We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Donald Trump channels his inner Leftist Well, he went ahead and did it. In a ceremony outside the White House, Donald Trump unveiled a list of tariffs on countries, on “friend and foe”, starting with a minimum of 10% (the UK, which is now outside the European Union, was hit with the 10% rate, while the EU was hit with double that amount). In general I see this as a bad day for the US and world economy for all the sort of reasons I have laid out.
This will not adjust the worldview of the red hat wearers, but I wonder has it ever occurred to Mr Trump’s fans that his arguments, when adjusted for a bit of rhetoric, are more or less leftist stuff from the 1990s?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The labels of right and left are increasingly meaningless. Giving a shit about the working class seems to be an almost entirely right wing phenomenon these days. However, the article does actually point out the red hat wearers are entirely correct to be suspicious of globalisation:
Too right. Of course the working and middle classes in the global north have been well aware of this for years. Stagnant wages, failing public services and great swathes of the nation looking like Karachi. No wonder we see growing “ethno-nationalist and anti-immigration components”. If a tariffed, protectionist world means lower immigration, then bring it on.
Even Theresa May spotted that:
Economists and libertarians tell us: “Tariffs will make you poorer”. Most people in the USA/UK would reply: “So no fucking change then?”
Why not get rid of the 10% tariff on US imports? Wouldn’t that make Mr Trump. and the entire UK population, happier? I’d personally feel a lot better buying US made goods than Chinese ones.
Economists and libertarians tell us: “Tariffs will make you poorer”.
Tariffs are taxes. If you tax something, you get less of it.
Also, tariffs are regressive taxes, so unless outweighed by other tax changes, the distributional impact is not great for those who are not well off.
Also, Marius, your point about the UK industrial base ignores how much of the damage was done as much by terrible industrial relations, crippling taxes and lack of investment, as the alleged harms of all those wily foreigners selling us cheap stuff.
The industrial heartlands of the UK boomed in the middle of the 19th century at a time when the UK had, with great controversy, moved towards free trade. Things started to go sour in the years immediately before WW1 and then further retreated in the protectionist upswing of the inter-war period. I don’t see the demise of UK manufacturing as being largely an issue caused by open trade. And to the extent we are committing follies now, it is more to do with Net Zero and things such as that.
Why not get rid of the 10% tariff on US imports? Wouldn’t that make Mr Trump. and the entire UK population, happier? I’d personally feel a lot better buying US made goods than Chinese ones.
Agreed. Even if it is not immediately reciprocated. The UK will still be better off, and unlike China, the US is somewhat less likely to steal UK intellectual property, although you never can be sure.
There were always right-wing critics of globalisation.
The left-wing critics of globalisation, at least outside of union workers who were understandably more concerned about protecting their members jobs, in the 1990s largely objected to the type of globalisation offered by the Washington Consensus, EU, NAFTA, WTO etc. They used to speak of alter-globalisation as being what they were for.
Right-wing critics of globalisation often saw globalisation as inherently suspicious as it has levelling, internationalist and universalistic tendencies at odds with national sovereignty and particularism.
I’d argue that the most pro free trade presidency in recent American history in terms of actions was Bill Clinton’s (contrary to his rhetoric Reagan’s policies were often very protectionist – see the high tariffs imposed on Japan in the 1980s) – NAFTA was established, WTO established, China invited into the WTO. Clinton’s presidency was also overall very left-wing.
You can argue the case that NAFTA, WTO and EU etc are not really ‘Free trade’, at least not like 19th century free trade. And I’d have some sympathy with that view. However, the Nafta, WTO, EU style free trade is all the establishment offers right now.
I suspect this is one area where Britain simply does not understand America.
In Britain, factory work was seen pretty much as the bottom of the barrel: badly paid and sometimes dangerous. Anyone who worked in a factory had one ambition: to get out. Or, if it was too late for him, he wanted his kids to get out. (I think of my late grandfather as I write those words. He worked in a factory for over fifty years, and was determined that my father and my uncle would not.) As a result, while it caused short-term disruption, there were few long-term protests when the factory jobs went overseas. Certainly, no major British political party is currently calling for protectionism.
By contrast, factory work in America paid decent money: a factory worker could reasonably expect to buy his own home and run a car. I’ve heard stories of people who actually liked working at the local General Motors’ plant, and looked forward to the day when their children would join them there. Only the children never did, because the plant closed and the jobs went overseas. Free-traders and globalists promised that those lost jobs would be replaced by better, higher-paying jobs, but that never happened and many communities were left devastated.
Although Trump has called them reciprical tariffs the chart linked to below show that the tariffs of many countries are higher than those that Trump is imposing:
https://voxday.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/image-2.png
Although Trump has called them reciprical tariffs the chart linked to below show that the tariffs of many countries are higher than those that Trump is imposing:
Because in his graciousness he has imposed a special discount, it’s pace and lead.
There is a perfectly simple first step which is offering to cease the barriers to entry (whatever they decide to call them) which countries have been imposing on imported US goods.
This rarely enters the discussion.
tariffs of many countries are higher than those that Trump is imposing:
I doubt the “including currency manipulation and trade barriers” part can be objective / accurately assessed… And that one screenshot does not show who and how did the assessing.
“A mindless stampede toward protectionism will be a one-way trip to economic disaster. That’s the lesson of the Smoot-Hawley tariff in 1930, which helped to trigger a worldwide trade war that spread, deepened, and prolonged the worst depression in history. And I know; I lived through that period. I’ve seen and felt the agony this nation endured because of that dreadful legislation. If we repeat that same mistake, we’ll pay a price again”
– President Ronald Reagan, September 17, 1985 press conference
He says that, then sticks 100pc tariffs on Japan.
While looking at a man’s rhetoric is fine, it’s more important to look at his actions.
During the speech President Trump denounced governments for currency manipulation – which means making their currencies artificially low in their exchange rate to the Dollar, promoting their exports to the United States and costing America industry-after-industry.
However, this implicitly accepts that having the fiat U.S. Dollar as the “world reserve currency” is a bad thing for America – something that President Trump has (at least implicitly) denied in the past.
So which is it? Is the “strong Dollar”, i.e. the absurdly high exchange rate of the Dollar, a good thing or a bad thing?
Given President Trump’s objective of bringing back manufacturing back to the United States, he should accept that having the fiat Dollar as the “world reserve currency” is a bad thing – and accept that the exchange rate of the Dollar should be radically lower.
If the Dollar had a more realistic exchange rate (i.e. a radically lower one) the tariffs would NOT be required to reduce imports – as the process would be automatic.
However, that would accept that American living standards are inflated – are no longer justified by American industrial productivity, not something that anyone in American politics is prepared to accept.
“Vote for me – and I will drastically reduce your consumption so that you live within your means” is not a popular election slogan.
Radu, I doubt the “including currency manipulation and trade barriers” part can be objective / accurately assessed… And that one screenshot does not show who and how did the assessing.
Quite. And Denmark-based economists Lars Christensen has these thoughts on how these tariffs are calculated:
The truth is, if you take ALL the customs rates and add them together with any assessments of undervalued currencies and ANY technical trade obstacles, you can’t, at all come up with “compound customs rates” of the order of magnitude that Trump presented yesterday.
You don’t have to have worked a lot with the international economy (I’ve been doing it for 30 years) to realize that. So something was obviously wrong.
And yes, they had just taken the US trade deficit over individual countries and divided it by imports. That’s a completely arbitrary number. That formula has NEVER ever been used in international economic theory and it says ZERO about the actual tariffs and obstacles to trade. In fact, it is by construction extremely harmful to the international division of labor.
Martin: yes, R Reagan was no purist, and his treatment of Japan was poor. And look how well that worked out for the US auto sector.
As for your more cultural point on the supposed “flattening” impact of open trade, and the supposed terrible phenomenon of a more common global culture, I will take that every day of the week to a more tribal, mutually suspicious, predatory model that Mr Trump – and many on the Left by the way – go in for. There has always been a mixing of culture and economics because of free trade. One of the most important effects of it is to spread ideas: about how to make and supply things, how to get different ways of working, etc. This point jumped out at me when I read the recent Silk Roads book by Peter Frankopan. In some ways, the world was highly globalized hundreds of years ago. As it was at the end of the 19th century, with steam ships, telegraphs, a gold standard, mass circulation newspapers, etc. Was there a cultural flattening then? To some extent – the wealthy were able to travel all over the place without a passport; it was also possible for the young and ambitious to seek their fortune and get on a ship to pastures new. Sounds good to me.
https://www.google.com/aclk?sa=l&ai=DChcSEwiQlcyX57uMAxUapFAGHaRiFZAYABAGGgJkZw&co=1&gclid=CjwKCAjw47i_BhBTEiwAaJfPpsaSuWKqMbCB0DnOp6uZZxYlQJcSm4tpC9s3Ybe-rn1KyhQ8UB61iBoC2PwQAvD_BwE&sig=AOD64_0R50x1x_O831_vIGA8ZEtCHKb0qA&ctype=5&q=&ved=2ahUKEwjQyMWX57uMAxWwVkEAHb_dMygQ9aACKAB6BAgHEBQ&adurl=
Tyler Cowen also has this useful insight about how culture and globalisation enrich each other, and counters this fear of “flattening” that some people fret about: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Praise-Commercial-Culture-Tyler-Cowen/dp/0674001885
It is also true that none of the countries that are now protesting have offered to reduce their barriers to American exports.
As President Trump asked in his speech – if freely allowing in exports is a good policy, why do other countries not follow this policy? Listing the burdens that American manufacturing exports face.
And it is not “just” American manufacturing exports.
Indeed, for example, the British government is pushing for more censorship – a policy clearly directed at American social media companies such as X and Gab.
Americans were told that they should move from manufacturing to services – but the export of services, such as social media, is being hit by the censorship policy of other governments – including the British government.
This is just as much “Protectionism” as a tariff on steel or cars.
“We want free access for Scots whiskey (and so on), but we also want to censor X and Gab and so on” is an untenable position.
Still a 10% tariff is half a 20% tariff – stand by for a lot more Irish whisky to be bottled at Bushmills in Northern Ireland.
Hopefully the “protocol” tying Northern Ireland to the European Union is going to be destroyed – remember that this same protocol (supported by both Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage – and rightly condemned by Ben Habib and Rupert Lowe) ties the rest of the United Kingdom to European Union law, for fear of “divergence” in law between English and Scots law and law in Northern Ireland.
Whilst the protocol remains in place, independence from the European Union (sometimes called “Brexit”) is an illusion.
As far as I’m aware Japanese car companies set up plants in America to manufacture cars for the US market there. Seems like an acceptable outcome for both parties.
As for whether income tax or a tariff does the more harm – another question President Trump raised in his speech.
