I recorded an episode with Marshall Kosloff about theories of change and progress, what outsiders get right and wrong about the American political system, why politicians should wear suits, and a whole lot more. This episode was cohosted by Lars Doucet.
William Jarvis 0:05
Hey folks, welcome to narratives. narratives is a podcast exploring the ways in which the world is better than in the past, the ways it is worse in the past, where it's a better, more definite vision of the future. I'm your host, William Jarvis. And I want to thank you for taking the time out of your day to listen to this episode. I hope you enjoy it. You can find show notes, transcripts and videos at narratives podcast.com. Additionally, in this episode, my friend Lars do say joins us as a co host.
Will Jarvis 0:39
Well, Marshall, how are you doing this
Marshall 0:40
morning? I'm doing really well. It's cool to do this in person I have not done in person podcasting. And just like months, I used to do this all the time. But everything now for me is mostly just zoom. So this is actually pretty exciting. This is awesome. Cool.
Will Jarvis 0:52
Well, yeah. Thank you so much for having us down here at Austin. It's great to see you. It just catch up a little bit. Versus Do you might give us a brief bio and some of the big ideas you're interested in.
Marshall 1:02
Yeah. So brief bio. I am a podcaster. I host a couple podcasts I host one called the realignment, which is really about like American politics and trends and how the world is changing. Other one is counterbalance. So it's like foreign policy mostly focus on like defense. And finally I do one for on deck called the deep end, which is the tech sector and our founders are operating. Good
Will Jarvis 1:21
deal. Good deal. Can you talk a little bit about, you know, how you first got into the realignment, recording the podcast and the ideas behind the realignment and what really interested you there?
Marshall 1:31
Yeah, so two different answers to that question. So number one would be I used to work in PBS. So I was working on a show called firing line, which was a reboot of William F. Buckley show. And we launched it in 2018, with a new host, Margaret Hoover, Herbert Hoover's great granddaughter. And what was crazy about that experience for me is the whole idea was like, Hey, we're creating this show debates, good faith conversation for new generation. It was done through PBS, aka the most legacy system POS imaginable. So the way I think about this is when you're programming a show like that, we would literally say to ourselves, okay, well, the prime viewer for this show, is a 68 year old couple in Boulder, Colorado, who at seven o'clock watches the news hour for an hour, right? They've been watching Washington Week, they bought a bottle of red wine is between the two of them. And then if we get a good lead in slash guest, they'll stick with you for 830. So all those factors together does not produce something, but is gonna really like talk to like younger folks. In general. At the same time, too. This is incredibly expensive. It's in person, it's New York, there's a unionized staff and all these like different bits. So it means that there's a lot of budget there. So I do this for a year. And I start to realize like wait a second, like podcasting in this format should be cheap. Yes, right now we're sitting with $100. Once, and we're recording it. And what you could actually be doing with this idea of like, good faith conversation is do it for cheap, while also booking the same guest, which is what you can do with zoom mic actually online, because it meant that the when someone doesn't have to go to your place, it makes it super easy to actually do it. So I raised a tiny bit of money sort of podcasting and just been doing it for the past three years, too. And I really hope that's a real encouraging sign for folks who want to get into this space right now. Because it seems so cheesy to be like, well, like anyone could do anything now and like look at the wonders of tech, but it's actually just true like on ironically, it would cost basically nothing to do these things. To the the realignment idea. I've always been interested in politics right forever. Yeah, I was I was actually part of that like News Hour at 7pm. Yeah. But I was basically never really satisfied with like, like the status quo like a super contrarian person. So like I was in blue, Oregon, Portland specifically. So I was kind of like, Oh, I'm kind of like a moderate Republican. And then like, I moved to like Austin, Texas, and I Okay, like I'm a moderate Democrat. I've never really satisfied with like, the specific labels and the way things were particularly. So then this idea of a realignment really appealed to me, and that a realignment basically is that during certain periods in political history, labels, ideas, figures, institutions are actually in a state of flux, and what they actually mean are just up for grabs.
Will Jarvis 4:16
Gotcha. That's cool. I'm curious when you talk about the realignment what in particular do you mean do you mean this like realignment of working class people from you know central like Democrat kind of coalition's I think about this and like kind of the Rust Belt states to a Republican voters and Trump or is it something different?
Marshall 4:33
That's a part of it. So for example, yeah, like what you're talking about, you're seeing the fact that the GOP is starting to perform better with working class voters in general, you're seeing the fact that the Democratic Party is doing better with college educated voters like a way to think about this as and this is crazy to think about today's politics, Ronald Reagan, one college educated voters just outright in 1984, which is the exact opposite of what you really see today. Another example this too, is like a racial realignment. So you're seeing the fact that that you Yo P is trying to actually perform better with working class Hispanic voters in places like Texas, Ohio, etc. Wisconsin, I just did an episode on this. So like that's an example of like specific demographic realignments. But at a narrative level, I'm also interested in like, issue areas that are like redefining themselves. So a good way to think about that is the China issue, the way we thought about China, basically, before 2013 was entirely different. China is benign, it's something that we could like work with. It's something where we're maybe in competition with them, but that competition is friendly. Now, it's much more aggressive. Now we're talking about Taiwan, those different but so that's not the technical definition of a reliable, we should really think of it all of those ends.
Lars Doucet 5:36
So there's the question of polarization. And then there's like this other like sense of realignment, like so polarization is like the things we're fighting about, and on opposite sides of is different. And that can like rotate is what you're saying. And then with the China issue, it feels like that seems a little more bipartisan to me. It's like, are you talking about like a kind of shifting consensus as well, is a second way you're using that term? Yeah,
Marshall 5:57
that's a good way to put it, which is, in an ideal world, a realignment leads you to a new consensus. So a way of talking about like post 1990s Politics is it's been just constantly shifting between, hey, we want change. So let's go for Brock Obama, we want change, let's go for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Oh, we didn't like that change. Let's go back to Joe Biden, and then just constantly pendulum swinging. The China issue is one of the few issues where it has just taken itself to its final concluding point, which is we are in an adversarial relationship with China. The debate is what like what we do with that, but ideally, across every single issue, we will get to some sort of consensus position. Whenever this realignment is complete.
Will Jarvis 6:39
Gotcha. What do you think special about China and the China issue in particular, that lent itself to is because it's like an adversarial competing power, is that white lends itself to kind of this consensus in American politics about kind of our stance. Yeah, it's
Marshall 6:53
a great question. I'd say it's that the issue is very empirical. So the worst realignment issues are issues that are moral morality and like value judgments. So like, with student loan forgiveness, there's a real debate there. I mean, obviously, like there are numbers here, but there's a debate about forgiveness and a question about like, who deserves what in society and what like the proper things we need to really value? With China? It's very direct. The question is, okay, 92% of semiconductors come via Taiwan, Taiwan is a democracy. There's a huge set of like allied countries, whether it's like Japan, or South Korea or Australia, that would be they would be incredibly under threat. If the Chinese were to invade Taiwan. That just means there's actually we're not debating the things and what they mean. The question that how you respond to them, so that's really why you can see okay, we all can agree there's a China that's being aggressive towards Taiwan. That's why there is consensus that's why you have Marsha Blackburn going but also at marquee going at Rocky's the senator from Massachusetts. He's like a green New Deal. Senator Marsha Blackburn is like an anti big tech Republican from Tennessee. They disagree on pretty much everything what they do agree on. Is this like, Okay, how do we respond to this threat like once again, like this, I don't like the whole we have lizard brain. So we don't want to focus. I think that's like really lazy. It's a little too like Malcolm Gladwell 2000s II. But I think there's just something to be said about like when things are directed, not up for grabs, you can respond and assess that.
Lars Doucet 8:26
So what are some examples historically of his successful realignments that have taken us to new consensus so like the first one that comes to mind is like World War Two used to have like, you know, who was the The Aviator Lindbergh. Lindbergh? Yeah, he was very America first, I think even like, openly pro Nazi. And then like afterwards, like after 1945. And like the whole war and everything, like we were like, super united around, you know, the choices we made in World War Two, what are some examples of like, what you would consider successful historical realignments that moved us to a new consensus?
Marshall 8:57
Yeah, so pick this a bunch of these Exactly. This great author called Frank De Stefano has written a book on realignments and people really like his episodes on the realignment so I suggest folks check those out. But to I'll pick out is starting one, just the new era. So I want to just say like war, I wouldn't just say like World War Two, I would actually say that period of like 1932 through 1945, where you have the you know, FDR administration forge a new consensus on both like the role of government and public life so like, that's, once again, like whether or not you like, like, the specific way that social security is structured, right? Whether or not you like have specific qualms with like New Deal programs. There was a way that the US thought of like the role of government before 1932 FDR, his coalition forged a consensus on that, and this relates to Charles Lindbergh point. The other part of that consensus was America's role in the world and assuming the mantle of leadership from the British after the empires, you know, obviously killed or given its death kneel during World War Two. So, that is an example of how the next 4560 years their debate It's so there's debate about do we privatize Social Security? Yes or no versus a debate? Do we have Sweden and Finland enter into NATO? But the debate is not actually Oh, the US is gonna go back to the way it was where we are just like this island of tranquility away from the problems of Europe and Asia. So like, that's the consensus. And I say the second one that things provokes, we'll probably think about because it relates. And both these realignments are helpful because they're also relating to challenges we have today. So the FDR period is useful, because on the one hand, whereas this domestic debate, like how should the government approach student loans, how should we approach questions like healthcare? How should we address these issues of like, public goods not being affordable? That's a debate about the size of the government. That's domestic but then there's also debate about what our role in the world should be, how should we respond to a rising China? How should we deal with Russian revanche ism, like those different bits? The second one would be the industrial revolution. So that period from like the 1890s, to like the 1910s, where there's a debate of like, okay, so capitalism is really growing, the US is like, clearly going to be like the leading leading economic power of the 20th century, how do we structure government to either enable, and or restrain those forces? That's the progressives, those are those different bits? Those are examples how you had a world that looked different after they were done.
