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.
And: when he finally did tank the market, the Fed started printing money and re-inflated it. At the cost of everyone *not* in the market seeing the value of their money drop markedly. I can’t see the weakening Fed allowing the markets to correct significantly.
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.
“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.
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.
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!
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.
I think you underrate how much everything you described has been an issue for probably forever and only with Trump has it been taken to an almost absurdist degree*.
Funny anecdote in that regard. I very distinctly remember reading an Economist article circa 2006/2007 that laid out a whole base case as to why a) there was a real estate bubble and b) why the bubble was so dangerous beyond real estate. Basically they nailed everything that was about to happen in Fall, 2008. And yet here is the kicker. Their conclusion was NOT that the western world was primed for a crash and worst recession since the 30s. But rather, it was "hey Allen Greenspan is a genius. He'll figure out". I think our side rightly despairs at how much the Trump administration is steering policy away from sound scientific/elite consensus (hello RFK Jr.!). But man sometimes its nice to have a reminder that being overly trusting of elite consensus or some "savior" figure has a long history.
As far as my own, "how do smart people not seen how dumb a plan this is" moment. I proudly spoke out against the Iraq War in 2003. Spoke at an anti-war rally. And one of my own reasons for being against the war was essentially "Has anyone put forward any plan for what happens next?" And it turns out, no, even elites were "high on their own supply" of hyper Patriotism "America, F*** yeah!" kind of rhetoric. Except for apparently Colin Powell (among those who had any real role to play in the administration. Remember "you break it, you own it?").
Which is maybe the other point, be vary weary especially right now regarding what "elites" are willing to say publicly vs. privately. Especially when it comes to markets/finance. Basically, assume anything a CEO or Hedge Fund manager says on TV is not what they're saying in private. Essentially, why would they be giving away their trade secrets? Also, given how much Trump has been willing to attack any private institution that doesn't kowtow to his supposed greatness, we really sure various finance figures on TV are really going to say anything to the effect of "we knew Trump's policies were dumb and now we're seeing the consequences?"
* sort of like how racism was sort of an "in the background" reason why a lot voters voted GOP for President since 1964, but with Trump the subtleness has just been stripped away. I will say one of my "half glass full" takes is that contra super leftists, I do genuinely think the number of no doubt about it bigots really has declined (see polling on interracial relationships for example). Unfortunately, the small but sizable number of bigots have a foothold with Trump they didn't have with people like Bush. But I do really think the majority of people by a sizable margin really aren't down for the 1950s style racism and I do think stuff like current polling on ICE actions is evidence for this.
The distinction between what they say in public vs. in private is important. I remember reading about JFK telling someone something like, "I don't care if you say bad things about me in public. Just don't say them in private."
Think it's really underrated how often various Dem House members and senators vote against their party with Dem leadership permission. Same dynamic on GOP side until Trump 2 since GOP politicians not retiring and not named Thomas Massie are scared to death to vote against Trump.
My point is, back in November, 2025, when the various Dem senators ended the shutdown, lots of Senators and House members went on TV to express frustration. And I know there was reporting that Schumer supposedly wasn't in favor of caving. But honestly, how many senators were behind the scenes supportive and told people like Angus King that in public they'll have to bash him but in private they were grateful?
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.
Plz refrain from calling them “Elite”. Call them by the more appropriate phrase, Predator Class.
When something grows fat by draining the life out of everything else, that's not superiority - it's parasitism. They are NOT the elite. They are The Predatory Class. They need us. Not only do we NOT need them, we do not thrive or even survive because of their parasitic nature.
I knew it would be bad - and worse than his first term. I knew the tarriffs were bad. But hey, I'm just a female California liberal - what do I know?!?!?! Wish I had know I could have bet against his success. (not really, but I would have advised it to anyone who would listen)
Reading this post brings to mind a thought that occasionally crosses my mind. If we were always eventually going to be faced with an authoritarian movement that we’d be required to fight off, isn’t Trump and MAGA the least worst one to materialize? He’s so incompetent at it. Someone with more savvy, more intelligence, less ham fisted and impatient, might have been harder to fight; he sometimes seems happy to undermine his own intentions. Add to that his age and increasing infirmity …
It’s a fleeting thought, one I don’t indulge very frequently simply because of the serious damage this one fool has already done.
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.
I was convinced that Trump 45 would tank the market over his 4 year term. I was right, but I left a lot of money by going conservative in the market.
And: when he finally did tank the market, the Fed started printing money and re-inflated it. At the cost of everyone *not* in the market seeing the value of their money drop markedly. I can’t see the weakening Fed allowing the markets to correct significantly.
