Editing Immigration (section)

=== 2024 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1803112282257609034
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=One question I get a lot is "What explains your asymmetric focus on Democrats and the Left?"

The short answer, after some soul searching and introspection, is simply this: "The Gaslighting of Experts."

I see the Republican party fighting the experts they oppose. I don't see them trying to gaslight them much.

Let's say you are an economist who believes that higher taxes spent on infrastructure would be good for the nation. The right may fight you. They may call you a name like "Libtard" or "Commie". And that is absolutely awful behavior to me. Truly. But they aren't nearly as likely to coordinate behind the scenes in emails to be discovered later and all agree to pretend, seemingly independently, that as a former expert you have committed some unclear moral crime that means you can never be empaneled or invited onto a commission. They aren't immediately going to treat you like a mental patient, a con-artist, or threat to society. They are just going to be asses. That's the dopey game they love: "Happy Warriors" is what they call it. 

And the subjects I focus on most tend to be the places where I think dissenting experts are being gaslit:

COVID ORIGINS

SOUTHERN BORDER

STRING THEORY

POTUS COGNITIVE STATE AND AGE

EPSTEIN'S INTELLIGENCE CONNECTION

COVID MANAGEMENT

QUESTIONING UKRAINE NATO STRATEGY

INFLATION/GROWTH MEASUREMENT

MONETARY AGGREGATES AND FED INTERVENTION

VP COMPETENCY

ASYMMETRIC TREATMENT OF CONTESTING ELECTIONS and VIOLENT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

VACCINE INJURY DISCUSSION

SEX AND GENDER REDEFINITION

ANDREW YANG / TULSI GABBARD / RON PAUL / ETC. PRIMARY MANIPULATION

SOCIAL MEDIA COMPANY INTERFERENCE

DENIED LEGACY UAP PROGRAMS

HUNTER BIDEN LAPTOP STORY

DIRTY TRICKS CAMPAIGNS / DOMESTIC SPYING

NON-CONSENSUAL HUMAN TESTING (infectious agents, radioactivity)

BAILOUTS

MAXIMALIST STRUCTURAL BIGOTRY CLAIMS

LABOR MARKET FLOODING VIA IMMIGRATION

RELIGIOUS TERRORISM

Etc.

In all cases above, there is some absolutely *MASSIVE* long-term lying and obfuscation. Not small. Not excusable. I am talking about massive lies. Lies that last decades. Lies too large to choke a blue whale.

And they incinerate dissenting experts as pretend neer-do-wells for the crime of dissenting from consensus.

What is the point of becoming an expert Stanford or Harvard professor if you can be turned into a "Fringe Epidemiologist" like @DrJBhattacharya was overnight by some washington insiders like Colins and Fauci? 

To an academic: it makes life pointless. Everything we are becomes pointless if that is allowed to stand.

So, this is what I have to say: I appear to be focused on gaslighting of dissenting experts more than politics.

It's not that I don't have political opinions. I do. It's that I haven't been able to focus on them for years. All we seem to do these days is deal with gaslighting on our top line issues above.

And the formula is quite simple. An expert can have: 

A) Reach.
B) Reputation.
C) Independence.

but no more than 2 out of 3. 

This is a terrible rule. And whoever attempts to enforce that rule, is who I fight. Unfortunately, that group has been my own historic political party as transformed over 30 years. 

And, in my opinion, they deserve to continue to hemorrage credibility for that crime against their own until they end this tactic. It's a crime against everything I believe with all my soul. We need *DISSENTING* experts to right our listing ship on all of the above and more.

Check the above list. That's no small thing. It's about the destruction of a country that I dearly love and which the world needs desperately to come back at this moment.

Thanks for hearing me out.
|timestamp=5:07 PM · Jun 18, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1816900447170625826
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Is immigration simply “good”? Why are we not more alarmed about its impact?

———-

I saw the Harvard Economist George Borjas years ago. He was about to retire.

“I love your work.” I said sadly. “Are you going to miss doing research?”

“No! Not at all.” he said unexpectedly.

“Wow!” I exclaimed. “How can that be?”

