Policy Punchline

Matthew Yglesias is a leading policy blogger and journalist, and has long pioneered what political media looks like on the internet. He has written about politics and public policy for a wide array of publications, including the American Prospect, the Atlantic, the Center for American Progress, and Slate. In 2014, Matt co-founded Vox with Ezra Klein and Melissa Bell, where he served as a senior correspondent. He left Vox in 2020 to start his own Substack, Slow Boring. Yglesias also released his third book in 2020, titled One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger. More recently, Matt just launched his new podcast, ‘Bad Takes,' which seeks to challenge extremely online political opinions. In our conversation, we seek to zoom out from the thrall of internet politics and look at Yglesias' role in the current political media landscape. How does Matt use Twitter, and what does he think of its role in democratic discourse? What is the future of political media? What does the emergence of individualized media outlets, like Substack, suggest for that future? We transition briefly to some of the ideas that have arisen from our current political media landscape. In particular, how ‘real' is the push for supply-side liberalism and the Abundance Agenda? Are online political pundits, bloggers, and analysts as responsible for its advent as it might seem? Finally, we ask Matt—a former college student—for his suggestions to current college students. How should they spend their time in school? And what careers should they look at afterward?

(Disclaimer: This episode was originally recorded in July 2021.) Dr. Tiffany Vora is an educator, researcher, and entrepreneur who is the chair of medicine and digital biology at Singularity University. She does a huge amount of work in science communication, advising startup founders, and science writing. She studied molecular biology and chemistry at NYU and a PhD from Princeton. In “Science Communication in the Post-COVID era”, we talk about the pace of change in science communication. Given the timing of the interview, we also discuss in detail how the pandemic and being in the virtual/digital space has changed science communication. Dr. Vora believes that many brilliant scientific minds haven't been trained in science communication, and that there is potential for so much progress in science communication if the gap between knowledge creation and distribution is bridged. Similarly, there is a lot of misinformation out there, and deciding which sources to trustworthy and getting the public to trust them can also be a challenge, especially when a lot of science has inherent uncertainty. On the education front, Dr. Vora has worked a lot with women and people of color. She believes that in every child there is a scientist and engineer, building and breaking things, asking questions, that the traditional educational system beats out of them and extinguishes their spark of curiosity. Finding a balance between ‘experiential learning', which Dr. Vora believes can happen in a classroom, too, has a fundamentally different purpose than, say, watching Khan Academy for ‘knowledge acquisition'. Coming out of the pandemic, she hopes many hybrid models will start to embrace both types of learning. And it's not as if scientific learning for children is gated by high barriers to entry like cost. She gives an example of a cheap microscope or Google Cardboard. While they might not be cutting-edge technology, they work and fulfill their role of instilling a sense of curiosity and excitement. We hope you enjoy listening to an episode on how similarities like those found between Minecraft and CAD are the ones we need to take the most advantage of to inspire future generations of scientists and engineers, and the future of science communication in the post-pandemic era.

Dr. Ethan Nadelmann is one of the foremost experts on drug policy in the US and the world. Originally from New York City, he received his BA, JD, and PhD from Harvard, then his master's degree in international relations from the London School of Economics. After teaching politics and public affairs at Princeton University from 1987 to 1994, he went on to found and direct the Lindesmith Center and the Drug Policy Alliance, and through them, has advocated for drug policy reform for almost thirty years. From pushing for marijuana legalization to fighting against the War on Drugs and policies like civil asset forfeiture, his work has impacted countless people both in the US and around the world. Today, he's also the co-host of the boundary-pushing podcast PSYCHOACTIVE. In this interview, Ryan and Eliot talk to Dr. Nadelmann about lessons he's learned from his career, possible solutions to current drug issues, and much more.

Professor Christakis is the Sterling Professor of Natural and Social Science at Yale University. His research is focused on understanding social networks through their biological and evolutionary determinants, which encompasses studying a broad range of topics from epidemiology and contagion to human behavior and psychology. Professor Christakis has been recognized for his contributions to the field of sociology, was named a member of the Time 100, and has published many articles and several renowned books relating to epidemiology and evolutionary genetics. In addition to his research, Professor Christakis has practiced medicine in the field of palliative care for many years and continues to advocate for academic freedom and free speech on college campuses. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host: Neal Reddy Editor: Marko Petrovic

Lord Mervyn King is a professor of economics and law at the NYU Stern School of Business and the School of Law, and the former governor of the Bank of England. He served as Governor of the Bank of England and Chairman of its Monetary Policy Committee from 2003 to 2013. Lord King was knighted (GBE) in 2011, made a life peer in 2013, and appointed by the Queen a Knight of the Garter in 2014. Lord King's most recent book, Radical Uncertainty, co-authored with John Kay, examines rationality, decision making under uncertainty, and the flaws with modern economic thinking. The book offers a powerful critique of the current state of economic scholarship and policymaking, arguing that the field of economics has developed an overreliance on fundamentally flawed models as well as misconceptions about risk and uncertainty. In this episode, we discuss Radical Uncertainty, touching on Lord King's motivations in writing the book, its core ideas, and the implications of his critique on the future of economic policymaking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Host: Sam Lee Editor: Marko Petrovic

Gregory Zuckerman is a nonfiction author and special writer at The Wall Street Journal. Before joining the Journal, Zuckerman was managing editor of Mergers and Acquisitions Reports, a trade publication of Investment Dealers' Digest, and the New York Post as a media reporter. At the Journal, Zuckerman is an investigative reporter covering business and investing topics. He is a three-time winner of the Gerald Loeb Award, the highest honor in business journalism. He regularly appears on CNBC, Fox News, Yahoo Finance, Bloomberg Television, and more. Zuckerman's works include The Man Who Solved the Market: How Jim Simons Launched the Quant Revolution, The Frackers: The Outrageous Inside Story of the New Billionaire Wildcatters, and his latest book, A Shot to Save the World: The Inside Story of the Life-or-Death Race for a COVID-19 Vaccine, covering mRNA vaccine development. A Shot to Save the World was longlisted for the Financial Times/McKinsey Business Book of the Year Award. In this episode, we hit a wide range of topics, starting with how Mr. Zuckerman wrote his book, and his experiences with the characters he writes about. We then discuss public policy and financing, and how the vaccine development process can be critiqued and updated. Finally, we talk about societal perception of science, and how it should change in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccine development process. ———————————————————————————————————————————————————————————— Hosts: Sullivan Meyer and Neal Reddy Design: Ryan Vuono Editor: Marko Petrovic

Professor Sandro Galea is a physician and epidemiologist who is dean and Robert A. Knox Professor at Boston University School of Public Health. His research is centered on the social factors that influence health and trauma, and his work is highly cited in the field of public health. Some of his most notable work relates to the ramifications of mass trauma after natural disasters and catastrophes, which his latest book, The Contagion Next Time addresses as it confronts the pivotal moment of the COVID-19 pandemic. In this interview, we start by discussing the concept of health itself. What qualifies as health? Are we too limited in our effort to make society healthier? We then move to Professor Galea's scientific and moral critiques of public policy actions that according to him impact health negatively, from budgetary decisions to international relations. Despite Professor Galea's critiques of public health policy, we end the interview on an optimistic note— Professor Galea observes that we are in an unprecedented position in history with regards to the medicine and wealth of our society, and with such tools in disposal, it is important to steer clear of pessimism.

