E107: The future of the left and Advice for Progressive Billionaires
01:15:08 Share

Hey, everyone, quick note before we start day's show, if you have a few minutes, please head to the turbine pulse link in the description to share your thoughts as a listener will be sending special gift to a few respondents in your feedback really helps power what we do here. Thanks for your support.

Hello, I is gone.

Hey, no, it's going great. Are you doing? Do all right. I was thinking about doing a male back episode time. We have some questions, proud ed, up on some .

of your writing like.

but first, let me ask any immediate reactions to to the department of government efficiency. So far, you know elon, remakes sort of plans or sort of you know so of how things have been going. Or maybe put differently, if you are also on the council, a longside them, where would you where do you think the opportunity is? Would your advice be to them?

Well, I I think there's lots of room for there's lots of opportunities here. Some government agencies are really, really well run and summer badly run. We saw this in the in the pandemic.

We saw the cdc performed very badly. The fda performed pretty well, decently well and barta the vaccines development agency to worked extremely well. And government, you know, we've decided we as americans, we we collectively decided that government was a dumping ground for, you know, people who aren't the most component.

People that didn't mean everyone in governments in component, there's tons of component people, but they tend to be the kind of mission driven, no idealists or people already made a bunch of money and then winning the government just for fun. But the problem is that we also have a lot of people in government. We are not very competent because we IT was sort of this devils bargain between the right and the left and the seventies.

And I talk about this in terms of outsourcing things to ng as well. But I think that government are attitude, or the civil service was part of this. You know, republicans, conservatives thought private sector is Better than public.

You know, we want we don't want our talent going into the the public sectors, so are not going to fund high salaries. So I think singapore, you get the best in the british because you pay them a lot of money. If you work for the singapore and economic development border, whoever you get paid time, money, but you don't in america.

And that was partly because republicans, right? Let's pay the civil service less. But democrats were like, okay, so we want a bunch of jobs, basically like a big jobs program for for left leaning people.

And so then they use the civil service for that. But those people, you are not necessary, the the most competent, dynamic people in the world. And so I think that you have, and of course, you you weaken to the criteria for hiring people.

So know, I was trying to do a little, you know, what would you call like like a public health you know interest group in during the pandemic, you know, trying to get Better contact tracing. We do this for about six months and and we are making lots progress. But we never we had to interact with anyone from the federal government as a giant disaster.

They had no idea what that they didn't know. Other systems worked all. They just seemed like they, they were eager to meet us. But they had they did not know how their own systems worked and they did not. You know, they seemed very uninterested in changing anything from the typical way that they did.

I don't want to say that know obviously, there's room in an economy for people like that or we have to find jobs for people like that in our economy. They're not just consider around the home and watch you like, but like but certainly, we got to allocate we have to prioritize and allocate talents. Words needed the most.

And if you believe that the civil service is important, which I do, then you should actually allocate Better talent to IT. And so the question is whether elon and vivid are, you know, whether they take the attitude of let's have a super competent civil service like singapore, or whether they take the attitude of let's just draw the civil service in bathroom, because the private sector is great and we don't need no government. And anarchical capital m, blab a blaw.

And so IT could go either way because i'm with tycoon n in Tyler cow's state capacity. liberator's. M, I think title is absolutely right, and I hope that those people are reading that instead of, you know, just listening to ideology and eighties you to talk about stuff, because the idea what we've seen again, again, is that weakening the civil service leads to groups like the groups.

Are these toxic non profits filling that gap, right? And then if republicans don't make the civil service try to hire component people, democrats are probably going to use IT as a sort of a uh, jobs provision program for in ages the massage. And if you believe that the civil services is really important, that that kind of not a great idea.

And so I think running the government about type doesn't work. You have to make a compete like in singapore. So I hope those guys are looking at singapore as a model, you know.

instead of argentina.

Argentina, well, yeah oh, you know, I can't say that because I haven't actually taken a close look at what malay's with the civil service. And I think malaysians done a lot of positive things in other areas. And so I think that know malay's not stupid.

He just a silly here. And and you know, so I don't know that argentine is a bad example here. By the way, if you want to get someone from argentina, I have a possible argentina guest, the marina. So is genti 把 我 再生？

Oh yeah that be call yeah. And we there are case study and interesting one.

So yeah, yeah, yeah. I i've become much more liberator over the past four years. Each day. I spent so many years criticizing the problems with with libertinism, at least of the classic like one thousand nine hundred navies and diversion, which I encounter a lot in the field of economics.

But in the past four years, what i've realized is that I would realize a couple of things. In the cultural social front, I realized that freedom is not gonna guarded itself, right? And that, you know, there's basically a big movement against freedom all over the world.

I think it's basically coming from two things, china and technology. And I I wrote a post about this recently about liberalism, you know, which overall says like freedom, dignity, those are important values. I don't think it's possible to have a much more interesting definition of liberalism than that is just freedom, dignity.

And I think that you be a skinner of the psychologist of the famous like baldheaded guy who do the crazy experiments on rats and you know, and say, like, we use these reinforces to make these rats to do all these things, that I wrote a book called beyond freedom, dignity and you know we can reengineering human race with like behavioral al response things and just treat people like rats amazes and IT was really disturbia, you know and and and I don't like that guy, although his he's an iconic guy who did interesting experience, but I don't like his ideas. And I think that china has basically embraced a skin arian beyond freedom, dignity idea of reinforcing, you know, like like train humans, like rats, amazes. And I think that through new technology such as universal surveilling, especially that has the idea of that has become feasible in a way that IT wasn't.

So we're looking at a new era where you of curbing human freedom, I think in the twenty century we brought the rejected the idea of curbing human freedom by turning every single human being into like a spy that rats on their neighbors. But what if you could turn every web camp in every smart fridge into a spy that rats on its neighbours and then have like K I algorithms know panel lizer, or you have your social credit, depending what you do? I think that's the direction which are moving and shut out to the the social types to worry about surveilLance.

Italian, it's not just the state that can do this corporations to that's sort of I think in aside, I think the point is that there is this idea that if you know boy's articulating this yet, except for a few, you know, really right wing legal scholar that nobody pays attention to, but nobodies articulating the idea that the twenty ten sort of tested the limits of how much we want embrace human free, and that a lot of people came away from the twenty tens of the idea that freedom means freedom, to commit crimes, to lose stores, to burn things and IT just be a complete asshole online all the time, to dog people to, you know, form random mobs and their careers, to basically behave very badly and, you know, screaming homeless people on the street. And then fortis o final dealer is running. While the idea this is, this is the fruits of freedom, that's what you get.

If you let humans do what they want to do and you try to give dignity to drug deal, is by letting them deal drugs downtowns. That's where freedom, dignity takes you. Instead, we need, you know, control.

We need the control of of a state and of large corporations to to control, we say, in what we do and or know, the giant wave of protests in twenty nine people have member hold this now I I need to write you yet another post about this. But you know, in in two and eighteen people went into the streets for various reasons. People went into the streets in catalonian for catalan independence.

They went into the streets and try to change the constitution, which they then went back on and decided not to. They went in the streets in iraq, iran, to protest those regimes. They went in the streets in hongkong.

G of course, was the biggest protest of all, to protest chinese domination of hung hung. And all the other protests, too, that I won't list the names of that. I was all around the world. We had ours in twenty twenty was one year later.

