The Mailbag Show: The GoodFellows Answer Your Questions

In a special “mailbag” episode, Hoover senior fellows Sir Niall Ferguson, John Cochrane, and H.R. McMaster answer audience questions ranging from current geopolitics quandaries and viable economic models to career and parenting advice, plus their personal choices of dream guests.

Among the topics: a neglected African continent; Russia’s military and economic sustainability and related policy options that the incoming Trump administration will face; parallels between Taiwan and pre–World War I Europe; rating Javier Milei’s performance in Argentina; job options for aspiring PhD candidates; plus the panel’s recommendations for foundational books to instill honor and patriotism in children (spoiler alert: Niall talking Tolkien). 

Submit your questions for our next mailbag episode at Hoover.org/AskGoodFellows and see if your question gets selected and answered!

Episode Transcript

(00:00):
Letters, we get letters.

>> Perry Como (00:03):
We get stacks and stacks of letters.
[MUSIC]

>> Bill Whalen (00:16):
It's Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024.
And welcome back to GoodFellows, a HooverInstitution broadcast examining social,
economic, political andgeopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen, I'ma Hoover Distinguished Policy Fellow, and
I'll be your moderator forthe course of the next hour or so.
Joining in a conversationwith the stars of our show,
who we jokingly referto as the GoodFellows.
And who are the Goodfellows?
That would be the eminenthistorian Sir Niall Ferguson.

(00:38):
The grumpy economist John Cochrane andthat's the name of his blog,
not an editorial comment.
And former presidential nationalsecurity adviser, Lt Gen. H.R. McMaster.
Niall, John andH.R are Hoover Senior Fellows.
Gentlemen, very simple show for you today.
We asked our loyal viewers to send inquestions and boy, did they deliver.
And I'd like to thank all of youwho bothered to write to us.
Just a reminder that the show isboth international in its scope and

(00:59):
you are a very smart audience.
So again, thank you forsending in your questions.
If we don't get your question today, myapologies simply just too many questions,
too little time.
So on with the show and let's beginwith a question from Mark in Northbrook,
Illinois, who writes, quote, I am curiousabout what's happening in Africa.
It seems that the whole continent is beingquietly overtaken by China and Russia.
Africa presents a major source ofpotential instability because of mass

(01:22):
migration to Europe and Islamist threats.
Yet there has been very little publicdiscussion about its role in geopolitics
now and in the near future.
I would add that as we were recording,President Biden is in Angola,
the first president to visitSub-Saharan Africa in almost a decade.
Niall, is it possible that a continentof about 1.4 billion people can go
overlooked?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:42):
Well,
it's been largely overlooked sincethe presidency of George W Bush.
And in that period,China's involvement has only grown.
Involvement in the form of directinvestment as well as the deployment
of significant amounts of Chinese labor,as the Chinese often

(02:04):
bring in their own people whenthey're building infrastructure.
I went to Zambia 10 years ago now morethan 10, to make a film about this,
showing that China was engaged inclassic empire building in Africa.
Spent some time talking to Chinesepeople there as well as to

(02:26):
Africans employed in concerns inwhich the Chinese had invested.
And I came away thinking, boy, thereare few cultural divides in the world
bigger than the cultural dividebetween Africans and the Chinese.
Talk about non meeting of minds.
I think it will be seen as a great sinof omission that American policymakers

(02:49):
essentially stop bothering withAfrica in the period after 2008.
And the question Mark asked goesright to the heart of the matter.
Not only have the Chinese beenincreasing their influence there and
acquiring all kinds of assets, resourcesas well as harbor infrastructure.

(03:10):
At the same time, the Russians havebeen playing a very malign role.
The Wagner group, which you'll rememberfrom the Prigozhin mutiny fiasco
of last year, has become a majorplayer in multiple African states.
It is not, of course, a source ofstability, but rather the opposite.
The number of coups in African countrieshas gone up in the last four years.

(03:35):
And we will, I think,reap a whirlwind because as Mark says,
almost all the population growth in therest of this century will come in Africa,
nearly all of it.
Because it's only in Africa thatfertility rates are above replacement.
And if climate change reallyis going to have impact, and

(03:55):
we can debate that and have debated it.
It's clear that the worst impacts willin fact be in sub Saharan Africa,
because it's there, that agriculturalsystems are most fragile,
most susceptible to changes in weather.
So for all these reasons,we have a growing problem.
The burden will be borne by Europe morethan North America, because the direction

(04:17):
of travel for Africans trying to getout of failing states is northwards.
But I don't think that's something thatwe should turn away from because it has
implications that extendacross the Atlantic too.

>> John H Cochrane (04:28):
Well, I'll jump in as the economist.
I mean, the Africans certainly don'tthink Africa's overlooked cuz they're not
overlooking it, they live there, [LAUGH].
And there's a tendency to befocused on us either the,
I can't say burden anymore, [LAUGH].
But our worry for our little geopoliticalgames or our worries about the climate or

(04:49):
our worries about helping the poorlittle people who live there.
Africa is a massivelyunderdeveloped place.
I mean,you look at GDP per capitas in the 1,000,
2,000 throughout the place versus60,000 in the US and just a gulf.
There are some countries that are doingwell that are taking on sort of the basics
of what it does to start growing.
There are countries that are doing badly.

(05:11):
There are countries that are in the meatysliding to badly, like South Africa, for
example, andsome that are just basket cases.
The issue for Africa is developed join themodern world, which is we all know what it
takes for free markets, rule of law,basic competence in government.
But we talk about these, we talk aboutclimate in Africa when you're at

(05:33):
$2,000 per capita andyou wanna get to 60,000.
A couple percent here or
there about climate is justirrelevant to what you wanna do.
And forus to be harping on the climate is just so
first world problems comparedto what they have going.

>> Bill Whalen (05:51):
Agriculture, yeah, their agriculture is sensitive, why?
Cuz they're doing it by hand.
The solution to agriculture that'ssensitive to climate change is not for
us to buy electric vehicles.
It's for them to buy tractors, [LAUGH],and genetically modified crops and
join the modern world.
So that really is the big story of Africa.
And the neglect is kind of in the focuson all this other stuff rather than

(06:14):
the basics of what really matters to them,
which is joining the economic growthmiracle that has made us all so wealthy.
And we should stop, number one,buy what they have to sell.
Sending them money, sending them solarpanels, money, most of which gets stolen.
That's just buy what they have to sell,show them good institutions and

(06:35):
get out the way.
It's a huge problem.
It just kind of sits there soit doesn't get in the news.

>> H.R. McMaster (06:42):
Yeah, I just think that you've got to look at Africa as a place
that has a lot of problems associatedwith everything we've mentioned here.
Poor governance, weak governance,the degree to which China and
Russia have been able to exploit that weakgovernance, partnering with those who
are willing to commit coups, for example,across the Maghreb and then the Vardar

(07:02):
group using this as a sort of a profitopportunity in terms of extraction.
The degree to which the Chinese have comein there using this kind of three Cs of
co-option, coercion, and concealment.
But from an African perspective, asJohn's saying, they need infrastructure,
they need investment.
So, we complain about the Chinese and whatthey're doing is a new form of colonialism

(07:23):
because the Chinese are actuallygood at intimidating people.
A lot of Africans don't wanna say that.
I mean, they believe it,but don't wanna say it.
But also they're like, hey,what's the alternative?
Do you guys have an alternative for us?
So I think what's reallygonna be really important,
I think for the Trump administration,
I hope will resurrect a program that wetried to initiate called Prosper Africa,

(07:44):
in which we wanted to incentivize,get off like the old aid model, right?
And incentivize investments thatactually get the people their return
on investments.
Niall said, hey, the Chinese come in,[LAUGH], with a Chinese bank official with
a few duffel bags full of cash andto pay some people off.
Get these Chinese loans thenhire Chinese companies and
Chinese workers who send their salariesback to China, that's not helping anybody.