This interview marks my last interview as the host of Policy Punchline. I will soon release another recording giving you an update about Policy Punchline's future, but for now I just want to present to you the following conversation with Prema Gauranga Das. Over the last three years with Policy Punchline, I've interviewed more than 150 guests, mostly public intellectuals, policy makers, journalists, investors… but this is my only interview with a monk – a Hindu monk. Premji has been a resident monk at Sri Sri Radha Gopinath Temple in Mumbai with the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (also known as ISKCON) for the last 20 years. Like many of his peers, Premji completed his Bachelors degree in engineering from the University of Pune, a top university in India, and subsequently had a 4-year stint at India's largest auto manufacturing company. But he quit his job to become a monk and to explore a more fulfilling and purposeful lifestyle, after being inspired by the teachings of His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, and His Holiness Radhanath Swami. Currently he is one of the research and implementation leads for ISKCON's flagship project, the Temple of Vedic Planetarium, and is compiling his research on the Bhagavata Cosmology. I conducted the interview in the winter of 2019, right before Covid hit the world. I went on a yoga and meditation trip to India with Princeton University's Office of Religion Life, led by two fantastic mentors, Vineet and Angela, with a group of 15 students. We traveled for a month during Christmas vacation, visiting yoga institutes, temples, ashrams, and cultural sites. We were accompanied by Premji, who helped plan our trip and guide us through the country, and through many conversations he gradually became an important mentor. I was truly fortunate to have met Premji. He answered my questions on the Hindu faith, life, and my confusion about my own path forward. He was almost like a beacon of light, using simple principles to help me reason through some of the most difficult philosophical and religious questions that had puzzled me over the years: - Should we be pessimistic in light of the world's unending sufferings? - Have we made progress as a humanity? - How flexible can one be with their spiritual and religious faiths? - What does it mean to be guided by God? Does one have to be guided by God or some form of greater power? - How do we control our desires? What does it mean to be happy? - What is one's destiny and how do we discover our true calling? … Premji and I recorded this conversation towards the end of my trip. We were in Rishikesh, a city on the Ganges river and home to the famous Beatles Ashram. Overseeing sunset on the foothills of the Himalayas, we sat along the Ganges river and chatted for three hours. Hence we named the episode “Satsang on the Ganges,” where the word “Satsang” refers to the idea of group discussions or informal gatherings in hope to better understand the Vedic philosophy –– or, in essence, together pursuing the Absolute Truth. It's never my goal to try to change people's lives via this podcast –– that would be too condescending to think that I should do that –– but I would be honored if the following interview could open a small window for you to explore some of these ideas. You may reach out to Premji by emailing him at prem.gauranga.rns@gmail.com. You may learn more about ISKCON via https://www.iskcon.org/ and https://iskconchowpatty.com/.

Dr. Jean Hebert is a professor at the Dominick P. Purpura Department of Neuroscience at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. He is also a professor in the department of genetics, and has conducted research that has been published in renowned journals such as Science. His current scope of research in the Hebert Lab includes devising methods of cell replacement for the adult neocortex after cell damage or age-related degeneration. In “Do Our Minds Have to Decline With Age?”, we explore just that, diving into topics such as the neocortex and neocortical function, cell damage, and age-related deterioration. ‘Dying of old age' is not a medical term; rather, it is a description of what happens when critical parts of the body fail. Theoretically, if all parts of the body can be kept ‘young' and healthy, we might have a chance of extending life indefinitely. While we are a long ways off from that, current cutting-edge research in the field of cell grafting, like conducted at the Hebert Lab, might hold to key to help save failing organs. Throughout this interview, we discuss the science behind the neocortex, a region of the brain responsible for higher-order brain functions such as motor function, sensory perception, and cognition. We also discuss cell transplantation and grafting, what aging truly means, and possible directions for future research. From his lab's webpage, “In recent years, the mechanisms underlying how stem cells in the embryo generate the neocortex have become better understood. Armed with this knowledge, the Hébert Lab is developing stem cell transplantation approaches to regenerate adult neocortical tissue after age-related degeneration.” Finally, we discuss the ethics of these methods, such as the usage of embryonic stem cells, as well as the definition of self (Ship of Theseus – at what point does altering the human brain structure fundamentally alter the underlying human being?) We hope that you enjoy listening to an episode about rethinking aging, something we often take for granted, and learning about the direction of future research in this field.

Dr. Anders Sandberg is a James Martin Research Fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. He is a senior research fellow on the ERC UnPrEDICT Programme, and a research associate to the Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, and the Oxford Centre for Neuroethics. He holds a PhD in computational neuroscience from Stockholm University, and his research focuses on existential risks and long-term societal and ethical facets of new technology regarding human enhancement. Existential risks are risks that deal with the end of something — in this case, the end of humanity and Earth-originating intelligent life. As Prof. Sandberg explains, the most dire of risks lead to a lot of interesting implications and there are many interesting links that bridge different risks. Understanding those linkages are interesting and useful in discovering what the risks are, and also what we can do about it. Risks are broadly classified into anthropogenic (in this sense, self-inflicted) and external (natural). In this episode of Policy Punchline, we discuss both types of risks, and why we should really care. After all, there is a low probability of this kind of existential risk occurring in our lifetime, and we have a fairly resilient infrastructure already in place. As Prof. Sandberg points out, “you can motivate the badness of existential risk in quite a lot of ways, both consequentialist and non-consequentialist”. The conversation then turns to utilitarianism and the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the thought process and awareness of the field. Animal welfare (including humans) is brought up, and also the subject of human enhancement. Technological enhancements seem inevitable in the future, and, going back to anthropogenic risks, how this affects the future of humanity is a nuanced topic. We hope you enjoy listening to an episode on existential risks and utility, a subject that concerns all of us. The pandemic has brought increased attention to how vulnerable humans could actually be to unforeseen threats to our existence, and we hope this interview provokes thought with regards to the future of humanity.

Peter Wendell is the founder of Sierra Ventures, a Silicon Valley venture capital firm that has invested more than $2 billion over the past 35 years in a wide variety of successful technology companies. Peter has taught more than 2,000 Stanford MBAs over the past 30 years, specifically the very popular course Entrepreneurship and Venture Capital with Google CEO Eric Schmidt and Scott Kupor, managing partner of Andreessen Horowitz. He serves on the board of Merck. He just completed his trusteeship at Princeton. He was also chairman of the board for Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO) for six years, during which time PRINCO doubled the University's endowment. In this episode, Peter discusses the evolving nature of venture capital investing, the relationship between VCs and their LPs (limited partners), emerging phenomenon like SPACs and cryptocurrencies, whether we're entering another great age of secular growth for technology, and his personal journey in starting Sierra Ventures. Peter has been recognized by Forbes magazine as one of the 100 best technology venture investors in the United States and named one of the 15 venture capitalists on Upside magazine's “Elite 100” list of influential U.S. leaders in technology, finance, and business. Peter started Sierra Ventures as a young investor with some wealthy families' money –– “they should've never given someone like me money to manage,” joked Peter. But it was the age where “it was hard to not make money in venture investing” –– every fund started in Peter's time had returned money to LPs; not a single fund lost money, in contrast to around a fourth of all bond funds back then collapsing given the Asian financial crises. Peter bought 6% of stake in Intuit with a $2.5 million investment; now it's a company with a market capitalization of around $145 billion –– you can do the math. This investment, along with many others, made Peter one of the most successful venture capitalists in the world over the last few decades. We also ask Peter whether he sees us entering another period of great secular growth for technology. The sentiment amongst pro-tech, pro-growth investors seems to be that the hyper growth stocks (Snowflake, Coinbase, Shopify, Docusign, Twilio, Upstart, etc.) look expensive and many are currently unprofitable, but most have long runways, high margins, sticky customers, and steady revenues. If we value these companies on what they might look like 5 years from now, do most secular compounders still seem fairly valued? Looking at the market environment today, Peter is very skeptical of the promises of SPACs. He said in his keynote address at Princeton GCEPS that the SPAC boom likely won't end well because there is a lot of promotion, a lack of regulation, but fundamentally not that many great companies to acquire. Peter thinks that cryptocurrency and blockchain technology are the future and certainly on the risk frontier, but we still don't know which chain or project will eventually prevail, so the overall asset class is still a highly risky investment option. A big proponent of SaaS (especially given how he's one of the first investors that embraced this idea back in the early days), Peter also believes that we're still at an early stage in exploring artificial intelligence and the good it could do for the world.

Richard V. Spencer served as the 76th United States Secretary of the Navy from 2017 to 2019. He also briefly served as Acting Secretary of Defense and Acting Deputy Secretary of Defense in 2019. Sec. Spencer's term as the Navy Secretary was terminated on November 24, 2019, when Secretary of Defense Mark Esper requested his resignation over his handling of the Eddie Gallagher case. Sec. Spencer stated in the resignation letter that he “cannot in good conscience obey an order that I believe violates the sacred oath I took in the presence of my family, my flag and my faith to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.” We discuss this case in this interview, as well as the state of the Navy, competition with other military powers, investment in human capital and frontier military tech, and the philosophy of war.

