The President's Neck Is Missing feat. David Roth | Chapo Trap House | Episode 218 FULL
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ค. 2021
- buy our book: www.chapotraphouse.com/book
/ chapo-trap-house
/ chapotraphouse
Episode 218 - The President's Neck Is Missing feat. David Roth (6/10/18)
David Roth returns so we can discuss a very special horse & our Big Wet Leader's ongoing feud with the NFL. This leads into a discussion of the particular national psychosis induced by American Protestantism, and how the Puritans formed the country's first home owner's association. We then read some selections from former President Bill Clinton's very not-about-him spy thriller, and an extremely normal idea to fix New York's trains.
Read David's article here: deadspin.com/the-nfl-is-too-d...
#chapotraphouse #chapo
This is by far the best episode. Roth is goated
I absolutely love the episodes with Roth
“former red sox reliever” Jonathon Paplebon for sure
See, I thought Rod Beck
@@johnathanrush4666 It could be but he was only on the sox for 2 years and was on a bunch of teams so idk if former red sox reliever gives it away so much in his case
26:50 after all of that, all I hear is "empty chairs and empty tables" being sung by Leonard cohen
"It is an exhausting time to be alive" - David Roth
It really does feel that way these days.
Nice Troy McClure reference
That opening is among the best
Dont get me started. Few things bother me more than people who think they have a relationship, that they love and apparently are loved - and not in a general sense - by people they've never met. It's a weird and creepy behavior.
There's a term for it: parasocial relationship
Except for the dry boys. The dry boys are my friends and like me and think I'm cool
I agree wuth you and my very good, real life friends; Amber, felix, Will and Matt
36:35 Felix talking about how, for evangelicals, stewardship over the Earth means that they are Earth's customer is incredibly useful in thinking about so many of the stupid things evangelicals believe and do.
When they published that literary abattoir they put up posters of it in walmart.
And the first thing i thought of was Troy McClure
The presidents neck is missing.
And the erotic adventures of Hercules.
25:50 was the most melodramatic thing I've ever heard
Word. So cringe.
it’s only melodramatic when attributed purely to the Trump vision. It’s peak Neoliberal, expand it to include most people in power. Then it’s such a basic statement it hits like a price sticker on a loaf of sliced bread.
What were the Spielberg comments supposed to mean?
Epstein connections
Why would anyone be talking about underground anything in NYC? That's all going to be underwater or below sea level, isn't it?🤔🙄
build a wall. boom
58:36
Is that a thing. Outrage on "no problem". I mean I use that all the time. Because I know what that means. "You're welcome" I'm still confused about what it means.
It's about Emily post ass manners and conformity. It's also a shibboleth for rich boomers. If you want your mind blown read about "finishing school". It's insane all the proprietaries the super rich expect to have lavished on them
yeah cheers bye yeah cheers bye yeah cheers bye yeah cheers bye yeah cheers bye yeah cheers bye
The American efforts owe a lot to US diplomat Wolf Ladejinsky. He was a Russian immigrant to America whose experiences under communism gave him a better idea what peasants wanted than most of his colleagues, and he pushed for land reform when everyone else thought it sounded too communist. His work was crucial in East Asia, but the US establishment sidelined him before he could influence the rest of the world.
I have no idea if this is true, but it sure sounds like something the US would do. They preferred importing Nazi scientists to Russian land reformers; it really worked out great didn’t it.
The US is the ultimate fail son.
East Asian countries got rich by manufacturing. First it was "Made in Japan", then "Made in Taiwan", then "Made in China". At first each label was synonymous with low-quality knockoffs. Gradually they improved, until now "Made in Japan" has the same kind of prestige as Germany or Switzerland, and even China is losing some of its stigma.
Not every rich country gets rich by manufacturing. Successful countries can be divided into three groups. First, small financial hubs, like Singapore, Dubai, or Switzerland. This is good work if you can get it, but it really only works for one small country per region; you can't have all of China be "a financial hub". In the 1980s, everyone was so impressed with Singapore and Hong Kong that they became the go-to models for development, and people incorrectly recommended liberal free market policies as the solution to everything. But the Singapore/Hong Kong model doesn't necessarily work for bigger countries, and most of the good financial hub niches are already filled by now.
