Knowledge Takes the Sword Away

34+


Not yet the wise of heart would cease
    To hold his hope thro’ shame and guilt,
    But with his hand against the hilt,
Would pace the troubled land, like Peace;

Not less, tho’ dogs of Faction bay,
    Would serve his kind in deed and word,
    Certain, if knowledge bring the sword,
That knowledge takes the sword away—

‘Love thou thy land, with love far-brought’, by Alfred, Lord Tennyson

From time to time, these pages refer back to the piece that Ben wrote for Epsilon Theory before the election in 2016. In it, we argued that Clinton’s candidacy was in trouble. That piece included a phrase that to this day confounds and frustrates a lot of readers. Ben wrote that Trump would break us.

Trump, on the other hand … I think he breaks us. Maybe he already has. He breaks us because he transforms every game we play as a country — from our domestic social games to our international security games — from a Coordination Game to a Competition Game.

Virtue SIgnaling, or…Why Clinton is in Trouble (September 29, 2016)

Of course, Ben was right about everything in this piece. He was right about Clinton being in trouble. Right about us being broken. Still, a lot of people still struggle over the particulars of the language. They don’t like what sounds like the scale of our very public social breakdown being laid at the feet of an individual.

Get over it. It doesn’t matter.

Maybe you do think it was Trump himself – the person – who broke us. Maybe you think it was our predictable interactions under the gaze of a figure as polarizing as Trump – the hero worshippers and TDS sufferers alike – that broke us. Maybe you think we were already broken before and Trump simply pulled the bandage off the deep wounds in our coordination game. I’ll say it again: It. doesn’t. matter.

Sure, maybe it matters to how you and I will vote in a few weeks. And we should, even though we will do so under the weight of entrenched interests telling us that our vote is our sole venue to access political and social change. But our vote can’t change this. For the country we will hand off to our children, for the reality of our world for the next 20, 30 or 40 years, our brokenness isn’t on the ballot.

We can’t vote our broken politics out of office.


Earlier this week, the New York Post published a news story about Hunter and Joe Biden. You probably heard about it. Twitter blocked all mentions of the Post story, Facebook blocked a bunch of other things and then for good measure YouTube blocked QAnon conspiracy videos. Quite a week. Having quit Twitter, I suppose I don’t have to worry about being black-listed, so here it is.

It is…a lot to unpack. But may I confess to you that I am not particularly interested? It doesn’t really constitute information in any sense to me, by which I mean that it didn’t really change my mind about anything. I think that if you were at all surprised by the “revelation” that a life-long senator and former vice president of the United States was maybe involved in some measure of political corruption and light nepotism, you need to stop reading this note and commit a few days to deep personal reflection. I’m not saying that it isn’t newsworthy, and I’m not saying that it isn’t bad, if some of its implications end up being true. I AM saying that if any of that surprised you, you have been walking around with your eyes closed for the last 50 years.

If you’re feeling agitated right now, there’s a more important note you could be reading.

As fuel for narratives with the capacity to change common knowledge, of course, the New York Post article and the responses it got from other outlets ARE absolutely fascinating. But even its importance in narrative-world isn’t what I found most informative. What was most informative was what the venues for this information told us about themselves.

So let’s start with this: if real, the email from Pozharskyi to Hunter is absolutely newsworthy.

Its provenance is worthy of serious questioning. Its contentions are worthy of discussion. The motivations behind its disclosure at this juncture are also newsworthy. Maybe more so. But the email itself is absolutely an item of public interest of some scale. Personally, I happen to think that scale is circumstantial and relatively small. You may disagree. Doesn’t matter.

What happened next does matter.

First, the only “news” departments to deem it newsworthy were those in media outlets whose “opinion” pages would favor the outcome of an explosive public response to its revelations. Here are the top publishers of articles referencing “Burisma” from October 14th or October 15th, 2020.


Source: Second Foundation Partners, LexisNexis

Meanwhile, let’s take a look at the output of some other key newsrooms.

CNN: We cannot locate a single article published by CNN during this period satisfying this query.