Dr. Jamil El-Imad is the CEO of The Brain Forum, a neuroscience, brain-computer interface (BCI), and virtual reality (VR) research foundation in Switzerland, as well as the founder of Neuroco, a commercial company whose goal is to bring affordable brain signaling software to the public. He is also an honorary research fellow at Imperial College London, and a former IBM software engineer. His key interests include BCI, VR, brain signal analyses, and big data, all of which we delve into in this interview. Having been out for many years now, most people are probably familiar with virtual reality technology. However, brain-computer interfaces (also known as a neural-control interface), bridges the gap between our mind and a machine by converting brain signals into commands that can be interpreted by a computer, resulting in the desired action. The potential for this technology is profound and could be applied in myriad fields. In “Connecting Our Brains to the World”, we discuss Dr. El-Imad's decision to transition from software engineering to a neuroscience focus. Neuroscience is a fascinating field in which research can be taken in many directions. We inquire about Dr. El-Imad's interest in deep learning (ex. epilepsy prediction), and the limiting factors in brain-computer interactions. Further, the topic of healthcare is explored in some depth, in particular the lag in the healthcare industry's adoption of seemingly very useful tools and the administrative, logistical, and technological hurdles cutting-edge interfacing technology faces before becoming mainstream. Continuing on this topic, the inequities between the rich and the poor are also explored, as evidenced by the pandemic. In a similar vein, virtual reality also holds promise in the healthcare industry; for example, in the treatment of phobias. We ask our guest what he thinks the development of VR will look like in the future, including the democratization and commercialization of the technology as well as the value from an entertainment standpoint. We hope you enjoy this episode listening to an episode on the human connection to the machine, and that it provokes deeper thought and discussion on what is possible in this realm of neuroscience.

Toni Townes-Whitley graduated from Princeton University in 1985 with a B.A. in Public Policy and Economics. She then went to the peace corps for three years in Gabon. With a non-tech background, she went on to become the President of the IT and business consulting services firm CGI Federal and presently the President of US Regulated Industries at Microsoft. She leads Microsoft's U.S. sales for Regulated Industries (Financial Services & Insurance; Healthcare & Life Sciences; Federal, State, & Local Government; and Education). Her teams drive digital transformation across national industries and focus on inclusion, equity and access in the emerging digital economy. She is one of the leading women at Microsoft and in the technology industry. Her role at Microsoft is shaping the role that artificial intelligence and technology will play in systems like policing, education, the U.S. military, and more, especially since the U.S. government is one of Microsoft's leading clients particularly through the use of its Azure cloud services. In this episode, we dive into the intersection of tech development and race, innovation, and ethics and hear Toni's perspectives on digital transformation. She started off by talking about how she ended up at her position at Microsoft and why she chose to work in regulated industries at Microsoft. She focused on the ability for her work in building tech infrastructure to shape the world we live in. Toni said, “the [regulated industries] is probably the hardest set of sectors to work in terms of designing towards a much more complex set of requirements, but it is also the most meaningful because when you get it right, you have an impact that not only affects the industry but generally affects society at large.” Throughout the interview, Toni emphasizes the importance of a mission-oriented framework to any institution, from the peace corps to Microsoft to government technology initiatives. Toni then moves into talking about key lessons learned from the Covid-19 pandemic in relation to digital transformation in the sectors of education, healthcare, financial services, and more. She speaks on the emergence of cloud-based technology particularly in the sector of government and the ways in which it enables predictive capabilities, deep analytics, and stronger security. She then spends time talking through the relationship between Microsoft and the U.S. government. She talks about how Microsoft's relationship with the U.S. government spans from providing VR technology to transform training for the Department of Defense to using Microsoft Azure cloud services to keep information secure. Toni concludes by sharing her reflections on the importance of an ethics framework in developing new technologies, which Microsoft developed, that have been adopted by governmental and non-governmental organizations across the world.

Mitch Julis is the Co-Founder and Co-Chairman of Canyon Partners, one of the largest and best-performing multi-strategy hedge funds in the world. If you listen to the end of our interviews or visit our website, you'll see that Policy Punchline is generously funded by the Julis-Rabinowitz Center for Public Policy and Finance (JRCPPF) at Princeton University. The Center was created by Mr. Julis and named in honor of his father and mother. After 150 episodes, we're finally having Mitch on the show, and everything is truly coming back in full circle here. We start the interview with an introduction to Canyon Partners and Mitch's background. “You can't be a great equity investor without being a solid credit analyst” – Mitch gives a detailed overview to credit investing, Canyon's various strategies and funds, and his overarching investment philosophy. We also touch on many of the macro trends before and after Covid, the Federal Reserve's “insurance policy” for financial markets with persistently low interest rates, the rise of SPACs and Bitcoin, and many more current event topics and beyond. One of the interview highlights is Mitch's explanation of “reframing financial and economic analysis as political economy to understand how structure determines behavior and behavior determines structure in the capital markets.” To illustrate how to cope with complex situations, he brings up Canyon's recent investment in AMC Theatres during the company's struggle in the Covid pandemic, as well as their previous investment in Caesar Entertainment. He also A recent book published in April 2021, “The Caesars Palace Coup: How a Billionaire Brawl Over the Famous Casino Exposed the Corruption of the Private Equity Industry,” by Sujeet Indap and Max Frumes talks about the Caesars Entertainment restructuring, which Mitch referenced a few times throughout the interview and recommends those who are interested to read more. Mitch co-founded Canyon Partners in 1990 with Josh Friedman after his old firm Drexel Burnham Lambert was closed. Canyon subsequently flourished into one of the best-performing hedge funds in the world over the last three decades, growing into various strategies from distressed credit to CLOs and real estate. Disclaimer by Canyon Partners, LLC: • This presentation does not constitute an offer or solicitation to subscribe for or purchase any securities in any jurisdiction. • Certain information contained herein constitutes “forward-looking statements.” Due to various risks and uncertainties, actual events or results may differ materially from those reflected or contemplated in such forward-looking statements. • Nothing contained in this presentation constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security or asset class, and the views expressed in this presentation should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security or asset class. • Any representative investment or strategy described herein is for illustrative purposes to describe a type of investment Canyon either has acquired or, opportunity permitting, may acquire in the future. Such descriptions are summary in nature and do not purport to list all the salient features of the investment or the strategy described. There is no guarantee that similar opportunities will be available for a fund in the future, or that a fund will acquire further investments of the type described in such summaries. • Canyon has numerous other investments – successful and not successful. An investment profiled in this presentation may not be held by all Canyon funds. It is not known whether any position(s) currently held will be profitable when sold. • Past performance of an investment, strategy, or fund is not a guarantee of future results. • This presentation may contain confidential information and shall not be redistributed without the express written consent of Canyon Partners, LLC.

Paul G. Haaga Jr. is the former acting CEO of NPR, the former chairman and director of Capital Research and Management Company, and the Chairperson of the Facebook Oversight Board Trust. In this episode, we welcome back Mr. Haaga Jr. to Policy Punchline to discuss Facebook's recent decision on deplatforming former U.S. President Donald J. Trump.

Paul G. Haaga Jr. is the former acting CEO of NPR, the former chairman and director of Capital Research and Management Company, and the Chairperson of the Facebook Oversight Board Trust.

Tim Roughgarden is a Professor of Computer Science at Columbia University and a winner of the Gödel Prize, which is often considered as “the Nobel Prize of theoretical computer science.” His research interests include the many connections between computer science and economics, as well as the design, analysis, applications, and limitations of algorithms. We'll also talk about his most recent research in the cryptocurrency space, EIP-1559, and the future of Ethereum. Prof. Roughgarden has been awarded the ACM Grace Murray Hopper Award, the Presidential Early Career Award for Scientists and Engineers, the Kalai Prize in Computer Science and Game Theory, the Social Choice and Welfare Prize, the Mathematical Programming Society's Tucker Prize, and the Gödel Prize in theoretical computer science. He was an invited speaker at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians, the Shapley Lecturer at the 2008 World Congress of the Game Theory Society, and a Guggenheim Fellow in 2017. He has written or edited ten books and monographs, and is regarded by many students as one of the best educators in algorithmic game theory.