Well even the arch free trader John Bright, hardly a “leftist” Johnathan Pearce, was horrified that “free trade” was used as an excuse to introduce an Income Tax (with all its horrible economic and Civil Liberties implications) in Britain. And President Trump was quite correct to denounce the 1913 start of the Federal Income Tax – this, along with the creation of the Federal Reserve system (that massive, and despicable, fraud) makes 1913 one of the worst years in American history.
Where President Trump is WRONG, Johnathan Pearce, is his refusal to deal the the entitlement programs that have exploded Federal Government spending.
In 1912 Federal Government spending was very low – it was easy to finance it by a tariff, today the “Entitlements” (the unconstitutional Entitlements) have made this impossible.
Yet President refused, in his speech, to cut “Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid”.
If one excludes consideration of these programs – then balancing the budget is not possible.
I am reminded of the “Reform” Party in British local government – they refuse to accept that most money goes on Adult Social Care and Children’s Social Care – and, instead, pretend that the money goes on big salaries for councilors and others – in reality a drop in the ocean in terms of the budget.
Telling people they can have no real cuts in services and low taxes – if only the “greedy” people are removed.
It is totally false.
https://x.com/zerohedge/status/1897298757584388224
The claims that such retaliation is irrational or against national interests or suboptimal or driven by politics or public relations do not fully answer the question, in my opinion.
Yes Donald Trump is in many ways a 1990s Democrat. If you look at both Trump’s rhetoric and his actions on crime, immigration, the border, shrinking government bureaucracy, deportations, judicial activism, cutting regulations, law and order, etc he is quite similar to what Bill Clinton said and did.
Stock market is down today so we know the tariffs are bad policy.
People who use metrics other than stock market number up to judge the merit of policies are troglodytes and economically illiterate.
The American working class wants more jobs, higher pay, better benefits, and more stable employment. But the experts know better. The experts are never wrong about anything so why would we start doubting them now
As usual, you are overlooking the JOBS benefits. The working class is in desperate need for more jobs, especially in manufacturing and factories. We need a lot more jobs for the poor and working class. The tariffs will help a bit with that.
And that is NOT a benefit for the rich.
By only looking at tariffs only as simply a tax, you are not seeing the big picture and you are not taking into account the full comprehensive effects of this tariff policy. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
I think Trump was a Democrat in the 90s, and his opinions haven’t changed much since then. Reagan when he was president would say he was pretty much the same as a Kennedy Democrat. Must was a Democrat like 2 years ago.
I see Trump as our last best hope for the USA to avoid becoming just another Germany – a socialist EU member with no freedoms, 50% immigrants, no lights or power, and a spiraling-down standard of living.
Accepting Trump in that role, I think it stupid to then micromanage him. If small cost-free steps could have fixed things in this world, the Tories might still be a viable group in the UK.
The USA has gotten itself into a very bad place. We can get out, but I doubt we can get out cheaply. What I see today are the chickensh*t fake conservatives who were gung-ho on fixing the country up until yesterday, but who are now outraged that they might be expected to bear some of the cost.
Yes, tariffs cost money. So does war. This is basically war, not a simple act of tax policy.
“Oh, no, if we drop that bomb, it will cost us the price of that bomb! How will we profit from this war if we do that! Can’t we just shake our fists at them?”
No.
@Shlomo Maistre
The anti-global-warming and anti-covid policies we’ve seen show that national leaders are completely capable of embracing irrational and enormously destructive policies.
You are saying that harming the economy a bit, hurting people’s 401ks, hurting GDP growth, hurting Wall Street, hurting stock market growth, disregarding Ricardo’s comparative advantage, reducing BlackRock’s precious profit margins are *WORTH DOING* to create more stable middle class jobs for the working class in manufacturing and in factories to help with family formation, reduce deaths of despair, reduce drug addiction epidemic, increase marriage rates, reduce unemployment, give working class men more purpose and mission in life, give Americans more stable job opportunities that do not require going hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt by attending college, give young men more paths to stable employment without attending university??
But don’t you know that GDP number up is not only the best metric but also the only metric for judging the merit of policies? What are you, a savage ignoramus? Don’t you know that GDP number up is all that matters?
Yes absolutely true. Also the pro-globalization crowd embracing devastating policies show that national leaders are capable of embracing enormously destructive policies, as well.
But who cares about destroying the American middle class if the stock market number goes up? That is all that matters, you economically illiterate troglodyte!!! Have you even read David Ricardo’s writings on comparative advantage? Sheesh.
“What are you, a savage ignoramus?”
According to my passive-income/investment-income friends today, I must be. The midwit big-money class is outraged!
Paul Marks: Yes, John Bright and others around the Anti-Corn Law League campaign were not happy about Peel’s restoration of the income tax, first introduced by Pitt II. Of course, back in Sir Robert Peel’s time, the UK state took a small slice of total economic turnover. The biggest spending item was, I think, the Royal Navy.
Shlomo: the 1990s Democrats were fairly pro-free trade – at least the likes of Clinton and Gore were. Clinton’s Treasury Secretary and deputy, Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, were both fairly solid on that topic, and I interviewed both men in my time as a financial journalist. This was the post-Berlin Wall period, when free trade was seen as the orthodoxy of the time.
You think that ordinary American workers will be unmoved by falling stocks and so on. Well, maybe. Rising inflation, fewer choices of supply and so on might start to wake them up a bit. And remember, stocks are ultimately driven by expected future earnings. Bear in mind that US companies factor in foreign costs as part of their business. The world is very inter-connected. Unless the US reverts to autarky and insanity, that is not going to go away.
The working class is in desperate need for more jobs, especially in manufacturing and factories. We need a lot more jobs for the poor and working class. The tariffs will help a bit with that.
How to explain, then, that there is already relatively low unemployment in the US? There is, as the broadcaster Mike Rowe has explained, a shortage of people to work in occupations such as heating engineers, plumbers, industrial welders, lab technicians. There is a problem with an under-supply of folk in technical and vocational skills, and an oversupply of arts graduates. If the manufacturing and related sector was in such trouble, that would not be the case.
The whole idea that the US needs these tariffs to protect manufacturing is based, in large part, on nonsense.
Holy moly, do you seriously believe those numbers? Are you kidding me? I know you and I have our disagreements on certain subjects, but I genuinely thought that you would know those numbers are completely fake and have been fake for decades. Even just looking at how they calculate the labor force participation rate is preposterous to the point of hilarity.
Next you are going to say you believe the inflation data are accurate too?? YIKES
I was just responding to your claim “This will not adjust the worldview of the red hat wearers, but I wonder has it ever occurred to Mr Trump’s fans that his arguments, when adjusted for a bit of rhetoric, are more or less leftist stuff from the 1990s?” Most Trump supporters including myself are, in fact, very much aware that Trump is on many political issues not much different from a 1990s Democrat.
Shlomo, as Paul Marks will back me up, official data tends to understate inflation, not the other way around .
If the figures start to show that tariffs are pushing up prices and squeezing real incomes, I would bet that the reality is even worse.
Yes official data significantly (perhaps even MASSIVELY) understate both unemployment and inflation. I have little doubt that there will be significant price increases as a consequence of Trump’s tariffs. What’s your point?
If I were generous, I would say that the premise of the OP is naïve. It seems to me that Mr Trump is simply saying to the World that the USA has been screwed over on tariffs for far too long and he is working at parity. If you drop your tariffs on US goods, he will drop the US’s tariffs on your goods, reciprocal tariffs.
From the OP:
Since the figures that Mr Trump is using show that the EU charges a 39% tariff on imports from the USA (I assume that this is weighted) and the OP makes no condemnation of that policy of the EU, one might be driven to wonder whether this is simply a mild case of TDS.
After all, not only are Trump’s tariffs on the EU lower than the EU’s on the USA, they might push the EU to lower tariffs, and when the EU does so, on that chilly day in a proverbially warm place, and it is reciprocated, the wonders of comparative advantage will become more manifest.
As of now, all that the USA has done is to call out those who have been putting in place tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and say ‘Game on’. And there is talk of abolishing the Federal Income Tax. What’s wrong with that?
The large majority of the laptop class has FOR DECADES been heaping scorn and opprobrium upon the very notion that maybe USA should enact tariffs on foreign products in return for the tariffs (and other forms of taxes) foreign countries have enacted against American products. The majority of the laptop class loves to heap opprobrium on USA for implementing tariffs but hardly ever raises even a single word of objection about the tariffs other countries have enacted against American products for many decades.
This pattern of behavior has been going on for decades long before Trump came down the escalator in 2015. So I don’t think it’s evidence of TDS.
This has simply been an embedded feature of the culture of the globalist managerial class for many decades throughout the western world.
“I wonder has it ever occurred to Mr Trump’s fans that his arguments, when adjusted for a bit of rhetoric, are more or less leftist stuff from the 1990s?”
Well, Mr. Trump’s base is the blue-collar left, so it all fits.
I think this is probably the first time that most americans will realise how much the USA was walking the walk of lower trade barriers and lower tarriffs, whilst letting other countries eg EU, China, Brazil, talk the talk of free trade but impose tarriffs against the USA.
Noticeably, not single person is denying that the USA has been facing persisently higher tarriffs than they have been levying.
The big bad orange man is simply walking the walk of his critics in foreign governments.
As far as the UK is concerned, it should go full unilateral free trade. Successive neo-liberals false pietys have already destroyed everything there is to destroy.
Yes thats how Trump won the 2015 GOP primary contests against other Republicans is by winning the votes of the “blue-collar left” lol. That is how Trump won the Republican nomination for POTUS back in 2015/2016 – by appealing to the “blue collar left” lmao
Well, folks, the stock market is down today. Now we know it is a wrong-headed counterproductive policy
“Yes thats how Trump won the 2015 GOP primary contests against other Republicans is by winning the votes of the “blue-collar left” lol.”
Well, phrased slightly differently, that’s what he sorta did. He won by attracting much of the blue-collar vote – which has for eons been Democrat – to his side.
He really did upend the traditional party distinctions. I know lots of rural “traditional Democrat” voters who are now solidly Trump voters.
(Not so much “Republican voters”, so I’m not sure if this movement survives his exit from politics.)
“blue collar vote” and “blue-collar left” are not the same thing. Trump won many closed Republican primaries where only Republicans could vote. So what he said is retarded. But yes, Trump did upend traditional party distinctions – and thank god for that.
https://x.com/realmattforney/status/1907604914680786972
https://x.com/realmattforney/status/1907853060250227186
The lolberts are the lolbertarians
The point is that those who thought Trump will cut inflation are going to be disappointed. At which point the idea that his mercantilism is a good idea will be discredited.
You claim my point about job shortages for certain occupations is nonsense. Well, I’ve seen this from several https://ever-roll.com/where-have-all-the-welders-gone-a-look-at-welder-shortage-in-the-us/#:~:text=By%20the%20year%202020%2C%20the,trade%20jobs%20in%20recent%20years.
