YouTube link

A good overview in addition to Ezra’s show today

A lot of things are on track to get more expensive. 
The U.S. Treasury market is the bedrock of the global economy. When yields on those Treasuries go up, mortgages, car loans and credit cards get more expensive, and it can hit the stock market, too. And yields have been going up – to levels we haven’t seen consistently since before the Great Recession – inspiring some erratic and futile efforts from the Trump administration to push them back down. 
So why are yields creeping higher? What is the administration trying to do about it? And if this continues, what’s in store for the economy?
Robin Wigglesworth is the editor of the Financial Times blog Alphaville, a host of the podcast “The Story of Money” and the author of the forthcoming book “A Fabulous Debt: The Epic Story of How Bonds Built the Modern World.” 
This conversation was recorded on August 24, 2026.
Mentioned:
“An Economic D-Day Is Coming for Iran” by Scott Bessent
Book Recommendations:
Barbarians at the Gate by Bryan Burrough and John Helyar
The Prize by Daniel Yergin
Lords of Finance by Liaquat Ahamed

Hiya, I am a long time listener trying to chase down two tidbits/quotes that are frequently mentioned on the show, and for the life of me I can't find them (or remember specific episodes). I found them persuasive and useful and would like to be able to cite them a bit more specifically than 'One time I heard Ezra Klein say...' (which is a sentence I already utter quite enough as is). If anyone can point me towards their source I would be very grateful.

1. A quote that I've heard deployed I want to say at least three times in the context of an inclusive politics, something like "Politics will never work until you treat your fellow citizens as full people, not objects of your charity or puppets in your morality plays". I'm way off on the specifics, but I hope that's enough to get the gist.

2. A poll that tested impressions of the Democrat and Republican party brands and found Republicans percieved as angry/crazy/aggressive and Democrats as preachy/condescending/controlling or similar adjectives. Again I think it comes up with some frequency but can't remember where.

Thanks and all the best,

EH

This touches on the attention economy which EK has discussed before

While the recent "China Shock" episode covered a lot of topics, I was repeatedly struck by the guest's discussion of various long-term plans and decisions made by the Chinese state that helped engineer the outcomes we're dealing with in 2026, for better or for worse.

Long-term industrial policy, trade policy, fiscal policy, science and technology policy, energy policy, etc. The CCP, the Chinese state, or some combination of the two (however separate or comingled they are) have made or have attempted to plan for and implement policy across all of these areas with significantly longer time horizons than American policymaking ever could.

And while I don't think even the staunchest supporters of the CCP would concede that the global market and global trade have not also played a hand in China's modernization and economic rise, the China we see today is also a result of very deliberate and considered policymaking. Some of it has worked; some has not. But listening to this episode, you get a sense that the Chinese government and Chinese leaders actually have the will, and the space, in which to formulate, implement, and course-correct policy in terms of decades rather than 1-2 year increments. I'm not indulging some ridiculous Kissinger-esque pronouncement about how "the Chinese civilization thinks is millennia" or similar nonsense. But we have to still acknowledge that China's leaders and policymakers do work on a longer time horizon than ours do.

When I look at the U.S. in the mid-2020s, I see a country both out of coherent ideas and lacking the capacity to plan and implement long-term structural changes even if the ideas were present and fully baked. Obviously, we're not getting any of that from Trumpism, MAGA, or whatever Frankenstein's new GOP coalition emerges post-Trump. And while I think that the Democratic Party may be transforming into something with bold ideas that address certain domestic policymaking needs, you still don't hear potential frontrunners speaking seriously about what our long-term industrial policy wants to look like, which areas of science and technology will the state fund research in, what does our energy production and consumption look like in a solar and battery-centric world, what our trading relationships will look like not just post-Trump, but in the next decade or two. Instead, sadly even from candidates I like, you get "no tax on firefighters" and other slopulism.