“You see,” he said in Cuban accented English, “I spent my entire life trying to make one simple point to my academic colleagues. And I must accept now, at the end, that I have simply failed. And, at just one point!”

“You mean…” I began. 

“Yes: immigration also has negative effects in addition to the positive ones…just like everything else in this world.”

There was a *long* silence. And then, at the same moment, we both started laughing. I don’t know why exactly. It was as if we both realized there was nothing else to do. The career was ending, and we both knew exactly what had happened.

———————-

Academe when it comes to immigration, economic indices, Neo-Darwinism, String Theory, Neo-classical economics, etc. is no longer an academic environment. 

This is not true for many subjects that are continuing to function: effective field theory, machine learning, algebraic geometry, etc. would be examples.

MORAL: Universities are neither fully  failed in 2024, nor successful. There is serious rot that is growing and eating away at them, but there are stillmany good researchers and scholars trapped inside, who are being driven to silence, in order to hold onto their remaining zone of scholarship and research “autonomy”. 

I was in the economics department at Harvard for a while. During that time I had many bizarre conversations about free trade, free migration, stable preferences, etc. I would point out that the field’s policy recommendations to lawmakers simply did NOT follow from the field’s methodology. It was as if the field was often going backwards from what it knew it had to conclude if it wanted to weild power in Washington, rather than forward from scholarship. 

You could go to a microeconomics seminar that had nothing to do with policy and everything would be scholarly. 

Then you would go to a seminar in Macro or Labor economics and it would be essentially a competition between professors in Cambridge MA who were desperate for influence in Washington, trying to reach conclusions that would change the lives of all Americans.

Academe isn’t dead yet…but we aren’t removing the cancer either. We are just letting it go untreated.
|timestamp=6:16 PM · Jul 26, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1823788282733629555
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=If only we had a concept of entanglement. ;-)

My point at its simplest is "The frame is usually the argument."

The instant I knew your frame, I could guess the argument. 

A woman is not a piece of land. A baby is not a river. 
By the same token a baby is not a tumor. 

The proper use of these analogies is to highlight in a complex setting, ideas that occur in less noisy ones. 

I have never once given my opinion on abortion in this discussion except to say that I have no interest in either pro-life or pro-choice arguments. Thanks for your time Sabine. As always!
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1823030895617745235
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=A “GET A ROOM” theory of political Schelling point polarization. 

What I think I learned from this poll:

A) The pure Pro-Life and Pro-Choice positions (I.e. “Life begins at conception” vs “my body, my choice”) with their perfect clarity, were only held by 1/3 of respondents when lumped together.

B) The 2/3 of respondents whose position on abortion changes as the fertilized egg develops into a baby are mostly cowed into silence in the comments by the perfect clarity held by the minority.

C) Those respondents who believed that a fertilized egg and a baby about to be born have equal rights, discourage and inhibit (both intentionally and passively) the pure abortion rights and the “things change over pregnancy” respondents from joining the conversation.

D) This mirrors my experience. I am in the 2/3 group and am forced to caucus with the “My body, my choice. Full stop” crowd who do not represent my position in the slightest.

E) This feels almost EXACTLY the same as every other polarizing issue: 

Immigration
Firearms
Ukraine
Gaza
Gender
J6
Religious terror
Democracy
Free markets
Taxation
Crypto
Vaccination
Free speech
Redistribution
Science, TheScience, Pseudo-Science
Etc

In all of these there are clear positions that likely do not attract the majority, but where the majority is forced to caucus with the clear position that at least vaguely more resembles their own.  

This reinterprets Yeats: 

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere   
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst   
Are full of passionate intensity.”

Here it is the clear and not the worst that are full of passionate intensity, because they have a “Schelling Point”

Those of us with inferior Schelling points can admit that openly. My position on abortion for example depends on embryology and situational context. That is not as good of a Schelling point as conception or birth. I admit that. 

But the quality of my Schelling point is not the quality of my position. I think I have a superior position at my inferior Schelling point than either pro-life or pro-choice.

My dream is that those with perfect Schelling points should have one conversation and the rest of us should have another. Otherwise we never get to the debates that would depolarize us. 

So just as I say to the “Open Borders” vs “Closed Borders” people or the “Ban all guns” vs “Personal Nukes at Walmart”: get a room kids. 

