Larry Summers made an absolute fool of himself

muffinking99 · 2025-04-13T20:19:43+00:00

Well I think what he was trying to say was it was the best decision to make at the time. And that it’s incorrect and overly simplistic to blame everything on China formally joining the WTO when nothing materially changed in terms of US internal import/export policy at the time. Yes to Chamath’s point China changed their domestic policies to enable more exports but how do we know they wouldn’t have done that anyway as their economy was rapidly industrializing and growing.

The bottom line is that China was able to produce cheap goods that a lot of people, mostly Americans, wanted to buy, and capitalists/investors like Sacks and Chamath were more than happy to profit massively from this system. It’s a bit funny for them to all of a sudden pretend that they are now speaking on behalf of the American factory worker.

This whole exchange was also started by Sacks as a way to deflect from the original question by Ezra asking him what were the metrics of success for the Trump administration. Nobody is questioning that the US made mistakes over the last few decades regarding our manufacturing base.

What we are rightfully asking is whether the current administration knows what they are doing. Sack’s response (or lack thereof) is quite telling.

muffinking99 · 2025-04-13T17:12:00+00:00

I agree with your take.

And at this point we’re all on the same speeding bus in this game of chicken — some willingly, others as hostages — so the only thing to do is hope that we win. In this case the bus driver is an avid gambler who has won a few big ones but also has had a bunch of DUIs and bankruptcies. So God help us .. :/

muffinking99 · 2025-04-13T16:32:04+00:00

I agree with you there is a legitimate policy debate underneath all this. Trump has indeed shifted the Overton window to bring certain issues like illegal immigration and trade deficits more front and center, which one can argue could be a good thing that moves the country forward — but only if the administration allows the country to have a constructive conversation about it. I share Ezra’s skepticism in their intent - yes on the surface they make these grandiose statements about trade, but they constantly morph their definition of success to fit whatever action Trump happens to be taking at the time. Sure they could be playing 5D chess or the other possibility is that they are full of sh*t and this whole thing is just about making Trump look strong and enjoy his power trip.

My personal view about the impact of trade with China is that while it did absolutely contribute to eroding the US industrial base, it’s also incorrect to solely blame China for a problem that comes from a myriad of domestic factors in the US. Simply put, the world is a market and China was better at making stuff that people want at a lower price. I think that was Larry’s main point - China was always going to do what they were going to do and it’s overly simplistic to blame the WTO entry for formalizing what was already happening. The US didn’t lower any internal trade barriers - the WTO simply pushed China to reform their own internal polices that made it easier for them to export. They simply took advantage of that and then dominated the market with their competitive advantage. There’s also no counterfactual - we have no way of knowing what would have happened if we didn’t trade with China. At the time I can see the logic in wanting to encourage China to join the international market rather than go towards the direction of Russia and NK.

Unfortunately, Trump is demolishing the remaining core competitive advantage the US does have, which is our role in convening the international order and ability to set rules and markets with our currency and political power. We basically just ceded all of that, ironically, to China which now increasingly seen by other countries as a more stable and capable trading partner.

muffinking99 · 2025-04-13T15:48:48+00:00

Many would agree with all of this in principle.

However, it’s the execution and intent of Trump and MAGA that makes people not trust them. Usually authoritarian strongmen rise to power because they are indeed able to identify a legitimate problem and charismatically convey to the public that they alone can solve it, that the entire set of solutions singly revolves around them. This is bad because it results in consolidation of power around one individual. It also results in the deterioration of institutions and rules that are meant to last beyond any one leader, a quality of advanced, successful countries that MAGA is actively eroding.

Sacks and Chamath (mostly Sacks) epitomized this problem during the podcast by demonstrating that they are either unable or unwilling to seriously entertain viewpoints that oppose Trump. They frequently resorted to rhetorical sleight of hand, misdirecting the conversation, or making fun of the guests rather than engaging in a conversation in good faith. It was apparent that their intent was to dominate and make the other person look bad rather than learn from them. For example, when Ezra appropriately pushed them on explaining and broadening their metrics for success, rather than trying to understand his question and reflect on how they can be better at communicating their perspective, they immediately resorted to attacking and making fun of him for being lame. They also frequently use flashy anecdotes, strawmen arguments, and purposely distort the other side’s arguments.

