On Tuesday night, president-elect Donald Trump announced that the richest man in the world, Elon Musk, along with entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy will head a new initiative in the Trump administration: the Department of Government Efficiency, or “DOGE.”
The conversation about being open to rebel thinking and the risk of the slippery slope into crazy ideas. Isn’t acknowledging this risk what has made America exceptional - the reason for checks and balances in the constitution. And I think our laws or regulations can be evaluated based on this same rubric. If a law is designed to check and balance power it is does so much more for the public interest than when they get into telling people how to live their lives or telling businesses how to operate, or health care professionals what protocols to implement. I know many in this group think that any government rules for the press are necessarily wrong. But I believe that rules designed to check and balance the power of the press have had the benefit of protecting freedom of press from the influence of ad money and benefiting the public interest.
One thought I had was that this was the first time I’ve heard Thiel’s thoughts on “the way things are this time around (this election cycle)”. I’d love to hear more if anyone has links for recent discussions.
The other thought was that Bari should cease with the straw-manning of Carlson and Cooper as nazi-apologists and sympathizers. I am 100% onboard to listen to a debate about where Cooper’s analysis is allegedly incorrect or a misinterpretation. Thiel gave you a much better paradigm of looking at the different lessons of WWI and WWII.
What is it about Carlson/Cooper that has caused you to lose your curiosity?
Really interesting about free trade and why tariffs are directionally sound to look at. For one thing, his insight that big trade deficits benefit banks has significant implications. He says that when there are big deficits, the trading partners with no things to buy from the US do end up investing their money here. So banks make money when theres a big trade deficit, while middle class/former mfging employees lose out. This has implications for why the party that is supported by the banks (democrats) have such a different reality and so much more money to spend.
Character: doesn't win wars and will not stop Iran from building nukes. Nor did it stop Putin from invading Ukraine. Your emphasis on character is irrelevant to those 74 million+ voters who voted for him. This is a very disappointing interview by the interviewer.
Maybe even you have learned from past lesson that changed how you react to certain situations.
Maybe it's time to find a more neutral person to do the Honestly podcast. Your opinion that one can't change their character, I know I did a long time ago when my marriage was in jeopardy due to my actions, is a false assumption.
At the end of four years we shall see. 800+ thousands have given you that chance, you should pass that forgiveness on and let the psychologist make such observations. ( we won't listen to them either.) Maybe I can listen to the rest of the podcast some other day.
Leave the psychology to the psychologist. Even most of them can't get it tight.
I’m not sure. Still pondering that one. Sometimes I think that a seeming change can be explained by their character being more fully revealed over time, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude the additional possibility that we can change.
The conversation about being open to rebel thinking and the risk of the slippery slope into crazy ideas. Isn’t acknowledging this risk what has made America exceptional - the reason for checks and balances in the constitution. And I think our laws or regulations can be evaluated based on this same rubric. If a law is designed to check and balance power it is does so much more for the public interest than when they get into telling people how to live their lives or telling businesses how to operate, or health care professionals what protocols to implement. I know many in this group think that any government rules for the press are necessarily wrong. But I believe that rules designed to check and balance the power of the press have had the benefit of protecting freedom of press from the influence of ad money and benefiting the public interest.
Relatedly, from my perspective inside Leo Burnett working with Fortune 50 companies, in the 1980’s I watched a shift in business FROM:
a) growth in existing US markets through R&D and marketing/sales and
b) high margins and paying out dividends to shareholders (who were often employees, business partners, and customers)
TO
a) banks convincing corporations to shift from growth and R&D to efficiency and global expansion
b) taking on debt to acquire companies to eliminate market inefficiency created by redundancy of multiple competitors.
Great conversation - thank you!
One thought I had was that this was the first time I’ve heard Thiel’s thoughts on “the way things are this time around (this election cycle)”. I’d love to hear more if anyone has links for recent discussions.
The other thought was that Bari should cease with the straw-manning of Carlson and Cooper as nazi-apologists and sympathizers. I am 100% onboard to listen to a debate about where Cooper’s analysis is allegedly incorrect or a misinterpretation. Thiel gave you a much better paradigm of looking at the different lessons of WWI and WWII.
What is it about Carlson/Cooper that has caused you to lose your curiosity?
Really interesting about free trade and why tariffs are directionally sound to look at. For one thing, his insight that big trade deficits benefit banks has significant implications. He says that when there are big deficits, the trading partners with no things to buy from the US do end up investing their money here. So banks make money when theres a big trade deficit, while middle class/former mfging employees lose out. This has implications for why the party that is supported by the banks (democrats) have such a different reality and so much more money to spend.
Peter made this gel for me, as well!!
Character: doesn't win wars and will not stop Iran from building nukes. Nor did it stop Putin from invading Ukraine. Your emphasis on character is irrelevant to those 74 million+ voters who voted for him. This is a very disappointing interview by the interviewer.
Maybe even you have learned from past lesson that changed how you react to certain situations.
Maybe it's time to find a more neutral person to do the Honestly podcast. Your opinion that one can't change their character, I know I did a long time ago when my marriage was in jeopardy due to my actions, is a false assumption.
At the end of four years we shall see. 800+ thousands have given you that chance, you should pass that forgiveness on and let the psychologist make such observations. ( we won't listen to them either.) Maybe I can listen to the rest of the podcast some other day.
Leave the psychology to the psychologist. Even most of them can't get it tight.
The typical liberal wants to believe in the Übermensch, when what we have - and have always had - is the Prodigal Son.
What an interesting and thoughtful conversation. I really enjoyed listening to this.
Do you also believe that some one can't change their character?
I’m not sure. Still pondering that one. Sometimes I think that a seeming change can be explained by their character being more fully revealed over time, but that doesn’t necessarily preclude the additional possibility that we can change.
You've never changed then?
https://hbr.org/2011/04/strategies-for-learning-from-failure
Agree!