We need to split these conversations apart. I don’t want to caucus and discuss with pure pro-choice, open borders, and All weapons in private hands groups anymore. I want to cede the clarity arguments. “Your Schelling point wins…congratulations. It is better than mine.”

So that is it. I think I’ve had it with clarity. 

MORAL: those with the clearest Schelling points need to get a room and have one debate, so that the rest of us with less clarity can book a stadium and have a second discussion. But we need to stop mixing up the two explorations.

This wasn’t about abortion after all. It was about political clarity: its benefits, its dangers and its inability to represent the majority of us who lack it.

Thanks for your time. As always. 🙏
|timestamp=4:16 PM · Aug 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1823735966819140004
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Hi Sabine. 

I’m happy to take up your challenge that I mixed different types of arguments. 

Using your logic I can now prove to you that in a different axiomatic system, it is you who would be seen as arguing for female superiority and against equal rights.

Suppose instead we stipulate to your description, analogizing a fetus to a tumor at the *most* mechanical of levels and totally ignore the enormous moral issues raised by that analogy. 

Even then, it does not immediately logically follow that a woman should be able to remove those cells based simply on “equal rights”. Why?  Those cells are not simply her cells even under the law. Those cells left to develop will carry legal obligations for their co creator. 

As this is in no way personal, I will try to take it out of male/female territory to make the point. 

Those co-obligating cells are passing through the female even in the most mechanistic of terms. I may buy a piece of land where a river runs through it. But the law does not give me full rights to treat all that lies within its borders the same way. I cannot dam the river nor pour fertilizer on it for the brief stretch of river that briefly passes through it. Yet you may notice that on another similar property, with a pond contained within its borders, there are no river-like obligations. 

And we are not even talking here about the miracle of life. 

So my assertion is that your axioms would not distinguish between a river and a pond if you merely said “the river and pond properties are both land containing water and should carry equal rights.” 

You can make that argument. But it is the repudiation of what are often called Riparian rights. 

To repudiate Riparian rights could then be axiomatized to indicate female supremacy. Why does the land owner with a stretch of river get the right to dam, divert, empty or pollute that river which was soon to become the shared responsibility/benefit with others?  

My point here is not that you are right or wrong. But that you buried an argument in what you personally feel is the correct choice of axioms. That is your choice. But there is no reason that your axioms are correct. A coffee mug and a donut are not the same under geometry (Riparian rights) as they are to a topologist (“equal rights means my body, my choice”). 

I made no such move. I surfaced mine and did not mix arguments. That happened on your side. 

Again. Not personal. I’m trying to go meta. Both geometers and topologists can live in harmony after all.
|timestamp=2:58 PM · Aug 14, 2024
}}
|timestamp=6:26 PM · Aug 14, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1837775626616688834
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@seanonolennon Phew, 

This is such a weird year. 
We are well overdue. Again.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1837705438902796673
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Many reactions: 

A) It’s just not true. I do comment on climate. In fact….It’s one of my three reasons we can’t all share an atmosphere with so many crazy people willing to take on catastrophic risk.

B) Because I don’t know the field. Just being honest. I’m not an expert.

C) Because I think human induced Climate change is actually a huge risk.

D) Because I think we coerced climate scientists into faking a crystal clear consensus which is artificial, scientifically unconscionable, and yet directionally correct.

E) I don’t see any support for this position. Everyone is either certain it’s the main risk to life on earth and the science is settled, or that there is no risk, the science is all bunk and that we have nothing to worry about. I don’t reach either conclusion. 

In short, I feel very alone in what I think is a common sense position. And I can’t do this on every1single-issue from Ukraine, to Trans, to Abortion, to Climate, to immigration. Etc. Ad nauseam. Ad infinitum.

More or less, on every single major issue we have two very certain militant groups with crystal clear simple statements that both make no sense to me.  It makes it impossible to say “I don’t know”, “I wonder if….”, “I have an idea.” So I can’t compete with the “It’s very simple Eric. I will explain it all to you.” crowd.

Artificially Clear >> Correct but uncertain

And people want to do this “X is 100% correct!” vs “Not X is the only position unless you are a moron!” 

