
are going to act and react. And you have to
care about culture. You have to care about the networks

(01:01:27):
that exist between people, between businesses, between government. You have
to care about the networks. You have to care about
the people, and you have to care about what they think.
So running a campaign is it's one of the glorious
times where you can go to someone's door, knock on

(01:01:47):
their door and say, hey, can I tell you about
what I think of the world for like twenty minutes
and they'll be like, yeah, okay. Otherwise, you know, if
you're not running for office, if you're not running a
camp and you do that, they're like, you leave me alone.
But in a campaign, people are open to hearing new ideas.

(01:02:08):
And I think Trump, I think Bernie, I think I
was a Yang Gang guy in twenty twenty. Still not
a Democrat, but I was a Yang Gang guy. And
these were campaigns that changed how people thought, they changed
how people acted. They got people excited about new ideas.
I mean, Yang had this humanity first slogan, and it

(01:02:32):
was very common even I felt it for people to
think when they are wearing that Yang gear, when they're
wearing humanity for stuff, they have to be like, I
have to be a good person, I have to help people.
I have to care about others and be nice and
understand that they are a real human being too. They

(01:02:53):
also did a lot of cool stuff and basically try
and coordinate, you know, funding mutual aid stuff. But that's
what you get to do with a campaign, and that's
what I'm trying to do with my campaign. It's as
much about winning and gain power as it is about
spreading the ideas, spreading the idea of complexity, of looking

(01:03:18):
at the world from a more nuanced perspective. And also,
if you go to my website, like the three core
ideals are integrity, freedom, and improvement. Improvement is like our
national improvement, but it's also very much in the vein

(01:03:38):
of John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay National Republicans. They
believed in national improvement, but they believed in self improvement
as part of that. That the responsibility of people in
a republic, in a democracy, a free people is to
better themselves, to improve themselves, to to care and do

(01:04:02):
more for yourself, your community, your neighbors, be a good citizen,
and that if we actually want to solve any problem
in this country, it's not having the best ideas in government.
It's inspiring the most people to do the most good,
to try and reach for better, to try and do better,

(01:04:27):
be better. And so that's kind of why my focus
in government is not say I'm going to solve problems now,
it's I'm going to give you the tools to solve problems.
I want to invest in our research and training things
in our universities, our community colleges, and I want to

(01:04:49):
provide capital so people can start small micro businesses and
try and scale them up. I want to give people
the tools they need to live the best lives that
they can have, but I also need to inspire them
to want to do that. Be piece, You're gonna have
the most generous education programs in the world. But if
people are doing it not because they believe that they

(01:05:13):
can be a better person, but because they think it's
just the thing to do or as simple way out,
it's not going to work. And this is one of
the things that is kind of changing in our universities.
I think with AI over the next decade, like our
culture has to change when it comes to what a

(01:05:34):
university degree means, because for so long it's been it's
a signaling device. It means you could get through college.
It doesn't mean you learned anything. It just proved that
you were good enough to get through it. But because
AI makes it possible to write a paper to solve
math problems and get away with not actually learning things,

(01:05:56):
the value of that piece of paper suddenly drops to nothing.
So it has to be you're going to college because
you want to learn, like you have to want it.
Now we have to change our culture in that way.
So I realized that somewhere at the beginning of this
long rant was the question of you know, what is complexity?

(01:06:17):
How is it different? But it recognizes the importance of culture,
the importance of networks and people, and it understands that
we don't really have sure fire ways of making something happen.
So we have to explore, we have to experiment, and

(01:06:39):
we have to get outside the government versus market notion,
and we have to get a little dirtier, a little
more complex with how we try and solve things we
have to try and actually change people's minds. And again,

(01:07:00):
not a clean cut solution, not exactly the stuff people
want to hear. Oh, you have to go convince people
to care about the world. And also you have to
care about it yourself, and you have to care about yourself.
Not exactly the thing that resonates, but that's the truth,
and that's what America has always been. We used to
be a nation of tinkerers. Essentially. The eighteen hundreds was

(01:07:27):
a revolution of lots of small improvements in technology because
people spent their time inspired by the cool mechanics of
the day and saying, I could probably make something a
bit better. Let me go tinker with something. And that's
probably the future of our economy. It's not huge corporations,

