Sarah, Ezra, and Matt talk about Neil Gorsuch, a controversial tax reform idea, and Nazi infrastructure building.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
This. We support is also sponsored by Nature Box, gotta Nature, Baxter, Comstock weeds for fifty percent of your first order. The following podcast contains explicit language mansions thing every time new hello, welcomed another episode of the weeds boxes, policy, podcast gonna panoply network, I'm Matthew, Iglesias, joined by our regular superstar task, Sarah Clip as recline inaction pact. We, We already doing a second. We already did an episode earlier and it's pretty good listening to as it was a yap. Thank you. If you have not listened to the earlier one, I really recommend going to the very end of it and listening to what DORA says about Amerika and our role of refugees historically its. I think, a very beautiful moving passage.
It was now we'll talk about the beautiful moving topic of destination based cash flow to exploit in clear terms. What we're we're gonna get back to like what the weeds is a bow and talk about a really wonky. Weird thing that is is working as way through Congress. We're gonna talk about an important white paper. That Hitler and first the best white paper title I've ever seen its pretty great. I mean, if you think, about the pros and cons of Nazi, At least it brought us this white paper title, but many kinds referring the Holocaust. A lot of people yet every vomica Jews, mostly thou. So yet it's a people. Let's talk about Superman Guy. We have a new Supreme court. Nominee Trump has picked, Judge Gorse edge to be the next Supreme Court justice. He comes to us from Colorado, Tenth Circuit Court of appeals. He has written an entire
unassisted suicide, which is quite unusual for someone coming to spring cordially youngsters who he is I really is against. It is book on assistance. side of really suggestions and quite strong views on abortion and in when life begins He was very involved in kind of one of the more pro in cases of the past few years. The hobby lobby decision he was one of the Judges who made the decision that was upheld by the Supreme Court. That is a violation of really liberties he's been involved in another case that did not make it to the Supreme Court that even chow the accommodation. He doesn't think that the Supreme Court, when far enough in accommodating religious liberties and hobby lobby so you have is jurisprudence, and then you also have a happening in the Senate in terms of the political battle were about to see about how Democrats take this nominee after seeing Republicans deny here to merit guard wind I think, you're really sing a huge range of opinions develop among democrats ranging from Jeff murkily in Org
and who says even before we knew who was nominated, that anyone should be filibuster, that I can support anyone, some other Democrat, some may think, including ginger Hain. Your colleague boxes, Jeff Stein, talk too, who said that we shouldn't go the same route. The Republicans are going and I think they our facing down a choice about how they want to handle this that could have pretty on reaching implications for this no Congress and really stretching beyond one Democrats might be back in power. I feel like the state from this are actually super duper low and that people are just arguing,
because there are going about it right so like if democrats try to filibuster, they will probably fail to just get the number that they need, because it did not learn our ball Democrats out there. If they succeed in filibustering, Republicans, will change the walls and Corsica beyond the bench. If Democrats declined to filibuster in order to preserve the filibuster to use later, which is like one theory they have, then when they try to filibuster later republicans will change the rules and the general come in. I think that the smart thing to do is, for every Senate Democrat to consult his pollster and his campaign team to look in a very serious way at what he thinks is going to help him or her raise money and win real action and do that
course judges is an interesting nominee, because what you see here is Donald Trump fulfilling his side of the deal to the Republican Party. Since you got elected he's been doing some things. Republican party for the most part would not be their top priorities. Maybe they don't oppose them in all cases, but they don't love, certainly where the refugee and immigration ban was carried out. They don't like him running round. men, immigration, they did not really intend for their top priority of the new administration to be negotiating over how many people attended the inaugural, but what Donald Trump promised the heat, the Republican Party, is that he would nominated a conservative justice to fella Antonyms Clia seat, and he has done that Gore. Such is a judge who very I could have been the nominee of marker Rubio very well, could have in the nominee of TED crews. Very well could have been the nominee of Job Bush. This sort of what you would expect he's quite conservative interest I very very smart, very well liked, in fact Neil catch all who's, the former
that are general fur brok. Obama came out and said Gore such as a great guy, he's a brilliant mind. He's a humane person is early lily. I think that the worst people in the world are the legal academics who come out of the wood. Work any time somebody nominates like a smart judge for like and mislead consequential decision that will make like life and death. Does for millions of people and comes out with the Ipad Belike stop complaining about the practical consequences of this guy for your life. The important thing as he has good journal articles like it's. I think of all the points of view on this, like from he's good he's horrible, you should filibuster, they all makes sense. I some of those with them all like, except for NEO can't you like, I think that is awful. I'd like it makes my skin cry like what the fuck is he talking about. It's so crazy. I don't think it's that crazy. I do not have the same reaction that you have to add up.
I understand. Being able to see like at least understand, is jurisprudence, a gun panic why he is making these decisions that he's like. I read it as saying like this is not some like. The walls zany guy who don't know to expect, as it is civil, like I see it as a good discourse I get the politics of. It may not be perfect, but I didn't do it. I have a view on this. I think helps us actually bring, into discussion of what comes next, which is ice catch. All is writing from the perspective of among conservative justices republican President might have chosen and that he thinks Judd's Corsica is a good version of that right that I think he probably disappointed of how I Clinton had chosen course such although I can speak for catch. Eleven interviewed him on this. But what I do think is an important backdrop. Here is the importance of and winning elections, but it just party politics and power in that. So I am seeing a lot of debate about Merrick, Ireland and
Johnson, who was a judge nominated by Obama, not the Supreme Court, for I think I was in a pellet court, but who nomination, was filibustered and held up. I think was ten months and she openly never go on the bench. She wrote a piece saying that the Senate should refuse to confirm anybody until Garland is put on the bench that there should not be a confirmation until Garland goes on and its in peace. It makes some arguments, but I think that people have slightly almost forgotten what happened in two thousand in Managua. Sixteen, which is that Republicans controlled the Senate, and so they actually had the power to just say. No and I think folks are not fully absorbing with that's actually pretty different scenario. Now I think I think there is. I don't mean that people, like literally dont, know how politics works, but I think there's a thing that Obama had power and answered Democrats should have been able to get garland on the court, but right now, democratic have no power
The only interesting question is should: is it worth it for them too? go to war over gorse edge and his judicial philosophy. because in many ways there are probably places it. He has made pretty unpopular decisions and see the filibuster blown up, for that is that a good messaging, It is, should we be doing, and I think this would be the strongest version of the argument should they be doing to Donald Trump. What Republicans did Barack Obama, which is to make really clear that he is gone, Learning from the far right that he is governing alone that he is making Washington angry bitter polarized place that people are upset and just creating a kind of sentiment, Shockwave, Swearin, whatever happened to, of course, a confirmation peoples. Can I hate the whole experience of it,
