Podcasts about Adam Smith

Tonight on The Last Word: Donald Trump condemns Vladimir Putin after Russia strikes Ukraine. Also, Trump attacks judges in a Memorial Day post. Plus, Trump escalates his fight with Harvard University. The Trump trade war undercuts American battery makers. House Republicans pass a bill that would cut Medicaid funds from Planned Parenthood. And Trump delays 50% tariffs on EU goods until July 9. Amb. Michael McFaul, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Norm Ornstein, Laurence Tribe, Michigan State Rep. Joe Tate, Rep. Adam Smith, Carrie Baker, and Betsey Stevenson join Lawrence O'Donnell.

Did Jesus really spit in a disabled guy's mouth? It seems wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. Is Jesus ridiculing or demeaning this guy? If He was trying to help or heal him, couldn't He have chosen something a lot less embarrassing? Was Jesus just being a jerk? How do we make sense of this? If you're new with us, let us know how we can be praying for you, we invite you to fill out an online Connect Card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/91550—If you are looking for what is next for you, we invite you to fill out an online “Next Steps” card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/672517To give with us select the Give tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/giving/ and select the Corona Fund or Corona BOW Fund—Visit our Linktree to find out more about everything mentioned in today's message or follow along with the message slides:https://linktr.ee/SouthHillsCorona —To RSVP for On-Campus Events select the Events tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/corona/

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

In this installment, Daniel and Tom push deeper into the roots of economic anxiety, the morality of money printing, the logic (and danger) of debt, and why the “Monopoly game” always ends in revolution, collapse, or war. They ask what it will really take to avoid history's bloodiest outcomes — and whether the solutions are personal, systemic, or already out of reach. SHOWNOTES43:12 Why money printing is immoral — and also unavoidable52:09 Why the end of the “Monopoly game” means collapse, war, or revolution54:26 Why emotional arguments win — but don't provide answers55:26 Is there any bloodless way out of our current economic predicament?56:04 The dual systems: Industrial age in decline, digital age on the rise59:03 Chess, cards, and elite training simulations (the structure of society)1:10:03 The baby boom, housing inflation, and the demographic crunch1:14:02 Bell curve economics vs. power law distribution1:15:43 Why money printing makes “saving your way up” impossible1:16:48 Agency, intelligence, inflation and who gets ahead1:26:40 Adam Smith, self-interest, and how the invisible hand really works1:30:06 Authoritarianism, top-down fear, and the dangers of utopian “rescue” plans1:41:25 Artificial General Intelligence, wide access, and the dawn of creative superpowers1:46:13 Creation vs. consumption — the fork in the road for personal success1:50:13 Why future careers will be plural, fast, creative loops1:54:02 Will most people embrace agency, or get left behind by hyperloops? CONNECT WITH DANIEL PRIESTLEYInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/danielpriestley/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielpriestley/Twitter/X: https://twitter.com/DanielPriestleyWebsite: https://www.danielpriestley.com CHECK OUT OUR SPONSORS Vital Proteins: Get 20% off by going to ⁠https://www.vitalproteins.com⁠ and entering promo code IMPACT at check out Monarch Money: Use code THEORY at ⁠https://monarchmoney.com⁠ for 50% off your first year! Shopify: Sign up for your one-dollar-per-month trial period at ⁠https://shopify.com/impact⁠ Netsuite: Download the CFO's Guide to AI and Machine Learning at ⁠https://NetSuite.com/THEORY⁠ iTrust Capital: Use code IMPACTGO when you sign up and fund your account to get a $100 bonus at ⁠https://www.itrustcapital.com/tombilyeu⁠  Mint Mobile: If you like your money, Mint Mobile is for you. Shop plans at ⁠https://mintmobile.com/impact.⁠  DISCLAIMER: Upfront payment of $45 for 3-month 5 gigabyte plan required (equivalent to $15/mo.). New customer offer for first 3 months only, then full-price plan options available. Taxes & fees extra. See MINT MOBILE for details. What's up, everybody? It's Tom Bilyeu here: If you want my help... STARTING a business:⁠ join me here at ZERO TO FOUNDER⁠ SCALING a business:⁠ see if you qualify here.⁠ Get my battle-tested strategies and insights delivered weekly to your inbox:⁠ sign up here.⁠ ********************************************************************** If you're serious about leveling up your life, I urge you to check out my new podcast,⁠ Tom Bilyeu's Mindset Playbook⁠ —a goldmine of my most impactful episodes on mindset, business, and health. Trust me, your future self will thank you. ********************************************************************** LISTEN TO IMPACT THEORY AD FREE + BONUS EPISODES on APPLE PODCASTS:⁠ apple.co/impacttheory⁠ ********************************************************************** FOLLOW TOM: Instagram:⁠ https://www.instagram.com/tombilyeu/⁠ Tik Tok:⁠ https://www.tiktok.com/@tombilyeu?lang=en⁠ Twitter:⁠ https://twitter.com/tombilyeu⁠ YouTube:⁠ https://www.youtube.com/@TomBilyeu⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode is about the thoughts that hold you back, the actions that pull you forward, and why being present beats being perfect. Smith & Mayhew explore anxiety, negative self-talk, and the daily mind games that stop so many men from showing up fully—in the gym, at home, and in life. If you've ever felt overwhelmed, doubted yourself mid-set, or wondered if you're living the life you really want, this one's for you.  