I’m retired. When the DOGE campaign was tearing through D.C., I requested calls with our banker and our investment manager to talk about the potentially devastating effects of Trump’s harebrained “governance,” including the unauthorized access to our private information, and the tariffs he was imposing. Of course, trust managers are supposed to be calm and reassuring. They’re dealing with people’s life savings, after all, so I wasn’t surprised to hear the party line. What did surprise me was the condescension. Clearly the old broad (me) was simply hysterical, while their calmer, more rational heads would prevail. I wonder how that’s going for them.
Well, they were right. I got out of the markets on "Liberation Day" and lost some money. Then I went back in. I'm confident getting out of the markets /at some point/ is the right move, because (*looks around*) but I don't really know when that is.
The lesson here is not that your financial advisors were smart. The lesson is that the markets are dumbed. A garbage bag full of idiots can soak up a lot of damage, before it finally collapses. And I suspect that collapse is coming soon.
“Everyone seems to be coming out of it now, slowly, and much too late.”
Some seem to be coming out of it but too many continue to be afraid to do anything about it outside of mealy mouthed comments in interviews no one watches.
I am sick and tired of the centrist pundit mind set that Dems need to lay low and stick to kitchen table issues, just let Trump do bad things, voters will tire of him. That’s possible but those ‘things’ he’s going to do will get worse and worse and way too many will blame Dems for being weak and not fighting back against both those ‘elites’ and the regime / GOP.
1. Can Democrats stop Trump doing the bad things? They don't have filibuster proof majorities in senate and house, and even with those majorities present, Trump would simply rule ignoring congress. In current version of republic Presidency is the only source of power.
2. Trump shines when being opposed. He gains his strength from it. The more Democrats opposed him during his first term, or when doing the prosecution, the more public trusted and cherished Trump. With such playing field, the only correct strategy is to ignore him and pray.
3. Democrats don't need their base to like them, or too see them as strong, they will vote regardless. They just need for the median voter to see democrats as tiny bit less bad than republicans.
No, but Dems can shape the discussion and rehab their image as a bunch of pussies. Elliot Morris has some good poll data on that.
And you’ve got it dangerously backwards. Like all bullies, Trump ramps ups his predations when you show him your underbelly. Just asked Columbia, the complicit law firms, etc.
For an example of line-holding and a better result, see Europe and Greenland.
Passivity has rendered the Democrat party too weak to reliably win the senate, or—after the 2030 census—the White House.
And your argument is exactly the loser mindset that’ll render the Democratic Party irrelevant. It’s how we ended up with a second Trump turn. Well played!
1 - no, they can’t stop him but they can put up a united front to give him no votes in congress, keep talking about the awful things he and the GOP are doing to keep them front and center as well as continue to attach these awful things they’re doing to why so many Americans are suffering and unable to afford food, healthcare, etc.
2 - Trump loves an enemy but the more he’s in the news the less a majority of the population ‘approve’ of him. Staying silent and praying is how Dems got here.
3 - Dem base voters are not a guaranteed vote the way the GOP base is. That myth will continue to cost democrats voters.
Point #2 is absolutely wrong. Look at how poorly his party did in the 2018 mid-terms. He lost his 2020 bid by 7 million votes to a less than dynamic retread.
In law school, my peers and I observed that the most thoughtful students – in the Socratic dialogues and outside of class - could be found in the second GPA quintile (yes, we tended to be in that quintile, why do you ask?). On exams, those in the top quintile were adept, could recite the applicable black-letter law in clear terms, and in grades were properly rewarded. Others of us tended to get distracted by things such as rationales underlying legal doctrines, the arrangements of societal power they might reflect, and the critiques to which they might be subject. Those in the top quintile were swept into federal clerkships and prestigious corporate law firms. The rest of us did fine.
The point being, in the service of power (a broad field of endeavor that includes (most) lawyers, financial advisors, journalists, political pundits and much more), one is rewarded for thinking with agility, but penalized for thinking critically. The explanations for what seems superficially to be an inexplicable ingenuousness of the sophisticates are many and complex, but I’d offer that this self-selection element is important.
As I find myself sitting with the ghost of Carl Sagan in our camp at the edge of a rapidly reemerging 'demon-haunted world', I believe that the subjectively 'savvy' strategy 'elites' have managed to wield with objective success (unfortunately) is the resuscitation of 'superstition and darkness' as an ally.
