Conversations with Tyler's banner
Conversations with Tyler's profile picture

Conversations with Tyler

@cowenconvos12,630 subscribers

@tylercowen engages today’s most underrated thinkers. Produced by @mercatus. Join us on @discord 👉 https://t.co/ESSqSYvfyr

Videos

cowenconvos's profile picture

New ep! Ezra Klein and tylercowen go deep on abundance: how it clashes with polarization, whether it’s elitist, “dark abundance”, and more. What’s a true abundance agenda for health care? Ezra and Tyler discuss a few ways the government can play a role: COWEN: What if someone said, a true abundance agenda — of course, this could never happen — but it’s basically to zero out Medicare and Medicaid, which is a lot of money, and spend all of that on science and birth subsidies and social security for that matter. Why isn’t that the true abundance agenda? KLEIN: The true abundance agenda would be to zero out Medicare and Medicaid and spend — ? COWEN: Christian Scientists — they still have decent life expectancy. People would have maybe higher social security. They could still buy healthcare. We’d have many more people. It’d be a much younger society, more dynamic society. Scientific advances would mean we’d cure many more diseases, forms of cancer. People would probably live longer. Why not do that? Just go crazy on innovation and number of births. KLEIN: One, I think that’s hugely probably a false choice. You can fund innovation, but if you don’t have provision of healthcare . . . This is the other side of your arguments about drug pricing, but your view is that you get a huge innovation signal from the fact that in a rich country, virtually everybody — and certainly all older people — have healthcare and they’re able to buy it. One, I don’t buy that you could close down Medicare and Medicaid without substantially harming innovation. I don’t buy that on a political level at all. One of the — COWEN: It’s not going to happen but you could have prizes for really good drugs, right? KLEIN: It doesn’t fit my politics. COWEN: Why not?

Conversations with Tyler

239,408 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce

cowenconvos's profile picture

In his landmark multi-volume biography of Stalin, Stephen Kotkin shows how totalitarian power worked not just through terror from above, but through millions of everyday decisions from below. Currently a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution after 33 years at Princeton, Kotkin brings both deep archival work and personal experience to his understanding of Soviet life, having lived in Magnitogorsk during the 1980s and seen firsthand how power operates in closed societies. tylercowen: Do you think Georgian blood feud culture influenced Stalin at all in this? KOTKIN: Yes. So, there were a lot of Georgians and there’s one Stalin. People argue that he got into fights in the schoolyard, and that the fights were nasty, and therefore he became a certain type of person. They argue that his father beat him, and therefore he became a certain type of person. The problem with arguments like that, Tyler, is that I got into fights in the schoolyard when I was his age. People beat me up because I was a half Catholic, half Jew at a Catholic school. COWEN: This was in Englewood, New Jersey, right? KOTKIN: I was small, and people knew that they could maybe take me on bully-style because I wasn’t as big as they were. My father also disciplined me with the proverbial belt when I got out of hand. I didn’t go on to collectivize agriculture. I’m not responsible for the deaths of 18 to 20 million people. So, you’re not going to be able to explain Stalin as a phenomenon or even as a personality with those types of tropes. What explains Stalin, at least in my view, what I argued and continue to argue in the biography, is the experience of getting into power and then exercising power. It’s building and running the dictatorship. It’s managing Russian power in the world that makes Stalin who he is, not because there’s some kind of DNA there. I don’t go for cultural DNA–like arguments.

Conversations with Tyler

36,321 görüntüleme • 1 yıl önce