Since all you offer is blustering indignation I’ll treat your reply accordingly.
The idea that America doesn’t have worked for those in skilled trades is bunk. And tariffs are unlikely to help. In fact, by raising input costs, this will worsen the situation.
So why do you think American factory workers were happy and relatively well off and British ones weren’t? Without explaining that difference, the argument falls flat, I should have thought.
I’ve referred to the EU before and its Customs Union in my previous post.
I’m against all tariffs. Period.
Send a nurse!
That is how Trump won the Republican nomination for POTUS back in 2015/2016 – by appealing to the ‘blue collar left’”
Yes, it is. That’s exactly what happened. Where else did his support in the 2016 Republican primary come from? There are four main factions in the Republican coalition. Which one did Trump carry in the 2016 primary?
Not the Christian conservatives. Their primary issues are opposition to abortion and gay marriage. Not only had Trump been a pro-abortion Democrat his entire adult life, in all probability he personally paid for one or more abortions back in his philandering days. No, the Christian conservatives supported #1 Ted Cruz and #2 Ben Carson.
Not the national security conservatives. Their primary goals are a strong national defense and an aggressive foreign policy. Even in 2016 Trump was threatening to dissolve NATO and the Asian alliance. No, the national security conservatives supported #1 Ted Cruz and #2 Marco Rubio.
Not the business conservatives. Their primary aims are tax cuts and reductions in business regulations. They would seem to be a natural ally for him, but instead Trump was calling them out personally and ridiculing them as “establishment Republicans.” No, the business conservatives supported #1 John Kasich and #2 Jeb Bush.
Certainly not the libertarians. The libertarians are the only faction of the Republican coalition openly in favor of open borders. No, the libertarians supported #1 Rand Paul and #2 Carly Fiorina.
No, none of the major Republican factions supported Trump in the primary, though most did in the general because Hillary was so awful. He won by pulling in a large block of voters from outside the party while the existing coalitions were split in their support among a large number of candidates.
During the first Trump administration, Trump may have been at the top, but the party apparatus was still controlled by members of the original four factions. Trump spent much of the four years between terms purging party higher-ups of people insufficiently loyal (not just to himself but to his base). As a result his second administration is governing much more toward his base.
Severing alliances and erecting trade barriers are natural outcomes of that.
“Factory work” is not the same category as “skilled trades.” Welders have their pick of jobs. Unskilled people who are trainable to put a windshield on a new car or run a polishing barrel are a huge category, who now have no such employment prospect.
No, but I think it is proper to say that Trump converted much of the “blue collar left” into the “blue collar right.”
So I think you two are agreeing on principles but not on words.
mkent appears to believe that the majority of registered Republicans as of 2015 were “blue collar left”. It is truly amazing how deluded some people are about Trump.
Absolutely true, but that came later.
I am talking about 2015 Republican Nomination when Trump fought against the entire Republican Party apparatus in the primaries across the country state-by-state to become the GOP Nominee for POTUS in 2015/2016. Trump did not win that Republican nomination thanks to “the blue collar left” and anyone who knows even rudimentary facts about American politics knows that would be impossible.
At that time the blue collar left was mostly voting for Bernie Sanders in the Democrat Primaries against Hillary Clinton.
Ah, yes. “alliances” whereby we pay for a foreign country’s national defense, send them billions dollars of foreign aid, economic aid, military aid, finance their broken countries through World Bank, United Nations, IMF, etc, protect their trade routes with our incredible navy, bring in millions of their felons, criminals, and bad hombres, give these illegal aliens free healthcare, free housing, free food, and welfare, import zillions of dollars worth of their goods and products and services from these allies with basically zero tariffs, and try to sell American products that face massive tariffs and other taxes and restrictions when we try and sell into their markets hurting our exports and harming our domestic manufacturing.
Man, with allies like these…
https://medium.com/@pauljoeypowers/how-companies-can-navigate-tariffs-with-ai-powered-part-search-b59cba412032
https://x.com/PaulJoeyPowers/status/1897680637164666886
some interesting takes from the legacy media, apparently Mr Trump has destroyed the stock market when actually it is where is was mid-March, and whilst railing at Mr Trump for destroying British industry it ignores Mr Pooh and Mr Modi currently wrecking our steel manufacturing.
Shlomo, if components available overseas are cheaper in the US, why would firms that seek to increase profits not use them? What explanation for such refusal to buy home-grown stuff is there, unless the materials are less well made (possible), have terms and conditions that are not explained (maybe), etc?
Meanwhile, in the actual real world (Wall Street Journal, April 3): https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-tariffs-disturbance-markets-trade-243b36ef?mod=wsj_furtherreading_pos_3
Worse is the bizarre, slapdash way the White House calculated the tariff rates on individual countries. Everyone will pay 10%. Then the White House appears to have calculated each country’s additional tariff rate by dividing its trade deficit with the U.S. by its exports to the U.S. This rate was then cut in half for most countries, which Mr. Trump calls a “discount.” The discordant result is that U.S. adversaries like Iran (10%) and Venezuela (15%) will pay lower rates than friends in Europe (20%), Japan (24%) and Taiwan (32%).
mkent: an excellent summary of where the Republicans are and what has happened. It will be interesting to see what happens to that coalition, and indeed if or when the Democrats can get their heads straight, ditch the woke bullshit and focus on what most ordinary voters want.
The stock market fell by the most yesterday since when markets were shut because of Covid. That’s a lot of retirement portfolios. But according to the MAGA folk, only very rich people own stocks so the great mass of the public are unaffected.
By the way, here are a couple of other stories about the shortage of workers for manufacturing and construction jobs, which also shows how this “foreigners are taking all our jobs” trope is built on a total misreading of the facts. The problem is a lack of skills, including in STEM subjects, and a deranged education system. It is not the fault of free trade.
https://hrforecast.com/the-stem-skills-gap-a-growing-challenge-for-countries-to-overcome/
https://www.ecisolutions.com/blog/manufacturing/manufacturing-jobs-deficit-which-us-states-are-struggling-the-most/
If you do a few Google searches, there are scores of stories such as this. I cannot vouch for the statistical credibility of them all, and there biases to bear in mind, but if it really was true that there are millions of ordinary Americans absolutely dying to work in a factory or building site, rather than in a service/high-tech job instead, I think we’d see that in the labour market.
There is a probably going to have to be a big change in the US higher education/college/education system to acomodate the impact of a re-shoring of manufacturing, assuming that is what happens on a large scale.
Increasingly, I see the rise of rightwing nationalism and economic collectivism, at least on issues such as this, as a menace every bit as large as some of the nonsense on the Left that I usually have written about over the past 20 years. I kick myself for not paying it closer attention.
It is too early to judge the eventual impact of these new tariffs. A booming USA remains a possible outcome. However, as I recall, the EU was set up with tariff walls on the borders as a key feature, and it has not been a great success. Trump’s actions may yet lead to tariff reductions around the world.
Yes, there is an enormous skills shortage in key things. If you have a useful skill set you can (this is in England, anyway) work when you fancy. I actually have an NHS dentist and hygienist. Praise the God of Teeth! Getting hold of an electrician is like getting an audience with The Pope. Getting hold of a plumber (especially a CORGI one) is like meeting God. I suspect the same applies to skilled manufacturing jobs. This re-shoring will take a lot of time to put right. I don’t think Trump understands the complexities and time-scales involved. When you lose an industry that does anything even vaguely complicated and the whole eco-system of sub-contractors and parts makers that goes with it then it is incredibly difficult to get back.
Furthermore… How well does Trump really understand business in general? I have often wondered this and after his “plan” to turn Gaza into a country club I really do wonder. Digging the sand-traps on the golf course will be “interesting” considering the Hamas Subway and the sheer quantity of UXO…
Tariffs are taxes.
If Trump uses tariff income to reduce income tax rates (and the deficit) – then I think it is an experiment worth trying.
Another effect might be the reduction of other countries’ tariffs – which is also desirable.
If Trump uses tariff income to reduce income tax rates (and the deficit) – then I think it is an experiment worth trying. Another effect might be the reduction of other countries’ tariffs – which is also desirable.
Any offsetting tax cuts to mitigate the damage the hikes will cause would be a good idea, although the distributional impact means different people benefit/suffer from whichever way the tax jigsaw puzzle is assembled.
It would be a grave error for the EU and others to retaliate, but the political pressures on countries to stand up to Trump and his madness are considerable. Unfortunately, I see the global economic pie contracting. Bad times ahead.
NickM: I agree that Trump seems to operate under the illusion that there are millions of Americans who are ready to get away from their PCs and put on a set of overalls, and make sneakers, car parts and fridges instead of letting them be made by Vietnamese women, etc.
There will need to be specific increases in those with skills to run chip fab plants, shipyards, etc. A less confrontational, foolish POTUS would in fact get engineers from around the world, in friendly countries, to help out. Maybe some of that will happen.
Another, even more fundamental issue is the disaster of US primary and secondary education, with issues around maths and reading. That’s a topic for another day. I haven’t seen much from the Trump administration on this topic.
I haven’t seen much from the Trump administration on this topic.>/i>
Doing away with the centralised control exercised by the DoE and allowing greater input by individual states will be a significant change. My American niece, who has taught for nearly 20 years in both the public and private systems, has provided me with first-hand insight into the kafkaesque structure, lack of discipline and mind-numbingly low standards of the former.
Only time, and the inevitable intervention of federal district judges, will tell if it improves standards but at least he’s trying something different.
Apologies for my lousy formatting.
Unless Congress passes massive tax cuts immediately, or at least on a timescale on par with the economic impacts of the new tariffs, there will be no boom. There will be a YUGE recession and the Republicans will lose the Congress and most of what Trump has done will be undone. Without the tax cuts, all Trump can do is back down to any country threatening retaliation. Assuming he wants to avoid losing everything he’s gained.
So, I’m very confused, since Trump said as much in recent weeks, why are we not reading about the tax cut push? Everyone should be talking about it: Trump, R leaders, D opposition, talking heads, and bloggers!
Is this discussion, and political push, happening and I missed it?
And if it’s not happening, who is to blame? The Stupid Party’s leaders no doubt.
I gotta say, Johnathan has been consistently against tariffs in any direction and between any countries for about as long as I remember seeing his posts. He shouldn’t have to caveat every post about new tariffs with “and of course, obviously, for the 18 hundredth time, I’m against existing tariffs” – that would just be tiresome for him to add and for us to read.
1. Theory and reality are different things.
2. Some CEOs and their underlings are stupid, lazy, or both.
3. Some CEOs do not want to upset the apple cart and do not want to disturb the status quo.
4. Many commercial/supplier relationships are built up over many years and personal relationships are formed around them.
5. The tariffs may serve as just the kick in the pants needed to aggressively search for alternative suppliers that may in some cases turn out to be cheaper, come with better terms and conditions, and be of higher quality as well.
