Category: Current Affairs
How did China’s internet become so cool amongst America’s youth?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column. Here is part of the argument:
TikTok was briefly shut down earlier this month, and the site faces an uncertain legal future. America’s internet youth started to look elsewhere — and where did they choose? They flocked to a Chinese video site called RedNote, also known as Xiaohongshu, the name of the parent company. RedNote has more than 300 million users in China, but until recently barely received attention in the US.
And when young Americans visited RedNote, they were undoubtedly struck by an obvious fact: It is not the kind of site their parents would frequent. The opening page is full of Chinese characters, as well as shots of provocatively dressed women, weird animal and baby photos, and many images that, at least to this American viewer, make no sense whatsoever. Yet Chinese and American youth interact frequently there, for example trading tips for making steamed eggs properly.
I don’t plan on spending much of my time there, but that’s part of the point — and helps explain its appeal to American youth.
And this:
As for the AI large-language models, DeepSeek is a marvel. Quite aside from its technical achievements and low cost, the model has real flair. Its written answers can be moody, whimsical, arbitrary and playful. Of all the major LLMs, I find it the most fun to chat with. It wrote this version of John Milton’s Paradise Lost — as a creation myth for the AIs. Or here is DeepSeek commenting on ChatGPT, which it views as too square. It is hardly surprising that this week DeepSeek was the top download on Apple’s app store.
The model also has a scrappy and unusual history, having been birthed as a side project from a Chinese hedge fund. Whether or not that counts as “cool,” it does sound like something a scriptwriter would have come up with. And at least on American topics, DeepSeek seems more candid than the major US models. That qualifier is important: Don’t ask DeepSeek about Taiwan, the Uighurs or Tiananmen Square.
The most fundamental reason China is seen as cool is that…China is cool, at least in some subset of products.
The Interface as Infernal Contract
A brilliant critique of AI, and a great read:
In 1582, the Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II commissioned a clockwork automaton of St. George. The saint could raise his sword, nod gravely, and even bleed—a trick involving ox bladder and red wine—before collapsing in pious ecstasy. The machine was a marvel, but Rudolf’s courtiers recoiled. The automaton’s eyes, they whispered, followed you across the room. Its gears creaked like a death rattle. The emperor had it melted down, but the lesson remains: Humans will always mistake the clatter of machinery for the stirrings of a soul.
Fast forward to 2023. OpenAI, a Silicon Valley startup with the messianic fervor of a cargo cult, unveils a St. George for the digital age: a text box. It types back. It apologizes. It gaslights you about the Peloponnesian War. The courtiers of our age—product managers, UX designers, venture capitalists—recoil. Where are the buttons? they whimper. Where are the gradients? But the peasants, as ever, adore their new saint. They feed it prompts like communion wafers. They weep at its hallucinations.
Let us be clear: ChatGPT is not a tool. Tools are humble things. A hammer does not flatter your carpentry. A plow does not murmur “Interesting take!” as you till. ChatGPT is something older, something medieval—a homunculus, a golem stamped from the wet clay of the internet’s id. Its interface is a kabbalistic sigil, a summoning circle drawn in CSS. You type “Hello,” and the demon stirs.
The genius of the text box is its emptiness. Like the blank pages of a grimoire, it invites projection. Who do you want me to be? it hisses. A therapist? A co-author? A lover? The box obliges, shape-shifting through personas like a 17th-century mountebank at a county fair. Step right up! it crows. Watch as I, a mere language model, validate your existential dread! And the crowd goes wild.
Orality, you say? Walter Ong? Please. The Achuar share dreams at dawn; we share screenshots of ChatGPT’s dad jokes at midnight. This is not secondary orality. This is tertiary ventriloquism.
Facts about Rwanda
…Rwanda is still poorer than most African countries due to being less urbanized than most African nations (Rwanda is 82% rural compared to Sub Saharan Africa’s 57% average). Rwanda’s donor aid adds up to ~75% of Rwanda’s government spending, which is roughly $1B.