Will Jarvis 11:17
Gotcha. You mentioned FDR there. And I'm really curious as the successful realignment and the New Deal, and all this, like building this new government infrastructure. I get the sense that the the new everyone in the New Deal, it's a bunch of other people kind of like us, and they would send us down, you know, rural Arkansas, electrify Arkansas, you know, here's a couple million bucks. It kind of like ITT Tech now, where all the competent people seem to go into tech to build companies. Do you think it's pot and I get the sense that the American government does not work as well as it did when, during the New Deal when FDR was in power? And we were building these kind of federal infrastructures? Do you think that's true? And what do you think we can do to actually kind of improve American governance at this point?
Marshall 11:56
It's really interesting question, because if you take what you're saying, literally, like does the American government work better get obviously works better, I think about like the amount of like power and money and resources the American government has access to. So when pure and this actually gets to the core of the dilemma, I would actually probably argue, with the exception of, you know, Obamacare, healthcare.gov like that, that disaster in 2013 a billion dollars for a website, that doesn't work. Actually, government works really well, at what it's actually doing why we spend trillions of trillions of dollars and it works. Like we give payments to people during COVID. Right? It works. I think what you're getting at, if you're taking the idea of what you're saying is, it feels like government cannot meet the challenges that are actually in it can't actually do anything. So for example, if I'm talking about how well actually what are you talking about government works great. What I'm really saying is, during the Great Society period, government got $1, which replaces welfare, a determine those bits, and government is still pretty good at doing that thing. Governments are able to do those things. But that's not the challenge. The challenge right now is not like how do we send people to $1,000 checks. That's something we're actually very good at the challenge is not like, hey, like, how do we have like a multibillion dollar military that employs millions, millions of people. That's not the challenge. The challenge is, oh, hey, like our energy infrastructure is a disaster right now. Oh, it actually turns out that our government isn't effective at like controlling the price of health care. Oh, it feels like the society itself is stagnating. That's a different set of challenges than the one that I think governments really set up for. So to your question of like, what do we really do about this? I think it's, I just I just did an episode on Shinzo Ave. You know, the recently assassinated former Japanese Prime Minister and I was reading the the author I spoke with Tobias Harris like wrote like the last biography of Shinzo Ave. And he's, he was, you know, he lived in Japan has really studied him. And he talked about the speech that Shinzo Abba gave where he swears were Shinzo Abe a specifically said quote, my mission is to bring Japan to a level where it's ready for like the waves of the next 50 to 100 years, which I just think is awesome. I think that's like I think that's a great just like if you're getting started with this is like a great like mission statement for what a politician is. And I think that's where lacking from government right now. I think what we're lacking right now is okay, like, let's just like set up what what are the specific problems? And you can actually articulate most of these problems in a way that doesn't have to be like partisan like, it's not whether or not you like renewable energy, or like oil and gas like Texas is utility infrastructure is a disaster. Right? That's not up for debate. There's no debate though. I
Lars Doucet 14:39
lived through it. i Yeah, we had we had no power and we're like, where are we going to get water in? Yeah, that doesn't
Marshall 14:46
have to be partisan. But what that could actually lead to is, and I think Catherine Boyle and I on our American diamonds are talking about this. Like, I think the way we get through this is the current set of challenges like that is going to lead to newer generations of politicians who are responding to different incentives. So you're talking about like, oh, everyone's like going into tech, you've noticed this, like everyone in tech is talking about politics now. Tech is incredibly tech is so political isn't even funny right now. And that existing is going to create new incentives. So
Lars Doucet 15:17
and you're saying that's a change, like 10 years ago, tech wasn't as politicized. Or you're not saying,
Marshall 15:21
exactly. So I Tech Tech Tech was political and says everything's political. So Tech was giving money and people weren't going to join the Obama administration. But tech is interested in shaping narratives. And the actual set of I think about like the match in American politics is a chessboard tech is actually interested in shaping the actual nature of the pieces and where the pieces can move. Like what's think of like, Mayor Suarez, I think this got kind of superficial. When is it gonna lead to anything bigger? But Mayor Suarez is like hey, like, Oh, wow. Like there are all these like tech founders and VCs who have a lot of money, a lot of resources like big audiences, I'm just gonna like, say, How can I help? And I'm going to be like, very friendly with them. And we're talking about Bitcoin a lot. Is that going to lead somewhere like Super Game Changing? Probably not like look at the price of like Miami City coin. But that is an example of how other politicians are gonna start following that point. So the reason why I love the American dynamism episodes I do with Katherine is, I always get so much feedback from non political people. So like non political people, I sorry, non technical, non technical like, oh, wow, that was like, really interesting. I never thought of that. This way, you're going to start seeing where you will respond to things in that dynamic. You're gonna say to yourself, yeah, like, I want to live in a more dynamic country. And that is an example of how it's just like native, but that's how I kind of think, think this way through.
Lars Doucet 16:40
Well, so this, this is a good segue to this half baked idea have about an internal realignment, because there's this general sense, I'm not sure if it's actually bears out, you know, to smart people, you're so you can tell me if it's real, but like, everyone I talked to feels like the national level of government is just like frozen, you know, filibuster every election. It's like 5149, or 5050, you know, and we're just sitting there getting nothing accomplished, and nobody can get their way. So we can at least see if anyone was right. You know, all our presidential candidates are historically unpopular. It's always like the world's least popular candidate against the world's second least popular candidate, you know, and I feel like there's this energy of people like, well, we got to get stuff done somehow. So let's move it perpendicular to this axis of trying to get things on a national level. And what you're talking about kind of like rhymes with that this like notion of like tech getting interest in politics, that it's like, well, if the government's not going to do it, then like, let's start doing what we can with the levers of power that are available to us. What do you think of my half baked idea, this internal realignment?
Marshall 17:41
No, I agree with it. And I kind of would frame it as follows. The real question is like, where's like the center of gravity in American politics right now. So what is the way to think about this is that the post FDR era, there were things like welfare reform in the 1990s, where you got a lot of like innovation in the states like Wisconsin, Tommy Thompson was the governor of AP partially influenced the way we reformed welfare. But like, it's just been all been about DC. And I think what's interesting right now is that whatever solves this national impasse, these different arguments, these different frames, like they are actually going to come from folks who are outside of the specifically like toxic like nature of like DC right now. So American dynamism isn't the answer to everything. But once again, I will say this, again, I keep hearing from folks like left, right and center, how the ideas are interesting. That is an example of how you're having people who are outside of the specific gridlock and toxicity coming up with like different articulations. I also think at the same time, you're going to see an environment where if DC is gridlocked, then there's an opportunity to engage in places where things are not as gridlocked as well. It's kind of unfortunate that like Gavin Newsom is not a particularly like effective like presidential candidate, because there's just a world where you could see okay, well, like Florida is just like a red state now, right? It's controlled by Republicans. Like it or not, they have specific visions of how you should dress education should treat COVID CRT schools, etc. cetera, et cetera, culture wars, that's the red version, then you've got Gavin Newsom, California has like an opposite answer to every single one of these fronts. An interesting situation is you could really have like that California vision versus the Texas versus versus West Texas because like Texas politicians for variety reasons, can't go national as well. But like so it's really like Florida, and California, just like those two visions. I think eventually, you're going to basically see that happen. Like what happens when politicians are able to like uncontested flee, but actually I'm going to do something which isn't helpful in a podcast. Yeah, no, go ahead. Because this is actually kind of the reason why I actually don't believe this as much, especially on the Democratic side, is that and this is actually my Texas is a really interesting state. I don't think states where any party has like one party control are going to produce The movements and figures who can win nationally. I did an episode with a guy named Peter Lydon about this where he's like California he did this piece. California is the future of American politics like Jack Dorsey retweeted it back in 2018. And his point is like Monterey, California, California is this dynamic part of the country, it tends to lead American politics it gave us very, you know, give us gave us Reagan, Barry Goldwater performer there in Orange County gave us Arnold Schwarzenegger, who was like a really prelude for Trump, not in terms of policy. But in terms of like, Hey, this is a guy who's able to go out to the party system and take power so we can get California is the future. The reason why I said that isn't true is because California is not a competitive state. Any politician who rides to the top isn't actually competing in the spaces that require that are actually like the center points of the political system. So for example, if you are Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris has never had to grow up in an environment where Republicans could ever when Kamala Harris, isn't trained to give a good answer on CRT to a skeptical audience, Kamala Harris isn't actually really structured or engaged in an environment where like, you just generically could say whatever you want to have to play to your base. I know this in Oregon, like Oregon is a state which is 100% Blue. It's been there for a while, it's gonna say there for a while, most likely, and that's an environment where you're selected for how do you rise up the party system? How do you basically like Wait your turn? States like Texas are interesting as they get I think the whole like blue Texas thing is like overstated, but like Baito is not doing too badly. Part, you know, it's purple. Like I think Matthew McConaughey probably would have started more of a decent chance at winning, he was ahead of you know, avid bike over right 10 points. Once again, like that's right, you know, once things start, it's different. But that says something, Matthew McConaughey and Matthew McConaughey who was able to win the Democratic nomination and win the governorship of Texas will get a better training and how to navigate the pressure points of like American politics. So like, okay, like guns are polarizing abortion is polarizing. How do I basically thread this needle? While still getting a majority coalition? Actually, Texas is an environment for that. New York City isn't in California isn't. And Florida, Florida kind of is. But so that's why it's a it was a long answer. But I think that that's that part of it.