as such the opinion ratings go down and the people who tend to suffer for that are the party that holds the White House. I think that's the argument for going to the wall on us. It's not. The gorse at work should be stopped from being on. The court has either that is gonna, take down the buster or disconnect nominates someone else, someone like him. Demands or- and this is actually changed in the world like twelve days of the Trump Administration, where twelve days ago, I would have said no, don't go to have all pick your battles, but the last few weeks have been pretty interesting and sing. It feels like the liberal side, has been shockingly of effective and like excited to be fucking angry right now. I have been surprised that this is one kind of micro chasm example. From Obamacare Buddy. You have this instance, where the trumpet ministries announces. They're not can advertise for open enrollment anymore and a lot of people slipping out a lot. Meltdown alive, logistical challenges and actually hands off the air and within twenty four hours that they reverse. That decision they decided like we're, not gonna fight. This battle
I'm, using like some small victories on demagogic ban and using a lot of people who really want to go to rallies. You they want to like do something. It seems like a moment when Democrats are going to be rewarded for like really going to the wall politically, that that there is a lot of just air for that the long term consequences I'm like less sure on, but I guess I'm thinking about like the next to you ending in elections. I go and twenty two in like then I say like God: let's go for it like harness this moment when it actually seems There is some efficacy and like there is like a group of people are very large group of people who want to kind of get riled up by this. I just I feel there is no wall here, there's a problem that we have hit upon in judicial confirmations, which is that increasingly overtime senators have become reluctant to vote yes for judges who they think we'll be back, which makes a lot of sense to be exact
not a senator, so you can just ask me like separate from like how should people vote like? Do you think you'll Gore, such will be a good judge. The answer is no right, like I didn't think, entered its rate and that's since you just run around you ask me what you know like. I just disagree with that guy. So then, if I magically became a senator, it will be hard for me. To say too angry constituents while ago this guy's a bad judge, but, like true he's, judge, but I'm gonna confirm him anyway, because in a hypothetical future different circumstance, I would want to different senator to confirm a judge who I thought we you don't like it. The that's tough, but world Time like that was the nor the entrance. Glia was a unanimous vote way and then norm has been eroded and use very visibly with some sort of my are nomination, who you know it was a democratic judge replacing and other democratic judge. There was nothing consequential happened in american constitutional law because she came
The bench Obama had a huge set, a majority at that point very high ratings, and she like shockingly few republican votes for the pretty good You say that, like Republicans and want to vote for a Democrat and I This feeling we're getting to the bottom of that. Well, we're like the filibuster has been of road. It rightly for like everything except Supreme Court judges button legislation. But I guess you have known obey me for it. For now I just want to be sure and assets, but you like, if the ping pong here was, it was just like everybody hold up your hand. If you think the course it will be the judge, unlike there aren't sixty senators who think that and then it's like oh man, he can't be seated. an image bacchanals like. Why do we change the rules of the party with more votes? Wins advocate that, like that's all sensible ride like that's just how it should go, it's the garland nomination that was
interested in America. It is not rare for the President and the Senate majority to be indifferent parties, and so like can you fill Supreme court seats under those circumstances? The answer Mitch Mcconnell posed was no. You cannot and oh bomb up try,
and completely failed to like deal with that and in a sensible way, and that just strikes me as like the problems Zone for America. Corset just like we'll see what happens, but I think it doesn't matter if you're anything like me, you know sometimes you wanna snack end. If once a man snack on his junk food, you gonna eat junk food and it is not great. So if you want a short and live a healthier life, he would start snacking healthier with Nature box. They make snacks that actually take great in their better for you, the grid with high potty ingredients that are free from artificial colors flavors of sweeteners. You can feel ok about snacking. I like some their dried fruit staff. There are great apples, grey hairs. They also have some in slightly more indulgent, principally things and there that that I also article four and they recently made their service even better. You can order as much as you want, as often as you want with no minimum perch required and you can cancel at any time I. So it's really simple you than a nature box, tat com, you can
their snap catalogue. There were hundreds smacks to choose from there always adding new stuff. She choose what you want. They deliver read your door, it's easy, but nature max! You never get. Bored is new stuff there, each month, it's inspired by real customer feedback and for some reason something comes you don't like it. They will replace it for free, that's a good opportunity to try out something new, I'm so right now, you're, safe, even more because nature boxes offering offence fifty percent off your first order. If you got a nature box, dot, com, slash, reads: she's, gonna, nature, box, tat, calm, slash weeds! At that we get credit. You get fifty percent of the first order. Nature about calm, slash. I wanna maybe make the case not for political strategy here for why there is something fundamentally problematic happening, so you go back to the Murk Ireland, the situation What you have there is Barack Obama
facing down a republican Senate, and so he comes to the idea that all go forward with a judge. It everybody agrees is a compromise judge right. You know still on the left side of that action, but If that had been the Obama nominee with Democratic Senate Republicans would have been thrilled like Marguerite had been the bed. One morning, Hatch specifically said when there was a democratic No bomber was filling judges sites or in hatchways, like all man. This is terrible. He should nominate a marriage. You go so so there's that then Mitch become does not go forward with the argument. We think Mare Carl and is a bad judge. He goes for with the principal like. bullshit principle. That no judge should be seated in an election year which functionally because auctioneers actually happen every two years. He don't has happened when President's are elected means, it knows have been where judge can be seated half of the time. I think if you just take that principle seriously, so ok, that's where we are and that prison.
obviously halts. So then what happens in the election is the democratic, wins, more boats and democratic Senate candidates when more votes because of how geography political geography works in America. That does not lead to them. Having put power in either the White House or the Senate, but nevertheless, what but in the election was more people voted for democratic ideas, and I think it's a pretty reasonable principle for Democrats to adopt vit vat, just taking the election result seriously requires your compromise candidate that not working. I think what a lot of people do. Hersey work backwards from outcomes. This guy will probably be seated as mouth says. So why really fight it? But I should think as a principle it should be said. I think it is meaningful that most people found had for not Donald Trump and most people voted for democratic Senna candidates and fit responsibly would be good to be putting for
for their publican. Just majority did that the Republican Empowered majority to be at least making some impulse in that direction to be nominate their own form of America, Ireland right somebody still on their side, but who is more or less a compromise, not many which is not what course etches course is. You know if you are trying to replace Andean Scalia, he is there a play. Brandon Scalia he's a I'm sure, lovely guy, very, very clearly, brilliant guy, but I am quite far to the right judge and I think it is a fair message for Democrats to put forward that the election results matter did they field is their job, I represent the majority of people voted for them in their candidates and that they want to insist not that this guy's a bad judge, but that is not a compromise judge in any sense of the word, be happy to vote for someone who is more of a compromise, but but but not for, but not for this guy.