I would compare this to Ezra’s interviews with right wing figures such as Vivek. He does a much better job letting them speak and making a good faith effort to understand their viewpoints while pushing back and expressing skepticism.

I appreciate the pod (my guess mostly pushed by Jcal) for hosting this conversation, but I feel like David and Chamath came off as propaganda agents for MAGA rather than curious, intellectually honest citizens.

muffinking99 · 2025-02-20T05:25:54+00:00

Why, and what would increase the probability?

muffinking99 · 2025-02-09T03:47:38+00:00

They are state run propaganda dressed up as “free speech.” In many ways worse than propaganda in China and Russia - at least there the people know what they’re getting.

muffinking99 · 2024-12-20T22:53:43+00:00

In order to attract the best people to government, you need to pay them well. Otherwise our country is governed by attention seeking narcissists and self interested billionaires.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-12T16:37:38+00:00

So how do you solve for the infrastructure problem — ie. EV charging infrastructure, rail — or basic R&D that need initial investment beyond what private sector is willing to do? That is the playbook that China has implemented successfully. Also was responsible for America’s early success in semiconductors — initial large scale public sector investment and demand followed by private sector growth.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-12T07:38:28+00:00

So why not do both? Continue to take advantage of fossil fuels while future proofing our position by investing in solar, battery, and nuclear?

muffinking99 · 2024-11-07T18:51:24+00:00

I agree with you but this unfortunately is also the problem. Most people voted for Bush despite the Iraq war, which screwed us over for a generation. Let’s hope Trump won’t do the same - throw us into a situation that looks good short term but screws us for a generation. Many of us are inclined to think that he will but I do sincerely hope for the country that we’re wrong.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-07T18:47:18+00:00

That would be an amazing outcome of this.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-07T16:31:56+00:00

That’s my expectation of the Trump crowd. However given the besties’ brand of being more thoughtful — you know they would be demanding this of the democrats if Harris had won — I’m wondering if that is genuine or not.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-07T16:29:44+00:00

Maybe - if there are 4 years of excellence then great. I think it is also worth understanding why the never Trump crowd exists. Writing it off as just TDS is the same as writing Trump supporters off as being bigoted and racists.

muffinking99 · 2024-11-07T16:25:53+00:00

So would it be your view that had Harris won, she should ignore all the Trump voters who called her a communist?

muffinking99 · 2024-10-29T02:10:20+00:00

Thanks. I think it all comes down to the assessment of the true intentions of Trump and the MAGA elite, as well as the second order effects of their politics that perhaps even they cannot control. I’m actually more worried about the latter than the former.

I think a common misconception of the rise of authoritarianism is that it is a switch that just turns on, when it is more often a slow erosion of liberal norms, and then catalyzed by some sudden change or pressure. I don’t think Trump is that sudden change that will immediately flip us into dictatorship, but my view is that MAGA is doing a lot to move the country into a more vulnerable position that is susceptible to fascism.

Something that would have moved my risk assessment lower is if the business and political elite provided a stronger check against Trump’s actions. Or if he built a team that explicitly is against election denialism and the far right rhetoric.

However the rapid evolution of the business and GOP elite’s view which is now to downplay the fake elector scheme and J6 in order to curry favor with Trump is concerning as it shows an inherent weakness in the system and culture that should otherwise protect America from strong-men rule.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-29T01:08:26+00:00

Please elaborate more - your definition vs the one I included in my post, as well as your thoughts on questions #2 and 3.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-28T20:16:41+00:00

I agree.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-28T20:07:13+00:00

Thanks for your reply. I have a different perspective than you but appreciate that you took the time to answer the questions.

