It's nice to hear that you both voted for Trump three times in a row and do not, apparently, regret this or consider it a mistake (in contrast to what one hears from certain other corners). That deserves some respect.
Amy's total lack of understanding of how things actualy work is profound. For instance, learning the auto mechanic trade is is generally acheived through work/internship experience, so one gets paid to learn, not at $30,000/year payment. Is she surprised that the trade school infrastucture isn't designed to cater to the needs of dudes in their 70's? That's a real underserved cohert that needs to be addressed. Glad she identified that for me. And while someone can choose to attend a trade school that is that expensive, just like you can pay Harvard tuition or attend a public university at 20% of the cost, you can go to a community college and get the same mechanic's certification. All in (tuition, books, fees, etc.), the two-year AA degree at the local school by me is $5092. On top of that. there's plenty of scholarships and financial aid. She needs to give her husband a link to 'google.' She spews nonsense, I suppose, believing that because she has a pile of fancy degrees that no one will question her. One more point, she sees herself as some sort of protector of the 'working class' (or as she refers to them as "these people'') maybe ought not have a sign that speaks to her disdain of inexpenisve wine in the background while advocating. I'm certainly no expert in any of the topics she's rambling on about, but even I can recognize how grossly uninformed (disingenuous?) she is. I like your shows, Dr. Cofnas, but this interviewee was not worthy of the attention you gave her.
Nathan: She's inconsiderate in her frequent aggressive interruptions which devolve into stream-of-consciousness, and you're too conversationally tolerant. See, e.g., 34:30.
BTW, in my stereo audio, when she switched to iPhone near the beginning she was on the left side only, while you continued to be in the middle. Here "left" and "middle" are stereophonic, not political, terms.
I agree with Amy. The tariffs are primarily a bargaining chip. We have to have leverage to get the EU and China to drop their tariffs. My prediction is that at the end of the day tariffs will be minimal to non-existent. Once the trade playing-field is level, US manufacturing will be on better footing and the folks you seem to despise (who made it possible to elect Trump) will be rewarded... as they should be.
If tariffs are bad, why is it okay for the EU and China to impose them? The question of why we should tolerate this was never answered...
Setting aside the merit of tariffs, part of the problem is the way Trump has gone about it. The rollout has been so chaotic and subject to ridiculous whimsical alteration that the rest of the world has already taken measures to insulate themselves. In Asia countries are hedging towards China and in Canada and Australia voters returned their unpopular left wing governments to power. This trend will continue even if Trump decides implement perfect trade policy tomorrow. The damage is done and cannot be fixed until Trump leaves office.
The whole point of the tariffs is to upset the status quo, so I’m not sure how the rollout could’ve been done any differently. Again, the term “chaos“ is a meme floated by the Democrats. That said, I agree with you that this whole 51st state nonsense is retarded.
Well for a start Trump could have announced a rate that he stuck with for more than 24 hours. The chaos comment is not a meme. Business and governments around the world share that sentiment and have acted accordingly.
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the mechanism or the strategy here. What I'm arguing is that the ultimate efficacy of the policy has already been negatively impacted by the way it was rolled out.
I guess to me the most important point is that he actually has a strategy that he's bold enough to implement. Could the roll out have been smoother? Possibly, but I just don't feel that's going to make a significant difference in the long run. To focus primarily on the roll-out seems a bit of a distraction Trump's critics would be firmly opposed to his policies no matter how artfully he implemented them.
I like Amy Wax, but this is disappointing. Amy Wax thinks that white men feel neglected. Okay, will a trade war make them feel better? So, according to her, it's expensive to get trained to be an auto-mechanic. How will smashing Harvard help that problem? Housing is expensive. Got it - but since states and localities control almost all housing regulations, it's not clear what this has to do with Trump. There's a strange misalignment between Wax's complaints and what Trump is actually doing.