and to get a little bit away, as mounts has from the idea that you should vote for judges on this sort of abstract bases of qualification, which I just I sort of agree. People should be qualified, but that is necessary, but not sufficient condition for be supported its quite possible that treatment have another seat to fell until it lets say he did. I guess what vision on their public inside to go online. Canada- vigilance is just what is. I actually think it should take the question of because the outcome here,
in all versions of it is rising. It else gorse it gets on. The bench is a question of what is the right argument to make, and I actually think I think this is true cross allowed things went out with jump. I think Trump is an unpopular president who one fewer votes than Hillary Clinton, and I think the Democrats should actually demand is a price of cooperation that he compromises, that he acts like somebody who has to win over the majority, and I dont think the. I think that one sort of danger for Democrats is a full intellect the fall into fall like tumbled. Donald Trump is a fascist and that's why you can't work with him on anything which I don T think so, really I don't think it's a fascist and I don't think it's like a reasonable message by do think is reasonable message to say
he won fewer votes. He needs to come to the middle like that. That is how this works and they're not going to just give votes for nothing, and so far I mean there's something a lot a test of this yet, but so far I dont think has been much of that. He is unlike both. Bravo bomber and Georgia, be Bush has nominated zero Democrats to his cabinet right Obama head Bob Gates. He tried to nominate a grey, Bush had Minetta beginner. There were any at a lotta people considered compromise players. There has been no, just wait about REACH Donald Trump that has been meaningful, he's been extremely partisan from day one here, and I think that it is totally reasonable. Message has hitchhike biscuit like this guy, fewer votes if he wants any help in Washington that such as foreign obstruction, he has got to act like that has got to act like there is a majority here that he leads me to keep it and what I would say you know in terms of like the fatalism on this right that like,
you're you're sitting in in czech shooters, chair and part of the issue here, is that because of geography and the map, and so on and so forth, you have a bunch of Democrats represent Ding Missouri West Virginia Indiana. North Dakota need a whore up for real action in twenty eighteen and those are states were Donald Trump is popular and where he did. When an answer, one question humor has to ask until everything is, which are the issues where I'm trying to hold. caucus together and which are the issues where I'm gonna. Let those guys develop some distance from the party leadership right or in which it is inevitable that there are going to, and I think that we have seen very clear signals that replacing an iconic conservative Supreme Court justice with a younger conservative Supreme Court justice who is,
Emily well regarded and publishes books under university presses and gets good NEO Katya. Our beds is just like that's one of the topics where clear, mechanical and Joe Mansion are gonna take a dive because they, obviously they have to take it I've on something right and that easy in some ways. It good reason for shimmer to take a relatively extreme message on this, because no matter what he says, they're gonna take a dive and cooperate with Trump. So it's like. If he's, something that, like really fires up the democratic base and that, like they're, really enthusiastic about knits, like ok Democrats, are fighting for me and then like. Actually, these seven Democrats take a dive in some ways that, like accomplishes what everybody wants out of this, like Donald Trump, gets the judge he wants clear. Mechanical gets distance from the leadership the base gets to see their leader fighting for them, whereas
trying to message it in the most reasonable way, I think he's gonna end up to satisfy everyone. And he reminds me of the guideline nomination to me- was like Obama going like back into the bag of like bad Barack Obama, political tactics that hee hee. hardly dumped, but they ve employed a lot in twenty eleven. He employed with the Garland nomination and he employed around the intelligence community disputes about russian Hilary email server, which is where a bomb or would frequently say. Okay, we have introduced. But political disputes in America and no higher authority. We can't we can't dissolve parliament and hold a snap election. The way you could in Canada So what I'm gonna do side is that if I can get like reasonable right of centre newspaper columnists to say that my position is more correct and the Republicans interests being
final unreasonable? That, like that's my equivalent of appealing to a higher power like look at this David, Brooks column and he tried it on the dead ceiling. He tried it on garland. He tried it on, I'm call me and like
These are universally like the low points to me of the Obama administration, where he stakes out a position that his own supporters will not support so that he doesn't even have like a fight on his hands and to me that just like what Democrats need to do here is like not hold the line not hold him up, not block him, but just the Democrats, who represent blue states, need to articulate what their constituents feel about this. I feel very conflicted on a political premise, though the that you stated the beginning about twenty eighteen and inheres. Why so? Twenty teen is very bad Senate Map for Democrats? Will you know what else was about Senate Map was two thousand and ten for Republicans trip
Was he in cycle action from all four George W Bush had had a big winning oh for they were looking likely tat in in a conceptual way. They were defending more seats. It was. It was not a road map for them and the way they one was not. Being really moderate and taken dives Andy, you know, go out and in a way that assure their constituency there are the most reasonable folks. They won by firing up the conservative base. Also by demoralising the democratic base, and so when I think about your job, mentions, or chemical schools and embryo mentions in US state. That is very, very, very approach from so he's a he's pieces sort of a different case in some basic, whether should not be a democratic senator from West Virginia, but
you know why, when I look around and see right now is it. You have is, as Sarah noted, a liberal base, that is, that is oriented towards being activated in a way that I have never seen before. Like this whole idea, like protest is a new brunch. People want to come out there forging new social ties, are forging a new relationship. Maybe what how they involve and invest in politics? I think a lot of people want to protest the Supreme Court Justice and too. I really think this is true. This is not a liberal stance. The truth is, of course, it is a very conservative and I'm not sure that it is the wrong ground for clear mechanical to fight on to be like. I think we should have compromise nominees who are not exe really far to the right on every single issue that you can imagine and are gonna. U know continue to push the court in the structure I mean this is replacement fiscally, so the overall islands of court decisions will not change much, but against the hypothetical Bay sign of the poorest.
who won the most votes nominating the judge, it would change quite a lot and suggested the idea that I think Chuck humor still has not an hour not talked about this, but Democrats used to win elections. One way in a lot polarized time, and it's not clear to me that way is wrong, but definitely it seems to me a major problem for Democrats into doesn't sixteen was their base was not that excited about their candidate and partly in mid terms, for the singular problem Democrats have as are based tends to not be that excited. It is an obvious to me that the pathway success, even more, even in redder states is through a strategy that demoralize space now I really like I do not have high confidence about this opinion, but I'm quest doing it in a way that I'm questioning this our this argument in with, I think our pride didn't four years ago, when. that's more like what Democrats did no six and what Republicans did in two thousand to say that they had sort of worked
And there I mean they're being handed a candidate to who, like has probably been like one of the most outspoken conservative judges on they can issue that democratically care about about birth control and reproductive health rights battle, we ve had over the past caustic sick years now, really around my clarinets funding and this idea of war on women that, like he is someone who has staked out positions far far to the to the right where the Supreme Court went? So, if you remember, the Supreme Court decision in favour of hobby lobby basely had an accommodation for religious nonprofits where they would send in a form, say I do want to provide birth control and the government will take things over there and provide birth control. People wanted it. He was one of such when that case was challenged again to assert the accommodation isn't good enough. We don't want to send in this form because that makes us complicit in supplying.