I feel that you have solidly touched on that strategy by calling out what took place (and continues to take place) with Twitter and the revision of history. Speaking only for myself, I believe that the coordinated subterfuge of science, journalism and civil, productive debate has in fact been an unfortunately effective (subjectively 'savvy') tactic. A little over a week ago we once again followed manufactured phantoms leading us on to squander further blood and treasure in the Middle East. The measles virus has made a comeback. We have endlessly bifurcated into walled cybergardens that have divided us and broken productive discourse. We are openly and gleefully wagering on the deaths of fellow human beings. The use of coal is making a comeback in the wake of dismantled environmental protection guardrails. Green energy initiatives have been thwarted despite the objective fact that the entire world can be crippled by the blockade a 24-mile wide channel of water. The current emperor has no clothes. The list goes on and is formidable.
Many thanks for wielding the word 'savvy' objectively and I am with you in that. However, I remain gravely concerned that, rather than being marks for the POTUS, those 'elites' may be subjectively 'savvy' in wielding him as their 'imperfect vessel' in the service of the 'superstition and darkness' that is necessary to prevent enough of us from 'coming out of it' whilst they continue to pursue their myopic, destructive, self-centered and cravenly bigoted greed campaign.
The dilemma for the media elites is twofold: not only did they spend the last 4 years convincing themselves that Trump would act rationally, they have convinced themselves that the place to go to hear the vox populi is Twitter, which only serves to reinforce their existing beliefs.
Perhaps if Nate Silver or Yglesias writes a post about Bluesky being closer to a public forum, they will see the light. But I wouldn't bet on it.
It's halfway in between. Twitter/X is always wrong on the pro-Trump side because it's manipulated, and the folks on Bluesky assume that every Trump fuckup will be a total catastrophe that results in WWIII, which makes everyone look hysterical when Trump waltzes away without too much damage. A more reasonable take is that yes, over time, Bluesky tends to be more right than wrong and these fuckups will accumulate like damage from the sun.
A more useful lesson is that power and bluster and our adversaries' (in)competence are worth a lot in this world. Iran could be sinking oil tankers right now, but they're not. Both Venezuela and Iran could have made some relatively mild efforts to move their leaders to undisclosed locations (If Dick Cheney could do it...), but they didn't consider it. I think there's an excellent chance that Iran just lets tankers traffic return to normal without doing anything, which deprives them of their only remaining card. I'm curious what threats will sit behind that decision.
Bluesky has definitely brought in the "we're all gonna die!!!!" hysteria from the pre-Musk era Twitter, and it definitely dogpiles on people like Silver and Yglesias if they ever stick their heads in to say anything (which only reinforces their view that Bluesky is in its own bubble). But as you say, Bluesky has been more right than wrong, and certainly more directionally correct on US politics than Twitter.
I find a carefully curated following list, muting/blocking judiciously, and taking most poasts with a healthy pinch of salt (and looking at other news sources), makes Bluesky takes manageable.
As a dishonorable mention, nothing is worse than the Substack timeline. Everything there is some flavor of "DEI and woke are the worst problem in the world" all disguised as concern-trolling by people who want you to believe they'd vote for Democrats "if only they would just stop being so radical". It's like being a peasant in the ruins of Rome, watching other peasants complain about random points of political fashion from the Imperial days.
War might be over in a month, or two, thousand civilians more will die, but American voters will quickly forget. Betting on Trump is like saying that "Nothing ever happens". Things do happen, but from POV of an American with custom news feed, the "outside things happening" are short events in the sea of nothing happening. In such environment a president's long term approval depends on vibes much more than on events. Trump masterfully controls vibes - one rambling telephone call made oil speculants calm and happy, despite the material conditions not changing. In a week they will notice, but then Trump will make some other broad meaningless gesture. Democrats cannot bet on Trump generating "negative events" every week.
That’s so interesting. I’m the book “Radical Hope,” the author writes about a Crow Nation’s Chief responding to the disappearance of the buffalo. “After that, nothing happened.” The whole book is an exploration of what it means for things to “happen” when you’ve been severed completely from a way of life that has meaning and coherence. Things happen, but they don’t hang together. They slide off the wall. I think that’s what your comment points to: in the American mind, nothing really happens bc there is no architecture for containing it that maps onto the human psyche and fulfills deep human needs.
I'm stuck with the feeling that we know the questions to ask, we just don't have the right venue in which to ask them.
Such as, why do you still have a job managing people's money? Why haven't you crawled into a hole and gone away yet? Why haven't you apologized? Are you going to do everything in your power to help a Democrat win in 2028?