But history, I think, if IT remembers this at all, remember those as being of a peace, you know, being part of the same phenomenon, the same two years of of protest and just streight unrest. But that was all for different reasons, right? IT was like, they are protesting different things.

Know, american bia emp proposers didn't give a rats ass about cataline independence, or Frankly, china. And so, you know, so, but IT was technology. IT was social media, that that you people realized you could organize, process over twitter and over some other, thinks telegram was a big one.

The social media, you to organize protests and then sort of transmitted your protest ideology and then transmit pictures and videos of the protest to jail everybody up, to get everybody very excited about the protests. I think that there's been a reaction against them. And I think that a lot, some of the authority m you see is a reaction that, and it's this idea that that's what people do with freedom.

When you give them freedom, they run right in the street and they turn cities into, you know, jungles. And so we need, we need less freedom and less dignity, because some people who deserve dignity there, you know. Like bad people who will push old ladies on to the subway tracks or whatever.

So those people don't deserve any dignity. And so I think that, that notion has not been articulated very well by people on new right. But people are thinking IT. And I think some people we know in interest are thinking IT. And so i've become more liberal an because as a reaction to that, I think that, yes, like obviously it's bad when people ride and deal sentences and you act reMarks online.

But fundamentally, we, you know, freedom and dignity are so important that those those are small, you know, those are things we can control and we can get rid of, not get rid of entirely, but can we can temp t down lot. But then, but freedom, dignity themselves are so fundamental to our way of life that we won't. There is a worry that we might not miss them until they gone.

And so there's that. So social, I M cultural. I've become much more .

libertarian in that sense. no. Can you flush out what IT would look like if if what you're call in for me to come back a little bit like imagine we become a more libertarian or free your place in in the way that you're you're describing? What could that look like?

What could look like? So one thing is that we could allow small business in america. We could allow people to have their own business right now.

We threw up huge amounts of red tape. We make IT very hard to get like a liquor license. We make IT very hard to get permanent. We make, basically, it's a year long process to set up a small business.

What if instead we were like japan, and that we simply said, everyone who wants who to start a restaurant on or a store, local restaurant store gets massive support, you know, and like, we will cut all the red tape and just allow you do IT tomorrow. You know, here will simplify this permitting. Here's your liquor license bob blog.

And and what if we just do that for small businesses and we created a broad ownership class of people who have their own businesses in cities like sam for disco, who have an interest in public order and you know cleaning ss and but also have an in city interest in density and foot traffic and walkability, but also fundamentally, people who are able to support themselves with their business. And and you know independently, these self include, you know, your average person isn't going to be able to have like like a successful software business that they make you know five million dollars from, right, which is that's how your average rich person in market is just has like their own little software business or e commerce business. And that's fine there.

There's a lot of people like that, but you know there's room for people to just run a restaurant and make an income of three hundred k year, which is rich to most that's rich to most americans. It's it's not rich buyer standards. But then but imagine the the freedom from being able to like on your own little piece of capable in amErica without regulators crushing you.

That's economic libertinism. But it's also social libertarianism because IT creates a abroad glass of people with interest in an orderly society, but also an interest in a free society. So there's there's one very positive step is to encourage small business everywhere.

Yeah so so that's that's one idea. Our society, american society, preserve freedom and dignity much more than like china or you know a lot of these other places. For china, of course, I want social freedom. I want freedom of speech and freedom of religion and all these things that we already enjoy in america. I want those things for china.

But for america, I think it's economic liberty taran ism where we really need to, where I I you know in libertinism in twenty eleven, and I felt that libertarianism just meant cut taxes, the irregulars, the finance industry, and let them like cause butch crisis is and blow stuff up. And it's like, do we really want more of that? But now i'm like we need libertinism at the ground level for for small businesses, for people who want to build housing.

The indian movement is is fundamentally liberator, ian. I mean, of course they wanted do public housing too? Do not they're not ideological that way. But they they certainly wanted to regulate how things up.

And just you know that the nip of staff and a lot of the other regulations at the federal level and its state levels, think of, you know, should should always. So I think an era of deregulation of of land use, of of small business, of local stuff of is upon us and should be upon us. And that so i've become more, much more libertarian.

Watching the by administration struggled to get its own policies through its own regulations and contact contractors requirements was a big, I guess, what they say, black. Well, for me, you know, watching them failed at, like any EV charges or a rural broadband built. Watching high speed rail failed to get built. You know that stuff is is holding back the the government efforts, but it's also holding back the private sector for for so many years, we were told that he was just a matter of funding. If we just have the will we tax the billionaires, then we'd fund high speed rail, fund charges, and we fund rob, and we fund all these things, then we've ve appeared ze, but IT didn't happen.

The the by administration's great successes have been crowding in private capital, throw a little bit of chips, act money and then a whole bunch of private companies decide to build A A bunch of fabs in america, that sort of industrial policy where the government only puts up a little bit of money and then sort of regularly clears the for the pride sector because, you know, chip, that doesn't need a right as nipper clearance IT doesn't have to go through that. But then that stuff is very effective. But then the stuff where the government actually comes in and does IT itself has proven not to be effective.

And so we need that doesn't mean that that doesn't mean the government will never do anything effectively. Obviously, the chips act is working really well. But then but what IT doesn't an is that there's a whole lot of regulations out there that are really that really are stopping stuff.

And instead of just looking at pages of regulation, the federal register, instead of just looking at some sort of bulk measure regulation, which is what the old cato style liberator's doing, which is, Frankly, very lazy, what we need to do is what the people of the institute for progress are now doing, which is identify the specific regulations that need to come away. And and i've targeted effort that, so they are been looking at land use and permit, but that's not going to the only one that's going to be other know regulations do, and the image of contactor requirements know. so. So going liberator to that stuff, I think that will be very useful. I think state local places, there's a lot of effort to be done of the state local hey.

will continue our interview in a moment after our worth, our sponsors. You know, like many of you, I spent a good chunk of my day managing emails and phone calls, and despite being careful about where I share my contact info, somehow the robot calls keep motivating and my inbox is flooded with spam. IT turns out there is a reason for this.

Data brokers, these companies don't just collect basic contact info. They're gathering everything from your social security number and financial records to your shopping habits and employment history. Some health insurance companies are now working with data brokers to track your online activity, which could actually affect your insurance rates.

Another huge privacy risk are people, people search sites. These websites published detailed profiles about you, including your home address, family members information, and even sensitive details like religious beliefs or political affiliations. This got me thinking about how exposed we all, whether you're sending a wire transfer, want to protect against identity theft, or just trying to keep your families personal details private.

That's why I started using in here's what makes a different they automatically handle five different types of data brokers, marketing, recruitment, financial information, risk m, mitigation brokers and those people search sites, instead of you having to track down all these companies yourself. And trust me, there are hundreds and cognition contacts them on your behalf and demands they remove your information. And here's the key, they keep monitoring and removing your data automatically, because these brokers often try to collect IT again incog y protect your data across all your devices, whether you're working from home, a coffee shop or anywhere with public wifi.

Plus you can add up to four additional family members under their family and friends plan. And they're so confident you'll see the difference in your data day. They offer a thirty day money back guarantee.

Take your personal data within cognitive use code moment at the link below and get sixty percent off an annual plan that's in cognitive dot com slash moment. There are over one point five million non profit organizations in the united states and millions more around the world. How do you know which ones can make the biggest impact with your donation? Give was founded to help donors with that that question.