(08:08):
And then of course, you have the kindof the extractive model associated
with critical supply chains to fuelChina's overcapacity in some key areas.
Look at what cobalt mining hasdone in Congo, for example.
I was just with a fantastic movie producernamed Joe Munga who was visiting here

(08:31):
yesterday andwe filmed an episode of Battlegrounds.
And what his films havedone is kinda captured
the experience of the Congolese people.
And part of that story is the degree towhich it's an extremely rich country,
but it's a country that is rifewith violence, corruption,

(08:51):
organized crime and these external actorswho are not helping the situation.
So anyway, tremendous promiseas John I think would emphasize,
what is needed is free marketsolutions to a huge demand for
infrastructure and for energy.
And so if you come in and say, hey,we need all solar panels, wind turbines,

(09:13):
electric cars, they're are just lookingat you like, what are you talking about?
So what we need is a free marketsolution that will meet the vastly
increasing energy demand andalso reduce man made carbon emissions.
But do it because it'san attractive economic model.
The African countries donot have the resources and

(09:35):
the American taxpayersaren't gonna pay for it for
us to underwrite inefficientenergy sources in Africa.

>> John H Cochrane (09:41):
Although solar panels,
Africa is one place wheresolar panels do make sense.

>> H.R. McMaster (09:46):
Yeah. >> John H Cochrane
an African village andthere's no grid and there's no nothing,
actually it's pretty good way tostart getting on the electricity.
But it just too close this one.
Larry Summers tells a great story oftalking to an African official who says,
when you guys come here,you give us a lecture.
When the Chinese come here,they give us an airport.
[LAUGH] How about an airport, guys?
I wrote about this in At War With Ourselves at the roundtable with

(10:06):
African leaders,it's very much along those lines.
And they're begging, it's like, hey, weall speak English, we don't speak Chinese.
Where are you guys?
So I think a lot of it is just engagement,but
really a lot of private sectorengagement is what's necessary.

>> Niall Ferguson (10:23):
Having been to Africa multiple times,
having spent part of my childhood there.
Married to an African,I think a lot about this stuff.
While I agree with everythingthat John and HR have said,
it's extremely difficult to get theWestern private sector to commit itself
on a large scale to countries thathave abysmally failing governance.

(10:47):
And that problem exists in the mostimportant African economies.
It exists in South Africa andit exists in Nigeria, and
these countries are barely investablebecause their governance is so defective.
What South Africa needs isthe equivalent of Javier Milei.

>> President Javier Milei. (11:06):
[FOREIGN] >> Niall Ferguson
the kinda leadership that is gonna reforman economy that cannot generate jobs for
its young people, that is afflictedby corruption and inefficiency.
That struggles even toprovide electricity, and

(11:28):
that's the most developedcountry in Sub Saharan Africa.
So we shouldn't make it sound too easy.
It's not just about lettingmarket forces work,
because market forces won't dare to gowhere governance is chronically defective.
I can still remember the great lecturesthat we were given by excellent

(11:48):
specialists in African economics aboutthe great potential of Ethiopia.
Lectures that turned to dust whenthe country was afflicted by,
you guessed it, another civil war.
I spoke recently to an Ethiopian ministerwho was optimistic that the security
situation had improved and
told me an incredibly interestingstory about the advances of Fintech.

(12:11):
And this is the one optimisticnote on which I'll end.
Technology does createsome opportunities for
Africa to leapfrog into the 21st century,particularly in finance and
payments, where as long as thereare phones, there can be basic banking and
even more sophisticatedforms of financial exchange.
So it's not all bleak,but I think anywhere

(12:33):
where the government in a typicalAfrican state has power,
you will get dysfunction that the Chineseare prepared to look away from but
our governments andour firms just can't ignore.

>> Bill Whalen (12:48):
A question from Edward in Brigantine, New Jersey, who writes,
what does Putin's use of thousandsof North Korean troops tell us about
the capacity of Russia in economic,military, and sociopolitical terms,
to sustain Russia's war effort and
the likelihood of a negotiated settlementthat does not deliver Putin a victory?
HR you wanna take that?

>> H.R. McMaster (13:05):
Okay, well, of course, the conventional wisdom these days is
that Ukraine is on the ropes, andthere's a lot of truth in that.
I mean, they've got manpower issues,they have shortages that are critical.
But I'll tell you,when I look at the Russian offensive and
the degree to which Russiais really trying, I think,
to gain as much of an advantage as it canprior to Donald Trump coming into office.

(13:28):
I don't think that theirlosses are sustainable, and
they're taking 1,100 casualties a day.
And so maybe they'll break throughat some points on the front, but
will they be able tosustain that offensive?
Or will this be like the Nivelle offensivein 1917 or the Ludendorff offensive,
which were successful in World War Iin breaking through the lines,
but they couldn't sustain that effort.

(13:49):
I mean, look at the scale on the map.
So I think the time is now, really,to strengthen Ukraine as much as possible.
Because if there is gonna be any kind ofmovement toward some kind of enduring
peace, it's gonna have to bethrough a position of strength and
convincing Vladimir Putinhas been defeated.
I would also argue that now is the timeto really put the screws to Russia.

(14:12):
I'll tell you, Russia has big issues,and I'll defer to John and
Niall on the economic side, but what I'mhearing is they can always sell about half
of the bonds that they weretrying to sell to raise.
They're sitting on a lot of cash theycan't use because it's not convertible.
There are huge frailties in their economybecause they're spending the equivalent,

(14:34):
almost like 38% orsomething of GDP equivalent on defense.
They have labor shortages.
There are all sorts of problemswith the Russians right now.
How about what's happeningto them in Syria, okay?
I mean, they are bombing theirequipment at the Khmeimim Air Base, and
Russians are fleeing Damascus.

(14:55):
All right, so Putin tries to look strong,but I'll tell you,
I think he is the perfectcombination of a bully and a coward.
And now it's time to put the screwsto the Russians from an economic
perspective as well as through support forUkraine.
And then maybe also create problems for

(15:16):
them elsewhere from an economicperspective and using some other means.
So I'm hoping that that's the attitudethat the Trump administration will bring
into this.
And to recognize, hey, if you wanta favorable settlement in Ukraine,
and to prevent the war there fromemboldening this axis of aggressors
further through the perceptionof some kind of victory.

(15:40):
It's time to pull out the stops and
to try to convince Putinthat Putin's been defeated.

>> John H Cochrane (15:46):
I'll agree,
[LAUGH] I do see signs that Russia'seconomy is in real trouble.
Of course, World War I analogies,economies can get really,
really bad before they fall apart.
Russia 1917 I think got really, really badbefore it fell apart, and Germany took
a long time before it fell apart, but younever know where you are on that element.

(16:07):
Yes, I was overstayingmy bounds previously and
saying we've never had suchan overwhelming military advantage as we,
the west versus Russia has,if we choose to use it.
And the same is true economically,if we chose to support Ukraine,
we could support Ukraine to the Hilti.
I mean, the economic strength ofthe United States and just Europe alone,

(16:30):
if we wanna support Ukraine to Russia'seconomic strength, is just off the charts.
So, it's a question of economic will.
Yes, secondary sanctions get seriousabout not letting them sell oil,
except maybe to China,where we don't wanna get a war in there.
We make stuff hard on the economicend as well as the military end, and
I think Trump has got to figure that out,if you want a negotiation,

(16:54):
you negotiate from a position of strength.
I hope that the inevitability of itfinally shows up, but we'll see, Niall.

>> H.R. McMaster (17:02):
Just one quick thing too, Niall, if you comment on this,
I see the North Koreans coming in andnow a Yemeni battalion, right?
Going into Ukraine as alsoa sign of strain on Russia.

