I interview Ro Khanna on regional development

This is a Bloomberg podcast, here is their summary of the highly intelligent and personable Khanna:

I recently sat down with Representative Ro Khanna of California to talk about technology, jobs and economic lessons from his perspective as Silicon Valley’s congressman. Khanna, who is serving his first term, is vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and previously taught economics at Stanford University, law at Santa Clara University, and American jurisprudence at San Francisco State University.

We discuss regional visas, EITC, Facebook, manufacturing employment, and much more.


Very good stuff, but a link to "play all" would be helpful.

Yes—having to concatenate all those manually is odd.

Don't have the time or interest to listen to a "podcast," but a couple of minutes on Wikipedia shows a guy with no real work experience yet big plans for spending other people's money. The purported Stanford economics appointment does not seem to show up on the Stanford website & a bit hard to understand why Stanford would have some guy in their econ department who "taught" with what seems to be only an undergraduate degree in economics. Well, he did graduate from college with "honors" so maybe that qualifies him. On the other hand, maybe he was only a "lecturer" -- whatever that means. Hey, his bio kind of reminds me of someone. . . .

..rather cynical

After all, we are assured the podcast is very worthwhile because of "the highly intelligent and personable Khanna" ... who talks about "technology, jobs and economic lessons".

I never heard of Khanna and consider any Congressman or politician to have extremely low levels of credibility or useful knowledge. Apparently it was too difficult to even briefly summarize any of Khanna's wisdom in Tyler's post here.

Agree that podcasts are generally tedious and much too lengthy. Spoken words are a slow form of communication; the human mind processes them quickly, leaving 80% of the mind free for other thoughts during the time period devoted to verbal listening. Printed text is much more efficient to absorb in a much shorter time interval, especially if the text is well edited.
(...but as the adage goes-- "Talk is Cheap" ... so podcasts are everywhere)

You don't know Jack, Jack. In fact Ro Khanna (I thought he was black) is a ambitious, resume-building Indian who knows how to network. Never count those guys out. The trouble with you Jack is that you believe in the maxim "jack of all trades, master of none", which is true in the long-gone days where a deep understanding of a craft was vital but in today's highly developed service economy, 'reinventing the wheel' is verboten.

I can't tell how often I've saved the day professionally, when I used to work, by finding the right expert. You can be a 'martyr' and re-invent the wheel or you can network and find the right person for the right job and achieve more. And for pols, networking is key to winning an election. Khanna is perfect for that task. Jack you are a man ahead of your times: the medieval ages.

Why would you expect him to appear on the Stanford (or, for that matter, Santa Clara Law) website when he no longer teaches there, having resigned to run for Congress?

Also, the WP page is perfectly clear that he has, in addition to his Chicago BA, a JD from Yale Law School, and last time I checked, that was a graduate degree,

Khanna says that he supports expanding the EITC because the workers work hard and their wages are stagnating because of factors beyond their control. Makes sense to me. But then he says that those without children will only recieve 3k, those with 1 or 2 will recieve 6k and those with 3 kids recieve 12k. Why? The childless individual works just as hard as the person with three kids.

I've seen the same pattern with the basic income people, they've often suggested giving the same benefit to everyone. 10000$ for a single person its poverty level, whereas 80000$ for a family of eight is a pretty good living in much of the country.

We talk about eitc or basic income or whatever, to incentivize work or provide freedom, but when the policy is actually implemented, the real goal will be to replace fathers with the government, penalize men who rationally go their own way, and make America dysgenic again.

Investment per child is related to future capacity.

Therefore, working poor with children justifiably receive greater support, or topups for their hard work, than those with no children.

(Then again, if this logic holds true, making it conditional on work is probably both ethically wrong and economically suboptimal.)

Just drive out the whites and it makes everything fine.

Here's a better Indian to interview:


Ayyadurai is running on the slogan: “Only a real Indian can defeat the fake Indian.”


Gurbaksh Chahal, took a picture with Obama, hacked programmatic advertising, went to jail.

Too bad you didn’t delve into his first run for office and how his race baiting flyer drops across the south bay utlimately cost him the race.

Comments for this post are closed