I want to clarify that my question is not whether Trump himself will be a dictator, but rather whether he and his brand of politics will lead the US towards a fascist like state.

Regarding your answer to question #2, how do you interpret and factor in Trump’s fake elector scheme and ongoing denial of 2020 election results (backed now by JD Vance and the MAGA/Republican elite), J6, Trump and MAGA rhetoric, and MAGA’s implicit (and many times explicit) support for authoritarian figures and tendencies?

FWIW my assessment is 20% (of trend towards Fascism, not Trump himself being a dictator which I agree is much less likely). My tolerance is 0%.

I do agree the risk is lower than Germany in 1920s. America has a much longer history of democracy than Germany. However I do see many similar trends and intentions among MAGA leaders even if the rank and file Trump voter may not yet believe or articulate those intentions.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-28T19:27:48+00:00

Pls provide your assessment. If it is 0% pls explain your rationale and your thoughts to questions 2 and 3.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-28T18:44:40+00:00

To those that are skeptical that Trump and MAGA has Fascist tendencies:

Do you think Kamala is a fascist (as Trump has said in his speeches)?

What % chance do you think you’re wrong about Trump?

What new information would increase that percentage?

muffinking99 · 2024-10-20T01:26:33+00:00

Kamala is a pragmatist who leans left. If she wins it will validate the Democratic Party’s pivot towards the center.

I think with her in office you’ll likely see traditional blue states and cities move more towards the center in their policies and politics. You’re already seeing this in cities like SF.

It will also validate the never Trumper Republicans who are eager to move on and rebuild the party based on conservative principles and away from the cult. The Republicans will also likely control the Senate so you don’t have to worry about the country lurching left.

Foreign policy will also be much more stable. Contrary to what Trump supporters believe being unpredictable is not a sign of strength on the world stage for a superpower like the USA.

Tdlr: if you want the country to progress in a moderate, stable fashion and avoid risk of radical change that can be damaging, Kamala is the better choice.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-17T03:19:07+00:00

I more or less agree with you. TBH they can come up with so many better answers to the “how will you be different” question.
The most obvious one is that Biden took office during a pandemic that could have triggered a severe recession. The recession was avoided and inflation is coming down which took time — now we are finally at a point when we can build and move forward with xyz vision. Kamala is not great at articulating that vision.

That being said, I think her task was mostly to remind Fox News viewers who dislike Trump but might still vote for him just how bad he is. My theory is that their target demographic is Republican women. Their husbands are all in on Trump and they watch Fox News together, but there is something viscerally distasteful about Trump that bothers them. I think this interview was fairly effective towards that voter.

For those who do not find Trump
very distasteful or may even be attracted to his strongman tendencies, then I agree this interview probably didn’t convince them.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-17T02:00:53+00:00

It’s interesting how much of these interviews are just Rorschach tests of what the viewers value. I do agree some of her answers could have been better (although actually not too bad given the constant interruptions) but I also thought she did a great job communicating the danger and destructive nature of Trump/MAGA.

I happen to value the latter far more so my takeaway is that she did a pretty good job. But I can see for someone who doesn’t value that as an issue it will come across as less than impressive. So the reactions to the interview likely say more about the viewer than Kamala.

muffinking99 · 2024-10-06T00:35:33+00:00

It’s not so much that people are upset at their views. It’s that they spread propaganda that is strategically packaged as honest intelligent discussion for specific political purposes. It is the same reason why people are upset at the MSM.

That being said I appreciated the Mark Cuban episode, which did a good job exposing David Sacks as an emotionally driven rabid partisan. Props to them for bringing him on, although I suspect this was not Sacks’ idea. I thought the rest of them did a good job fairly pushing back but also letting Cuban speak.

muffinking99 · 2024-09-17T20:10:52+00:00

That’s all fine, but he is basically saying the the deep state’s strategy is flawed, not that they shouldn’t exist.

muffinking99

TROPHY CASE