I’m retired. When the DOGE campaign was tearing through D.C., I requested calls with our banker and our investment manager to talk about the potentially devastating effects of Trump’s harebrained “governance,” including the unauthorized access to our private information, and the tariffs he was imposing. Of course, trust managers are supposed to be calm and reassuring. They’re dealing with people’s life savings, after all, so I wasn’t surprised to hear the party line. What did surprise me was the condescension. Clearly the old broad (me) was simply hysterical, while their calmer, more rational heads would prevail. I wonder how that’s going for them.
Well, they were right. I got out of the markets on "Liberation Day" and lost some money. Then I went back in. I'm confident getting out of the markets /at some point/ is the right move, because (*looks around*) but I don't really know when that is.
The lesson here is not that your financial advisors were smart. The lesson is that the markets are dumbed. A garbage bag full of idiots can soak up a lot of damage, before it finally collapses. And I suspect that collapse is coming soon.
“Everyone seems to be coming out of it now, slowly, and much too late.”
Some seem to be coming out of it but too many continue to be afraid to do anything about it outside of mealy mouthed comments in interviews no one watches.
I am sick and tired of the centrist pundit mind set that Dems need to lay low and stick to kitchen table issues, just let Trump do bad things, voters will tire of him. That’s possible but those ‘things’ he’s going to do will get worse and worse and way too many will blame Dems for being weak and not fighting back against both those ‘elites’ and the regime / GOP.
1. Can Democrats stop Trump doing the bad things? They don't have filibuster proof majorities in senate and house, and even with those majorities present, Trump would simply rule ignoring congress. In current version of republic Presidency is the only source of power.
2. Trump shines when being opposed. He gains his strength from it. The more Democrats opposed him during his first term, or when doing the prosecution, the more public trusted and cherished Trump. With such playing field, the only correct strategy is to ignore him and pray.
3. Democrats don't need their base to like them, or too see them as strong, they will vote regardless. They just need for the median voter to see democrats as tiny bit less bad than republicans.
No, but Dems can shape the discussion and rehab their image as a bunch of pussies. Elliot Morris has some good poll data on that.
And you’ve got it dangerously backwards. Like all bullies, Trump ramps ups his predations when you show him your underbelly. Just asked Columbia, the complicit law firms, etc.
For an example of line-holding and a better result, see Europe and Greenland.
Passivity has rendered the Democrat party too weak to reliably win the senate, or—after the 2030 census—the White House.
And your argument is exactly the loser mindset that’ll render the Democratic Party irrelevant. It’s how we ended up with a second Trump turn. Well played!
1 - no, they can’t stop him but they can put up a united front to give him no votes in congress, keep talking about the awful things he and the GOP are doing to keep them front and center as well as continue to attach these awful things they’re doing to why so many Americans are suffering and unable to afford food, healthcare, etc.
2 - Trump loves an enemy but the more he’s in the news the less a majority of the population ‘approve’ of him. Staying silent and praying is how Dems got here.
3 - Dem base voters are not a guaranteed vote the way the GOP base is. That myth will continue to cost democrats voters.
Point #2 is absolutely wrong. Look at how poorly his party did in the 2018 mid-terms. He lost his 2020 bid by 7 million votes to a less than dynamic retread.
In law school, my peers and I observed that the most thoughtful students – in the Socratic dialogues and outside of class - could be found in the second GPA quintile (yes, we tended to be in that quintile, why do you ask?). On exams, those in the top quintile were adept, could recite the applicable black-letter law in clear terms, and in grades were properly rewarded. Others of us tended to get distracted by things such as rationales underlying legal doctrines, the arrangements of societal power they might reflect, and the critiques to which they might be subject. Those in the top quintile were swept into federal clerkships and prestigious corporate law firms. The rest of us did fine.
The point being, in the service of power (a broad field of endeavor that includes (most) lawyers, financial advisors, journalists, political pundits and much more), one is rewarded for thinking with agility, but penalized for thinking critically. The explanations for what seems superficially to be an inexplicable ingenuousness of the sophisticates are many and complex, but I’d offer that this self-selection element is important.
A+ Brian
As I find myself sitting with the ghost of Carl Sagan in our camp at the edge of a rapidly reemerging 'demon-haunted world', I believe that the subjectively 'savvy' strategy 'elites' have managed to wield with objective success (unfortunately) is the resuscitation of 'superstition and darkness' as an ally.
