Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests (5-18-25)

Posted on May 18, 2025 by Luke Ford

01:00 American Primeval exemplifies my worldview, https://yourmoralleader.blogspot.com/2025/05/american-primeval.html
12:00 Political scientist John J. Mearsheimer on war and international politics, https://direct.mit.edu/isec/article/49/4/7/130810/War-and-International-Politics
27:40 Which prominent Americans called for regime change in Russia?, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161403
32:00 Subversive un-pc jokes on SNL
34:20 Mark Halperin: Opportunity Missed: The Media Continues Failing As “Original Sin” Biden Book Becomes Dominant Topic, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrkxy1dPTSg
45:00 Dan Senor’s State of World Jewry Address (@92NY), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkIPZxTQng
55:00 Michael joins to talk about Destiny’s appearance on CSPAN
58:00 Postjournalism and the death of newspapers. The media after Trump: manufacturing anger and polarization (2020), https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=159114
1:03:00 Batya Ungar-Sargon and Alan Dershowitz lost all their friends when they didn’t hate Trump
1:20:00 Learning to love LA, https://www.palladiummag.com/2025/05/02/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-l-a/
1:34:00 The Washington Consensus, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161401
1:50:00 The World Turned Upside Down: America, China, and the Struggle for Global Leadership, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=161339
2:01:00 RCP: Media Won’t Give Trump a Win on the Economy, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9smlJbQEU
2:08:00 Econonmists Herbert Stein and his son Ben Stein, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Stein
2:22:00 Clyde Prestowitz: Global Competition and Comparative Advantage: New Thinking in International Trade, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-wFEx6KdWQ
2:48:00 Dan Senor on college anti-semitism, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbF57US280
3:00:00 Jews after Oct. 7, https://www.commentary.org/articles/dan-senor/american-jewry-after-october-7/
3:30:00 Michael Beckley: Has the United States Gone Rogue?, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1v9Y3g_mdE
3:43:20 Trump is bold, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XW8Wav0OydI
3:46:00 Axios: Biden officials “awed” by Trump’s rule-breaking Middle East moves, https://www.axios.com/2025/05/15/trump-israel-syria-policy-reverse-biden
3:49:40 Mark Halperin talks to Rich Lowry, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEBcvGBNGWI
4:00:00 NYT: Strong Dollar vs. Weak Dollar: President Trump is of two minds when it comes to America’s currency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzbF57US280

Grok says:

Luke Ford, in his YouTube video discussing “Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests,” displays several areas where his self-awareness appears limited, particularly in how he presents his worldview, personal history, and intellectual positions. Below, I outline key points where Ford’s lack of self-awareness manifests, based on the transcript and analysis of his arguments, tone, and delivery:

Overgeneralization of Personal Experience as Universal Truth:

Ford frequently draws on his personal experiences—such as his time in foster care, struggles with fantasy as a coping mechanism, and self-diagnosed narcissistic tendencies—to frame his broader worldview. He presents these experiences as universal insights into human nature or societal dynamics without acknowledging their subjective nature. For instance, his claim that “with more freedom, people have more ability to create their own life” leading to mental illness (5:23-5:36) is a sweeping generalization that may reflect his own struggles but lacks empirical grounding or consideration of alternative perspectives. This suggests a lack of awareness about how his personal lens might not universally apply.

Contradictory Stance on Truth and Incentives:

Ford repeatedly criticizes others, such as Dan Senor and mainstream economists, for prioritizing status, popularity, or financial incentives over truth (e.g., 2:58:54-3:00:04, 3:13:01-3:13:13). However, he admits to his own history of seeking attention and connection through oversharing personal vulnerabilities (1:15:20-1:16:03), which he acknowledges led to negative consequences like being treated with contempt. His failure to fully connect his own behavior to the same incentive-driven dynamics he critiques in others indicates a blind spot in self-reflection. He seems unaware that his pursuit of “truth” is also shaped by a desire for audience engagement, as seen in his dramatic and provocative rhetoric (e.g., “I’m like God who withdraws a little bit from humanity” at 3:43:02).