(01:07:53):
it's not huge factories employing tons of people. It's we
have to start shifting ourselves too that decentralize small business entrepreneurs,
micro businesses world. And also maybe it doesn't mean employment
how we thought it was. Of you get a job

(01:08:17):
and you do that forty hours a week and that's
enough and people demand that much labor out of everyone.
I mean, the future is going to be a lot
of those jobs automated away. So we need to and again,
this game bigger and bigger picture, but we need to
start thinking about what happens when we don't have that

(01:08:38):
much demand for labor, or when there isn't that reliable
career path and you have to start making something for yourself.
That gets much harder and the social contracts start dissipating.
I am obviously a UBI guy. I am a universal

(01:08:59):
basic game. Come is a necessary future, not just the future.
It's probably what we need right now. It is probably
what we should have started ten years ago because and
UBI aligns very well with a complexity framework, with a
market framework, because it's basically guaranteeing that everyone has market

(01:09:20):
power and the ability to make decisions for themselves, which
is what markets are very good at, and rely on
having good informed people who are not just price takers,
who are not just slaves to a monopoly. It's people
having choice, people being able to say I'm going to
buy this because I want it and it's what's best

(01:09:42):
for me, and I actually have the money to do it,
and I'm not going to settle for the lesser value good,
the lesser alternative. I'm going for what is best for
me and that sends good pricing. So UBI works beautifully
with complexity economics and a market framework, and it's going
to start unlocking our ability to solve problems. And I'm

(01:10:05):
going to stop myself now just see if anything you
want to dig into more in all of that or
a different question.

Speaker 2 (01:10:14):
Absolutely well, thank you for that response, and you made
many excellent points there. Daniel Tweed response, We need to
become more comfortable with complexity, and there are definitely aspects
of complexity economics that invite us to become more comfortable
with it before we delve into complexity economics.

Speaker 3 (01:10:36):
A bit more.

Speaker 2 (01:10:37):
Alan Crowley, thank you very much for your generous contribution
to this enterprise, He writes, no central economy, and I
think we definitely need something other than central economic planning
to get us through this transitional period in our history
and in our civilization. As for Adam Smith, Alan writes

(01:10:59):
that's was his best buddy on a ten hour car ride.
Audio books Rock and Daniel Tweet writes Smith was more
of a humanist than he gets credit for. John H. Wrights,
he understands that some consider his book a theory of
moral sentiments more important than the wealth of Nations. Well, John, actually,

(01:11:19):
I have read both of those books. So I read
The Wealth of Nations from cover to cover in college
my second year of college. It's actually back there on
the bookshelf behind me. But I read The Theory of
Moral Sentiments even earlier when I was a freshman in
high school, and the way to access it back then

(01:11:42):
was to find a free version online. I think Project
Gutenberg had a free version, and I would literally print
out pages using the printer at my high school and
I would carry them with me in a little handbag
because they didn't have ebook readers or smartphones back then,

(01:12:04):
so that was my way of creating portable reading materials
for myself. But yes, I've read both of these very
well known and highly lauded works by Adam Smith, in
part to form a background of my understanding of economic thought,

(01:12:27):
but also Enlightenment thoughts, since Adam Smith was very much
a thinker of the Age of Enlightenment, and this was
important for our virtual Enlightenment salons, since he did try
to understand complex systems and systems of incentives. And as
you pointed out, Timothy, the invisible hand is a metaphor

(01:12:52):
for spontaneous order, which is a concept that later economic
thinkers like Friedrich Hayek elaborated upon. And when I hear
you describe complexity economics, I do see a lot of
similarities to Austrian economics. First of all, this emphasis on

(01:13:12):
spontaneous order, this emphasis on human beings not being homoeconomicists,
but having more heterogeneous preferences and incentives, so they're not
going to act like the characters in neo classical economic
models all the time. Also, decentralized information. This is very

(01:13:38):
much a part of what Friedrich Hayek and Ludvik vannisis
emphasized as well in their writings. And the decentralized nature
of information also undermines the efficacy of central plannings. So
Luisa Royo writes about cybernetic management of the economy. And

(01:14:03):
even if you have very powerful AIS, you don't have
access to all of the discrete bits of individual knowledge
and information that we gather just in the course of
our day to day experience. This often isn't information that
we write down or post or codify somewhere just because