I don’t. It’s such a waste of our only life on this planet. I don’t want to waste my only life anyway. So I am selfish. Sue me.

Thus I often am forced to opt out by the perennially certain. I can’t do the stupid with conviction. Too ad hominem. Too brutal. Too pointless.

So that’s it. Sorry to disappoint. 🤷‍♀️ 

Thanks as always.
|timestamp=4:08 AM · Sep 22, 2024
}}
|timestamp=8:47 AM · Sep 22, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1842652706370167150
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Appreciate that! It’s all in the paper.

To be a bit fair to this JV I don’t think he knows that we were fighting *for* workers and natives against the open border *conservatives* at the Wall Street Journal.  Or Coase. I have been prominent as a restrictionist for 35 years. Never heard of the guy before this. So I think he is confused.  

https://t.co/qpJXovufb2
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1842646226212380971
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=You're getting it. May I throw in a few details? 

Migrant worker programs already exist. They are loved by businesses for their ability to lower wage outlays by destroying the bargaining positions of natives. That has been true from long before I entered the scene.

The problem has been that Business has been able to advertise three false things: 

A) Taking away the rights of native workers is pro-free-market.

B) Business is xenophilic. 

C) All opposition to business immigration is bigotted and racist nativism. 

This work stepped into that business framework to show that ALL THREE are false. 

I'm quite proud of this work. It's free market. It's pro worker. It's pro natives. It's pro business. It's pro xenophile. So it's a nightmare for those lying about immigration. No one implements it because business doesn't care about natives, immigrants or free markets. It cares about money. And workers and natives don't understand coasian analysis is their best friend. It can be used to prove that business hates free markets. As I did here. Rather successfully I might add. The threatening and misguided Mr. JV to the contrary. 

Thanks for taking the time to look at the work. I can't engage with these people for the obvious reasons. But at some point I would love to get back to this Coasian approach to fighting corporatism posing as capitalism.
|timestamp=7:21 PM · Oct 05, 2024
}}
|timestamp=7:46 PM · Oct 05, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851399539317678566
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@Cernovich Really? Do you want me to turn that around so we can go after each other? Why? Drama?

Decline. We have mutual friends who were more careful people. They linked their names to Trump’s. I got to watch. Yikes.

You are a different beast. Go do you.

Be well.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851343769049964838
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=I am failing this election. I tried. But, I simply failed.

I cannot work within these concepts.

My world, my country, my America is not on the ballot.
|timestamp=7:22 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851361185519555021
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Here is what I will say: 

I will work with anyone to restore my country. I have been an expert on what is wrong with our CPI inflation gauge. I was an expert in immigration in the 1990s and early 2000s. I wrote one of the earliest (peer reviewed..ha) academic papers on the danger of Mortgage Backed Securities back in 2001.

And I know how and why the science system and the physics with a prayer to get us out of the solar system is being dismantled by our government. I co-ran the Sloan Science and Engineering Workforce project at Harvard and the NBER. 

I refuse to take all that hard work and just flush it down the toilet on these campaigners. These campaigns are horrific. They destroy the ethos of our nation.

I don't want lawfare. I don't want insecure elections. Or insecure borders. I don't want bullying. I don't want Government departments named to promote financial instruments. I don't want reproductive mutilation of our children. I don't want free speech to allow anonymous accounts to stalk and ruin actual people. I don't want censorship. I don't want tech companies to be front ends of the security state. Etc.

I don' t want a naive American foreign policy in a dangerous dangerous world. We need to be muscular.

And I don't want to go around the world screwing over or killing good people because they happen to live on top of mineral resources.

I don't want endless wars. I don't want isolationism. Etc. 

I want common sense, and some concept of civility, charity of spirit and decency. I want a world free from endless utopian, reactionary, progressive or revolutionary nonsense.

I am not giving you my recommendation. The risks are profound and very very very different on both sides. I have a guess where the bigger risks lie...but that is only a guess. 

I am rolling up my sleeves. If any of you want my help, I am here for either team should you win. 