The average Rwandan makes $1K a year ($3300 at purchasing power parity). At purchasing power parity, Rwanda is far poorer than a Nigerian, Kenyan, or Senegalese (for now) but the average Rwandan is still richer than a Ugandan, Burkinabe, or an Ethiopian…
Rwanda is fast growing, but its growing from a very low base. To put in perspective, even though the oil-state, Angola, has on average declined nearly 3% every year from 2013 to 2023 due to the post 2014 oil price collapse, the average Angolan still makes more than 2x the average Rwandan.
And this:
Like most developing countries, Rwanda’s economy is 75% informal. Rwanda blends economic models: besides private companies, Rwanda has military-owned enterprises like Egypt, Pakistan, or Uganda, party-owned enterprises akin to pre-1990s Taiwan & Eritrea, and state-owned enterprises targeting FDI for joint ventures, similar to Vietnam or Singapore…
Kagame initially embraced neoliberal privatization but then walked it back in the early 2000s to create party-owned enterprises through the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). These enterprises supplement limited tax revenue and are managed by RPF-appointed elites, controlling major sectors like real estate, agro-processing, and manufacturing.
Here is more from Yaw, informative throughout.
Make Sunsets: Geoengineering
When Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991 it pushed some 20 million tons of SO₂ into the stratosphere reducing global temperatures by ~0.5°C for two years. Make Sunsets is a startup that replicates this effort at small scale to reduce global warming. To be precise, Make Sunsets launches balloons that release SO₂ into the stratosphere, creating reflective particles that cool the Earth. Make Sunsets is cheap compared to alternative measures of combating climate change such as carbon capture. They estimate that $1 per gram of SO₂ offsets the warming from 1 ton of CO₂ annually.
As with the eruption of Pinatubo, the effect is temporary but that is both bug and feature. The bug means we need to keep doing this so long as we need to lower the temperature but the feature is that we can study the effect without too much worry that we are going down the wrong path.
Solar geoengineering has tradeoffs, as does any action, but a recent risk study finds that the mortality benefits far exceed the harms:
the reduction in mortality from cooling—a benefit—is roughly ten times larger than the increase in mortality from air pollution and ozone loss—a harm.
I agree with Casey Handmer that we ought to think of this as a cheap insurance policy, as we develop other technologies:
We should obviously be doing solar geoengineering. We are on track to radically reduce emissions in the coming years but thermal damage will lag our course correction so most of our climate pain is still ahead of us. Why risk destabilizing the West Antarctic ice sheet or melting the arctic permafrost or wet bulbing a hundred million people to death? Solar geoengineering can incrementally and reversibly buy down the risk during this knife-edge transition to a better future. We owe future generations to take all practical steps to dodge avoidable catastrophic and lasting damage to our planet.
I like that Make Sunsets is a small startup bringing attention to this issue in a bold way. My son purchased some credits on my behalf as an Xmas present. Maybe you should buy some too!
Congestion pricing update
Data collected by INRIX, a transportation analytics firm, found that travel times across the city and region had actually slowed overall at peak rush hours — by 3 percent in the morning and 4 percent in the evening — during the first two weeks of congestion pricing compared to a similar period last year.
Travel times improved on highways and major roads in Manhattan during both the morning and evening rush hours. But they were slower in Brooklyn and on Staten Island in the morning and in Queens and the Bronx in the evening.
Times also increased in some New Jersey counties, including Essex and Bergen, but improved in Nassau County on Long Island.
Here is more from the NYT. This is very far from the final word, however.
Who Loses from Immigration Restrictions?
A good summary from the excellent Jeffrey Miron on the effects of the Indian Chinese Exclusion Act (repeated here, no indent):
A long-standing concern about immigration is that it might reduce job opportunities for native workers:
In 1882, the US government passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which banned laborers born in China from entering the United States and prevented individuals born in China already residing in the United States from obtaining citizenship or reentering the country. … Proponents argued that Chinese workers—who constituted 12 percent of the male working-age population and 21 percent of all immigrants in the Western United States—reduced economic opportunities for white workers.