6. In economics, “friction” refers to anything that impedes market activity, preventing markets from functioning as efficiently as predicted by economic theory. One example of friction is IMPERFECT INFORMATION.
7. Not every CEO is Hank Rearden
FWIW, BobbyB hits it on the head. We are not in business as usual, the west is collapsing on its own decadence, on its loose money, and massive government spending, and desperately needs to be shaking up before it dies and we all have to learn to speak Mandarin.
Under normal economic circumstances tariffs are a terrible idea. Under normal circumstances trench warfare in Ukraine is a terrible idea too. But we are right at the end of a collapse of the Western system. The USA has 38 trillion dollars in debt and another 100 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities.
All over the web I see people bitching about Elon’s supposed cuts to Social Security “I’ve been paying in since I was 18, so it is MY money” they say, without realizing that the evil bastards in Washington STOLE it all already.
What does that have to do with tariffs? It is all part of a final rescue package for the USA, and in rescuing the USA rescuing the rest of the west too. Rescuing them from their own folly.
In a war you destroy things and kill people in the hope that the massive short term losses will result in massively compensating long term gains. I don’t think trade imbalance is a bad thing, but what I do think is that massively unfair trade regimes are a bad idea and in almost all cases the United States has gotten the short end of the stick.
Remember that those barriers to entry that the EU or Australia or Brazil puts up are damaging to Europeans and Australians and Brazilians. The purpose of a war, whether military or trade, is to trade short term pain for a resolution where the bad stuff is replaced by a better world. If reciprocal tariffs force down tariffs overall then that is good for everyone. If foreign governments retaliate…. they will not win against Trump. He is merciless, relentless, and is looking for someone to make an example of. So it seems to me the only option is to reduce tariffs bilaterally, and open up freer trade. It is notable that the day after this is already happening. Israel, for example, has dropped all tariffs with the US and India is considering following suit.
So, if you look only on the surface it is about increased tariffs, but Trump is a deal maker. And I think it is ultimately about lowering international tariffs.
There are two other matters relating to tariffs to consider, both related to onshoring, namely defense and jobs and both are non trivial.
Regarding defense, I think a lot of people were pretty scared after what covid revealed about our vulnerability. As I said before, we could have the F-35 and the Ford class aircraft carrier manufactured in China much cheaper than here. But presumably it is obvious why that is a bad idea. And many of the same reasoning apply to a desire to have, for example, antibiotics manufactured domestically, or at least in a friendly country.
As to jobs — in a pure economy tariffs are not relevant to jobs. But in an economy with a massive welfare state, allowing jobs to offshore is a very significant direct strain on the economy. And in a country where most people don’t have a clue what tariffs are the political consequences to onshoring jobs is dramatically important to allowing the political capital to keep the MAGA rescue of the west alive. FWIW, I think it is very vulnerable, and I think the survival of the West will largely be determined in November 2026.
Or to summarize — we in the west are totally fucked. I have been convinced that the west would collapse in my lifetime. There is maybe one hope of rescue, and MAGA is it, and not just for the USA but for the whole west. Will I work? I don’t know, but it has a non zero chance of working. If your boat is sinking you might as well try to swim ashore even with the sharks in the water, because some chance is better than none.
There are a few things Trump is doing that make me queasy, and tariffs are certainly one of them. But really, the alternative is that the west continues to circle the drain. And maybe a trade war is sufficient to bring about a world with much freer trade.
Yeah, please, let’s get the federal government more involved in this!
One of Trump’s most important efforts is the ending of the federal woke-education department, which had been empowered to order schools across the country to devote effort and money and time to areas apart from reading, writing and math. With their demise, we should see better student performance in such areas.
But – Trump is ignoring the issue? Where are the libertarians here?
MAGA folks are not saying that “only very rich people own stocks”. More strawmen arguments. The fact is that a higher percentage of the wealth of the very rich is tied up in the stock market, while the middle class and the poor have a higher percentage of their wealth tied up in their house and other hard assets.
The tariffs may increase consumer prices, increase wages, and lower stock market value. For the super rich all three of these effects are very negative, which is why the mass media is hysterically shrieking about the tariffs. On the other hand, the poor and the working class and the middle class benefit from increase in wages, benefit from more job opportunities, and are largely unaffected by lower stock market value because a higher percentage of their assets are tied up in real hard assets like houses and cars. The consumer price increases will hurt the poor and working classes but this may be more than compensated for by more jobs, higher wages, and better job security (things the super rich who own the vast majority of the stock market do not care about).
Then there are, of course, the tremendous social and cultural benefits of having higher wages, more jobs, more industry, more domestic manufacturing, and better job security – especially for young men. The tariffs will likely help with family formation, reduce deaths of despair, reduce drug addiction epidemic, increase marriage rates, reduce unemployment, give working class men more purpose and mission in life, give Americans more stable job opportunities that do not require going hundreds of thousands of dollars into debt by attending college, give young men more paths to stable employment without attending university etc. I realize these are not “GDP number go up” so certain folks ignore these considerations, but they are likely positive and very favorable knock-on effects of the tariffs and more reason why some of the economically illiterate troglodytes like myself support Trump’s tariffs.
errr…the actual libertarians are screaming their heads off about the anti-DEI measures, Bob.
Lmao, I know I’m not exactly toeing the line here anyway, and I’m not exactly popular here, but, you’ve got to understand: most bigotries over the past couple of hundred years are a result of, or have been supported by, the state, whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, homophobia or transphobia, or any other ridiculous notion that has been criminalised. Depending on how old you are, some of these are within your living memory.
I ain’t about to totally and unconditionally support government measures to ameliorate some of the brutal shit they did in the past 40 or 50 years to minorities, by any means, but I’m not about to cry over them either. I’m not old (as such), but I recall when it was illegal to teach that, say, a same sex relationship was okay.
This was a holdover from the slightly older pushing of (very anti-libertarian laws) from previous eras, so I’m not about to get agitated when laws are made to ameliorate that effect. This is basically how it works – the government pushes first order (negative) effects, and then is forced into, bottom up, second order (positive) effects.
We should cheer on (however tentatively) the second order effects – and these are many and varied, but include, for instance, welfare – whilst strongly condemning the first order effects that render the second order effects necessary.
Another, even more fundamental issue is the disaster of US primary and secondary education, with issues around maths and reading. That’s a topic for another day. I haven’t seen much from the Trump administration on this topic.
How can you say that? Trump has done 100% of what the federal government should do — namely getting its nose out of what is an entirely local issue. He has shut down (de facto if not de jure) the Department of Education, something every Republican congress has promised to do since Carter first started that abomination. The federal government should have no role whatsoever in education — and it now largely does not. Moreover he has advocated from his bully pulpit for school choice, which is absolutely the right solution to this problem. In Florida they have almost fully implemented this and Florida now has the best performing schools in the country. He has the head of the school teachers’ union in the United States utterly flabbergasted and defeated. The Trump administration in two months has done more to improve education at the federal level than any Republican administration or congress in the history of the country. And that is only 5% of what he has been working on. And I haven’t even mentioned the tsunami flooding through the tertiary education system. Or what he is doing for girls sports, or a thousand other things. I mean wtf would have thought just six months ago that the NCAA would exclude trans athletes from women’s sports? Not me.
I understand that you are not a fan of Trump on the tariff thing and the Ukraine war thing. Those complaints I certainly understand and am sympathetic to. But I mean credit where credit is due. He is the first “small government republican” to actually have to balls to actually shut down parts of the bloated state since Nixon.
(Regarding Florida, I say “almost fully” because they did not actually shut down the public school system and replace it with a government voucher to pay for schools. But they have taken it as far as is really possible in today’s political environment.)
You Brits might not see it since it is so heavily filtered in the press — I know from what my generally pretty politically engaged family says that Britain is not getting the full story. But what is happening in the USA right now is nothing short of a revolution, and the Redcoats have been left utterly confused and flatfooted.
I have never been a big Trump fan, though I am an Elon fanboy. But what is happening here is utterly jaw dropping.
1). Well, I like you, but that’s not always a great rec here. 😉
2). Have to disagree with you mightily on the DEI thing.
First, what libertarian looks to government to solve long-standing tribal hatred?
Second (and more importantly) – DEI is entirely misguided. You cannot attack this real problem – when you hate a group forever, that group is going to be absent in the wealth and power circles even after the hate subsides – with a top-down approach.
I doubt that you will find any government law, rule, reg, or office attitude that says “don’t hire blacks, gays, muslims, etc.” We are past that. What’s left – and it is real – is the dying attitudes that originally inspired those laws.
And they are dying attitudes, for the most part. What remains is mostly found in old folks – and we’re going to die soon anyway.
And that is how societal attitudes change – by dying off. Not by laws or rules. Pass a law that says “you cannot think badly of purple-haired people”, and a huge part of society will discover their hatred for purple-haired people.
DEI was born out of Obama’s approach to race relations – which he set back decades, IMHO.
I went to law school in the strong throes of Affirmative Action. We had a large contingent of black students in our first year who were admitted specifically because they were black.
Mostly nice, smart, engaged people.
But they lacked so much education – not their fault, but they did – that, by third year, all but two were gone. Couldn’t do the work. Couldn’t write. Couldn’t formulate a decent structured argument.
It wasn’t intelligence or ability – it was foundational education. And it ruined the dreams of quite a few decent people who ended up trashed by it.
We cannot use DEI to hire people who have never had a foundational education that prepares them for higher learning and structure.
We have to start with the basics. Education has to be excellent for all. That has to be the sine qua non of this entire effort. If you don’t have that, you’ll never have true “diversity.”
DEI attacks a symptom, in a way that leaves the underlying disease even worse, because it causes an attitude in society that treats all “non-mainstream” job-holders as objects of charity.
I think I’m the only one here who dislikes you – and that’s mainly because of your COVID horribleness. On the other hand, I am disliked by lots and lots of people here. Have you seen the impressive series of smears I have collected?
“Trump has done 100% of what the federal government should do – namely getting its nose out of what is an entirely local issue. He has shut down (de facto if not de jure) the Department of Education…”
Exactly. As a Canadian, I never understood the point of a federal-level department of education. We don’t have one in Canada because, like the US, that power rests with the provinces constitutionally. Our last PM, scion of the Trudeau line, flirted with a number of issues that were the constitutionally the preserve of the provinces but he had rien à dire on the matter of education.
When I was living in London, I was fascinated by threats of national strikes in the fire services that involved the UK PM. That just wouldn’t happen in Canada or the US, where fire services/departments are essentially municipal concerns and HR issues are resolved at that level.
“big salaries for councillors”? Pah! When I was a paid councillor, my base pay was £8k for about a 40-hour week, topping out at £11k at the end. I would have been better off signing on.
Yes, there is an enormous skills shortage in key things. If you have a useful skill set you can (this is in England, anyway) work when you fancy.