(01:14:24):
we don't have time, but we do utilize it on
the go, so to speak. I think where the difference
between Austrian economics and complexity economics is expressed is more
in the approaches toward policy. So, from what I've heard
you discuss, complexity economics is more open to iterative empirical

(01:14:48):
experimentation where you run a lot of smaller scale experiments.
As you pointed out, you select in favor of the
experiments that show poss results, you weed out the ones
that don't. Austrian economics tends to be more axiomatic deductives,
so it uses first principles to derive implications of policies

(01:15:13):
from more general insights about human actions, such as the
action axiom the discipline of praxeology that stems from that.
But with complexity economics, I think, based on what I've
heard you say, there aren't really as many for ordained
conclusions or as many deductions as can be made right

(01:15:38):
from the starting point. You have to run the experiments,
you have to try out a variety of policies in
order to figure out what works and what could actually
help improve human well being. So what would you say
to those characterizations?

Speaker 3 (01:15:56):
Yeah, and I think economics continuously and its history goes
through these phases of being either more theory focused or
more data focused, and it's like one or the other,
but it's you obviously meet both. If you don't have
a good theory and if you're not consistently refining theories

(01:16:18):
on how to understand the world, how to understand data,
then having all the data in the world isn't really
going to help you much. So you really have to
have both. When it comes the experimentation is a little
more on the applied policy side, but yeah, it comes

(01:16:39):
with this idea that you don't really have certain answers,
you don't know things for sure, because whatever system you're
trying to understand, whatever system you're trying to regulate, is
going to change and evolve. So that's they actually often

(01:17:00):
talk about more a little more focus on simulation than modeling,
making understanding how simple rules, simple changes can result in
totally unpredictable outcomes, how a big splash can sometimes result
in nothing happening and everything evening out, or sometimes how

(01:17:25):
a small splash, a small, little change will cascade into
something huge and unpredictable. So it's really a commitment to
understanding network effects, understanding evolution. I think when it comes
to it, it definitely takes a lot from Hayak and

(01:17:48):
Austrian economics or reaches the same conclusions. But no, they're
definitely reading Hyak over there.

Speaker 4 (01:17:55):
But it.

Speaker 3 (01:18:00):
I think with complexity, it's for me, it's almost the
focus is actually on innovation. It's because in economics often
trigit neoclassical economics, innovation. Technology is just like this exogenous thing.

(01:18:21):
It's this constant or it's a shock. It's just something
that shows up. It's not incorporated into the theory so much.
But that's really what I think the core of economics
is is we are innovating, we are evolving, we are
getting better, we are selecting better traits and replicating them

(01:18:45):
and then experimenting. So really we could reduce it all
to just that evolutionary formula of selection replication and yeah,
that diverse, so fine, but so and really good economics,

(01:19:07):
economic theory. Academic economics in the future should be way
more open to teaching and understanding different schools of economic thought,
of being economically pluralist, of recognizing that everything has a
lot to offer, that it should not be dominated by
one school of thought. That's how you find yourself at

(01:19:29):
a dead end down a blind alley and with nothing
else to turn to, and that should be probably through
of all as schools of thought in academia and science,
that you continue to foster the other ideas because you
never know when they might strike gold or when your

(01:19:50):
other theories hit a dead end. So yeah, I think
it draws a lot on that. But one problem for
me is that there have not been the think tanks.
There have not been a lot of policy makers who

(01:20:11):
are out there trying to adapt the theories and lessons
of complexity to actual policy where does it actually apply,
And that is the task I set for myself. So
I'm kind of currently just navigating flying blind, trying to

(01:20:33):
take ideas and turn them into actual policy, which and
then the even extra step not just turning them into policy,
but then turning them into politics, into sound bites, into
things I can quickly explain to someone else that they're like, Okay,
that's a good idea. So really I advocate for a

(01:20:55):
much larger project of exploring and expand incomplexy economics and
then complexity policy and applying that.