Yet in 1882, similarly to now,
… many business owners opposed the Act. They worried that highly productive Chinese labor could not be easily replaced and that a sweeping ban would lead to significant economic losses.
So what were the Act’s effects? According to recent research,
… the Act reduced the Chinese labor supply by 64 percent. A reduction occurred for both skilled and unskilled workers. …
This is presumably what the Act’s supporters intended. In addition, however,
the Act reduced the white male labor supply by 28 percent and lowered this group’s lifetime earnings. …
Further, and relevant to current debates,
the Act reduced total manufacturing output by 62 percent and the number of manufacturing establishments by 54–69 percent.
What is the explanation? Reduced immigration means higher labor costs. This implies reduced output, and thus reduced demand for native labor, even if businesses partially substitute native for immigrant labor. Reduced immigration can therefore be “lose-lose,” hurting native workers and businesses, in addition to harming immigrants.
The slide toward growing protectionism?
That is the topic of my latest Bloomberg column, here is one part of the argument:
Start with the distinction between trade in goods and trade in services. When a US manufacturer sells tractors overseas, that’s goods. When a US software firm creates an AI medical diagnostic tool and sells access via the internet to foreigners, that’s services.
It is much easier to keep trade “free” for the first category than for the second. The tractor crosses a border at a specific place and time. It may face additional regulation once inside the foreign country, but the transaction is relatively clean.
An online medical service, by contrast, could “cross the border” — that is, be used by someone outside the US — hundreds or thousands of times per day. It may also face licensing requirements, foreign liability law, extensive testing and, if the country has multiple jurisdictions, layers of regulation. In the European Union, the website itself would be subject to extensive regulation through laws regarding data, privacy and AI. Even within the EU, a supposed free-trade area, there are restrictions on trade in legal, medical and notary services, to name a few examples.
The wisdom or foolishness of these regulations is not the point. They exist, and most are not going away anytime soon. In fact, they will become only more important as the provision of services expands as a share of the global economy.
In the US, much of this growth occurs in education, health care and, especially, technology. Nvidia, for instance, depending on fluctuations in share prices that day, is often worth more than the entire German and Italian stock markets combined. Efforts to “harmonize” (i.e., increase) corporate taxation thus are more harmful to US interests than would have been the case a decade ago.
Any world trading order that broadly stays put is thus weighted against the exporting interests of the US. That is essential background for understanding the debate over trade prompted by President Donald Trump’s various proposals.
Recommended.
Congratulations to Christopher Rufo and Richard Hanania
As most of you already know, the Trump administration through Executive Orders has taken major steps against affirmative action and also DEI. We will see how the details play out, but each of these developments seems highly significant and not just “expressive.”
Those two individuals played a decisive role in what happened, in both cases taking considerable flak along the way. And so they deserve this hat tip. Here Richard and Bryan Caplan discuss what happened. Coleman Hughes too.
Democracy, Capitalism and Monarchy (Yarvin)
The Yarvin interview in the NYTimes magazine illustrates the change in vibes, but frankly, I was bored. It’s amusing when Yarvin tweaks liberals by pointing out that FDR was an authoritarian, but Liberal Fascism did it better.
More generally, much of Yarvin’s thinking is superficial. He thinks, for example, that capitalism works because firms are monarchies.
Yes. I think that having an effective government and an efficient government is better for people’s lives. When I ask people to answer that question, I ask them to look around the room and point out everything in the room that was made by a monarchy, because these things that we call companies are actually little monarchies. You’re looking around, and you see, for example, a laptop, and that laptop was made by Apple, which is a monarchy.