with control he either Supreme Court decided not to hear the case again. He was one of the people who really urge them to who thought like. Yes, this does not go far enough, So it seems like an input in the particular case, of course, that this is an you that I think has been quite successful for a group like parent and group like brawls, where you do generally see a lot of support for access to birth control. A ton of support that, even among Republicans for access to contraceptives and more contraceptives. May it's not really that can issue that polarizes as much as something like abortion might. So it seems you know when you re up Thermos casket Isaac. Oh, I can totally sea like a clear Mc Caskey going like super hard. You know at issue- and you know she one against- make any. Who was? I really like a key figure in a lot of the We warned women staff there that he, he almost seems on this particular issue. The candidate really well suited to the type of you no campaign, you're suggesting
yeah I mean. I I just one is saudi: introduce into the debate like at a distinction between what do quantum quote the Democrats, but what you mean like the parties, leaders and high profile representatives from blue states do and what does like literally the entire democratic caucus do, because if it's worth looking back at the legislative track, where of a bomb is first two years right and there's bill after bill after bill from the stimulus to Dodd Frank to the public lands built the s, chip, expansion to the FDA regulation, tobacco that, like Mitchell, Conall opposed and the majority of Senate Republicans opposed and as a cock ass, they engaged in delaying tactics to make it painful to pass.
but which several republican senators voted for. Generally, almost always the Republicans for mean who felt themselves very vulnerable, but sometimes republican members from a high or new Hampshire. You know just the more vulnerable members often took a dive and those kind of bills, which was consistent with the message that, like quoting quote, though Republicans were fighting Obama and that I think liberal activists like people who complain on the internet, whatever will end up doing themselves a disservice if they set the bar for Democrats are opposing Donald Trump at John Tester is opposing Donald Trump that, like the guy's way out there on a limb in the
Super red states are just like they're gonna, take a dive on some stuff. That Trump does when it's not particularly clear, but I do think just to make the argument and I'm I'm not sure which others I fallen, but one the Supreme Court. One thing about Those bills messages they were lower yet file and what makes Mcconnell is always good at doing and what was really a strategy is to choose the places where he wanted to have a fight. That would really activate his base rate, and I think this is a real difference between Chuck shimmer strategy being hold enough Democrats together that there is a filibuster that can only be broken by the fellow Bulgaria and you know what you're saying, which is like allow a critical mass of democratic to take it I've so that you know whatever it is: there's a sixty forty majority to break them. buster. So you could definitely imagine a world in which forty two Democrats hold filibuster, but John
Stir and Joe Mansion and your name a couple others defect. Another world were Chuck humorous, not actually making this really whipped vote and they are trying to let the there that what they want to have happened is most people post Gore such end, the filibuster breaks and- and I think that's where the the strategic question is Here- I'm not somebody who knows how to answer it, but the best argument. It gets me to me from sort of like liberal activist he people is your base, doesn't want to fight for you if they don't feel like you're gonna fight for them. Yes, and the thing about going to the wall on the filibuster pretty, given that we also to agree at this point, the filibuster here is symbolic: Isabel just die soon as its. He, whose is it is way of dramatizing. We are fighting for you. You know they are refusing to before compromise nominee. They are taken things and, as in answers point along with all these,
there. Things are doing not birth control, a radical direction that you dont like and look. Maybe we can't stop it, but we did everything because, unlike that is a message consistent with liberals being excited about, Democrats were as well. We tried, but in the end enough Democrats broke to let this person through is a message consistent with liberals, getting very disillusioned about Democrats. Speaking of disillusionment, whose how can you ever be dissolution about forty adjustable taxation? I cannot. I think this is fascinating idea. The Trump administration finally said super one key tax reform initiative. Why are you you're going to explain this I am really can explain the context round it, so I think it was John Spices, with flying back on an airplane and was asked about how from Philadelphia it was very short flight, so yeah Philadelphia, they're coming back from being of GNP retreat.
He was asked why somebody about Paul Ryan appears very been a building the wall and just appropriating the money to build the wall and getting rid his whole like Mexico to pay for a thing but transparent, asked about them he said well, there are lots of ways to make Mexico pay for the wall, and then he said some complicated thing initially got report. it as we could stop at twenty percent import tax. On imports from Mexico, and so immediately people jumped up said, wait, that's not Mexico, for the wall, that's american consumers pay more for all the causes and american consumers paying for the wall. And then, as the full remarks came out, it appeared that what despiser was floating as part of maybe a broader tax reform with something called a border adjustable tat. What is the border just about tax, but this is more specifically a destination based, cashflow, TAT, ok
So this is an idea. Republicans floated in a tax reform proposed, I think about a year or two years ago. Now it's pretty recent. It's become a popular DM republican circles and it's not even that popular club for growth is against it. There's a bunch of pretty funny blog posts at the American presence to do some, which make up points about how this would like help AL chop, oh have led to more, legal immigration which actually might but the way this tax It is right now the way, the? U S, taxes, corporate income is a bit you can deduct his business expense things you buy from abroad. As part of your this. One Walmart buys a bunch of shirts from a chinese manufacturers shirts that money gets deducted. That's non tax, that's deductibles non taxable. By the same token, when apple cells, I pods in spain- that is money that in fear, we tax, because we tax corporate income, no matter where it happens. What this would do is make taxation exclusively place Bay.