Selective Application of Realist Philosophy:

Ford champions a realist worldview inspired by John Mearsheimer, emphasizing survival, competition, and national interests over idealistic economic models (e.g., 11:23-12:26, 23:31-24:27). He applies this lens to critique free trade and globalism, arguing they undermine national cohesion and security. However, he inconsistently applies this realism when discussing Jewish identity and anti-Semitism. For example, he critiques Dan Senor for exaggerating anti-Semitic threats to bolster in-group identity (3:13:13-3:15:02), yet fails to recognize how his own advocacy for Orthodox Judaism as the only sustainable Jewish identity (2:56:59-3:00:04) mirrors the same in-group/out-group dynamics he critiques. This selective application suggests he is unaware of how his own tribalism shapes his arguments.

Unacknowledged Privilege in Framing Suffering:

Ford argues that American Jews, including Dan Senor, lack perspective on their relative safety and prosperity compared to historical or global suffering (1:38:47-1:39:00, 3:12:12-3:13:39). He dismisses incidents like the subway protest as trivial, emphasizing a “realist” view of life’s harshness. However, he does not fully acknowledge how his own position as a commentator, with access to platforms and an audience, grants him a privileged vantage point to make such judgments. His insistence on comparing Jewish experiences to those of other groups (e.g., Black Americans at 1:39:21-1:39:42) overlooks how his own background—growing up in Australia, converting to Judaism, and navigating American cultural spaces—shapes his dismissive tone toward certain forms of suffering, revealing a lack of empathy for context-specific grievances.

Romanticization of Orthodox Judaism Without Acknowledging Personal Disconnect:

Ford passionately advocates Orthodox Judaism as the only viable path for sustaining Jewish identity, emphasizing its sacrifices and discipline (2:56:59-3:00:04, 3:10:31-3:11:03). However, he does not clarify his own relationship with Orthodoxy, leaving it ambiguous whether he fully practices this lifestyle. His fervent endorsement of a restrictive, communal way of life contrasts with his admitted history of seeking individualist validation through blogging and oversharing (1:15:20-1:16:03). This tension suggests he may not fully recognize how his own personality—described as narcissistic and attention-seeking—clashes with the self-denying ethos he champions, indicating a lack of self-awareness about his own alignment with his ideals.

Provocative Rhetoric Without Reflecting on Its Impact:

Ford employs provocative and hyperbolic language, such as joking about being a “creature of light” (1:16:14) or likening himself to God (3:43:02), and engages in edgy discussions about race, sexuality, and anti-Semitism (e.g., 3:59:14-4:00:06). While he defends this as artistic license or a reflection of his “poet’s soul” (1:12:14-1:12:37), he seems unaware of how this rhetoric might alienate or offend his audience, as seen in his response to a commenter’s critique of group self-aggrandizement (4:05:26-4:06:39). His failure to reflect on how his provocative style might undermine his credibility or reinforce the very in-group dynamics he critiques elsewhere suggests a lack of awareness about his public persona’s impact.

Dismissal of Economic Expertise Without Engaging Its Merits:

Ford dismisses mainstream economics as naive and disconnected from reality, favoring a realist perspective that prioritizes national survival over economic efficiency (e.g., 11:30-12:26, 2:27:16-2:28:51). While he cites thinkers like Clyde Prestowitz and Ha-Joon Chang to support his views, he does not deeply engage with the counterarguments or empirical evidence supporting free trade’s benefits, such as increased consumer choice or global economic growth. His blanket rejection of economic expertise as a “fantasy world” (25:06) reflects an overconfidence in his own perspective without acknowledging the complexity of economic trade-offs, indicating a lack of self-awareness about the limits of his economic understanding.

In summary, Luke Ford’s lack of self-awareness is evident in his tendency to universalize personal experiences, criticize others for incentive-driven behavior while ignoring his own, selectively apply realist principles, downplay certain forms of suffering without recognizing his own privileged perspective, advocate for Orthodoxy without addressing his personal alignment, use provocative rhetoric without considering its impact, and dismiss economic expertise without fully engaging its merits. These blind spots suggest Ford is more focused on crafting a compelling narrative for his audience than critically examining his own biases and contradictions.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Global Trade and Conflicting National Interests (5-18-25)

Which prominent Americans called for regime change in Russia?