Will Jarvis 22:15
You said Ford is but but I what I get from what you just said is perhaps we should be like, long, like Glenn young can like the Virginia governor and like short DeSantis at some level.
Marshall 22:24
Exactly. No, that's that's actually that's actually a great way of putting it I have a bunch of like, conservative like Hill staffer friends. Everyone has their group chats. And they're talking about how like, they're just shocked at how well plan Younkin has consistently navigated these moments, like what's going on. He's like a Carlyle Group, like super rich dude. But he has been able to thread the needle on like CRT issues, he's been able to, like thread the needle on like, once again, like this is like an endorsement of his positions either way, like he's been able to successfully, like, communicate these issues, like very effectively. And that's like, that's actually a good point. Virginia is another good example where and this gets to I think, like the broader toxicity of politics, like, could Glenn Duncan like what a Republican primary at the presidential level, like probably not, but longer term, it's really those purple environment. And this is what Glenn young can also gets better than a Charlie Baker. And better than a, the governor, the governor of Maryland, who's whose name escapes me which which it really shouldn't, because those are both Republican governors, who are leading in blue states, two different models. So those blue state Republican governors, but they have done is they effectively just govern as like Central left moderates. That's what that's the reality. The reality is the political classes on the Democratic side in both states are just very ossified. And they're just boring. What they come and do is say, look, here's the deal. You don't like the establishment on the downside. Yeah. But like, I'm safe. If you're Charlie Baker, you're a healthcare executive who's very much like this right? Difficult Republican tradition. And then the government is like, centrist, right, that isn't useful at a national level, because like, that's not like, that's just like, not the replicable situation. They actually can govern by not having to make those difficult choices. Glenn young can is interesting, because he's like a moderate by background, who is still doing the tough thing, which is like making a choice, which moderates don't want as a moderate myself, like we don't like do it. Like it's easy, right? It's a young kid, his thing is like, no look like, I read center, right? Yeah, in terms of my ethics, but like, actually, like, I'm a Republican. So that means that like, I have to be like a pro life person. Right. So he's saying how do I articulate pro life positions? How do I talk about CRT without going all like Dan bond Geno, right, but also just being like I think this is like out of the norm. So like, that's another reason why it's kind of interesting because then the one other thing I'll add to this, and this is why I spent way too many episodes by going after Andrew Yang. Way too many episodes. My editor was like dude, like we get it might be for people like Andrew Yang is like that's what an effective centrism looks like, which is basically like, oh, like, it's not that we have to make tough choices. And it's not that like there's this actually binary moment is that there could be all these other settings. And they're actually just, yeah, the reason why the abortion and gun debate issues, and race and CRT issues are so like, terrible, um, aside from like, the actual effects, right? I think from a political perspective is like, actually there are just like two choices. Either it's too easy to get an abortion, it's country Exactly. Or there are too many abortions are there or it's too like locked up? Yeah. Either. There are too many guns in this country, or we need to have more restrictions on guns like those are actually the only answer primary. It's binary. And I really beef with moderates and centrists who basically hoodwink people into thinking that oh, like, you're ticked, you're ticked off, and I'll polarize things aren't what if there were something different? A question is interesting when he came on the podcast, and he did not give me a convincing answer. So I will.
Pocket instead of just giving a follow up, I'll just like whine about it. Later, I was like, I was like, Andrew, it's great to say that, like, you know, you don't like these binary choices. But who would you appointed Supreme Court? If you were president? Yeah. Because the second he would have to make that choice. The fourth party obviously being like a center to center left institution they'd pick would almost certainly be a pro choice, nominee. Okay, then we're back where we started. You know, it's kind of like I wanted to hear his thoughts on this because like, this is where I'm like, the mood got to see and and so I was like, I think I'm taking crazy pills. Okay, we're talking about supply right? All American politics is it's like a series of coalition's the fixed group, there's moderate tech bros, there's like Yin B's, they're NIMBYs they're left this there are working class people there are like LGBT people, all these groups, if all we're doing is like adding another set of parties, it's to actually the same number of people instead, so you actually haven't increased like supply. So it was kind of interesting. Like, what if we like what if we like brought in like 100 million new immigrants who didn't have like the set of biases who didn't have like all these different things you could just send us I was like, hmm, that'd be kind of interesting experience of adding new parties. We have the same set of coalition's all we do is like throw on the titles, right? Wait, like the what say the gang coalition, let's say they get like a third of the vote. They take the tech, they take the tech bros. They take center, centrist center people, they take the country club Republicans, they take the Biden Republicans, they take a Democrat who's like I can never go for Bernie Sanders, the second year of Supreme Court Justice, where the only actual questions that matter are gun guns, and abortion Oh, and by the way, with the student loan things probably over the Supreme Court. So that's another example where that really matters. They're going to end up caucuses with the Democrats we're back we're right where we started so I, I really, if I can give one thing for less than that it's like really think of these things as coalition's and things will
Lars Doucet 27:53
make a lot more sense is that like a kind of like, even super case of like arrows theorem that it's like, because of the way our government is structured in the way you fight over things like your we're just like, eternally doomed to like kind of sort out into a bipolar kind of coalition sorting, like not just because of the election system, but because eventually you're gonna have to decide who you appoint to the Supreme Court, and then you're either with us or you're with them.
Marshall 28:19
Great question. The thing I push back on is like the idea of like, the way our government is structured, because that's just that's just politics. But even like, a fascist dictatorship has to make a choice. Like Xi Jinping has to decide like, Hey, do we invade Taiwan? Or not? Do I go for my third term? Or not? To why like, what's the deal with the Chinese? Should the chat should China have a zero COVID policy? Or should we open up like binary choices are inherent in governance, and too often because I really like like, where questions coming from too often reformers to this kind of annoyingly like technocracy, if we could turn the dials to the right degree, we can fix everything by saying, you know, if we didn't have first past the post elections, and if there were open primaries, and if there were more parties, it'd be different. Like, sometimes that can be true, but right now, we're in a binary moment. And so much of what people are gonna get over have to get over the next three or four years, is the fact that during binary moments, it just sucks.
Will Jarvis 29:13
Right, right. is So is it something where, like, yes, on the margin, like maybe you do like pro voting, and it's like more medium a candidates and come down the pike or something. But the end of the day, like all the applause lines and political speeches are getting the other side. At some level, it feels like
Marshall 29:27
during a moment like this, yes. And like if it's in look, this is why a I'm always like thinking about like, book projects, like way, way, way down the line. It's something I'm really interested in. It's just like, as someone who's born, I tend to like looking at the 1990s and treating the 1990s as like, wow, there was this moment where like, everything was kind of interesting, and it wasn't awesome. But there was a chance to forge a new consensus there was approach always different. We didn't take that for a variety of reasons, but basically, like, that is a period where there were opportunities to be like very positive, and building not just have to go for the applause lines, right? Like, Al Gore is like running on climate change and reinventing government. Now it's like a real project that you did like the information superhighway that just isn't one of these moments. And there's this like, really just deeply and I think we'll get to my role as like a podcaster later. But a very concerted decision I've made in the last year like make a good living this way is like, look, I can get a lot of clicks telling you guys that this is like easy and straightforward. And that your one final victory away from defeat from victory. Yeah, both true and untrue. I think if you're if you're Blake basters running in the Arizona GOP primary, Arizona, GOP Senate see right now. And now the issue the the racist swinging around the abortion issue. That's actually an example of how a victory at the Supreme Court could actually lead to a defeat at a senatore. He's down 10 points. Now.
Lars Doucet 30:54
I'm stealing one victory away from defeat from now on.
Will Jarvis 30:56
Yeah, that's right. Yes, absolutely.
Marshall 30:58
That's the nature of these like high stakes moments. So but it's basically it's basically just sort of like what guys like accept the fact this is difficult. It's not easy. And this is what this just looks like, you know, I'm sure, like, if you're sitting in 1892, I'm sure you're like, oh, man, like, all these changes are afoot? Are these big political issues? I don't really like the governing class. Am I going too hot and bothered about Grover Cleveland? If I told you, but guys, like it or not in the, like, 1910s, there's gonna be this progressive movement, and all these changes are gonna happen. That was, that wouldn't sate anybody Exactly. But it's also just the harsh truth. Like the harsh truth is that if you're looking for big victories in the 2020s, like, you're not going to have a good time. Exactly. And what I think my goal as like a community builder, as a podcaster, is like, How can I help people come to a chord with the fact that the debate is like, what do we do in the 2030s? And how do we make the 2020s just not like a loss? How do we like minimize the damage? And then how do we actually get to into people who actually can do bigger things, because I think that time is coming. But it's easy just to like, Robert takes her I call like, COVID is going to, we're going to open up and we'll have like a new American, like Renaissance or when that didn't happen, because that's just not what the 2020s were ever going to be.
Lars Doucet 32:15
Yeah, it reminds me of like, how everyone just like thought we were in this big moment where we're gonna like, change everything, we're gonna reach this new consensus, we're gonna come together, just like we thought that after 911 to, and we're came out of it more polarized than ever. And so I'm kind of wondering, you've talked about this a lot in your podcasts, this notion of like, vibes, right, how everything is just vibes, like nobody cares about policy. Everyone just cares about how you present and how badly you can bloody the nose of the other side, at least on the national level? Like, is there any hope of escape from just the rule of vibes in the 2020s? Is that the Miss we're trying to just like, fight through.