It would totally totally a that structure, structure and unresolved people who, like structure, is it. It is a structure, quite a lot of game, that's why you know apples holding all this taxable income sure, there's all kinds of things that are not good about it, but what you doing. Here is your saying: you are only going to tax domestic income and expenses, so you can deduct business. fences, but only domestically. So if you are Walmart and you by a bunch of shirts from a chinese manufacturer that is not a deductible expense and if you are bull and you sell a bunch of ipods to Spain that money does not get past. The only taxation that happens is basically money that is moving through American on the american side of the letter So there are, there are better ways, not just right wing idea. It has been suggested in a voice by centre for american progress by the Century foundation and what is true,
about it, and this is where I want to turn over to map, because I find this very hard. So if you just heard this idea, what you would think it does, is it really bad for business? Is that import a lot of goods, and it's really good for businesses? It for a lot of goods, and so this would just seem to have a distributive effect where, like warmer screw the end up. Other companies are very well served. When you talk to economists, they don't believe that true and the reason they don't believe that is true is that the this tax will change the strength of the dollar verses, other currencies by changing demand for imports versus exports and so independent textbook mathematic model a textbook economic model. Everything just gonna balance out. And the space is going to be no real net change in the number of imports and exports, because the dollar is going to go up and down to mediate. That demand the place where people are
is how much you believe in that textbook explanation of how rapidly smoothly and fully exchange rates adjust to something like this. This is a debate I do not understand, and I hoping that us and can you just walk through tears. I am unaware unto answers, questions like what the theory is like why these lecture wages are changing and like how they play out for you, I'm so I mean, I think, a good way to think about this. This is being presented in Congress as there were four worm to the corporate income tax, which serves certain political purposes, but I think, becomes a confusing way to actually understand what's happening weight so in in most western countries, they have was called out of value added tax, a value added tax
like the retail sales tax that state governments offer except it really applies to everything. So you normally don't pay sales tax like if you hire a plumber, yet You certainly know what, if you think about it, states very a little bit, but it's like things. You go get it the cash register. They tend to be sales tax added to. But their kinds of services you by like. If you hire a lawyer, you don't pay sales tax on so so of that is like a sales tax, but a really units are soul. Sales tax, one way that they make of that truly universal. Is that its it minister differently from a sales tax? So, instead of being like added on it, the cash register it's done by corporation ends through their internal balance sheets, its Hain t say a word on that. Just like given illustrative examples, I think that's a pretty important right. Also, it is so much in the way of that would work, and the reason you can collected from a law firm right is that you need to at the
Do the year, like present your paper work to the tax authority and it says We had such and such amount of revenue right and then we had these expenses and you can deduct your expenses and you know you have your income and then you have to pay tax on that differential between them, so the value added tax is collected way as opposed to a sales tax. It makes it easier to collect from everybody, because your collecting it from companies rather than from individuals. It has a enforcement similarity to a corporate income tax, which is how it into the corporate income tax discussion and so a vat necessarily you end up wanting to do a border adjustment on otherwise it wouldn't be. Like a retail sales tax write, you would be taxing Boeing and aeroplanes, it's all to foreigners, which is not the goal.
all of a domestic consumption tax. So in a domestic consumption tax write you deduct all of your domestic expenses or rather you. U deduct your domestic purchases and you dont did act your foreign purchases and your tax on your domestic sales, but not on your foreign sales. That's value added tax, the value added tax, often american business men have complained that, are you added tax, is a subsidy to their foreign competitors that it's some kind of like trade ban and based on that long running dispute. There is a very extensive economics, literature on whether this amounts to a trade subsidy the overwhelming consensus from like economics models. Is that no, it is not right so like in Canada. Right people buy cars. If you were a canadian person buying a car in Canada, you are paying value added tax on that car. The fact that you are paying
attacks, is entirely the same: whether that tax was a process that was assembled in Japan and imported to Canada or whether it was in one of the canadian plants or whether, like many cars, it was a sum old in the United States but out of parts that some of them are from Mexico, and some of them are from Canada right the tax that is paid on you. The text that you pay as a consumer is completely indifferent to where the product is from. So that's they like economic and an international trade I would not be a substitute for some for a Canadian out of what S. The point is that the argument is that it is not right, but it is an american businessmen anchors since they make in that complaint. Well, so the way american businesses sea it is that it's like. Oh we export to Canada. Our sales are tax where's. When Canadians export to the United states me,
the american government nor the canadian government taxing them right, which is true. It's just. The economist arguments is not relevant right that, like all sales in Canada are treated the same also in the United States, are treated the same. It just happens to be that Canada tax. canadian consumers at the United States does not have american consumers, but that there is no discrimination based on foreign sort or not hold on? I because another part of this by understand the argument that which is that the american businessmen says hey look. Our car is getting this that tax in Canada and also we are paying corporate income taxes on the money we get on that in Amerika read like we're getting screwed compared to work? Yes, but I guess I think it is better to just think of this as like unrelated issues. Ok, right so like american business. Men do not like the worldwide taxation system in which they owe to
says on their sales, no matter where they come in Amerika. Liberals also don't like the worldwide taxation system, because companies massively avoid taxes on it. The worldwide corporate income tax system is that a lot of people have a lot of complaints with one appealing thing about shifting to this kind of system, from our backs point of view or really from aids. Principled conservative point of view is that this way, if you are a company that has a genuine bona fide foreign sell, you dont need to pay taxes on it. But you can't just do accounting work too, like per ten. that all the profits are in your irish subsidiary, because one thing apple can do right, as they can say: ok, apple of ice, and owns some special patent and then ACT United States needs to pay Apple, Ireland, to use that intellectual property. So now,
our sail in Chicago, was like super unprofitable, because we have this huge expense out to Ireland. So now the profits are all in Ireland you come back around me like we have all this cash off shore. You know you have to give us a special break in you're a border adjustment system that doesn't work. Quite your tax me some where the sale actually occurred. So that's the point I would say of like consensus on this. The interesting thing about the way Republicans of written this Is it isn't a value added tax, because in a value added tax, you cannot deduct the cost of the wages that you pay to employees? whereas under add destination, base cashflow tax you can so I think that
The clearest way to think about the impact of this is just say that they have eliminated the corporate income tax and they ve created a new consumption tax on american consumers, and then they ve added a big wage subsidy to american workers right. So if you are a person who has a job in the United States. You are going to pay more. Can it is, I think one reason you can do that is it it and chance by just said this is it this will happen in the context of the overall tax or forgets to the expectation. Is this would happen amidst the destruction of the worldwide tax yeah? I guess we're publican them all. We wanted to do, and this is a replacement for that without so mad, isn't just like making a weird bathing yea. It seems I wouldn't have both these happening at the same time its if it's a big texture, and so if you
