My Rubin Report interview



Responsible to whom, for what?

This is the annoying sort of thing Bryan Caplan does.

Nạp tiền Wechat, Alipay, Ngân hàng Trung Quốc.

I just got past the bit where Tyler said people were too trusting of government and not trusting enough of business "right now."

That seems an odd claim to make about a moment, a "right now," that is neither fish nor fowl. In fact, a culmination of a couple decades of confusion where we can't believe, and make something like health care one thing or another. Socialized or private.

Do we punt on serious government led universal health care, which works so well so many other places (the old "just pick one"), because we trust government too much? Seriously?

Seems to me we might be too evenly divided, and the public or private choice a 100 year war, rather than a negotiated solution. Perhaps even with blocks on partial solution as a continuing strategy.

At the beginning of the interview, Rubin asks if Cowen prefers interviewing or being interviewed. It's funny because when Cowen is the interviewer he raises serious issues (he often comes across as the contrarian), but when interviewed by someone with that certain point of view like Rubin, Cowen sticks to the safe party line - what's the point of deviating from the safe party line in the circumstance. Don't waste your time on this one.

Yep. Especially if you have to wait for the not very adept or conversant Dave Rubin. The defining of the ideological labels is unbelievably tedious and one thing they love to get bogged down with in that IDW podcast world. Puerile, rudimentary, pointless; looking for the right label haha. This is funded by sources who want to peel off some of the young people.

Daddy did a boo boo!

Daddy now give you a sweet little spanky.

Dave’s husband here? How much are you guys taking in from . . . the dark sources?

Are you going to do rogan? A full three hour? Haidt did two hours and he was just starting to relax.

Cowen (and all economists) need to spend some time studying the greatest promoters of reason ever, Tom and Ray. Even medical students rely on them.

@rayward - you're much too kind to me my friend. That was not my video BTW.

Oh, my. "Republicans will always be trusted more on taxes" is a complete give-away of rational economic policy. Republicans can be trusted to have "lower" taxes as a standard position, but as I've noted that is now wholly divorced from the services they themselves pass as law. The services their voters actually enjoy.

Maybe rayward is right, and this is a stock partisan piece, meant to balance some feared new socialist landscape.

But in so doing it certainly crystalizes that dysfunctional polarization I talk about above.

Why we can't have nice things.

Pan shot!


I think the recent tax law is proof that Republicans can't be trusted on taxes anymore. Smaller refunds for regular people and bigger refunds for 1%ers and corporations.

Ignorant. The cut made the federal income tax even more progressive (it's already the most progressive in the world), as well as more efficient by closing loopholes.

What will you answer AOC when she says "the cut made the federal income tax even more progressive (it's already the most progressive in the world), as well as more efficient by closing loopholes" so we can afford Green Deal 2023 *and* Medicare for All!

You've given away that receipts and spending have to match.

"But receipts increase year over year" is another common bad answer for the same reason.

Receipts increase, so we can afford anything, yay?

anonymous: I've noted that is now wholly divorced from the services they themselves pass as law. The services their voters actually enjoy.

Defense, policing, the judiciary and the regulation of trade in the national interest? I'd have thought their voters still would believe that they own those issues, at least.

I am not sure we disagree, but let me fill out my observation.

Republicans have traditionally been the party of tax cuts *and* balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility.

When Trump rolled in, with a full Republican Congress, and designated budget wonk Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House, they had a once in a generation chance to make good on those goals. What did they do?

I think it's clear that they cut the connection, revealed themselves to be for tax cuts, responsible or not.

And of course Ryan retired, rather than hang around to make the "*and* balanced budgets, fiscal responsibility" part work.

If he had tried, if the Republican Congress had tried, pragmatic moderates like me might still believe. Heck, if they had tried Tyler might still write posts about current events in the political economy, rather than accepting it as a loss, and moving on to fears of Democrats who might be *as bad*.

This is now. What are Republicans going to do? What are all the supposed fiscally responsible Republican voters going to ask for?

Likely nothing. They will just circle wagons around their mad king for no good purpose.

Which I think only leads to more doom for any rational pragmatists further right of center. They are locked in the clown car, and their best argument ("Elizabeth Warren would be worse") is not sounding too compelling. Every day's headlines drives that home.

It worked before. "Hillary would be worse" is why Trump won. If the Dems do something stupid and nominate another loser, they gonna lose. Because the economy will probably still be pretty good it's looking like.

And it is probably worth remembering that the tax bill has never had popular support. It was always the Republicans passing it over objection.

The people were more responsible.

Like him more in the interview than on his blogposts. Does that mean his blogposts have a ghostwriter?

No, the interview was ghostwritten.

Great interview Tyler.

Wrong link,this goes to the Harvey Weinstein appearance.

What happened to the comments on the post announcing the new Big Business book? I wanted to re-read but now they’re gone. Expunged ??

Not really impressed with the conversation. Billionaires buy yachts and make jobs by doing so? Really? We need a term for right wing mansplaining. The right is 'open to ideas' more? I leave you to bring forth the thought provoking ideas being tossed around by Steve Bannon & the Alt-right community these days? The fruits 'coming 20 years from now' is another way of saying we are currently in the hospice phase of the current generation of right wing thinkers and we're hoping, maybe, a new crop of them will have grown up in a few decades to make contributions worth listening too.

Drugs ought to be legal but "... just kind of in a safe space, off to the side": does that seem likely, in America? It's more likely that there would be "safe spaces, off to the side," without drugs, in a Benedict option, we-must-look-to-create-our-own-small-communities sort of way.

Comments for this post are closed