My guest today is someone of great personal significance to me. He is my senior thesis advisor and one of the most important mentors in my student career. Atif Mian is the John H. Laporte, Jr. Class of 1967 Professor of Economics, Public Policy and Finance at Princeton University, and the Director of the Julis-Rabinowitz Center for Public Policy and Finance, which has graciously supported this podcast since day one. Prof. Mian studies the connections between finance and the macroeconomy, and his book House of Debt became an instant international bestseller when it was published in 2014 and kicked off a critical line of research related to debt forgiveness and risk-sharing mechanisms. He is the first person of Pakistani origin to rank among the top 25 young economists of the world by the IMF.

Matt Levine writes the popular daily newsletter “Money Stuff” on Bloomberg Opinion that has over 150,000 subscribers and a “cult-like” following on Wall Street and beyond. He is widely regarded as one of the most iconic, witty, and sophisticated financial writers of our age. Before Bloomberg, Matt was an editor of Dealbreaker, an investment banker at Goldman Sachs, a mergers and acquisitions lawyer, a law clerk for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, and a high school Latin teacher. He holds a heroic status especially amongst college economics majors, and he in fact inspired Tiger to start writing his newsletter on Substack.

Alex Tabarrok is Bartley J. Madden Chair in Economics at the Mercatus Center and a professor of economics at George Mason University. Along with Tyler Cowen, he is the co-author of the popular economics blog Marginal Revolution and co-founder of Marginal Revolution University. He is the author of numerous academic papers in the fields of law and economics, criminology, regulatory policy, voting theory and other areas in political economy. He is co-author with Tyler of Modern Principles of Economics, a widely used introductory textbook. He gave a TED talk in 2009. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and many other publications. It is not an exaggeration to say that he and Tyler Cowen wield an enormous influence over the intellectual discourse today in America, and especially amongst the Silicon Valley entrepreneurs.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, senior editor with the National Review, and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. A leading conservative thinker and pundit, Ramesh has made numerous appearances on shows like Meet the Press and Face the Nation. He is also an alumnus of Princeton, earning a degree in History. In the interview, we discuss a variety of issues relating to the current political landscape and state of partisan politics. We first dive into free speech issues at colleges and universities in the United States— grappling with some of the key considerations that are informing why environments on college campuses are less encouraging for interchange and compromise between ideological groups. Ponnuru argues that the free speech issues on college campuses are not a new problem and have continued to ebb and flow based on larger political movements, pushing back against the catastrophizing done by organizations like Turning Point USA. Ponnuru also explains his thoughts on media environments and the curating of news by social media companies. Because Ponnuru writes so extensively about economic and social issues, we cover his stance on the American family, including his continued advocacy for a child tax credit and overall increased welfare for parents and children. Ponnuru also explains why he believes his pro-life stance is consistent with the Constitution. We move to discuss Ponnuru's opposition to President Trump, the contention over election security and the threat of delegitimization of the political process, and his thoughts on the infusion of populism and isolationism into the GOP.

Anthony (Tony) Yoseloff is the Executive Managing Member and Chief Investment Officer of Davidson Kempner Capital Management, one of the world's largest alternative asset managers with more than $37 billion in assets under management. Tony graduated from Princeton University in 1996 with a B.A. from the School of Public and International Affairs. He then received a JD and MBA from Columbia University where he was awarded the John M. Olin Fellowship in Law and Economics. Tony joined Davidson Kempner in 1999. While most graduates at the time pursued opportunities in technology – given the dot-com boom – an early career in investment management enabled Tony to use both his finance and legal skills, appealing to his intellectual curiosity. Over the next two decades, Davidson Kempner grew to be a powerhouse – building out additional investment strategies while expanding its headcount and geographic footprint. Tony became a Managing Member in 2004 and co-head of the firm alongside Tom Kempner in 2018, establishing a robust foundation for a seamless leadership transition in 2020. However, Tony jokes that when he took over as the sole Executive Managing Member and Chief Investment Officer of the firm in January 2020, Tom forgot to leave him the playbook on “global pandemics.” “There was a model in my head for how to deal with a financial crisis, but the Covid-19 pandemic was just something nobody had a playbook for,” Tony said. Tony had navigated a large portfolio through the global financial crisis in 2008, the European crisis in 2011, and the Euro debt crisis in 2015. He had also been at the firm during the Long-Term Capital Management crisis in 1998, as well as during the Enron scandal and the U.S. stock market crashes between 2000 and 2002. Tony talks about how he and his team guided the firm through the pandemic, the Firm's success in bringing people back to the office, the Firm's increased focus on supporting mental, physical and emotional health, and how to sustain a culture of excellence within a growing global organization. Outside of investing, Tony engages in a wide variety of philanthropic endeavors. He is a member of the Board of Trustees of Princeton University, The New York Public Library and Leadership Enterprise for a Diverse America. He also serves on the investment committee of The New York Public Library and is a member of the Board of Directors of PRINCO, the investment manager of the Princeton University endowment.

David McCormick is the CEO of Bridgewater Associates, the world's largest hedge fund with over $140 billion in assets under management. David joined Bridgewater in 2009 and was President and Co-CEO before becoming CEO in 2020. Prior to Bridgewater, he was the US Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs in the George W. Bush Administration during the 2008 global financial crisis, and he also had senior roles on the National Security Council and in the Department of Commerce. In this interview, David talks about his personal journey from the Army to the Treasury and Bridgewater; the ten-year leadership transition that he and Ray Dalio had just completed; the challenges he experienced when managing Bridgewater over the years; macro-financial topics such as Bridgewater's “Monetary Policy 3” framework; and his vision for a “national innovation policy” allowing for more frontier civilian technology to enter the military space. Bridgewater is a place that needs very little introduction, especially as founder Ray Dalio's bestselling book Principles has become not only a nordstar for corporate managers, but also a household read. David tells us about Bridgewater's distinct culture of radical transparency, critical thinking, and various other principles established by Dalio and how these principles were put to test during the transition process. David transitioned from Co-CEO to CEO of Bridgewater in 2020, which marked the end of a long leadership transition (Ray had kicked off this “ten-year transition” back in 2010). David recalls that he had taken on various management roles in earlier years as the President of the fund, but initially did not do a very good job. Ray eventually asked him to come back as Co-CEO and later as the sole CEO, and it was a long process with many challenges. We ask David how he plans on maintaining the firm's distinctive culture and Principles, especially when Ray has departed. David explains that going forward, the members of Bridgewater will continue to do a lot of soul searching and find the best way to combine Ray's wisdom with new thinking that needs to be integrated into the firm's DNA. It will not be a static or rigid process, but rather one that is nuanced, dynamic, and collaborative. David speaks quite frankly about the fund's recent drawdowns and underperformance compared to the broader market. He says that Bridgewater has always bounced back stronger after brief periods of drawdowns and that these difficult moments have only made the fund stronger. In his recent Gilbert Lecture at Princeton, David made two arguments about military innovation today: 1) the “line between civilian technology and military technology is more blurred than ever,” and 2) the military needs to create a culture of experimentation and bring in new entrants, and create the right incentives for people to move up the risk curve. He elaborates on these ideas and proposes his vision for a “national innovation policy.” In light of the rising tension between China and the U.S., should American firms and Western countries at large reconsider their dependence and interconnectedness with China? Ray has frequently spoken about Asia being the new frontier for investments given the Western developed world now suffers from historically low interest rates and comparatively lower economic growth. Bridgewater has also recently opened new offices in China and raised new funds from local investors. Why is Bridgewater so active in China when the geopolitical risks and ideological division are at an all-time high? We ask David whether he is concerned about Bridgewater's potential exposure to geopolitical risks. Lastly, David explains why he believes the U.S. is now at an inflection point – what the U.S. does next will be very important for the future of America's role in the world. What does he think this role should be? And is David more optimistic or pessimistic in the country's ability to confront these challenges?