Marshall 32:53
So I would push back and say, Actually, I think people care about policy, like a lot. Like for example, like President Biden's poor decline started during like a boss, like, regardless of what your position is on, like, whether we should have stayed in Afghanistan or not, like, I think the terrible way the withdrawal was implemented, like that significantly affected polling. Decisions, like how you handle the Ukraine war, like, people identify generally people care about policy, when I talk about vibes and basically it's ephemeral, by definition, but when I talked about vibes, I'm really talking about the ability to just like read the room, and actually perceive like, we're politics, or there's just like, fun German word, which I found was just like this fairpoint and it means like, it's like in a battle, it's like the center point. It's like, it's like when I was reading this book about Napoleon. And basically the point was like, Napoleon can like always find the SharePoint in the battle. There's this huge battle versus these huge armies but there's like this really like this point. So we're gonna talk about vibes vibes to me means like, if a politician is good at this politician could pick up like, okay, like, oh, wow, the country is like not really feeling it right now. And how do I speak to that? How does this change the way I perform? And I think it's it's kind of funny why I think a politicians did a great job of this is like John Fetterman. Like whether or not he wins. And this isn't exactly this isn't a science, but AWS is vibes are just off. AWS is very clearly a dude, who was like, hey, like, I'm a smart guy. He's a smart guy. I'm a smart like, accomplished guy. I'm telegenic I'm gonna TV. Look at what Trump did. I could do that. And what Fetterman is very accurately assessed, whether it's just him from him is like, yes, it's just off. This dude just isn't from here, right here. It's like this dude was just sort of like you know what, I'm just gonna like move this pa Yeah, like I'm not really from here but like, I can pull it off. I'm just gonna do it and he is just calling it out. That's an example of just like reading the vibe like he's not like feminism making this right about like, universal health care and like policy because like that is The vibe of that of that campaign is not the vibe actually isn't about policy. In that case, there's just something like Broadwood is picking up on. And I think that like, in an ideal world, you'd have a combination of like, policy like we had a q&a. We had a q&a from a listener where they're like, do you think Fetterman is going to be a good thing for American politics? Whether you're left right or center? I don't think John Fetterman is going to change anything like personally. Because like what he's doing he's got the vibe down but I don't find him particularly impressive is like a I think I think he's going to be like a was it this is fine. He's going to be a generic, like, left of center, a bit left of centre Democrat. That's just that's gonna be his thing. He's gonna He's gonna vote. He doesn't have anything. I don't think he has anything particularly useful to add. I will say, I think his like motor dress is probably like a really bad thing. Because this is also something that I talk about a lot. Yeah. This is this is a this is a this is a real point of frustration for the audience. So like, there's a lot of populist people. Listen, I hear that a lot of people who are populist who might listen to the show, and they're like, Marshall saga, were you guys mad at John Fetterman for REG wearing shorts and sweatshirts? And why do you get mad when you have a picture of a GOP senator if like flip flops and shorts were like walking around Congress? People were like, all I care about is I want people who do the right thing. I don't care what they look like. And the real conundrum here. Two things. One, we've kind of run this experiment. Think about it. Like we've had declining dress standards since the 1960s. Has that produced better policy? Like on a very basic level? It's like, Wait, so we've tried your experiment, right? Like we don't trust like Don Draper anymore. Like we don't have evening dress. I must say that was like a good thing. I'd say that's definitely the way to fog. We don't want to be like the man in the gray flannel suit. I should not be like if I ran a company, I would not have people like the realignment was like bigger and in person. I would not say like, You guys better wear your suits. Because if you don't have a pocket square, you're disrespectful. But that's not my vibe. But my point is we've experimented with decreasing dress standards. And we haven't gotten better policy. All we've actually gotten is a real lack of respect for institutions, because for me, and this comes from like being in a fraternity and like being sort of institutionally focused. The reason why John Fetterman is supposed to wear a suit is because John Fetterman when he's in the Senate shouldn't matter. If you are a senator, you are ultimately one of 100 people in this institution represents something bigger than yourself. So guess what, it doesn't matter? It doesn't matter what you John Fetterman want to do, it matters that you're in this institution. And in this institution, there are rules, and you follow the rules. And we're aware of realizing I probably find that they all had matching tracksuits.
It's something, it's something that we're it's just like you do not matter. Because what people should really understand is that a lot of the time when they see politicians like dressing down, and not like institutional cueing the rules, they read us over there, like, you know, the cool, none of these people are cool or casual, because it's like, this is the same people. But a person who is running for office now is the type of person who would run for office in the 1960s. So it's the same personality type, obviously, like arrogance and narcissism are probably like required operating on a federal level. So I'm not just giving cheap shots, but it's the same personality. They are just doing in a disrespectful manner. They are actually just saying, like, you don't want like, I actually just don't feel like dressing up. So I'm just like, not going to do it. So you're not getting better policy. They're being kind of cynical, and it's just sort of bad. So what I really enter here with is like, I advocate for just uniformity of dress. But even if everyone give Zuckerberg up, if everyone showed up on Zuckerberg, like Everlane t shirt of jeans and like new balances, I kind of be okay with that because it would represent subliminal, subliminal eating your narcissism to the institution and to the actual role that you have. Right?
Unknown Speaker 38:40
Yeah, that's interesting.
Will Jarvis 38:42
It seems like this is like a super underrated a point like it just the it's somewhat, it feels like we had this crazy polarization other than the last 20 some odd years, I guess, you know, maybe started with Newt Gingrich, maybe it's been going to the 70s. I'm not exactly. Sure. But But how much do you think it is? The fact that people and politicians have it's somewhat gotten more individualistic, or does that not matter at all?
Marshall 39:07
No, it's a huge, it's a huge question. Two parts of that. So one, yeah, that plays a huge role in it. Because under previous systems, like the party had just total power. This is where I get really annoyed when you know, people like Andrew Yang, talk about how Oh, like the parties, they're so powerful. It's like a republican party didn't give a platform in 2020. They did not vote on a party platform. Because everyone understands that the party doesn't actually matter. I kind of think of parties as like a record label. Like the party is just like hey, like, I'm like moderate so like I'm a Texas Democrat that says oh, hey, like I'm in Oregon. We like status quo so I'm going to Oregon Republican party label in the past there was literally a smoke filled room where they said like literally, these are these are these are happening and look, it definitely like went too far. It was something kind of crazy, but I just recently learned just like, think of like the 1968 presidential campaign like RFK wins all these primaries, he's assassinated. But even if he'd won those primaries, it was technically possible the Democratic party bosses would have not actually given him, the nomination would have given it to Hubert Humphrey, the sitting Vice President, now that ended up you know, happening, because like the assassination, but that could have ended up happening. That was not a good world. But if we think of these extremes, we've swung too far to the other extreme, where now, every single individual politician is incentivized to ignore the institution, ignore the coalition, ignore the teams that do whatever they want. So this is really why I really think folks who are dissatisfied with the status quo should really ask themselves deep questions about this moment, which is that like, how has John Fetterman and people like him thinking, but I'm here for whatever I want to speak of faith? Because I think I think John Fetterman seems like a nice enough guy. I'm here to interpret whatever I think the people broadly speaking want. Got, it's just too far. Because the incentives really stack up. So to the point of polarization, that's a situation where as the party has lost control whenever we do whatever they want. And during an era of like, low institutional and like low trust, it's created an incentive for politicians, basically, he just go hog wild and do whatever they want. And to be like a boomer for a second, if you go back to the founding fathers, they would say, that's not a good thing. But it's actually not a good thing for a first hitter, to think like, hey, like, I can just do whatever the heck I want, right? Because like, I'm judging it to be the right thing, because like, something I'm really interested into. And this is also why I push back on people who argue we need to have fundamental reforms in the system. I think we just have, we're just late stage. We're at late stage folks who just grew up in the old world. If you're a senator, now, if you even if you're like a Gen X, like late stage millennial, like you just grew up with, like the 1990s, and the 2000s. Like as your actual model, you don't know how to operate in a space like we have today. So like, they just have like, it's just a disaster, like bad incentives, like the wrong actors. And one other quick thing I'll add to because I know this, people are probably thinking about this. This is however, also why I want to go back to our earlier conversation, why I think folks should really think about the whole idea of like DC being toxic. This is also why we shouldn't think just electing more young people inherently like actually fixes it. Because like when we elect young people, we just go into the system, and they just like replicate the badness of like, This system allows you a different different level. So that's why I think like someone who I'd be really interested in politically is like, let's say there's like a tech founder who is in like, some like American dynamism, space, actually don't like what's think of like Ryan Peterson from Flexport, I will be interested in how someone like him responded to to the political system, because Ryan is deeply aware of like supply chains. That's actually an issue. It's like very up for grabs, like he has really built things. He's very fluid, he's very talented. I'd be interested in how someone like him, like behaves in a political system 10 years from now. So what would happen if he were senator from California? Now, that being said, I think if you were to get elected now, it wouldn't lead to anything, because he'd be entering into the toxic system. But like, that's my point about the 2030s. I would demand fundamental reform of the system as if I could demand things. If in the 2030s, when you have time to work these things through when you do have the world change. If we still can't do things, then I'm like, okay, that's kind of the thing.