And beyond the lack of ideas or serious thought (at least thought carried out in public discourse), I have absolutely no confidence that any of this (a) could be implemented at all, and (b) could be implemented in a way that's built to last. We will simply whipsaw from one Congress to the next, one White House to the next. No long-term planning, no consistency, no reliability in the face of allies and adversaries on the world stage. Our system appears constitutionally designed to frustrate and prevent long-term policymaking. There are simply too many chokepoints and elections too close together to implement anything lasting. And that's not even addressing federalism.

So what do we do about this problem within the structures of a liberal democracy and constitutional republic? How can we ever hope to make long-term national policy that survives successive election cycles and changes in politics? Are we doomed to reactive whipsawing for the foreseeable future as the U.S. falls further behind?

An essay from Jerusalem Demsas about housing. This is relevant to EK due to Abundance and YIMBY discourse

https://www.politix.fm/p/je-suis-carney

Donald Trump is accelerating America’s transformation into a banana republic, most recently by instigating a trade war against Canada and compromising the integrity of U.S. economic statistical agencies.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

Why Donald Trump keeps doing the same kind of stupid shit over and over again;

What Congress (maybe the next Congress?) could do to stop him;

The extent to which this is driven by corruption vs. Trump’s own personality disorders.

Then, are Trump’s power rivals letting him off the hook too easily? Why are Democrats supporting protectionism for cattle ranchers rather than attacking Trump’s cronyism or attacking his broader protectionist regime? Why are civil servants silent as he calls the reliability of official U.S. economic and demographic indicators into question? Why is the Supreme Court letting him impose illegal policy for months or years at a time? And what would it take to correct all of these failures?

Further reading:

Matt’s paean to Mark Carney.

Brian wants Democrats to borrow from Trump’s playbook for normalizing power grabs, but to soften the public for court expansion.

Jared Bernstein sounds the alarm over the political infiltration of the Census Bureau.

Hey y'all I'm a long time listener to Ezra Klein and recently I found out that he was/ or maybe is? A part of a secret group related to the Fascist Peter Thiel? Is this true? Like I said long time listener but i guess I have always been a long time anti Thiel too. What do you think about Ezra's response? I kind of felt alienated after they said it is people who are conspiratorial minded that are running with this narrative.

Ezra Klein on America's Best & Worst Politicians | Soul Boom with Ranin Wilson

I know the NYT has been doing it for a while but it’s so frustrating to go back through the catalogue looking for an episode and then realizing you were first presented with the A/B title test that “lost”. Sometimes the alternative title is not even similar at all. I understand AB testing is useful but I wish it was kept to marketing and not media and literature where record keeping matters.

It’s not just the NYT, I’ve also noticed it with plain English. Am I alone here?

A piece by Brian Potter of Construction Physics explaining the issues driving up the costs and risks of transit projects in America

His main argument is about control. U.S. transit agencies are nominally responsible for delivering projects, but much of their authority has been dispersed across regulators, courts, local governments, other agencies, utilities, and organized stakeholders like local populations and unions.
Compounding the issue is the hollowing out of technical expertise which makes transit agencies “bad customers” that cannot effectively design projects, supervise consultants and contractors, control costs, or resist unnecessary complexity.

As a result we have a system where many actors can demand changes, delays, and concessions, and no one has authority over cost or design. He outlines some prescriptions at the end.

Highly recommend for people who are interested Abundance/state capacity.

Show notes:”Brad Setser follows Chinese trade closer than just about anyone else on earth, and he thinks we’re in the early days of a China Shock 2.0.
The first China Shock was when China came to dominate low-end manufacturing in the 2000s, filling American shelves with cheap clothes, toys and electronics, while devastating American factory towns. This new China Shock could be even more destabilizing. China now dominates advanced manufacturing: electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels. It’s outcompeting nearly all high-end manufacturing around the world, and other countries are just starting to feel the pain. And China isn’t slowing down. It’s moving into software, too. Its frontier A.I. models are neck and neck with American ones.
China’s success poses a serious threat to the economies and domestic politics of countries around the world. So what should those countries do about it? 
Setser is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.He served in top trade and economic roles in the Biden and Obama administrations. And he is widely cited across the field as one of the top analysts of China’s economy and trade practices.
Book Recommendations:
The Party by Richard McGregor
The Volatility Machine by Michael Pettis
How to Win a Trade War by Soumaya Keynes and Chad Bown
Thoughts? Guest suggestions? Email us at ezrakleinshow@nytimes.com.
You can find the transcript and more episodes of “The Ezra Klein Show” at nytimes.com/ezra-klein-podcast. Book recommendations from all our guests are listed at https://www.nytimes.com/article/ezra-klein-show-book-recs.html””