>> Niall Ferguson (17:13):
Yes, all this illustrates, doesn't it, how anemic and
insufficient the Biden-Harrisadministration's support for
Ukraine has been at every stageover close to three years.
They provided just enough weaponry forUkraine not to lose,

(17:34):
never enough for Ukraine to win.
When I talk to my Ukrainian friends,the frustration
that I hear from their sideis really very striking.
The former Foreign Minister,Dmytro Kuleba, gave a great interview to
the Financial Times over the weekend,which I highly recommend everybody read.

(17:57):
Acknowledging what he haslong privately thought that
the Biden-Harris strategywas a disaster for Ukraine.
Not only because of the way that theyrestrained Ukraine from using weapons
that were provided from the west,the Storm Shadow missiles, for example.
But because they did that outof fear of quote, unquote,

(18:21):
escalation, which signified theirreadiness to be intimidated
by Vladimir Putin's threatsto use nuclear weapons.
Threats which I think became a bluffthe minute the Chinese said that no
nukes could be used.
The Chinese, after all, are key herewithout Chinese economic support,

(18:41):
which increasingly includesthe provision of military hardware,
this would not have beena sustainable war for Putin.
The fact that the Russianshave been taking such
heavy casualties in theircurrent wave of offensives.
Tells you that his desperation totry to get whatever he can before
Donald Trump is sworninto the White House.

(19:02):
It is widely misunderstood inthe world that Biden has been good for
Ukraine and Trump would be bad.
The opposite is true, it was Bidenwho failed to deter Putin in 2021.
And the reason the Russians are throwingbodies at the front line right now is they
know that from January 20th they willbe under real pressure to negotiate and

(19:23):
enter this war, andit's not gonna be on their terms.
I think that's pretty obviousfrom things that have been said.
I noticed the appointment of GeneralKellogg to a role is an important sign
that the Trump administration is not aboutto hand Ukraine on a plate to Putin.
But yeah,I think that's a great question to ask,
it should make us reflect on howbadly this has been managed.

(19:46):
And how many lives have been lost and
how much destruction has beenwreaked on Ukraine because
of a US Administration's failure tounderstand the basics of deterrence.

>> Bill Whalen (19:57):
Let's turn our attention to East Asia a question from Lyman in
Taipei, Taiwan, and Sir Niall,I want you to answer this.
He writes, in 2024, the Taiwan realestate market is up 10%, the Taiwan stock
market is up over 20% flights fromTaiwan to mainland China are packed.
China is Taiwan's largest trade partner,the DDP candidate was elected president,
there were war games on a bimonthlybasis by the chines in the area

(20:18):
surrounding Taiwan.
But the Taiwanese people seem to yawn andkeep going on about their business.
Is this whole concern about Taiwan a giantnothing burger, do analysts in the US And
Europe know China bettersomehow than the Taiwanese?
Someone seems to be wrong in theiranalysis, who is it, Sir Niall?

>> Niall Ferguson (20:34):
Well, it's not the first time in history that there has been
a disconnect between popular and marketperceptions and strategic realities.
I wrote a paper many years ago nowabout the approach of war in 1914,
noting that it was entirelymissed by general public and

(20:56):
by investors in allthe major stock markets.
Who only really noticed that something wasup when the war had more or less begun.
So let's not infer frompopular insouciance in Taiwan
that everything is fine, because it's not.
And here Matt Pottinger and
others who've written on the subjectare onto an extremely important point,

(21:21):
I'm sure HR will agree with me on this,and maybe John, too.
Xi Jinping said all along that the reasonthat he wanted an extension of
his term in office beyondthe standard two terms
was that he had to bring Taiwanunder Beijing's control.
That was supposed to bethe capstone achievement,
I don't think he's changedhis mind about that.

(21:42):
Judging by the way the Chinese army andnavy regularly
practice action against Taiwan,including a blockade.
Any kind of disruption of passenger andtrade traffic in and
out of Taiwan would be a huge anddisruptive move by China.

(22:05):
I don't think they'rerehearsing it just for fun,
I also think that they have a dangerouswindow of opportunity right now.
Because we, the United States,have failed to maintain a level
of military capability inthe region that would deter China.
I talked earlier about the failures ofdeterrence with respect to Russia and

(22:29):
Ukraine, I could say the same aboutthe Middle east with respect to Iran,
but it also applies to the threatposed by China to Taiwan.
Anybody who pays close attention towar games, insofar as their public,
knows just how dangerousa Taiwan crisis would be.
I've been talking foryears about the fact that it would be

(22:49):
like the Cuban Missile Crisis in the firstCold War, only with the roles reversed.
Cuz we, the United States, would haveto take the kind of naval action that
Nikita Khrushchev had to take whenthe US imposed a quarantine on Cuba.
So while life goes on inTaiwan in a cheerful way,
it was pretty cheerful in Europein the summer of 1914, too.

(23:11):
That should not lead those of us who thinkabout these strategic questions to be
complacent, on the contrary,we're in a very dangerous moment.
Bill Burns said, I think,on two separate occasions last year,
and he's the Director ofCentral Intelligence, so he should know
that Xi Jinping has told the Chinesemilitary to be ready for war in 2027.
This is a big issue forthe incoming Trump administration,

(23:34):
have they got it in them to re-establishdeterrence before Xi Jinping is
tempted to take a huge gamble that wouldhave the potential to start World War III?

>> H.R. McMaster (23:46):
Yeah, I would just say that it is an extraordinarily dangerous
period, I believe, because tensionsare increasing not only with
China over Taiwan and more broadlyacross the Indo-Pacific region.
China's laying claim tothe South China Sea or
the direct threats against Japanwhich have been recent, but

(24:08):
also because tensions are increasing withthis access of aggressors more broadly.
And this is what I think is really,really important,
is to understand betterthe connections between these various
conflicts in Ukraine, acrossthe Middle East and in the Indo-Pacific.
It should be quite obvious to us now,right, as North Korean and

(24:29):
Yemeni troops are fighting in Ukraine.
But there are all sorts of otherinterconnected aspects of these conflicts
and increasingly this competition istaking on an economic dimension as well.
I believe we have just enteredinto an economic war, and
has happened because we recognize thedegree to which these axes of aggressors

(24:51):
are relying on one another,circumventing sanctions and so forth.
But China's ability in particular to gaincontrol of critical supply chains that
it could use for coercive power.
You see that with just the recentannouncement of China restricting
exports of gallium and germanium andantinomian, super hard metals.

(25:11):
That's economic warfare thatwe're in the middle of right now.
And it was in reaction in part tosome of our export restrictions.
And I think what's really important interms of the, the viewer's question,
hey, is this really something to beconcerned about is to look at the very
concrete preparationsthat China's been taking.
The massive buildup of their military,

(25:33):
including an invasion forceoriented to Taiwan, but
especially the range of capabilities tokeep the United States at bay, right?
Long range weapon systems, countersatellite, tier to layer air defense,
electromagnetic warfare,swarm drone capabilities, but
also the strategic capabilitiesthey've been developing.
Look at the whole vault range ofcyberattacks against our infrastructure.

(25:56):
What is that for?
What are those latent capabilities inour communications infrastructure?
It's to take us down if they want to.
And they're building up theirstrategic nuclear forces by 400%.
Hey, I think it's time to be alarmed andas Niall is suggesting,
ask why we have been unable to deterconflict in Ukraine, for example.

(26:17):
And what more we must do now witha great deal of urgency, I believe,
to deter these conflicts that have alreadycascaded from Europe and the Middle East
from cascading further and includingthe looming crises in the Indo-Pacific.

>> John H Cochrane (26:30):
Well, so let me take economics.
The original question which I thoughtwas great is why is everyone ignoring
this in Taiwan?
And as Niall took a historical,military, historical analogy,
I'll use a financial analogy.
Every financial crisis, peopleare in there, right up till the end.
And you ask, there's a bubble on, but
I think it's gonna go up a littlemore before it finally goes boom.