Oh, and if you've ever used the phrase "Fattibumbum" in a serious conversation—you're not alone. Register your interest in our retreat in March 2026: https://agameconsultancy.com/retreat/ Martha Beck is the guest on Modern Wisdom that Smith talks about - Check out her book "Beyond Anxiety" : AmazonUK   If you want your question answered on a future episode, please drop the lads a line : hello@agameconsultancy.com Adam Smith From depressed and suicidal to the happiest and fittest he's ever been, Adam Smith's self-development journey hasn't been easy but it has been worth it. Today, he's a qualified mindset coach in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and a certified Time Line Therapist®. Adam has coached many high performers, using NLP to rewire his clients' thoughts and behaviours so they can destroy limiting beliefs and engineer the change needed to excel. Connect with Adam Smith: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-smith-high-performance-coach/ Adam Mayhew Adam Mayhew swapped burnout and binge drinking for ultra marathons, CrossFit and sobriety. A registered nutritional therapist specialising in performance nutrition, Adam supports everyone from office workers to athletes to build healthy eating habits. Using science (and never fad diets, quick fixes or gym bro culture) he helps clients target their problem areas and confidently master diet, training and lifestyle. Connect with Adam Mayhew: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-mayhew-nutrition-coaching/ To find out more about Smith & Mayhew: https://agameconsultancy.com/about/

Act 26 | Adam Smith

Act 26 | Adam Smith

Representative Adam Smith of Washington's 9th Congressional District, who made headlines recently for his pointed criticisms of progressive urban governance, joins us to talk about what Seattle should expect in the era of Trump.Smith believes local governance failures and missteps in blue cities like Seattle contributed to Trump's big win in 2024. But he joined Seattle Nice to talk about the aftermath. We get into the impact of Trump's MAGA agenda on Seattle and King County, including potentially devastating funding cuts to transportation, education, and social services. Smith explains why he thinks Trump's MAGA movement is a looming disaster for the region. The conversation also gets into strategic resistance to Trump, coalition building, and the complexities of running a liberal stronghold like Seattle. Smith, who has a foot in both the Congressional Progressive Caucus and the more centrist New Democrat Coalition, also delves into the evolution of his own political philosophy. Finally, the Congressman explains his endorsement of Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison, a Republican.  Our editor is Quinn Waller.   Send us a text! Note that we can only respond directly to emails realseattlenice@gmail.comHEARTH Protection: Do not let fear make your world smaller. Thanks to Uncle Ike's pot shop for sponsoring this week's episode! If you want to advertise please contact us at realseattlenice@gmail.comSupport the showYour support on Patreon helps pay for editing, production, live events and the unique, hard-hitting local journalism and commentary you hear weekly on Seattle Nice.

KGMI's Dianna Hawryluk and Adam Smith chat about the Bike Party in Bellingham, the Local Yarn Store Tour in western Washington state, Blaine's Spring Block Party, the WWO Symphony Orchestra's performance of movie music, and Jaws of Brooklyn performing at the Shakedown.

"When we remember, what we're doing is just making up a story that sounds plausible to us. That's what memories are." Join your host Adam Smith as he speaks to physicist Geoffrey Hinton, often called the godfather of AI. They discuss Hinton's childhood memories and how his family legacy of successful scientists put pressure on Hinton to follow in their footsteps. Throughout the conversation it is clear that Hinton has always had a fascination with understanding how the human brain works. Together with Smith, Hinton discusses the development of AI, how humans can best work with it, as well as his fears of how the technology will continue to develop. Will our world be taken over by AI? Find out in this podcast conversation with the 2024 physics laureate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Adam Smith brings you the last in our series of special podcasts for Mental Health Awareness Week, where Premier League stars discuss the times in their careers where they've struggled with their mental health. In this episode, goalkeeper Jason Steele opens up about suffering back-to-back relegations and nearly quitting the game, to signing for Brighton in the Premier League. Jason speaks very openly and honestly about his mental health. If you've been affected by any of the themes covered in this podcast, advice and organisations that can help can be found at sky.com/viewersupport.As well as listening to us, you can also watch the interviews from this series on Saturday, 17th May on Sky Sports Premier League or find us on the Sky Sports Premier League YouTube channel. 