Speaker 2 (01:21:06):
Yes, thank you very much for that response. And indeed,
this exploration of economics as part of determining what good
policy would be is a breath of fresh air. In
contemporary politics, so many politicians operate just on the basis
of slogans, or just on the basis of party allegiance

(01:21:29):
or really tribal allegiance to the red tribe or the
blue tribe. But we really need to explore more sophisticated
ideas and systems of thought in order to really implement
solutions that work. And I would also like to note
there's a bit of a bidding war. So John h

(01:21:50):
contributed five dollars and one cent through the super chats
and Daniel Tweet contributed five dollars and two cents. Do
we hear five dollars and three cents? Well, we shall see.
But thank you very much to John and Daniel, as
well as to Alan once again. Now, I also wanted

(01:22:14):
to note that Luis Arroyo reference the work of Paul Cockshott,
who is a Scottish economist who worked on ideas for
implementing a planned economy through computers, and Luis posited his
work as the answer to whether a planned economy can

(01:22:36):
take into consideration real time input. Here's a link to
his Wikipedia entry. I have not read him, so I
can't opine on his work. I will say, though, I'm
skeptical just because of the immense complexity of human interactions
and experiences and how real time that input is going
to be. Sometimes when I go to a store, I

(01:22:59):
don't know what I'm going to buy. I may have
some general idea of my preferences, but I have to
see the goods in question before I actually make a decision.
Now we've had a very robust discussion of economic policy.
I wanted to follow up on a comment that you

(01:23:21):
made where essentially, when paradigms shift, including in economic systems,
often there's a lot of preparation that is done and
then there is a moment to swoop in, so to speak.
And I wonder, for the kind of vision that you're articulating,

(01:23:42):
or for the transhumanist vision, do you think a moment
to swoop in is likely to happen for us soon?
And if so, how is it likely to manifest itself?
What would be some signs that now is our moment
to whoop in and actually have a good chance of

(01:24:03):
becoming the next paradigm in economics, politics, culture, all of
the dimensions needed to really restore our civilization and take
it to the next level.

Speaker 3 (01:24:17):
Yeah, Okay, so this is feeding into some of my
more pseudoscientific theories and beliefs that I enjoy, like generational
theory starsa generational theory, which is extremely pseudoscientific, but yeah,
it feels right. It feels like they're onto something or

(01:24:39):
fifty a violent cycle, or looking at party systems fifth
party systemwhere in the sixth party system switching into the
seventh party system. So I do think about that a
lot in those terms, in terms of a sort of
cyclical nature to our history and our society that essentially

(01:25:03):
tracks with really human life spans, human memory, stuff like that,
and the fact that we are living longer and really
politicians are living longer political lives I think is somehow
stretching out these periods, like the cyclical nature like it

(01:25:27):
if you believe in starts how generational theory. We're in
a crisis, and some people like Steve Bannon, Trump's advisor,
who also believes this fun pseudo scientific theory, thinks the
crisis started with nine to eleven. I personally think it
started with two thousand and eight. Either way, it's been
going on for twenty plus years, and that's kind of long,

(01:25:49):
and it may be because people aren't dying. There is
that saying science advance is one funeral at a time
is essentially where for new ideas that people don't change
their minds, really just people who formed ideas when they

(01:26:13):
were twenty suddenly come into power and can change things.
That's one outlook. So I think we're in a crisis.
I think the time to change, the time to make
this happen started with then it's still the window of
opportunity is still there, but it is closing. So I

(01:26:36):
actually think the time for us to succeed, for complexity
to succeed, for transhumanists or a new party to succeed
is right now. And I can't say for sure when
the window will close, but I have to think it
is going to happen. I mean, the old paradigm died

(01:26:57):
in the two thousand and financial crisis. Neoliberalism, Reaganism died,
and then we have this vacuum, but nothing good was
around to fill it, and that's why you see the
rise of megaism, trump Ism, and that unfortunately seems to
be settling in as a dominant paradigm, like biden Bidenomics,

(01:27:23):
stuff like that. It was kind of the light version
of trump andomics. We kept a lot of the tariffs,
we made the state more powerful, invested more in industry
and infrastructure, tried to pick and choose industries. So my

(01:27:43):
whole thing is my God, I don't want to live
under the Trumpism paradigm for the next forty years. And
it is hard to see that as a stable paradigm,
especially since it is a cult of personality. Who knows
what happens after this, But it's also hard to imagine
right now what happens in twenty twenty eight, what happens