I call bollox on that. I’m a skilled software developer, the only thing I can get people to pay me to do from literally thousands of job applications is delivering ****ing parcels. Apparently, the fact the parcels have computers in them makes it “IT” and software engineering is “IT”, so “why are you complaining?” I conclude that software development is *not* a “useful skill set”.
I agree on this. I’m not sure how it works in the US, but in the UK, it’s illegal to hire based on any characteristic. Not only can you not hire people just because they’re white and all the other candidates weren’t, but the same is true in the other direction – you cannot hire someone because they’re (eg) Indian. “Quotas” are illegal. Note: not to say that they don’t create perverse incentives, and it’s of course bloody difficult to prove one way or the other, but when I was trained to recruit (on a proper 3-day “this is how you recruit” course), it was absolutely drummed into us that you hire on merit, not on anything else. Ignoring the legality, since legality doesn’t necessarily mean much to me, it’s also hugely immoral.
But DEI isn’t just about filling quotas – it’s also about things like recognising that people from different backgrounds are going to have different perspectives, and how to navigate that. It’s about things like disability accommodations (if I have a candidate who is wheelchair bound, but clearly the best candidate for the desk job I’m recruiting, and I work on the first floor – uuh, second floor for you Yanks – do we have a lift/elevator? If not, can they be seated on the ground floor? How do we think about that and make it work, rather than just binning them off?). It’s about how to talk to people who are neurodivergent; it’s about how to deal with PTSD in veterans. It’s about how to help the elderly navigate in a technology-heavy world – all of which might need some “official” training. Like, “treating people equally” is a worthy goal, but “treating people equitably” is better – if someone is in a wheelchair, no-one sensible would think they are as capable in a fire emergency as someone who isn’t, and they have to be given extra help.
If all that had happened was that they’d stopped Affirmative Action, I’d probably be happy about it (if nothing else, it would hopefully stop the incels from yelping “she’s an affirmative action hire lol” at any woman they don’t like, and the racists from doing the same to black/brown people); it’s the incredibly broad application of “we’re stopping DEI” that aggravates me, since it has the effect of harming an awful lot of people who in any way deviate from the perceived “norm”.
I agree with what Fraser Orr said (April 4 6:38). The West is screwed. What Trump is doing may not turn things around, it may be unfixable. But continuing on the ‘steady as she goes’ trajectory only means its a question of when the West collapses not if.
Not true. The 2010 Equality act specifically allows employers to take positive action to favour certain people with ‘protected characteristics’ if they are under-represented in the workforce.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/positive-action-in-the-workplace-guidance-for-employers/positive-action-in-the-workplace
This has allowed government bodies and large companies to basically discriminate against white men. As shown by the case of the RAF which was using just such a scheme to try and get more non-white non-male fast jet pilots, but so egregiously overstepped the mark that it was found to have broken the law and was forced to pay compensation to white male candidates that had been illegally overlooked for recruitment.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66060490
Similar behaviour that is not so overt (or does not benefit from a whistleblower coming clean about what is being done, as in the RAF case) is rampant throughout the UK now.
Shlomo:
You might be comforted, Shlomo, by knowing that i do not dislike you. I regard you as a harmless eccentric. Should your views become popular, however, then i might regard you as a pernicious influence; but not an enemy, as long as you have no political power.
As for neonsnake, he has been even worse (or better, depending on how you look at it) than Paul Marks at making enemies and alienating people; but in the end, he is also a harmless eccentric.
My political opinions are quite well represented by the Trump Admin, including by a lot of the key personnel at very high levels. Trump Admin’s postures align very well with my political philosophy, including on tariffs, immigration, Ukraine-Russia war, tax cuts, regulation cuts, bringing back an imperial presidency and ruling in large part via executive orders, mass layoffs of government workers, justice and accountability for the COVID crimes and 2020 election theft, limiting the powers of the deep state and federal bureaucracy, etc.
The words from the Trump administration actually line up with my political opinions quite closely. The actions leave much to be desired, granted, but the administration is directionally very sound.
In fact, JD Vance’s politics have been significantly influenced by Curtis Yarvin’s writings – this has been well documented even by the Fake News Media. Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon have been important conduits from the Reactionary Right (including Curtis Yarvin) to influence Trump and key people around him, including Vance.
The only political opinion I have that is anathema to the Trump administration is my perspective on Israel-Palestine, since Trump is controlled by Zionists like the Adelsons. But besides that one issue, people with nearly identical opinions as my own have very significant political power in the United States right now. More than I thought I’d ever see. The actions leave much to be desired (where are the mass prosecutions of the deep state criminals? where are the mass layoffs of government workers? etc) but the words are very very good and they clearly share my opinions.
I meant to say that JD Vance’s politics have been significantly influenced by Curtis Yarvin’s writings, much as my own politics have been significantly influenced by Curtis Yarvin’s writings. In fact, I happen to know that Curtis Yarvin and Vance have met in person, have a personal relationship, and have discussed in some detail about how to address the deep state and disempower the federal bureaucracy.
I also forgot to add that RFK and being anti-vaccines, cleaning up the food supply, making America healthier again, removing some of the regulatory capture Big Pharma and Big Food have over the bureaucracy in DC is another significant policy area where I have a lot in common with the Trump admin, and people with my opinions have reached unprecedented levels of political power in DC right now, including RFK, Tulsi Gabbard, and Kash Patel, among many others as well.
My opinions may seem rare and eccentric to you and perhaps to some people at Samizdata, but actually I am not so unique. A lot of right wingers in America are trending towards my opinions, especially young men on the Populist Right and Dissident Right. And a lot of people with my opinions have tremendous political power in DC right now :)))
Shlomo:
All what you are talking about are concrete policies, not political philosophy.
I happen to agree with most of those policies (except that i think you are *factually* delusional *at least* about the “imperial presidency”, and Ukraine). That does not mean that i agree with Trump’s political philosophy (which i know nothing about) or yours (which i think is bonkers).
Except that Vance has apparently distanced himself from monarchism, declaring it to be bonkers.
My political philosophy is mostly about the notion of freedom from arbitrary power of coercion, and its desirability.
That means that i oppose absolute monarchy and tyranny/dictatorship just as much as i oppose the administrative/deep state.
(In fact, absolute monarchy has been, historically, the mother of the administrative state; in Egypt, in imperial China, in Sassanian Iran, in France, etc.)
I’m talking about both. Concrete policies in large part come from political philosophy. It takes a long time for political philosophies to bear fruit in reality with concrete policies, but the direction from Trump World is clear and very good (except on Israel but he needs the money from the Zionists). And the concrete policies of Trump and Trump Admin’s distinctive political philosophy are both clearly very very similar to my own.
The Trump Imperial Presidency is a good example of what you might call a political philosophy where Trump is closer to me than to you. We can explore some additional specific examples that show how close Trump Admin’s political philosophy is to my own.
The Executive Orders from Trump are a great example.
Another great example are all of the important efforts against regulatory capture like RFK Jr and rooting out the corruption in the intelligence community using leaders Trump personally trusts like Tulsi and Kash Patel.
Another great is DOGE which is the Monarch having a right hand man go through the federal bureaucracy and slash and fire large swaths of the federal workforce, abolishing many departments and streamlining the government to save money and increase economic efficiency. Elon Musk will personally benefit from DOGE and it will enrich Elon Musk enormously to operate DOGE by currying favors for Tesla, SpaceX and more. Incentives are aligned. He cuts the federal bureaucracy, he cuts the deep state, and he is enriched for his good deeds. This is straight out of Curtis Yarvin’s playbook.
Another example is the Sovereign Wealth Fund coming online, under Scott Bessent, Howard Lutnick and others. Many countries have Sovereign Wealth Funds but the manner in which this one will be setup is similar to what a healthy Monarch does aligning the personal incentives of the monarch with the welfare of the country. Key people in Trump World will become personally very rich from the Sovereign Wealth Fund, and it will also help the US economy and stabilize the government’s balance sheet in important ways. Incentives are aligned. This is also straight out of Curtis Yarvin’s playbook.
Again, neither are perfect. DOGE and the Sovereign Wealth Fund are not exactly what I’d like to see, but they are both big steps in the right direction, moving towards the kind of government I want and they are both based on the correct political philosophy. I understand it takes time for a political philosophy to bear fruit in reality. But the direction is very good and Trump Admin’s political philosophy is clearly very much aligned with my own.
Trump is even talking about a third term. Unfortunately ,it probably will not happen but just the fact he is publicly talking about that is again a step in the right direction.
Project 2025 which Trump is significantly influenced by is another great example of both concrete policies and general political philosophy of Trump World aligning with my own.
Of course he has to say that. Just google “JD Vance Curtis Yarvin” there are plenty of articles documenting the connection. Steve Bannon and Peter Thiel have both been instrumental bringing Curtis Yarvin’s philosophy to Trump World – Vance, Elon, Lutnick (Commerce Secretary) and many others are more or less on board. This is an open secret.
I mean the clearest example proving I am right that Trump’s political philosophy is basically identical to my own is his Tweet on X and on Truth Social
President Donald Trump caused an uproar when he posted to Truth Social and X: “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law.”
This is from *NAPOLEON* for fuck sake lol
What more evidence could you possibly want?
This is unequivocally the statement of a wannabe dictator. Literally straight out of Curtis Yarvin’s monarchy writings. Copied and pasted right out of the Neoreaction of Curtis Yarvin and Shlomo Maistre.
I never thought Trump would ever say something like that – even if he believed it. Trump not only stated it publicly but he PINNED “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law” TO THE TOP OF HIS X PROFILE PAGE ON TWITTER.
Imagine the things Trump is not saying publicly. 😉
Like, ok, you are right that Trump has not publicly called for ending democracy, never having any election again, and installing himself as King. But the direction is very clear. You just need to read between the lines a little bit.
Trump will not bring us to the promised land, but like Moses did for the Israelites he is showing us how to get there – and it sure as fuck isn’t your weak kneed “democratic process” which has failed the political right for centuries.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/18/magazine/curtis-yarvin-interview.html
January 2025
The New York Times
If you don’t believe me when I say that many powerful conservatives, including in the Trump Admin, largely agree with my political philosophy then maybe you will believe The New York Times when they say the same thing. This is a new phenomenon where most of these powerful conservatives have been convinced of my political philosophy (broadly speaking the same as Curtis Yarvin’s) in only the last few years.
Feel free to read the link with an open mind
Here is a youtube video from The New York Times Podcasts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcSil8NeQq8
Shlomo: you did not need to confirm being bonkers.
And if you did, at least avoid claiming support from the NY Times!
“claiming support from the NY Times”??
Bro, The New York Times literally said WORD FOR WORD exactly what I have been saying to you:
The NYT even ran an article two months ago with the subtitle:
You can click the links and read that and read many other statements from the NYT going even further and discussing the details of how Trump Admin and the New Right are very much influenced by Yarvin and the political philosophy of monarchy.