Professor Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the School of Public and International Affairs. He is one of the most notable scholars in the entire field of international relations, with an expansive body of work spanning countless books, journals, essays, working at think tanks, advisory groups, and more. In this interview, Princeton freshmen Ryan Vuono and Neal Reddy discuss with Professor Ikenberry the theory of liberal internationalism, lessons from the history of international orders, and the future of the liberal international framework. Considering that Professor Ikenberry is a leading proponent of the liberal internationalist school of thought within international relations, we start off the interview asking the basic questions for our listeners: what is liberal internationalism, and what does Professor Ikenberry's vision of liberal internationalism look for today's international climate. We move to discuss some of the themes of the book-- the fact that liberal internationalism is fluid in nature, which Professor Ikenberry acknowledges can serve to be both beneficial and deceptive, in that liberal internationalist governments have historically become involved in colonial and imperialist exploitation of the Global South under the guise of free trade. Ikenberry makes clear that while liberal internationalism has become a guise for neoliberal economics, fundamentally it should be a form of international relations that seeks to promote welfare as a more general idea, rather than optimizing economic output. In the interview, we also reflect on the geopolitical trends since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s. While many scholars predicted a United States-led global hegemony and an indefinite stasis of world politics, we've seen the rise of populist, both left and right, as a form of backlash to neoliberalism and globalization. Professor Ikenberry sees the recent trends as a rebuke to the idea of realist international relations theory, of which he is a critic. However, he also concedes that the overly liberalized trade that occurred in the 1990s and 2000s that fomented these political movements was highly ignorant of what he sees as prerequisites for liberal internationalism-- a country's ability to ensure the social welfare of its citizens. Without this credibility, liberal internationalism has lost its credibility among many voters worldwide, but Professor Ikenberry is hopeful that with a return to the roots of social democracy as is occurring in the United States after the COVID-19 pandemic, liberal internationalism can return and the world, in his mind, will be better for it.

William Bohnett is the Chair of the Advisory Board of the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. He served from 2009-2018 as a member of the National Board of the Smithsonian Institution, the world’s largest museum and research complex. Bill sits on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Council on Competitiveness, a non-partisan NGO working on national competitiveness issues, and is a Board Member of American Forests, the nation’s oldest conservation organization. Mr. Bohnett is the President of Whitecap Investments, a private investment firm, and special advisor to Baroda Ventures, an early-stage venture capital firm. This interview was conducted by Princeton freshman Sullivan Meyer and senior Tiger Gao. We start by briefly discussing Mr. Bohnett’s educational background at Princeton and career path. He cites the interdisciplinary education he received at Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs as a huge aid to his career, especially as a corporate lawyer. Going off of that experience, we address the green financial market, especially the need to mobilize private capital to address the climate crisis. Bohnett does believe that the private sector requires some motivation to move capital from the public sector, but he views the Biden Administration’s American Jobs Plan as a strong start. Fascinatingly, he views the current bubble amassing around green technology as quite analogous to the “Dot Com” bubble of 1999. He notes, however, that the companies that weathered that bubble—as well as the companies that formed after it, like Google—went on to build the future. He encourages us to “have them courage to look through” the crash “that’s coming.” We then move on to address upcoming green technologies, such as electric vehicles (EVs) and small- and medium-sized nuclear reactors (SMRs). Bohnett sees both as integral to the climate future, so we discussed the intricacies of both technologies with him. For instance: How will the US adapt to its dependence on Chinese lithium mining? Will the public become more accepting of SMRs than large nuclear reactors? When asked about whether these technologies will dominate the transportation and energy industries of the future, Bohnett stresses an inclusive approach to the green transition. For instance, a green transportation industry will require both mass transit and EVs. Similarly, a future energy market will need SMRs, large reactors, and renewable energy. Above all, he expresses confidence that private capital and the market will properly assess what technologies are needed, and in what amount they are needed. This conversation is far-ranging, touching on many other aspects of Mr. Bohnett’s career. For instance, we discuss green technologies in relation to China, reflecting his position with the Council of Competitiveness. We address the importance of tree- and green space-restoration, based on his experience with American Forests. We explore the significance of public institutions in relation to the Smithsonian Institution. Finally, Mr. Bohnett offers his punchline: The climate crisis is a huge, incredibly nuanced challenge facing all aspects of modern life. Accordingly, no one technology, policy, or business is a silver bullet to address the climate crisis. There is no silver bullet, but there is an oncoming wave of climate adaptation and mitigation strategies coming from all corners of the global economy. We should have hope.

Matt Weinberg is an assistant professor of Computer Science at Princeton University. His primary research interest is in Algorithmic Mechanism Design: auction design, cryptocurrency, voting system, and more.

Ben Hunt is the creator of Epsilon Theory and inspiration behind Second Foundation Partners, which he co-founded with Rusty Guinn in June 2018.

Nikos Tsafos is interim director and senior fellow of the Energy Security and Climate Change Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He’s researched, written, advised, and consulted extensively on a range of fascinating topics, including natural gas, the geopolitics of energy, the future of mobility, and the global energy transition. He is the author of Beyond Debt: The Greek Crisis In Context, published in 2013, and countless articles, reports, and studies in the leading publications in energy policy and foreign affairs, including for National Bureau of Asian Research, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and the National Interest. We began by exploring the role of energy in the foreign policy of previous administrations, covering the importance of fossil fuel imports in decades past and the Trump’s administration’s hope for fossil fuel exports to play a major role in the U.S. approach to Asia and Europe. As America looks to compete with China and others in the race to build renewables, the federal government can and should offer financial incentives on both the supply and demand sides of production for renewables, but must also make structural changes to physical and legal infrastructure to promote clean electricity. Active industrial policy in the United States -- which is taking shape under the American Jobs Plan -- must recognize that endless funding for strategic sectors can be wasteful, trade can undermine even the most ambitious domestic programs, and repurposing legacy facilities for renewable purposes will be crucial. While Biden’s sweeping proposals for new energy investments have grabbed headlines, there has been another consequential shift in America’s energy policy that has transpired behind the scenes -- the pivot away from natural gas. While there have been no proposals for banning natural gas exports, the administration will certainly look more closely at where American gas is going, and whether it is displacing dirtier energy sources or “locking in” decades of fossil fuel use in place of renewables. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a sweeping strategy for investment in infrastructure across Eurasia, is widely seen as Beijing’s foremost geoeconomic initiative, and a major threat to U.S. interests. But at least on the energy front, Mr. Tsafos contended that American policymakers are often too narrow minded about Chinese-backed projects abroad; other factors, including the quality of a project, the engagement of important stakeholders, and the institutions supporting it, often matter more than where the money is coming from. International institutions and relationships between the nations in different stages of development will play a major role in the globe’s approach to climate change, and Mr. Tsafos has important insights on this front as well. He suggested that financial incentives could be provided internationally to support nations that are investing in green energy, a global dialogue on green energy could facilitate global renewable energy investment, and global energy trade agreements will help nations avoid endless trade conflict on climate issues. Preparing the world for climate change extends far beyond the G-20, and Mr. Tsafos offered some lessons from his research on how emerging economies can pursue sustainable pathways to development -- progress in the West on renewables helps spur progress in the developing world, stable political institutions matter for sustainable development, and the tradeoff between economic growth and investment in low-carbon energy is often overestimated. Mr. Tsafos concluded our conversation by recognizing that the climate crisis presents opportunities -- for students who hope to grapple with these challenges, he says “we need your help.”

Our host Tiger recently received his first ever podcast interview as a guest on the Economics & Beyond podcast hosted by Rob Johnson, President of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). This is certainly a great honor for him, as Rob’s guests typically range from Nobel Laureates to accomplished public intellectuals. They talked for 3.5 hours, and the interview is being published in two parts. Part 1 is Rob interviewing Tiger on podcasting, the “tyranny of meritocracy,” and the fragility of today’s socio-political discourse. It was published a few days ago. This Part 2 is Tiger interviewing Rob on the drawbacks of economics academia, his current work at INET, his previous journey as a policymaker and investor, and the future of market capitalism.

Our host Tiger recently received his first ever podcast interview as a guest on the Economics & Beyond podcast hosted by Rob Johnson, President of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET). This is certainly a great honor for him, as Rob’s guests typically range from Nobel Laureates to accomplished public intellectuals. They talked for 3.5 hours, and the interview is being published in two parts. Part 1 is Rob interviewing Tiger on podcasting, the “tyranny of meritocracy,” and the fragility of today’s socio-political discourse. Part 2 is Tiger interviewing Rob on the drawbacks of economics academia, his current work at INET, his previous journey as a policymaker and investor, and the future of market capitalism.