They pour over independent studies and charity data to help donors direct their funds to evidence back organizations that are saving and improving lives. Giving well has now spent over seventeen years researching charitable organizations and only direct funding to a few of the highest impact opportunities. They found over one hundred thousand donors.

Have you been able to donate more than two billion dollars? Rigorous evidence suggests that these donations will save over two hundred thousand lives and improve the lives of millions more. Give advance as many donors as possible to make informed decisions about high impact giving. You can find all of their research and recommendations on their site for free. You can make tax deductable donations to the recommended funds or charities and give, well, doesn't take a cut. If you've never use given to donate, you can have your donation matched up to one hundred dollars before the end of the year, or as long as matching funds last, claim your match, go to give wildt ogg and pick podcast and enter e on one o two with noa Smith in an eritrean burg I check out, make sure they know that you heard about give well from econ one o two to get your donation matched again that give well dot donate or find out .

more is a good segway to a question by zc rider, who says is a question on the capacity has second biggest buckets of spending are on military, and i've heard recently about how we're not prepared for a war with china and how there's a lot of wasteful spending. So where's the solution to build more federal state capacity? Where where is solution to privatize? How should we think about this?

right? So first of all, the the fact is wrong, military is not a second biggest areas spending. It's I think it's medicare, social security and. Medicate and interest on the debt or then you pretty even with the military.

So military, is that the reason people think it's the the biggest because it's IT looms large and discretion expanding, whether we've just decided to label social insurance in the welfare state, Mandatory spending, not all of that medication is still, I think medical was medicated math, I I don't remember. But the point is the military is that actually isn't that big. So we need to get a lot more bank for the box and military spending, and we also need to spend more.

And those are two things that people need to understand side by side. The reason need to spend more is because doing things like shifting our military from a country insurgency focus, which we were for the whole war, to one terror, to a focus of deterring, defending against china, that requires money. Someone has to be paid to do that.

And we need to stock file missiles and drones, stock piled bunch of stuff and resuscitate the defense industry base. That's going to take money. So we're going to need to increase ed spending. At the same time, there's a lot of inefficient stuff that we're spending money on. Most of the inefficiency, by the way, there's two big sources of fiction ency.

The first is the one everyone knows about, which is us building these big expensive platforms that we don't really need like replacing our old aircraft is with, like the new ford class, cost a huge money of money, but the improvement is actually margin. Everybody knows about this, and everybody talks about this is a horrible talking point. And yes, we need to get that under control and we need to go for a cheap stuff that can be mass produced, like drowns and muscles.

And we need change and thinking. That's what everyone in the pentagon is not talking about, right? IT goes along with the change in what the goals of war are.

We're not going to like, you know, hunt the taliban, iraq insurgents or ISIS or whatever. We're now going to go into like defend islands against chinese attack with like a shit on the muscles. That's our new mission, basically. And so that requires a big pivot, and I don't want to get the way of that by talking about other things and saying, well, no, actually it's the other thing because, yes, that's very important.

But there is the other thing, this big other thing, which is an even bigger source of waste in our defense budget deployment, we are spending obvious money on having our navy sail around the world constantly and show the flag everywhere, and having our army go in and and and, you know, marines and god air force going to do little targeted interventions for some african Alicia or whatever, world police. We are spending a huge amount on world policing functions, and china is not spending anything on that, or at least very, very little now. And so we need to stop that.

That's a terrifying thing to say, because we've done that for so long that everyone's a sort of gotten used to america, team america, world police, deploying everywhere all the time. And a lot of little conflicts will break out of america, doesn't world police. And so, but we can no longer for this.

We need to stop deploying our military around the world. We need to start, you know, our navy ships are being run the death because they're selling around all the time. No, keep them import, keep them spread, stop and ready to go, you know, don't sell them around constantly, know.

We basically were involved in a million little counter insurgency Operations. We still think it's warm every time, even though radicals as lost peel. And you know, like you, you just don't see a lot of people russian to join I S.

And OK. It's not that big a thread, obviously. Will have security services continue to go hunt down terrorism and cut off their financing and arrest them and kill them or whatever, right?

Like we'll have a little bit of that. But then the idea that we just have to have our whole global military deployed all the time, everywhere has to go away. And that's something people don't talk about.

But I I planned to start talking about that more. I think there is a chance the trump s. Administration is receptive to this because that's where the biggest source of waste .

our military spending is the that that makes sense. The do you think trump is likely to run a budget deficit just like the last president have run?

Yeah and it's not great. I mean, apparently elan doesn't want to but I think the limits of the powers of shadow president elon a real like I know I think that it's a little but wishful thinking to think that elan is just like pulling the puppy strings of trump. I don't think he really is the onion ran a story that says the trump locks the bathroom door to stop him from following him in.

I mean, i'm sure elan has influence, but there's limits to his influence. And he wants to elon wants to cut, you know, wasteful spending. Vivid probably would.

I'm not sure how much anyone really listed, but anyway, but I think that trump is a popular. He wants to hand out good as he loves people to love him. Ultimately, that's why he won the presidency because he really loves people to love.

He loves aggression in a way similar in and in a little bit barac. Obama, I think that when we talk about carma for candidates, what we're really talking about is the burning desire to be loved by the massage. And trump has that, and we call IT populists.

But I think that IT IT goes deeper than that. Trump wants, trump wants, everybody love him. He wants to be sana laws. And in american government, sana laws means deficits.

So IT was basically what you make a burner's take on the election. You should come as no great surprise. The democratic party, which abandon work in class people would find that working class abandoned them while democrat leadership defends the status quote, the american people are angry and want change.

Democrats loss this election because they ignored justified anger. Work in class. AmErica became defenders, rig economy and political system and the user is talking about how berny had this election is take us all .

basically yeah I mean, because you know you're respective of the sort of fake economic facts these sites. AmErica doesn't have a road working class. We use the word working class to describe lower income people used to describe people who didn't go to college. Sometimes we need to describe people with like blue color manual jobs. But there's really no sort of unified class conscious ness across working class a, across the all these various working classes in america.

They don't have class conscious ness and and so they're not onna join together in resentment of other classes and so you know really try to play this game where basically the idea is to stir you know class resentment of everybody against the class just one about them so it's like, know the burning people are always like, you know we've gotten turn billionaire into millionaire. They're trying to stir resentment of the billionaire class among the millionaire ass. But then they're also spring resentment of Normal people, you know average people uh, against millionth and then it's just a fractured resentment.

And and thing is, amErica S A actually pretty rich country with a tradition of free enterprise and tradition of some people getting rich and whatever. And like, yes, some people get mad and some people don't like rich people. But overall, I think that is not nearly as effective in amErica that would be in some other countries, maybe where you had more of a egalitarian sort of thing where no one supposed to right look like they rose above anyone else. And so, you know, just trying to constantly stir class resentments among anyone and everyone against the people just above them like a, it's obviously a bad idea for our nation to do that. But B, I just don't think it's going to work.

There is no in in my recent post about the working class I told in humans and ago where in twenty seventeen, right after Hillary lost truck, I was in at a house party, berkeley and and there was a woman who is this last student at berkeley and SHE SHE said this something very similar he said, you know, Hillary loss because SHE democrats have a ban in the working class I said, describes some who's in the working class I expect to heard that described like some midwestern guy in a heart head. The construction worker blob, a very typical ninety eighties person instead he said, okay, suppose there was woman and she's a sex worker and he has all these student loans. And SHE doesn't know what to do with her humanity degree. That was a description. Someone in the working .

class doesn't work in class.