For Mental Health Awareness Week, Adam Smith brings you the latest in our series of special podcasts, where Premier League stars discuss the times in their careers where they've struggled with their mental health. In this episode, Adam is joined by Nottingham Forest's Harry Toffolo, who opens up about a decision that he made early on in football that he feared could have finished his career. Harry also explains the impact his many loan moves had on him and his family, and how he overcame 's now settled and playing his best football at Forest. Harry speaks very openly and honestly about his mental health and problems with betting. If you've been affected by any of the themes covered in this podcast, advice and organisations that can help can be found at sky.com/viewersupport.As well as listening to us, you can also watch the interviews from this series on Saturday, 17th May on Sky Sports Premier League.  

In this enlightening episode of Consider the Constitution, host Dr. Katie Crawford Lackey sits down with Dr. Dennis Rasmussen, professor of political science at Syracuse University's Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. Their conversation explores the philosophical underpinnings that influenced the creation of the U.S. Constitution, particularly focusing on Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Montesquieu whose ideas shaped the framers' thinking.Dr. Rasmussen, author of "Fears of a Setting Sun," provides fascinating insights into how the founders – particularly Madison – navigated between theory and practical application when designing America's system of government. The discussion reveals surprising details about Madison's disappointment with certain aspects of the Constitution, the founders' evolving opinions about their creation, and the remarkable durability of America's founding document despite its imperfections. This episode offers listeners a deeper understanding of the intellectual foundations of American constitutional governance and reflects on what lessons we might draw from the founders' experiences as we face today's political challenges.

This episode is dedicated to Smith's Aunty Anne - a woman who faced unimaginable adversity with grace and strength. More than a tribute, this is a reflection on the powerful lessons she shared with those around her: from picking your battles and setting boundaries to truly showing up for the people you love. Smith explores how her wisdom still applies today - whether it's smiling in the face of hardship, refusing to play the victim, or the subtle art of saying “no” with love. There's also a strong reminder that listening (without fixing) is a lost skill, and that being there for someone doesn't mean solving their problems. If you want your question answered on a future episode, please drop the lads a line : hello@agameconsultancy.com Adam Smith From depressed and suicidal to the happiest and fittest he's ever been, Adam Smith's self-development journey hasn't been easy but it has been worth it. Today, he's a qualified mindset coach in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and a certified Time Line Therapist®. Adam has coached many high performers, using NLP to rewire his clients' thoughts and behaviours so they can destroy limiting beliefs and engineer the change needed to excel. Connect with Adam Smith: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-smith-high-performance-coach/ Adam Mayhew Adam Mayhew swapped burnout and binge drinking for ultra marathons, CrossFit and sobriety. A registered nutritional therapist specialising in performance nutrition, Adam supports everyone from office workers to athletes to build healthy eating habits. Using science (and never fad diets, quick fixes or gym bro culture) he helps clients target their problem areas and confidently master diet, training and lifestyle. Connect with Adam Mayhew: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-mayhew-nutrition-coaching/ To find out more about Smith & Mayhew: https://agameconsultancy.com/about/

He Built An $80 Million Disaster Response In 60 Days Without the Government Adam Smith's Story When Hurricane Helene devastated Western North Carolina, one man stepped up—without orders, without funding, and without waiting for permission. Former Green Beret Adam Smith shares how he led a volunteer force of thousands, delivered over 5.5 million pounds of aid, and created an $80 million impact in just 60 days—all while government agencies scrambled. This raw and unfiltered conversation with Jeff Dudan breaks down the failures of federal disaster response, the rise of the "Redneck Air Force," and what real leadership looks like under pressure.