Third, manufacturing, eg everyone else. Every big developed country went through its manufacturing phase. Britain, Germany, and America all passed through an era of sweatshops, smokestacks, and steel. Most developed countries gradually leave that phase, switch to a services-based economy, and offshore some of the worse jobs to places with cheaper labor. But they can't skip it entirely.
dude, just type your whole essay in one post. even if i would want to read this, i wouldnt know where to start
Asia's success stories are always Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. Its foils are always Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. These last three countries resisted calls for land reform, sometimes violently (when a Thai economist published a study saying land reform was needed, the king responded by banning the study of economics!) But as usual, the Philippines takes last place. It passed a series of laws that had "LAND REFORM" in the title, but all managed to be completely useless.
Second, "high-value agricultural producers". Denmark and New Zealand are examples. Again, these countries are very nice. But they also tend to be small and sparsely populated, and they also don't scale. New Zealand's biggest export category is "dairy, eggs, and honey". Imagine how much honey you would have to eat to lift China out of poverty that way. It would be absolutely delicious for a few years, and then we would all die of diabetes.
This bot got banned I'm assuming? Forgot about these
Will we witness an economic transformation like Japan, Korea, Taiwan or China’s again? The answer is quite possibly not, for one simple reason. Without effective land reform it is difficult to see how sustained growth of 7-10 per cent a year - without fatal debt crises - can be achieved in poor countries. And radical land reform, combined with agronomic and marketing support for farmers, is off the political agenda. Since the 1980s, the World Bank has instead promoted microfinance, encouraging the rural poor to set up street stalls selling each other goods for which they have almost no money to pay. It is classic sticking-plaster development policy. The leading NGO promoting land reform, US-based Landesa, is today so pessimistic about the prospects for further radical reforms in the world’s poor states that it concentrates its lobbying efforts on the creation of micro plots of a few square meters. These plots supplement the diets and incomes of rural dwellers who work in otherwise unreformed agricultural sectors. From micro interventions, however, economic miracles will not spring.
@hillaryclinton1232
@hillaryclinton1232
This sounds so like Francis E. Dec, Esq.
I live in the Tenderloin. I remember when a man walked down Market Street with a Dead Man in a Suitcase.
@lanceblankenship9995
2 years ago
Will we witness an economic transformation like Japan, Korea, Taiwan or China’s again? The answer is quite possibly not, for one simple reason. Without effective land reform it is difficult to see how sustained growth of 7-10 per cent a year - without fatal debt crises - can be achieved in poor countries. And radical land reform, combined with agronomic and marketing support for farmers, is off the political agenda. Since the 1980s, the World Bank has instead promoted microfinance, encouraging the rural poor to set up street stalls selling each other goods for which they have almost no money to pay. It is classic sticking-plaster development policy. The leading NGO promoting land reform, US-based Landesa, is today so pessimistic about the prospects for further radical reforms in the world’s poor states that it concentrates its lobbying efforts on the creation of micro plots of a few square meters. These plots supplement the diets and incomes of rural dwellers who work in otherwise unreformed agricultural sectors. From micro interventions, however, economic miracles will not spring.
Asia's success stories are always Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and China. Its foils are always Thailand, Malaysia, and the Philippines. These last three countries resisted calls for land reform, sometimes violently (when a Thai economist published a study saying land reform was needed, the king responded by banning the study of economics!) But as usual, the Philippines takes last place. It passed a series of laws that had "LAND REFORM" in the title, but all managed to be completely useless.
The American efforts owe a lot to US diplomat Wolf Ladejinsky. He was a Russian immigrant to America whose experiences under communism gave him a better idea what peasants wanted than most of his colleagues, and he pushed for land reform when everyone else thought it sounded too communist. His work was crucial in East Asia, but the US establishment sidelined him before he could influence the rest of the world.
Landlords naturally resist expropriation, and no country at an early stage of development has the money to pay them market value. The Asian countries got their land reform through convoluted pathways. Japan's happened first in the Meiji Restoration, but didn't stick; the final version was rammed through by Douglas MacArthur, who acted as a dictator and didn't care what Japanese elites thought. China's happened under communism, and South Korea's and Taiwan's happened as part of an American-led effort to defuse the appeal of communism by giving peasants and workers an unusually fair deal under capitalism.