I feel that you have solidly touched on that strategy by calling out what took place (and continues to take place) with Twitter and the revision of history. Speaking only for myself, I believe that the coordinated subterfuge of science, journalism and civil, productive debate has in fact been an unfortunately effective (subjectively 'savvy') tactic. A little over a week ago we once again followed manufactured phantoms leading us on to squander further blood and treasure in the Middle East. The measles virus has made a comeback. We have endlessly bifurcated into walled cybergardens that have divided us and broken productive discourse. We are openly and gleefully wagering on the deaths of fellow human beings. The use of coal is making a comeback in the wake of dismantled environmental protection guardrails. Green energy initiatives have been thwarted despite the objective fact that the entire world can be crippled by the blockade a 24-mile wide channel of water. The current emperor has no clothes. The list goes on and is formidable.
Many thanks for wielding the word 'savvy' objectively and I am with you in that. However, I remain gravely concerned that, rather than being marks for the POTUS, those 'elites' may be subjectively 'savvy' in wielding him as their 'imperfect vessel' in the service of the 'superstition and darkness' that is necessary to prevent enough of us from 'coming out of it' whilst they continue to pursue their myopic, destructive, self-centered and cravenly bigoted greed campaign.
The dilemma for the media elites is twofold: not only did they spend the last 4 years convincing themselves that Trump would act rationally, they have convinced themselves that the place to go to hear the vox populi is Twitter, which only serves to reinforce their existing beliefs.
Perhaps if Nate Silver or Yglesias writes a post about Bluesky being closer to a public forum, they will see the light. But I wouldn't bet on it.
It's halfway in between. Twitter/X is always wrong on the pro-Trump side because it's manipulated, and the folks on Bluesky assume that every Trump fuckup will be a total catastrophe that results in WWIII, which makes everyone look hysterical when Trump waltzes away without too much damage. A more reasonable take is that yes, over time, Bluesky tends to be more right than wrong and these fuckups will accumulate like damage from the sun.
A more useful lesson is that power and bluster and our adversaries' (in)competence are worth a lot in this world. Iran could be sinking oil tankers right now, but they're not. Both Venezuela and Iran could have made some relatively mild efforts to move their leaders to undisclosed locations (If Dick Cheney could do it...), but they didn't consider it. I think there's an excellent chance that Iran just lets tankers traffic return to normal without doing anything, which deprives them of their only remaining card. I'm curious what threats will sit behind that decision.
Bluesky has definitely brought in the "we're all gonna die!!!!" hysteria from the pre-Musk era Twitter, and it definitely dogpiles on people like Silver and Yglesias if they ever stick their heads in to say anything (which only reinforces their view that Bluesky is in its own bubble). But as you say, Bluesky has been more right than wrong, and certainly more directionally correct on US politics than Twitter.
I find a carefully curated following list, muting/blocking judiciously, and taking most poasts with a healthy pinch of salt (and looking at other news sources), makes Bluesky takes manageable.
As a dishonorable mention, nothing is worse than the Substack timeline. Everything there is some flavor of "DEI and woke are the worst problem in the world" all disguised as concern-trolling by people who want you to believe they'd vote for Democrats "if only they would just stop being so radical". It's like being a peasant in the ruins of Rome, watching other peasants complain about random points of political fashion from the Imperial days.
War might be over in a month, or two, thousand civilians more will die, but American voters will quickly forget. Betting on Trump is like saying that "Nothing ever happens". Things do happen, but from POV of an American with custom news feed, the "outside things happening" are short events in the sea of nothing happening. In such environment a president's long term approval depends on vibes much more than on events. Trump masterfully controls vibes - one rambling telephone call made oil speculants calm and happy, despite the material conditions not changing. In a week they will notice, but then Trump will make some other broad meaningless gesture. Democrats cannot bet on Trump generating "negative events" every week.
That’s so interesting. I’m the book “Radical Hope,” the author writes about a Crow Nation’s Chief responding to the disappearance of the buffalo. “After that, nothing happened.” The whole book is an exploration of what it means for things to “happen” when you’ve been severed completely from a way of life that has meaning and coherence. Things happen, but they don’t hang together. They slide off the wall. I think that’s what your comment points to: in the American mind, nothing really happens bc there is no architecture for containing it that maps onto the human psyche and fulfills deep human needs.
Obviously a gross generalization but one that points to something felt.
What happens is that things get more expensive. That doesn't require you to check your news feed, just fill up your car or go to Costco.
I'm stuck with the feeling that we know the questions to ask, we just don't have the right venue in which to ask them.
Such as, why do you still have a job managing people's money? Why haven't you crawled into a hole and gone away yet? Why haven't you apologized? Are you going to do everything in your power to help a Democrat win in 2028?
It's like we need a lib version of Squawk Box.