I mean, i'm not going to say it's not because i'll just say that if if you know law students from berkeley can get up there and say that's working class, we don't have a working class IT means nothing in america. And if in fact, if you do polls, you see that most republicans say they're in class even if they're upper income people with college degrees. Republicans love to say their work in class.

Everybody republican party, they're in class. So like even the people the body would be storing resented again. So there is no real working class. We don't have class conscious ness in this country. And so burn's approach is onna fail.

So the idea that you can just sort of like open head take out identity politics slot in the know class, resented politics here and then just close IT be like our great no, it's not gonna en. It's just know it's you're still gonna be out of that. You're still gonna be a law student at a party who has no idea what anyone's real problems are.

And so IT is interesting, by the way, just use their factions on, on the, on the left, right. Like, you know what example, a small example, but maybe is like A O, C, taking pronounce out of bio, right? That's kind of symbolic where she's citing with sort of the feminist instead of the you know in their conflict with sort of the the pro trans with right IT IT feels like after this election all these factions are getting kind of almost relitigate to see which one has more, more popular appeal. And one of the action seems more like old school economic arguments like bernie verse, like more new you newer, newer style progressives, and be ensuring to see which factions win. Like I A friend will tell me today that rob man who was trying to make up get power, push in the dnc and hello to move the party to the center and they'll be know a lot of knives out and activists trying to trying to prevent him. But they will be interesting to see the various different factions and how they play out as as an exception times closer.

right or right. I think essentially in the democratic party, you have, you have it's factionalized in a way that the republican party is not, although maybe, I don't know, maybe, but the democratic party factionalized of the factions is the leftist faction. Which is the the bernie and I establishment faction, those people, their ideology that feels very plastic.

Yes, they there's about social tradgic, but ultimately what they care about is just power. They want party power within the democratic party. They want to stir based on the established resentment.

I think those people not win. They will not win. They'll make the occasionally went city White officers and will not when any, but they'll be loud in the thorn in, everybody decide.

And now they're talking about pollstar and all time, and but they'll get back to talking about economics stuff eventually. And so you know how I guess, once that once trump destroyed palace time, congratulations guys. You got what you want on anyway.

But then, yes, so there's those guys and then there's the groups we been talking about, the groups based just a bunch of interesting pressure groups. And these folks have treated national politics very much like urban politics. In urban politics is very client tile.

It's, you know, who votes for because, you know who goes street orto door and organizes es, right? So you can reward those groups with money for vote, actually, for voting for you can to pay off your voters. And so democrat were trying to do something like this at the national level.

IT wasn't really working. They were trying to do policies to pay off. Every coalition member also did predicate on the idea that the groups that we're coming to, democratic staffers and saying, hey, we represent the lateness community, really represented anybody like, you know, or the the environmental climate groups are a famous example of the groups.

These people are all funded by, by rich people left in. Rich people like that who funds of the groups. And there's this whole culture of like non profit activity, you know internal cancellation, wars and stuff.

And a lot of these groups of funding is giving cut off right now because they all cancelled each other and they were all very effective. And ever we going to hate them. If you want to improve the democrats party, get rich liberals in, especially in tech, but rich liberals everywhere, to stop funding these groups because the democratic party, like republican party, is superannuated.

Everyone is really old. Your average democratic partition is like a seventy something fundraising who just glad hands their traditional constituent and raises money all year, you know, because members of congress were reelected every two years and senators to a lesser degree, senators to, but especially congress people you know are are elderly fundraisers who's actually running in country. Twenty eight year old staffers who command you know armies of twenty two year old junior staff like twenty eight year old staffers running the country because you they're running the the democratic party.

They you know and so so the groups are not going to democratic representatives. They're not calling up their congress person. They're calling up their congress person's staff.

You know these staffer class who don't understand that someone who comes and claims to be like from multi x community doesn't actually represent his panic voters. And so this urban politics model is very seductive for these these staffers, because all the actual people are nominating charger like seventy old fundraisers, professional fundraisers. That's what's happened.

I am not to change that, but I think that this is going to a be very difficult to cut you that decade of groups. And essentially only once rich liberals realize that funding these groups is counterproductive for the democratic party, will of tap be cut off. And you know and and some of these damages start to be reversed.

nothing. And so that's that's going happen. And then you're going have interests, you know who are like the technocratic I D like gramm manual type of people, right? Your and yeah and so those those people take the the role of the old blue dog democrats s on whatever and and you know that faction occasionally does win.

You have the democratic leadership council, whatever, in in the late eighties and early nineties, which was basically to center dms, get together in a club and that police bill. So they did win. And then we got deposit reduction, and then we got, you know, bill clinton saying he ended welfare and increasing the I.

T. C. So much that they actually cancelled out the end of welfare and was actually much more a rational way of of getting money bor people.

But you and social hate that to this day, but yes, was good. And so you got you have got clinton as a national centers. And honestly, obama was more from that tradition that people think like obama empower the groups, but he was not of the groups.

I would say he routinely stood up to them and just said no to the groups. And so I think that obama and hill clinton and bill clinton and all the politics of the day were still largely influences by that center block that a rose in a as a reaction to the continue dominance of rain. And you, in a way, resist liberalism delays the move to the center.

Because if you're like, we're just going to march in streets in the resist, resist, resist, you know, everyone becomes an allied. All the groups become dispensable allies. And that's what happened in the late twenty ten.

In trumps first term, the democrats pivoted hard towards the groups because the groups we're going to resist, they were going to get out in the street. They were going to fight this. Now, I think the fact that trump on the popular vote and the fact he won twice, despite january six males, other bully did this, tells this, tells democrats that like, resistance is futile.

Like in the long term, it's not because in the long term, trumper, fuck up and i'll make people, man, i'll do dum shit and then he will his people, often bad things will happen and and the country will be right to throw the bombs out yet again. That always happens in american people in place in the world. And so accept japan and simply but we so then there were even in japan that occasionally, once in a great while, throw the ruling party out for like two years and we'll be back.

I think one time they throw them out for nine months and then they were back. But, but japan is a viBrant democracy. now.

Japan is in some ways more democratic than we are theyve higher. Turned out they have more strict of campaign national laws. They have people, politicians, connect with average people more in japan than they do here.

They have to because they can just bomb a TV ads. And you know and and also groups are not taxed vantage, like there here, our released charities are not taxed vantage. And then, yes, so so there are in the arenas, many rich people to do the funding other groups.

So japan's, in many ways a healthier democracy. And we are they don't know as much money in politics. They don't as much like active group shit. They have just like movies and construction workers coming in buying boats, but like, you know, getting votes. Bot, but like, yeah so so anyway, people throw the bombs out.

But the point is that I remember in you like the day after the election in two thousand sixteen, some left the sky that my friend knew got on facebook walk because everyone was still arguing about politics, unlike facebook. Walls music, I want this guy out tomorrow. I don't want to wait four years. I want him about tomorrow right now.

I need him out of there, you know? And I like, well, what are you going to do? And he just buttered.

He had no idea. He was like this idea that if you just got angry enough, you could make trump go away. And honestly, that attitude was reflected in january six.

I said, if you get angry, if you could have made trump have one twenty election, but you couldn't. He lost. And so anyway, but the democrat like this for a long time, progressives like this for long time, we just get angry. There was the women's march, you know, today, push grabs back and everyone wore a pussy hat, you know, marched in the street and just people thought that if they got, I think they are just massive, massive, rampant like, you know, accusations of these things, like, I used attempt to get people out of their sooner.