Nolan McCarty is the Susan Dod Brown Professor of Politics and Public Affairs and Interim Dean of the Princeton School of Public and International Affairs. He is the co-author of several books, including Political Bubbles: Financial Crises and the Failure of American Democracy and Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. His most recent book, Polarization: What Everyone Needs to Know, explores the origins, development, and implications of the rising tide of political polarization in the U.S. In this interview, Professor McCarty discusses the current state of American politics and the events that brought us here. Why is polarization more extreme now than it was fifty years ago? What are the consequences of increased polarization? What steps can we take to alleviate this issue? Professor McCarty walks us through contemporary theories and empirical facts of political polarization, explaining the implications of these trends on government, policymaking, and society as a whole. We also discuss “affective polarization” and the relationship between social media and political tensions. Does the election of Donald Trump represent a new level of polarization, or is it just more of the same? What should we expect for the future of polarization? Professor McCarty offers insightful answers to these questions and more.

Jeremy Adelman is the Henry Charles Lea Professor of History at Princeton University and the Director of the Global History Lab, which strives to teach students internationally how to create new global narratives even across divides. Recently, the Global History Lab has brought displaced persons and refugees into its network. His academic focus is global, economic, and Latin American history. His recent books include Worldly Philosopher: The Odyssey of Albert O. Hirschman, published in 2013. In this interview, co-hosts Tiger and Rebecca ask Professor Adelman about his views on global interdependence, why he thinks we are at a narrative impasse for multilateralism, how he uses history to understand the current global order, the resurgence of patriotic nationalism, as well as other topics relating to the Biden & Trump administration, international relations, and America’s actions in foreign affairs. Professor Adelman began by explaining how he became interested and involved in history and, specifically, Latin America. He participated in activism in Central America in the 1980s’ dealing with civil war and transitional justice. This sparked his interest in understanding how countries relate to one another and the interdependence that is needed for their survival. In order for this globalization to be successful, a narrative which promotes a shared understanding between countries must be created. 1945 was the most recent time period in which a shared sense of purpose was established around the world: fight facisim and stop another depression. This need for globalization and the actions of the different countries was controlled and moderated by the United States. This liberal sense of purpose has reached its end point and is currently fatigued leading to the current situation which calls for a new shared narrative and purpose to be developed. This need for interdependence began in the middle of the 19th century as a byproduct of the industrial revolution. It created a network in which countries relied on each other for basic necessities critical to their survival. Today, it is clear that 2008/9 were an inflection point and has resulted in us being in a transition period today. This is why there are countering narratives and beliefs regarding how the new global order should look. We’re now at a narrative impasse, writes Professor Adelman in his recent Project Syndicate column titled “The New History Wars” – “We are now caught between an outdated style of patriotism and a fatigued pluralist alternative. The old national narrative that drove the boom in monuments was born in the heyday of empire and burnished in the twentieth century’s world wars, when founding heroes and myths served as a unifying force. But starting in the 1960s, civil-rights movements, feminism, and an influx of immigrants pushed Western societies to become more inclusive, and the old emblems of patriotism looked increasingly outré.” While former President Trump was advocating for a return to a focus on the nation state, President Biden is leaning more towards Jill Lepore’s call for a progressive nationalism, one in which America has a shared national identity based on our roots in equality and fairness. Professor Adelman explains how this does not go far enough and instead America must focus on what is good about the nation in its relationship with something that is bigger. The “Great Statue Reckoning” and the 1776 Commission are both “weaponizations of history” according to Professor Adelman, but he cautions against silencing these narratives and instead urges everyone to listen to the opposing side even if you disagree. People must be heard so that they do not believe that their identities are simply dismissed by society. American society is facing a very difficult situation: how to make those with whom you disagree feel heard even when you reject their very fundamental values and beliefs?

Sheldon Solomon is Professor of Psychology at Skidmore College. He is best known for developing terror management theory along with Jeff Greenberg and Tom Pyszczynski, which is concerned with how humans deal with their own sense of mortality. He studies the effects of the uniquely human awareness of death on human behaviors. He is co-author of several books, including the one we’ll be discussing today – The Worm at the Core: On the Role of Death in Life. I was initially drawn to Prof. Solomon’s work because I listened to a three-hour long podcast interview between him and Lex Fridman. It was the most enlightening podcast I had listened to on the Lex Fridman Show, without exaggeration. That was a few months ago during a time when I was very confused and stressed. I was working nonstop every day and deciding between whether to pursue an economics PhD or go into the “real world” to work for a few years first before reassessing. Prof. Solomon’s ideas from taking a leap of faith in life to confronting the possibility of death were truly profound and changed a lot of my thinking back then.

Esteban Rossi-Hansberg is the Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor of Economics at Princeton University. He performs research in macroeconomics, international trade, and urban and regional economics. He has been appointed the Glen A. Lloyd Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago where he will join the faculty of the Kenneth C. Griffin Department of Economics in the Summer of 2021.

Esteban Rossi-Hansberg is the Theodore A. Wells '29 Professor of Economics at Princeton University. He performs research in macroeconomics, international trade, and urban and regional economics. He has been appointed the Glen A. Lloyd Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago where he will join the faculty of the Kenneth C. Griffin Department of Economics in the Summer of 2021.

Austen Allred is the Co-Founder and CEO of Lambda School. It is an online platform that trains you remotely to become a web developer or a data scientist. The user pays no tuition until hired. Austen’s start-up journey began in 2017 with him living in his two-door Civic while participating in Y Combinator (YC), the famous San Francisco-based seed accelerator. This experience became the foundation of Lambda School’s rapid growth. Before founding Lambda School, Austen was the co-founder of media platform GrassWire. He co-authored the growth hacking textbook Secret Sauce, which became a best-seller and provided him the personal seed money to build Lambda. In this interview, co-hosts Tiger and Arsh interview Austen about Lambda School’s business model, his entrepreneurship journey, the future of higher education and credentialism, the powerful influence of Y Combinator in Silicon Valley and whether it’s become less prestigious than before, how Austen got involved in angel investing, the stellar rise of Clubhouse, and many other topics in tech and business. We dig into the details of Lambda School’s operations and philosophy with Austen: Who ends up studying with Lambda? What is the selection process? What is the common trajectory of Lambda graduates? Could Lambda School’s educational model work in fields outside of computer science? From the perspective of Princeton students, Tiger and Arsh also ask Austen’s thoughts on higher education and credentialism. A liberal arts education is often seen as valuable in the sense that it provides students with many useful assets to enter the workforce with: skills and knowledge, a degree or diploma, and opportunities to network and become involved in their field before graduation. However, companies like Google are now giving accreditation for people who take their software engineering and computer science courses. Tech companies seem to be putting higher value on having particular skills, not on having the broad knowledge of a liberal arts education. Is that the future trend? Where it will matter less and less whether someone went to Princeton or some other Ivy League school? Or will it actually matter more since liberal arts education will become rarer? Austen is a seasoned entrepreneur and well-connected in the Silicon Valley community. Since Austen is an alumnus of YC, we ask him whether he thinks YC’s prestige and quality have come down over the years as it is now accepting hundreds, instead of just dozens, of companies into its incubator programs every year. It seems unrealistic to expect that there would be hundreds of high-quality startups every year, so is YC simply doing “spray and pray” rather than being actually selective? Does it still function as a true testament to the quality of a startup, or has it more become a place that could give startups more exposure to the VC community but actually adds little value to the companies themselves? Austen is an early investor of Clubhouse, an audio-only social media app that has recently become increasingly popular amongst people in tech. Austen believes that Clubhouse could easily become a $100 billion company. Tiger, however, is not a fan of Clubhouse and believes that it provides a less thoughtful alternative to podcasts and simply adds more noise to the discourse. They debate the growth potential and future possibilities of Clubhouse. Last but not least, Austen talks about how he got into angel investing and why the vast majority of Americans have missed out on the tremendous wealth creation that has mostly concentrated in Silicon Valley and taken advantage of by VCs in the past few decades. How could we democratize access to the private market boom? Is such democratization risky or constructive to building a more egalitarian society?