american worker. You know you buy stuff and you earn a living. You are basically gonna, be paying higher prices implicitly through the consumption tax, but getting higher wages impulse. Only through the Wade subsidy. So you should come out about even the people who will be paying this tax are people who by things at America, but do not have a labour income in America, so that is a mishmash of like very poor people. You know jobless people of various kinds and critically. This is why both I think it is a good idea and I once people understand it's gonna be dead. If you are a senior citizen with non social, sick
the income, because your relatively affluent and have been putting money away in the stock market. This tax is falling. I'm you because you're buying things and you're not work. So I think that's. A pretty good idea right is actually is actually pretty progressive source of revenue. It's like attacks on following you just told people that it it hurts the jobless and obesity wiser progressive, fit, but Ebbene it. It doesn't hurt. All old people at only hurts old people to the extent that they have stopped portfolio sprite, because Social Security benefits what just stick to keep up with us and to an extent like social assistance programme, should also adjust right so that people who are really going to lose out? But this is a super republican constituency right- is like if you like, had a good job, for forty five years and like made money and owned a lot of stock and now you're ready hired and your drawing down your for one k account. Unlike complaining about
Burma's socialism, by geared screw under this tax plan and its, I don't think it's gonna fly like if you I think I You can see from Sean spices comments on the plane. I think you can see from House Republicans coming out of this trip are easy from done I'll try. mom's stray remarks about this to the Wall Street Journal. That support for this plan is driven almost entirely by genuine lack of understanding of what it does. I think you have dodge my question he's gonna as the currency request. You ve, given this long filibuster about how you should think of it like a bad, but it doesn't wages, but do what what I can cup in literature on this. Is that the hinge question of like? Do you think it's a good idea, or do you think it's a bad idea is do think currency will adjust effectively I actually dont think that much hinges on, because I see people on both sides of this, but so here's the idea, ready, if you say you do anything to just like subsidized exports,
So you just said: ok for every Eu Foreign sell, you got, you know you, you get a penny, so that should boost american exports. So that's great by boosting Can exports means foreigners are gonna need dollars to buy the exports, so that's going to drive up the price of the dollar and that's going to undo the price effect of the subsidy so much at all, even now, now, if you ask like serious international trade economists like Paul Krugman about, like literally anything that anyone could propose doing in terms of trade, they will always tell you it doesn't matter, is going to cancel out an exchange rate effects did that is what the economic say about everything. In my experience, nobody believes that I have never win there is a political debate that has like a change in apparent incidents. Right woman, when the export Import Bank was being discussed, nobody's position was its I've been cancelled,
Strange rate of facts right. I think it is a little odd their people if I come out of the woodwork with his exchange rate neutrality argument just in regard to this task, thing it's either true of like trumps. Thirty, five percent border tax, the export Import Bank, like all policy changes ever or it's not true at all, because currency markets are in fact, actively managed by government. But the degree to which it is true is important. There's a piece overhead box, you not our vast but economists box, which is a good site in this peace they make some shin that basically, the exchange rate only does a halfway adjustment if they exchange rates house and friction in them, and so you know it does to this, but it's not all the way out here come on. Who are we getting general this imperfect and that when you do that the tax becomes pretty progressive? Yes,
That's right, I mean, if you are really imposing a huge increase in the final purchase cost of imported goods. They need extra huge. So it's some people say if this does change trade. That makes a bad right so, like part of its appeal to Paul Ryan, Orthodox Republicans is that this, like doesn't constitute trade protectionism, part of its appeal to Donald Trump or schranz by Sir, that it is trade protectionism. Liberals, I think, will be confused by this because, like if you ask like labour unions or like economic Policy Institute, those kind of people is trade protectionism. Good they'll say: yes, if you ask them, are regressive, tax is good, they'll say no, but trade protectionism is regressive tax. So I don't know where Larry Michelle will come down on this. I think a lot of people have been confused. Thoughts about that. Tyler Cowen wrote a post about this, which I thought was good
which was that the whole thing seems a little improperly motivated right, we're talking but a really big change in tax policy that is being undertaken for unclear reasons. It seems like the p hobby. High mess have literally opposite opinions about what its impact will be and the various people are trying to trick. other and it gives you wanna just on back, but for a second year these, so that its like the Trump Administration, a new era of trade protectionism. Many congressional republicans dont want that, but do want to corporate income tax. Donald Trump is clearly comfortable with corporate income tax. But, like is real fashion is sticking it to Mexico, so they've cooked up something that looks to some people. I can corporate income tax cut and looks to other people like sticking it to Mexico and they're, going to try to compromise on that basis,
with. Then you haven't he's like a I envy already. I, which is very against CS, like this whole series of like apocalyptic blog posts, about how, like we're gonna they he's, assuming that there is full currency adjustment right. So, in his view, currency judgment like would be terrible. We're gonna have a devastating impact on developing countries that have dollar denominated debts that international drug traffickers, who have huge two cases for five hundred dollar bills are gonna like reap enormous benefits that american business men would diversified portfolios. The most interesting one of these, because it is very funny ass, serious, but the one that I think is I she persuasive is that if you do believe in the exchange rate adjustment that what a stronger a much stronger dollar compared to the mexican pay, so there would be an incentive to emigrate illegally, yes and so Donald trouble of putting in place an economic incentive for more
on office. Immigration or maybe the wall will stop all of it. Who knows, but that way. You are unclear right that like has the assumption that an injustice fully which may even if the if you dont, make the assumption that just fully than the policy, we cannot make sense right way. Emmi these cigarettes, don't adjust its like a devastating tax, low income. Americans think that's like a big question mark grade like that. I don't like this thing. It makes sense in theory but I like how do you game that out? The good say only your turn to estimate the asleep, Look at international examples are delaying. How do you get? That seems like a really important question, is very difficult to measure the thought. I'd always mechanically, I think easy solved to this, and you get here into the problem. Let's This tax was being proposed by a political party, vit thought as like up important conceptual matter. Poor people should not pay higher taxes and the two extent it new taxes right hurt. Anybody could hurt the wretch it. It's me
legally extremely easy to put in place a tax like their say. Ok we're doing this because it makes it much harder to evade the corporate code. It's more efficient. You know that there are reasons you want to do this, but as we see what happens to the extent that there is a negative impact, we're gonna dial up areas, refundable, tax credits, the child tax, credit on the eighty see they're a bunch of mount there and we will make people distributional whole think the problem is, that is not the republican parties view, and so the exchange rethink doesn't happen, and what this ends up being is a shift in taxable burden from like corporations and rich people to poor people there, just gonna, let it be I've, come to think that, like one of the big fallacies in Washington, policymaking is the idea that it's good to like kill two birds with one stone. I
is actually really hard to throw a rock that heads to different birds in the air unless it just like a giant bolder than crushes everybody and then I think we need a video makes more sense to try to match up problems to solutions, unlike a one to one base trying to solve republic. the desire for the corporate income tax rate to be lower liberal desire to crack down. on corporate income, tax evasion and Donald Trump desire to make Mexico pay for the wall on it. Single tax reform, we then we would you created, is like a policy bolder right. We're like a might, do all those things or it might to anything like nobody know, nobody knows is against it's too big of a change and its to you. You know, to be able to say, but what are we trying to do here