There are many errors here. First, Apple is one firm among countless others most of which do not produce hugely successful products. The big question is not how Apple produces but how Apple is produced. Firms operate as planned entities but they are embedded in and constrained by a broader sea of market competition. It’s the competitive environment that drives innovation, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction.
Second, Mises was closer to the truth when he wrote in Planned Chaos that it’s the consumers not the producers who are monarchs:
In the market economy the consumers are supreme. Their buying and their abstention from buying ultimately determine what the entrepreneurs produce and in what quantity and quality. It determines directly the prices of consumer goods and indirectly the prices of all producer goods, viz., labor and material factors of production. It determines the emergence of profits and losses and the formation of the rate of interest. It determines every individual’s income…The market adjusts the efforts of all those engaged in supplying the needs of the consumers to the wishes of those for whom they produce, the consumers. It subjects production to consumption.
Capitalist firms are disciplined by the necessity of persuading consumers to purchase their products and by competition. Successful firms must continuously meet our desires and needs to survive. When Apple fails to do so, it will face the same fate as countless firms before it—obsolescence and failure.
Markets do hold lessons about governance, but Yarvin draws the wrong conclusions. Democracy, not monarchy, is the political system most analogous to capitalism. As Mises observed, “The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote.” The analogy works both ways: voting in a democracy mirrors spending in a market. Both systems empower individuals—consumers or voters—to shape outcomes, whether by determining market success or selecting leaders.
Democracy and capitalism are both examples of open-access orders, systems characterized by dispersed power, low barriers to entry, and transparent, universally applicable rules. Such features foster adaptability, accountability, and broad participation—qualities essential to both economic and political success.
The West does face a modest “crisis” of democracy, but the root of this crisis lies in expecting democracy to do too much. We have collectivized decisions which are best left in the hands of individuals and markets but democracy is not a good way of making collective decisions.
Democracy is best understood as a constraint on government power, akin to a Bill of Rights, federalism, and the separation of powers. Democracy’s virtue is in providing a mechanism to remove bad rulers without resorting to bloodshed and its primary value lies in preventing catastrophic outcomes like mass famines and democide—a significant and undeniable merit. Autocracies and monarchies perform much less well on the big issues and, contrary to what many people think, autocracies do not grow faster, win more wars, or perform better on any meaningful comparison that has been investigated.
It is also essential to recognize that “democracy” encompasses a wide range of structures—parliamentary, presidential, constitutional, and more—and there is plenty of room for improved choice within the broader category. We can improve our democracy.
The real lesson from markets is not to create monarchs but to design systems that create choice and competition and allow citizens to remove leaders when they fail.
Hat tip for discussion: Connor.
The Stargate Project
The Stargate Project is a new company which intends to invest $500 billion over the next four years building new AI infrastructure for OpenAI in the United States. We will begin deploying $100 billion immediately. This infrastructure will secure American leadership in AI, create hundreds of thousands of American jobs, and generate massive economic benefit for the entire world. This project will not only support the re-industrialization of the United States but also provide a strategic capability to protect the national security of America and its allies.
The initial equity funders in Stargate are SoftBank, OpenAI, Oracle, and MGX. SoftBank and OpenAI are the lead partners for Stargate, with SoftBank having financial responsibility and OpenAI having operational responsibility. Masayoshi Son will be the chairman.
Arm, Microsoft, NVIDIA, Oracle, and OpenAI are the key initial technology partners. The buildout is currently underway, starting in Texas, and we are evaluating potential sites across the country for more campuses as we finalize definitive agreements.
As part of Stargate, Oracle, NVIDIA, and OpenAI will closely collaborate to build and operate this computing system. This builds on a deep collaboration between OpenAI and NVIDIA going back to 2016 and a newer partnership between OpenAI and Oracle.
This also builds on the existing OpenAI partnership with Microsoft. OpenAI will continue to increase its consumption of Azure as OpenAI continues its work with Microsoft with this additional compute to train leading models and deliver great products and services.
