The Price of Power: Donald Trump and the Tech Broligarchs | Pivot

1. 0:00 – 0:30

   ABC settles Trump defamation suit: what was said vs. what the verdict was

   1. KSKara Swisher0:00

      ... ABC News has agreed to pay $15 million to settle a defamation lawsuit brought by Donald Trump. The suit's centered around comments that ABC's George Stephanopoulos made against a c- uh, in a civil suit against Trump, brought by E. Jean Carroll. He said he was found liable for rape when he actually had been found liable for sexually assaulting and defaming Carroll. Uh, the judge had- had- had mentioned that it was in most terms that would be considered that, and that's, I think, why he said it. Um, but in fact, the- the- the jury had found him liable for, uh, sexual ass- assault, uh, and

2. 0:30 – 1:13

   Legal threats as censorship: business incentives to “acquiesce”

   1. KSKara Swisher0:30

      d- defamation. Under the terms of the settlement, ABC News will donate, uh, uh, the money, $15 million, uh, to a future presidential foundation and museum. And Stephanopoulos and ABC also- also issued a statement of regret for the mistake. Um, uh, many experts thought... I- I've talked to a dozen lawyers. They thought ABC would have won, uh, and Trump is... typically does this a lot, as a, as a... and so does... speaking of Elon Musk, we just talked about him. They use legal, uh, threats as a means of- of- of, uh, having people, uh, acquiesce. So, t- talk a little bit about this. I mean, from a business point of view, again, it's using censorship. It's using l- legal means. It's using anything but actual competition, or just like things work out.

3. 1:13 – 1:44

   Krugman’s warning: arbitrary government power and a coming protection-racket economy

   1. PKPaul Krugman1:13

      And it's more than that. What we're seeing is that... I mean, some of us had warned that, um, that, uh, a Trump admi- second Trump administration would be one in which the, uh, coercive power of the government, uh, against business would become huge. That it... I mean, we're in a- a mixed economy where the government plays a big role, uh, private sector plays a big role. Uh, lots of things in the private sector depend upon government decisions that are reasonably favorable.

4. 1:44 – 2:46

   Tariffs as favoritism: discretion creates winners, losers, and pay-to-play

   1. PKPaul Krugman1:44

      Um, as long as you have rules, norms, rule of law, um, then that kind of works okay. But if you start to have arbitrary exercise, and then... One of the things we worry about on, on tariffs, um, it happens to be the case that the way that our trade laws are written, the president has enormous discretion in tariff setting. And in some ways, one of the worst things about Trump tariffs will be not the tariffs he applies, but the ones he doesn't, because he can play favorites with who gets to get exempted from a tariff. There is some evidence he did that even on the relatively small tariffs he imposed in the first term. So, if you're ABC and you're looking at, uh, at all the ways that Trump can hurt you if he wants to, uh, then you, you know, pay protection money. That's what just happened. And this is a much bigger thing than just competition. This is basically, um, big business already acknowledging that we've become a, uh, uh, a- a protection racket country.

   2. KSKara Swisher2:45

      Pay for play. Pay for play, or just-

5. 2:46 – 3:24

   Democracy risk and economic drag: the long-run cost of oligarchic governance

   1. PKPaul Krugman2:46

      Yeah. And, uh, that's- that's scarier than anything. I mean, it's, uh... it- that's, uh, uh... it's one of those reasons to wonder whether, you know, uh, 2024 was maybe the last real election.

   2. KSKara Swisher2:58

      So talk a little bit about it, because b- from a business, from an economy point of view, you can have a very robust economy even with this cooperation, or does it ultimately end, this oligarchy, and in lack of innovation, which has been the hallmark of the US really? Um...

   3. PKPaul Krugman3:14

      Yeah.

   4. KSKara Swisher3:14

      ... dominance and innovation and new, fresh ideas. We... it's really been a remarkable run for the United States over the last 40 years.

   5. PKPaul Krugman3:20

      Yeah. We've had an extraordinary... particularly the last 25 years.

   6. KSKara Swisher3:23

      Yeah.

6. 3:24 – 4:44

   Why America’s innovation edge is at risk: immigration, openness, and “jobs as goodies”

   1. PKPaul Krugman3:24

      You know, the, uh... in 2000, roughly all advanced countries seem to be about on the same level technologically. The US has now pulled well ahead, um, and there are... uh, one of the pieces I've written recently says a lot of that is actually just geography.

   2. KSKara Swisher3:38

      Mm-hmm.

   3. PKPaul Krugman3:38

      There's probably room for only one Silicon Valley anywhere in the world-

   4. KSKara Swisher3:41

      Right.