then everybody can look at it and could be like. I don't think that goal is important, so I'm gonna hop off this bus or you know. I really do it's like the beauty of Democrats. Just wine till I raise the tax rate on which people is that people can look at that be like now. I think that a bad idea, or like yeah. Let's, let's take it to them. Commercially Republican just wanted to propose a cut in the corporate income tax rate. Read the statutory rate is thirty. Five, now exit ledges cut to thirty and the deficit will go up and you look at it. You know, I don't know I mean is without. Would that be bad consequence, like I don't know if this is ok, we want to get her all the way down to twenty five zero job. Like that, you know I might get off that bus or they could propose closing some loopholes. It will be fine, but this is like it. It's really big is is really weird
it seems like a work around to the idea that, like Donald Trump has a tariff idea, that is unsound, but they need to. This is the point about law policy but like if the Republican in Congress View is view, is a real trade policies wrong. They need to say that to him not true, trick. The president into signing a tax bill that he believes will implement his trade policy, but they believe secretly won't there's a really bad way to run the government. Here's a good white paper as a classic two thousand and fourteen classic that has no renewed relevance to do today is brought to by Nikko voice. Falander enhance yoke, involve words, You see allay ones, remunerative Zurich, they both certainly sound like Germans, and it has one of the great time and be are titles highway to Hitler. So there's no paper about the Autobahn Construction Programme of ninety there
three hundred and- and they take advantage of the fact that the De Nazi regime after seeing powered implementing a dictatorship it nonetheless cap holding elections for a couple of years, so they held a parliamentary election in nineteen thirty three in which they were getting like seventies and ninety percent of the vote everywhere and then the whole, if a random in nineteen, thirty four, which was just like, should Hitler have power or the other question on this. Are these? I do not know this. History is get me the ignorance here, because this is crucial, what's being studied these referendums considered fair, no, no, no! No! No! This is important it. The reason it works is that they were both considered unfair, I will have the other just like a show referendums right, we're like you'd only that the Nazis got like implausibly high numbers, but not a hundred percent right and so support for the Nazis grows,
between sham referendums. These specifically look at who voted no in these things right because too, to show up at the polls. When you were freed and not vote and then vote now, when you knew they were gonna win anyway, is causing you isn't that right. Is it it's a costly signal of opposition to the regime, so fewer people wanted to pay this cost overtime? and you might think well that makes sense for the regime has just consolidated itself, so opposition becomes demoralized, but they should
that there is geographical variation in the extent to which opposition falls, and then they look at where Autobahn construction was happening and they show that there is a strong correlation between Autobahn Building and a fall in opposition in that local area, and they reached the conclusion that therefore I d, the highway construction highly effective, but what is the exact for is its pungent. Our results suggests that road building was highly effective, reducing opposition to the nascent nazi regime. So they are saying that separate from the macro economic impact of light fiscal stimulus that the specific local impact of they did, a big building project in your town was likely to to do. mobilise political opposition and they gonna like who is demobilization how it what's the extent were telling how effective are we talking? This is lay like how
Do they think the autobahn is responsible for what towards it's a little hard to tell, because these are. These are like unfair type elections so I would say that the impact is like relatively small, you're talking about a third of a standard deviation, I think it says down, so we did then or does not move in enormous amount. Their argument is that, like registered opposition at these election results was very low already, so that this is as significant finding Think it would be better if you had an instrument that, like actually detected people's opinions of the regime, would you dont have. This is a kind of clever you know exploit of round that, but I dont think that we have like, as a world a great deal of like under, ending of what what the meaning of plebiscite undertaken under these circumstances are like. If we hear that the dictatorship of Turkey stand or something gets. Ninety nine percent, but in Uzbekistan is only
Seven percent, like I don't know that it's obvious what the meaning of that is. I think a few things he said your one is that this is a paper that overall validates or I would say about its preexisting intuitions- that spending, money on infrastructure is a popular thing for regimes to do. I think the interesting thing about it being Nazis is: it is a popular thing. It's a potential normal. I think thing for abnormal regimes to do like these guys are scary, and then they come and go just building roads. You know like get jobs me. Maybe it's not as bad as you think, and you know, did take. This may be a little bit away from the very very horrific regime were specifically talking about here. I think we see a lot of regimes. Do things like this right? It is. It is a very common thing for, and was I think, very common throughout much of print of american history. To build make do be road projects.
as an effort to create political support. I think a place where this school of political research is interesting. Is in the choice that specifically Democrats going to face in the coming year, or so, which is Donald Trump does want to do in infrastructure Bell there. disagreements. We ve talked about this on the show before about what kind of infrastructure Bell blushes say: hypothetically, he wants to do a big infrastructure bill and its wanted in theory, democratic again on board board, so one version of this is to say that Democrats, because they think the bill is good, should support it. Another version with say that Democrats who keep saying, Donald Trump is very bad and very dangerous and that it's important that people recognize it. His regime is a scary thing and the conflict of interests in the corruption and all of us
that should be out of the bounds of normal american politics, that they do not hand him the gift of a popular infrastructure programme that will persuade people that yeah Doll John, he might be wacky on twitter, but ultimately he's trying to do the right thing and and building a bunch of roads. I think Actually, one of the very interesting strategic questions it based Mitch, Mcconnell and in the Obama years, where he clearly made the decision party on large scale bills that the specifics of the bills were less important than getting somehow considered to be dangerous in office out of office and right now, democratic facing a very similar decision- and it speaks the supreme poor thing to as to whether or not they want to vote on things specifically and Episodical like is this a good bill? Is this a good nominee or is what they're trying to do is signal a kind of emerging
state to the american people. Everything sky does is bad and you should not like him and we're just gonna try to make him unpopular ass possible. I may think everything they learn from the past few years at point. That direction only make the count argument here, maybe that good direction for applicants right, like think about, like what happened than they did David very, very big, irrational wins, but they did not beat Obama right, Obama, gotTa Tandon. he they do not beat him in two thousand and twelve, he got reelected, he ended very, very popular and they so torch their own part. I mean it a part of a suicide mission here, was making them look very bad and skin The shit out of their constituency, they ended up handing their party over Donald Trump to an outsider candidate, who was a weaker candid than I other candidate could have run in two thousand and sixteen. I think that he obviously one
the electoral college by think a marker, Rubio or John K, sick or dumb. A number of other people would have a much better chance of winning the popular vote and just like having a real majority and also if their palmprint wasn't such a heated institution. They had turned its own people into such complete fear. all lake, is scared and disempowered of this into such a disempowered force may be. They would not have felt they needed till. I have the same breaking case of emergency candidate I mean, like all fare better than the end of the day, like they control the entire. government right now. What I think is a pretty good outcome for them and I think of like the counterfactual, where they they did compromise like selectively. Like pick the things they like the places they gonna win. Obama tried to compromise. They got on board they but like puts them in the scenario of power that they are in now where they would be able
