Doctor Derek Hamilton is an economist, but he'll quickly
clarify that fact. The identity that I'm most drawn
to is a humanist. Doctor Hamilton's entire
approach to the theories and practices of economics is
humanistic. It centers on the well-being of
people, and it's deeply interconnected with policy and
with reparative justice. I'm a proud economist, but
economics purports itself to be a science when in fact there is
no such thing as economy devoid of politics.
We make a mistake when we don't recognize that the politics of
our time, that the ways in which we come up with structures and
policies are related to who we think is deserving and
undeserving, are related to our ability to have solidarity and
the ways in which we command from our government, whose job
it is to serve the people, to implement policies that benefit
us all. Doctor Hamilton is the founding
director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political
Economy, an organization that is housed at the New School in New
York City. And like Doctor Hamilton, the
way the Institute operates is justice oriented.
It's knowledge for action. But we don't do knowledge
creation for the sake of knowledge creation, although
that's important, useful, has value.
We engage in truth seeking for a purpose of achieving justice.
One path of justice the institute is forging right now
is a program called Baby Bonds. Baby Bonds is a wealth
democratizing effort aimed at narrowing the wealth gap for
kids to grow up in low income families.
In other words, it does not lock in inequality at birth.
Welcome to Path Breakers, a show about what it takes to cut
through the noise and red tape and all of the other obstacles
to progress. I'm Tracy Pearson and I work on
the communications team at the Kresge Foundation.
And I'm Jamie Bennett. I work at the intersection of
arts, culture, and equitable community development.
On each episode of this podcast, we talk with a different path
breaker, someone who's forging a new way forward in their own
community. Today we welcome Doctor Derek
Hamilton to talk about what world is possible when we build
our economy to intentionally serve all people, what world is
possible when everyone has access to not just income, but
also wealth, And what world is possible if we build a human
rights economy. Welcome to the podcast.
We are so humbled and delighted that you are able to join us
today. Where are you joining us from?
I am joining from Brooklyn, USA. Brooklyn, NY.
Where? In Brooklyn.
Crown Heights. Awesome.
So while we're doing introductions, I wanted to ask
you, how did you come up with the name of the institute?
I imagine as the founder you played some role in that.
You know and I love our name, race, power and political
economy. Rarely will you find when you do
a scan of institute's the word power included.
But at the end of the day, isn't this all about power?
Power both as an input and power as an outcome isn't 1 of the
essence of freedom and self determination, the ability to do
things. So at the institute we we use
the word race, but race is shorthand for a more technical
term, identity group stratification, which is
essentially the ways in which human beings or people are
divided into identity groups. And unfortunately those identity
groups are treated differently, often in transactional ways.
So in that context, there's somewhat of a political purpose
that we highlight the word race. But in general, the Institute is
about the study of stratification along identity,
power and political economy. I'm so interested that you all
named it political economy, not politics and economy.
You know what is political economy that's different than
economy. I mean that's a great question
when you think about any transaction, I mean what's a
pure example that we often give in an economic one-on-one class?
We talk about a farmers market, for example.
Well, in order to go to a farmer's market, you got to have
a permit. Markets are social and political
constructions. So the word political economy is
more accurate. And here's a bigger point.
The bigger point that we all need to know is we get to
choose. We get to define and choose the
economy we want. We need to ask the question,
what is the purpose of an economy?
And answering that question, that opens the door beyond the
traditional ways in which we think about economics to the
political part, to defining what we value and creating the
structures to achieve it. Thank you very much.
I once heard you say in an interview that one needs some
base level of resource to participate in transaction and
you touched a little bit on transaction earlier.
And so I want to go down that that path of the necessary base
level of resource. Like let's when you say
resource, my mind immediately goes to you got to have a little
bit of money if you want to participate in any sort of
buying a house, going to college, putting your child on
daycare, anything within the economy.
Is my thinking accurate in that? Tracy, you're spot on.
At the end of the day, in American Society and society in
general, when we think about freedom, when we think about
agency, when we think about choice, concepts like the
ability to have political freedom, civil freedom, so
political rights, civil rights, however inadequate we may be in
implementing them in our society, they're not really
contested in this modern day. We believe that people deserve
the right to have a civil protest.