MSNBC: We located two articles. One is a roundup / digest-style piece that refers to the claims as nonsense and links to a Jonathan Chait piece. The other is an opinion piece which is a discussion of Giuliani’s seemingly obsessive attachment to the Ukraine issue (which is ALSO a newsworthy topic, if a distinct one). Nothing else we can find.

New York Times: The Times published three articles. Rather than summarize, I’ll let you decide for yourself. We cannot locate an active link to the third article mentioned below, but at risk of letting a headline do too much of the work, its bent seems more or less self-explanatory. The other two are classic Fiat News examples of reframing: “This is how you should think about these emails,” packaged into news.

Dubious Ukraine Report Rejected by Biden Campaign and Social Media Sites [New York Times]

Trump Said to Be Warned That Giuliani Was Conveying Russian Disinformation [New York Times]

Biden Did Not Meet With Ukrainian Energy Executive, Campaign Says [New York Times]

Washington Post: The Washington Post took a more active role in contesting the core allegations, publishing a fact check-style piece alongside a range of other takes. In all, one opinion piece and five news pieces, all positioning themselves in opposition to the Post’s original news piece. Fiat News all around.

As one of Trump’s conspiracy theories bites the dust, he moves on to new pseudo-scandals [Washington Post (Opinion)]

Power Up: Early voting is way up in key states as Democrats flock to the polls [Washington Post]

White House was warned Giuliani was target of Russian intelligence operation to feed misinformation to Trump [Washington Post]

Three weeks before Election Day, Trump allies go after Hunter – and Joe – Biden [Washington Post]

On Bidens and Ukraine, Wild Claims With Little Basis [Washington Post]

The Daily 202: First Amendment plays an unexpected starring role in Amy Coney Barrett confirmation hearing [Washington Post]

I have zero interest in engaging on any discussion about whether Fox News and Breitbart’s 50-article barrage was an exaggeration of a nothing-burger, or whether the New York Times and CNN pretending it was only worthy of explaining away was “worse” or more indicative of bias. We have seen and written about widespread differences in the perception of actual news events before.

Still, the magnitude of the difference with which organizations purporting to tell us the facts of the world perceived the newsworthiness of a fact of the world in this case exceeds just about anything we have seen in the last four years. ALL of our media outlets have uniformly empowered their news rooms to reflect the editorial and political predispositions of their publishers. It is a gross betrayal.

I’m sure you have perspectives and preferences about all of the above. If so, I have a question for you.

Do you think this goes away between November 3rd and November 4th?


If there is a story that presented a close second place in terms of the divergent evaluations of its newsworthiness, however, it was certainly the publishing of Donald Trump’s tax returns by the other paper in New York on September 27th. It was followed by a firestorm of follow-up news coverage and opinion pieces from across the spectrum.

It is…also a lot to unpack. May I confess to you once again that I am not particularly interested? It doesn’t really constitute information in any sense to me, by which I mean that it didn’t really change my mind about anything. I think that if you were at all surprised by the “revelation” that a brand-pushing real estate investor with a penchant for bankruptcies has mastered the art of finding dubious losses to reduce taxable income, you need to stop reading this note and commit a few days to deep personal reflection. I’m not saying that it isn’t newsworthy, and I’m not saying that it isn’t bad. I AM saying that if any of that surprised you, you have been walking around with your eyes closed for the last 50 years.

If you’re feeling agitated right now, there’s a more important note you could be reading.

As narratives with the capacity to change common knowledge, of course, the New York Times article and the responses it got from other outlets ARE absolutely fascinating and potentially far-reaching. This is, after all, a man who built his narrative on wins, not losses. But even its importance in narrative-world isn’t what I found most informative. What was most informative was what the venues for this information told us about themselves.

So let’s start with this: Donald Trump’s tax returns and the details within them are absolutely newsworthy.

Their provenance is worthy of questioning. Their implications are worthy of discussion. The motivations behind their disclosure at this juncture are also newsworthy. But the returns themselves are absolutely an item of public interest of some scale. I happen to think that scale is pretty meaningful, not so much because I care about anyone minimizing their taxes (on the contrary, I consider it every American’s solemn duty), but because the reality seems to conflict with prior statements and appears to include some dubiously aggressive interpretations of tax law, potentially concerning debt, and potential improprieties in consulting payments, etc. You may disagree. Doesn’t matter.