   5. PKPaul Krugman3:41

      ... and it happens to be here. But the, um... but, uh, a lot of it is also, yeah, openness, uh, rule of law, uh, success depends upon actually producing stuff that people want and can use, um, uh, being able to attract the s- best and brightest from around the world to work. And all of that is at risk. We're, uh, in a situation where, uh, you know, we know that there are people with influence on Trump who- who think of tech jobs as being goodies to be handed out, and don't... not... don't let foreigners have those.

   6. KSKara Swisher4:17

      Mm-hmm.

   7. PKPaul Krugman4:17

      Um, we know that, uh, we're... may well be heading for a situation in which, um, c- uh, in which success in business depends upon pull with the administration, depends on-

   8. KSKara Swisher4:29

      Right. Proximity.

   9. PKPaul Krugman4:29

      ... on whether you're in or out of favor.

   10. KSKara Swisher4:31

       Right.

   11. PKPaul Krugman4:31

       Um, and we even have, I mean, uh, for what it's worth, uh, regimes like that, according to an IMF meta-study, um, it subtracts about 1% from growth, year after year, indefinitely.

7. 4:44 – 5:02

   Billionaires orbiting Trump: Disney/ABC as a case study in corporate capitulation

   1. KSKara Swisher4:44

      Year after year. How do you look at... with all these billionaires around him? And they certainly are, just one... i- it's mostly tech that's going there, but Disney-

   2. PKPaul Krugman4:51

      Yeah.

   3. KSKara Swisher4:51

      ... just did this, right?

   4. PKPaul Krugman4:52

      Mm-hmm.

   5. KSKara Swisher4:52

      This is Bob- Bob Iger doing this, uh, making... he- he'd had to approve of the settlement, and, uh, he is not... you haven't seen him at Mar-a-Lago but this is his version of that, right?

   6. PKPaul Krugman5:01

      Yeah.

8. 5:02 – 5:29

   Tech’s pivot toward Trump: fear of regulation and the Andreessen example

   1. KSKara Swisher5:02

      Um, h- what is that... wh- what... were you surprised that it's been the tech people who had mostly stayed out of government, right? Until they realized there was... there was an in- interview that Marc Andreessen did, who I've known for a long time, uh, kind of largely a despicable character, but, um, uh, one of the things he said, he was terrified by what Biden was gonna do and he was scared and that's what drove him into Trump's arm, which I think is...

   2. PKPaul Krugman5:25

      Absolute insanity.

   3. KSKara Swisher5:26

      ... uh, unlikely-

   4. PKPaul Krugman5:26

      No, I...

   5. KSKara Swisher5:28

      ... on some level.

9. 5:29 – 6:08

   From innovators to incumbents: monopoly positions and “libertarianism” as branding

   1. PKPaul Krugman5:29

      I... uh, I mean, I- I am actually not surprised because I'm- I'm a cynic. And the thing about tech, by the way, is, you know, these are no longer upstart innovators that we're talking about now.

   2. KSKara Swisher5:37

      No, they're not. Mm-mm.

   3. PKPaul Krugman5:38

      We're talking about people who, you know, who were... who made their- th- their billions very, very young but they're now middle-aged and, um, and they're sitting on, in many ways, on- on these, uh, monopoly positions created by- by their past efforts. Um, and, of course they're gonna try and curry favor with the government. Their- the libertarian idea- ideology was never more than skin deep. Um, but I also think that some of... the backing Trump...... you know,

10. 6:08 – 7:06

    The oligarch’s mistake: helping elect an autocrat means losing control (Putin analogy)

    1. PKPaul Krugman6:08

       this is the classic error. Uh, oligarchs, it's funny, in, in a, in a democratic rule of law nation, great wealth brings a lot of power with it. Uh, and it's natural to think, "Well, if I help elect an autocrat who will, uh, you know, this will, is sympathetic to my interests, that I'll, I'll have even more power." But you very quickly find out that actually all of the power is on the other side, that the, uh, uh, and, you know, they've got... And I don't think analogy's with Putin, I mean, I'm hoping that we're not going to go full Putin, but the analogies are really clearly there. And the oligarchs who helped put Putin in power thought that they had bought themselves a government, and they found out that they were working for him, not the other way around.

    2. KSKara Swisher6:54

       Right.

    3. PKPaul Krugman6:54

       And if they didn't, uh, work for him, they were, their, you know, their fortunes can disappear quite quickly. Uh-

    4. KSKara Swisher7:00

       Yes, windows started to look very dangerous.

    5. PKPaul Krugman7:02

       Well, and then falling out of windows. I hope we don't get to the falling out of windows stage, but it could.

    6. KSKara Swisher7:06

       Right.

11. 7:06 – 7:27

    Predicting fallout: Musk vs. Trump and the asymmetry of power

    1. PKPaul Krugman7:06

       And so, no, this is a... And that's gonna happen very, very fast. I mean, I'm, I think there's a reasonably strong case to, that, that Elon Musk and Trump will have a falling out.