The Father of Reaganomics, David Stockman, joins us to explore the complex world of international trade and its impact on investors.  Key insights include: Challenging conventional wisdom about trade policies Understanding economic forces that drive investment opportunities Gaining expert perspective on global economic trends Stockman provides a candid analysis of current trade strategies, revealing: The true drivers of economic competitiveness Potential pitfalls of protectionist approaches Critical insights for strategic investors The episode cuts through political noise to offer clear, actionable economic intelligence for informed decision-making. Smart investors look beyond headlines to understand the deeper economic forces shaping their financial future. Resources: Check out David Stockman's Contra Corner Newsletter Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/553 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.com GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREinvestmentcoach.com Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Invest with Freedom Family Investments.  You get paid first: Text FAMILY to 66866 Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Best Financial Education: GetRichEducation.com Get our wealth-building newsletter free— text ‘GRE' to 66866 Our YouTube Channel: www.youtube.com/c/GetRichEducation Follow us on Instagram: @getricheducation Complete episode transcript:   Automatically Transcribed With Otter.ai    Keith Weinhold  0:01   Welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, I sit down with a long time White House occupant who was the official economic advisor to an ex president. We get the real deal on tariffs and what they mean to you. Trump gets called out and the ominous sign about what's coming six months from now, today on, Get Rich Education.   Since 2014 the powerful get rich education podcast has created more passive income for people than nearly any other show in the world. This show teaches you how to earn strong returns from passive real estate investing in the best markets without losing your time being the flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors and delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show guests include top selling personal finance author Robert Kiyosaki. Get rich education can be heard on every podcast platform, plus it has its own dedicated Apple and Android listener phone apps build wealth on the go with the get rich education podcast. Sign up now for the get rich education podcast, or visit get rich education.com   Corey Coates  1:14   You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is get rich education.   Keith Weinhold  1:30   Welcome to GRE from Brookline, Massachusetts to Brooklyn, New York and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Weinhold, and you are listening to get rich education, just another shaved mammal behind this microphone here. I recently spent some time with the father of Reaganomics, David Stockman, in New York City, and sometimes an issue so critical surfaces that real estate investors need to step back and understand a broader force in the economy. Three weeks ago, here, I told you how the second and third way, real estate pays you. Cash flow and ROA are sourced by your tenants employment and the future of your tenants employment is influenced by tariffs and other policies of this presidential administration. This is going to affect rates of inflation and a whole lot of things. Now, an organization called the American Dialect Society, they actually name their word of the year, and this year, it is shaping up to be that word, tariff. In fact, Trump has described that word as the most beautiful word in the dictionary. And I think we all know by now that a tariff is an import tax that gets passed along to consumers when it comes to materials used in real estate construction that's going to affect future real estate prices. Well, several key ones so far were exempted from recent reciprocal tariffs, including steel, aluminum, lumber and copper exempted. Not everything was exempted, but those items and some others were but who knows if even they are going to stay that way. And now, when it comes to this topic. I think a lot of people want to make immediate overreactions in even posture like they're an expert in become an armchair economist, and I guess we all do a little of that, me included. But rather than being first on this and overreacting, let's let the policy which Trump called Liberation Day last month when he announced all these new tariffs. Let's let policy simmer a little and then bring in an expert that really knows what this means to the economy and real estate. So that's why I wanted to set up this discussion for your benefit with the father of Reaganomics and I today. In fact, what did Reagan himself say about tarrifs back in 1987 this is part of a clip that's gained new life this year. It's about a minute and a half.    Speaker 1  4:13   Throughout the world, there's a growing realization that the way to prosperity for all nations is rejecting protectionist legislation and promoting fair and free competition. Now there are sound historical reasons for this. For those of us who lived through the Great Depression, the memory of the suffering it caused is deep and searing, and today, many economic analysts and historians argue that high tariff legislation passed back in that period called the Smoot Hawley tariff greatly deepened the depression and prevented economic recovery. You see at first when someone says, Let's impose tariffs on foreign imports, it looks like they're doing the patriotic thing by protecting American products and jobs, and sometimes for a short while at work. Price, but only for a short time. What eventually occurs is first, home grown industries start relying on government protection in the form of high tariffs. They stop competing and stop making the innovative management and technological changes they need to succeed in world markets. And then, while all this is going on, something even worse occurs. High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries and the triggering of fierce trade wars. The result is more and more tariffs, higher and higher trade barriers, and less and less competition, so soon, because of the prices made artificially high by tariffs that subsidize inefficiency and poor management, people stop buying. Then the worst happens, markets shrink and collapse, businesses and industry shut down, and millions of people lose their jobs.    