What happened next does matter.

First, most of the “news” departments to deem it newsworthy were those in media outlets whose “opinion” pages would favor the outcome of an explosive public response to its revelations. To keep the periods in question consistent, here are the top publishers of articles referencing “Trump” and “Tax Returns” from September 27th or September 28th.


Source: Second Foundation Partners, LexisNexis

It isn’t quite the monoculture of those who deemed the Biden email an earth-shattering scoop, but peeking underneath the hood, it’s close. How about the “other side” of the aisle from an editorial perspective?

Fox News

While it did get some discussion on the air, a query of news published on the Fox News website turned up zero news articles relating to the New York Times findings on Donald Trump’s tax returns over those two days. They did muster, however, an outraged opinion piece.

Gutfeld on the phony outrage over Trump’s tax returns [Fox News]

Daily Wire

The Daily Wire (Ben Shapiro’s outfit) filed two articles as “news” reports. Both would fall squarely under our definition of Fiat News. The first simply aims to adjust readers’ interpretations to a “not illegal” framing. The second frames the issue as being more about Joe Biden’s mockery-worthy response to the report.

NYT “Bombshell” Report On Trump Taxes Missing One Key Word: “Illegal” [Daily Wire]

Biden Campaign Now Selling “I Paid More Income Taxes Than Donald Trump” Stickers [Daily Wire]

Daily Caller

The Daily Caller (until this summer Tucker Carlson’s home away from Fox) posted two articles as well. Both can be easily characterized as Fiat News. The first is designed to build a foundation for a framing that “Trump has always been honest about avoiding taxes.” The second frames the issue as really being about CNN’s bias.

FLASHBACK: Trump Brags About Avoiding Taxes, Says Paying Them Guarantees They’ll Be ‘Squandered’ [Daily Caller]

CNN Anchor Shocked After Rick Santorum Suggests NYT Story On Trump’s Taxes Is False [Daily Caller]

Breitbart

Breitbart manages to be the fourth most prolific publisher of articles. That looks like a broken pattern…until you begin to review the articles themselves. The vast majority select and summarize video clips to provide a megaphone to obvious defenses of the President against the implications of the Times’s work, mostly through some (and this is putting it kindly) creative framing.

New York Times Debunks Several Conspiracy Theories with Trump’s Tax Returns [Breitbart]

Donald Trump Jr. Slams NY Times — ‘People Don’t Understand What Goes into a Business’ [Breitbart]

Carney: The New York Times’ Attack on Trump’s ‘Financial Acumen’ Is Nonsense [Breitbart]

Carville on NYT Trump Tax Report: ‘This Is One of the Best Days That Any Presidential Campaign Could Possibly Have‘ [Breitbart]

McEnany on NYT Trump Tax Report: ‘Same Playbook That the American People Rejected’ in 2016 [Breitbart]

Joe Biden Exploited S-Corporation Loophole to Avoid Payroll Tax [Breitbart]

To their credit, Breitbart also included a couple simple synopses and video clips of legitimately critical news consistent with the New York Times report.

Bernstein Calls on Congress to Investigate Trump — ‘He Is Compromised to Foreign Entities’ [Breitbart]

Pelosi: NYT Tax Story Shows Trump’s ‘Disdain for America’s Working Families’ [Breitbart]

Maybe you think a 20-story barrage from the WaPos of the world is the “exaggerated” version of this story, or maybe you think that the non-coverage is the more indicative of a news room infected by an organization’s editorial and opinion posture. Either way, we may still observe that the gap in how simple facts are presented and reported, not on opinion pages but in black and white news, is vast.

I’m sure you have perspectives and preferences about all of this. If so, I have a question for you.

Do you think this goes away between November 3rd and November 4th?


That’s not all, of course.

