220 Comments
User's avatar
Sea Sentry's avatar

I’ve listened to Sachs for decades. He’s been wrong about virtually everything, but he sure seems to crave attention. American history is full of inconsequential pundits of which Sachs is one more. His unhinged emotional rants in this interview do not meet the standards that subscribers expect from Racket. Is Emily next going to interview Meaghan Markle, or perhaps the new Ayatollah Jr.?

MH's avatar

Honestly, that was a tough read. All Sachs did was basically defend Iran by bashing Trump & Bessent. I would not personally qualify Sachs as an intelligent interviewee with any deep insight. Way to much name calling. I bet Obama loves him though.

badnabor's avatar

Sachs, to put it clearly, is full of s**t. He has the nerve to keep referencing that the Omani's statement, of reaching a good point in the talks, as though that is meaningful. Sure, because Iran is such a stellar history of acting according to their promises. Give us a break. His hero, Obama, used that "logic", and I guess if you overlook the continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, state sponsored terrorism and the call for death to Israel and Americans, the "logic" worked. It didn't work for us, but it certainly worked for Iran. I don't know if the current action will work either, but Sach's commentary is every bit as delusional as his characterization of Trump.

Ken Kunda's avatar

When supposedly smart people digress to name calling it's because they have no real argument. I could only stomach only about a third of his rant.

Art's avatar

Sachs may have made some valid points in the interview, but so much of his invective does indeed sound unhinged and hyperemotional. For that reason he fails at persuasion.

Clever Pseudonym's avatar

Sachs is one of those Jews who makes his living by denouncing Israel and supporting the world's Jew haters. His brain rotted from bile decades ago.

Mad Dog's avatar

I think you have the best comment on this. I see several of Sachs's statements that I agree with and quite a few more I disagree with, but he's so strident and obnoxious that he polarizes me to the opposite extreme of whatever he happens to be saying at the moment.

Doctor Mist's avatar

Emily was awfully friendly considering that he never even let her finish half of her questions.

michael Griffin's avatar

I’m not understanding that attitude either. I’m all for having different views platformed but ask some tough questions

Dims Stink's avatar

Sorry, but Jeffrey Sachs can't be dismissed that easily.

He's been right on many things. He had much to do with stabilizing the economies of Eastern Europe after 1989 -- to the point they function better than Western Europe. And he wanted to do the same for Russia, but was prevented by the Clinton Administration.

Disagree with him if you want. But he's no Paul Krugman.

Sea Sentry's avatar

That was definitely the zenith of his career as I remember it, or at least as he tells it.

SUZ's avatar

He must be quite old then

Stop Being Lied To's avatar

Krugman...aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahhawhatamaroon

Steve's avatar

Ditto. "Jeffrey Sachs: It’s not responsible for so many atrocities, first of all. It doesn’t want nuclear weapons, and it signed an agreement to have strict supervision over its nuclear program with the International Atomic Energy Agency." Getting foreign policy right means looking at different views, but when it's foolish, we have to call it foolish. Sachs is eloquent, but he takes foolish to an exceptional level.

SUZ's avatar

So so difficult to read.

Not remotely serious or curious or capable of independent thought.

"Thugs" but only on one side

Rick Hodge's avatar

Wrong about what exactly?

reality speaks's avatar

He has claimed many times that Iran doesn’t want a nuclear weapon yet all evidence is to the contrary and if Iran didn’t want to have one they sure aren’t acting like that.

Rick Hodge's avatar

what evidence? The former Ayotollah had preached against the development of nuclear weapons for decades and the IAEA inspectors have never found evidence of a nuclear weapon in Iran. You can say at best that Iran has the capability to make one but we have no idea how long that would take. The Omani's were also absolutely correct in reporting that the Iranians had capitulated to every demand of the US government negotiators. They just want the sanctions lifted and to retain their sovereignty. Feel free to find some evidence and prove me wrong but Netanyahu has been making the claim that Iran was developing a nuclear weapon for 40 years and evidence has never been presented.

reality speaks's avatar

There is only one thing that I believe. No one is telling the truth everyone is lying So if Iran doesn’t want the nuclear weapon why did they do all the building their nuclear sites deep underground? The whole Middle East culture is built upon lying so there is nothing you can trust from anyone including your mother.

Rick Hodge's avatar

you listened to him for decades even though he was wrong about everything? That makes no sense.

Alison Cipriani's avatar

Yes, I knew that once Walter left Racket would turn to the Israel/Jew hatred which Matt was having a hard time avoiding. Sachs is a tool of the CCP which is what this war is really about. Not US or Israeli domination of the MIddle East but keeping the balance from tilting towards China. But you know, we Jews are really good at ruling the world. All 15 million of us.

Gary Edwards's avatar

I'd feel bad for Matt, but I believe he shot himself in the foot.