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.
“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.
Man, I don't know what else to say except that every day you are more wrong than you were the day before.
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.
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!
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.
I think you underrate how much everything you described has been an issue for probably forever and only with Trump has it been taken to an almost absurdist degree*.
Funny anecdote in that regard. I very distinctly remember reading an Economist article circa 2006/2007 that laid out a whole base case as to why a) there was a real estate bubble and b) why the bubble was so dangerous beyond real estate. Basically they nailed everything that was about to happen in Fall, 2008. And yet here is the kicker. Their conclusion was NOT that the western world was primed for a crash and worst recession since the 30s. But rather, it was "hey Allen Greenspan is a genius. He'll figure out". I think our side rightly despairs at how much the Trump administration is steering policy away from sound scientific/elite consensus (hello RFK Jr.!). But man sometimes its nice to have a reminder that being overly trusting of elite consensus or some "savior" figure has a long history.
As far as my own, "how do smart people not seen how dumb a plan this is" moment. I proudly spoke out against the Iraq War in 2003. Spoke at an anti-war rally. And one of my own reasons for being against the war was essentially "Has anyone put forward any plan for what happens next?" And it turns out, no, even elites were "high on their own supply" of hyper Patriotism "America, F*** yeah!" kind of rhetoric. Except for apparently Colin Powell (among those who had any real role to play in the administration. Remember "you break it, you own it?").
Which is maybe the other point, be vary weary especially right now regarding what "elites" are willing to say publicly vs. privately. Especially when it comes to markets/finance. Basically, assume anything a CEO or Hedge Fund manager says on TV is not what they're saying in private. Essentially, why would they be giving away their trade secrets? Also, given how much Trump has been willing to attack any private institution that doesn't kowtow to his supposed greatness, we really sure various finance figures on TV are really going to say anything to the effect of "we knew Trump's policies were dumb and now we're seeing the consequences?"
* sort of like how racism was sort of an "in the background" reason why a lot voters voted GOP for President since 1964, but with Trump the subtleness has just been stripped away. I will say one of my "half glass full" takes is that contra super leftists, I do genuinely think the number of no doubt about it bigots really has declined (see polling on interracial relationships for example). Unfortunately, the small but sizable number of bigots have a foothold with Trump they didn't have with people like Bush. But I do really think the majority of people by a sizable margin really aren't down for the 1950s style racism and I do think stuff like current polling on ICE actions is evidence for this.
The distinction between what they say in public vs. in private is important. I remember reading about JFK telling someone something like, "I don't care if you say bad things about me in public. Just don't say them in private."
Think it's really underrated how often various Dem House members and senators vote against their party with Dem leadership permission. Same dynamic on GOP side until Trump 2 since GOP politicians not retiring and not named Thomas Massie are scared to death to vote against Trump.
My point is, back in November, 2025, when the various Dem senators ended the shutdown, lots of Senators and House members went on TV to express frustration. And I know there was reporting that Schumer supposedly wasn't in favor of caving. But honestly, how many senators were behind the scenes supportive and told people like Angus King that in public they'll have to bash him but in private they were grateful?
A+ Brian
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.
"Oh did you? Perhaps you should be fired, then."
Watch it, bub. It's not your job (as it is mine) to be funny. Which this is.
Plz refrain from calling them “Elite”. Call them by the more appropriate phrase, Predator Class.
When something grows fat by draining the life out of everything else, that's not superiority - it's parasitism. They are NOT the elite. They are The Predatory Class. They need us. Not only do we NOT need them, we do not thrive or even survive because of their parasitic nature.
I knew it would be bad - and worse than his first term. I knew the tarriffs were bad. But hey, I'm just a female California liberal - what do I know?!?!?! Wish I had know I could have bet against his success. (not really, but I would have advised it to anyone who would listen)
401k/403b stable value accounts have been pretty good for returns and great for sleeping at night.
Reading this post brings to mind a thought that occasionally crosses my mind. If we were always eventually going to be faced with an authoritarian movement that we’d be required to fight off, isn’t Trump and MAGA the least worst one to materialize? He’s so incompetent at it. Someone with more savvy, more intelligence, less ham fisted and impatient, might have been harder to fight; he sometimes seems happy to undermine his own intentions. Add to that his age and increasing infirmity …
It’s a fleeting thought, one I don’t indulge very frequently simply because of the serious damage this one fool has already done.
Shorting Musk may be the way to make bank as the AI bubble deflates.