    2. KSKara Swisher7:17

       Mm-hmm.

    3. PKPaul Krugman7:17

       And, uh, Musk will not be the winner. And I don't know that for sure, but I'm actually kind of looking forward to it, to be honest.

    4. KSKara Swisher7:25

       Okay. (laughs)

    5. PKPaul Krugman7:25

       I'm not, I'm not, I'm not a, I'm not a saint.

12. 7:27 – 7:58

    Is this unprecedented in the U.S.? Gilded Age parallels and why democracy held then

    1. KSKara Swisher7:27

       All right, what, what's the counter to that? Where do you, where does it, where does that break? Is it... 'Cause rich people have always been quietly running the country, right? They got the whole idea of whoever has the money.

    2. PKPaul Krugman7:35

       Uh, degrees and degrees.

    3. KSKara Swisher7:37

       Yes.

    4. PKPaul Krugman7:37

       Yeah.

    5. KSKara Swisher7:37

       But what you ha- is, is, is this unprecedented? I don't think so, right? It's-

    6. PKPaul Krugman7:41

       No, it's totally precedented.

    7. KSKara Swisher7:42

       Right, so talk about the precedent.

    8. PKPaul Krugman7:43

       This is, this is the story of Putin's Russia. This is the story of-

    9. KSKara Swisher7:46

       Right, what about in our country? Uh, that there have been wealthy people behind the scenes. They just aren't as performative. They don't jump up and down at a rally and show off their belly and stuff like that. What-

    10. PKPaul Krugman7:56

        I-

    11. KSKara Swisher7:56

        How is this different?

13. 7:58 – 10:36

    Why today feels different: weaker norms, grievance politics, and the “unloved” tech elite

    1. PKPaul Krugman7:58

       I actually have had, been wondering about that and planning to do a little... You know, I'm not a historian but I think that it should, it really is an interesting question. You know, we had a Gilded Age, um, in which there were enormous fortunes and, and a lot of raw corruption. And yet democratic institutions were not corrupted too much. I mean, there were a lot of purchased votes and all of that. But in the end when people voted for something different, those votes were honored. Uh, we, we didn't lose, uh, uh, in, in some ways the essence of what America's about despite all of that.

    2. KSKara Swisher8:36

       Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

    3. PKPaul Krugman8:36

       And it, it's an interesting question to ask, why, why didn't the, uh, the J.D. Rockefellers and the J.P. Morgans, um, you know, go to the limit? Why were they willing to allow, you know, Teddy Roosevelt to be elected?

    4. KSKara Swisher8:52

       Right.

    5. PKPaul Krugman8:52

       Um, and-

    6. KSKara Swisher8:52

       Often a wealthy person.

    7. PKPaul Krugman8:53

       I don't kn- I don't really know-

    8. KSKara Swisher8:54

       FDR, wealthy person.

    9. PKPaul Krugman8:55

       Well-

    10. KSKara Swisher8:55

        JFK wealthy per-

    11. PKPaul Krugman8:56

        Yeah.

    12. KSKara Swisher8:56

        Right? Billionaires-

    13. PKPaul Krugman8:57

        Well, FDR brought us closer to a coup than we like to think, but yeah.

    14. KSKara Swisher9:01

        Mm-hmm.

    15. PKPaul Krugman9:01

        Um, but the, but the, you know, how did the progressive movement manage to flourish in a time when the wealthy also had that? And I don't quite know the answer though it's possible, hard to believe, but it's possible that people actually had at least some values and ideals, enough to say that, "Okay, I will go-"

    16. KSKara Swisher9:19

        I-

    17. PKPaul Krugman9:20

        "... this far, but not beyond that point."

    18. KSKara Swisher9:22

        Uh, uh, uh-uh, I'm not so sure with this crew. We'll see.

    19. PKPaul Krugman9:25

        I'm not so sure either.

    20. KSKara Swisher9:26

        We'll see. I know them.

    21. PKPaul Krugman9:26

        But whatever it was.

    22. KSKara Swisher9:27

        I'm certain they will go as far as they take because they are perpetually aggrieved.

    23. PKPaul Krugman9:31

        Oh, th-

    24. KSKara Swisher9:31

        They're aggrieved, Paul, because they're very vic- they're the victims, just so you know.

    25. PKPaul Krugman9:34

        Oh, uh, that, that's one thing I mean, you would know better than me.

    26. KSKara Swisher9:36

        Uh, I think-

    27. PKPaul Krugman9:36

        But my, my, my really strong sense is that particularly the, the tech bros., um, I mean, everybody loved and admired them-

    28. KSKara Swisher9:45

        Mm-hmm.

    29. PKPaul Krugman9:45

        ... 10, 15 years ago.

    30. KSKara Swisher9:47

        Mm-hmm.

Episode duration: 10:36