Keith Weinhold  5:50   Now, from what I can tell you as a listener in the GRE audience, maybe you're split on what you think about tariffs. In fact, we ran an Instagram poll. It asks, generally speaking, tariffs are good or bad? Simply that 40% of you said good, 60% bad. Over on LinkedIn, it was different. 52% said they're good, 48% bad. So it's nearly half and half. And rather than me taking a side here, I like to bring up points that support both sides, and then let our distinguished guests talk, since he's the expert. For example, if a foreign nation wants to access the world's largest economy, the United States, does it make sense for them to pay a fee? I mean, it works that way in a lot of places, when you want to list a product on eBay or Amazon, you pay them a fee. You pay a percentage of the list price in order to get access to a ready marketplace of qualified buyers. All right. Well, that's one side, but then the other side is, come on, let's look at history. Where have tariffs ever worked like Where have they ever been a resounding, long term success? Do they have any history of a sustained, good track record? I generally like free trade. Then let's understand there's something even worse than a steep tariff. There are quotas which are imposed, import limits, trade limits, and then there are even all out import bans. What do terrorists mean to the economy that you are going to live in and that your tenants live in? It's the father of Reaganomics, and I on that straight ahead on Get Rich Education. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold.   you know what's crazy? Your bank is getting rich off of you. The average savings account pays less than 1% it's like laughable. Meanwhile, if your money isn't making at least 4% you're losing to inflation. That's why I started putting my own money into the FFI liquidity fund. It's super simple. Your cash can pull in up to 8% returns, and it compounds. It's not some high risk gamble like digital or AI stock trading. It's pretty low risk because they've got a 10 plus year track record of paying investors on time in full every time. I mean, I wouldn't be talking about it if I wasn't invested myself. You can invest as little as 25k and you keep earning until you decide you want your money back, no weird lock ups or anything like that. So if you're like me and tired of your liquid funds just sitting there doing nothing, check it out. Text, family to 66866, to learn about freedom, family investments, liquidity fund, again. Text family to 6686   Hey, you can get your mortgage loans at the same place where I get mine, at Ridge lending group and MLS, 42056, they provided our listeners with more loans than any provider in the entire nation because they specialize in income properties. They help you build a long term plan for growing your real estate empire with leverage. You can start your pre qualification and chat with President Caeli Ridge personally. Start Now while it's on your mind at Ridge lendinggroup.com, that's ridgelendinggroup.com.    Hey   Robert Helms  9:28   Hey everybody. It's Robert Helms of the real estate guys radio program. So glad you found Keith Weinhold in get rich education. Don't quit your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  9:48   when it comes to White House economic policy like tariffs, taxes and inflation, don't you wish you could talk to someone that's often been inside the White House. Today, we are even better. He was the official advisor to an ex president on economic affairs, a Wall Street and Washington insider and Harvard grad. Today's guest is also a former two time congressman from Michigan. He's a prolific author, and he is none other than the man known as the father of Reaganomics. He was indeed President Ronald Reagan's budget advisor. He was first with us last year, but so much has happened since. So welcome back to the show. David Stockman,    David Stockman  10:26   very good to be with you, and you're certainly right about that. I think we're really in uncharted waters. Who could have predicted where we are today, and therefore it's very hard to know where we're heading, but you have to try to peer through the fog and all the uncertainty and the noise and the, you know, day to day ups and downs that's coming from this White House in a way that we've never seen before. And I started on Capitol Hill in 1970 so I've been watching this, you know, for more than a half century, actually, quite a while. And man, it's important to go through all this, but it's sort of uncharted waters.    Keith Weinhold  11:04   Sure, it's sort of like you wake up every day and all you do know is that you don't know. And David, when it comes to tariffs, I want to give you my idea, and then I want to ask you about what the tariff objective even is. Now, to be sure, no one is asking me how to advise the President. I'm an international real estate investor, but I do most of my business in the US, and I sure don't have international trade policy experience. It seems better to me, David, that rather than shocking the world with new tariffs that kick in right away, it would have been better to announce that tariffs begin in, say, 90 days, and then give nations space to negotiate before they kick in. That's my prevailing idea. My question to you is, what's the real objective here? What are terrorists proposed to do? Raise revenue, onshore companies merely a negotiation tactic? Is the objective? Something else?    