It's like you could reverse the verdict of two thousand sixteen if you just got mad enough and I just didn't work, didn't IT didn't work in twenty twenty like people ran through dc burning stuff and they didn't get from bottle office job. Didn't like fleet to russia, whatever, you know, like yana covet did in ukraine. I think if trump T T had lost this election, there was a chancy media rush.

And with reason, I don't know that, but there was never any like, yes, so so IT never worked. And the point is that democrats are going to do this. This time around.

They realized that just like to get get pera mad doesn't actually make trump go away. And people exhausted like, you know, there there are some story in york times. Many black women, you know are, you know, instead of politics, are choosing to rest.

Rest is a revolutionary act. Just says a black woman sleeping anything. Well, that that's called having a life that's called not spending for yet for more years of your life, being mad every day. You know, like that run, IT runs out of juice, IT runs out of money, runs out of time, IT runs out of effort. That that kind of culture and am I just ranting is a good thing though hey will continue .

our interview in a moment after our words, my sponsors. Hey everyone. Eric, here in this enviro founders needs to become profitable faster and do more with smaller teams, especially when IT comes to engineering. That's why shahn lana hand started squad, a specialized global talent firm for top engineers that will seemingly integrate with your org.

Squad offers .

rigorously voted top one percent talent that will actually work hard to you everyday. Their engineers work in your time zone, follow your processes and use your tools. Squad has front and engineers excelling in type, script, react and next, ready to on board to your team today.

For back in school, engineers are experts at no js, python, java and a range of other languages and frameworks. While IT may cost more than the financer on up work, building you for forty hours, but working only two, squad offers premium quality at a fraction of the typical cost without the headache of assessing for skills and culture. Fit squad takes care of sourcing, legal compliance and local H.

R. For global talent. Increase your velocity without amp up, burn, visit two squad dot com and mention turpentine to skip the weights list.

Let's talk about scaling digital commerce for a moment. When mr. Beast launched festivals, he faced a chAllenge of scale.

How do you build an e commerce infrastructure that can handle millions of concurrent shoppers, process transactions instantly and maintains stability during massive traffic bikes? The answer turned out to be deceptively simple. Shop fy.

Here's what's particularly interesting from a technical perspective. Shop fy has built what's become the number one checkout platform on the planet. They've created a system called shot pay that solving one of e commerce biggest chAllenges, cart abandonment. The data shows its boosting conversions by up to fifty percent.

If you're into growing your business, your commerce platform Better be ready to sell wherever your customers are scrolling or strolling on the web in your story, in their feed and everywhere in between, everything's unified in one robust platform. It's a perfect example of how infrastructure went done right? Becomes a competitive advantage, upgrade your business and get access to the same checking system that powers festivals, sign up for your one dollar per month trial period that shop fied out com slash a cognitive all lower case. Nobody does selling Better than shoplifting. So visit shop fy dot com slash cognitive today, shop fy dot com slash cognitive.

You were about this, someone, your pieces, because you looked to the was called the emerging my majority. What's the book that right to a route .

to emerging democratic is by john juice and roy texter.

Yes, you sort of twenty years ago saying that future was bright for for democracy harness this this multi racial um democratic that the demographics who are serving the interest as that theory turned out to be false. Er or how do we look at the legacy that there?

absolutely. So in fact that what my latest guest post was about by during the shy vas, who you should meet, by the way, she's fun. But anyway, it's basically the idea that his panics and asians were part of a bypass coalition against White.

So there's this idea that the future of the electorate and and this was not judged this vertical theory. Those guys just look at the cross babbs. Those guys just said, well, espana ics are voting fifty eight percent, sixty percent democrat.

You get more aspen ics and your win just like in california. Well, guess what? The nation isn't quite like california. News flash.

And then, and you know, asians, of course, people are like, well, maybe theyll be White addition because they make more money. And White people, maybe they will just want to be, why do you do public? But like, hey, no.

Like, if you ask your average ation person, america, would you like to be White? But like, no, I try this. But but at the same time, you know, they concede that White people voted, voted fifty five percent republican, whatever, fifty eight percent republican, primarily because of White supremacy.

That was always broken. That was always wrong. In a lot of issues, you know that people care about, the why people care about.

And you know, I think the last democrat to win White voters was L B J. So I don't think this this whole story of like White people vote republican are the Whites supremacy. So of course, the other races are going to vote democrat so that they can oppose White supremacy.

A abb IT was never real. That was fake. I mean, there are obviously there are few voters who are thinking like that. There's a few voters you think like anything.

You know some people do think in turns of this racial coalition, but not many certain ly, not enough you know, to make a big difference in in these national elections. And so now you've got, I think, fifty four percent of isban ics voting for hear us as a much smaller margin. And oh i'm sorry, yeah, fifty five percent.

And then around the same percent of historical men actually vote of a truck. So the spending men vote broke for trump, right? So now to get you a little story about your racial reliance ment, you've got a dive into the cross tabs and say, will espana, women will vote, but actually spending women so on harder td, trump.

Then espana ended. They just started farther to the list, and then they swung more tour trump than is panic mended. So guess what? That's not part of your, you know, racial bypass coalition either like they're just Normal american people who just want more inflation opportunity, maybe low regulation, harsh policies against crime that would like burn their businesses and neighbors ods like and you know they just want what Normal americans want.

The Normal americans they're not they do not see their electoral political life as a race war. They do not vote based on the idea that we, the bypass coalition, will take power from the Whites. And then that's not what's going on.

I mean, you do get politics like that in in some very poor countries, you get tribal politics where it's like, I vote for the kiku party in kenya because you will report, give money to the ku and you know, in amErica they just want to kick you out and sorry, I had to happen sorry, canyons but then no, that, I mean like americans are, is much more instructive to look at americans as just americans, then to look at them as part of these imagined racial blocks that you define. Because you look at the end at at across tab and say, oh, you know, fifty five percent of this racial group voted democratic in the last three election. Therefore, there this race must be part of our race work coalition to overthrow the b shut up.

No, that's not what most people are thinking about. That's what you know maybe that's like you ve got this city from your area studies class or from like chilling with your radical comrades in in in the dorms at berkely but like that's not how most americans think of their life and especially like most americans is over age of like forty. You know, by the a time you're over forty, you're like, I do not want to raise war.

I have a business. I have a job. I would not like a race war. I would like lower inflation please, and some police. And so like the the notion and and this is this is a silly or more range version of of what the oni wrote and in a gas post.

my blog related the euro a few weeks ago that the gender divide is a bit overstated in terms of the democrat republican coalition. Is is that still true? How do you sort of think about women?

Women move toward trump in this election. White men move toward terrace. You know. So like all the all the narrative are just are just pretty broken. And you're gonna have to appeal to people based on it's time for democrats to embrace broad appeals.

You've got to ditch this idea that a nation is just like a larger version of the city, and that you can have these local activist groups who represent various communities in the city come to you and basically after few votes and exchange for patent. That's not how national politics works. You've got to do broad appeals.

It's too expensive to pay off everybody based on their demographic ross tabs actually, you know what? There's a really interesting theory about this, uh, called selector theory by a political scientist in Bruce bio demotic, to which if I my spanish me right means Bruce goodness of mosquito. But anyway, Bruce bona, moki, that is one of the premier political scientists, our generation, and also he's a really good forecasts who like contracts in CIA and forecasts political events really well.