Or keep burying your head in the sand. I’m not surprised that you cannot accept reality on this issue.
You could take the logical path and say “ok NYT does seem to, more or less, agree with what you are saying Shlomo Maistre. But this is why NYT and you are both wrong – X, Y, and Z reasons are why NYT is wrong and you are also wrong”
Instead you say I am *CLAIMING* NYT supports what I’m saying, dishonestly insinuating that I am claiming support from NYT that does not exist. This is deeply dishonest of you when any retard can see NYT and I are literally saying the exact same thing word for word.
You are not engaging in a good faith dialogue. Typical.
I could be wrong, but my guess is you are a Boomer.
Shlomo M, when the NYT says someone agrees with Yarvin, it’s because they got tired of saying he agrees with Hitler.
But I doubt they understand anything Yarvin has ever said.
Just because the NYT is often wrong does not mean the NYT is always wrong. And it’s not just the NYT saying this – it’s a lot of mainstream mass media and alternative media sources as well. It is an open secret.
In 2009 Peter Thiel wrote “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” in his piece entitled “The Education of a Libertarian” at CATO Unbound. Thiel wrote that primarily as a result of being influenced heavily by the writings of Curtis Yarvin. Peter Thiel is the primary reason JD Vance’s political career exists.
I literally know for a fact that Vance is significantly influenced by Yarvin’s political philosophy. NYT knows it too. Yarvin and Vance have spoken many times – and not about the weather. Obviously Vance has other influences also, but to say that the NYT is completely making this connection up is completely deluded.
And Vance is far from the only major figure in the Trump Admin who is influenced by Yarvin.
When Yarvin spoke a few years ago on podcasts he would publicly support only two political candidates – Blake Masters and JD Vance. You wonder why, but I know.
Actually, if you watch the NYT guy interview Curtis Yarvin in the link I provided above you will see a very reasonable conversation. The NYT guy seems to have a better grasp of (and a far more open mind about) the ideas of Curtis Yarvin than most people here at Samizdata do. Like it or not, Curtis Yarvin’s political philosophy is significantly more mainstream than they were 15 years ago. Thanks to Peter Thiel and Steve Bannon among others.
When I meet MAGA patriots at political functions (things like Turning Point USA and CPAC and other meet and greets, networking socials, etc) a lot of mid-level operatives and organizers of the events and volunteers are very familiar with Curtis Yarvin’s political philosophy. This was simply unheard of 15 years ago. It has been a total sea change among young men, though the old men are still mostly oblivious to it.
By the way, if you study Vivek Ramaswamy’s speeches when he was running for POTUS, they are basically copied and pasted from Curtis Yarvin’s political writings, especially when it comes to how to contend with the Deep State.
And also there is this from the Guardian – I’m sure you will say they are just making this up like the NYT. Which makes so much sense because the NYT and Guardian are in the business of mainstreaming Curtis Yarvin right? Lol makes a lot of sense
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/21/curtis-yarvin-trump
In this podcast from 2021 JD Vance himself brings up Curtis Yarvin and discusses how Yarvin’s political philosophy informs his own.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMq1ZEcyztY
Can a nation that depends on foreign supplies, foreign trade, still have Freedom of Speech, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, reject “Net Zero”, have its own social principles, for example be opposed to abortion and be pro traditional family, and-so-on?
I am sure Johnathan Pearce would say YES – and I would AGREE with Johnathan Pearce, but, increasingly, the international community, the various international bodies, does not agree.
Long before the now retiring Dr Klaus Schwab, such people as the late David Rockefeller and the late Maurice Strong (the Canadian Billionaire socialist – rather like one a “James Bond” villein, the late Maurice Strong had a vision of Green Socialism with people like himself in charge – although Henri Saint Simon came up with the bizarre idea of socialism ruled by Capitalists, especially Bankers, 200 years ago) workedfor a situation where “Free Trade” carried with it a whole raft of “Progressive” policies, which nations would NOT be allowed to dissent from.
Adam Smith and others famously supported the “defense is more important than opulence” position that a nation must NOT be dependent on foreign supplies of vital things – or its “independence” is an illusion.
“You have Free Trade – but you must have Net Zero, and Hate Speech laws, and the international small arms agreement (de facto an end to the 2nd Amendment), and Progressive policies on abortion, Trans Rights for children and-so-on” is NOT an acceptable position.
If the “international community” who now control “Free Trade” had the opinions of Ricard Cobden, John Bright, and Gladstone, things would be fine – but sadly, tragically, they do NOT. And they wish to use the de facto threat of a cut off of vital supplies (of, for example, of spare parts for American car making) to control the internal policies of the United States on such things as land use – Agenda 2030 and all that.
President Trump does not wish to be a puppet of the international community, and he does not want the United States to be “independent in name only” with basic things such as Freedom of Speech really under the control of the international community.
However, does this mean his way out of this trap (and it is a trap – see above) is the correct one? Sadly I fear it is NOT the correct way out.
“liberal democracy” – as the international establishment, including the American branch of that establishment (who J.D. Vance correctly points out have gained control of all the institutions) have redefined this term, is neither liberal nor democratic.
Liberalism was about being pro liberty – NOT crushing liberty.
And democracy is about the people being able to vote in, and vote OUT, the people who actually make the policy decisions – NOT an international elite making the policy decisions and elections being slowly turned into a hollow sham.
As classically understood, people such as J.D. Vance are liberals and are democrats – they are supporters of Liberal Democracy, not opponents of it.
I do not see why the modern reversal of the term “Liberal Democracy” to mean the crushing of liberty and the rule of an unelected international establishment, should be accepted.
Let us have real liberalism and real democracy – both in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other nations.
These are contradictory. A “country” should not be pro traditional family, or opposed to abortion; it should be a place where people are at liberty to hold oppositional views and to act upon them. Even to tip the scale in the direction you want, is to be anti-liberty.
JD Vance, Thiel etc, are, actually, credibly influenced by Yarvin, as best I can tell, and I spent some time looking into the NrX shite a nfew years ago. They’re total wrong’uns, and are at best fascist-adjacent; their weasally “oh noes I’m not a fascist, I just think that some races are more prone to being slaves than others!” is…well, pretty bad. Loser idealogy at best, and flatout deserves a beating at worst.
Shlomo:
I see the nature of your misunderstanding, but i do not think that i should be held responsible for it. Maybe third parties reading this can hold a vote about that 🙂
It seems perfectly legitimate to use the verb ‘to claim’ in a sentence such as: “commenter XX claims to be a woman”, when it might well be that XX is a woman, but the writer just does not know it for a fact.
In the context, it seems to me that the obvious interpretation of what i wrote, is bobby’s interpretation: The NYT associates Vance with Yarvin to make Vance look bad, and Shlomo associates Vance with Yarvin to make Yarvin look good.
I myself have no definite opinion about Yarvin, because i dislike his writing style and tend to avoid it. I tend to favor the writings of Dead Males (mostly White), but i admit that they wrote precious little about the dangers of the Deep State. Perhaps Yarvin is good at the latter, i just don’t know. But i suspect that the logic of the neo-monarchists is as follows:
We must do something about the Deep State;
Absolute monarchy is something;
Therefore, we must return to absolute monarchy.
Curtis Yarvin must write a much shorter blog post to have a chance at changing my mind.
If Vance and others have learned something valuable from Yarvin, good for them, and for the rest of us. I myself have learned much of value from statists such as Plato, Aristotle, Ibn Khaldun, Hobbes, and Marx. Learning from their diagnoses does not imply that i approve of their prescriptions.
A question for Shlomo:
I’d be interested to hear this, but am not inclined to listen to the entire podcast, so could you please tell me at which point to start?
neonsnake – my meaning was plain enough.
Will a country be allowed to have laws that are pro traditional principles (such as the traditional family) or not?
Or will such things abortion and “Trans Rights” (drugs and surgery) for children, be forced on a country – with economic threats? Abortion was forced on Northern Ireland – by a judge citing the “right to family life” in an international convention, so killing children is now “the right to family life”.
Will such things as the 1st Amendment (Freedom of Speech – and so on) and the 2nd Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms) be tolerated by the “international community”?
Of course NOT – there is no chance there will tolerate such things – they will be interpreted away.
Just as the private ownership of land will be “interpreted” to mean government and corporate control of land use – with “private ownership” being reduced to a legal fiction.
Snorri – the podcast makes plan that J.D. Vance supports individual liberty and also supports the people, rather than an international establishment elite, deciding matters of policy via their elected representatives – who they can remove if they do not like their decisions. Decisions that would be taken (really taken) by the elected people – not by officials and “experts”.
By the old language – this means that Mr Vance is a supporter of both liberalism and democracy, that he is a supporter of Liberal Democracy.
I refuse to accept the modern redefinition of this term.
Liberal means pro liberty – not crushing liberty.
And democracy means the people deciding policy, either directly (Direct Democracy) or via their elected representatives (Representative Democracy). It is NOT policy being decided by officials or “experts”.
Democracy is NOT the rule of a international establishment elite – which is what the Corporate Media mean by “Our Democracy” – “Our Democracy” is the negation of democracy.
So J.D. Vance is a friend, not a foe, of Liberal Democracy – by the traditional and correct definition of these words.
This is simple middle class nonsense, the province of certain types of professionals & academics. (& typically lefty) Many factories were generational. I can think of four within a short commute of London. Plessey-Ilford, Ilford Films (Selo) & Thermos – Brentwood, Marconi – Chelmsford. And then there’s Ford – Dagenham & its associated suppliers. They were coveted employment. That probably applies to 95% of factories if not more.
That it was uncontestedly accepted here says a great deal about Samizdata contributors.
Fraser Orr: Trump has done 100% of what the federal government should do — namely getting its nose out of what is an entirely local issue
Let’s see how durable that is, such as if the Congressional Republicans can get off their butts and legislate to make the end of the DoE a permanent thing.
But…on the education front, I’d like to know if Mr Trump and his circle champion school choice, vouchers, etc. Do they? Sure, removing some of the DEI crap in education is excellent – it is, as of the time of writing, one of those things I can praise his government for. But I am not yet seeing an administration that bangs the table about the need to raise education standards across the board, such as fixing the poor levels of literacy and numeracy among kids from poorer backgrounds. Yes, I know, much of this ought to be for the localities, and to that extent, it is good that things are getting genuinely decentralised.
If Trump wants to re-shore manufacturing to the US in the way his tariffs are supposed to intend, then producing a skilled, high-quality workforce that can produce high-end manufactured goods is essential. That means lots more focus on STEM, technical and vocational training, a big pivot in higher ed away from expensive liberal arts degrees, etc. In my view, as much as possible, this should be driven from the ground up, via the market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2blrhwLL4JU
For many of us, it mostly says “we don’t effin’ live there.” For others, it says that they recognize situational nuance.