Sandra Slivka's avatar

Getting close to canceling racket.

Frances Taylor's avatar

I already did. I have the annual sub which I already paid for in November but I removed the renewal. The whole reason I signed up for Racket was bc I loved the dynamic between Walter and Matt.

I loved that Walter was like me, an ex-progressive/socialist that became MAGA. And I liked that Matt would disagree with him and make Walter explain his views.

Plus, Walter’s vision in looking at everything as a narrative was super helpful. He definitely made interesting points about the shadows on the cave. His analysis was unique amongst all pundits. I really miss it.

And their book club was excellent. Reminded me of being in literature class again.

Truly sad to see all these things end.

I really like Bridget Phetasy who’s a writer/comedian that is also ex-lefty gone MAGA. There’s very few like that in the influencer sphere and I’m sad that she’s now the only one after Racket changed.

Alison Cipriani's avatar

Agree, I was also a huge fan of the Walter Matt discussions. I find few people interested in deep dives these days - I now live far from my remaining fellow discussers or they're dead (I'm old) so they fed me what I needed. Homeless now but will continue and give Matt a chance to see what he can build.

Glitterpuppy's avatar

I feel that something is missing. Could it be Walter? Maybe.

Tom Sparks's avatar

ATW was unique in our current world. Start with the fact that you have two extremely educated, articulate and erudite speakers. They are both somewhat younger than me but still speak in terms and of things with which I can relate versus the current Newspeak. Add to that the respectful tension between the two. I really like Matt personally, or as personally as one can given we’ve never met. I like his classic liberal values even though he is to my left. But what I really enjoyed was Walter forcing him to realize that the cherished world in which he once lived is long dead and gone. I can see it in Matt’s eyes and face when he is trying to view the subject at hand through the lens of his past world but just can’t.

I was very much looking forward to how Matt would handle having the scales fall from his eyes. Doesn’t look like it’s going to happen now.

Stop Being Lied To's avatar

Of course, you needn't miss Walter. He's a regular with Megyn Kelly now

Dims Stink's avatar

Because you're world view isn't being constantly reinforced?

That's Dim stuff.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Great point. The invective thrown Matt's way since the changes seems to be mostly centered on readers not being stroked enough on their pet issues.

And for how long have commenters been taking Racket to task for not enough Israel/Gaza discussion? Ok, here's some. But it's the wrong flavor for some!

Dims Stink's avatar

"Wrong flavor" is exactly the problem.

I don't agree with everything here. But Taibbi has shown he's trying to be an honest umpire.

Isn't the NY Times, NBC and Fox being dishonest and selling a flavor being what people wanted to escape?

michael Griffin's avatar

Two things. One is. When do we even see content from Matt anymore. Secondly Sachs has the same NYTimes account of reality. I’m all for giving alternative views of platform, but ask some hard questions. It reminds me of Tucker interviewing Fuentes and never bringing up some of his obviously crazy comments and making him explain them.

Anthony's avatar

care to provide any examples of anyone on Racket engaging in "Jew hatred" or is disagreeing with an aggressive war now tantamount to anti semitism? I am also Jewish. People like yourself do not speak for all 15 million of us so do not presume ot.

Alison Cipriani's avatar

If Sachs is one of the first interviews it's clear the direction of things but I'm not going anywhere. Yet.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

Oh, the direction is clear? Is that it?

When people respond to criticism by claiming victim status, it's not an attractive sight. Someone who disagrees with you, and your first response is "Jew hatred??" C'mon.

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

I would never paint an entire group of people with one brush, because I'm quite sure most Jews don't have this difficulty, but there are plenty who refuse to abandon their victimhood status.

Adam's avatar

This war is all about China? That’s not your idea you just heard that from clueless sycophant and your own confirmation bias made it true in your simple mind. Then you brainlessly parroted it.

Alison Cipriani's avatar

There is currently a struggle going on between China and to some extent Russia and the US. China has been using economic help to woo third world countries Russia uses Arab terrorists (or they both do - or everybody does) either way, there is now a big struggle over Iran which has huge quantities of oil that has been helping China since the fall of Venezuela (which is also part of the global struggle). There are many moving parts to all this but it's not, as Sachs would like us to believe a power play by Israel and Trump.

michael Griffin's avatar

I agree with you, Alison there’s definitely a China thread and all of this. It goes with Venezuela as well. China is very dependent on Iranian and Venezuela cheap oil Russia as well not only that but the attack and Venezuela remove China from our hemisphere.

Adam's avatar

You are clueless. Go support the war and be blamed for it when the Government of Isreal drop a nuke on Iran.

michael Griffin's avatar

Really? That’s an absurd statement

Larrd's avatar

" I get the sense that Trump never thinks about anything very much. "

I get the sense Jeffrey Sachs is an idiot.