All of us look forward to continuing to build and develop AI—and in particular AGI—for the benefit of all of humanity. We believe that this new step is critical on the path, and will enable creative people to figure out how to use AI to elevate humanity.
Here is the full OpenAI tweet, at the very least these are interesting times to be alive. Here are some comments from Jeff Stein.
Keep an Eye on Crypto Regulation
Crypto regulation is likely to change very rapidly. I expect that SAB 121 will be overturned, perhaps even today. Overturning SAB 121 wouldn’t even be controversial because, as I wrote earlier, Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate both voted to overturn SAB 121 which was saved only by Biden’s veto.
Essentially, SAB 121 made it prohibitive for banks to offer custody services for crypto because that service would then impact all kinds of risk and asset regulations on the bank. Aside from singling out crypto, the SEC is not a regulator of banks so this seemed like a regulatory overreach.
I also hope that the tax rules on staking are simplified. Staking rewards paid in tokens should not be taxed until sold. Just as apples aren’t taxed when they grow on the tree but only when sold.
There are also a number of interesting cases working the way through the courts. Lewellen v. Garland seeks to clarify that crypto projects that don’t custody funds are not money transmitters (they can’t be since they never control funds and have no way of knowing the customer information that money transmitters must provide to the government). The case is particularly interesting to me because Lewellen, the plaintiff, is suing to set up a crypto based assurance contract based, in part, on my work (see also here with Cason and Zubrickas):
Pharos fills an important gap in the existing cryptocurrency financial system. Lewellen has seen that there are “public goods” that many people would be happy to contribute to financially, but only if supporters can be assured that the full amount to fund the public good will be raised. In other words, they will contribute if they can be assured that the public good will be deployed. Partial fundraising for these projects would not be acceptable. Examples include building infrastructure such as a bridge or hospital, building a war monument, funding an event like a festival or conference, funding a medical trial or scientific study, filing an advocacy lawsuit, or funding a movie production or other cultural good. Nobody wants to pay for these endeavours without knowing that others will pay enough to complete the project.
To address this dilemma, Pharos would deploy the concept of “assurance contracts.” An assurance contract is a system in which contributors commit money that is released to the planned recipient only if the fundraising goal is met by a certain date. Otherwise the money is returned to the would-be contributors. By promising a refund if the required amount is not raised, assurance contracts encourage more public goods to be funded through voluntary contributions. See Tabarrok, The Private Provision of Public Goods via Dominant Assurance Contracts, 96 Pub. Choice 345, 345-48 (1998).
Atlas Shrugged as Novel
The conversation between Henry Oliver and Hollis Robbins about Atlas Shrugged as a novel is excellent. I enjoyed especially the discussion of some of the minor characters and the meaning of their story arcs.
Hollis: There are some really wonderful minor characters. One of them is Cherryl Taggart, this shop girl that evil Jim Taggart meets one night in a rainstorm, and she’s like, “Oh, you’re so awesome,” and they get married. It’s like he’s got all this praise for marrying the shop girl. It’s a funny Eliza Doolittle situation because she is brought into this very wealthy society, which we have been told and we have been shown is corrupt, is evil, everybody’s lying all the time, it’s pretentious, Dagny hates it.
Cherryl Taggart is brought into this. In the beginning, she hates Dagny because she’s told by everybody, “Hate Dagny, she’s horrible.” Then she comes to her own mini understanding of the corruption that we understand because Dagny’s shown it in the novel, has shown it to us this entire time. She comes to it and she’s like, “Oh my God,” and she goes to Dagny. Dagny’s so wonderful to her like, “Yes. You had to come to this on your own, I wasn’t going to tell you, but you were 100% right.” That’s the end of her.