It was believable for some of us in the USA, because the same situation held true here in some areas.
If you were in industrial situations in which worker health was prioritized, or at least not threatened, you wanted your sons to follow you, because it was a good life. See Detroit.
If you worked in some of the lung-killing industries, you did what you could to keep your kids OUT of your career path. See textiles.
I regret that Paul Marks still has not told me where to start in listening to JD Vance’s podcast.
I also wish to note that, like Shlomo, i believe that MAHA is an important element of Trump 47; possibly the most important in the long term.
That is because, as many of you know, i believe that xxi century American politics cannot be understood without keeping in mind that the modern Western diet causes brain damage.
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/30/curtis-yarvins-ideas-00201552
Read all the above carefully.
I wonder why Curtis Yarvin attended the (aptly named) Coronation Ball? What could possibly be the reason? Must be that Trump enjoys Yarvin’s signature leather jackets and long hair
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/09/13/jd-vance-new-right-political-movement-00177203
Actually there are lots of dead white males who wrote about the deep state. You are just incredibly ignorant. I could rattle off at least a dozen names of dead white males from the 1600s, 1700s, etc who wrote about the deep state, but you will disagree because they do not use the exact term “the deep state” and because you, by your own admission, do not understand the political philosophy of people like Curtis Yarvin or Nick Land or Shlomo Maistre.
You are so incredibly retarded
If you do not want to invest the time into learning about a subject you are so strikingly ignorant about, then fine. Continue to wallow in ignorance, but just stop pretending like I should take your opinion on this subject seriously. You have no clue what you are talking about – even by your own admission.
Your admission.
Anyone with a functioning eyeball knows now that JD Vance is significantly influenced by Yarvin.
But there are many other people in the Trump Admin who have also been significantly influenced by Yarvin. For example, Michael Anton is another good example. Michael Anton, famous author of the Flight 93 essay, is very close with Yarvin and Anton is currently the Director of Policy Planning under Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sb8lNtIN7Us
As the top comment under the youtube states:
Wrong about “evil” but the commenter correctly notes that Yarvin and Anton are fellow extremists. And currently Anton is quite highly placed within the Trump Admin, exercising influence over policy and implementing Trump’s agenda as the Director of Policy Planning.
I could go on. Vance and Anton are only two examples.
There are more.
“Jane, you ignorant slut . . . ”
SNL
@Johnathan Pearce
Let’s see how durable that is, such as if the Congressional Republicans can get off their butts and legislate to make the end of the DoE a permanent thing.
Yes, when you have separation of powers one man can’t do everything, and our congress is designed to make it difficult to do things. Generally speaking, making it difficult for the government to do things is a good thing, since most of what government does is bad. But here that does work against the good. It will be hard to get past the Senate filibuster rule. Though Trump has shown remarkable ingenuity, so we will see. Either way if the DoE is shuttered even for four years that is good in both the short and long term. If a pro big government person gets elected President in 2028 it will be a lot hard to say “the sky is falling” if it hasn’t fallen in the past four years.
But…on the education front, I’d like to know if Mr Trump and his circle champion school choice, vouchers, etc. Do they?
I’d say probably, and that it doesn’t matter either way. I’m sure you will agree with me that often the best thing for the government to do is to stop doing things, and that is certainly the case in education. So even if Trump thinks Science class should teach Creationism, and Health should teach the Stork theory or where babies come from, it doesn’t matter, because the Federal government should have nothing to do with education.
But the Trump team comes out of Florida which has been an absolute leader in the liberation of state education funding. (FWIW, Ron DeSantis may well be one of the greatest Governor any state has had in the history of the republic. I think he got into some silly fights, but just in terms of raw “getting things done” he is utterly remarkable. Florida is at a great loss that he is term limited out.)
Right now every Floridian has the right to move the state education funds with their kid. And, as a result, Florida has the best academic results in the nation. This IS a growing, if new, trend here, and hopefully it will continue. It is also worth saying something that you probably don’t see from across the pond. Eric Raymond once described America as Switzerland and Swaziland mixed together. Some of the schools here are REALLY excellent. My own kids had a fabulous education. My daughter studied Calculus at 9th grade for example. If your school is good, it is very good, (though even the best are poisoned a bit with DEI.) The bad schools however are utterly dreadful. Baltimore Unified School District last time I checked had 4 kids in high school at math grade level. Not 4%, but 4 individual students. (For reference math grade level at 9th grade is roughly introduction to Algebra, what we’d call “Algebra I”.) So it is highly bifurcated.
It is also worth saying that school performance is not really closely tied to funding levels. Chicago has some of the worst schools in the nation, and last time I checked CPS had a budget of $30,000 per student. That is only a little less than it costs to send your kid to private school averaged over K-12. Needless to say the CPS performance is utterly dreadful. What I would say in my observation is that that school performance IS inversely proportional to the percentage of school staff that are not teachers. I haven’t done the research on this, but I’d bet at least fifty cents that I’m correct on that.
That means lots more focus on STEM, technical and vocational training, a big pivot in higher ed away from expensive liberal arts degrees, etc. In my view, as much as possible, this should be driven from the ground up, via the market.
Yes, I agree. I think though in particular there is a need to change the cultural pressure on kids to go to college. I do some work for a small college that teaches things like welding, auto repair, cosmetology and other skills like that that are not degrees but certificates. I love this place. A lot of times some kid who learns to be a plumber will do MUCH better financially than some kid with a Comp Sci degree (and let’s not even talk about English literature which, at best, teaches you only to to grammatically ask “Would you like extra cream in your Frappuccino late?”).
[You linked this video] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2blrhwLL4JU
I watched the video, and it was interesting, even though I think it is a bit misleading since China and India obviously have much larger populations. But I’d say two things about this — Engineering takes place in a context and this is why an embarrassingly high proportion of engineering innovation takes place here and in the west which doesn’t suffer from either the chaos of India or the oppression of China. And second, something I have been thinking about a LOT as my kids enter the workforce, a dramatic amount of engineering is going to be picked up by AI. Not maybe right now, but within the career of my kids for sure. So I think it is wise to think seriously about what careers are immune to this.
FWIW, a growing trend here in the US is to replace the STEM acronym with STEAM. The extra A stands for art. Which it seems to me utterly misses the point of the STEM acronym entirely.
Anyway I could write another twenty pages on this subject, so enough for now. Thanks for your comments and the video. They were interesting.
Any follow up Johnathan Pearce?
Shlomo: your way of argument stinks. On ice.
You have to face reality: even if you have sensible ideas (which is doubtful at this point), you are just too brain-damaged to express them in a cogent way.
That comes from eating a modern Western diet. You might perhaps have changed diet after my advice to you a few years back, but obviously the damage has not (yet?) been repaired.
Remember: if you cannot convince anybody, that is YOUR problem.
Not their problem.
Your comments about seed oils prompted me to ask a couple people I know in real life about seed oils plus I did a bit of research. I did end up mostly switching away from seed oils. Was a good piece of advice, thank you.
I agree that my style of argumentation is rude and abrasive much of the time.
My advice to you is to stick to speaking about things that you know something about.
If you do want to learn something about Curtis Yarvin’s political philosophy:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/
The two best articles for beginners to start with are:
PDF of An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives by Mencius Moldbug
PDF of A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations by Mencius Moldbug
Congress is deeply disfunctional.
It was never wonderful – but it is vastly worse than it once was.
Some of this is structural – for example the Senate no longer represents the States, it has not since the Constitutional change that came into effect in, if memory serves, in 1913 (that terrible year in American history – the year of the Income Tax and the Federal Reserve). So the Federal Government passes laws and regulations and spending responsibilities without the permission of State governments – basically George III and Prime Minister Lord North have won, the States (then Colonies) now have no real power over Federal taxes and regulations – before 1913, via the election of Senators by State Legislatures, they did.
And the House of Representatives now (and for a very long time now) has different committees covering government spending and taxation.
In the 19th century to have different committees covering government spending and taxation would have been considered insane – because it is insane.
But the mess is also one of personal.
When good Senators such as Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Ted Cruz or Rick Scott speak and try to act – they know they do NOT even speak for a majority of Republican Senators, let along a majority of the Senate.
It is the same in the House of Representatives.
So, I fear, that Johnathan Pearce’s hopes in terms of such things as getting rid of various government departments (which I also wish would be abolished) will NOT become reality.
I should have typed “personnel” not “personal”.
I was mistaken – the Ways and Means Committee lost its control over spending in the 1860s (with the creation of the Appropriations Committee) – I thought that happened 30 years later, in the 1890s.
I thought it happened in 1895 – but it really happened in 1865.
It was still thing a crazy thing to do – it is folly to have different committees deciding revenue and spending.
Shlomo: your kind comment made my day. Thank you.
I felt somewhat uneasy reminding you that, if you cannot convince people, then it’s your own fault. That is because i find myself mostly unable to convince my extended family to do what is good for them (and of course for me). That has caused me a lot of angst over the years — moderated by the knowledge that i have convinced people on at least 2 continents to at least consider my ideas seriously (especially scientific ideas).
I was hoping that you would remember that i convinced you to at least consider my dietary advice seriously. I am gratified that you actually took it further.
But enough about my feelings. Your recommendation on where to start on Mencius Moldbug is welcome — or it would be, were it not for the fact that you recommend 2 e.books with a total page count of 610!
But i might have a look at the tables of content, to see whether there are any appealing chapters.
I would still appreciate it if you told me where to start on the Vance interview, to get his view of Yarvin. Sometimes, the 2nd hand literature is better than the original, at least to start with. In my experience, that is the case with Hayek (although i made the mistake of starting with the original).
Eh, I beg to differ. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
I learned during COVID that there is no convincing certain people of certain things at certain times. Sometimes dialogue is completely hopeless and a waste of time.
Two alternative articles that are decent introductions to Curtis Yarvin’s thought:
“Sam Altman is not a blithering idiot” (25 pages)
“Technology, communism and the Brown Scare” (29 pages)
Both can be found here:
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/
But really, the two I mentioned earlier (the “Gentle Introduction” and the “Open Letter to Open Minded Progressive”) are the best and most complete introductions.
I’ll try to find it tomorrow and I’ll comment back here.
I’d like to leave a comment here as food for thought for you. The commenter was not me, but his views seem quite similar to my own. His name was, appropriately, Moldbuggist. Mencius Moldbug was the pen name for Curtis Yarvin back before his ideas went semi-mainstream.
https://www.samizdata.net/2017/10/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-940/#comment-740832
Healthy food for thought. No seed oils there.
Shlomo, so you have got to the point where you have a quote that says Reagan and Thatcher “failed” (by what metric, pray?) but Pinochet, who had people he disagreed with executed and tortured, was a saviour because the only way to remove the Communists (and they were undoubtedly horrible people, no debate there) was by military force? In other words, you say the ends justify the means. Well that’s all fine and dandy right up to the point where you are on the receiving end of people using that argument in ways you don’t happen to like. What are you and those who think like you going to do when the hard Left comes for you, your loved ones and your property? If the US and other countries hollow out the structures of liberty, then it is reversion to the laws of the jungle.