Lars Doucet 43:28
Yeah. So one of the things that really strikes me about that is that you've got this kind of like seizure of the standard means of control, and it kind of rhymes a little bit with me with like, other places. We've seen those disruptions, you know, with like, standardization of media, or whatever. It's like, you guys are busy disrupting right now with podcasting, and things like that. And it feels like right now, like, you've got institutional DC, you've got this gerontocracy, right. And then you feed young, ambitious people, like AOC into it, and then they start coming out kind of like standard issue, Democrats or whatever, you can push back on that if you disagree with it. But like, there's this notion of like, you've made this case that like DC is just this machine that like turns people into people who perpetuate the ineffectiveness of the system. One thing that I've noticed is everyone I talked to they care about such a different set of like when I said vibes before any pushback on actually agree with your pushback, because people do care about policy, but the kinds of policies like, I mean, people care about abortion, they care about CRT, but they also care about all these other issues that like don't really get played at the federal level. You know what I mean? Like, it's really interesting to me, like on the federal level, where like, Biden can't decide if home prices going up is good or bad. You know, when you like, see them, like talk about this? It's like, you know, and, and all kinds of other issues like with student loans, I guess it's something that is being played right now. You know, but it feels like, you know, in the UK, they're debating like the cost of living crisis and all these things. I feel like there's all these issues that don't get play that are more like, and you're talking about, like the Flexport CEO, you know, I wonder if in the 2030s, we can have this more of sewer socialist and whatever the conservative equivalent of that kind of movement of a get things done and solve actual problems for people movement looks like and how do we get
Marshall 45:06
there? Yeah, so a couple of things to that. So number one, I would say, but I wouldn't actually describe DC as a gerontocracy, because as we've been stated, there are plenty of young people who are elected like last night a Gen Z are one of Democratic primary and a very strong blue seats. So we're probably not our first Gen Z member of Congress. So it's not that they're the issue is just always old people. And like, funnily enough, like, I think that Joe Biden was more in touch with the country than like Pete Buda judge or Kamala Harris, where debate debate how Biden is performed by his Yeah, Biden, I really push up on this November 2020, Joe Biden, as a very old man had an accurate read on where the country was. And wristwear point of that moment, relative to his much younger competition. So pushback or gerontocracy, here's the actual issue in DC I think the issue of DC is, no one basically knows what they're doing. In the sense that like, so for example, let's talk about AOC for a second, because I actually really don't like when, you know, like, super erect leftist like oh, look at AOC like she's just like a total sellout. She's kowtow into Nancy Pelosi always to robots like look like the actress because like, what exactly is like AOC supposed to do this system just won't let her do what she wants? No, it's he doesn't know what to do what she wants in the system. So for example, so here's an example of this like, and this is like, if I get stuck with AOC, I would genuinely ask her this question. She is fascinating to me. Because on one level, she is very eloquent. She's very talented as social media. But she has this terrible habit of polarizing herself for like, no good reason. So green New Deal. Already a very polarizing thing. Why then is she decided to get in fights about Latinx usage. But genuine, I did an episode on this, it'll probably come out by the time like this is out and look like I would never like use the term Latin X, I would say Latino, Latina. Like I'm a fluent Spanish speaker. So I just wouldn't do that. But at the same time, I get why someone would say like next. Yeah, so just shut up. Right. Well, why don't you if the issue right now is that any issue of its touched instantly becomes toxic to polarize? Yeah. If you're already touching, what say, the green New Deal? Why would you also become known as a person who's getting in and getting in polarizing fights about law next? Why are you deciding that it's a good idea to get in Twitter fights with Ted Cruz? Because what's gonna happen is with those two issues, Ted Cruz fights and Latinx they invariably are going to infect your position on green New Deal, yes, it invariably is going to affect your position on the on student loans, like another incredibly polarized issue. So my point is, it's not the system that's breaking AOC like, Biden just pass probably like the strongest, like what legislation we're gonna get into, she's getting no credit for that. And that's because she fundamentally did not operate properly. And I think from a playbook perspective, and this is why like, I think there are a lot of people who just like are keeping their heads down right now as I think they should be. People are gonna learn like, Okay, interesting. You have to make choices versus what Ron young can knows. Yeah. And Charlie Baker doesn't know or maybe it's not up for grabs for him. They see the governorship fun young kid wants to be president Charlie Baker knows his best bet is health and human service. Secretary, but if you're if you're if you are a smart, like kind of leftist personally thinking like, Okay, I would have to make a tough choice on the green New Deal. Yeah. I'm not gonna get into Twitter beef with Ted Cruz. Right. And I should also think to myself, Yes, I get a huge like Instagram following. But like to what end, but this is, this is my favorite thing. This is what works. He developed like, there's this obsession with saying like, Oh, like these millennials and AOC. They know how to use like Instagram, but I'm like, Okay, but what to what use? Was it? Yeah, well, think about it. Today. AOC? Is mastery of Instagram, get the green New Deal passed? Did it make her the centerpiece for climate legislation? Is she better set up to win the New York primary? If you ever primary Chuck Schumer? The answer is no. So during this period of figuring it out, people want to be big people are going to sort right. And that's basically what my point. So I don't think there's anything smart to close it, but I don't think there's anything systemic. It's breaking AOC I think she and her team are having to make tough choices, where a lot of the time they're wrong.
Lars Doucet 49:36
Okay. It's like back to the point then. So that covers AOC specifically, but like to the more general point of like, whatever the DC machine is doing and what it optimizes for, it seems like it's not serving, not just the method of not getting things done, but also like these other issues, it feels like that a lot of people care about that don't necessarily get played because they're either not they don't have high culture, war valence, or they're not the kind of things that the The people in the institutional fights are caring about right now, you know? And so how do we get them to care about them in the next 10 years?
Marshall 50:07
And this is okay, this was helpful. Like, frankly, this is kind of the way that's done. So like, no, seriously. The thing that's interesting, if you look at like young politicians, young politicians are able to like, notice things. Like, I'm really interested, like, I read a lot of political biographies. And I'm like, really interested in like, what do people not in power think? What are people who are going to be empowered? I think a good example is the following remember, during the height of the supply chain crisis, when you know, Ryan Peterson is out in the boat in LA Harbor, like literally like live tweeting, he leaves some people food. I've asked this to so many people, I'm like, why wasn't Pete Buddha judge? On the boat with him? Great question. Right. Like, when that would have been and you could say to yourself, well, you know, infrastructure, it's not like a sexy issue, but like, this is where vibes come in. Right? If people might, Pete Buddha judge should have been on a boat with Ryan Peters and saying, yes. Hey, guys, Christmas, the holiday season is in danger. Chris, Christmas. Haven't you guys all basically notice to the start of this episode that America doesn't seem to work that well anymore? Exactly. Why Pete budaj edge, because he's a self interested politicians. I'm working with my good buddy Ryan. Yes, yes. to dynamically fix this problem. And the Biden administration is going to fix this problem. Yeah. That is what political talent is. So I've asked a bunch of friends of mine. I've asked like, for example, like, friends of mine, who are like state reps, yeah. Hey, they don't they don't know who Ryan Peterson is? No, they don't really know, the supply chain issue. Because this current set of people whose approach to politics was formed in the 1990s. Through the 2010s. They are not good at what politics actually is. And I think if Pete Buddha judge were as impressive as people saying is, he would have been on that boat, yes. Because I'm just sort of like, how are you missing this? But the answer is he's missing this because he's too stuck in the current system.
Lars Doucet 52:15
So you're saying it's not that he decided not to get on the boat. He wasn't aware that he should be on the boat. And he wasn't aware that there was a boat
Marshall 52:20
exactly like that. No, that's actually exactly it like, and this is something that Catherine Boyle and I talked about, like she was saying the thing of reason she's optimistic about American politics, people like worrying about this point. She's like, I hate tech propaganda. Like even even even the like the founder or conversation gets a little like awkward sometimes, to be entirely honest. But I think this is entirely a good victory point. She's like, at a core level, like being a founder like selects for certain skill sets. Yes, you are addressing problems. You're attacking them with aggression. You own things, you're accountable, like that's the deal. Yes, that if you are smart, you are a politician listening to Catherine Boyle saying that, and putting that into your system for what I should actually be taking. So if you're once again, and this is like the funny take, like, and this is what I'm still wanting with AOC. But I think she's the way that the media talks about this point, because we're talking about media here. What I love is like you'll you'll I did this interview with two New York Magazine reporters wrote a book about AOC. And they made the statement that, quote, student loan debt is like the issue of the of the millennial generation. And once again, this isn't about debating, like the policy approach. I don't think that's true. But I actually I actually think that if you even like, hey, like most homeowners don't even go to college. So they don't even have that. Or if they do have it, it's like not as high. Right? Right. That is an example of like missing where, like, the spare parts are missing with a center of gravity is the center of gravity in American politics. Post COVID. In September 2021 was, holy crap. Everything is so broken. Yes. That needs to be fixed. And I hope that politicians and one of the politicians are noticing that and saying, Okay, well, they're not a thing. And this is, this is something that I assuming I really just like, wonder about, like, and I think that this is kind of like an example of how the polarization that we fought back against. I'm fascinated by all these politicians who like, just very clearly, like wake up like every single day, and are like, what's polarized things? Like even more? Right. So
Lars Doucet 54:26
there's like, let's just double down to make everyone mad.
