Terence Tao on the suspension of UCLA grants

> but not at all unexpected given who’s running it

To be fair, this has felt like the natural consequence of the "maximize capitalism without regarding the downsides" maxim the US seems to have been operated under for a long time. Corporations have been (indirectly) running the country for some decades at this point, it's just way more obvious and in the face now when a "businessman" sits as president.

Maximize crony capitalism and oligarchy, perhaps.

The US drifted far from any form of pure open market laissez-faire capitalism or balanced regulated capitalism some time past.

I agree. For decades our political and cultural leadership took actions that benefitted themselves and other beneficiaries (e.g., property owners in coastal metro areas, tech and finance workers, etc.), but life has gotten harder for the poor and the middle class. The hollowing out of middle America and the dramatic rise in costs of the three H’s (health care, higher education, and housing) has been painful for many Americans.

I thought things would look up after the 2012 election, when people were looking for meaningful change. Unfortunately a charismatic demagogue entered the scene and has taken power. Since then, we’ve been on the worst possible timeline, and I don’t see an easy way out of this mess. It’s going to take a lot of work for Americans to trust each other again and for the rest of the world to trust us.

Yes, your "pure" capitalism tends to do that.

Kinda similar to the people who say of the SU "but it was not true communism".

The people that founded the SU openly declared that it wasn't communism, just a managed phase on the way to actual communism (that never happened).

Either way, we're talking here about small in groups treating a larger out group as sheep to be manipulated and harvested.

"open market laissez-faire capitalism" was the explicit policy goal for maybe 50 years.

The idea that if it was only somehow more pure in some ideological virtue, then it would have worked, you'll need really hard historical material empirical evidence to defend such a claim

Not that it wasn't white and pure enough but that if it was the shade whiter you advocate for, it would have somehow been a complete 180°, like some magical threshold

While I would agree with you generally, in this case we’re talking about decisions that are precisely not desired by either business or investors. Which is to say, I think the American people and institutions are in a much worse place than at the whims of business alone: caught between an evangelical cultural coup and unrestrained capitalism. It’s actually surprising to me that the evangelicals appear to be dominating the concerns of business and investment — I don’t have a great explanation of why it has turned out like this. It leads to such a manifestly contradictory situation in which the government is betting the future on US AI global dominance and yet gutting the institutions that would enable it.

I partly agree that white supremacy, particularly in the form of xenophobia, played a major role in Trump’s catapult to popularity (“Mexico’s not sending their best!” in 2015) and his enduring popularity (“they’re eating the cats!” in 2024). Let’s not also forget the Religious Right, which made a bargain to elect a protégé of Hugh Hefner in exchange for Supreme Court justices who would vote the Religious Right’s way on abortion and LGBT+ issues. When it comes to social issues, Trump has largely fulfilled his promises, and he continues to “stick it” to his “enemies” whenever and however he can.

However, Trump, at least in 2016, also attracted the votes of people who were fed up with the hollowing out of middle America and who resonated with his protectionist economic policies, and he also attracted people who were swayed by his “drain the swamp” rhetoric, which resonated with people who did not want an election featuring Clinton II (Hillary Clinton) vs Bush III (Jeb Bush). It is these people who have been fooled, who have not gotten politics purged of corruption. Much of the old GOP has completely capitulated to Trump, with the rest largely driven out of politics. The “swamp” never got drained; it’s now Chernobyl levels of toxic.

In addition, the two party system has made Republicans voters too loyal to their party. They’re so afraid of the Democratic Party, that their leaders will take away people’s guns, money, and free speech, that they don’t dismiss the warnings of authoritarianism as just plain fearmongering and “Trump derangement syndrome.” Well, the authoritarianism is here today. Right now it’s being directed at “enemies” like immigrants, anti-Trump politicians, scientists, and educators, but eventually the authoritarianism will affect Trump’s base. Unfortunately a lot of innocent people are suffering, and the nearest election is the 2026 midterms, which highlights a major weakness in the American government; we have no recall mechanism, nor do we have mechanisms like parliamentary systems where snap elections can be called.

Business leaders might have had a distaste for the evangelical wing of the GOP, but they have been, are, and always will be terrified of populist left-wing movements. There was a fair amount of that kind of sentiment floating around in the Obama years with movements like Occupy Wall Street and the popularity of Bernie Sanders, so they decided to hitch their fortunes to the GOP.

And it's easy to understand why they made that choice. I don't think they are dim-witted, ignorant of history, or unaware of how this gamble could turn out badly for them. Instead, it's because for all of the problems that they are having with the current administration, they still have their wealth, they still have some of their influence, and they also have the option to jump ship for greener pastures if worst came to worst.

You'll notice that nowhere in that equation is concern for the average working-class American.

If you learn that many business influencer are actually deeply Christian (many famous business, self help books is just sugarcoated Christian principles books[1]) you'll understand that those two are highly overlapping, and not separate political entities

[1] https://youtu.be/A_hH-JkXD_c?feature=shared

It's almost like the road didn't go where they said it would.

Pretty much, I'm naturally cynical about any waving about of either "Capitalism" or "Communism" as neither has really existed in any pure form and the devil is always in the details.

That, and the propensity of those who seek power to dangle whatever shiny utopia best suits their end of fooling the masses.