The start with Amy Wax's tech issues - a repeat performance of her Hanania appearance - were a perfect microccosm for her contributions: an older person who doesn't reskill, who believes in her emotions uber alles, and venting more than diagnosing or prescribing in a pattern of argumentation only mastered by those adopting a data-free approach to life.
If I had to pinpoint three failures she demonstrated, they would be the Mao problem, economic illiteracy, and a distaste for accountability. She chastises you and Hanania for being factual instead of providing her intellectual covering fire so she is less afraid to admit to her students that she backs Trump despite his economic missteps. Much like her less EHC allies, she hates the "counter-signaling" truth getting in the way of those trying to do the right thing, whether or not it works. I fail to see anything in her moral framework and epistemology which wouldn't have her going along with the Great Leap Forward if she had started an iota down Mao's path. Secondly, she has chosen a life of economic illiteracy despite her supposed concern for the downtrodden. Housing access, net employment, and technological advances increasing happy years of human life, and their relation to GDP mean nothing to her. Did the Great Financial Crisis see thousands of excess suicides? Irrelevant! Of course, she thinks that the American economy is overly financialized.. which is why we lead on AI, biotech, defense, and science. Thirdly, she refuses wholeheartedly to hold those on her team to the same standard she uses to pillory the multitudes she reviles. Illegitimate greivances are valid torts, absconding from work is ignored, reticence to change with the times is exalted, and the President being responsible for all Article II actions and the culture of the White House is an alien concept.
Nevertheless, she is entertaining. She successfully mirrored the noble savage known as the broke art student to concoct one with right wing characteristics: behold the fabled blue collar worker who can support a family. He deserves a living wage enough to support a family even if his labor doesn't generate enough value to merit it. In fact, tanking the economy to boost his earnings is the only kind of reparations we need. She even comes out in support of subsidized trade school for this Platonic form of the acceptable prole — all while calling for a jihad against the universities (tuition support being the least of it).
Cofnas is right about everything here from housing and policing to education and employment. But an absence of fealty to Great Leader triggers her more than she can stomach.
Cofnas has little but contempt for the preferences and predilections of the descendants of the men and women who built the nation his fleeing grandparents found refuge in from Eastern Europe, the charnel house of the 20th century. He’s smart, so are his friends, and that gives him the prerogative to rule over his rescuers.
The best part imo, was the end talking about the specific policies of tariffs, if effective, and what values to subsidize. I'd like to hear more discussions on this. Maybe have a debate with some economist who agrees with tariffs, or have another debate on what values to subsidize
There's only four years. The beginning of a monumental task. Does Harvard deserve finesse? Amy is right to criticise the callous indifference to the working class, who happen to be repsented by white males at present. But in an increasingly cognitive environment this invisibility can only become wider and more consequential.
More specifically, I don't think Cofnas is at all familiar with modern textbook trade theory involving countries with vast disparities in their relative abundance of the factors of production (land, labor, and capital).
Cofnas is smart and articulate at identifying the problems, but idk why he can't see how unlikely his plan ( the right should be like the left but racist ) is to get people onboard. At first i assumed he didn't really believe his approach is efficient but he just wanted to be edgy and attract an audience. Seemingly that is not the case, he is willing to criticise Trump and talk about other stuff as well( like tariffs) . There are a lof of people on the left in powerful positions that already have doubts about blank slatism but not care enough to support any policy around it . It is better to adopt a more effective and broader approach
It's nice to hear that you both voted for Trump three times in a row and do not, apparently, regret this or consider it a mistake (in contrast to what one hears from certain other corners). That deserves some respect.