Marshall 54:29
Yeah. Like, yeah, like this is this is the funny so Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren, right. Yeah, I'm picking on the right here. But I think there are two very prominent examples of this. And I think there are structural reasons why this has been more of a right issue than the left issue, like ultimately because the right is like anti government like incentivizes like Democrats have their own problems, but this is their version. I have never understood why somebody doesn't turn like Lauren Bobo. And so dude, like, she was just like, stop, stop. Like, it's like, the country like sucks right now. Yeah. So Ron feels like the country sucks right now. I don't get the sense that you're waking up every day and trying to fix those things. You're basically saying yourself like, hey, how do I get more retweets by making a certain group of people more pissed off? Like that is literally all they are doing. And I don't understand. And this is why like, my dream, my dream Pete Buttigieg is right if I were right, Liz Smith in advising I'd say dude, like what you should be doing right now is beyond that boat with Ryan Peterson. Yep. And then when Lauren boba is annoying, say, Dude, cute. Just not. Yes. I'm here fixing stuff. Yes. Afterwards, exhausted by this, I kind of call this I tell this to my fiance. I was like, it's kind of like muscular norm ism. It's kind of like the whole like, why can't we get along with the Washington vote? It's not like that lame. might kind of like exactly. I mean, David McCullough just like passed away. And I think it speaks to this very, like, Tom broke on the grid. It's like, taking that notion but booed putting it like muscularly. It's like, exactly, why would anyone want any of these people to be in charge of anything? These polarisers like these? Like, that's all they're doing? It's like do to start your podcast? Public funds, grow your Twitter brands, me and Mike and this can happen left or right. Right, it could be a right of center vision. Right? Because like, Kevin McCarthy, they don't like they don't like, they don't like MJ T, ng t either. And JT either. So it's just sort of like, why can't you just say, if you're a successful American politician today, like, my coalition is, this country is broken. We're gonna fix it. If you're in, we could have different solutions. Exactly, exactly fixed. But if you're not on the train, like Get the eff off, right. But I think that is what like, that is what the basic point would be like, it's, it's like, because think about this, think of the world where you grew up in, like, if you told 1990s us like, age yourself up? Yes. You know, there's gonna be a world where with like, all the wonders of Amazon, and all those things might be possible. Like, you might not get goods that you ordered for Christmas. Yeah, I ordered furniture. It takes months to get things. But that is the that's crazy. Like, that's actually again, if you actually sit down and think about that for a second, like, that's insane. messed up. Our political project should be making that like not a thing. Exactly. And anyone who isn't on board that go off to the side. So that's, that's my real like, I genuinely have not had a convincing. And this is why I love being in tech, because I think tech gets this. Yeah. But then the whole like, oh, there's a gap between tech and crochet. I think it's not helpful. Yeah. But the weird world we're in right now is that oh, actually, this is helpful. The verb we're in right now is tech is living in this future. Yeah. And I think it's very honest, on a couple of different things. Tech is talking about supply chains, candidates talking about dynamism. Things don't work, because China Tech was right on COVID At the start, but they're also terrible living in the present world, right. So I'm sure you guys may have noticed this notices on Twitter, but they're all these like tech founder VC types. For the past year have been like tweeting out some of the most like, right wing, Red Pill stuff, and then the dhabas decision comes out like overturn Roe v. Wade. And then the you're like, oh, my gosh, what happened? Like, are you serious? Yes. Like, there was just announced that, you know, David Sacks and Keith were hosting a major fundraiser for Republicans in Miami. We're like, oh, my gosh. Yeah. Like,
do you think the red pill? And I'm not saying what was good, like abortion is like a serious like weighty issue. But that's like my frustration with tech, where it's like, you were so focused on the fact that like, once again, like I think, I think Keith and David are great at talking about like, what are these, like IRL problems in America right now with texting, like to do a better job on exactly. But people in tech also aren't good at saying like, okay, cool, like, but what is what do they think of like the current issues of today? So I think a my dream world would be a world where like, you could merge like text ability to diagnose specific problems in America, that kind of thing. Tech and venture are good at giving you a skill set, but too often, tech looks at this current system, that gerontocracy Whatever ends basically treats it like legacy hardware, and wants to just like, wish it away, right? And like wish that this is their version of the entry and trap where they're like, man, like, these parties suck, and they just like, wish them away. And basically just like, just think about them. If you if you're if you're if you're pitching a VC, you would not do it that way. But that's not actually an optimal way for navigating a system. It's like
Lars Doucet 59:34
like crypto like grappling with regulation coming down the pipe hard and fast, you know, but that will take us off topic real quick. So one thing I want to talk about that I think segues into is pretty well is this notion of cost disease, socialism. And when I say that those for the audience like I'm not necessarily like trying to like make a capitalism socialism point. It's a very specific phenomenon. And this ties into student loan, the student loan debate and things and And so like, I believe cost disease socialism specifically applies to when you restrict supply of something but also subsidize it. And econ 101 tells you that sends the price right up. And so like, no Smith's talked about it, I don't think he invented the term but he like has written about it. And so this is basically like a kind of like, It's alleged that this is like a worst of all policy intervention, because you don't get any more of the stuff like the goal is to get abundance, but instead, we just make the price higher. And I think that's basically Sagar his entire point on your pod on breaking points. And maybe he's brought it up on the realignment. I was wondering what your thoughts on the theory of causes leaves socialism are, and also specifically about whether that's actually what's happening now with certain of our policies and in medicine, and housing and higher education and things like that, like all these issues that like people really care about?
Marshall 1:00:54
Yeah, I think that's a great way to put it, I'd say, you know, focusing on higher ed specifically, that's the issue I'm most most focused on. I think it fits with conversation we were having earlier about, like, issues and like addressing things, you see the cost, disease socialism thing happening in the sense that like, all we seem to know how to do is subsidize things, right. So all we know how to do, looking at the higher ed system, which everyone agrees that doesn't work, or isn't optimized. All we know how to do, we don't really know how to do two things. Sorry. We know how to subsidize things. We also know how to unhelpfully, unsubsidized things. So like, for example, an example with the unhelpful is like, after, you know, the 2008 financial crisis, like states, like severely cut aid to public universities, which like, obviously, like, led to putting that on students and athletics and other different things. And like, we could obviously have a debate in our society, like, what is a public good? Like, what should the university system look like? Like the University of California was not only super cheap, because like inflation was lower of education cost? Because the state of California was like, oh, no, we think it is a good thing for our state to do that. Yeah, he will take a different perspective on that thing. But that's what like, the unhealthy version is. Yeah. And then when it comes to subsidized, so I think that's the Republican version of this Republican version is higher ed sucks. So like, what's just like, unhelpful, we cut funding Exactly. Without like tying that to something specific. Exactly. Then the democratic version, that's where like the left version, or the socialism comes in, honestly, is okay. So we see this cost is very high, we see people have always problems, let's subsidize via increasing Pell Grants. Right. And this is one of the big disasters where if we increase the size of the Pell Grant, a Pell Grant is like aid for people who need it. But then like the inflation of costs over a 10 year period, like literally ate up the aid up the amount of right, the increase, or we're just stuck again, maybe you can help the first year where then it's Rebecca, and an orbit whereby blankets to loan forgiveness, or just by like, overly generous, like loan policies. So in my version of American, I think once I think this is what is going to be selected for, because this is because once again, what's funny is, I can have this conversation with anybody who's not captive to the incentives of like the status quo, where you would say to yourself, like, look, the issue right now isn't really like, do we like extend the student loan pause, the actual issue is that our higher education system is like super broken, and part of what may get us out of that would be okay, let's make sure that we reform the system. And then we should probably like forgive loans, people who got screwed by the previous system. So this is this one of my favorite, because I think student loans are like the most fascinating topic ever. It's, it's so it's so interesting, because what's thinking about this mic rhetorical bed people just take which is basically like, we shouldn't be, you know, we shouldn't let people take out loans for like underwater basket weaving or poli sci and like, the government just says, We'll give you a loan for anything, we just do it. But dig beneath that for a second. And I talked about this on today's episode of the realignment. What operationally happens is we get into a society where only upper middle class kids like me could get pulled poli sci degrees, right. And if we actually talk this out, we actually don't want to live in an America where if you're lower middle class or poor or working class or middle middle class, you have to get like a STEM degree. Now like the artsy fartsy liberal arts degrees for people like me, that's you operation we are saying when you're saying we shouldn't just have some other underwriting or basket weaving. So a way to have that conversation is okay, should states furnish more funds for education that that's what you get, you could say, you can say like, Hey, like in Oregon's because when he was in Oregon, we don't want to live in a state where, where you can't work. We're only rich kids get to do fun degrees. I want to say fun. But we don't want to live in a state where like, stem it also happens when people talk about apprenticeships. It gets like it. My number one right point of frustration. There's one like and this is a this is a polarizing whereby we say when privileged people like me say why don't we ever know for free internships. And it's like, I'm gonna be honest, like, my kids are probably not going to have apprenticeships, right. Like they're not gonna they're not going to do it. And I'd be honest, if I was like, man, like, Come on, dude, like, I'm just gonna be the podcast, buddy would have gone. Why don't you go full ride? Like why
Lars Doucet 1:05:16
you need to put in 40 hours of podcasting before we can move a journeyman podcaster?
Marshall 1:05:21
Yeah, that's the that's that's the that's the take there. So it's like, that's the underlying system I could we could talk about what do we want to actually look like, and then forgiveness, the degree to free subsidize could be the endpoint of that, because people are gonna get someone's gonna get hurt, someone's going to suffer. And that's mostly what coalition politics looks like. So like the system once again, this is why we're talking about what are we selecting for what sucks about right now is we're selecting for people who either do nothing, which is basically if you're a Republican Congress, you're interested in like just dunking on higher ed and how it sucks. Or you're saying unhelpful things like what's like, I hate this talking point to where you're like, the endowments are so big, let's take the endowment money. Because a like to talk about this point, when people talk about big endowments, they're talking about Harvard, all the things are LPs, a, like Harvard actually spends a decent amount of money on students. So like, if you if you are making if your payments less than 80k, you will probably go to Harvard or Yale for very little money, because it's subsidized by the endowment. Right? Harvard and Yale are not the cost of like, are not the cause what we're going through right now. And I also think it's so funny that like, on the one hand, Republicans who are anti white wealth tax, anti white, one time wealth taxes on on on Jeff Bezos, because they would be unfair, which they would that would be just unfair to say, like, you know what, like, I'm just gonna wake up and be like, You know what, like, we're just gonna take your money, like after the fact, this is the same exact principle. And it's just bad. And it's also wouldn't it? It's also a one time tax. So right, wouldn't wouldn't want something but then left version is, to your point is, okay, we know this thing is too expensive. What's gift people? What about doing it. So I want a politics where we like, start from, wait, this doesn't work, let's work to make it work. And part of what makes it work is how to deal with people who are screwed by the previous system.