Ian Jefferies is the President and CEO of the Association of American Railroads (AAR), an organization whose members include the major freight railroads of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, and Amtrak. Chuck Baker joined American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA) as President after a 15-year career in the railroad industry. In this interview, co-hosts Tiger Gao and Sullivan Meyer discuss with Ian and Chuck the basic functions of the American railroad system, business outlook, how the railroad system thinks about the climate challenge, policymaking in the transportation sector and beyond. Sullivan and Tiger start by asking Ian and Chuck what their respective organizations do. In short, the AAR and ASLRRA are trade groups representing their constituent industries in Washington. For the AAR, that means giving voice to the seven Class 1 railroads in the United States, as well as a few hundred other large railroads. The ASLRRA, on the other hand, represents the over 600 shortline and regional railroads all over the country. They then discuss the role of the railroad industry in America’s economic development and the nature of the rail economy. In the eyes of Chuck and Ian, strong railroads were and continue to be one of the defining characteristics of the American economy. Railroads still face tough competition against other forms of transportation, namely road freight. We also explore issues of sustainability of railroads and their role in the fight against climate change. Railroads are the most efficient form of ground transportation, and thus central to America’s fight against climate change. At the same time, however, railroads have traditionally carried coal and energy products, so their secondary carbon footprint, at least historically, has been huge. Chuck and Ian make the point, however, that the industry is rapidly shifting away from hauling coal to intermodal freight and dry goods. The interview wraps up with a discussion of politics and policy. In particular, Ian and Chuck differentiate policy for passenger and freight railroads. They argue that, while freight railroads run most efficiently and effectively with less regulation and government involvement, passenger railroads require government support. They also make a strong case for leveling the playing field between support for road freight and rail freight through shifts in government policy.

Harold James is the Claude and Lore Kelly Professor in European Studies and Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University. He is one of the most prominent financial and economist historians of our age, and his most recent book “Making a Modern Central Bank: The Bank of England, 1979–2003” was just published in the fall of 2020. In this interview, Prof. James discusses his newest book, the modern history of central banking, global macro-financial trends in the last few decades, his insights on globalization and inflation outlook in 2020, and beyond. Prof. James dives into the details of the most important transformations undergone by the Bank of England, UK’s interactions with the European monetary system, as well as key external influences on the UK like Alan Greenspan and the German Bundesbank. The Bank of England, the central bank of the United Kingdom, was established by the British Parliament in 1694. But ever since its genesis, it struggled over what efficiency and effectiveness meant. Central banks, especially the Bank of England, used to act behind a veil of secrecy, but the 1980s and 1990s marked a fundamental change in thinking about central banking all over the world following the great inflation of the 1970s, when the UK had the highest inflation rate in the developed world and realized that they needed to emulate other developed countries and establish better monetary policies. By the 21st century central banks had transformed to be all about efficiency, stability, and transparent communications. Independent central banks are now also seen as the superior model because it would not be subject to political pressure. The journey of “making a modern central bank” thus involved shedding a strongly entrenched idea about British peculiarity or British exceptionalism and learning from the rest of the world. 1979 was a major caesura of the 20th century that started a new phase of globalization: the creation of the European Monetary System (without UK); the Iranian Revolution; Deng Xiaoping began a series of reforms that introduced the principles of the market to China; Margaret Thatcher became the UK Prime Minister; and the UK government announced the immediate removal of virtually all remaining exchange controls… The period of 1979-2003 can be roughly divided into a few tumultuous periods in global macro-finance. In the late 1970s and 1980s, the US and European nations debated about monetary targeting. In the 1980s, exchange rate became seen as the cornerstone of credibility in Europe, which in turn dramatically influenced the UK’s central banking policies. In the 1990s, inflation targeting was “imported” to the UK on the basis of New Zealand’s pioneering experience. The evolution of the Bank of England also went together with the evolution of monetary theory. In the beginning, no one knew what the function of the central bank was. Some said it as the institution that controls money and manages the banking system, while others believed that central banks were supposed to produce one fundamental public good – financial stability. Prof. James explains the competing philosophies behind central banking, monetary policy, and the interpretations for money, as well as the various interesting paradigms like Alan Greenspan’s “Spine Theory” that may have dominated monetary policymaking for many years and left profound consequences.

Simon Johnson is the Ronald A. Kurtz Professor of Entrepreneurship at the MIT Sloan School of Management, where he is also head of the Global Economics and Management group. Prior to teaching, Professor Simon Johnson worked as the Chief Economist and Director of the Research Department at the IMF from 2007 to 2008. This interview discusses his most recent book "Jump-Starting America: How Breakthrough Science Can Revive Economic Growth and the American Dream," which raises awareness of the need to continue investments in the U.S. and analyzes the impact of the recent decline of investments in innovation. We trace back the history of public investments in America, like how MIT scientist Vannevar Bush’s bold vision helped start the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) before WWII, which became central to allowing the U.S. leap in military tech and eventually win the War. The post-WWII era in the U.S. saw corroborations between the private sector, federal government, and universities. This led to 2% of our GDP to go into research and development projects, but that number today is 0.7%. When did we start to witness the decline of the government’s tendency to fund science? Prof. Johnson wrote that we can trace it back to the anti-fluoridation messages of the John Birch Society founded in 1958, Senator Barry Goldwater’s election campaign in 1964 that advocated for small government, Senate Majority Leader Michael Mansfield’s criticism of the military due to the Vietnam War, and budgetary pressures arising from the Vietnam War and the Great Society. Prof. Johnson also talked about how scientists have moved to the left and the political spectrum has shifted to the right – in ways not favorable to supporting unfettered scientific research and its implications. How have the political views of scientists influenced policy decisions for public investments? Shouldn’t this be a non-political, non-partisan process? One particular example we discussed is the story of the Human Genome Project (you may see our interview with its co-founder George Church on our website). The HGP began in 1990 and cost $3 billion dollars in federal funding. By 2004, the total stock market value of the genomics sector was $28 billion dollars. The project laid important groundwork for the genomic and biotechnology revolution. We also discuss the limitations of private funding driven by VC firms. Prof. Johnson especially listed the short investment time horizon problem. Is the private sector incentivized to work on the most urgent problems confronting our world rather than simply distributing profits to shareholders? Hard problems like climate change and inequality that require complex, nuanced solutions and not some big “catch-all.” It seems that the inherent incentive structure is such that PE/VC funds need returns 5-7 years, and that means investing in SaaS, consumer goods, and social media rather than nuclear tech / renewables / rethinking capitalism… Are we wasting huge amounts of human and monetary capital into “meaningless” innovations that churn profits but are not helpful to society? Is the only solution channel through the public sector? Prof. Johnson’s answer is that it’s about complementarity: use the public sector to bring in innovations that can help spur more innovations in private sectors; and then the public sector should step in to regulate the private sector when needed. Since Prof. Johnson was a Chief Economist at the IMF during the financial crisis, we also ask his thoughts on economic policymaking today and whether massive fiscal stimulus would be urgently needed to get us out of the Covid crisis. He believes that we should prioritize poverty reduction and getting the economy back on track first before worrying about the deficit.

Lee Cronin is a chemist and the Regius Chair of Chemistry at the University of Glasgow. He has been elected to the Fellowship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, the Royal Society of Chemistry, and has published over 350 papers and given hundreds of lectures. He also heads the Cronin Group, a lab that is “motivated by the fascination for complex chemical systems, and the desire to construct complex functional molecular architectures that are not based on biologically derived building blocks.” He and his team are trying to make artificial life forms, find alien life, explore the digitization of chemistry, understand how information can be encoded into chemicals and construct chemical computers, and create complex molecular architecture not necessarily based on biological building blocks. We start by discussing non-carbon-based lifeforms. Dr. Cronin’s interest in this subject comes from an aversion to assuming that carbon is the only life-permitting foundational molecule. He has created inorganic chemical cells that act in much the same way as our cells – in essence they are self-replicating and evolving. This leads to discussion of implications and also nanotechnology, which is closely tied with chemical architecture. Nanotechnology can be split into two categories, according to Dr. Cronin: the biological engineering type, and the materials science/chemist type that deals with molecules and materials at the smallest scale. This leads to questions about whether evolution could be utilized and harnessed for human use. Dr. Cronin also has an extensive background in education. A major project of Dr. Cronin’s are “chemputers.” Chemputers would be able to synthesize molecules after “reading” it off a paper, which naturally is a huge advancement for materials science and chemistry. We examine how this technology would scale up to practical use, and how it would be implemented in the real world. We also discuss the possible futures of chemistry education, and how labs will operate in a more automated future world, including the possible risk of very real and dangerous applications of this technology. Such advancements also have implications for academia, and academic research. Further, we explore a more theoretical side to chemistry such as how quantum computing might affect chemistry work. Finally, we discuss Dr. Cronin’s work in energy and battery technology, which ties back into the nanotechnology side of things as well. We hope you enjoy this interview with a very influential figure in the chemistry world.