Amy's total lack of understanding of how things actualy work is profound. For instance, learning the auto mechanic trade is is generally acheived through work/internship experience, so one gets paid to learn, not at $30,000/year payment. Is she surprised that the trade school infrastucture isn't designed to cater to the needs of dudes in their 70's? That's a real underserved cohert that needs to be addressed. Glad she identified that for me. And while someone can choose to attend a trade school that is that expensive, just like you can pay Harvard tuition or attend a public university at 20% of the cost, you can go to a community college and get the same mechanic's certification. All in (tuition, books, fees, etc.), the two-year AA degree at the local school by me is $5092. On top of that. there's plenty of scholarships and financial aid. She needs to give her husband a link to 'google.' She spews nonsense, I suppose, believing that because she has a pile of fancy degrees that no one will question her. One more point, she sees herself as some sort of protector of the 'working class' (or as she refers to them as "these people'') maybe ought not have a sign that speaks to her disdain of inexpenisve wine in the background while advocating. I'm certainly no expert in any of the topics she's rambling on about, but even I can recognize how grossly uninformed (disingenuous?) she is. I like your shows, Dr. Cofnas, but this interviewee was not worthy of the attention you gave her.
Nathan: She's inconsiderate in her frequent aggressive interruptions which devolve into stream-of-consciousness, and you're too conversationally tolerant. See, e.g., 34:30.
BTW, in my stereo audio, when she switched to iPhone near the beginning she was on the left side only, while you continued to be in the middle. Here "left" and "middle" are stereophonic, not political, terms.
I agree with Amy. The tariffs are primarily a bargaining chip. We have to have leverage to get the EU and China to drop their tariffs. My prediction is that at the end of the day tariffs will be minimal to non-existent. Once the trade playing-field is level, US manufacturing will be on better footing and the folks you seem to despise (who made it possible to elect Trump) will be rewarded... as they should be.
If tariffs are bad, why is it okay for the EU and China to impose them? The question of why we should tolerate this was never answered...
Setting aside the merit of tariffs, part of the problem is the way Trump has gone about it. The rollout has been so chaotic and subject to ridiculous whimsical alteration that the rest of the world has already taken measures to insulate themselves. In Asia countries are hedging towards China and in Canada and Australia voters returned their unpopular left wing governments to power. This trend will continue even if Trump decides implement perfect trade policy tomorrow. The damage is done and cannot be fixed until Trump leaves office.
The whole point of the tariffs is to upset the status quo, so I’m not sure how the rollout could’ve been done any differently. Again, the term “chaos“ is a meme floated by the Democrats. That said, I agree with you that this whole 51st state nonsense is retarded.
Well for a start Trump could have announced a rate that he stuck with for more than 24 hours. The chaos comment is not a meme. Business and governments around the world share that sentiment and have acted accordingly.
Again, I'm not arguing the merits of the mechanism or the strategy here. What I'm arguing is that the ultimate efficacy of the policy has already been negatively impacted by the way it was rolled out.
I guess to me the most important point is that he actually has a strategy that he's bold enough to implement. Could the roll out have been smoother? Possibly, but I just don't feel that's going to make a significant difference in the long run. To focus primarily on the roll-out seems a bit of a distraction Trump's critics would be firmly opposed to his policies no matter how artfully he implemented them.
I like Amy Wax, but this is disappointing. Amy Wax thinks that white men feel neglected. Okay, will a trade war make them feel better? So, according to her, it's expensive to get trained to be an auto-mechanic. How will smashing Harvard help that problem? Housing is expensive. Got it - but since states and localities control almost all housing regulations, it's not clear what this has to do with Trump. There's a strange misalignment between Wax's complaints and what Trump is actually doing.
It’s because she was trying to be a lawyer and “win” rather than be an academic and “engage with ideas”.
She kept treating Nate like a student and not a colleague.
At least, that’s how I see it. The episode was incredibly painful to listen to because of her.
Very sad. This is the level of motivated reasoning needed to defend Trumpism
The start with Amy Wax's tech issues - a repeat performance of her Hanania appearance - were a perfect microccosm for her contributions: an older person who doesn't reskill, who believes in her emotions uber alles, and venting more than diagnosing or prescribing in a pattern of argumentation only mastered by those adopting a data-free approach to life.