We believe that people deserve the right to choose their
elected officials. Again, we're not so good at
implementing them, but we don't contest those as concepts.
What about the concept of economic rights?
What about the concept of being able to have some baseline level
of resource? Because we know without that
baseline RE level of resource, you don't have choice and agency
in your life. Without some income, without a
home. You know, the ability to civilly
protest when you are unhoused, the ability to vote in an
election when you're hungry. That's not freedom.
That's not choice. In order to partake, you need
something by which you have some power to engage in that
transaction. Otherwise, two things can
happen. You're at the whim of somebody's
charity or the vulnerability of their exploitation.
So this concept of economic rights needs to be included in
our concepts of Freedom and Justice.
What government should have a responsibility to do is invest
in their people so that they have the resources in order to
reap the rewards of their ingenuity, in order to be
innovative, in order to achieve all those things that I think an
enlightened society would not contest.
So that critical ingredient of a job, that critical ingredient to
be able to go see a doctor when you are most vulnerable without
the threat and fear of finance at that point is something that
is necessary if we really want a true and free society.
And well beyond the individual. It also promotes things like
tranquility. It also allows us to be less
vulnerable to despots, a despotic politic that's willing
to exploit the worst in US by invoking fear so that we care
about relative status. In other words, fascism thrives
off of insecurity. So a society that promotes
economic rights in an inclusive way that ensures that all groups
are included not only has the benefit of investing the
resources that people need in order to thrive, it also has
tranquility effects. It also leaves us less
vulnerable to a politic of division again, where some
leaders appeal to the worst in US, which is some value over
some other person because of their identity.
One of the things I want to just slow down and make sure I'm not
missing it. So I don't have a degree in
economics, but so if you were going to ask, you know, me and
my other BA, you know, liberal or BA holders about economics, I
would have assumed that it's all about money.
But you've been talking all about people.
So why is an economist who should be talking about money
talking all about people? I'm trained as an economist, but
I value people. I believe in people, I trust
people. And part of it, I was raised
that way. Part of it I learned because
I've been exposed to environments that facilitate my
learning to love people. And then I don't know how much
of it is innate, but at the end of the day, shouldn't this all
be about it, be about people? So again, if I'm making a, a
contribution to my field is economic, I would encourage my
brethren to begin every class that they teach, every lecture
that they offer with that simple question, what is the purpose of
an economy? And if you ask that, I don't
think it's so radical. I don't think it's so out of
here to focus on our most treasured assets, which are
people, people and, and, and you know, not only from a value
standpoint should we value people, but it turns out that it
leads to positive economic benefits, not only benefiting
the individual, but our whole society.
The purpose of an economy should be to promote our productive
capabilities and self determining ways.
It should be to promote human flourishing.
It should be to promote tranquility.
It should be to promote the capabilities to define,
determine, and have access to partners for love.
It should be the promotion of family formation.
So it's not not an extensive, it's not an extensive list, but
it is indeed a list. Those are some cornerstone
values that I have, and I suspect others out there have in
a really good place to start and define.
It so this so in your formation the economy should be centered
on people, not on money. Yeah.
The only other thing I would add to that definition is the
environments in which we live. Money becomes a medium by which
we can help execute those values, but the purpose should
be people in the environments in which we live.
And I, I love the indigenous concept that they personify the
environment. They talk about it's live
breathing self. And for obvious reasons, we need
a thriving environment or we suffer.
I use the phrasing from my colleague Demon Drummer who
works at the institute where we don't simply say the
environment, you know, we're intentional with a lot of the
words that we use. We say environment in which we
live. That has a place based notion as
well. The uniqueness that's associated
with a locality, the personification of our
environment, the notion that it's a living, breathing entity
is something that we need to grasp when understanding
political economy and promoting political economy first and
foremost. Because if we don't have a
sustainable environment, we're vulnerable.
But well, even beyond that, that the land itself is so enriching,
so important and needs to be cherished by people.
And we also should recognize at the end of the day, the Land's
going to outlive us. So if we don't take care of it,
then we we clearly are going to suffer existential consequence
consequences. If the land isn't healthy, none
of the people on that land can be healthy.
That's so simple and plain spoken and the accurate, Tracy.
And that was the way to say it. Point blank period.