Posted on May 18, 2025 by Luke Ford

John J. Mearsheimer writes:

For sure, states need laws and norms to help them interact efficiently with one another, and there is no question that the great powers mainly write the rules—for their own benefit. But powerful states will ignore those rules if they think that following them is at odds with their vital interests, which means such rules are not a meaningful check on war.44 Of course, when states go down this road, they will be quick to deny that they are violating international law, even when it is obvious that they are.

Consider Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was in large part a preventive war, which is impermissible according to both just war theory and international law.45 Putin, however, made the case that invading Ukraine was in accordance with international rules three days before doing so. He said on February 21, 2022:

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states. This is stated in the 1999 OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] Charter for European Security adopted in Istanbul and the 2010 OSCE Astana Declaration. In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.

Grok says:

Joe Biden: As former U.S. President, Biden made remarks in March 2022 that were widely interpreted as a call for regime change. During a speech, he stated, “For God’s sake, this man [Putin] cannot remain in power,” referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin. While the White House later clarified that this was not an official policy stance, the comment sparked significant debate and was cited as evidence of regime change rhetoric.

John Bolton: The former National Security Advisor under President Trump explicitly called for regime change in Russia in October 2022. In a CBS News interview, Bolton stated that “Putin has left us no real alternative” and that “Putin must go,” advocating for a change in Russia’s leadership due to its actions in Ukraine.

Michael McFaul
McFaul, a former ambassador and Obama administration official, has been vocal about U.S.-Russia relations. While he hasn’t explicitly called for regime change in the same direct manner as others, his criticisms of Vladimir Putin’s government have been interpreted by some as aligning with regime change sentiments. For instance:
During his tenure, McFaul was critical of Putin’s policies, blaming him for derailing the U.S.-Russia “reset” policy.

In a 2014 CNN interview, he expressed deep criticism of the Putin administration, which some Russian officials viewed as meddling in their domestic affairs.

His book, From Cold War to Hot Peace, details his belief that Putin’s authoritarianism stifled Russia’s democratic potential, which critics of McFaul argue implicitly supports a change in leadership.

However, McFaul’s public statements focus more on containing Russia’s actions (e.g., in Ukraine) than explicitly advocating for Putin’s removal. His role as a scholar and commentator makes his stance less overt than policymakers like Bolton, but his critiques contribute to the broader narrative some associate with regime change advocacy.

Victoria Nuland
Victoria Nuland, a career diplomat and former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (2021–2024), is frequently linked to regime change rhetoric, particularly due to her role in U.S. policy toward Ukraine and Russia. Her actions and statements have drawn significant attention:
In February 2024, Nuland stated, “This is not the Russia that, frankly, we wanted. We wanted [to see] a partner that would be oriented towards the West,” which some interpreted as a desire for fundamental change in Russia’s government.

A 2013 leaked conversation between Nuland and then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt revealed her discussing the shaping of Ukraine’s post-Maidan government, which critics, including Russian officials, cite as evidence of her orchestrating regime change in Ukraine—a precedent they fear for Russia.

Sources like the Hoover Institution note that regime change in Russia has been “on the agenda” of some Biden administration officials, including Nuland, for years, particularly since her tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs (2013–2017).

Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska claimed in 2018 that Nuland was part of a U.S. effort signaling regime change in Russia, though this lacks direct corroboration from Nuland herself.

Nuland’s critics, especially on platforms like X, label her a “regime change operator,” pointing to her involvement in Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan uprising and her hawkish stance on Russia. While she hasn’t explicitly said “Putin must go,” her actions and rhetoric about transforming Russia’s alignment suggest a preference for systemic change, which many equate to regime change.

Lindsey Graham: The U.S. Senator from South Carolina has been one of the most explicit. In March 2022, Graham tweeted, “The only way this ends is for somebody in Russia to take this guy [Putin] out,” directly calling for Putin’s removal. He doubled down in subsequent interviews, suggesting Russians should “step up” to end Putin’s rule. These statements were widely covered and criticized by Russian officials as incitement.