On October 14th, after the New York Post published its piece, Twitter chose to implement a “long-standing” policy restricting the spread of materials which may have been acquired without the permission of the individuals referenced, hacked or stolen. In other words, Twitter blocked access to the New York Post article and suspended accounts of some of those who linked to it, despite lacking any evidence that it was ill-gotten. And they did so despite having happily permitted the New York Times article from two weeks prior to spread like wildfire, despite the Times having acquired the tax returns in undisclosed ways, and despite Trump himself claiming that they were acquired illegally.

As Ben wrote, it was a monumental metagame fail on Twitter’s part.

More than that, to any Trump-supporting conservative it was a confirmation in narrative world of the reason most have used to justify their sometimes-grudging support: that only a Trump could counter the unlevel playing field created by news outlets and social media platforms in which progressive politics seep from opinion pages to news pages. It is the most powerful justification we humans have for signing on to corruption – that it serves a greater truth. And whether you believe in it or not, the “greater truth” of a news media and social media industry hopelessly derisive toward political conservatives is absolutely one of the reasons the election of Trump was able to break us.

I expect that some readers will comfort themselves with the idea that one of the stories above really was a nothing-burger, that the other one really was a big-effing-deal that people aren’t talking enough about, that the differences in coverage just reflect that reality has a left/right-leaning bias, and that this is really just evidence that our side is populated by all the unbiased clear thinkers.

Let’s say those readers are right. I mean, they aren’t, but let’s say that they are.

In a political world in which those responsible for telling us the truth provide us with two distinct sets of facts, even if we are 100% convinced that our facts are always the correct ones and our truth-tellers the honest ones, dismantling the competition game that results in politically polarized truth-tellers should STILL be a huge objective.

Knowledge brings the sword’

If we believe we are right, we should seek truth and fight for what we believe it is.

Knowledge takes the sword away

Even when we are absolutely convinced we are right, we will still benefit from actively seeking to create opportunities for cooperative game play. Or, you know, clear eyes and full hearts. Anything which structurally supports the infection of news pages with the sentiments of a publication’s opinion pages is always and in all ways anathema to that objective.

How do we do that in our media consumption? Some intangible thoughts and some tangible ones follow:

  1. Act Boldly, Hold Loosely: It’s OK to believe we’re right, and we should act boldly on those beliefs. We must! But seeking out cooperative gameplay in the widening gyre – a world of two sets of facts – means not immediately dismissing people who hold to a set of facts that will seem absolutely ludicrous to us. Sometimes that instinct will be right. This doesn’t mean letting those content to wallow in obstinate ignorance waste our time. More often, I think it means being intentional about providing a few instances of uncomfortable patience, grace and humility before we dust off our shoes and move on.
  2. Transition to Regional Newspaper Consumption: There is a crowd-watching-the-crowd effect that manifests in news outlets designed for national consumption and social media consumption. Once an outlet decides that it is part of the “national dialogue”, it will be inexorably pulled into the widening gyre. There are a wide range of city papers in the US in which the editorial page is very appropriately partisan without excessively poisoning its news pages. Anecdotally from our Fiat News work, we have found the Chicago Tribune, Houston Chronicle, Miami Herald and San Francisco Chronicle to be among them.
  3. BITFD: There is a projection racket which defends polarized national media from criticism of their commercially oriented, rage-opinion-funded-and-infected news pages. It’s time to work together to restore the fourth estate and empower the fifth estate, and dismantling those projection rackets is an important part of doing so. More on this to come.

34+
Notify of
33 Comments
oldest
newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
underyourhat
underyourhat
7 days ago

I couldn’t help but laugh uproariously when I re-read Ben’s screed from four years ago; particularly when he claimed: “I know how to resist Clinton.” Oh, sure you did, Ben! We the People spent the next 30+ months entangled in NYT, WP and CNN anonymously sourced reports on Russian pee tapes, et al, to include years of Presidential investigations we now know were falsely sourced directly from a woman who made the term Nixonian seem like a lukewarm bath by comparison. Today, we can all thank Twitter and Facebook for blocking on our behalf all those terrible fake news stories to keep us safe in their warm light at long last. Uff da. Hell hath no fury, Ben. Your resistance was a futile as mine.