Lars Doucet 1:07:14
So here's an interesting thought. So like, one of the pills I've taken recently is the Norwegian Resource Management pill. So I'm a Norwegian citizen. So I'm a little biased here, because I'm standing for, for the home team. But I read this research article this year, which like really opened my eyes because like Norway, has this famous sovereign wealth fund and oil. And I read recently about it. And what surprised me is that it was not set up by Norwegians, or not entirely the kind of the person who spearheaded it was a well, he's a Norwegian. Now he's an Iraqi immigrant. And he was just dicking around for a petroleum job. He's like, You guys need any Petroleum Engineers. He's like, we just discovered an F ton of oil. We have no local industry, what should we do with it, and he's like, I've seen this before. I've seen the resource curse. And he had this really interesting insight. And apparently, the people, the Norwegians, who set up the hydro power management industry 50 years earlier, had the same insight. So they both had the same solution. And it really dovetails with costs disease socialism, which is this notion that when you artificially restrict access to a resource, either through it's just naturally restricted because it's scarce, or it's artificially restricted to politics. A good example in America would be my narcolepsy medicine. It's a simultaneously scheduled and scheduled three drugs. So the government is wisdom is granted monopoly to one company. So when you create those artificial restrictions or natural restrictions, you get what we call a resource rent a over abundant super profit, because nobody can naturally compete with you or competition is constrained. And Norway solution to this is not like like American socialists like love to talk to me about Norway all the time, and how it's perfect, knowing very little actually about Norway. And so no real solution is to tax the resource rent, at like a really punitive level, because it's basically just an ongoing windfall profit, but leave a normal amount of profit if you were actually working for a living company. But then, you know, you have the Brian Kaplan's of the universe that come in, it's like, well, this is going to discourage innovation and research and exploration, you know, because like the companies are going to wind that. It's like, oh, there's so much r&d, and it's so expensive. And so the Norwegians will subsidize the r&d in the exploration of oil, but they will tax like punitively the oil that comes out of the pipe, because, so that you don't have people just like sitting on the wells. And you know, and this is me just giving, you know, region, propaganda here is that it seems like over the past 50 years, it's really worked. It seems like an kind of industrial management policy that can kind of be abstracted away to other issues of scarcity, that like instead of subsidizing the wrong thing, and taxing the wrong thing, you tax the right thing and you subsidize the right thing. And you can kind of actually get abundance and competence and not set the ocean on fire like other national oil companies, sometimes Do I was wondering if you'd heard this approach before? Or what you what you think of it, you know, I mean, feel free to push back and tell me it's nonsense. You know, it's just it's just like taken over my mind lately.
Marshall 1:10:10
Yeah, and I've never, I've never heard of it. I think it's an interesting idea I've, when I think about my, here's something like this is just like, my immediate reaction is just sort of like man, like it's not useful, unhelpfully comparing countries to one another. Because you just gave this whole, like, complicated history of how it could have this thing. And it's like, very unproductive just to look at Norway and say, Oh, we should be like that you kind of see this in like the gun debate. But when it comes to, I remember, when we just said what number to take away, we've just basically we like this idea of like, subsidizing the right things, to subsidizing research, resources, those different bits. I also just struggle with the fact that it doesn't seem like we're going to have in subsequent decades, the equivalent of we discover oil, right. And that's like the, that's the interesting question. And the other interesting question, too, is if we did, would we have the foresight to go the Norwegian direction? Or we're just status quo happen? Well, so like, for example, like Why Why does you don't know this? But like, I don't know that either. Like, why does like Alaska, give like Alaska is like a portion of like the whale profits. Versus like, maybe like Texas or other resource rich places. So I'm like,
Lars Doucet 1:11:17
we do actually we do have a it's a tiny crappy version of the Alaska one. I think it like funds, teachers and stuff. It like is actually like, paid out. If you mean Texans. Yeah. To just got here. So I have no idea. Yeah, Texas has like a crappy miniature version of like the Alaska fund, like some of our oil dollars, like goes to pay some future systems? I don't know a lot about it. All I know is it exists, and it's not as good as Alaska is.
Marshall 1:11:38
Yeah. So that's the real question is like, what? How does the society respond to like, opportunity and abundance? And I think the pessimistic take is, I don't see this as being a moment where we have to respond to the great hydrocarbon boom, in quite the same way. Right.
Will Jarvis 1:11:51
Marshall, one more question here. Oh, what did the next 50 years look like for you? And how do you see your role in American politics evolving over time?
Marshall 1:12:00
So it's funny, the I was just talking about this in private, but I was just like, we got to articulate, articulate in terms of politics. So listeners, and to your podcasts into my podcast will notice that like, I'm very like bitter and annoyed towards politicians. And that's because of the fact that like, I'm like a reformed politician, kid. Gotcha. So what I mean by that is like, by just so cringe by email address in high school was Kozloff. 2020. Yeah. Obviously, I was gonna run for Congress back in Oregon. Yeah. 2020. And I genuinely, you know, a couple of things happened with 20 times maybe not want to do that. Yeah. So I look at these conversations, and these people through the lens of like, oh, like, I wanted to be them. Right. I wanted to say like, how a 2020 like Congressman Marshall, like respond to these things. So what really happened, this was like a really just like, humbling moment is I woke up one day, I was like, Oh, wow, like, if you were a congressman, you would probably not be doing any of a better job than AOC. Because if I were a congressman, and this is leading to your question, if I were a congressman, that would have meant that I would have stayed in Oregon, rather than going to DC most likely, I would have stayed like in like Lake Oswego, or like the Portland metro area, I would have like worked for a state legislator that would have like, worked my way up, like the greasy pole get elected, and then do this do these different things. But the thing is, I would just be a useless politician. Because think I want to think about what I think my actual useful insights are, right? The supply chain as you start, yeah, but China stuff, the defense of the tech stuff, I wouldn't have experienced any of these things. Right. I would have just been once again, not captive to the system, or white Democratic Party, but to the incentives or to the like unmolded models right? So I never think of myself as okay so like you're someone who could look at this environment as like a as a reformed politician type, which gives you unique insight because to be able to actually kind of frustrates me when you see it's kind of like when I'm when I'm when I'm talking to people who are talking about like reform, and why it doesn't happen. I'm like, to often outsider populist, like, decentralized critics, they just don't get it because they're oftentimes the people. So I got always getting this huge fight with like, mostly, like, kind of like leftists about like money in politics. So like, I was talking to Kyle Kolinsky, who's like crystal ball sagas, co hosts, co host. Also fiance, so these things stack. It's not just CNN that has a side note. But we were talking in Kyle was talking about he was saying, quote, you know, like the only reason why Republicans like don't favor universal health care is because lobby health care law was giving them money under the table. Yeah. That's just like not true. And here's the way to run this experiment. And the way to run this experiment is if you weren't too bad at Some Cawthorne and we're like, hey, Madison Cawthorn that's what I'm gonna give you like a donation if you were to come out and favorite, universal health care, or hey, you go to you go to what say like Josh, always, Hey, Josh Harley, you're very pro First Amendment, the Bloomberg lobby to give you a bunch of money, and you're gonna be in, you're gonna know that because no one's gonna say, oh, alternative type. I actually know how politician types think. If you are in this political game, obviously, there's the side conversation about like stocks. But politicians, the more polarizing the issue, the less likely they are to actually think about money, right? The funny thing here is that the more to the side and issues, the more likely there has to be a corruption issue. So like what say it's like a weird, like, pharmaceutical Bill carve out as a toward regulation. That's an interesting conversation. And I'd be curious, like, where that Senator person's chief of staff goes, after that bill passes? I'd be very interested, that person became a lobbyist afterwards, yes. But when it comes to the polarizing issues, money does not dictate it. But genuinely. So what I'm trying to do as a podcaster, is I want people to learn and understand that. So they can't see the system as it actually isn't. Understand the actual Michael Bloomberg, it's been $10 billion. And it would not convince a single Republican member to say, you know, what, actually, there are too many guns in this country. Because once again, they're not responding to money, they're responding to actual opinions and actual people hold on those different bits. So speaking to my role, then I just want to keep talking to people. I think it's like super cool that, you know, we can like meet each other like on Twitter. Yeah. And just talk and this will get out there. And I'm just not, I didn't make a decision. It's kind of what I have this experience a couple times where I could be.
This is gonna sound very arrogant about just plow. It's, we're deep. So podcast, I could be much bigger than I am very quickly. And by that, I mean, I know what episodes do you see?