Sandra Levy's avatar

That’s as far as I got. Nothing after that can be trusted.

Robert's avatar

As soon as I saw he was a Columbia University Prof, I started tuning out...

Was pretty much what I expected.

Orange man bad, etc.

Larrd's avatar

Me too. It's such a stupid assumption at this point. The guy has won two presidential elections, if nothing else.

MH's avatar

I stopped reading as well.

Glitterpuppy's avatar

I also noted that Emily claimed that Bessent “ boasted”. I cut it off when I see that type of bias

MG's avatar

Sachs and Greenwald have a hatred for Israel.

Frances Taylor's avatar

Yah… there’s a lot of people terminally online that have Israel Derangement Syndrome. Just because it benefits Israel, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t benefit Americans and the world in general. They can’t consider the possibility that maybe this whole thing might be a good thing.

Getting rid of Islamic Marxism in the Middle East is a huge benefit in my book. I’m also very glad to see Venezuela and Cuba being freed from crap communism too.

How people can be against removing the subjugation endured by these people is beyond me.

Clever Pseudonym's avatar

that's an understatement

Sally Newland's avatar

Common invective. Common geopolitical responses based on opinions and how he views history. He would be better received if he hadn't told us that the President and the SOW were idiots, basically.

Pscheff's avatar

Yes of course why didn't we think of going to the UN. It's done so many great things and seeks truth and righteous. Thats all we had to do...its as simple as Jeffery says!

Glen Vinet's avatar

So, we lose Walter but get a long form interview with Sachs? I’m trying to give Racket a chance to show some relevance and value, but it is losing me. I want Racket to be my primary go to independent news source, but I am not seeing it. Very frustrated.

Robert's avatar

Agree. Same here.

Current Resident's avatar

This was the final straw. I'm out.

Glen Vinet's avatar

I’m definitely shopping. I’d like a place to land before departing, but this is only getting worse. I’m shocked at how tin eared Racket is. Sachs? Who is next? Dan Rather?

eduquest's avatar

"I want Racket to be my primary go to independent news source, but I am not seeing it. Very frustrated."

THIS!!!

Northland's avatar

Interesting that Sachs didn't mention the slaughter of Iranian protesters in January by the theocratic dictatorship.

Robert's avatar

Doesn't fit the narrative.

MH's avatar

Funny how that is, right?

Frances Taylor's avatar

Say it louder! It’s crazy how left wingers say they hate tyranny but don’t care when someone they perceive as an “oppressed” does some oppression of their own subjects. As if it’s justified to kill people just because they’re protesting hyperinflation. Madness. The left are so fake. It’s why I left the left back in 2020.

TBag's avatar

Iran wants negotiations. They don’t want nukes. It’s against their law. How do I know? They told me so.

MH's avatar

Lol. That was the funniest part. Sachs actually believes the Iran govt wants to play nice. I mean how naive or just plain stupid can on be???

Brian's avatar

Sachs has very little credibility on any issue. BTW, if DC does have "designs" on Iran regime change-or much more likely, destroying any capability Iran has to fund terrorism globally, not to mention building offensive capability enough to destroy Israel (as they admit in their own words) and supporting people who try terror here, it is precisely what they deserve and we are the only one that can do that. When MAGA and the left both say let's stay out of foreign wars-I agree-and do not support boots on ground-wars that have no impact on the US should be avoided. That is not this. I don't care if Pakistan and India fight, because that will never affect us. Iran impacts us and our allies every single day. That IS America first.

Dims Stink's avatar

I'll say it again. Jeffrey Sachs can't be dismissed that easily.

He's been right on many things. He had much to do with stabilizing the economies of Eastern Europe after 1989 -- to the point they function better than Western Europe. And he wanted to do the same for Russia, but was prevented by the Clinton Administration.

Disagree with him if you want. But he's no Paul Krugman.

CuriousGeorge's avatar

"He was right 37 years ago" is not the endorsement you think it is. If you have to go back that far to find something he was right about you've lost the argument

Lawyers Guns & Money's avatar

There's a BBQ place in Murphysboro, Illinois that still has their signs up pronouncing their World Championship barbecue....in 1991.

Dims Stink's avatar

Which is one more world championship than most BBQ restaurants have got. 😂

Dims Stink's avatar

The argument was he has no credibility on any issue.

And since you just admitted he did 37 years ago, I won the argument. Thanks!

And he was right about something very important. Tell me what you and Brian have that compares. 😂

Glitterpuppy's avatar

I find him lacking . His bias can be cut with a chain saw

Dims Stink's avatar

Can you be specific?

Otherwise your post is like a NY Times column. Petty personal prejudice.

Glitterpuppy's avatar

I find him biased. Based on his words. Not too hard?

Dims Stink's avatar

Specifically which words?

Can you site some?

Not too hard?