But also he is the selector c theory, which basically says that in any country, whether dictatorship or a one party state, or you sov union, or like amErica or democracy anywhere, has some group of people who selects the leader. The leader is not a superman. He's not homeland from the boys. He's not.

He doesn't rule through god like power, right? He rules through a coalition. He has people who support them and that's the selector ate the group of people who have the potential, who whose support matters.

And in a military state it's that's the military and in a one party state it's the party. Maybe like the broad party, like chinese part, about fifty million people, I guess. And so that's the selector ate.

And then the winning coalition is a group of the selector ate, which is big enough to win within the selector. And the questions, how do you buy a winning coalition? And selector theory says that in a dictor ship you buy people directly.

You give money to your chryon's. You, if you have a small selector, if your selector or is just the army, then you do what iran and and like egypt and ban mar and used to be indonesia do, which is basically have the army, fia. And basically the army gets to run all the business as so you can buy off the army because no one else matters.

You don't care about the people in the street, you just shoot them. You make your money from oil. I don't know, with a sus canal.

And like you don't, indonesia had to stop this kind of pocket. But but I think egypt down and around still have this going strong. Pakistan, to some degree has a going, where are just the army rule? Shit and know the mafia.

And and you can pay them off. But when you get to a democracy, where the selector is the voting public, right, with one hundred million people or whatever, when you get to the, you get to that size of the selector, you can't just buy them off. That gets too.

And to select three predicts that democracy s will be Better because they will focus on providing public goods that benefit everyone, even the losers. So the idea that the public goods will be like infrastructure, rule of law, or you know, at seven thirty. And so democracy s will provide public goods while everyone in a autocracy is focused on just paying a specific individual people and and and not necessarily providing public goods.

This is one of the theories that was made like, you know, in the nineties and early two thousands, when everybody thought like democracy is the best thing ever and will in the end of history, cut moment. But I think there's something to IT. I think democrats have been trying to buy people off to specifically theyve been saying, okay, here's no.

This this group, which is this, this community court, which is represented by this activist group, that comes toxic staffers, or more more accurately, about sixty different across groups, all funded by, like left wing tech guys. And so then lets me know that here is this community will buy them off by by doing these different programs. So like student loan cancellation was intensely expensive, regressive? No, we really wanted to, but biden did IT because there were these groups who came in really fought for IT hard in order to buy off, to buy the Young people community.

And guess what, they shift to trump anyways. That was an attempt to buy, but he was in sely expensive. So democrats, you know, they have this idea that you can buy off these, you know, that communities won by one by getting a group, capital g group, to tell you what the community wants, and then passing a giant budget item based on what the group tells you the community was.

And it's just not working. Age is too expensive, the selector theory, but you know, student on cancellation being the biggest danger, very health care substance, a little kinds of things to and so then there there's that that there is also the fact that like most american voters don't vote based you for president based on the direct benefit that they get. They vote based on self expression.

Because if you think about IT, actually, that's almost all elections in the world based on self expression. Because if you think about IT, why would you ever get to vote for president when the presidency will never, ever be won by a single vote? IT can't.

If I got to a single vote, the supreme court were effectively decided by deciding which votes are apple lait would be like bush core, right? So the supreme court will not decide this. What will decide? This one vote will never, ever, ever make a difference in the presidency.

So why does everyone go out and vote? why? Why do one hundred million people go out and vote? They vote to express themselves.

And if you express yourself, your expressing principles and ideas. Those are like public goods in the selector theory. Those are broad things that appeal to everybody. Democrats need to stop thinking. They can buy off specific groups of voters with like Paula essentially, and start doing broad appeals that help everybody, everybody in america.

What are examples of that?

So like, you know, making easy to build housing is an obvious one. Just the component management, which democrat are not incredibly done recently, lately, but which will be a very attractive one's. R, F, K is going right? Like, hey.

And to me, your kid will not get measures right. Appeals to our commonalities. Americans, that was what bill clinton always did.

You know, bill clinton would always say, you know, like what you ites us is more important than what divides us. Americans are united on our values. That was every speech you gate.

Now we're actually united. Did IT persuade republicans to support him? Hello, I didn't.

Did IT persuade a few swing voters, enough swing voters to support them? Where he consistently one elections? Alias I did, right? He just always said, what unites is more important than what divides us.

Just talk about basic universal values, freedom, you know, and freedom from fear, like like freedom from fear of crime and disorder is is a undammed tal human freedom. Talk about freedom of international context, like now you have all the right of rush enemy. Russia threatened freedom, china phone freedom even more.

And and so to talk about freedom, bring that back. And in common, Harris did this, that the very elevate campaign was way too late and wait too little onest ly like, but that was just people had already associated with wildness. And SHE didn't, if he had been like, you know, miss freedom and like we're all americans and like like bill k. Linton to from day one from twenty nineteen when that was really harshly unpopular had SHE done that he would have been a successful politician more than .

in your piece you talk about freedom and dignity. What what is dig look .

like digg looks like, well, first of all does not insulting hello of people so like saying haien eat pets, right? Like you didn't actually do anything to patience, but you did take away their dignity because you call them much of peneus. So just not insulting the hell.

Lot of people all the time gives gives people digit. Individual rights create digg. They create freedom, but also dignity.

So like, you know, the idea that you have to have you read your rights when you get arrested, the actual reading of those rights is inconsequential, right? No one even knows what the phrase means. It's just a prior on time. You have the right to in island bar block.

What IT does is that IT IT gives you dignity by telling you eur person, guess I arrested you for this crime, but I have to do this thing to you, tell you, give you this information as if you are person, I have to do a service for you while i'm arresting. That's A A small bit. Yeah, that's like trump violates people's dignity, important ways.

He unleashes, he says, nasty things about whole groups of people in ways that make people feel uncomfortable. That wasn't enough to sink him in the election. But IT is something people don't like.

And and americans don't talk about dignity enough, but japanese people do. So americans talk about everything in two of freedom, the freedom to this, the ride to that. Japanese people do not.

As as a rule, you know, you do see, you do see rights. You do see, like human rights. And discuss more often, you'll see dignity. Japanese people view job security as dignity, the dignity of work. We could talk about that right now.

That doesn't, I want to provide make word jobs to people, but you can say, like fighting for a good working conditions is a form of dignity. And I think that that the labor movement presented itself as that in the past, back when democrats used to, when union people, right, like talking about dignity, is not like union people left the democrat because the democrat went sectaries. They cared more about like racial grievances than like, you know, applied the working people.

That doesn't mean we need class solidarity and like we're going to make all the union people hate billionaire and vote like berny SHE is not on work like union people don't sit on thinking about how much they hate billionaires. They think they sit around thinking about like how do I get society to respect me despite the fact that I like move stuff around with my muscles instead of trading socks like that? People want respect, dignity and respect for the service class is important.

Like, you know, all the labor stuff that brightened quietly, silently, you know, without much fanfare could be trumpeted. We could say, look, you know you do you really want your your jo B2Be abl e to jus t lik e say, okay, this week we're not giving you hours. You don't have any like you could talk about that terms of security, but you can talk about that terms of dignity, like the basic dignity afforded to to people.

yes. So like you can, you can do appeals to dignity also. You can even run against, you know, x and in some of these platforms you can say, like this is this is accessible.