Hillary Clinton: As former Secretary of State, Clinton has been linked to regime change advocacy through her broader foreign policy stance. In 2011, her support for Libya’s regime change set a precedent that some analysts, including those on X, argue she applied to Russia. In 2022, she commented on Ukraine’s resistance as a model for “inspiring” Russians to challenge Putin, which was interpreted by some as a veiled call for internal upheaval.

Antony Blinken: As Secretary of State under Biden, Blinken has not directly called for regime change but has supported policies aimed at weakening Putin’s grip, such as sanctions and aid to Ukraine. Some sources, like the Ron Paul Institute, claim Blinken’s State Department, influenced by figures like Nuland, pursues regime change indirectly through economic and diplomatic pressure.

Jake Sullivan: The National Security Advisor has been associated with hardline policies against Russia. While Sullivan avoids explicit regime change language, his 2022 statements about ensuring Russia’s “strategic failure” in Ukraine have been interpreted by critics as aiming to destabilize Putin’s regime indirectly.

Posted in Russia | Comments Off on Which prominent Americans called for regime change in Russia?

The Washington Consensus

Posted on May 18, 2025 by Luke Ford

Grok says: The Washington Consensus refers to a set of ten economic policy prescriptions promoted in the late 1980s and 1990s by institutions like the IMF, World Bank, and U.S. Treasury, primarily for developing countries. Coined by economist John Williamson in 1989, it emphasized free-market reforms to foster economic growth and stability. The core ideas include:
Fiscal discipline to avoid large deficits.

Redirecting public spending toward education, health, and infrastructure.

Tax reform to broaden the tax base and lower rates.

Market-determined interest rates.

Competitive exchange rates to boost exports.

Liberalizing trade by reducing tariffs and barriers.

Encouraging foreign direct investment.

Privatizing state-owned enterprises.

Deregulating markets to promote competition.

Strengthening property rights.

It was initially aimed at Latin American countries recovering from debt crises but became a broader template for global economic reform. Critics argue it prioritized markets over social welfare, often exacerbating inequality or ignoring local contexts. Supporters claim it helped stabilize economies and integrate them into global markets. The term is now sometimes used loosely to critique neoliberalism or U.S.-led economic influence.

Posted in Economics | Comments Off on The Washington Consensus

‘SCOTUS to CASA to A.A.R.P.: In Case Of (Perceived) Emergency, Ignore The Rules, And Make Stuff Up’

Posted on May 18, 2025 by Luke Ford

Law professor Josh Blackman writes May 16:

The past 24 hours have been something of a Rorschach Test for the Supreme Court. In the birthright citizenship case, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the judiciary must retain the power to enter universal injunctions, even if Article III does not otherwise permit such injunctions. And in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Court made clear that in emergencies, the court should certify a class without going through Rule 23, and grant an ex parte tro without considering any of the usual TRO factors.

What lesson should lower court judges take away? In cases of perceived emergencies, forget all the rules and make stuff up. When the executive branch takes such actions we call it an autocracy. When the courts do it, they call it the “rule of law.”

Posted in Law | Comments Off on ‘SCOTUS to CASA to A.A.R.P.: In Case Of (Perceived) Emergency, Ignore The Rules, And Make Stuff Up’

Using AI At Work

Posted on May 18, 2025 by Luke Ford

The Financial Times reports:

This suggests that, unless you work for an organisation that encourages the transparent use of AI, you may be strongly motivated to use it on the sly. And the trouble with this “shadow adoption”, as the researchers call undisclosed AI use at work, is that it exposes the organisation to serious risks, such as security breaches.

A number of companies have at times curbed access to AI tools amid fears that staff could inadvertently leak sensitive data by feeding information into the platforms that then finds its way to outside users.

There is also the problem of staff placing too much faith in generative AI tools that produce biased results or invent “hallucinations”. And monitoring employees to see who is or isn’t using AI risks setting off complaints about intrusive surveillance…

“AI won’t replace the legal profession, but lawyers who use AI will replace lawyers who don’t.”

Posted in AI | Comments Off on Using AI At Work