to run as effectively against Democrats, as in like I do get that they did not win the popular vote, but if they did, when the electoral college vote there able to polarize a lot of issues you too they to keep like Obamacare like the relatively low approval ratings away, like I did not expect so, I don't, I feel, like I'm the democratic. What I learned from this from being in the minority is like really do a lot of, Actually, that's why I like probably learn from this white paper too I just one question: I have about the white paper. That is what actually, where the costs of voting, now that I feel that power interpret. It hinges a lot on that. Unlike how costly was at my knowledge of history is not strong You know that what happened to be no voters year, but it's more like academic question like about this particular paper public. the instrument through using like how much should I trust that and actually measuring what they say. It's measure I don't know I mean it wasn't like you
no, and then they ship you off to the camps. I mean I think it was more just like there was a sense of intimidation and- and you know, is there often is in India, Torreon regimes. I agree, I mean up a definite weakness of this paper- is that I dont think that day the near their economies. I don't think they like really super rigorously account for the question of it could be that places where they build roads. There was just more intensive, like Nazi Party on the ground activity, and people felt more intimidated, rather than people actually felt demobilized that that seems to me, like the alternate interpretation of this, and you would need to
really understand it like detailed way. What the party activity was adopted that I have about. That's right that this paper it's some way is interesting because as a funny title, because it's bad Hitler but its fairly uncontroversial to say that the debate be a whereas a winner for Roosevelt and in the cities- and I think a lot of people, Republicans and Democrats Lake Thought hoped slash, feared that the stimulus bill would be like to be appear. We're ducks and there was like a time magazine cover where, like Obama was riding in the open lemme with empty ares cigarette holder, and that didn't work out just in the sense that like Obama's popularity went down is causing on me was in trouble, but the thing they people thought would happen where, after your slash, Hitler is running around the country at groundbreaking and all these roads are being built in there like a hot sorrow
a road that just didn't happen, and it didn't happen to the extent that, like lots of people would say like set of this stupid stimulus. Obama should adopt a big infrastructure bell. Then my grandmother would be like furiously tweeting. There was four hundred billion dollars of infrastructure, but the big difference is that in the thirty is there wasn't a highway between Philadelphian Pittsburgh, so you could build a highway between Philadelphia Pittsburgh a really fast. because it was like empty space and be there was a really obvious place to have a highway people know there's two cities and Pennsylvania than other far part if it built highway, you can drive there, but we ve already built all those row. Thrice is instead that we have already built like every conceivable info,
your project in America. But if you want to drive from Dallas to Houston, there's a road there if you want to drive from DC to Baltimore, there's a road there, so you talking about widening existing highways, which involves closing parts of them. You have to do it slowly or you're talking about marginal road projects like your adding a new highway interchange in the exercise of Milwaukee or you're. Talking about sort of contentious mass transit programs. Like you're, going or shut down and existing city street and install streetcar tracks on it and needs. much less clear to me that that kind of thing eat delivers the kind of political winds
What argument macro economic impacts right like if just the sheer money going through reduces the unemployment rate, like that's, obviously good for you or if, when the project is done, everyone's life is way better, like that's, obviously good for you, but like this, a short term impact of under modern day conditions, putting this kind of thing forward Does it really work? I'm I'm like a little bit sceptical and like maybe the thing that, like the next great political entrepreneur has to do, is not like go back to the. Oh I'd be like let's build highways again, but is like what, in the twenty first century, can play that role of like we didn't have this thing, and now we do, I think, also visit. in their between, as I understand it, the Obama administration desire to get money out fast, which meant a lot of Paris, a lot of what they called it. The time shovel ready projects, I think, almost by definition
a shovel ready project is not going to be a big ticket, highlight you can like look at it and see it project that tendency I mean there are couplings they funded in that light. California's high speed rail in theory could have been that kind of project. has been a disaster for a bunch of other reasons. Even if it hadn't been a disaster right, it's only. It would have been done right now, but I think that rarely right- and so that's part of it- do it also takes time to do this and covers a very big project. I think that some are were Don Giovanni, very good instincts. Wouldn't you like to do is create things have big enough, but he put his name them re use our care. It places need another casino or if you know Scotland, but needed a golf course what he wants. His things that people look at and that named tromp is on them and they look cool and
so I think he will be any is also not operating in the context of of emergency. So I think that they would never be trying to create more projects. Have these kinds? I take your point that party, within the bucket of things we traditionally think of his infrastructure. It is not clear that allow much low hanging fruit of that kind, and so we know what what is that fruit now when they give Detroit didn't, have an airport, then building here important trade would be a great high profile infrastructure project that targets of rust belt state were downtown once about Bob Bob. But I've been to the trade airport.
anything to trades airport is too big right. It's like an airport for a major american city in the suburbs of. What's now become a sort of minor american city, it's great Fur University, Michigan that in arbours near this giant delta hub, but like any other, there's nothing you can do exactly. But wanting that that happens, that comes up in this to conduct all the time is people will say: there's an obsession among America's elite with the international arrivals term at Kennedy Airport, and how its dingy, and maybe like you, fly from Dubai to Kennedy and you're like oh, the airports so new and nice and airports are Odin. Shitty, that's terrible is true but like if you stop and think about it, Kennedy, airports, international terminal is old and dingy. Literally because it is old and do pies. International terminal is new and shiny, literally because it is new, like thirty,
years ago there was a big airport in New York and there wasn't one in Dubai, but there is one in New York Great Select. Why would you build a brand new airport in New York, where this already and airport just so, we would look newer and even if you wanted to, where would I go about? The flip is, if you fixed up the Kennedy, internationals terminal for a long period of time. The same would be like this is a fucking disaster. Re like I can't go anywhere, unlike everything's, under control rungs anyway. So if you say you could shut the airport down, but that would enjoy people. You could my wish half of queens to build a new airport where people like that you could build it. Nowhere, but why would you do that rate is very. I think, there's a lot of like confused thinking on this subject, but I think, like the one space that like strikes me as a ripe for this big project, you can aim as some kind of like better access thing like like having free wifi called trump, not everywhere? I would love it if there is like just free
If I everywhere, I was, and you call it Trump net and the like. Oh, it's a thing you put his name on the hard part is like you're saying that the physical space feels very taken, and I think, like that kind of pushes towards projects that are like less traditional works. Project was like it was busily trumped and on votes from always shall greatness. Don't run over your password is trump. Have you no means, and the password is great again greatness? What will leave to the policy making details on it, but I think that's our that's my leg infrastructure repose over him he's a liar. You agreed I'd like to state market box, even better global will will move to drop net in the office. Aren't I think, that's enough. The way through. The ethic sounds great now I tremble forever has been another episode of the weeds. Thank you to my wonderful colleagues, are cliff and nodded cs tar, wonderful producer, Opium Shapiro to you are wonderful listeners you're, all terrific, we'll be back as always next week,
Transcript generated on 2021-09-14.