Ben Hunt
7 days ago
Reply to  underyourhat

You read this article and your reaction is whatabout Clinton? C’mon, man.

underyourhat
underyourhat
6 days ago
Reply to  Ben Hunt

Well, not quite, Ben. But Rusty did invite me to review your 2016 piece and I addressed the success of our resistance to the most significant political bag of tricks that ever came our way in our lifetime. Of course, I was then asked to listen while Rusty disinterestedly picked at the Hunter political scab and the gooey political scab of Trump’s taxes. I suppose his point is that we live in an era of brilliant yellow journalism and that trusting the news is futile. Naturally, I agree. Rusty ends with the call to BITFD; and when I follow his argument, I am led to a list of projection rackets. I don’t think I need to go beyond the first IT: Our two-party system. Having voted in every election in my 60+ year lifetime for an alternative party, I can easily say from experience that the two-party system is here to stay. Resistance is futile. Clearly, the call to BITFD will get us nowhere, as well, since IT has already BITFD. I prefer the strategy of BITFU, or build-it-the-fuck-up. I’m looking for a robust way to survive and perhaps even help my people thrive among the fires and ashes the rapidly growing number of BITFD people are blowing my way. I am still hoping for some help in that regard from you two guys.

Rafa Mayer
Rafa Mayer
5 days ago
Reply to  underyourhat

I suppose his point is that we live in an era of brilliant yellow journalism and that trusting the news is futile.

That is all you took away from this piece? You have no comments on competition games vs cooperation games? You have no reflections to share on your own self-bias and what brand of “yellow journalism” gets you saying “amen!”?

Fascinating.

underyourhat
underyourhat
3 days ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

Thanks, Rusty. Will do. The first thing I’m doing is writing something I’ve entitled “It’s All My Fault” in which I take responsibility for the fact that We the People have been offered two really old, really dumb men from which to select as our President. I should take the blame because I did not get involved in the process. While I might not be alone in that regard, the effort should help temper my temper. Let’s help BITFU, Brother.

William Hobi
William Hobi
2 days ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

Actions speak louder than words, and the Epsilon rapid response to organize an ad hoc rescue mission to provide PPE to front line healthcare workers this past spring was a great example of bottom up action of Make, Protect, Teach. That’s as concrete as it gets. If everyone would look around them for concrete actions they can take in their community to Make, Teach, Protect, in aggregate, there would be tremendous “building up.” We are all intelligent, capable, experienced people of means. There is so much good we can be doing every day to make the world a better place. As we say at Alive & Free, “We save the world one life at a time.”

Rosann Hickey
Rosann Hickey
2 days ago
Reply to  underyourhat

I keep hoping for that help too….

William Hobi
William Hobi
1 day ago
Reply to  Rosann Hickey

Don’t “keep hoping for that help” – BE THE HELP YOURSELF,! Look around you. Help people in need. That’s how you build from the bottom up. It’s not an intellectual exercise. It’s what Ben and Rusty have been preaching for the past two years. They are not going to give us a PLAN.. It is up to us to INNOVATE in our communities to Make, Teach, Protect.

james stewart
james stewart
7 days ago

The phrase ‘fiat news’ has so easily entered our lexicon, who says Latin is a dead language. Time negative news is more objective a description, because it was a waste of my time reading or listening to it, maybe neg-news.

james stewart
james stewart
7 days ago
Reply to  james stewart

However reading the article was a delight, somehow!

james stewart
james stewart
7 days ago
Reply to  james stewart

Where I live, few people would know the Latin for let there be. My guess is the fiat descriptor comes from academia, a top down creation of vulgar language by the elite.

tromares
tromares
6 days ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

Ben a vulgademic? Enjoyed the piece. Thanks Rusty.

When I want to get at an issue or news item I try and read at least 4 to 5 pieces with at least 1 dissenting view. What I am experiencing is that the “news” cycle transforms so fast that about the time I have been able to locate, read, think about and decide upon a research item it has been become obsolete as a current issue or the way it has morphed makes it almost unrecognizable and I can’t compare it to my previous sources.

There is still personal value in building a foundational understanding of the issue and the ability to move forward knowing the homework was done, however, it feels that I am constantly behind the curve in having an informed opinion on the “news” of the day.