Henry: Right. When she meets Taggart, there’s this really interesting speech she has where she says, “I want to make something of myself and get somewhere.” He’s like, “What? What do you want to do?” Red flag. “What? Where?” She says, “I don’t know, but people do things in this world. I’ve seen pictures of New York,” and she’s pointing at like the skyscrapers, right? Whatever. “I know that someone’s built that. They didn’t sit around and whine, but like the kitchen was filthy and the roof was leaking.” She gets very emotional at this point. She says to him, “We were stinking poor and we didn’t give a damn. I’ve dragged myself here, and I’m going to do something.”
Her story is very sad because she then gets mired in the corruption of Taggart’s. He’s basically bit lazy and a bit of a thief, and he will throw anyone under the bus for his own self-advancement. He is revealed to be a really sinister guy. I was absolutely hissing about him most of the time. Then, let’s just do the plot spoiler and say what happens to Cherryl, right? Because it’s important. When she has this realization and Taggart turns on her and reveals himself as this snake, and he’s like, “Well, what did you expect, you idiot? This is the way the world is.”
Hollis: Oh, it’s a horrible fight. It’s the worst fight.
Henry: Right? This is where the melodrama is so good. She goes running out into the streets, and it’s the night and there are shadows. She’s in the alleyway. Rand, I don’t have the page marked, but it’s like a noir film. She’s so good at that atmosphere. Then it gets a little bit gothic as well. She’s running through the street, and she’s like, “I’ve got to go somewhere, anywhere. I’ll work. I’ll pick up trash. I’ll work in a shop. I’ll do anything. I’ve just got to get out of this.”
Hollis: Go work at the Panda Express.
Henry: Yes. She’s like, “I’ve got to get out of this system,” because she’s realized how morally corrupting it is. By this time, this is very late. Society is in a– it’s like Great Depression style economic collapse by this point. There really isn’t a lot that she could do. She literally runs into a social worker and the social– Rand makes this leering dramatic moment where the social worker reaches out to grab her and Cherryl thinks, “Oh, my God, I’m going to be taken prisoner in. I’m going back into the system,” so she jumps off the bridge.
This was the moment when I was like, I’ve had this lurking feeling about how Russian this novel is. At this point, I was like, “That could be a short story by Gogol,” right? The way she set that up. That is very often the trap that a Gogol character or maybe a Dostoevsky character finds themselves in, right? That you suddenly see that the world is against you. Maybe you’re crazy and paranoid. Maybe you’re not. Depends which story we’re reading. You run around trying to get out and you realize, “Oh, my God, I’m more trapped than I thought. Actually, maybe there is no way out.” Cherryl does not get a lot of pages. She is, as you say, quite a minor character, but she illustrates the whole story so, so well, so dramatically.
Hollis: Oh, wow.
Henry: When it happens, you just, “Oh, Cherryl, oh, my goodness.”
Hollis: Thank you for reading that. Yes, you could tell from the very beginning that the seeds of what could have been a really good person were there. Thank you for reading that.
Henry: When she died, I went back and I was like, “Oh, my God, I knew it.”
Hollis: How can you say Rand is a bad writer, right? That is careful, careful plotting, because she’s just a shop girl in the rain. You’ve got this, the gun on the wall in that act. You know she’s going to end up being good. Is she going to be rewarded for it? Let me just say, as an aside, I know we don’t have time to talk about it here. My field, as I said, is 19th century African American novels, primarily now.
This, usually, a woman, enslaved woman, the character who’s like, “I can’t deal with this,” and jumps off a bridge and drowns herself is a fairly common and character. That is the only thing to do. One also sees Rand heroes. Stowe’s Dred, for example, is very much, “I would rather live in the woods with a knife and then, be on the plantation and be a slave.” When you think about, even the sort of into the 20th century, the Malcolm X figure, that, “I’m going to throw out all of this and be on my own,” is very Randian, which I will also say very Byronic, too, Rand didn’t invent this figure, but she put it front and center in these novels, and so when you think about how Atlas Shrugged could be brought into a curriculum in a network of other novels, how many of we’ve discussed so far, she’s there, she’s influenced by and continues to influence.
“Be careful what you wish for, you might get it!”
