Good for you and really good thinking. I wonder how many people got wiped out because they never thought he'd actually do it.

Oh for sure, I'm in the same boat. Not planning on looking at my 401(k) until approximately 2029 but I've got at least twenty some working years still ahead of me, maybe more once social security is converted into an exotic reverse equity investment portfolio of some kind. Really tough morning though, and potentially many more to come for anyone who thought they were retiring in the immediate future.

It's only sane if you believe it's going to result in major reinvestment in low skill manufacturing in the US, so things may be (way) more expensive but there are more jobs that may or may not be preferable to restaurants and retail. Of course you have to be stupid to believe that's a likely outcome, which he is.

The only tariff that makes any sense are those on China and that's only because some sacrifice is worth it to strangle a motivated, highly hostile adversary wherever we can. What we should really be doing is loosening and harmonizing trade with the free world and not exactly free Asian countries on condition they impose similar restrictions on the Chinese.

Yea I don't can't decide whether I want the rest of the world to take it in stride in light of Trump's own propensity to turn on a dime and spare us some pain or to hit us super hard in hopes of pushing along a correction. What a cluster. What stupidity.

alienate long standing allies + massive regressive tax increase + self imposed recession + ????? = America great again

Ha! I miss Norm.

Well here comes the big f- you to working families everywhere. I predict hard lessons are about to be learned when everything gets way more expensive and any new investment in the US in return is minimal.

I think this is the most persuasive hypothesis and among the most direct causes is just how Extremely Online this administration is, and it's even worse than it was in 2017. For all the talk about social media giving politicians a direct line to their supporters without any gatekeepers one wonders if the way the internet distorts reality won't ultimately cause this approach to he self defeating. Twitter gazes back at you, or something like that.

I think it'll eventually revert to a master and apprentice kind of model where the senior person gets an heir and a spare rather than a department or firm or whatever getting a chunk of a big graduating class. Family businesses may live on. The big boys do too but they shrink drastically.

Yes, my prediction is that the pipeline will also constrict. Clients will still want a guy or gal with a little grey in his or her hair and the bedside manner breaking down the brass tacks but the path to becoming that person will be narrower.

I think we have to be more constructive. The female coded thing is something I feel good telling people to get over. I fully expect that by the time I can retire (if I ever can, God willing) that law will be female coded in a way it was not when I started out. That's what the pipeline looks like and there's no harm in it.

The question becomes what you can do to create mass work at a time when technology is slowly but surely eliminating the demand. Maybe it's FDR style paying people to go out and clear scrub brush. Maybe it's, I dunno, paying people to coach little league. Of course you then have to deal with every dollar being spent on that not being spent on the latest ship killer drone that blows up amphibious landing vessels while they're still out at sea.

Just to add you look at that situation with the longshoreman and port automation. On the one hand those people have good jobs and you hate to see them go. On the other, is it really in the strategic interest of the US to refuse to automate its ports, while China speeds ahead with the technology? It isn't easy stuff.

Yea, on the one hand financialization and globalization have wreaked havoc on low skill manufacturing. On the other times and technology really have changed in important ways.

Over on Yglesias' substack someone shared a rather glib tweet (xeet?) about the lack of upside to bringing back the sock factories from Cambodia. It's harsh but MY isn't totally wrong about that.

While we need to on-shore or friend-shore any number of strategic industries those are probably mostly of the high tech manufacturing variety, and importantly not the type that leads to mass low skill employment with unions and good benefits, etc. like in the days of yore. They're jobs for smaller numbers of people who may still need degrees and/or significant training to operate the mostly automated tools.

So what do you do for those guys? They probably don't make enough for tax cuts to mean anything. Resistance to subsidy is bolstered not just by pointy headed economists but by senses of worth and dignity. It's still not clear to me what you can do for them that doesn't work against creating and holding the other forms of strategic advantage.

Voters can get comfortable with evil, but incompetence? That's a real problem.

Yea it's all good food for thought. Parts 1 and 2 seem like the kind of thing that could even have bipartisan legs. Part 3 I think may he fundamentally in tension with Parts 1 and 2. Constraints on trade for the greater good of our way of life may well be necessary (I agree that they probably are) but the result of that is going to make us poorer in the aggregate, as is re-arming. Not a lot left over to put your fingers on the scale for working families in that environment.

I take it as people may be dumb but it's a bad idea to insult their intelligence. And a guy like Musk just can't help insulting peoples' intelligence. Constantly. And with extreme prejudice.

My read of Cass is he's trying to grope towards a new synthesis of the right of center. From the essay and other pieces I've read by him I think he'd tell the Romneys and McCains that the old world is dead and they had better get used to it. However he still has a sophisticated enough view of geopolitics that he understands that a US that operates totally out of self interest (to say nothing of being totally irresponsibly governed) is a less powerful country. The question I'd ask him is what separates his views from those of, I don't know, George H.W. Bush and if the answer is nothing then are you sure you're actually a conservative, as that term is coming to be understood?

Maybe I need to read him more to get that. I read the substack post on the 3 demands that seemed to me to be premised on the idea that there is an audience for this within the Trump administration. I have not been able to watch the interview with Jon Stewart and (mistakenly it sounds like) assumed it covered the same ground.

Eh maybe...?

I mean admittedly I am not the closest Musk follower but my take on him is that his two big political priorities, construed most charitably, are about institutional and/or economic efficiency and a pseudo libertarian set of social values. These things are both in direct conflict with at least 2 of Cass' 3 big ideas, those being balancing trade with friendlies and coordinated anti-Chinese protectionism across the democratic world.

If you really wanted to give Cass a kind of push you'd say congratulations, you've re-invented the US led liberal world order, just with our allies paying their own freight on defense and being a little less touchy feely on certain questions of values. Maybe also a little more nakedly self interested in our approach to global capitalism. But that's also not really what Trump is doing, by haphazardly threatening tariffs against friend and foe alike and calling into question our ability to lead the kind of alliance Cass says we should. It also doesn't seem to be what motivates Musk.

The ideas are worth taking seriously but the conceit that Trump (or Vance, or Musk) understand or are motivated by them is.. a tough sell. I mean maybe if Rubio was president you could see there being challenges selling some of this in the face of institutional inertia and a fickle public raised on a Steven Spielberg version of World War 2 and the years immediately after but does anyone else in the administration have this kind of vision? I'm unconvinced.