I want to talk to you a little bit about something that Doctor
William Manning Maribel started, and I believe that you have so
eloquently carried the torch on since its passing, and that's
Baby Bonds. Doctor Maribel, the late Doctor
Maribel, you know, did so much for this, this world, this
place. I'm glad that you referenced
him. He also was really good at
alliteration. So he he coined that phrase, to
my knowledge, baby bonds. Technically, it's not a baby
bond, it's not a bond, it's a trust account.
But we love alliteration of bond.
But the idea is pretty simple. The idea recognizes that the
ways in which wealth is generated in the American
context is that it is wealth that begets more wealth.
So let me break that down really quick.
It is often a down payment that separates A renter from a
homeowner. It is often some capital that
separates a worker who has an entrepreneurial spirit that has
some innovative idea from being able to take that idea, that
spirit, and marketize it. It is often a debt free college
education that separates a worker from a managerial or
professional occupation that offers them the benefits of a
four O 1K plan. So it is understanding that the
access to wealth in our society is often dictated by those that
have capital and those who do not.
It also recognizes that far more than an outcome, the real value
of wealth, the essence of wealth, is what it can do for
you, the power that it provides, the capability to have financial
agency and one's life. The idea around baby bonds is
democratizing wealth for everyone, ensuring that every
child that's born will have set aside when they become a young
adult, access to some capital to put them into a vehicle that
will passively appreciate over their life.
That will generate wealth in ways that most Americans who
have wealth are able to generate.
That it ensures in a moral, authentic way that we all have
the capability to reap the rewards in terms of attaining
wealth from our efforts, our ingenuity and all those things
that we talk about when we say we want people to, to, to, to,
to engage in productive activities.
So how are we? Going to so it's maybe.
Bonds. Oh, sorry.
No, no, I got excited. That was my question.
Oh yeah, How do we get them? Tracy's got a baby, and the baby
needs a bond. I would have loved Avatan,
almost 10 month old and the idea that he would have been born
into some some relative asset. He would.
As soon as he hits the world, that asset is there.
That that sounds great. And you know what, Tracy?
When I was originally conceiving of the idea, the choice of
babies in and of itself was a political choice.
Again, we label the poor as undeserving.
We label the poor as suffering, the consequences of their lack
of knowledge, their lack of effort, which is completely
wrong. So I said, OK, what about a
baby? What about a baby?
A baby that's born? So that was a strategic choice.
But for the idea, the big thing is when you're a young adult at
that key point in your life that you get access to some capital,
some seed capital. So if I had my way, you know,
your child would, even though they've already been born, would
also have access to some capital when they're a young adult.
So that was a strategic political decision because it's
not enough to have good ideas. We need to figure out the ways
in which we can implement power to achieve not only the ideas,
but a whole new paradigm that centers people in the
environments in which we live. So how are we going to achieve
it? Build power.
Do some demonstrations A partner with philanthropy to see
demonstrations. Partner with philanthropy to
help seed new ideas by ways in which we understand inequality
and poverty. To understand that the root of
it is not in a deficit population, but a deficit
society that does not invest in them the way that they should be
by fiduciary obligation, responsible for doing building
that power through ideas, through demonstrations, through
collaborations, through coalition's in order to achieve
this new paradigm. Build up movements so that all
these ideas like baby bonds and we could talk about guaranteed
income, we can talk about single payer health insurance.
That all these ideas that may seem common sense when we break
them down on an individual level, become the broad common
sense of all our major institutions.
And with baby bonds there, there's empirical evidence that
this asset is a value to the economy.
So I I often struggle with with why is there pushback on these
things? Why, why?
Why isn't it something that's universally adopted?
It's for the betterment of society.
It's for the betterment of economy.
Like, why? You know, it's practical
government policy that leads to positive social change.
And that's, I think, where I struggle.
You know, I'm so with you, right?
So sometimes the solutions become obvious.
If somebody does not have enough income, well, provide them with
some income. You know why poor people are
poor? They don't have enough money to
sit. If they have more money, they
wouldn't be poor. And I'm obviously I'm being
somewhat tongue in cheek. They can't save because they
don't make money like. That's true too, right you?
Want people to save money? Give them some money to save.