I do not believe that ANYONE on the Blue team will EVER do anything to contact me other than get hit pieces written against me. Even though I am a registered democrat, you have become a cult that brooks no dissent. So be it. That said, I would love to be proven wrong. Try me. There aren't that many technical US born Harvard Stem PhDs / MIT post-docs with a huge audience. If you can't work with me, that's on you.

As for the Red team, three of the big six of you know me. I am here to help get things done on: 

Science Policy and Higher Ed
Physics beyond Relativity and the Standard model.
Inflation / CPI / GDP / Index construction
Immigration / Migration
National Reconciliation
AI and Labor Markets
Coasian Solutions to AI and Migration problems

Those are my core competencies where I have something unique to offer you. If loyalty to campaigns matters to you, I am sorry. I am loyal to the country as I understand it, and the campaigns weren't in my idiom at all. They felt almost totally wrong to me. No hard feelings.

Let's get things fixed. Or not. Up to you. I'd opt for the former. Let's unf*ck ourselves as soon as this is over. 
🙏
|timestamp=8:31 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851368241450582073
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@jrg0569 I’m not MAGA. But I’ll shake your hand and work with you. Good to meet you.
|timestamp=8:59 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851382528609042667
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@Jacobionite Exactly.
|timestamp=9:56 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851390429054611693
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@Cernovich Or the tooth fairy. That was the point. 

20 years ago there was someone to hear it. Now its addressed to the dead letter office. My how time flies. See you in AC.

“Maybe everything that dies, someday comes back…” 🎶
|timestamp=10:27 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851390685309522281
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@Mkschizo2 Trump then?
|timestamp=10:28 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851390777714491411
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@more_amalek Trump?
|timestamp=10:28 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851390949047615996
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@AJB7081 MAGA?
|timestamp=10:29 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851391477366345850
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@EartherGraduate @Cernovich A quote from an old song. Atlantic City.

This may be my favorite version.

https://t.co/s7ZEAGJnHR
|timestamp=10:31 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851392018129326332
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@f_ckthelibtards @jrg0569 Trump?
|timestamp=10:33 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851392421839716830
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@i_d_smith What a great way to courageously make my point “Actual Truth Respecter”. 

Drive your potential allies away. Brilliant.
|timestamp=10:35 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1851392823519822057
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@NathanLC78 Brought to you by the MAGA welcome wagon. Genius.
|timestamp=10:37 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}
|timestamp=11:03 PM · Oct 29, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856499668647326052
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@paidgaming245 Cancel culture on the right. Litmus test on the right. Anti-semitism on the right. Identity white politics on the Right. Collective team mentality. I don't get it. What was the point of hating the left?  

Same shit, different party. Thanks brother.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856409509646024925
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=For whatever reason the campaign doesn’t reach out much. I don’t know why. But that is an observation so I don’t want to take crap for observing it. 

There are many dissident experts out here. Their phones are not ringing, and when you point this out it is treated the wrong way. “Boo hoo, everyone has a hand out.” It’s so dumb it’s funny, because these are exactly the people who have stood up for free for 30+ years. Just effing call them. They precede MAGA. 

Bottom line: there aren’t enough hardcore MAGA among the experts who know where the bodies are buried to run and fix the government. But there are dissident experts everywhere who will work even better in these positions. People who are aligned with the idea of clearing out the rot and who aren’t famously aligned with ideology. Patriots if you will.

Let me give an example. If you wanted to tackle immigration you would hear lots of talk about George Borjas. And Norm @matloff. And Michael S Teitelbaum. And Edith Holleman. I’m not hearing any.

If you wanted to solve the problem of the CPI undercounting inflation you would be discussing the failure of Superlative Index Numbers, the Boskin treachery  and work of Bert Balk, Erwin Diewert, F. Fisher and Shell, Amartya Sen, Herb Gintis, P Malaney & me, Subramaniam Swamy, @tylercowen. 

If you were focused on the workforce for STEM you would reach out to all the critics who have been dying to fix or even discuss these problems. Richard Freeman, Ralph Gomory etc are old. But you would hear about them.  I don’t .