(01:28:06):
in twenty thirty two that can form a lasting political majority,
because one of the things that has characterized the last
sixteen years is that every two years we basically vote
the other party out of office, and it just keeps
switching back and forth because no one is happy with

(01:28:27):
anything anyone is offering, no one is happy with the
ideas being offered, and no one has the time the
political power to actually implement an agenda. So at some
point someone has to start winning and winning big and
for a long time, like six eight years of political

(01:28:50):
power to implement a real agenda, because otherwise you just
keep going back and forth, you keep half starting things
and you get nowhere, But it's hard to What does
twenty twenty eight look like? Is it like JD Vance
versus AOC or Gavin Newsom? And it's you don't really
see any of those people uniting the country for a

(01:29:14):
long time. You don't see the outcome of that election
as doing anything but convincing at least twenty five percent
of the population that all hope is lost and it's
time to burn the system down. So you know, maybe
there is someone, you know, a white knight in the
Democratic or Republican party who is going to emerge, wipe

(01:29:39):
away the old and rally the country around something new.
But right now, for me, it's hard to imagine. So
that's one reason I still think we have a chance
right now to defeat the Democrat and Republican system to
bring something better, not just the chance, but the obblom

(01:30:00):
dation to try and make that happen, because the alternative
seems to be constant acceleration of decline, of decay, possibly
even violence. And so we need something that can unite
this country, and I don't think it comes out of
the Democratic or Republican parties. We have to build and

(01:30:22):
build something new I had hoped forward could do something
like that. I think, you know, in a cyclical form
of history, this is right now, like maybe it's eighteen
fifty four. Maybe the Republican Party is of eighteen fifty four,
is just formed, and in the next four years is

(01:30:45):
going to eat the Wigs, it's going to eat the
Free Soil Party, and it's going to form something big
that eventually wins in twenty thirty two, maybe even twenty
twenty eight. But at the same time, maybe that doesn't
exist yet. Someone still has to found that new party
and then start uniting I think the pirates, the transhumanists,

(01:31:09):
the Liberal Party, whatever is left to forward, and then
into the Party of the Future, the party that finally
unites this country around a common vision of what we
should be, what we should do, and takes us into
the next into the twenty first century, sees us through

(01:31:32):
the twenty fifties and twenty sixties. And my thinking is
that window is there that was created by the two
thousand and eight financial crisis. Maybe someone could have done
it then, but they didn't. People like Obama still basically
clung to neoliberalism, and so we didn't have that big shift.

(01:31:54):
I have to imagine that this window closes eventually, that
either the Democrats or Republican and pull something together. Maybe
the Republican Party implodes itself so much, or the Democrats
implode themselves so much that the other can dominate. And
it's probably not going to be an ideological paradigm. I

(01:32:15):
like it could be trump Ism for all we know.
That could happen. The window could close, and then it's
another forty to fifty years before that window opens again.
And I'm prepared for that eventuality. I don't look forward
to it, but I am prepared to spend to understand

(01:32:35):
that I need to spend the next four decades laying
the groundwork for complexity. Maybe it's time has not come.
Maybe the time for transmuonism, for technology, future focused parties
of freedom, liberalism, individuality has not come, and we need

(01:32:57):
to start laying the groundwork for that. But for now,
I believe, I believe this is still the moment and
we must. We have an obligation and an opportunity to
do everything we can to form the new party, the
new paradigm, to defeat trump Ism, to defeat extremism, to

(01:33:20):
defeat the Democratic and Republican parties establishment and forge something
new and set the course for the country in because
of America's role in the world for the next fifty years,
to be something optimistic, something future focus, something where we
invest and care and have a more ideal world. So

(01:33:46):
I think the time is now, or I think the
time is fifty years from now, and I could be wrong.
I mean, I'm basing that entirely on my limited vision
of history and the world. But I think we're clearly
in the moment where everyone is upset with the existing
parties and no one has good ideas. So it's the

(01:34:09):
time for people who want change to act. I I
hope it's now. I hope we can do it now.
It's but that's the thing. If it's now, it has
to be now. It has to be. You know, whatever
I'm building, I need to come in first or seconds
or a really really strong third to then keep growing,

(01:34:32):
to keep mobilizing to twenty twenty eight. Like my plan is,
I'm building an apparatus to collect me five thousand signatures
and then maybe collect some other independence enough signatures to
form a joint ticket. But then I want to transition
that to in Ohio to get minor party status. You