(26:51):
And then after the fact butwe've been warning about sovereign debt.
Niall and I, sovereign debt's a problem.
Sovereign debt's a problem.
We're like the guys with the signsaying the world's about to end and
the bond traders going, yeah, yeah,yeah, and they make a ton of money.
If we'd been short all this time,we'd be poor.
Eventually it's gotta blow up,and that's the way of the world.

(27:12):
And I think also because there are manyways this could play out, that while
disastrous for Taiwan's political freedom,could be not so bad for many businesses.
A blockade that ends up integratingTaiwan into China without destroying
a lot of stuff, they'll lose theirfreedom, but they'll make a lot of money.
And it's not clear exactly howmuch that's gonna cost them.

(27:35):
But I really wanna challenge,
this is the central thing we've beendiscussing on GoodFellas for over a year.
Are we with China fightingan economic war, or
are we using economics to deter a war?
Do we want to do stuff that hurts us buthurts them more, or
do we want to show them the advantagesof staying integrated with us and

(27:58):
how much it will cost them if they goto full on economic or in military war?
And I worry that we're slidinginto fighting a war which can be
damaging them, butreally lowers the deterrent value to them
of economic ties againstmilitary aggression.

>> H.R. McMaster (28:17):
Yeah, I think, John,
I think that's the key question and->> John H Cochrane: But
we're gonna keep at it too.
Yeah, I mean, I keep thinking about the three criteria for
using tools of economic statecraft.
One would be to impede China's abilityto gain a differential advantage
over us militarily.
And this would involve a whole range ofactions, including export controls, but

(28:39):
just stopping kind of the transferof critical technologies and
intellectual property by combatingcyber espionage, force transfer of that
technology associated with kind of thejoint venture approach that China takes.
The second key area would beto don't help them perfect or
technologically enabled Orwellian policestate with investments and so forth.

(29:03):
And companies like Hikvision orSense Time, and
then finally don't compromise the longterm viability of our own economy, right?
And economic strength in exchange forshort term profits,
which we've done in many, many caseswith false promises of access to
the Chinese market orcheap manufacturing there and so forth.

(29:23):
And then US companiesget run out of business.
I mean,how many times does that have to happen,.
So I think what's critical is, Xi Jinpingis trying to decouple on his own terms.
The generation of this kindof dual circulation economy.
An effort to get an iron grip on criticalsupply chains so he could use them for
course of purposes.
We have to combat that, I believe.

(29:44):
And this is why I'm really grateful for
your help on this economic statecraftproject we're in the middle of,
to keep us honest on this thing andto make the counter-arguments.
Because what we're essentially trying todo, and I'm using economist terms, so
please correct me, is to understandwhat the public good is associated from

(30:06):
a security perspective, right?
Our own economic viability by applyingthese tools of economic statecraft.
Not to do it capriciously, but
to understand that the market is not gonnatake care of us when we're dealing with
a mercantilist status economic modelthat's been weaponized against us.

>> John H Cochrane (30:25):
Well, let me just do three concrete ones before we move on and
before this turns into the John and HR.

>> H.R. McMaster (30:30):
We haven't done this for a while.
This is good, this is good.
[LAUGH]>> John H Cochrane: The exports,
they put in some exportcontrols on raw materials.
My God,we're export controlling on high-tech.
They're export controllingon raw materials.
We got all the raw materials in the world.
Just reformthe Environmental Quality Act so
we can actually dig themout of the damn ground.

(30:51):
We were just talking about Africa,
there are raw materials allover the place in Africa.
It is very, very weak of them to tryto control us with raw material export.
They're just exploiting our ownunwillingness to offer permits.
Technology, actually, wouldn't you ratherthat they were dependent on us for
high technology, and we were the onesputting little switches in where we could

(31:11):
make the whole thingblow up if we want to?
Decoupling has its disadvantages,and similarly trade.
You keep using this word, overcapacity,which is meaningless in economics.
But they are very dependent on trade.
So if we cut off trade, we lose that onebig bargaining chip that, hey, you guys,

(31:31):
you invade Taiwan, you're gonna be reallyin trouble because trade gets cut off.
You cut it off ahead of time, andyou've lost that whole bargaining chip.
So those are three practical ones,and we'll keep on this big question.
Is it economic warfare now or deterrence?
Do we want to use economics todeter them from military warfare?

>> Bill Whalen (31:51):
Let us shift from geopolitics to economics.
John, two questions roll into.
One, we have a question fromGenine in Melbourne, Australia,
who asks, how successful hasJavier Milei been in Argentina and
what could the Trump administrationthinking doge learn from this?
And then Tim Latvia writes,John is an economist,
how do you answer petitionsfrom those on the left for
the US to follow the Nordicmodel of social democracies?

(32:12):
What do they get wrong andwhat do they get right?

>> John H Cochrane (32:15):
Boy, let's be short on this one, Milei.
There's a political question,how strong is he?
How is he able to get thisgoing through Argentina?
How's he gonna do in the elections toget congressional support and so forth.
But inflation is down to 2% a month.
The guy is throwing outregulation after regulation.
It's having the effects it should have.

(32:36):
It is possible for this stuff to haveeven better effects even quicker, but
that all depends on how longpeople think it's gonna last.
So, he's doing great and I wish him well.
The Nordic model isan interesting question.
The Nordic model is not yourBernie Sanders model of socialism anymore.

(32:58):
The Nordic countries are prettyhard hearted about incentives.
They have a welfare strait and
they have pretty high taxesto support the welfare state.
But they are ahead of us on manyfreedom of doing business, rule of law,
ability to start companies,sorts of measures.
They understand you gotta let the goldengoose eat in order if you want to

(33:20):
collect her eggs.
Now the high taxes,there's a lot of disincentives there.
People don't work that hard because theyknow that it's all gonna get taxed away.
Their income per capita is, I don't know,I don't have the numbers like 20,
30% below ours, just like the restof well run northern Europe.
So it's an interesting different model,but it's not a panacea either the left or

(33:40):
the right.
I'll just give you one example, Denmark.
Before you get any social benefits,you have to spend down all your assets.
It's pretty hard hearted?
Well, if you're gonna have a welfarestate, you gotta control the incentives.
They're willing to dothat in ways we aren't.
So it bears a look, butit's not all perfect over there.

>> Niall Ferguson (33:57):
Can I just say to Genine of Melbourne that I'm hurt that
you directed your question aboutArgentina to John and not to me.
I was one of the first people in theNorthern Hemisphere to say Milei was going
to win the Argentine election.
I was an early adopter, indeed, manyof my Argentine friends were skeptical.
But as someone who began his careerstudying problems of hyperinflation,

(34:21):
I knew that Argentina had crosseda threshold when inflation reached above
200% annually, then people were ready forradical solutions.
And I do think Milei`s approach isa very good illustration of what
can be done if you understandthe work of Tom Sargent.
And it was a famous articleback from the early 80s,

(34:43):
the ends of four big inflations, in whichSargent set out his idea of a regime
change in the sense of a change inthe entire economic policy regime as
something that is prerequisite forending periods of very high inflation.
It's not enough just totweak monetary policy.
You have to have a fiscalapproach as well, and
you have to have a supplyside approach too.

(35:05):
And what's fascinating about Milie`sis if he really does understand that,
and he went at the problems in the boldestway possible, fiscal tightening,
which most people said would lead tohis deep unpopularity, hasn't happened.
5% of GDP tightening, his popularity is asstrong as it was the day he was sworn in.

(35:28):
Real supply side changes, for example,gets rid of rent control in Buenos Aires.
Bingo overnight you actually havea recovery in that sector of the economy.

>> John H Cochrane (35:37):
And rents go down.