Do you really want your your nation govern by that accessible? That's an appeal to dignity, I believe because like access, just like you say, even the most reasonable milk as saying, people just created at you and like people don't like that. People don't enjoy that, but they also don't enjoy being told that there, you know cultural appropriating widely premises for wearing a chinese dressed a problem.

So that's a dignity issue as well. And so so you know like via basically there's all kinds of things that I would classify appealed to dignity that we don't Normally use that word for. But I think are plant is a good.

good discussion. I would do maybe one, two more questions. Get you to a few minutes bit. This is from E N mofeed E N. Hi.

I N says, I like you.

M A B, I have a proem gration bias. However, I find most people in me are not sympathetic to embassies, since they don't like IT when their igher hood change quickly, and they want to maintain their neighbor's cultural character. Therefore, curious if you think there's a trade op between immigration and building more affordable housing. For instance, do you think reducing immigration when make voters more willing to build affordable housing?

And that's a question because I don't think reducing immigration will make people wanna build more affordable housing. So so no, I don't I don't think so. Honestly, immigrants are all very upper, the mobile.

And that means that your average poor immigrant is poor because where they were born, not because you know, there are drugs or or their family problems or whatever, or there or they are just unlucky, right? Or they just whatever immigrants, but that are poor are poor because they're hard working and they are gonna not poor soon. So you so having poor immigrants live near you is actually much safer than having poor native born americans living near you.

I don't know people see that that way, but that's the truth. And so I don't think that. But what I do think is that I don't see the connection between immigration, housing.

I mean, like obviously immigrants need to be housed somewhere, right? But that this is the idea that were going to make housing affordable by kicking immigrants out. And you may that the problems, then you also reduce house crisis, which are the main source of wealth for middle class, right?

Most america's wealth is in their owner occupied housing. And that owner occupied housing, the Price of that, your wealth, your nest g, your retirement plan, depends on demand for that housing. And if you kick out a bunch of immigrants just to lower rents, you've made life easier for renters, but you've also tanked the wealth of the american middle class.

So think about that anyway, that. But then in terms of numbers, M, I agree that there's a tradeoff that that people don't, some people don't. Other communities change.

Some people are afraid that poor people will bring disorder. The way to solve that is hyper local. So houston has this program, were easily small. You know, a few block area can like vote to allow housing just in that tiny area. And the arlington, Virginia has something somewhat somewhere, basically allow the nibby blocks to be nyva, but only by the block, or maybe like a collection six box, like A A small area, allow the nb areas to be in be, allow the ibi areas to be be.

Because why are they in be? Because their property values will go up from density because you know they can like like if you own land and stack more apartments, you can like make more money, right? And so so you can make more money.

And so they want to or they want you know they have businesses nearby, they want traffic for or whatever they just want, you know. And and then you can do some property tax sharing where you have micro property tax sharing. So like if you allow density in your little area, then we're going to get then some of the property taxes that they go to the city from that area get rebated to you.

So you basically get money from instancy. We pay you to be dance right. Then if you want to be ni bi o, you can just be nibbed.

Have your quiet streets, have you have your, you know suburb in the city? And you can do that. So so micro igbo hood, I think, are the way forward.

Yeah, that sense. Ian has a related question. He says I I think your reason post about immigration failures of progressive over each habit. excEllent. In regards the democratization of immigration, how far would you be willing to go, for instance, if most voters wanted to establish quotes from certain countries, should policymakers always be obliged to follow suit? As for Better, worse, these policies seem very popular among voters.

We think, yeah, of course we already did that one thousand twenty four. We did that. If we want to do that, we can do that.

absolutely. IT is within our power in law. In fact, we already have soft court because we have our our quotes novel by the size of country.

So we massively discriminated against india, china, other big countries in favor of like, you know, some tiny little countries like like hate or jamaica, something they were like or like andora get easily. There's no difficulty immigrating from there. But but a india forget IT like, you know, I was really hard because you're competing against like a billion and have other indian people.

So those function as country quoters, right? We have country quarters. They're just the same for every country which analyzed big countries. We could change that.

So if people wanted say, like, you know we don't want immigrants from, you know like pakistan, like yeah you're going na elect people and they will make a losing no immigrants from pakistan sorry and yes and then we might be trouble because pakistan bring a lot of like high skill immigration talent to america. I'm just saying, like you. You can do this if you want.

We did IT before, and the supreme court never struck down into the country quotas. You can do what they did. One hundred and twenty four was actually country quoted based on updated. So they took a date before the big immigration boom from eastern south erp and said, you know, quotes are based on how many americans were living here before that big immigration boom m began.

So is intentionally aimed at restoring the demographics of pre boom amErica of like you know one hundred and seventy amErica or what ver and and so and also they they then you know banned immigration now right from from essentially county that thought were nonWhite, which you didn't include mexico under that law. All mexicans are right. So because, you know, texans wanted mexicans to come into work, so texans got a car out for mexicans.

So all even indigenous mexicans are White under under along, but or were anyway, but then and and of course, arabs are right. Anyone like egyptian, you're right. So you did are you could come in.

And then africans, we could have had massive, massive african immigration of that law that was totally legal because of afro americans. And and a few africans even did come. I'd like five or six like, like, but nobody knew.

You know, Evans didn't even have like TV at the time. You know, they didn't know that this was possible and they didn't have the money to move over here, general peak. And so we didn't get a giant way of africa migration.

But under that law, we could have the law was eventually struck down in sixty five because they thought and amended because they thought that was racist, which I was. And the'd already been the the racial parts of the lauda already actually been formally repealed by trump. But the, but the ancestry parts which were defect or racist, were only appealed by jobs and sixty five.

And so, but we can go back that if you want if you want that like if we can do that. But you know I don't think we should do that, but it's it's well within its constitutional as well. It's it's within the preview of .

stuff we've got yeah maybe one last good question. This is from ryan cubine. He asks, no, are you from with new house book? The fourth turning is here.

what? What do you think of this generational driver? Apotheoses an explanation of certain aspects of history. Ian society.

well, I haven't read IT, so I can hold forth on things I haven't read because I asked GPT to summarize them and read a million commentaries about them. But you're going to get the second rate rate. But okay, why not ideas that there is generations that tear down institutions, and generations that build institutions.

And the bombers were the ultimate tear down generation, and the millennial would be the generation that build up institutions. Well, guess what they did? They were very work. The millennial built a new series of institutions of work stuff to replace the old stuff.

You know where where nature magazine is waiting in the political controversies and and you know like the the N S F is awarding science grants based on race and is that are in things like that that and you know the new online media of like teen vogue saying everything is about capitalism. Those were the institutions that the millennial were building, right? The groups, the groups were an institution in american life that we didn't even have a named for ant or recently.

And so that was an institution that that millennial were building, a social media stuff. Now we're in the process of being like, hold on, maybe that sucked. So the thing is that I don't eat trumper ous people building much in the way, you know, elon and vivid want to go and just like five, eight percent of the civil service, whatever, that's degrading and that's a tear down.

And their generation at anywhere, at least elon us, like that's tearing out institutions or you know R, F, K saying, okay, we're gonna ban vaccines and then allow this cracker that's tearing down that's not building up. And the people who wanted to build up with the moisture, who sort of built up over the twenty tens, built up things that in, Frankly, we're a little functional. And so I think if you wanted really take strong and house there is seriously, you've got ta look at this idea of the word revolution as the builder effort.