Yeah, all of this. If somebody does not have enough
money to go see a doctor, well, if they haven't, if if, if
they're able to see a doctor and it took it is paid in a more
collective single payer way, then they have enough money to
go see a doctor. So anyway, these ideas which I
call essentially economic rights and I add the word inclusive
economic rights to make sure that we learn from the lessons
of the past when we did the economic rate right to old age
pension like Social Security, then we don't do it in exclusive
ways. When we originally passed that
legislation, we excluded domestic and agricultural
workers. Well, in the 1930s, who were
domestic and agricultural workers?
Black folks. There you go, right.
So we need to add that word inclusive economic rights so
that we are when we design the policies, when we implement the
policies, we are intentional that we include those most
marginalized identity groups. So coming back to this question
at hand, oftentimes and again, because we're in a paradigm that
treats people as somebody to be managed, their behaviors are
something to be managed by the state to be incentivized.
What do we do for poor people? We isolate them, we incarcerate
them, We control their fertility and family formation.
We can script them to our military.
We do these things in a way that treats them as if they are
supposed to be managed and that they are deficit population
rather than a concept like baby bonds and guaranteed income.
We invest in poor people. We provide the investment so
that they can thrive. We use the term in philanthropy.
Trust based. Trust based philanthropy, yes.
We need trust based governance. We need a government that invest
in people and lets them thrive. So why is it so hard?
Because the common sense is backwards.
Because we need a new paradigm, a new understanding, a new
emphasis on what we care about as an economy.
And once we change that paradigm, these ideas, they flow
easy. Right now we're swimming
upstream every time we come up with a policy.
And here's what's more, we end up competing with each other.
So people will put guaranteed income juxtaposed against baby
bonds. And which one should we choose?
The answer is both. There are concepts of income and
wealth, and people need both income and wealth for a variety
of reasons. And that's why we need this
paradigm. Big shout out to the growth fund
down in Georgia. Been doing demonstrations on
guaranteed income and now are trying to show that that the
integrated effect of baby bonds and guaranteed income and how
both income and wealth iterate together not in a linear way but
in the exponential way to improve people's lives.
And I don't, I promise you that I'm not trying to get a free BA
in economics. But aren't.
But aren't income and wealth the same thing?
What's the difference between income and wealth?
Income is a flow and wealth is a stock, and I know that didn't
answer your question. Well, it answered.
It just. Now I got another question.
OK. What's a flow in the stock?
So So a flow income becomes a periodic reward in exchange for
something. Usually it's in the form of
wages. People offer labor, and in
exchange they're rewarded with wages in a periodic way.
Wealth is a stock. Wealth becomes the difference
between what you own, the total value of everything you own,
versus the total value of what you owe.
So wealth is a stock, income is a flow.
The practical roles of the two is that income is often used to
pay periodic bills, often used to redress subsistence
activities, whereas wealth provides that stock that allows
you to do perhaps more dramatic things related to your financial
well-being. And we can name them.
For example, if you wanted to purchase a home, you generally
need a down payment. You generally need some.
And that's why I began with that phrase, wealth begets more
wealth. You know, the other added
attribute of wealth is that not only is it a stock, it often
generates resources. So you often get a return or
some income associated with wealth.
Now people need both and in our society we have gross inequities
around income but dramatic inequality around wealth and it
is often tied to something like identity.
So we will find that amongst, say, if we look at black and
white individuals, if we compare black and white individuals
across income, not only does wealth disparities and not only
is there wealth disparity at every level of income across
race, the disparities grow. So that's a racial dimension.
If I were to show you wealth inequality in America in
general, black or white, we have such high levels of
concentration of wealth irrespective of race that it's
become dysfunctional. And why do I use the word
dysfunctional? The ways in which our
dysfunctional concentration of wealth spills over into our
politics allows those at the extreme to Co opt our politics
in an anti democratic way so as to structure the rules in favor
of them. Even more so.
Like I don't begrudge the wealthy because they're rich, I
begrudge high concentrations of wealth because it's anti
democratic. The ways in which that money can
translate into structuring our society in ways that are
detrimental to all of us. And then, you know, last thing
I'll just say on this topic is we have a society for which
Black people have never on mass received public policies to cede
them the capital and the way that Baby Bonds does or is
intended to do. And what's more, even when they
were able to overcome obstacles and accumulate capital,
accumulate wealth, it has never had the political codification
to be able to protect it and pass it down from one generation
to the next. One vivid example that is
recently in the news is Tulsa, OK's.