My perception is that the velocity of the news is always increasing and the duration of most news items is constantly diminishing.

james stewart
james stewart
5 days ago
Reply to  tromares

But the vulgate {common language} might last a generation or more.
Ancient roman latin/ old english hybrid phrases will probably not survive long on Twitter etc.

tromares
tromares
1 day ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

Something occurs, gets reported ( in media), narratives emerge on that something, narratives are adopted by agents interested in a particular outcome and become predominate (in media) and then enter the world at large as common knowledge.

I can see the acceleration between the narratives emerging and becoming common knowledge, at least in part, to increased connectivity.

I can see the agents interested in a particular outcome using the technology of increased connectivity / acceleration to bring their narrative forward promptly with the hope it becomes predominate, displaces other emerging narratives and eventually is “recognized” as common knowledge.

I don’t vilify media. Tools can be abused ( by tools).

I went to market world for information figuring that information had become a commodity and that market investors needed the best information they could get their hands on. Money on the line.

I wanted the best of that information I could afford on a very limited budget. Investing was a secondary interest for me. Its been about 12 years and the degree that the information I can access has been corrupted by narrative during that time is astounding. There are gems that have “held the fort” and do not parlay in the false currency of narrative but in a grand scale ( generalization alert!!) the shift is profound.

The common knowledge factory is the biggest financial enterprise there is and it is working overtime. Both shifts.

tromares
tromares
1 day ago
Reply to  tromares

Note that I recognize that narratives have the opportunity to be created and launched by the eventual promoters but its not clear to me that this happens in all cases.

Peter
Peter
6 days ago

What I particularly like about these articles from Ben and Rusty is that they consistently “open my eyes” to the inherent biases I have.
They often have me scurrying back to my well thumbed “Thinking Fast and Slow” Daniel Kahneman’s great book on how the mind works.

Yet in the quietest moments ( where my most accurate thoughts tend to originate) I agree with some of “underyourhat “ .i too am in my 60+ year and I too have had a varied and anti-establishment voting past.
He makes good points, I’d like Rusty and Ben to address them fairly ( like I know they can).
Perhaps we can all learn from their rebuttal.

Desperate_Yuppie
Desperate_Yuppie
4 days ago

That we have come to accept the casual corruption and graft from the friends and families of politicians is perhaps the best evidence of a broken society. That we now have two distinct media monocultures who are more than happy to cover for these corrupt entities is evidence that we actually like being a broken society.

Desperate_Yuppie
Desperate_Yuppie
4 days ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

I say like because I lack the specific word needed. So yes, shorthand.

It’s like this: you meet someone at a Christmas party. They’re charming, pleasant, etc. They ask you about New Years resolutions. Yours is to spend more time with your kids or whatever. Theirs is to lose weight. You see them over the Fourth of July and they’re the same size. “Weight loss is tough” you tell yourself. “They’ll get there”. Before you know it you’re at another Christmas party two years later and there they are, still overweight and still talking about how this is going to be the year to really get in shape. Now do they like being overweight or is it that they like not having to work out and the weight problem is the price they pay for that? I don’t know which it is, but it makes little difference to their cardiovascular system. Perhaps we don’t like corruption, but you’re dead-nuts on about being willing to accept it, lest we have to look ourselves in the mirror and ask why we act the way we do.

William Hobi
William Hobi
1 day ago

What do you mean “we?” Unless it refers to politicians simply becoming as greedy as corporate managements? Politicians don’t possess the elegant means of self enrichment of the managerial class, so they appear to be more corrupt. However, I can tell you from first hand, the managerial class is every bit as corrupt as ay politician. However, since the politician has ostensibly chosen “public service” as a career path (when it should be a calling), they should perhaps be held to a higher standard. But alas, they have merely allowed themselves to be corrupted by the money the oligarchs have dangled in front of them in order to accomplish the corporate coup of America. BITFD!

William Hobi
William Hobi
1 day ago
Reply to  Rusty Guinn

Amen to that!

William Hobi
William Hobi
2 days ago

With an expanding high-peaked bimodal electorate at each other’s throats, shouldn’t we expect to find news organizations that serve and amplify those sentiments? After all, they have always been in the business of selling newspapers (advertising). The question is, which came first, the sentiments or the selling? Maybe I’ll read Manufacturing Consent again.