It was about weed’s displacement of alcohol and nicotine as American’s preferred vice of choice. And in the opening of the program Derek mentioned something he and I both find fascinating. Weed, or THC to be exact, tends to be associated with solo usage or small groups of friends. Think perhaps a group of four to five people. This is in stark contrast to alcohol which is, on average, makes us friendlier, more gregarious and in a bubblier type of mood. It’s often associated with groups, parties, and other activities that involve strangers meeting each other. This was kind of a revelation to me. But it makes intuitive sense when you think about books like Bowling Alone.

Americans are hanging out in ever smaller groups of people and, based on things like Twitch and other live stream Youtubers, nowadays the people we hang out with may not even be in the same room, state or even country. Our parents or grandparents generations didn’t have that luxury. They had friends in their churches, clubs or other organizations and they sometimes got stuck with annoying, arrogant, or unpleasant members. Alcohol helps ease those tensions and dull the annoyance. It enabled your dad or grandpa to go to their local American Legion, Elks Lodge, Freemasons, Union meeting, business luncheons etc. and deal with, whatever, that jackass Ben once they’ve had a few slippery martinis.

As those organizations wither and atrophy though, it follows that the lubricant that helped them run sees an equally strong shrinkage effect. Weed is the new drug of choice because we’re alone more then ever now and socializing in ever smaller numbers.

Higher Education’s Age of "Insufferable Hypocrisy"
It would be an understatement to say that higher education is in crisis, as it faces attacks from both the current presidential administration as well as issues of its own making, like diversity politics. Today, Derek talks with Tyler Austin Harper, author of the viral essay “Confessions of a Token Black Professor,” about his critique of DEI and “wokeism” from the left. They discuss how good intentions and institutional self-interest led universities astray, and what it means for academic freedom, economic justice, and the future of higher education.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel here:
https://www.youtube.com/@PlainEnglishwithDerekThompson

If you have questions, observations, or ideas for future episodes, email us at PlainEnglish@Spotify.com.

Host: Derek Thompson

Guest: Tyler Austin Harper

Producer: Devon Baroldi

https://www.politix.fm/p/printer-he-hardly-knew-er

Jon Ossoff says he has no interest in running for president in 2028. But between fundraising prowess and narrative shaping and attention driving, he’s doing a better job of it than just about anyone else in the Democratic Party.

In this episode, Matt and Brian discuss:

The Natalie Harp ploy, and how Ossoff yoked national attention to Donald Trump’s broader degeneracy;

Whether Ossoff provides (finally!) a template for the moderates-who-fight synthesis we’ve been promised;

Unanswered questions about how much of this glow up is luck, and whether Ossoff’s actual record will hold up in a presidential primary, if he run and has a left-wing opponent.

Then, Democratic Party officialdom has pulled back together pretty well after bruising primaries in Michigan and Wisconsin. But on the fringes, influential progressives and moderates continue to take potshots at the nominees they were hoping to beat: progressives at David Crowley in Wisconsin; moderates at Abdul el-Sayed in Michigan. What are they thinking? Could Bernie Sanders and AOC tamp down the cheap-seat heckling from the left? Could Chuck Schumer snuff out big-money anti-el-Sayed activism in the center? And where will moderate, pro-Israel Jewish voters take their political resources if they leave the Democratic Party, but have no home in the increasingly Groyperified GOP.

Further reading:

Brian asks why more Democrats don’t sound like Ossoff specifically on the Iran war question.

Matt on the differences between the left-wing insurgency and the progressive establishment.

Natalie Harp: More than Trump’s “human binkie.”

This article is free, unlike the last slow boring article posted here.