David Stockman  12:00   Well, it might be all of the above, but I think it's important to start with a predicate, and that is that the problem is not high tariffs abroad or cheating by foreign competitors or exporters. There is a huge problem of a chronic trade deficit that is not benign, that does reflect a tremendous offshoring of our industrial economy, the loss of good, high paying industrial and manufacturing jobs. So the issue is an important one to address, but I have to say, very clearly, Trump is 100% wrong when he attempts to address it with tariffs, because foreign tariffs aren't the problem. Let me just give a couple of pieces of data on this, and I've been doing a lot of research on this. If you take the top 51 exporters to the United States, our top 51 trade partners, and this is Mexico and Canada and the entire EU and it's all the big far eastern China, Japan, South Korea, India, you know, all the rest of them. If you look at the and that's 90% of our trade, we have 2.9 trillion of imports coming in from all of those countries, and the tariff that we Levy, this is the United States, on those imports, is not high. It's higher than it was in the past, mainly because of what Trump did in the first term, but it's 3.9% now compared to bad times historically, decades and decades ago. That's relatively low. But here's the key point, if we look at the same 51 trading partners in terms of the tariffs they levy on our exports to China and to the EU and to Canada and Mexico and South Korea and all the rest of them. The tariff average, weighted average that they levy is 2.1% so let me restate that the average US tariff is about twice as high 4% around things as what our partners imposed 2% now the larger point is whether it's 4% or 2% doesn't make a better difference. That's not a problem when it comes to 33 trillion of world trade of which we are, you know, the United States engages in about five and a half trillion of that on a two way basis, import, export, in the nexus of a massive global trading system. So he's off base. He's wrong. The target is not high tariffs or unfair foreign trade. Now there are some people who say, Well, you're looking at monetary tariffs. So in other words, the import duty they levy on, you know, exports to South Korea or India or someplace like that, right? And that, the real issue, supposedly, is non tariff barriers. For instance, you know, some governments require you that all procurement by government agencies has to be sourced from a domestic supplier, which automatically shuts out us suppliers who might want that business. Well, the problem is we're the biggest violator of the non tariff barrier in that area. In other words, we have something like $900 billion worth of state, federal and local procurement that's under Buy America policies, which means EU, Mexico, Canada, China, none of them can compete. Now I mention that only as one example, because it's the kind of classic non tariff barrier, as opposed to import duty that some people point to, or they point to the fact that while foreign countries allegedly manipulate their currency, but you know the answer to that is that number one, overwhelming, no doubt about it, largest currency manipulator in the world, is the Federal Reserve. Okay, so it's kind of hard to say that there's a unfair trade problem in the world because of currency manipulation. And then there is, you know, an argument. Well, foreign governments subsidize their exporters. They subsidize their industrial companies, and therefore they can sell things cheaper. And therefore that's another example of unfair trade, but the biggest subsidizer of tech industry, and of a lot of other basic industry in the United States is is the Defense Department. You know, we have a trillion dollar defense budget, and we put massive amounts of dollars in, not only to buying, you know, hardware and weapons and so forth, but huge amounts of R and D that go into developing cutting edge technologies that have a lot of civilian applications that, in fact, we see all over the world. That's why we're doing this broadcast right now. The point is that problem is not high tariffs because they're only low tariffs. The problem is not unfair trade, because there's all kinds of minor little interferences with pure free markets, but both, everybody violates those one way or another due to domestic politics. But it's not a big deal. It doesn't make that big a difference. So therefore, why do we have a trillion dollar trade deficit in the most recent year, and a trade deficit of that magnitude that's been pretty continuous since the 1970s the answer is three or four blocks from the White House, not 10,000 miles away in Beijing or Tokyo. The answer is the Federal Reserve has in the ELLs building there in DC, not far from the White House. Yes, yes, right there, okay, the Eccles building the Fed has a huge, persistent pro inflation bias, sure. And as a result of that, it is pushed the wage levels and the price levels and the cost levels of the US economy steadily higher, and therefore we've become less and less competitive with practically everybody, but certainly a lower wage countries nearby, like Mexico or China, far away. And you know, there's, it's not that simple of just labor costs and wages, because, after all, if you source from China, you've got to ship things 10,000 miles. You've got supply chain management issues, you've got quality control issues, you've got timeliness issues. You have inventory carry costs, because there's a huge pipeline, and of course, you have the actual freight cost of bringing all those containers over. But nevertheless, when you factor all that in, our trade problem is our costs are too high, and that is a function of the pro inflation policies of the Fed. Give one example. Go back just to the period when the economy was beginning to recover, right after the great recession. And you know the crisis of 208209 and I started 210 unit labor costs in manufacturing in