(01:34:54):
go collect fifty five thousand signatures and you get a
political party, and I want to build that party, and
I am trying to work with other political parties like
the transhumanist pirates, liberals that share I think a lot
of commonality and also independence. They are Independence running for
governor in Maine, Florida, Michigan. There's the Forward Party. There's

(01:35:19):
no labels, offshoots, There's a lot of people. The groundwork
is there is if this is the eighteen fifties, you know,
we have the no not things. We have the which
I guess I'm using as a positive. We have the
free soil. We have Republicans, we have the dying wigs.
That's unite. Let's do this. That's lead the country forward

(01:35:44):
through the crisis into a grand new vision. Let's do
it now.

Speaker 4 (01:35:50):
Yes, thank you very much, Timothy. And you've definitely injected
some urgency into the situation with your answer, because you
believe that we are nearing the tail end of this
tumultuous period where a new paradigm really could take hold,
and if we don't act quickly, perhaps another paradigm that

(01:36:13):
we find less palatable, like magaism, might instead be the
paradigm for the next few decades, which I definitely would
not want to be the case. Now. One of my
frustrations actually with Joe Biden's administration and many of his
policies was that they seemed to perpetuate a lot of
the elements of Trump's policies and Trumpism, the protectionism, the

(01:36:40):
excessive crackdowns on immigration being just some examples, the unwillingness
to consider technological solutions to a lot of the issues
facing the country, and of course the mud slinging that
comes from both sides is not a paradigm that I

(01:37:03):
would like to participate in. But to your point, we've
observed this downward spiral in American politics over the past
two decades, most certainly where it seems every election season
the rhetoric keeps deteriorating and there are more extreme provocations

(01:37:25):
on each side. Political violence has become, unfortunately a very
real phenomenon. We had two assassination attempts during the last
election cycle, and we have political assassinations happening this year,
with the killing of Charlie Kirk being the most notable,
but also legislators in Minnesota being assassinated. So this is

(01:37:50):
political violence that can affect people of all persuasions and
it should be roundly condemned. And I hope that this
more trans part is an approach, as I like to
call it, that you've articulated, can help to defuse some
of these tensions and get people to focus on what

(01:38:11):
can actually unite us, what can actually help all of
us in terms of policy solutions. Now, I know that
our time is advancing, and I wanted to make sure
that Ardramond could ask a question or fit in a comment.
So Ardramont, please go ahead.

Speaker 5 (01:38:29):
Yes, I volunteered for a Rod Grajava years ago and
it was just two election cycles. He definitely had a
machine of volunteers, and that's really important. After volunteering twice.
I didn't do the canvassing, but I did more of
the data entry from all the signatures they got. And yeah,

(01:38:54):
he definitely had a well oiled machine of volunteers. And
it's a lot of hard work here in Arizona with
a heat and everything. And now Atlita, his daughter, has
basically inherited that machine and has now become congressant replacement.
So it's quite a machine of volunteers that you need.

(01:39:18):
And I see that as being. One of the biggest
hurdles is having that volunteer machine of people to go
out there. I mean, it's too bad we can't get
robots to do it. That would be the technological solution,
get some robots to go out there in canvas neighborhoods.
But it's not going to happen anytime soon. But what

(01:39:39):
are your thoughts, I mean, how are you building your
machine of canvassers?

Speaker 3 (01:39:46):
Yeah, I am.

Speaker 4 (01:39:51):
So.

Speaker 3 (01:39:53):
I have worked in politics, but I have now worked
in democratic or Republican politics very directly, certainly not any establishment.
So my experience is basically the shoestring campaign of no budget,
just trying to make people, get people inspired, and building

(01:40:15):
everything from scratch every single time. And that is unfortunately
basically where I am now. But I have made a
specialty of Okay, how do you create the most news,
how do you get the most reach, how do you
get the highest impact for your dollars spent? And I
have a pretty good track record of that, But is it.

Speaker 5 (01:40:38):
To win?