And unfortunately, I think that kind of face planted. So where does that leave us? Well, IT leaves me just believing in long gated generational cycle theories that are difficult to assess with data. But I don't know we should leave you maybe depressed .

in to how is part of a IT broad a group of people like pure torching and others we try to to do of big history is kind of think right? I think churches .

is actually more right. Churches and actually is IT on something like we do have a sort of a fifty years cycle of unrest. And so so I think church is more right.

I called the peak of unrest in twenty, and I had I I actually maybe touch and I made a bed. But in twitter we had exchange. That was twitter we had exchanged where I he said he did his little calculation.

He said the peak could come anywhere between and twenty, twenty six and I said, twenty, twenty, that was the peak. I ain't onna get crazy in that in amErica and I think I have a world war. But we're not going to have people like marching, the street burning, IT, whatever. And people will get exhausted.

I see the exhaustion setting in and he's like, no, I think that the center of my point elements is in twenty twenty four as the peek of unrest was IT though was IT was twenty twenty four the peak of where, like a few people slagging into other off on twitter before the election and overall, like, you know, yes, a couple crazy tried to shoot trump, just like a couple crazy tried to shoot four and seventy six, right? IT IT IT was almost exactly the same as as when a couple of crazy. And then when crazy did shoot region, right, you have some crazy to shoot, taking poch shots, guy.

And then, or there was seventy five, they tried to, they tried to shoot for IT. So, but, but unrest, broader unrest in amErica was already falling by the time randol were trying to shoot ford, right? And especially by the time some reno shot, right. And like, that guy was trying to prove his love to jodie Foster, like he wasn't even think that was. That was his whole thing and people were like, oh, unrest is over.

It's just a few random crazies out there like, you know just creeping on jody Foster ultimate ony he was gig but anyway, if he had only known if we had homophobia ended up getting ragan shop because of judy Foster been able to come out of the closet, that guy wouldn't shot reg in and so that's my that's my historical take anyway. But I guess the point is that i'm right in churching. Churching was right in general and wrong about a specific call of the year.

And i'm make fun of china gin and guy ha chrge en. I, using your theory, was right about when the unrest fell and IT was twenty twenty after all. And then like that's what i'm going say well.

to that end, and you know, I just read right before the pog as that P. R. Or media funding a new resistance effort against trump. So this might this created, but I wonder what i'm about say, which is I wonder if there is A A recessing or you serve you know reanalysis of sort of left wing billionaire on their political strategies in terms of you mention earlier that they've been funding a lot of these not profits, are love these political efforts that are that are, you know some of them more far left efforts? And I wonder if there's sort of assisting say, hey, those either haven't been effective or they haven't been I have been effective functionality in terms of cities Operating well, but they also haven't worked electorally, least not now.

And so maybe those organisms will get less support or maybe these billionaire are just hopelessly ideological or and going to keep playing good money after bad, so to speak, the the power jobs of the world, you know not actually, I don't know if that if if that's like you, we should take that. yeah. Who are these last boilers?

Are I meet these guys. I hang out these guys. They have got a huat foundation stuff. They are so out of touch, it's almost painful. The one half exception is nick hand hour, who is sort of an inane guy, but with actually very in touch on fight for fifteen. Like that was a thing.

A lot of people's service workers supported in the united, the service class, they won IT and IT made minimum wage, even output inflation for a few years. But although that's over, it's it's it's back to fight for you know ten, fifty but anyway or something I don't know that more than that that anyway hand did a prety good job. But he also spouts a lot of like absolute guff about new liberalism and then but then like all these guys like, you know omega, whatever the facebook guys like, not zebra, because he's not very political.

But like a bit like I know causes I went to dinner with these guys, don't have any idea what's going on with the average person like they, they barely they're so lofty, they barely have anything was going on. The average rich person like their circles are entirely self selected. They get to pick wings out with them.

And who inside out with them are always, yes, men asking for money, even if they're become very, very good at disguising. People obey incentives. And if you start ending on money, yellow rifles and those grifters will define resources are going.

This gift is really interesting. This fellow isn't n dusking me for money. This fellow is simply having interesting intellectual discussion that that fellow is entire job is like structure their interesting intellectual discussion so you walk away.

feelings. I could do that. I could be a grifter like that if I wanted. And I don't, because I just don't care, but I could. And these people are so dim, out of touch. And then like this is where a lot of the money for the group is coming from.

And so I don't know to do about that other than to like make more things taxable because like somehow even the richest person will get very annoy if their charitable donations are not taxed more. So I say just make a lot yourself taxable and see what that takes us. And then you know, have some maybe have some common sense restrictions, unlike packs advertising.

And but until we somehow figure out how to reduce the power of the staffer class, the groups are onna have a year. So I don't know, maybe they all listen. Eon, one, two.

Hey, rich guys like you know don't give your money to like, you know, like leftist advocate groups. They're just onna waste IT. And hurt the democracy party tire time style in his stop. He'll never listen me, his son.

might he? He's interested in moderate time stuff. Honestly.

what they really need to is just like divert the money to like in bes and think tanks and stuff like that, not like a that doesn't claim, like represent a specific community, that's just more, more generalized stuff. You can still give your money to groups of the lower case due, does not groups of the capital gene. And that's gna be a there a big shift.

Now I actually know if you feel rich people like that, I can actually pitch this to, i'll say, like, look, give your money to someone effective and not me. I'm not saying do not give your money to me. I'll just give you a rabbit like I do with my own money, just no give IT give IT to like some some people are trying to figure out how to like grow and build and lower black.

And ultimately, that's the way to win back america. It's it's to just to make appeals for things that benefit the whole country and to wait for trump in and these guys to screw. Because like if if musk t does to the civil service what he did to to the employees x like, yes, you will eliminate a lot of an efficiently, but you also a will eliminate a lot of useful stuff.

And then people will get mad because, like, you know, they like, my medicare didn't get processed hoops now, I don't know medicare. My veterans benefits didn't get processed. Oops, you betrayed the veterans.

And so, like cinema speaker, you know, you do this stuff. You mess around like this. I I hope it's just stuff, right?

I hope it's like they don't end up cutting much except I hope they do actually fire some you know useless people and then but but leave enough you you can't fire eighty percent of the vil service, but maybe you could fire twenty percent. I don't know. I hope they do that. But I don't not optimistic because like I saw at in and ex, you know and I I don't have any choice of vic at all.

And I think that when people get mad and like there's a massive backlash against letting guys like this scrip stuff and everybody y's getting measles because I F case had not to give vaccines so all your kids are getting fucked in mezzo like it's the you know nineteen century like maybe people will realize that elections have consequences, but I hope they don't do that. I hope they just talk a big game and talk a lot of guff and then don't actually do that. But if they do, do IT, it's going to provoke a backlight. People are going to get mad like ultimately.

I do believe in democracy. Well, that's a good note to to end on some good vice for billionaire as well as some you know reforming in the the belief democracy I know has been a great wide ranging discussion in a great male bag. Thanks for everyone for the mining your questions. Please continue summit your great questions will will make sure to get to them. No is always until next time.

until next time, sir.

Hey everyone, eric, here at turbine, we're building the first media outlet for tech people. Buy tech people where the network behind the show you're listening to right now, we have a slate of hit shows across a range of topics and industries from our AI and investing cluster podcasts to show that drive the conversation in tech with the most interesting thinkers, founders, investors and influencers like icon one or two with noa smith.

We're launching new shows every week, and we're looking for industry leading sponsors. If you think that might be you in your company, email me at Erica turpan time dot COO. That's E R I K at turbine that co, and let's partner together.