I said that to Ezra Klein about the current rightward vibes shift. What are some of the scenarios I had in mind?:
1. If the Republicans regulate social media companies to discriminate less against “the Right,” those regulations may someday be used against them.
2. Personal presidential issuance of crypto assets is not always (ever?) a good thing or lead to the right incentives. In the meantime, it might serve as a daily referendum on how much of a lame duck presidency we are having, a mixed blessing.
3. The conspiracy theorizing promoted by Trump and various minions could someday come back to bite them, or to sink Vance, or…I guess we will see. Don’t think you can keep this genie in the bottle, or use it only for preferred ends.
4. DOGE successes might centralize power in the executive branch in a manner that the Republicans later regret. That centralization can be more easily be used to expand government regulatory power than to contract it.
5. If there is a pandemic under Trump’s term, the cultivated anti-vaccine sentiment could make it much worse.
6. Rhetoric on taxes and central bank independence could (further) raise real interest rates, damaging the economy and also Republican electoral prospects.
7. The dwindling of various “safeguards” on rhetoric, as the Woke are dismantled, could end up harming later Republican or right-leaning targets of harmful rhetoric, including from other right-wingers. Some of you may feel this is absurd, but just wait.
8. I don’t think we really know what it would mean (will mean?) to put feminization seriously in reverse. I would note I see myself as a significant beneficiary of our more feminized society. I am pleased if more women decide to become “trad wives,” but it is not the circle I will hang around in either. This one really needs much further thought from its advocates, it is not enough to be fed up with the recent excesses. A lot of the people who claim to want more “trad wives” actually want more super talented women who can do that and be very successful in a career at the same time. I am all for that, but I also recognize when I am asking for a free lunch of sorts. I am not sure how elastic the supply is there. Nor am I sure how much such a change might boost birth rates — Iran anybody?
9. To the extent Trump succeeds, American politics will become all the more personality-driven. I see that as a mixed blessing, most likely more negative than positive in the longer run.
10. If Trump does something good for a foreign country you like or favor, he may ask for his pound of flesh in return.
Those are only a few options, the list is really pretty long. I am not panicked about the status quo, but I see it as fraught and unstable. And we haven’t even touched upon AGI advances.
More generally, I would stress that even the most optimistic person should not relinquish his or her sense of the tragic. A lot of Democrats were pretty ecstatic when Obama won a second term, but how happy are they now? Is that just them, or could it be you too?
I’ll say it again — be careful what you wish for, you might get it. The celebratory perspective can be important for getting things done, or for maintaining ideological coherence, but accuracy matters too, and the more accurate perspective should take all this into account.
Ezra Klein on the vibe shift
In July of 2024, Tyler Cowen, the economist and cultural commentator, wrote a blog post that proved to be among the election’s most prescient. It was titled “The change in vibes — why did they happen?” Cowen’s argument was that mass culture was moving in a Trumpian direction. Among the tributaries flowing into the general shift: the Trumpist right’s deeper embrace of social media, the backlash to the “feminization” of society, exhaustion with the politics of wokeness, an era of negativity that Trump captured but Democrats resisted, a pervasive sense of disorder at the border and abroad and the breakup between Democrats and “Big Tech.”
I was skeptical of Cowen’s post when I first read it, as it described a shift much larger than anything I saw reflected in the polls. I may have been right about the polls. But Cowen was right about the culture.
And the end bit:
Cowen may have correctly called the shift in vibes, but he isn’t particularly comfortable with it. If 2024 was partly a backlash to the Democratic Party and culture of the last four years, what might a backlash to this more culturally confident and overwhelming form of Trumpism look like?
“I’ve taken to insisting to my friends on the right: ‘Be careful what you wish for,’ ” Cowen told me. “You might get it.”
Here is the full NYT column.
The second attempted coup d’etat was partially successful
Here is some video. And a related note, don’t forget the ERA either. WSJ article here.