the United States. Just from 210 that's only 15 years, are up 55% that's unit labor costs. In other words, if you take wage costs and you subtract productivity growth in that 15 year period, the net wage costs less productivity growth, which is what economists call unit labor costs, are up 53% and as a result of that, we started, you know, maybe with a $15 wage difference between the United States and.China back in the late 1990s that wage gap today is $30 in other words, the fully loaded way at cost of average wages in the United States. And I'm talking about not just the pay envelope, but also the payroll taxes, the you know, charge for pension expense, health care and so forth. The whole fully loaded cost to an employer is about $40 an hour, and it's about $10 in the United States and it's about $10 an hour in China. Now that's the reason why we have a huge trade deficit with China, because of the massive cost difference, and it's not because anybody's cheating. Is because the Fed, in its wisdom, decided, well, you know, everybody will be okay. We're going to inflate the economy at 2% a year. That's their target. It's not like, well, we're trying to get low inflation or zero inflation, but we're not quite making it. No, they're proactive. Answer is, we've got to have 2% or the economy is not going to work. Well, well, 2% sounds well, that's a trivial little number. However, when you do it year after year, decade after decade, for a long period of time, and the other side is not inflating at the same rate, then in dollar terms, you have a problem, and that's where we are today. So this is important to understand, because it means the heart of the whole Trump economic policy, which is trying to bring manufacturing home, trying to bring industry back to the United States, a laudable objective is based on a false diagnosis of why this happened, and it is unleashed ball in the china shop, disruption of global economic flows in relationships that are going to cause unmitigated problems, even disaster in the US economy. Because it's too subtle, when you think about it, the world trade system just goods. Now, we've not even talking about services yet, or capital flows or financing on a short term basis. The World Trade in goods, merchandise, goods only is now 33 trillion. That is a hell of a lot of activity of parts and pieces and raw materials and finished products flowing in. You know, impossible to imagine directions back and forth between dozens and dozens of major economies and hundreds overall. And when you start, you step into that, not with a tiny little increase in the tariff. To give somebody a message. You know, if our tariffs are averaging 4% that's what I gave you a little while ago. And you raise tariffs to 20% maybe that's a message. But Trump didn't do that. He raised the tariff on China to 145% in other words, let's just take one example of a practical product, almost all the small appliances that you can find in Target or even a higher end retail stores United States or on Amazon are sourced in China because of this cost differential. I've been talking about this huge wage differential. So over the last 20, 25, years, little it went there now 80% of all small appliances are now sourced in China, and one, you know, good example would be a microwave oven, and a standard one with not a lot of fancy bells and whistles, is $100 now, when you put 145% tariff on the $100 landed microwave oven is now $245 someone's going to say, Gee, are we going to be able to sell microwaves at $245 they're not certain. I'm talking about a US importer. I'm talking about someone who sells microwaves on Amazon, for instance, or the buyers at Walmart or Target, or the rest of them, they're going to say, wait a minute, maybe we ought to hold off our orders until we see how this is going to shake out. And Trump says he's going to be negotiating, which is another whole issue that we'll get into. It's a lot of baloney. He has no idea what he's doing. Let's just face the facts about this. So if orders are suddenly cut back, and the flow that goes on day in and day out across the Pacific into the big ports in Long Beach in Los Angeles is suddenly disrupted, not in a small way, but in a big way, by 20, 30, 40, 50% six or seven months down the road, we're going to have empty shelves. We're going to have empty warehouses. We're going to have sellers who suddenly realize there's such a scarcity of products that have been hit by this blunderbuss of tariffs that we can double our price and get away with it.   Keith Weinhold  25:00   Okay, sure. I mean, ports are designed. Ports are set up for stadium flows, not for surges, and then walls and activity. That just really doesn't work.   David Stockman  25:08   And let me just get in that, because you're on a good point. In other words, there is a complicated supply line, supply chain, where, you know, stuff is handed off, one hand to another, ports in China, shipping companies, ports here, rail distribution systems, regional warehouses of you know, people like Walmart and so forth, that whole supply chain is going to be hit with a shock. Everything is going to be uncertain in terms of the formulas that everybody uses right now, you know that you sell 100 units a week, so you got to replace them at the sales rate, and you put your orders in, and know that it takes six weeks to get here, and all this other stuff, all of the common knowledge that's in the supply chain that makes it work, and the handoffs smooth and efficient From one player in the supply chain to the next, it's all going to be disrupted. But the one thing we're going to have is we're going to have shortages, we're going to have empty shelves, and we're going to have price which I'm sure that Trump is not going to start saying price gouging of a you know, right? But that's not price gouging. If you have a you know, go to Florida. We have a hurricane. Where we live in Florida and New York, we have a hurricane. All of a sudden the shelves are