Will Jarvis 1:17:07
Is that like, leaning into the culture war? Or like,
Marshall 1:17:09
not even that? It's not even culture war. It's just like a certain style podcast, right? You just
Lars Doucet 1:17:12
wanted to min max it, you know, just yeah, just like the next book, I
Marshall 1:17:17
need to get the natural number of advertiser dollars. Or downloads. Yeah, I know how to get the realignment to like 125,000. Yeah, like listeners, just like that. Yeah, I've done that. Because like, for example, like Peter Zion did a Peters I had episode 250,000 views on YouTube popped. Yeah. Popped when we, whenever if, like Eric Weinstein, on pops. Yeah, I think those are valuable conversations. But I think what I'm more interested in is growing slowly. And honestly, feeding people their vegetables sometimes. So look, I want to I want to do an episode, I'm doing an episode at some point in the next few months on like, aircraft carriers. Because like, I actually think like, all I think about as like time is Taiwan, and the China crisis and all those different bits. And I keep thinking, like, man, like, I wish I could have gone back and studied Ukraine and Russia and modern war back in 2017 2018. But I did to be aware, I think people have that opportunity right now with like the Asia Pacific, you know, naval power in those different bits. I wanted to be a podcast where someone is sort of like, Oh, that's right. We were useful when like, the wind for me, really was okay, cool. I did this episode of bridge Colby during my daily Ukraine series. He's like a defense policy guy. A bunch of people were messaging me. They're like, hey, like, we're passing this right. This is getting passed around Senate office. Because it's just good. It's just like, helpful. And like, that sounds good. That's like January, we're gonna walk as part of what I did my wife put away my politician Marshall. Yes. Let's say yourself, like, okay. It feels really quick. I get noticed when I go places. That's really cool. But, and I think this is to my credit, yes. I was able to, like take that feeling. And say, okay, that's cute. But that's cool. Yes. But that's not what I was. Thinking. And guess what, like, I'll get there in like, 10 years. The question I think too many creators in our cohort are not answering this question the right way. Because there are so many people who are getting so big and so hyped and like, I was sort of like, there's just no, they're there. And you could say what you want to like the old system. You could say that Kara Swisher is just like, not with no people tech don't like caricature. When Kara Swisher was my age, she was writing two very good books about Amazon, and the 1990s. And she actually knew what she was talking for. And what frustrates me is this current moment selects for people who are good at getting very big. And I basically hold the position much as I say that the set of politicians who are going to like really succeed and get us out of this are keeping their heads down, and are basically not a part of the system. But actually, the defining like media personalities right now are not like optimizing themselves for going viral and Tiktok. Gotcha, because I actually think that Tiktok is selecting for a specific skill. assets that are going to return for long term value.
Lars Doucet 1:20:01
My thought our game is that the whole like AOC, optimizing her Instagram and optimizing getting things done kind of thing.
Marshall 1:20:07
Yeah, it's basically good. That's a good way to put it. I would my advice for politicians, craters, like whatever tech founders is like, hey, like, really take a step back. Be arrogant. I'm arrogant, like that's the nature of these databases. Assume that, like, you're going to be successful in some way. I've always assumed to be successful in some way. The real question to ask yourself is how are you going to get there? Yes. And what are you trying to do with that? Um, if I did a like buzzy, like podcast that got a lot of views, but wasn't passed around seven offices, during complicated moments, that would have like, no actual purpose for me, right? Because I just know given the growth of the podcast in 10 years, I'll be good enough right like Brent syrup. Malcolm Gladwell. 10,000 Hour Rule thing exactly, that we'll be able to do both. But that's what I want to do. Like I want to be the ideal and say for me is I can be maximally famous, but maximal we competent? The more that means I'll be like, 3738 Yeah. And people should ask themselves that because I could because it's just sort of a it's so weird. Like, you were just like notice like, it's like no one like all these people and this isn't the right Duncan website with all the like watching people flit from thing to thing. Optimizing. It's it's brutal, it's lame, and it doesn't work. Watch people like not do it. I'm not gonna name names, but it's like very there. If you're watching. I saw people go from like, I'm crater economy person. And I'm Metaverse person. Yeah, person. And now I'm climate tech person. And it's literally the lamest thing ever. And what people don't realize is, this is why the world is so weird, right? Not only are they not catching on when it comes to like the clicks and the views, but people in the know also notice this too. Great point. everyone notices this thing guy? Yeah, this Yeah, this is like the tech version, like People to People are always a current thing. Crane and COVID. Yeah, there's a tech version of the current thing, which is that and the other the other problem here too, is that like, I think a huge problem the industry is that people will talk what's was talked about let's go there for a second. There's a the the biggest Red Bull. This is my biggest red pill. I felt so self conscious about my lack of like Twitter. I don't tweet. Yeah. But um, are we lucky in that, like soccer has a big Twitter so I have 17,000 followers. Yeah, but that's just the soccer reach. So I have the I have the perfect but if I DM you, you will respond. I got a blue check. I would just be like, Yeah, but like, I was so self conscious about my lack of Twitter presence. So I discovered that so many people in industry, have other people read the tweets for them. Really? Oh, yeah. Like and that's that that helped me chill out. It's like, okay. Experienced but one day I was like, man, like, how are these people who worked on tech in their 20s and 30s? Comp Sci degrees? How are they so fluid? All these topics? Every writers they have nuance, because they're because they're very well paid 23 year olds are doing that for them
Lars Doucet 1:23:17
on hustle departments. Yeah, I've discovered this in like, previously in video games that that's like how's everyone like doing all this marketing all the time? Oh, they just pay people to do that. Just
Will Jarvis 1:23:25
pay somebody to do
Marshall 1:23:26
that. So like that's, that's just like the real I want. And what sucks is so many people Home Plus, they're talking crap about everyone here is obviously smart. Right? Exactly. No one. No one who I'm actually mentioning here is some of them like anything. That's super Tiktok people. Actually, you know, the person who's like most who's who's threaded the needle. I will speak for Kyla Scanlon. Kyla is the only person who's mastered how do I get big on a platform we're also being super super deep. And that is the cause but that's also because like Kyla is also like a three sport athlete. She podcasts she does YouTube, she writes and she does tick tock so like that's an example of someone who's able to hit it with water in it so she's like super hard worker, but also like them like I'm just like ranting now so stop me but like my other my other frustration with like, the hustle stuff is too much of like hustle. For people. This isn't like the usual hustle culture critique the puny human like to find hustle as like just pumping stuff out. Like how do I write the perfect tweet federal How do I like clip this episode? Not just sort of like, for me? I read three to four books a week. Yes, but that's my version of like hustle right now. You know, if I wasn't doing that, I also wasn't tweeting that real badly. But like I really think like, the 2020s for me like this isn't an extra two years was just like, just get good at something just get good at something. Get a salary and just don't care about the views like exactly the fact that I can make like a you know, multi six figure salary just talking to people is like That's insane. Have you ever read the old the old media world like it was? You read all these people? They worked so hard? They didn't make any money? Exactly like no one read them just sort of just just be okay with that. Yeah. And just understand that, like, people knowing you and the retweets, the dopamine hit doesn't last very long.
Will Jarvis 1:25:15
Exactly. Yeah, it's a longer, much longer game. So can we ever expect a senator or anything like that? What do you think?
Marshall 1:25:23
No, I'm obviously, no, no, here's, here's what I put. Because I hate when people can fake the fake answer on this. If I have something to say, yes. And I can add value I will run for office. Gotcha. Let's get but the my real critique of Kozloff 20 twenty@yahoo.com. Marshall, is he on a fundamental level had nothing to say. Right. Nothing to add. And that's what I'm opposed to be able to avoid that. Like, like, if like, like, seriously, like, if there's like, if there's like a moment where there's an issue, but I know something about, oh, this is good. This is where like, I think we'll end it. Like, my favorite. The quote that I'm obsessed with right now is like, you know, Winston Churchill during during the Blitz with he's talking to us on Randolph Churchill. And he goes, like, I find I see a way through a way through that's like things are their absolute worst. Yeah, it's a disaster. He's like a COA through and his answer was like, the US will get involved in the war. That's how we're going to do it. There's no and that was the way through. I have to see your way through to get involved in politics, and I'll do it. But and this applies to everybody. Yeah. Think of like, what is your way through? Write in any category that you're doing? Yeah. You want to be a web three poster? You know what, like, that could work for you. Good. But actually, I would push to I actually have something to say, or am I just like taking the content of the top 1% of people? Am I just say taking Gaby Goldberg's reading list. And by turning in my tweet form, yes. That's not a way through, though. So don't do it.
Will Jarvis 1:26:55
I love it. I really love that. Well, Marshall, thank you so much for coming on. Where can people find the realignment? Where should we send them?
Marshall 1:27:01
Yeah, so a couple different things. So the realignment so we're available wherever you listen, your podcast, Spotify, Apple, all those good things. Were also on YouTube. I started to focus more on YouTube. Oh, man, YouTube. We're extending here but YouTube. YouTube's YouTube scary because YouTube does an actual algorithm.
Will Jarvis 1:27:18
Yes. That is much easier than like the audio itself. I found. Yeah, it's
Marshall 1:27:23
I want to say it's much it's so much harder. Yeah. Because affair. It's easier to like yes, it's a trade off. It's the entrepreneur the key words all these things matter. So like, I've started to take it more seriously, so people should check out the YouTube. But yeah, that's the next that's the next can of worms. Yeah, the realignment all those other good thing for most of us. Thanks for having me on the show.
Will Jarvis 1:27:45
Absolutely. Appreciate it Marshall. Special thanks to our sponsor, Bismarck analysis for the support. Bismarck analysis creates the Bismarck brief, a newsletter about intelligence great analysis of key industries and organizations and live players. You can subscribe to Bismarck free at brief dot biz market analysis.com Thanks for listening. We'll be back next week with a new episode of narratives. Special thanks to Donovan Dorrance, our audio editor. You can check out documents work in music at Donovan dorrance.com
Transcribed by https://otter.ai
119: Marshall Kosloff - The Realignment