Anthony
Anthony
2 days ago
Reply to  William Hobi

I was thinking about going back and looking at the media portrayals of Jackson or Lincoln. I ask myself pretty often if it was always like this? Was it just more subtle and less frequent? Maybe people were just better at seeing the con.

Tom Hudson
Tom Hudson
1 day ago
Reply to  Anthony

While you’re at it, look at the media portrayals of Jefferson.

Anthony
Anthony
2 days ago

This makes me wonder if it possible to have a singularity that is bad enough to reverse track and save the cooperation game down the road, maybe finally breaking the two party duality. I secretly hoped that things would get so bad that common sense would prevail or someone would eventually call an end to the madness. Literally disgust everyone enough to take a break. But it seems we are not there yet. So here we wait, stuck waiting between egos and civil war.

William Hobi
William Hobi
1 day ago
Reply to  Anthony

The Fed is here to make sure we don’t ever get to that point of reckoning!

Barry Newman
Barry Newman
2 days ago

I am intrigued (and was when i first read it) with the concept that Trump’s election would break the system. I think the system had already been broken in Obama’s first term, with the passage of the affordable care act as a purely partisan action. Once that happened cooperation never came back, either in the political process or in the press. Maybe Trump’s election just pulled the scab off and made it more obvious, especially with the never-Trumpers, and Trump derangement syndrome (which is a real thing) but also from the political right which may or may not even like Trump, but has tried to use him as a cudgel to fight back against their disenfranchisement from the political left. This IS a widening gyre, and the TDS on the left has only made it more so, putting it straight into the partisanship corner, and even admitting it, rather than just reporting news. For what it’s worth, as a student of the press, I think that of the national media, the Wall Street Journal is probably the one remaining newspaper that while likely having a bent, does report the news relatively independently and does fact checking the way news outlets are supposed to do, and keeps opinion in the opinion pages. I have had to give up subscriptions to a few other papers that i used to read daily, like the NY TImes, and the WaPo. I have also followed some of those regional papers (Chicago Trib- i used to… Read more »

Landvermesser
Landvermesser
2 days ago
Reply to  Barry Newman

Well, here’s a different angle on the “Obama broke us” narrative. Obama’s 2008 platform was profoundly progressive, dare I say audacious. Then once he got into office what did we actually get? Ronald Reagan in blackface.
Yada yada yada, a lot of O voters said “F these crooks” and ended up pulling the lever for Trump as a misguided effort to BITFD.

David Newcomer
David Newcomer
2 days ago

At some point perhaps we should face the fact that Pogo was right “We have met the enemy and he is us.” There is a essay here about how and why we have changes so a to allow the rules to change:
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2020/10/72174/

The Latest From Epsilon Theory

DISCLOSURES

This commentary is being provided to you as general information only and should not be taken as investment advice. The opinions expressed in these materials represent the personal views of the author(s). It is not investment research or a research recommendation, as it does not constitute substantive research or analysis. Any action that you take as a result of information contained in this document is ultimately your responsibility. Epsilon Theory will not accept liability for any loss or damage, including without limitation to any loss of profit, which may arise directly or indirectly from use of or reliance on such information. Consult your investment advisor before making any investment decisions. It must be noted, that no one can accurately predict the future of the market with certainty or guarantee future investment performance. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

Statements in this communication are forward-looking statements. The forward-looking statements and other views expressed herein are as of the date of this publication. Actual future results or occurrences may differ significantly from those anticipated in any forward-looking statements, and there is no guarantee that any predictions will come to pass. The views expressed herein are subject to change at any time, due to numerous market and other factors. Epsilon Theory disclaims any obligation to update publicly or revise any forward-looking statements or views expressed herein. This information is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation of any offer to buy any securities. This commentary has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive it. Epsilon Theory recommends that investors independently evaluate particular investments and strategies, and encourages investors to seek the advice of a financial advisor. The appropriateness of a particular investment or strategy will depend on an investor’s individual circumstances and objectives.