Chris Wheat is the Co-President for the JPMorgan Chase Institute. Prior to joining JPMCI, he served as the Director of Analytics at a financial technology startup, where he led the development of advanced analytics algorithms. He previously was an Assistant Professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management and at the Center for Urban Entrepreneurship and Economic Development at Rutgers Business School. As a faculty member, he taught and researched topics in strategy, entrepreneurship, global microfinance, economic sociology, and social network analysis. At JPMCI, he leads research on small businesses and local economic development. The COVID crisis clearly slowed the growth of the small businesses in all contexts, particularly those owned by racial minority groups. Mr. Wheat’s research during the COVID crisis quantifies the harm done to small businesses early in the pandemic and later on towards the end of 2020, via three business research reports that we engage in discussion with. His report titled “Small Business Financial Outcomes during the Onset of COVID-19” shows that cities such as Atlanta, Las Vegas, Orlando seem to report slower economic recovery than cities such as Chicago, Seattle. Cash balances are an important metric of financial health, but the unemployment rate in Chicago is much higher compared to Atlanta. How should we reconcile the differences between these financial metrics in the context of economic recovery? JPMCI’s report “Small Business Owner Race, Liquidity, and Survival” discusses the importance of developing a holistic understanding of financial health: including cash liquidity, revenues, and expenses. However, we usually hear about unemployment in the economy as the main metric, because that information is more readily available to policymakers and the public. How should we think the availability bias of information regarding small businesses affects government policy? How can we combat the asymmetry of information between policymakers and their constituents? What metric should policymakers look at when deciding how to implement financial stimulus? What is the most efficient way to supply businesses with exactly what they need? JPMCI also found that the industry downturns during the beginning of COVID were felt equally across different owner races. As business started to pick up, cash balances of White-owned restaurants doubled while those of Black-owned restaurants increased by 38%. However, cash balances of Black-owned personal service firms increased by over 60% compared to those of White- and Hispanic-owned firms, which increased by less than 25%. How can we explain these different recovery rates? What do they tell us about the relationship between race and financial stability in different industries? More broadly, we discuss the relationship between research and business, expanding into academia and industry. JPMCI holds a unique position that allows Mr. Wheat to conduct research that fits the description of neither scholarly academic nor finance professional. The question of data sourcing comes into play, along with a weighing of interests between private sector firms and public research groups. Furthermore, we explore the impact of business research in public policy. How is business research utilized in the public sphere, and what shape does that take? For students navigating career paths in finance, tech or entrepreneurship and choosing between academia and business, Mr. Wheat offers insight into how to think about these different sectors from the perspective of an individual who has navigated all of them. His work into the COVID pandemic utilizes methodologies from every sector combined, and our conversation with him tackles the intricacies of COVID impacts on small businesses and the nature of business research in the big picture.

George Church is Robert Winthrop Professor of Genetics at Harvard Medical School and Professor of Health Sciences and Technology at Harvard and MIT. He is known as the father of synthetic biology and the CRISPR-CAS9 gene editing technology, and he is widely recognized as one of the most important geneticists of our age. In 1984, he developed the first direct genomic sequencing method, which resulted in the first genome sequence. He helped initiate the Human Genome Project in 1984 and the Personal Genome Project in 2005. He leads his own lab in Harvard and is also affiliated with the Broad Institute, the Wyss Institute, and a wide number of private companies that were spun off from his innovations. In this interview, Tiger asks Prof. Church about his time as a graduate student and postdoc, how Harvard took a chance on him for many times during his early research career, his experience starting the Human Genome Project and its wide-ranging impacts, his critical contribution to the CRISPR gene editing technology, the ethical and policy impacts of genome technology, and the urgent problems left unsolved in the field. The Human Genome Project began in 1990 and cost $3 billion dollars in federal funding. By 2004, the total stock market value of the genomics sector was $28 billion dollars. The project laid important groundwork for the genomic and biotechnology revolution that later transpired, and is a wonderful example of public-private partnership that is what this country needs today. What was the exact process like to sequence the first genome? What has it produced since, both scientifically and socially? Was the idea that we could sequence everyone in the world perceived as wild or immature? Meanwhile, the Personal Genome Project that Prof. Church founded in 2005 pioneered a new form of genomics research. The main goal of the project is to allow scientists to connect human genetic information (human DNA sequence, gene expression, associated microbial sequence data, etc) with human trait information (medical information, biospecimens and physical traits) and environmental exposures. How is it different from the Human Genome Project? Prof. Church compares the turning point of genome sequencing with the Internet around 1994, when suddenly everyone started using it. They have already helped bring down the cost of sequencing by 10-million fold. Similar to how Silicon Valley helped the Internet revolution by providing all kinds of softwares, it may be an adequate analogy to say that the HGP has provided the infrastructure like the Internet did, and perhaps the next steps would be additional business models and applications around genome sequencing that would further bring down the cost and make the benefits more widely available to everyone. The cost of reading and interpreting a genome has been shrinking exponentially. As the cost of this technology continues to decrease, what new possibilities will emerge? CRISPR is a way of finding a specific bit of DNA inside a cell. CRISPR-CAS9 is a system biologically found in bacteria; it’s their version of a viral defense mechanism. When viral vectors inject DNA into the bacteria's genetic material, the CRISPR-CAS9 system finds it and switches it out with high precision. It allows us to not only delete certain info, but also precisely add in new sequences in specific locations. Prof. Church explains to us how CRISPR works and his critical contributions to the technology at its infancy. Lastly, Prof. Church speaks to the moral-ethical concerns related to the CRISPR technology and synthetic biology at large. While the concept of gene modification is becoming an increasingly controversial topic, Prof. Church believes that not only is it a net positive to our world, our regulations should focus more on mitigating its impacts in a thoughtful manner, rather than trying to suffocate innovation altogether. “A politician trying to ban iPhones wouldn’t survive very long in office,” he joked.

Greg Lewis is an economist and the Senior Principal Researcher at Microsoft and co-leads the ALICE (Automated Learning and Intelligence for Causation and Economics) and EconML projects, an effort to develop use AI and machine learning for economics research. He specializes in industrial organization, market design, applied econometrics and machine learning. His work is unified by the twin goals of making better sense of microeconomic data, and using those insights to optimize firm decision making and improve market performance. His research has spanned a range of industries – online retailing, online advertising, procurement, electricity, education. Before joining Microsoft, Prof. Lewis was a professor at Harvard for seven years. He has a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. In this interview, Harsh and Tiger ask with Prof. Lewis about his research on consumer’s shopping trends online, how tech platforms rank search results and products, how to do causal inference using neural nets, how machine learning is in some news “the new statistics” and how it’s being integrated into econometrics. In his recent paper “You Can Lead a Horse to Water: Spatial Learning and Path Dependence in Consumer Search,” Prof. Lewis introduces a new model of consumer search known as spatial learning. He explains his main findings in layman’s terms, and discusses how online platforms have the ability to manipulate consumer purchases to some degree by playing an active role in ranking products during a consumer’s searching process. His key insights focus on how consumers develop beliefs about products they see online, and how those beliefs change through experience and observation of reviews. More importantly, his methods try to understand how a good or bad experience with a particular product influences a consumer’s buying decisions about related products. Prof. Lewis is a leading advocate to use machine learning methods for fundamental research in economics. In this conversation, he breaks down his development of DeepIV: a method for instrumental variable (IV) analysis using deep neural networks. He starts off by explaining IV analysis using simple examples and guides us through the improvements offered by deep learning. He elaborates that while neural networks are incredibly powerful at pattern recognition, their black-box nature offers great challenges as it fails to explain their predictions. Prof. Lewis also addresses some “big-picture” questions about research in general. He talks about application of theoretical models to real-world scenarios, the effectiveness of computer simulations, as well as the age-old debate about how to uncover the “truth” from data. He talks about conducting research in the private sector as opposed to at a university, being optimistic about technology, and even a paper by Bill Gates about pancake flipping.