Speaker 3 (01:40:39):
I have to take it to a much higher scale.
And I do believe that there is a path for
me to win because my opponents are like historically weak
candidates and as well as the parties are historically disliked.
But what I have over the last four months, I've

(01:41:03):
recruited a good number of volunteers, again a lot of
political neo fights, and I set the priority as collecting
signatures and I'm happy that we've gotten eleven hundred so far,
but that's not the best rate in the world, and
I would like to be doing a lot better. So
what I am doing as we enter into winter, which

(01:41:25):
is not the best canvassing period, is I am shifting
my focus to the campaign infrastructure building, to coordinating volunteers,
training them and getting them on board. But one of
the things I recognize, I mean, I have to do
everything better than my opponents to win. I have to

(01:41:48):
out innovate them because I'm never going to outspend them
and I'm never going to have the political massive operations
that they have from a two century old parties that
have been building and building for years. So I have
to outdo them every way I can. One of the
things that I need to do for this campaign is

(01:42:09):
capitalize on basically mimetics. I need to create a mometic campaign.
I need to firmly establish the ideas the ideology behind
my campaign such that anyone can get behind them and
start sharing them. Because when I worked in the Forward Party,

(01:42:31):
this was always my issue with them. They were anti platform,
they were anti kind of ideas. They were just, oh,
we're about character, We're going to support candidates and let
them make their own policy ideas. But that made it
such that actual party building could only be done by

(01:42:52):
direct contact with people who were in the party, because
being part of the party meant you worked with the
people in charge. It was very top down, whereas being
part of a movement means you believe in the same ideas,
and anyone can do that. Anyone can believe and share
an idea. Not everyone can have the phone number of

(01:43:17):
the right person in the state party to reach the
national party. So I believe in movement building. I believe
in ideas in driving this to begin with. So I
intend to spend the next three months focus incredibly on
that and getting my message out there and getting because

(01:43:38):
I believe I have a message that can resonate, and
being an independent lets that message resonate more. In January
and February, we are currently planning out mapping out a
basically town hall tour of the entire state. The setting dates,

(01:43:59):
going to most cities, most towns, most counties in Ohio,
two or three a week or more, and we're gonna
advertise and be happy to just get like five to
ten people on each of these events. And that for me,
is what one can best do. Give people the opportunity

(01:44:23):
to here, to learn, to sign the petition, and then
to volunteer, because I keep getting new sign ups, new
volunteers every week, and just the more we can get
that message out there, the more people who will come
to us, and ideally more people with a little more

(01:44:43):
experience to help get other people trained and to basically
build through the.

Speaker 4 (01:44:52):
Help.

Speaker 3 (01:44:55):
Yeah. So that's basically what I'm doing, focussaying on I
impact results, trying to leverage things to the best of
my ability, you know, things that get people's attention through
social media. I am on all social media, just very

(01:45:16):
aggressively trying to make sure the low hanging fruit of
being discoverable being on things I ballot Pedia ended up
on Wikipedia. Some of this stuff is people, is stuff
other independent candidates or minor party candidates or even major
party candidates can't figure out. They don't do that, so

(01:45:39):
we try and do the low hanging fruit first and
climb what I call the ladder of credibility of viability.
I keep getting one more wrong up on what does
it take to be a serious candidate? What does it
take to be taken seriously? Because I mean the first
step was literally forming a campaign committee, doing the basic

(01:46:03):
paperwork which not everyone clears that Hurtle apparently, but then
getting on Valipedia, and then getting our first major news
story about us, which I was extremely happy actually happened
day one. Just from my announcement. I thought I would
be screaming into the void for a few months. But
now we get that, got a lieutenant governor, started getting

(01:46:25):
campaign manager teams, just becoming more real, more credible, to
the point that people have to you know, it's first
we will be ignored. We're trying to get to the
point where the Democratic Republicans start fighting us, and then
it's just well cascading down from there.

Speaker 4 (01:46:51):
Thanks for coming to job. Yes, thank you for that response.
And I had actually been meeting to ask you about
the Forward Party and what disappointed you about them, but
you answered the question. It's the lack of a clear platform.
The Forward Party used to stand for some ideas. When
Andrew Yang played a more central role, he had his

(01:47:14):
plan for a universal basic income, for instance, and he
had a strong support of various electoral reforms like ranked
choice voting. But then the Forward Party got rid of
its platform, and the question arose, well, what does the
Forward Party actually stand for other than being against the system.
And this is where I think the Transhumanist Party, the

(01:47:37):
Pirate Party and other more principal parties have a clear advantage.