Yeah, violent race, you know, riot for which whatever capital
that was established in that Greenwood neighborhood was
vulnerable to a terrorist destruction.
And that that is an example of of of a vivid example, but not
an isolated example that we have not had the political
codification to protect not only our wealth.
And this is really sad and morbid personhood.
Our humanity. Humanity, literally our lives,
and that in that example in Tulsa, we saw how many people
literally lost their lives. We can go so many places.
I'm I'm talking context on the issues of race and wealth gap,
the importance to note the systems and the structures of
why things the way that they are, the way that they are.
I want to make sure that we have, we have for the audience a
clear picture of how your organization is related to baby
bonds. Yes, I'll begin with our mission
as an organization is to generate research concepts,
translate them into policy action, engage publicly to help
implement those policies and actions, learn from that public
engagement to help reform and refine our concepts in research
questions in order to achieve a new political economy that
defines the purpose of an economy and the ways that we've
been talking all along. A way that centers people and
the environments in which we live, not simply for consumption
reasons, not simply to redress inequality in a way that allows
them to consume, although that's critical and important, but
rather as investments so that we can achieve one of the essence
of humanity, which is the ability to be self determining
and productive and to define the ways in which we want to achieve
our purpose and be able to achieve it with in tranquil,
safe and sustainable environments.
That's what we do. That sounds lofty and big and we
do it in three ways. We do research and conception.
So often in the Academy, you know, we are situated at a
university, there's a great deal of investments and doing
research and working on conceptions, theories,
frameworks, understanding. Then you see outside of the
Academy a great deal of nonprofit think tank
organizations very focused on policy on practice.
And then you have some advocacy groups focus on public
engagement to build movements to facilitate interactions with
people so that they can have roles in defining their value
and and dictating how their how their structures are set up.
We think you need all three. So at the institute, we're
building something that that works in partnership with so
many people because we need partnerships to achieve paradigm
change. So Baby Bonds fits within this
paradigm. As you know, we began with a we,
we just had a really good conversation about wealth and
the ways in which wealth is generated, the ways in which
it's been structured in America, and what's more, the value of
wealth, what it can do for you. Well, Baby Bonds takes that
information in attempts to operationalize ways in which we
can address those concerns of wealth inequality in a
productive way. Now, we do a lot of public
engagement, like we work very well with the Connecticut
Treasurer's office who took this to market and actually
implemented Baby Bonds in Connecticut.
That's one example of public engagement because not only did
we engage with their office, they set up meetings with
various constituents, Voices for children in Connecticut, And I
could keep going, but but you can see with baby bonds as an
example, you need all three to ultimately achieve change.
And then even baby bonds is not enough if you don't have that
conception of a human rights economy by which you
contextualize baby bonds. So it's knowledge for action.
Knowledge for action, Knowledge tracing.
You did it again. You took my long winded answer
and you summarized it in a way that was right to the point.
The world would be The upshot. I appreciate that.
I love it. Knowledge for action, not
knowledge just for the sake of knowing some stuff.
And one thing about me, I'm about that action, OK?
So Connecticut's actually doing these baby bonds like did did.
Are there actually Connecticut babies with bonds?
What and what? How many?
What's happening? In this story of Connecticut
passing baby bonds is so rich it is rich from they had a
transition of state treasurer's from Treasurer Wooden who
originally proposed the idea and it was passed to Treasurer
Russell being able to implement it.
So you have a scenario of from the standpoint of a politician,
you're ceding an account that comes to fruition not until at
least 18 years long after you have left office.
Again, that concept of investment is clearly there.
So you had some selfless individuals leading this effort
and initiative in that state. And it's probably not
coincidental that they grew up in neighborhoods that were not
high wealth. They grew up in communities
where they they had experiential learning and have had success in
their life and can understand the value of what capital can do
for somebody's life. So it's such an eloquent,
eloquent story. And I've had the good fortune of
being able to engage them and thinking about the concept and
being able to explain the concept with them and being able
to engage their population to build up support because they
needed support not only to pass the bill, but it once it was
passed, now it had to go into implementation and it was not a
unified consensus. You know, I'm not calling out
any particular politicians here towards implementing it.