If I had to pinpoint three failures she demonstrated, they would be the Mao problem, economic illiteracy, and a distaste for accountability. She chastises you and Hanania for being factual instead of providing her intellectual covering fire so she is less afraid to admit to her students that she backs Trump despite his economic missteps. Much like her less EHC allies, she hates the "counter-signaling" truth getting in the way of those trying to do the right thing, whether or not it works. I fail to see anything in her moral framework and epistemology which wouldn't have her going along with the Great Leap Forward if she had started an iota down Mao's path. Secondly, she has chosen a life of economic illiteracy despite her supposed concern for the downtrodden. Housing access, net employment, and technological advances increasing happy years of human life, and their relation to GDP mean nothing to her. Did the Great Financial Crisis see thousands of excess suicides? Irrelevant! Of course, she thinks that the American economy is overly financialized.. which is why we lead on AI, biotech, defense, and science. Thirdly, she refuses wholeheartedly to hold those on her team to the same standard she uses to pillory the multitudes she reviles. Illegitimate greivances are valid torts, absconding from work is ignored, reticence to change with the times is exalted, and the President being responsible for all Article II actions and the culture of the White House is an alien concept.
Nevertheless, she is entertaining. She successfully mirrored the noble savage known as the broke art student to concoct one with right wing characteristics: behold the fabled blue collar worker who can support a family. He deserves a living wage enough to support a family even if his labor doesn't generate enough value to merit it. In fact, tanking the economy to boost his earnings is the only kind of reparations we need. She even comes out in support of subsidized trade school for this Platonic form of the acceptable prole — all while calling for a jihad against the universities (tuition support being the least of it).
Cofnas is right about everything here from housing and policing to education and employment. But an absence of fealty to Great Leader triggers her more than she can stomach.
Cofnas has little but contempt for the preferences and predilections of the descendants of the men and women who built the nation his fleeing grandparents found refuge in from Eastern Europe, the charnel house of the 20th century. He’s smart, so are his friends, and that gives him the prerogative to rule over his rescuers.
Harvard needs federal funding because it does cancer research the same way Planned Parenthood needs federal funds because it does mammograms.
That is just old school libertarian Republicanism, the Kevin Williamson variety.
Get a UHaul.
It has been rejected.
Cofnas, who wasn’t there in 2012, thinks he just made that ‘wisdom’ up.
Amy Wax is just wonderful!
The best part imo, was the end talking about the specific policies of tariffs, if effective, and what values to subsidize. I'd like to hear more discussions on this. Maybe have a debate with some economist who agrees with tariffs, or have another debate on what values to subsidize
There's only four years. The beginning of a monumental task. Does Harvard deserve finesse? Amy is right to criticise the callous indifference to the working class, who happen to be repsented by white males at present. But in an increasingly cognitive environment this invisibility can only become wider and more consequential.
Oren Cass is a very smart guy who makes the case for tariffs. See here for instance: https://www.understandingamerica.co/p/dont-cry-for-me-argentinian-import
More specifically, I don't think Cofnas is at all familiar with modern textbook trade theory involving countries with vast disparities in their relative abundance of the factors of production (land, labor, and capital).
I wrote about it all back in the day: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40721553
Full disclosure, I am not a disinterested observer on this issue: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00U0C9HKW
My conclusion from this discussion: we have before us un sac de cul.
Cofnas is smart and articulate at identifying the problems, but idk why he can't see how unlikely his plan ( the right should be like the left but racist ) is to get people onboard. At first i assumed he didn't really believe his approach is efficient but he just wanted to be edgy and attract an audience. Seemingly that is not the case, he is willing to criticise Trump and talk about other stuff as well( like tariffs) . There are a lof of people on the left in powerful positions that already have doubts about blank slatism but not care enough to support any policy around it . It is better to adopt a more effective and broader approach