>> Niall Ferguson (35:39):
And rents go down cuz supply comes on.
The last thing Milie has to resolve isthe legacy of exchange controls and
the currency, which is reallythe final piece in the regime change.
But he has done somuch better than the pundits,
particularly the fake expertson Argentina like Joe Stiglitz,

(36:00):
predicted that we shouldall raise glass to Milei.
And be glad that he met with Elon Muskin Mar-a-Lago just after the election,
because the Departmentof Government Efficiency
needs to take a leaf out of Milei's book.
The chainsaw that Milei wielded did notjust metaphorically, but literally when he
was explaining what he was gonna do tothe bloated Argentine public sector.

(36:24):
He should lend Elon and Vivek.
We need that chainsaw in Washington D.C.>> John H Cochrane: Could I just add
quickly because I didn't do a good enoughjob on Milei, even if he's kicked out of
office tomorrow,think what we've just been through.
A libertarian can get electedpresident in Argentina and
he can stay in power with popular supportfor a clear program of lower taxes,

(36:47):
low inflation, low government spending,clean up the regulation, open the borders.
This is just remarkable, this is possible.
Nobody thought it waspossible in Argentina.
Nobody thinks it's possible in the US but
what happened in Argentina canhappen in the US, both good and bad.

>> Bill Whalen (37:04):
So since Sunil mentioned Mar-a-Lago, HR,
a question From Michael in Plymouth,Massachusetts, who asks.
I am confident that Donald Trump could notwalk into a typical American high school
classroom and lead an informed and
engaging lesson on the Declaration,Constitution and Bill of Rights.
He lacks the fundamental historicalknowledge and personal humility,
does that not matter?

>> H.R. McMaster (37:23):
Well, it didn't matter to the people who voted for, right?
So, I mean, hey,
who am I to question the Americanpeople who elected President Trump?
And a president doesn't need tobe an expert on all this, but
he does need to havebeen curious about it.
There's a great essay by Mark Helprinin the Claremont Review Books
years ago about presidential character.

(37:45):
And especially, kind of the president'sfamiliarity with obviously,
our founding documents, the Constitution,but also just how to get things done.
And so President Trump,on the positive side, I guess,
he has been president for four years.
What has he learned?
I think, he had to learn something.

(38:05):
Some people can be skeptical.
Hey, somebody that age,do they really learn?
Of course people learn.
And I hope what he's learned is whatit takes to get things done and
how important it is, for him to builda team that can work effectively together.
He was not a very good organizationalleader, I would say so,
not going back into January 6th.

(38:26):
And does he really understandhis Article 2, authorities and
the limitations associated with them andseparation of powers and so forth.
He needs people around him to help himwith that, like the Attorney General as
a critical person, [LAUGH] butthe checks on presidential power.
They're not gonna come from him,
either probably cuz he wantsto get it done himself.

(38:47):
They're gonna have to come from Article 1,and if necessary,
Article 3 of the Constitution andultimately the American people.
So, hey, Donald Trump can learn,he really can.
I hope what he's learned is how to bea more effective organizational leader.

>> Niall Ferguson (39:03):
I think we have ample evidence already that he has
learned a lot.
You couldn't think of a more starkcontrast between the way the transition
happened in late 2016 andthe way it's happening now.
It's been highly impressive,I think he's assembling an excellent team.
There is a program that isvery clearly spelt out.

(39:25):
I keep telling people there are 36 videoson Trump's campaign website that tell you
what this administration is gonna do.
You might as well watch them,so you're not surprised.
And I agree with just about all of it,ranging from a radical return
to peace through strength as our foreignpolicy, to a cleaning up of wokeism.

(39:48):
And the excesses of the radicalleft in our educational system,
to those parts of the economicprogram which I think are exciting and
about which, Scott Besant has beenspeaking in a very interesting way,
our future treasury secretary.
Now I know John is still verynervous about the tariffs.

(40:09):
But I wanna try and reassure you, John,
that the tariffs are a tool,they're an instrument, they're a lever.
And we should think of them as a wayin which Trump does geopolitics
more than as a simpleeconomic policy measure.
Sanctions have been a bustedflush on Joe Biden's watch.
But tariffs were a highly effectivetool against China in the first Trump

(40:32):
administration, forcing the Chineseto negotiate on trade, but
more importantly I think just dentingChina's economic performance.
If you look back to the first Trump term,what was it that slowed China down and
ended that catch up that the Chinesewere achieving relative to the US?
I would say the tariffs playeda pretty big part in that they really

(40:55):
have knocked the Chineseeconomy off course.
So I'm very bullish about this newadministration, I think there's lots of
evidence, HR, that he really has learnedfrom the experience of the first term.
And I'm optimistic that this is gonnabe one of the most consequential
administrations of our lifetime.

>> John H Cochrane (41:13):
I just wanna agree briefly with Naill, actually.
I mean I'm an economist,
so they'll take away my unioncard if I say tariffs aren't bad.
But [LAUGH] tariffs are actually the kindsof things proposed are relatively small
damage to the US economy comparedcertainly to an attack on price gouging,
nobody can have mergers anymore,$3 trillion down various rat holes.

>> H.R. McMaster (41:36):
Destroying the energy sector.

>> John H Cochrane (41:38):
Destroying the energy sector.
I mean all that stuff was marginaltax rates in the 90% department,
the cost of a tax is roughly proportionalto the square of the tax rate, so
5% tariffs is a whole lot worse.
So tariffs aren't great,there are gonna be worse things.
And you're right,you view it as a geopolitical tool,
not as an economic tool, geopoliticaltools cost money, so do missiles.

(42:01):
But I wanted to get backto the original question,
I think the framing of it reveals andHR's response reveals something important.
We do not elect a philosopher kingwho we want to have beautiful ideas,
and then he hands out edicts which eitherdo or don't conform to various ideas.
We elect a CEO and politician, andpolitician is a noble calling.

(42:26):
Go watch the Lincoln movie,
it always impressed me of gettingthings done in Washington.
And I don't wanna try trivialize it, but
as far as the Constitution, well wegot people who understand that stuff.
[LAUGH] But no, the president has torespect and understand the Constitution.
But he is putting togetheran effective team,
not getting destroyed by the bureaucracy,keeping an eye on the strategic

(42:48):
plan while meeting the firesyou have to put out every day.
Those are the talents that you need ina president, convincing people by good or
bad means to do what you want them to do,those are the talents in a president.
And yes, Trump is, from what you see froma distance, he's obviously learned a lot.

>> H.R. McMaster (43:05):
Just to offer one quick caveat here, though,
I am concerned about the continued,I would say,
across now the Biden administrationwith the Hunter Biden pardon, so forth.
This tendency to sort of usethe Department of Justice and
the appointees there, I think are cause,I mean, especially FBI, cause for

(43:25):
concern, and some of the otherappointments are causes for concern.
I think President Trump has appointedsome really serious, very capable people.
But some others [LAUGH] that he hasappointed I think will not help him
achieve what he wants to achievebecause of either the continued sort
of politicization ratherthan his intention.

(43:48):
I think what is to reverse thepoliticization it's a different kind of
politicization of the Justice Department.
But then also some of the nominee forDNI Tulsi Gabbard,
I think also not helpful froma foreign policy perspective.
So it's a mixed bag, we'll see whathappens with confirmations, but I just

(44:11):
don't wanna be all, I don't want us to betoo rosy in terms of what it looks like.
Although I am optimistic aboutthe economic policies and some
of the big shifts in direction that bothNiall and John, both you guys mentioned.