Speaker 3 (01:47:43):
I will also adswer that that you know, I went
in with Ford knowing that they didn't have a platform,
so I was like, okay, well I will build up
a party that is extremely committed to democracy. I made
it so we had a process that in Ohio that
our members would eventually be able to make a platform

(01:48:05):
like what we wanted to is the air right to
not do a top down platform, where Andrew Ying says,
this is what the party stands for, get on board
or get out of the way. But they didn't actually
set it up so the members could form a platform either,
and we were just supposed to be I guess, foot

(01:48:27):
soldiers for any candidates that they decided to back, which
is not what a party is. A party is how
is it's what connects the people to government. But really
just that I didn't think they were standing for the
right things. It was the people running forward National just

(01:48:48):
didn't seem to actually want it. They didn't seem to
believe in building a party that can defeat the two
party system. They didn't have the enthusiasm, and I couldn't
push through a party that didn't have the belief of
its leaders.

Speaker 4 (01:49:08):
Fair enough, now, as we have about four and a
half minutes left in our virtual enlightenment, Salon, I did
want to ask you a transhumanist question, especially since you
have a Star Trek Magellan Shuttle behind you on your bookshelf.

Speaker 2 (01:49:29):
So to a star Trek.

Speaker 4 (01:49:32):
Transhumanism, of course, supports a wide variety of emerging technologies,
from the technologies of life extension to space travel, to
artificial intelligence and automation. What are some of the emerging
technologies that you think stand to benefit humanity the most

(01:49:56):
and also can be most effectively advanced through policy reforms.

Speaker 3 (01:50:04):
Yeah, so, I actually believe most of our problems can
be solved by technology. In fact, technology that already exists
or is near to existing. It is just the problem
of getting that implemented, taking it to market and getting
market saturation like you know, infinite energy. So I am

(01:50:28):
very technology and innovation focused. I want things like you know,
new nuclear energy like GMOs or perefual wounds farming that
is efficient and uses resources better. So I think one

(01:50:52):
thing that as an economic fallacy is the idea that
labor saving is bad, that eliminating job is bad, make
work is not good. Automation has the potential to free
humanity for a ton of things, especially the manufacturing or
data input management stuff like that. Anytime we can automate

(01:51:17):
a process, a repetitive human process that brings us no
joy to do is a good thing. And I want
to support that and create the environment that is supportive
of that, including getting the public to support it and
making sure there are no losers. That automation doesn't mean
mass starvation mass unemployment, because it shouldn't. It should mean

(01:51:39):
a world of abundance. So we need to start adjusting
our policy now to what that means. Start preparing people
for a world of mass automation. Have a UBI, have training,
have skills to start very specific businesses stuff like that,
and to continue to compe in the world. I have

(01:52:00):
always been an advocate of genetically engineered crops to advance
food security, to advance food abundance, and the other cutting
edge technologies. mRNA vaccines are amazing. I think we can

(01:52:22):
There's so many diseases like not just make them chronic,
we can cure and prevent diseases. And we need to
put so much more funding, so much more support into
this that infinitely better lives are just a few steps away,
a few investments away, and we have to care, we

(01:52:42):
have to invest, and we have to be open to that.
So that's why my whole campaign is sort of the
innovation industrial complex that is Ohio. Invest in our universities,
invest in our pure research, and do everything we can
to take technology from the lab to market, because that's
where innovation. It's not just invention. You have to apply
it and you have to spread it.

Speaker 4 (01:53:06):
Yes, thank you very much for that response, and of
course and your support for genetically modified organisms, mRNA vaccines,
automation and the beneficial effects of automation, not focusing on
make work, focusing on elevating real human prosperity. We are

(01:53:27):
very much aligned, and I am quite pleased that the
Transhumanist Party has been able to endorse you in your
campaign for governor of Ohio, and thank you so much
for joining us and outlining some of your key ideas
and the theoretical thinking behind them. This has been a

(01:53:49):
truly enlightening experience. I wish you all the best in
your gubernatorial run. We will follow it with great interest.
We will help spread awareness of it so that we
can all live long and prosper

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Timothy Grady

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Crime Junkie

All Episodes

Timothy Grady

Stuff You Should Know