Episode 114 · 2021-12-23 · 39:29 · Original in Finnish
The Great Reset 2.0 | Tuomas Malinen | Negotiator 114
Originally published as “The Great Reset 2.0 | Tuomas Malinen | Neuvottelija 114”
A sequel to the previous year's episode, watched more than a hundred and twenty thousand times, in which Tuomas Malinen goes back over which of his forecasts came true. The frame is the same: Acemoglu and Robinson's narrow corridor, in which democracy emerges from a balance between a despotic state and civil society. The carrying argument is constitutional rather than medical — if a level can be placed above the constitution by decree, on which the population is then sorted, Malinen's view is that it will be used again in another context. The host says openly that he changed his own position two weeks earlier and sets out where he disagrees with his guest.
Core theses
- The argument is about constitutional precedent rather than about any health measure, and conflating the two is what most of the surrounding debate did.
- Returning to score last year's forecasts is the episode's most defensible move, whatever one makes of the forecasts.
- The narrow corridor framing predicts that the danger is an imbalance in either direction, which is a stronger claim than the one usually attributed to it.
- The host disagreeing with the guest on air, and saying when he changed his own mind, is what keeps this from being a platform.
Watch and listen
Summary
A sequel to the previous year’s episode, watched more than a hundred and twenty thousand times, in which Tuomas Malinen goes back over which of his forecasts came true. The frame is the same: Acemoglu and Robinson’s narrow corridor, in which democracy emerges from a balance between a despotic state and civil society. The carrying argument is constitutional rather than medical — if a level can be placed above the constitution by decree, on which the population is then sorted, Malinen’s view is that it will be used again in another context. The host says openly that he changed his own position two weeks earlier and sets out where he disagrees with his guest.
Constitutional, not medical
The distinction Malinen insists on is the one worth holding onto while reading: his case is not about whether a measure worked but about what it establishes as available. A precedent for placing something above constitutional rights by decree, he argues, does not stay confined to the emergency that produced it.
Scoring the previous forecast
The episode opens by going back to what was predicted a year earlier and marking which of it happened. That is the right structure for a follow-up and a rarer one than it should be, whatever the verdict on the individual calls.
The disagreement stays in
The host had changed his own position two weeks before recording and says so, then states where he parts company with his guest. On a subject this contested that is the difference between an interview and a platform, and it is why the episode remains readable.
Watch
The recording lives on the Neuvottelija channel: The Great Reset 2.0 | Tuomas Malinen | Neuvottelija 114. A Finnish edition of this episode is published at www.neuvottelija.fi.
In depth
The Neuvottelija AI editions carry a long-form write-up of this episode: English · suomeksi.
Go deeper
Explore the ideas in depth
Guides connected to this conversation, with frameworks and further reading.
Negotiation Strategy, Leverage and Power: Reading the Counterparty You Actually Have
A negotiation guide from the co-author of Neuvotteluvalta — the sources of leverage, BATNA and anchoring in practice, using information asymmetry, breaking deadlocks, and what to do when the counterparty negotiates on power rather than consensus. Grounded in Neuvottelija conversations and two decades of negotiation writing.
People and topics
Guests: Tuomas Malinen
Topics: Free Speech & Society Geopolitics