I am at a loss to know why this is not obvious. The checks and balances of the Constitution were put there for a reason.
Ronald Reagan, when President of the Screen Actor’s Guild, checked under his car every day – because the Communists (and other leftist groups) had a long record of bombings and arson (carefully left out of American history books – you have to dig to find this out) – and he had taken the Screen Actor’s Guild away from them. Ronald Reagan, in the same period, also carried a pistol.
“So what is the difference between him and Pinochet?” – the difference was that Ronald Reagan was interested in defending himself and others, not killing people – especially not unarmed people, as Pinochet’s forces sometimes did.
There is a leftist government in Chile right now – led by an ex Student Union boss. Pinochet would have done better to end taxpayer funding for these indoctrination factories – rather than killing people.
“Pinochet balanced the budget” – so has President Milei, and President Milei of Argentina has balanced the budget without killing people.
The difference between Pinochet and Reagan was Pinochet’s government was more hands on at cracking Communist skulls, while the Reagan government largely paid other groups to kill communists instead (see Contras, Mujahedeen, UNITA etc), although invading Grenada (and giving Thatcher 12 hours notice of it) is an exception to that.
Comparing Pinochet to Reagan & Thatcher is like comparing apples to plesiosaurs.
Pinochet was a “”strong”” leader because he had to be. As i understand:
There was a serious constitutional crisis, which could have led to a person with totalitarian (and eugenicist) tendencies to become an “”extremely strong”” leader; Pinochet’s fellow members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (or whatever it is called in Chile) decided on a coup and asked him to lead it; once the coup was done, Pinochet could perhaps have called for special elections, but felt that constitutional reform and repression of the (counter)insurgency were necessary. Who am i to say that he was wrong in that last decision? I like to think that he could have used milder tactics in repressing the insurgency, but what do i know?
Nothing like that applies to the UK or the US at the time of Thatcher and Reagan.
— In summary: if you approve of “”strong”” leadership, then you should disapprove of Pinochet; because, without him, a much stronger leader would have emerged. One who would not have asked the Chilean people whether they wanted to go back to “”democracy””.
I am not interested in complete introductions to Yarvin’s thought. I am interested in a concise, cogent introduction to his thoughts on the Deep State. Once i have done that, i might go on to the rest. Or i might not.
Well I gave you the names of two much more brief introductions to Yarvin’s thought in my previous comment.
Yep
Reagan did virtually nothing about the communists in his own country. That’s one of the key differences between Pinochet and Reagan – and one of the reasons why the Left shuns Pinochet and holds Reagan up as a model for conservatives to follow.
I have a question for “Schlomo Maistre”,
Can you prove to us you are not an AI/LLM, say from China?
Maybe another way to ask this is “how do your positions differ from what such an AI/LLM might put forward to thwart Trump?”
To the IT gurus at Samizdata, can you confirm Schlomo is a real person, not in China?
Just curious.
That is an interesting theory.
The notion that the Shlomo* LLM is a false-flag operation meant to undermine Trump, is also worth thinking about.
However, it must be pointed out that this putative LLM is clever enough to avoid addressing questions that cannot easily be addressed, either by cogent argument or by handwaving.
I don’t know of any LLM that has this ability, but i am not up to date.
* please note: no C.
Somewhere out there, there’s an advanced bot built on AI that is reading these entries and thinking “I don’t get any respect.”
https://x.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1910755612662579632
Argentina is next to Chile – and the history of Argentina is just as violent as that of Chile.
If President Milei of Argentina can balance the budget without murdering people, and he has, then it is possible to balance the budget in Chile without murdering people.
As for people quoting other people.
I often quote David Hume – that does not mean I agree with his philosophical opinions, quite the contrary – I quote what he says in order to oppose it, for example “reason is, and ought to be, the slave of the passions” – which is both philosophically wrong, and morally despicable, or “you can not get an ought from an is” – which directly contradicts what sane people do every day namely “this is wrong – so I ought not to do it”, as our moral reason enables us (the “I” – the human person, humans being Free Will beings – human beings, not just human shaped objects) to overcome our passions – not all the time, but at least some of the time (if we really make any effort).
And one can deeply oppose a person on one aspect of their thought, whilst agreeing with them on another aspect of their thought – for example, I largely agree (yes agree) with David Hume on economics.
As for Curtis Yarvin – Wikipedia is an unreliable source of information, as Wikipedia is controlled by leftists, but it is the only source of information on this person to hand – so here we go….
Monarchism (the system of government that Mr Yarvin supposedly supports), Well the idea that, for example, having King Charles III take personal charge of the British government would produce different policy outcomes is wrong – as the opinions of the Gentleman are much the same as those of the rest of the British establishment.
Like other Western nations, the problem of the United Kingdom is not democracy – but, on the contrary, that the policy opinions of ordinary people are NOT followed, on mass immigration and so on.
But the Wikipedia article also gives an historical example of the sort of monarch that Mr Yarvin supposedly supports – namely Frederick “the Great” of Prussia.
As Edmund Burke pointed out at the time – the regime of “Frederick the Great” (although popular in Britain – as Frederick was an ally) was one of the worst in Europe – a regime of endless wars (which brought terrible casualties to Prussia) and tyranny at home – mass serfdom, and a tyrannical legal system.
It is true that there were some positive aspects, such as Frederick’s religious tolerance, but overall his regime is an example of how NOT to govern.
I do not know if Mr Yarvin really admirers the regime of Frederick the Great or not – but if (if) he does, that calls his judgement into question.
As for Shlomo – he is a Jew who supports those, Hamas and other Islamic groups, who wish to exterminate Jews. Indeed Shlomo accuses Israel of “genocide” when it is the enemies of Israel who seek to commit genocide – he inverts reality.
Lastly on Shlomo’s fanatical desire to keep Muslim civilians in the battle space of the Gaza Salient (“Gaza Strip”) – this shows he, really, cares no more for the lives of Muslim civilians than he cares about the Jewish civilians raped, mutilated and murdered on October 7th 2023.
If you care about Muslim civilian lives, you do not keep those Muslim civilians in a battle space, even in a war that the Islamic forces (Hamas and the other groups) started – those who care about the lives of Muslim civilians would wish them to be evacuated to Muslim nations.
None of this should mean that Israel is beyond criticism – for example a nation where the democratically elected government seems to have no say over who the judges are, and where the judges enforce an invisible constitution (which exists only in their heads) against the policies wanted by the people, and where, it appears, even the heads of the intelligence and security agencies (the heart of the “Deep State”) can not be removed by the democratically elected government – can NOT be honestly described as a fully functioning democracy. Let us hope that the unelected judges, and other officials, are defeated in Israel.
In a Direct Democracy the people directly decide policy, in a Representative Democracy the people elect representatives who decide policy – and if the people do not like the policies they decide upon, they can remove these representatives at the next election.
A system where judges (largely selected by other officials) and other officials, decide policy – is neither a Direct Democracy or a Representative Democracy.
Just finished reading A Formalist Manifesto, Yarvin’s very first blog post.
I had a look at his blog (several looks, in fact) over a decade ago. Due to his prolix, meandering writing style, i believe that the only post that i read all the way through was about the American caste system; very interesting, though not easily applicable to countries outside the Anglosphere.
I am afraid that the impression that the Formalist Manifesto made on me is entirely negative. (Granted, one could do much worse than that, and many people did.)
Of course, Shlomo will read my comments with the idea at the back of his mind that i read the Manifesto only to find flaws in it — and he is not entirely wrong, because when i read *anything*, i make an effort to find flaws — and evidence of brain damage.
Having said that, let me proceed with my criticisms, both about the style and the substance. With apologies to Johnathan for staying way off topic.
First, about the substance.
Yarvin wrote:
This could come straight out of Hobbes, and it is of interest that much of the subsequent argument also has a Hobbesian tone to it. Including an argument that States are based on social contracts by another name.
(Except that Hobbes provided a much better argument for that proposition, in the 2nd half of Book I Leviathan, which i consider to be the only insightful part of Leviathan. Not that i have read all of it.)
But what if i disagree with that proposition? (Which i do.)
Why should i keep on reading?
— After much verbiage, Yarvin goes on to say:
In other words, when we find out who “owns” this monstrosity which is the American Deep State, we should let them decide what to do with it.
— Still more insanity:
In other words, a method to change leadership without violence is intrinsically violent.
— I just don’t see how any MAGA people could find anything of value in Curtis Yarvin. The logical conclusion of this essay (which he has not repudiated) is that the problem with Western societies is that they combine democracy (the power of the people to replace the leaders nonviolently) with the Deep State — and it is democracy that constitutes the problem. Not the Deep State.
The implication is that Trump is the problem. HRC, Biden, and Kamala are the solution.
More on this tomorrow.
As i wrote yesterday, i was going to criticize the style of Yarvin’s essay, A Formalist Manifesto.
Today, however, i read another of his essays, one recommended by Shlomo: Technology, Communism, and the Brown Scare (T,C, & BS).
I think it more profitable to criticize the style of this latter essay, because there is something in its substance which i can agree with.
In my immodest opinion, the main problem with Curtis Yarvin’s style comes from the fact that he lives in the Bay Area. The people he interacts with, and from whom he receives oral feedback, live in an intellectual bubble.
As a consequence, he knows that he cannot simply go out and say: you are wrong, you live in a bubble. Nor can he say: here is your choice, blue pill or red pill; with the blue pill you continue living as you did until now, with the red pill you’ll know the Truth.
So he takes what i would call a devious approach to convert people to what he sees as “the Truth”. Which might work in the Bay Area, but does not work with intellectually sophisticated people like yours truly, or most people on Samizdata. I have already read Mosca and Burnham; and also Machiavelli, the Communist Manifesto, The Road to Serfdom, and Codevilla’s most famous essay, for good measure. What do i have to learn from Yarvin? nothing in T,C, & BS, for sure.
Making the essay much longer than it needs to be, alienates me even further.
PS: That i agree with part of Yarvin’s essay, does not mean that i agree with all of it.
In particular, there is the implicit claim that “communism”, properly understood, has nothing to do with collective ownership, or even State ownership.
There is also a blatant internal contradiction, which i find even more disturbing.
Not far into the essay, Yarvin writes:
The analogy to modern America is obvious: the Woke are the oppressors, the witch hunters, but they manage to convince people that they are actually the champions of the oppressed. (Neonsnake is a good example on this site.)
Yarvin would have done well to explore this subject further.
Instead, about 3/4 of the way in he writes:
I trust that the contradiction between the 2 quotes is self-evident.
(Hint: Wokeness is a “political formula”.)