Gary Snethen

@JamesSurowiecki It’s not free speech when Harvard supports overt hatred of some groups while punishing perceived micro-aggresions of others. Harvard cannot shape speech to discriminate if they wish to receive federal funds.

A magazine affiliated with the university published an excerpt from a book 23 years ago. Mike Lee says that's a reason to cut off federal funding to Harvard. The party that claims to be defenders of the 1st Amendment, ladies and gentlemen!

@JamesSurowiecki Does “by any means necessary” mean self-dispersing after three hours? If insurrection was their objective, they really phoned it in. The vast majority were protestors. And their protest escalated into a riot. We should not excuse it. Nor should we exaggerate it.

Disgusting, but unsurprising. All else aside, there was no chance that Trump would ever let the DOJ mount a meaningful defense to this lawsuit, since that would have entailed showing that the Capitol rioters were there to overturn a democratic election by any means necessary.

@AugustCohen4 @JamesSurowiecki You are right. James and others like him are driving the rational centrists out of the party. If democrats don’t wake up and realize the harm they are doing, the GOP will become the new home of reason and honest debate. And it could take a generation for the DNC to win them back.

The sentiment that drives his worldview is not stupid. And we liberals (and conservatives) need to grapple with the fact the far right is gaining power because of the perception that liberalism has failed alot of people. We can't be condescending. It won't work with the people who we need to gain back trust so as to take back power.

It's impossible to overstate how stupid Trump's view of trade is. He literally thinks that if you, American consumer, buy a TV that's made in China, you've "lost money," even though you got a TV in exchange for your dollars (at a very fair price).

@EarthOne_13 @JamesSurowiecki @BillAckman @jflier @Harvard I have an uncle in the bottom 10%. He was born with cerebral palsy and has an IQ well below the level of legal retardation. Are you saying he should attend business conferences?

Apparently @Harvard prefers to euthanize research animals and cut scientific research rather than eliminate its enormous bureaucracy, shut down its racist and illegal DEI programs, and cut back funding for gender and Marxist studies. The ideological capture of Harvard is destroying the university from within.

@DieselRussRugg @JamesSurowiecki James used a strawman argument. He raised a silly hypothetical that would never come to pass due to obvious checks and balances. He can't counter the actual argument, so he had to create an imaginary one. He doesn't seem interested in the truth.

@JamesSurowiecki @gary_snethen But the visa has requirements, correct? If you don't understand.... try to read more, get informed.

I don't understand how it's not a blatant violation of the 1st Amendment for Congress to say that a visa holder can have her visa revoked if she makes or publishes statements which the Secretary of State deems "adversarial to the foreign policy interests of the U.S."

James is confused because he thinks the Constitution was written to protect foreign nationals. If it had been, we would need a jury trial proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt before striking each and every enemy soldier during war. That clearly isn’t the case. The Constitution was written by and protects “The People of the United States,” which are its citizens. All others within its borders are subject to statutory law, passed by Congress, with minimal Constitutional protections.

The 1st Amendment says Congress shall make "no law" abridging the freedom of speech. And even if we accept there are exceptions to that "no law" rule, a law that empowers the govt to literally punish people for political speech is as blatant a violation of the 1A as you can get.

@JamesSurowiecki @BillAckman @jflier @Harvard There is precedent for denying universities government funding and tax-free status if they discriminate based on race. And Harvard discriminates in admissions, hiring of faculty, and enforcement of its free speech policies based on race and a racially biased ideology.

You cannot think the govt has a right to tell a private university to hire people based on ideology, to teach free classes of a certain type, and to "reduce" the power of students and untenured faculty. This was massive, unconstitutional overreach by Trump, and no self-respecting university could have agreed to it.

@JamesSurowiecki Did you read the court’s decision? Are you incapable of analyzing anything objectively?

I'm going to assume that a Vance assistant wrote that tweet. If not, it's an embarrassing thing for a Yale Law School grad to have written.

The Supreme Court held that anyone the Trump administration wants to deport under the Alien Enemies Act is entitled to judicial review of their detention. So it in fact embraced the idea that judges can overrule Trump's immigration enforcement decisions if they're in error.

@alok31777763 @JamesSurowiecki When you buy coffee from a country, you give them money. That money can then be used to buy goods from you. If the money is used instead to buy goods from other countries like China, it shifts your nation’s buying power to those other countries. Fair trade is goods for goods.

As I said, this is why Trump lied - to fool people into believing his goal was just getting other countries to play by the same rules, rather than trying to abolish the U.S.' trade deficits with every country in the world.

@carolaf810 You miss the point. The wealth of a society is determined by the goods available to consume. Ten apples for ten men is wealth. One apple for ten men is poverty. Consuming more apples will not increase wealth. Growing more apples will.

O nível da lógica da seita. Segundo ele em uma economia, o produtor produz apenas para produzir e não para vender e portanto, a produção é que gera riqueza e não o consumo.

Economia MAGA 101

@JamesSurowiecki So all you care about is the message? Not what is true?

Chuck Schumer is as bad at messaging as it gets. The message - which has the advantage of being true - should be: "Everyone is getting poorer thanks to Trump."

@JamesSurowiecki So you believe Americans are China’s inferiors and must suckle at China’s teats? And China fears us sucking less? Is that really your position?

Because American consumers are their customers, and when consumers have less money, they buy less.

@JamesSurowiecki “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

"Once you change your frame to a time that has nothing in common with 2025, and that has no useful economic lessons to teach us, it all fits."

@pleasantmilksh1 @JamesSurowiecki “They/Them Milkyboi”, how would you achieve that shift?

@gary_snethen @JamesSurowiecki Even if trumps goal was to bring back manufacturing to the us, the groundwork for that shift should be in place before any tariffs, not be chaotically planned while the market is crashing due to excessive tariffs.

This is wrong. Trump put a flat 10% tariff on the rest of the world, which will not be lifted. On top of that, a country eliminating tariffs will not lead Trump to drop the specific tariffs on that country, because those tariffs are pegged to trade deficits, not trade barriers.

@CynicalPublius I agree with you again. Who are you?

People who are truly intelligent know when they were wrong about something. Usually when smart people are wrong, it’s because they have flawed assumptions. I was once a staunch advocate of the system we called “free trade.” (Even though it was really not free trade, so for purposes of this post I’ll call the restrictive reality “globalist free trade.") My support for globalist free trade was based on the following four assumptions: 1. Globalist free trade will result in fair trade policies honored by all nations. 2. Countries like China, Myanmar and Vietnam will abandon their tyrannical governments and oppressive social conventions once globalist free trade is in place, and will join the world of free, peaceful, democratic societies. 3. Globalist free trade will make unskilled workers in poor countries into a robust middle class. 4. US manufacturing jobs will leave, but all American citizens will then have robust opportunities in the knowledge economy that will raise the standards of living for all. These four assumptions underpinned all support for globalist free trade. All four of these assumptions were badly, badly wrong. They were wildly off the mark. Today, our intelligentsia are unable to do what I did (admit my assumptions were wrong) and instead cling to the same Chamber of Commerce 1990s rhetoric that brought us to this hellscape. The mark of true intelligence is the ability to admit you were wrong. Our self-appointed “elites” are showing us in the tariffs argument just how unintelligent they actually are.

@JamesSurowiecki Spending does not increase wealth. Production increases wealth. The question to ask in today’s market is how we can increase supply.

I don't think is true. The negative wealth effect is real, and a steep decline in the stock market will absolutely affect the consumption habits of higher-income people, whose spending has been essential to the continued strength of the economy.