So they needed to build up even more power and more innovation
in order to get it implemented. So just really quick reporting
back on this. They have started this program
two years ago when they seeded the first child with a baby
bonds. To date, there are 33,000
eligible children in the state of Connecticut that when they
turn 18, have the ability to reap the rewards of a baby bond.
That's amazing. Yeah, that is.
So if I want to go to college at 18, I haven't act like a real
asset for me to tap into to make that possible.
Yes, and you know let's you know I'll add context also, it's the
state, not the federal government.
So the accounts are seated at a level of about $3200 per child,
and it's ceded to all Medicaid recipients.
So all baby, right? They call it their Huskies
program in, in, in Connecticut. And their Huskies program cuts
across race, cuts across geography.
So we think about rural poverty. You have a great deal of
children that are born without resources and now they get
access to some capital. Now the treasurer will manage
that $3200, similar to how they manage their pension fund.
And the projection is that when they become eighteen that that
account will be valued at between say 12,000 to about 18
to $20,000. That becomes some useful, useful
capital to put down on a home, to finance some of your
education, if not all, to be able to take it and start a
business, a small business, to be entrepreneurial.
So it's a start the full program at the federal level, which has
a great deal more capacity. And big shout out to Ayanna
Presley and Cory Booker for translating baby bonds into
legislation. And every year comes up and it
gets a good deal of support. Obviously not enough to put it
across across the edge, but we know we get ready for that over
10 when that moment comes when we can legislate it.
But their proposal would offer enough resources so that the
accounts for the most low income, low wealth children
would be upwards to about 40 thousand. 45,000 as a down
payment. Wow, I'm pretty sure that number
is accurate. Now you said we don't have the
support now, but 15 years ago when you introduced this
concept, you caught a lot of heat for it.
But now in 2025, Connecticut then did it look where it is
now. So I have full faith that just
like that happened and you know, you got some some Flack for 15
years ago, maybe hopefully only five years from now we're able
to get it at the federal level. Big fist bump.
We, we, we got to be ready. That over 10 moment occurs in
ways that we can and cannot predict.
We can be certain that there's a great deal of turmoil,
volatility that is not only happening in society, but it's
going to happen in society. And is at those over 10 moments,
it is at those political junctures that we have a great
deal if we're ready, if we built up the power to do something
new, innovative and valuable and actually achieve that paradigm
change so that we can in an authentic way, center people in
the environments in which we live.
That's amazing. I want to ask, from the place
that you sit, have you seen any empirical data to support the
success of these initiatives? I have this saying, and God, we
trust everybody else. Bring facts.
Bring some data. And so can you speak to those
those things? On the one hand, there's a 18
year gestation before the accounts actually get sent out.
On the other hand, the evidence from baby bonds is history when
we provided AGI Bill to at the time 8 out of 10 men born in the
1920s returning from World War 2, getting access to some
capital to purchase a home, for example, or getting access to
some capital to go to school and not graduate with debt that we
built a middle class grounded in assets so we can learn from that
lessons. To me, that's some of the most
compelling evidence that if we want to redress wealth
inequality, then we need to see capital and this time do it in a
way that does not exclude people based on their race or gender.
Amen. Well, Derek, thank you so much
for your time. Thank you for sharing some of
your brilliance with us. Thank you for for the work that
you are doing to give some of this knowledge so that we can
have some positive action. I know the Health and Human
Services team so appreciates it, but so do we.
I mean, so kind. There's, there's a lot in this
world that is depressing. That is, you know, we wake up
every day and we see some of the global strife and conflict.
We see hunger, we see pain. What a joy and privilege I have.
And others have to have a purpose to have a job that
facilitates us to try to make make a difference, to do
something different. So, you know, I'll, I'll make
this last point, that pessimism, feeling paralyzed, that's only
going to maintain the status quo or make it worse.
It's a privilege and honor and a blessing to be able to work
towards that purpose, however bleak things may seem at this
time. And as we've talked about Jamie,
we never know when that Overton is changing.
And we certainly need to be ready so that we can get
something different. That's awesome.
Well, Doctor Hamilton, we want to thank you so much for this
hour. We want to exercise a slightly
different part of your brain, and so we've been ending each
episode with just a goofy lightning round.