>> John H Cochrane (44:24):
Can I ask but don't get me wrong,
I also wanna say this is very important.
In the big picture, we need to rein inpresidential power, we need to not just
take the Justice Department anddo unto Biden what Biden did unto Trump.
We need to not just takethe regulatory regime and
subsidize these guys andnot subsidize those guys.
So the expansion and

(44:44):
Trump has been surprisingly clear abouta desire to expand presidential power.
And at some point we gotta put theseswords away and get back to checks and
balances and constitutional order andthat sort of thing.
So I did not wanna give the impressionthat I didn't think that was the major
problem that we face sooner or later.

>> Bill Whalen (45:03):
We have one last question that comes from Barrett in Chicago.
Barrett writes, quote, we have threesons in the 7 to 10-year-old range,
I'd like to instill a sense of Christianmorality, honor, and patriotism in them
that will help to set the foundation forthe rest of their lives.
What books would you recommend as theybegin to read more serious books,
Sir Naill?

>> Niall Ferguson (45:20):
The answer to that, and I speak as someone with two sons in the 7
to 12 range, as well as childrenwho are now rather older than that,
in their 20s, and in one case, 30.
Tolkien, first The Hobbit andthen The Lord of the Rings.
Now you'll find that surprising becauseof course Tolkien was an Englishman and

(45:46):
doesn't explicitly write aboutChristianity or nationalism.
But if one reads those books carefully,
one realizes that the messageis a universal one.
The hobbits in the Shire are the ordinarylittle guys who are confronted
by a threat from Mordor,which we know from Tolkien's letters

(46:09):
is essentially the Soviet Union orbroadly totalitarianism.
And those little guysdo their duty against
overwhelming odds inthe face of great evil.
And what's powerful about the books,both The Hobbit and
The Lord of the Rings, is what youlearn about personal courage and

(46:33):
morality from Bilbo andFrodo's experiences.
There is no better introduction tothose fundamentals of life that I know,
and it's not surprising really,because JRR Tolkien was one
of the great conservativethinkers of the 20th century.

(46:54):
I've often puzzled as to why people canwatch the movies based on the books and
not get the underlying message becauseto me it's very, very clear, and
all my children loved Tolkienwhen I read it to them.

>> Bill Whalen (47:08):
John, morality, honor, and patriotism.

>> John H Cochrane (47:11):
Well I'll just say two things, I was always a nonfiction type and
so I'm the type who read Roadto Serfdom in high school and
[LAUGH] I would go down that route.
But reading books at all.
So I've been shocked last weekfollowing some of my favorite people,
Julia Steinberg andChris Naden have been posting,

(47:33):
look them up if you're curious,undergraduates don't read books anymore.
People come into collegenever having read a book.
According to Julia, undergraduatesat Stanford are not required to read
whole books,just little excerpts here and there,
cuz all they've ever read is onelittle screen full of TikTok.

(47:54):
So just if you're in the habit ofreading anything in book length form and
have that.
The habit I had when I was young ofjust whatever was around, fortunately,
I grew up in a house full of books, soif I get bored, I just pick up a book and
read the whole book.
So that alone will send yourchildren off into a great new
world uninhabited by most of their peers,sadly.

>> Bill Whalen (48:17):
HR?

>> H.R. McMaster (48:18):
Hey, I would just say, to get to John's point,
anything that excitesthese young readers and
gets them enthralled with the book anda book that they can't wait to finish.
I'm a big fan of historical fiction forthat purpose because you can create
the dialogue,you can make the history compelling.
I'll just use one example,I mean, there are many, but I

(48:41):
think Shaara's Killer Angels, for example,on the Battle of Gettysburg, for example.
I mean, I think that could sparka tremendous interest in history and
military history, but also has a lotof lessons in terms of leadership and
resilience andseizing the initiative and so forth.
So yeah, I think anything thatgets a young reader enthralled and
has them to the point where they justdon't wanna put the book down and

(49:05):
then inculcates in them a desire to read.
So we start to break this kind of trendwhere young people aren't spending
enough time to finish a whole book andaren't able to concentrate.
This is the Jonathan Haidt pointon the distracted generation.

>> Bill Whalen (49:23):
None of you mentioned your own books.
Niall, at what age would you expose yoursons to the Niall Ferguson body of work?

>> Niall Ferguson (49:29):
Well, I think Empire is a book that can
certainly be read bya bright ten year old.
If they're intimidated by the book,possible to watch
a younger version of me talkit through on television,

(49:50):
because Empire was originallya six part television series.
But people's appetite for new clothes had and has no such limit.
So there are ways of gettingyounger readers into the kind of
nonfiction that John wastalking about there.
Thomas, our son, who's now 12,

(50:13):
has been following in your footsteps,John,
reading Hayek as well as Popper and Marx.
We found in his school bag recently,I'll make him blush by saying this on air,
the King James authorized version ofthe Bible and the Communist Manifesto,

(50:35):
and this was I think what we callopposition research on his part.
So you can get young kids toread difficult books if you just
make them understand thatlife is an intellectual
adventure as well asthe other kind of adventure.
And the sooner you start engagingwith the great thinkers, the better.

(51:00):
But for younger readers, seven,the wonderful thing about
Tolkien is that it's at somelevel a fantasy fairy tale, but
it contains such great messages that youcan start them really young on that.
Actually I read The Hobbit toThomas when he was two and
was amazed how much he enjoyed it.

>> Bill Whalen (51:21):
Very good, I'm told we have time for one more question, so
let's do it and let's make ita question about career advice.
This comes from Aaron in Palo Alto,who writes, quote,
I am a PhD candidate inhistory at Stanford and
I also hold political views that are quiteunwelcome in our illiberal academia.
Go figure that, Niall.
To try my hand at academia despite mycenter-right political worldview or
to try to find a different path,that's my dilemma.

(51:43):
What advice do the GoodFellows have for
a young scholar beginninga career in this environment?
What do you think you would do if youwere finishing up your degrees today?

>> Niall Ferguson (51:50):
Ten years ago, maybe even five years ago,
I'd have said don't even thinkabout an academic career.
I think things have changed.
I think what's exciting is thatthere are new institutions springing
up in the United States,predominantly in southern states that
are not captured by the progressivepolitical forces that have done so

(52:14):
much damage to ourestablished institutions.
I'm thinking not only of the Universityof Austin where I've been a founder, but
also the Hamilton Centre to name justone of a number of new institutions.
There are career paths opening up andI think that, to be honest with you,

(52:34):
the election of Donald Trumpon November 5th will give
a considerable tailwind tothe effort to depoliticize
academic andindeed educational life in America.
So I think one just has to recognizethat the career path may not lead you to
Harvard, Yale, Princeton, or forthat matter, Stanford, in the near future.

(52:59):
Career path may take you southwards,perhaps to Texas, perhaps to Florida, but
yeah, there are now paths which I don'tthink were really there ten years ago.

>> Bill Whalen (53:12):
And John, he writes as a historian,
does this also apply to economists?

>> John H Cochrane (53:16):
Yeah, so the career path is difficult these days.
In part, we're in a declining industry,
[LAUGH] sothere's just not that many jobs.
In part, my business has become much morecareerist, much more working through
the notches and doing things for showrather than really caring about the ideas.

(53:38):
So it's difficult, I have faith like Niallthat we are in moment of incipient reform,
but it's still incipient.
And right now, maybe five years from now,it'll be a great opening, but
right now is a very difficult time.
And these institutions,the new ones maybe are gonna do okay, but
the old ones are gonna be undera big turmoil of reform, hopefully.

(54:02):
I mean, if they're not,then they're just really dead.
But I do agree thereare other ways to do it.
I notice all the history books,I meant to put in a plug for
reading history cuz there was lots ofhistory books sitting around my house when
I was young, andthat's actually a great place to start,
thinking about how dopeople make decisions?