🙃

Shawn Spilman's avatar

You don't much like the war in Iran? You would prefer for the Iranians to detonate nuclear bombs in Tel Aviv, Washington, and NYC, killing tens of millions? They have said, many times, they will do precisely that just as soon as they can.

Adam's avatar

Utter clueless Boomer take. Boomers believed every war lie in the Middle East and then when the lies are exposed they just cravenly go on about their lives. Can't wait until they are all dead and no one has to hear their brainless takes on politics and Foreign Policy.

Frances Taylor's avatar

I agree. Why do we want to ignore a country that states “death to America.” Like why can’t we take them seriously?

Adam's avatar

I would bet you your house that Isreal is the one who drops a nuke in the Middle East. We are getting closer to that every day and cretins like you who parrot War Lies will be partly to blame.

Clever Pseudonym's avatar

That's foolish, Israel has no need to nuke anyone when it has so many better tools at its disposal. Nukes would be a very last resort that we're nowhere near contemplating.

Adam's avatar

We're? Speaking for the Government of Isreal are you? All they have is everything we gave them and when we hopefully abandon them they will be fucked.

Clever Pseudonym's avatar

I didn't say "we're" as in I'm an Israel spokesman, I meant it in re the seriousness of the situation.

Your Jew hate is warping your reading skills.

Adam's avatar

Dumb Fuck.

Adam's avatar

Wrong again, at least you are consistent about being wrong about everything. I don't hate Jews I hate the control the State and Government of Isreal and its lobby have over MY Government. Go Fuck Yourself.

Glitterpuppy's avatar

Oh, I’m sure they didn’t mean it….

NewtmeisterzK's avatar

Matt, I can appreciate hearing both sides of a story, but this interview appears to be much more than that. More like One Step Over the Line.....I've been watching closely since your separation from Walter Kirn, and new hires for a new direction.....I am very close to cancelling the Subscription as I feel many others are,,,prove me wrong,,and show both sides of this story,,,Irans state sponsership of terror for 47 years, Irans build up of Nuclear fissile materials, Iran's huge investment in Ballistic Missile technology, Irans crackdown on speech, and Irans slaughter of its own people,,,,tell that story as well as a pro Palestine Columbia perspective...

Robert's avatar

Same. Not looking for an echo chamber, which Matt has never been. However this piece by Emily (I'm not going to call it an 'interview') was basically a Trump/Hegseth/USA bad/stupid/evil.

I can get that from mainstream media. Instead they've chosen to go to a hotbed of activism, Columbia University, to air a professor's views which aren't particularly thoughtful.

Gary Edwards's avatar

I'm glad others are starting to speak up.

Robert's avatar

"They were wanting, above all, negotiations. They were repeatedly insisting we do not want nuclear weapons. It’s against the religious orders, and it is not what we want."

Can someone reconcile this statement with their actions of uranium enrichment? Or is Sachs just a naive idiot?

Hillary's avatar
1hEdited

I'd love to see these 'religious orders' that prohibit annihilation of civilians specifically using nuclear weapons. Clearly their religion doesn't prohibit killing thousands of their own countrymen and women. In fact, don't their religious orders suggest the elimination of infidels worldwide?

Dave Osborne's avatar

Why Matt? What a major letdown. Sachs and Anthony Blinken. 2 peas in a pod.

Gary Edwards's avatar

And people say they don't see Racket's leftist veer.

Jan Vroman/Fawn Little's avatar

Sachs is a partisan hack. How's that for using a cliche? He's always been a partisan hack, and he always will be one. He hates Donald Trump. He thinks with the one brain shared by the globalist, communist, and activist monotrons who robotically follow tried and failed geopolitical strategies common in Britian and the EU. He pretends that world leaders listen to him and confide in him. He's a joke. Why anyone would want to elevate his voice is beyond me. What a waste of time and effort, Emily. You are smarter than this.

MH's avatar

Couldn't agree more. This interview, imo, was a complete waste of time.

Hillary's avatar

But I don't think she is...and that's troubling, right?

Mark Kennedy's avatar

So Sachs' explanation for why Trump, Netanyahu, Hegseth, and anybody else with decision-making responsibility in Washington and Israel may be failing to see things his way on this issue is that they're all either narcissists, idiots, unhinged and/or delusional? Swell! That clears that up! This is analysis?

James Schwartz's avatar

Jeffery Sachs now? Cmon Matt. This guy has been a clown for decades and a Monday morning QB on every topic. He was at the table of course an NONE of his ideas were the ones the US used. That should tell you all you need to know about this guy. Do better.

Robert's avatar

Is this the type of 'journalism' we can expect going forward?

"And I think regardless of what you think about his psychological state, it’s clear that he’s on a sugar high from the decapitation strikes in Venezuela, some of the cartel leaders in Mexico."