On 10 September 2024, Jeff Sachs and I discussed international politics with David Sacks and three of his colleagues at the annual ALL-IN SUMMIT that David hosts.
It's amazing how the deep state has such a long track record of failure, yet never suffer repercussions for it. If they were only as good at foreign policy as they are at staying in power.
Those DS rat-b**tards are defending their tribe: the tribe of government, the tribe of bureaucracy, the tribe above borders, the only world they know: the Political tribe.
A gangbanger said in an interview that he was told by bossman to beat the stuffing out of a little old lady in the street. He did so, and when asked why he did, he replied, "to show my love and loyalty to my brothers." She was just scenery. He was motivated by love, not hate.
This conversation left me excited for your involvement with helping our minds and hearts works through the world as it lays. President Stein will do well with John as national security advisor and Jeffrey at State.
Prof Mearsheimer, you often mention the lack of a higher, world political authority, which is practically the case today. And prof Sachs sees the world, human goal of prosperity from the view of, for one, the United Nations. The conversation presented here was overshadowed in my view with the need to discuss such a world authority, a discussion both of mind (rational, credible) and heart (meaningful, valuable). Please consider how a follow-up might focus on the question: ought we to and can we develop a realistic, meaningful world authority? And what might be the consequences of doing so and not doing so?
I’ve agreed with what you’ve had to say about Ukraine and Israel. I think if the president of the United States were truly a leader he would have been able to shut down both conflicts.
As far as the situation with China, I think if it were possible the US should try to take the stance that you advocate and the then try to pivot to a more accommodative stance that Jeffrey Sachs would advocate.
I think if any of the presidents of the United States from 1990 until now were skilled leaders they would have been able to manage all of these problems much more effectively.
I found the debate between Prof. Mearsheimer and Prof. Sachs to be far more interesting than I expected, and illuminating of the conflict in the camp of those opposed to world war. It clarified for me the stark difference between the geopolitical-realist view and the economic-nirvana view. Sachs could not adequately answer Mearsheimer's challenge regarding the anarchical world system wherein states seeks to maximize power in order to ensure their own survival. When pressed, Sachs proved himself unable to articulate a vision of peace more solid than a John Lennon's appeal to "imagine all the people living life in peace." And again reminding us that he had given advice to both Gorbachev and Yeltsin is not a positive in my view. We know how that "advice" turned out. Frankly, I am surprised that any rational world leader would listen to Sachs, especially following this debate.
He was not directly responsible for the problems in Russia following the fall of the USSR (USSR leadership was) but he sure was not helpful. When people say he should work for the State Department, I shake my head in disbelief. Most of the financial help through the transition was just stolen immediately. Leadership is about more than having the right policies; you have to implement them too and recognize limitations inherent in the system you have to work with.
His vanity and arrogance are difficult to stomach. I have no idea why Mearsheimer would have anything to do with him.
And I admit that I liked it before I even watched it because I am so eager to hear what the two of them have to say, and agree with previous comment that these two should be running State ;-)
Fantastic panel! In a sane world you would both be running our State Department.
It's amazing how the deep state has such a long track record of failure, yet never suffer repercussions for it. If they were only as good at foreign policy as they are at staying in power.
You call staying in power "failure?" /s
Those DS rat-b**tards are defending their tribe: the tribe of government, the tribe of bureaucracy, the tribe above borders, the only world they know: the Political tribe.
A gangbanger said in an interview that he was told by bossman to beat the stuffing out of a little old lady in the street. He did so, and when asked why he did, he replied, "to show my love and loyalty to my brothers." She was just scenery. He was motivated by love, not hate.
This conversation left me excited for your involvement with helping our minds and hearts works through the world as it lays. President Stein will do well with John as national security advisor and Jeffrey at State.
Prof Mearsheimer, you often mention the lack of a higher, world political authority, which is practically the case today. And prof Sachs sees the world, human goal of prosperity from the view of, for one, the United Nations. The conversation presented here was overshadowed in my view with the need to discuss such a world authority, a discussion both of mind (rational, credible) and heart (meaningful, valuable). Please consider how a follow-up might focus on the question: ought we to and can we develop a realistic, meaningful world authority? And what might be the consequences of doing so and not doing so?
Thanks! -k
Two great gentlemen with a keen insight into world affairs 👍
Thank you again for this enlightening debate. Both of you are great thinkers and humanists.
I’ve agreed with what you’ve had to say about Ukraine and Israel. I think if the president of the United States were truly a leader he would have been able to shut down both conflicts.
As far as the situation with China, I think if it were possible the US should try to take the stance that you advocate and the then try to pivot to a more accommodative stance that Jeffrey Sachs would advocate.
I think if any of the presidents of the United States from 1990 until now were skilled leaders they would have been able to manage all of these problems much more effectively.
I found the debate between Prof. Mearsheimer and Prof. Sachs to be far more interesting than I expected, and illuminating of the conflict in the camp of those opposed to world war. It clarified for me the stark difference between the geopolitical-realist view and the economic-nirvana view. Sachs could not adequately answer Mearsheimer's challenge regarding the anarchical world system wherein states seeks to maximize power in order to ensure their own survival. When pressed, Sachs proved himself unable to articulate a vision of peace more solid than a John Lennon's appeal to "imagine all the people living life in peace." And again reminding us that he had given advice to both Gorbachev and Yeltsin is not a positive in my view. We know how that "advice" turned out. Frankly, I am surprised that any rational world leader would listen to Sachs, especially following this debate.
He was not directly responsible for the problems in Russia following the fall of the USSR (USSR leadership was) but he sure was not helpful. When people say he should work for the State Department, I shake my head in disbelief. Most of the financial help through the transition was just stolen immediately. Leadership is about more than having the right policies; you have to implement them too and recognize limitations inherent in the system you have to work with.
His vanity and arrogance are difficult to stomach. I have no idea why Mearsheimer would have anything to do with him.
Meanwhile, the genocide continues. No power is "great" if it is not capable of stopping it.
And I admit that I liked it before I even watched it because I am so eager to hear what the two of them have to say, and agree with previous comment that these two should be running State ;-)
Excellent discussion. Sharing widely. Very eye opening.
Brilliant! This was amazing. Thank you. When will we ever have essential discussions like this is the mainstream media?
Amazing video, doing gods work
Great discussion, loved the passion and honesty.
Already watched and enjoyed! Hopefully next time the debate will last longer than this one ...
Superb panel discussion!
These two men woke me up to the truth. They are highly respected and have a level of knowledge beyond any of the politicians or media in the US.