(54:23):
How are people's worldviewsdifferent from other things?
But there's still plenty of demand forhistory books, and all the reviews of
the interesting history books I read, theauthor is independent historian [LAUGH].
So you gotta love your work and not loveyour career and sort of saying career path
kinda says, well, I want to get assistantprofessor here and postdoc there and

(54:44):
published in this and published in that.
That's gonna be verydepressing these days.
But you have to find a way to love yourwork, and I think there's other ways,
other institutions thatallow you to do that.
Maybe the military still hires historianswho wanna know what dead white men did and
who won battles and why, which is whatpeople seem to want to read books about.

>> Bill Whalen (55:08):
HR, give me the last word.

>> H.R. McMaster (55:09):
Yeah, I would just say do good history and
base your history on archival research,and then who's gonna
take exception to it if your analysisis grounded in the evidence?
And I would say, when I was in graduateschool, and this of course [INAUDIBLE]
some time ago now in the 90s, butI had a really great experience.
And I know that members of my dissertationcommittee did not share, I mean,

(55:33):
nobody knew my political views,I was an active duty Army officer.
But it didn't really affect theirevaluation of the research and
the writing that I was doing on howwhy Vietnam became an American war.
One of my great members of mycommittee was Professor Michael Hunt,
who I'm sure had much different politicalviews than I did, but it didn't matter.

(55:55):
He was just a fantastic historian,a fantastic person,
and so I I hope that ouraudience member here teaches too.
Because I think we have to getback to teaching without trying to
get your students to buy intosome kind of crazy orthodoxy,

(56:17):
just teach history andhelp them ask the right questions.
And consider a broad range of views andinterpretations, and
that's what we should allbe doing in the academy.

>> John H Cochrane (56:28):
I also wanted to add, don't hide.
I've talked to quite a few historians,even at Stanford,
of secretly conservative,libertarian non woke views.
You have more friends than you think.
You need to form a club,
you need to form an associationdisrupt the past structures of power.

(56:48):
I'm not getting my wokeism right formthe Federalist Society of Historians,
get together, change things,rather than take this thing as given and
say, how can I fill out the DEIstatement so they don't know who I am?

>> Bill Whalen (57:03):
Okay, audience, thanks again for great questions and
gentlemen thank you for great answers.
And with that,let's move on to the lightning round.
[SOUND]>> Bill Whalen: Let's try to put a little
lightning into the lightning round andlet's do these as quickly as we can.
I have four questions,let's see if we can cover them all.
Question number one, President Bidenissues a full unconditional pardon to his

(57:24):
son Hunter, covering offenses he, quote,has committed or may have committed or
taken part in between January of 2014 andDecember of 2024.
2014, by the way, the year thatHunter Biden joined the board of
the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.
Do you guys agree ordisagree with the pardon?
And John, you blogged on thison the grumpy economist.
Why don't you go first?

>> John H Cochrane (57:41):
Well, I just said as long as he's going to pardon Hunter,
he might as well pardon Trump.
And I think that would have been a grandstatement of let's put this law fair
behind us and
try to encourage Trump not to just dounto others what they've done unto him.
The pardon itself how much moredo we have to say about this?
The fact of pardoning things that hewasn't even charged with leads to a grand

(58:04):
suspicion of just what does Biden knowabout what he actually did that he's
trying to cover up?
I mean, the stench of 10% forthe big guy is still out there.
And now Hunter doesn't have evenFifth Amendment protection against Tesla
testifying.
So I don't think it's gonna even stopthings as well as Just destroying one
last chance for legacy.

(58:25):
If you pardon Trump and said,we got to stop this legacy,
you go out with that smell in the air.

>> Bill Whalen (58:32):
HR. >> H.R. McMaster
I just worry more than anything elsewhether it's right or wrong or whatever.
Yeah, the lack of confidencein institutions and
the sapping of confidence in ourinstitutions as a result of this.
And especially in consideration ofthe degree to which President Biden and
his spokespeople had been soadamant about this isn't gonna happen.

(58:56):
So I just think that we're at a timenow where to strengthen our country,
we need to bolster our confidence in ourdemocratic institutions and processes.
And this is just kind of anotherbody blow to that confidence.
Niall, does this get any traction in the UK because it seems to me
your country has a lot goingon politically these days.

>> Niall Ferguson (59:15):
Yeah, a lot going on that somewhat
distracts people from the Biden pardon.
I'll simply say that if it'smorning in Donald Trump's America,
it's twilight in Keir Starmer's Britain,
where the most basic freedomsseem to be under threat,

(59:39):
the freedom of speech in particular.
But I think anybody paying attentionto American politics in the UK
right now has to be struck by the just,mind blowing hypocrisy of this decision.
If there were any shredsleft of Biden's reputation,

(59:59):
they were blown away by this decision.

>> John H Cochrane (01:00:02):
We have tit for tat, lawfare escalating.
Someone's got to stop it and this isjust one more tit in the tit for tat.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:00:11):
I really worry about, I mean,
look at countries that go through this,right?
So there's been news in South Korearecently about maybe martial law,
maybe not martial law.
That's in part because of the waythat they've weaponized justice.
When there's a change of governmentin South Korea, get your lawyer,
because they're gonna come after you.
I mean, so we don't want that,we can't have it,

(01:00:34):
and it's just destructive and, yeah.

>> John H Cochrane (01:00:37):
There's a huge reason we don't want it,
because if you lose an election andthat means you're criminally prosecuted,
you lose your business, your cronieslose their business, you go to jail.
You do everything in yourpower to not lose an election.
And democracy and freedom is aboutthe ability to lose an election.

>> Bill Whalen (01:00:55):
Okay, second question, gentlemen.
The latest of Syria's long runningcivil war has the rebel group
Hayat Tahir Al Sham seizingthe city of Aleppo,
which is Syria's second largest city.
Whom to root for in the struggle, Niall?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:01:06):
Well, certainly not for Al Assad,
whose monstrous regimehas inflicted almost
uncountable misery on the Syrian people.
Anybody who understandsthe Syrian Civil War in all its complexity
should get a PhD on the spot becausethere are factions within factions.

(01:01:31):
I think it's one of the wars in whichthere really are no good guys, or
at least precious few.
And the thing that's interestingto me about the recent development
is that it exposes the weakness ofthe Russian government's grand strategy.
Because part of that grand strategywas to become influential players in

(01:01:53):
the Middle East again for
the first time since they were runout of the region in the 1970s.
The Obama administrationallowed that to happen,
effectively let the Russians backinto the region at the time that
Obama decided not to intervenein the Syrian civil war and
to hand the problem of chemical weaponsto Moscow terrible series of decisions.

(01:02:17):
And now, with Putin entirelypreoccupied with Ukraine,
his Middle East strategy is unravelling.
The fall of Assad,which is to be devoutly to be hoped for,
will be part of a number ofevents that historians will
attribute to the election of Donald Trump.

(01:02:39):
It's as if the Trump presidency alreadykind of began because the German
government fell almost immediately.
There is pandemonium inFrench politics as we speak.
The South Korean president tried to gethimself out of his political fix by
declaring martial law, that failed evenas we were having this conversation.

(01:03:00):
You can feel the world shaking.
And I believe there will be more suchtremors, not only in the Middle East,
but elsewhere,even before inauguration day.
We live in historic times, andthe fall of Aleppo is just one of
the many historic events thatwill follow from November 5th.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:03:20):
I just say, hey, now it's time to press the advantage,
the Assad regime has been weak.
The Russian presence inSyria has been weak.
I think it's time for us to recognizethat this mantra that Niall was
highlighting earlier,of de escalation, right?
An escalation managementhas been self defeating.
I mean, look at what's happening,more broadly,

(01:03:41):
we talked about the degree to whichRussia is in a very difficult position,
even though Ukraine's ina difficult position too.
But also consider nowthe collapse of the Assad regime.
That could happen, it could happen,
I think pretty quickly they'renot getting Aleppo back.
The Russians are now bombing the Dzhankoi,

(01:04:02):
Crimea air base to destroysome of their equipment.
They're fleeing Damascus.
So I think, consider that in lightof what Israel's been able to
accomplish against Hamas andagainst, especially Hezbollah and
against Hezbollah in Syria, which was oneof the key proxies propping up Assad.
Now is the time to press the event.