Now you know my long winded answers are going to make this
challenging. I'm up first, so it's the top of
the morning. You're heading in to wherever
you're going for the day. What do you have in your hand?
Coffee or tea? Sadly my phone but coffee before
I get on there. Ditto.
Over the course of your teaching career, what's your favorite
class that you've ever taught? Racial economic disparity.
Oh no, sorry. I took a class down to Trinidad
and Tobago for two weeks. We had a whole course, but it
was looking at racial and ethnic inequality and the global
diaspora and it included a field study to Trinidad and Tobago.
Interesting, what's the 1st place you take people to when
they come visit Brooklyn? Oh, we going to a rooftop and
we're going to have some cocktails on the rooftop.
I can give you the specific place, but I'll look
pretentious. What tabs do you have open on
your computer right now? Oh Lord, everything.
There's my calendar, there's the new school website, there's our
website. It is around 4th of July, so
there's some, this is embarrassing.
Some shopping there as well. I'm not going to tell you the
place. You've got to make that dial A
hollow. Absolutely.
If you were to pin your memoir today, what would you name it?
Oh man, a North Star vision for justice.
Y'all heard it first. And so now listen, I know Tracy
is the queen of the bumper sticker slogans, but if we
needed a bumper sticker slogan for the economy, we need what's
your sort of, what's your three word rally ride?
Centering people in the environments in which we live.
OK, it wasn't 3 words, but close enough.
That's OK, I'll give you the extra word.
All right. If you could come back as an
animal, what animal would you be?
Oh man, what would I be? I want to fly you.
Unfortunately we're we're we would be endangered, but I'd be
an eagle. OK.
Although that's predator, maybe I don't want to be an eagle.
What's your song of the summer for 2025?
Again, this is embarrassing. I'm old, but I still listen to
Tick Tock. So when listening to Tick Tock
right now, the song that comes up a lot is the woman from Fleet
Wood Mac, because I didn't listen to it when I was younger,
but now it's in my feed. It's when she's talking to her.
Silver Springs, that's the name. Of it, that's Stevie Nicks.
Yep. Stevie Nicks, Silver Springs?
No, but I don't think anybody would predict that'll get that.
But that's what algorithms do. They put something in your head
and make you listen to it over and over again.
Professor Hamilton to wrap us up, Who's a path breaker that
you've come across in your life? Who's someone who cut a new way
forward? You know, I, I, it is some, you
know, I think about my mother, of course, who lost her life
and, and I think about sacrifice.
If I think about legacy, if I think about motivation.
And as we talk about this, I'm glad it's impromptu and on the
spot because the word that comes to mind, she was a humanist.
You know, she cared about people, she fun loving, cared
about people, cared about her children.
So she she's the one you. Mean.
What was your mom's name? Norma Jane Hampton Elton John
wrote a song about her. Goodbye, Norma Jane.
Because she was that girl. I love that.
Well, Professor Hamilton, I'm sure you've got all sorts of
things to get back to, the books you got to read, the students
you got to teach, the change you got to make.
Thank you for taking a little break from everything you're
doing to spend some time with Tracy and me.
We really appreciate it. Y'all made my day.
I love this. This was a great experience for
me, I thank you. Awesome.
Thank you, Doctor. Derek Hamilton is the Henry
Cohen Professor of Economics and Urban Policy at The New School
and the founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and
Political Economy, also at the New School.
Path Breakers is produced by the Kresge Foundation, which was
founded in 1924 with a mission to promote human progress.
Today, Kresge works to expand equity and opportunity in
America's cities. Read the stories of all of this
season's Path Breakers and learn about our grant making and
social investing work in Detroit, Memphis, New Orleans,
Fresno, and cities across the US at kresge.org.
To hear more stories from the Path Breakers, be sure to
subscribe to the show wherever you listen to podcasts.
Our producers are Juliet Hindley and Zach Rosen.
Managing editor is Krista Yankee.
Our show art is by Rochelle Baker and Creative direction by
Alejandro Herrera. Special thank you to my
colleagues on the Human Services program for lifting up Doctor
Hamilton and speaking his name as a truly phenomenal path
breaker. Next week we'll look a little
different. We'll be releasing our final
episode of the season Friday, September 12th with a new guest
making a very special announcement.
You won't want to miss it. Join us then.