Look. Bottom line: MAGA doesn’t understand how administration Jobs work. If dissident experts were so hungry for jobs for personal gain they wouldn’t have been living on scraps and berries fighting this war against Washington before Trump ever came on the scene. They sacrificed their comfort for the country often scraping by. That is not the class of people asking to be made Treasury secretary on Twitter. 

The MAGA picture of expertise is wrong. Expertise didn’t fail. What failed is which experts we went with for 32 years. We just have the wrong experts everywhere. Don’t be afraid of non MAGA dissident experts. But they aren’t going to fall over themselves to beg for a position. 

The interpretation of MAGA and the campaign not reaching out is this: 

The transition team doesn’t understand the dissident expert landscape and doesn’t seem to care to either. It’s about loyalty.

I don’t know if that is true because I have never spoken to anyone in the campaign. 

If it is wrong, then just place some calls out here. But I am not hearing from anyone I know among the heterodox experts “Hey I just got a call from the incoming administration.” 

I hear those calls coming to other people. But not the quiet folk. 

Start here: Call Borjas on immigration if you haven’t already. Call Norm Matloff. Call Harald Uhlig in general. I could go on. 

Everybody more or less knows everybody. They will help staff. And you will get great people who just aren’t very well known. One man’s opinion.
|timestamp=6:51 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856411243135021194
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@TheDudeKC I have.
|timestamp=6:58 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856411633226265033
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@he99845 Exhibit A. Bingo. ⬆️
|timestamp=6:59 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856411838868787700
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@RichardSouthco2 Keep ‘em coming. This!
|timestamp=7:00 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856412108772274660
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@AFChuckles Love this mentality. ⬆️
|timestamp=7:01 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856414054723793211
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=And BTW, I am happy not to go to Washington. I’m also happy to help and to go. It totally depends.

I don’t need a job in the administration. But if you want to get things done you should quiet the loud voices trying to turn MAGA litmus tests into a job qualification. You would seek out many quiet people who fight in anonymity out of love of country. 

MAGA chases away too many people who don’t care for blood sport politics. And that is most people who know what to fix in my experience. Elections are one thing. Governance and expertise another. 🙏
|timestamp=7:09 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856415516531056878
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@Hermanwriter Ah….lovely.
|timestamp=7:15 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856434265397047461
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Point of Clarification: I have not spoken to anyone identifying himself or herself as acting on behalf of Trump and soliciting input or names. Apparently I was unclear. 

People close to the campaign talk to me obviously. Sorry if that was confusing.
|timestamp=8:29 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1856437599700955204
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@cigar_vet This gets really old. See above.
|timestamp=8:43 PM · Nov 12, 2024
}}
|timestamp=12:49 AM · Nov 13, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1857229872801927494
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=@noisegroove @Noahpinion Wait @Noahpinion? Noah Smith? 

The guy who says immigration is unique in economics because it is “the only free lunch” in economics? The only policy with no negative externalities? 

Where were you when I was arguing with Noah?! I never got his argument. It made no sense to me.
|timestamp=1:11 AM · Nov 15, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1872305047146754113
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Spoiler Alert: Skilled Immigration is a political football.

It is an evil system designed by a conspiracy from our science complex that brings us great people to displace our own great people, which is supported by great people and fought by great people.

All the major voices I see on this so far are in some super-position of 'Wrong' and 'Not Wrong'.

Note to my friends with the incoming administration: It will tear you apart if you don't know where it came from and what it is designed to do.
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1872302699141824895
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Those debating H-1B and skilled immigration should talk to its intellectual father. A quiet man of which you likely have never heard.

There is one hell of a conspiracy story to tell around where this came from. Would consider doing a podcast to stop my friends from fighting.
|timestamp=3:25 PM · Dec 26, 2024
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1872305048228872312
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Word to the wise: It is designed to tear good people apart. 

Don't fall for it: 

https://t.co/JHnSRfWcwC
|timestamp=3:34 PM · Dec 26, 2024
}}
|timestamp=3:34 PM · Dec 26, 2024
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1872501001087029316
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/ericweinstein
|username=ericweinstein
|content=Some contrarian thoughts on skilled immigration from 2018 with @benshapiro:

https://t.co/Kki1ISPaA2
|timestamp=4:33 AM · Dec 27, 2024
}}