(01:04:23):
Hey, by the way, too, I mean,Israel just flew squadrons of aircraft in
laps around Tehran and the Iranianscouldn't do a damn thing about it.
I mean,
what I think is that we forget the don'tpart of don't take counsel of our fears.
And when we can counter as we'reencountering this axis of aggressors,

(01:04:44):
we are in a position of relative strength.
That doesn't mean we should usemilitary power capriciously or so.
But we should stop this mantraof escalation management and
recognize that there'sa tremendous opportunity to seize
the initiative over thisaxis of aggressors.
And to begin to forge an outcomeconsistent with the interests

(01:05:10):
of the United States,Israel, our Gulf friends.
And so I just think now's the timeto do what we need to do,
not only from a military perspective butan economic perspective as well.
To take advantage of what I think isa really fundamentally shifting strategic
situation for the axis of aggressors.

(01:05:32):
I think it's beginning in Syria.

>> John H Cochrane (01:05:33):
I would just add ISIS versus Assad box on both your houses and
better than none other than wins.
I would add the immense sadness,
the hundreds of thousands who havedied in Syria while US protesters
on US college campuses seemto take no notice whatsoever.
And I mean->> H.R. McMaster: Assads killed

(01:05:54):
600,000 John, 600,000.
Thank you, I didn't wanna quote a number that was wrong,
600,000 chemical warfare attacks.
When Russia bombs, they don't dropleaflets or send text messages,
they just kill whoever's around,it's immensely sad.
It reinforces the increasing sense Iget of, sort of before an earthquake,

(01:06:17):
there's rumblings, there's little bitsof chaos all around the world that only
if you read the third and fourth pagesof the newspapers do you get a sense of.
While the US sleepsbetween administrations,
which is a very dangerous time.
Israel, I'm very curious about, andmaybe you guys have a comment on this,

(01:06:40):
why did they have a ceasefirerather than victory here?
It seems like a time when mow the grassis not a long run strategy cuz
we don't want Syria going on andon like this is not a good outcome.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:06:54):
Yeah, I'll just say quickly two things Niall,
I'd like to hear what you think about it.
First, the Israelis don't want to bemired in southern Lebanon perpetually,
they have gained clearlythe upper hand against Hezbollah.
And the main thing is this ceasefireallows them to take continued
military action against anyeffort on the part of Hezbollah

(01:07:15):
to reestablish infrastructurein southern Lebanon.
So it's a ceasefire, but
it is a ceasefire on termsfavorable to the Israelis.

>> John H Cochrane (01:07:27):
Why not destroy Hezbollah,
end Hezbollah as a political force inLebanon, have a Lebanon that doesn't have
a Hezbollah in it, that seems likea much better deal for Israel.
And I'm kind of withquestions about Syria,
but the same sort of thing is,do we really want a Syria divided
up between armed raises as opposedto something more coherent?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:07:46):
Well, John, Joe Biden is still president, and
the Biden administration hasbeen leaning pretty hard on
Prime Minister Netanyahu forceasefires for most of the last year.
I can understand why Mr.
Netanyahu decided to accept a ceasefirein Lebanon because the IDF had been
sustaining much more significantcasualties than in the war against Hamas.

(01:08:10):
There's no ceasefire with Iran though,and I think that's the important thing.
The ultimate objective of Mr.Netanyahu and his colleagues is to inflict
real damage on Iran's regime,including its nuclear program.
But he can't do that really with Americansupport until Donald Trump is president,
that I think is the keybackground to this decision.

>> Bill Whalen (01:08:31):
One last question, let's see how quick we can make this,
I'm dipping back in the mailbag.
Peter in Western Australia wrote, if youcould have any guest on GoodFellows (alive
or dead), who would it be and what why?
And Michael in Plymouth,Massachusetts Road,
who would the GoodFellows'fanboy guest be?
I'm gonna guess Niallwould choose John Cleese.
HR, why don't you go first?

>> H.R. McMaster (01:08:50):
[LAUGH] Okay, so I would, and I'm gonna grab a photo here.
This is one of the guys,one of my heroes and
I stayed in contact with him acrossmany years and I'm an Eagles fan.
This is Chuck Bednarik, concrete Chuckone of the toughest guys I think,
ever to play the sport.
He had been a navigator or a bombardier,I can't remember which in World War II.

(01:09:15):
He went to the University of Pennsylvaniaand then he played both ways his entire
career, I don't think hereally missed a game.
I mean, he was a center and a middlelinebacker, and I got to meet him when I
was in fourth or fifth grade and stayedin contact with him until he passed away.
But yeah, I'd love to haveChuck Bednarik on GoodFellows.

>> Bill Whalen (01:09:35):
Who did he play for in the NFL?

>> H.R. McMaster (01:09:37):
The Eagles, the Eagles, of course.
He's the guy who kinda famously endedFrank Gifford's career with that
monster hit.

>> Bill Whalen (01:09:44):
Yes.

>> H.R. McMaster (01:09:44):
In the playoff game, 1960.

>> Bill Whalen (01:09:48):
Okay, John, pick a guest, any guest.

>> John H Cochrane (01:09:51):
Dead or alive?

>> Bill Whalen (01:09:52):
Yeah.

>> John H Cochrane (01:09:53):
I have this continuing fantasy I would love to bring back one
of the founding fathers,maybe Adams, maybe Franklin,
and say, look at what happened here.
And then also just to listen to thingsthat they would be amazed by and
the things that theywould be horrified by.
[LAUGH]>> H.R. McMaster: Hey, Franklin,

(01:10:14):
also a Philadelphian, yeah,he'd be kinda throws out my list also.

>> Bill Whalen (01:10:18):
Keep looking.
Okay, Niall, is it John Cleese oryou have another choice?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:10:23):
Well, I met John Cleese and
admire him as one of the great comedians.
But if I had unlimited choice,including the deceased,
David Hume would be my favorite guest.
Hume was, of course, one of the greatphilosophers of the Scottish enlightenment
of the entire enlightenment, buthe was also a great historian.

(01:10:45):
And I've been reading his extraordinarilygood history of England, which is
as funny as rich in irony as Gibbonsdecline the fall of the Roman Empire.
And it reminds me what a fun guy Hume was.
He was a famous bon viveur, a glutton whoenjoyed all the pleasures of the table.

(01:11:08):
I sense that David Hume would bea tremendous addition to the GoodFellows
lineup, but I only wish we couldsomehow bring him back, if only for
an hour, from whicheverparadise he currently inhabits.

>> Bill Whalen (01:11:22):
Wouldn't it be fun to put Hume in one corner and Chuck Bednarik and
the other and a couple foundingfathers on the screen and
have the four of them go at it foran hour?

>> Niall Ferguson (01:11:28):
The mind boggles, it would be quite a festive meal,
wouldn't it, to have them all?

>> Bill Whalen (01:11:34):
And let's end on that festive note gentlemen, thank you for
a great conversation today.
A viewer's note,
we'll have one more installment withGoodFellows before the year ends.
We're recording just before Christmas,we'll drop right before the holiday.
Our guest is gonna be Kim Strassel,she is a Potomac Watch columnist for
the Wall Street Journal, soyou don't wanna miss that.
So again, look forthat shortly before Christmas.
On behalf of the GoodFellows, NiallFerguson, HR McMaster, John Cochrane,

(01:11:57):
all of us here at the Hoover Institution,we hope you enjoyed the show.
We thank you foryour continued patronage, and
we look forward to seeingyou again very soon.
Till then, take care, thanks for watching.
[MUSIC]