empty and there's no goods around, because everybody's been stocking up getting ready for the storm. And then all of a sudden, the politicians are yelling that somebody's price gouging, because they raised their prices in a market that was in disequilibrium. Well, that's not price gouging. That's supply and demand trying to find a new balance basic economics. You know, when the demand is 100 and the supply is 35 okay, but I'm kind of getting ahead here, but I think there's very good likelihood that there's going to be a human cry right before, you know, maybe in the fall or right before Christmas, about price gouging and Trump then saying, Well, I was elected to bring prices down and bring inflation under control. It's out of control because all of these foreigners raised their prices. And no, they did, and it was the tariff that did it, and all the people in the supply chain are trying to take advantage of the temporary disruptions. So I think people have to understand, and I can't say this, and I don't like to say it, because I certainly didn't think the other candidate in the last election had anything to offer in terms of dealing with our serious economic problems in this country. I'm talking about Harris. But the fact is, Donald Trump has had a wrong idea for the last 40 to 50 years of his adult life. In that core idea is that trade deficits are a sign of the other side cheating. They're a sign that you're being exploited or taken advantage of or ripped off, or it's not at all okay. Trade deficits are a consequence of cost differences between different jurisdictions, and to the extent that we've artificially, unnecessarily inflated our costs. We need to fix the problem at the source. He ought to clean house at the Federal Reserve. But the problem is, Trump wants lower interest rates when, in fact, the low interest rates created all the inflation that led to our loss of competitiveness and the huge trade deficits we have today. So to summarize, it is important to understand, do not have faith in Trump's promise that we're going to have a golden age of economic prosperity. We are going to have a economic disaster, and it's a unforced error. It's self inflicted, and it's the result of the wrong fundamental idea of one guy who's in the oval office right now throwing his considerable weight around and pushing the economy into upheaval that really is totally unnecessary. He should have done what he was elected to do, and Matt's work on getting production up and costs down, that's not going to be solved with tariffs. David, I have another important point to bring up. But before we do just quickly, are those two to 4% tariffs you mentioned earlier. Those are the tariff levels pre Trump second term correct.    We could clarify that those are for the year 2023 that was the latest full year data that we have with great deal of granularity.    Keith Weinhold  29:56   The point I want to bring up is there any history? That tariffs actually work. Some people cite the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act from the 1930s and that it drove us deeper into the Great Depression. And David, on the one hand, when we think about, do tariffs actually work? If Indonesia can make shoes for us for $11 why would we want to onshore an activity like that? That is a good deal for us. And then, on the other hand, you have someone like Nvidia, the world's leading semiconductor company, they announced plans to produce some of their AI supercomputers entirely on American soil for the first time recently. And you have some other companies that have made similar announcements. So that's a small shred of evidence that tariffs could work. But my question is, historically, do tariffs actually work?    David Stockman  30:44   That's a great question, and there's a huge history. And you can go back all the way the 19th century, where Donald Trump seems to be preoccupied, but what he fails to recognize is that they worked in the 19th century because they were revenue tariffs. It wasn't an effort to, like, bring jobs back to America. We were booming at the time. Jobs were coming to America, not leaving, and it was the federal government's main source of revenue. Because, as you know, prior to 1913 there was no income tax, right? So that was one thing. Okay, then when we got into the 20th century and host World War Two, it became obvious to people that the whole idea of comparative advantage, going all the way back to Adam Smith, and that enhanced a global trade where people could specialize in whatever their more competitive advantage is, was a Good thing. And so we had round after round of negotiations after World War Two that reduced tariff levels steadily, year by year, decade by decade. So by the time we got to the 1990s when China, then, you know, arose from the disaster of Mao and Mr. Dang took over and created all the export factories and said, It's glorious to be rich and all these things is we got red capitalism. But if we start in the 1990s the average tariff worldwide, now this is weighted average on all goods that are bought and sold or imported and exported, was about 9% and there were have been various free trade deals done since then. For instance, we had NAFTA, and the tariffs on Mexico and Canada and the United States went to zero. We had a free trade deal in 212 with South Korea. This never comes up, but the tariff on South Korean goods coming the US is zero. The tariff on us, exports going to South Korea is zero because we have a free trade agreement, and it's worked out pretty well with South Korea. Now we're not the only ones doing this. Countries all over the world. The EU is a total free trade zone in economy almost as big as the United States that used to have tariff levels between countries. Now it's one big free trade zone. So if you take the entire world economy, that 9% weighted average tariff of the early 90s, which was down from maybe 2025, 30, pre World War Two in this Smoot Hawley era, was down to 2.25% by the time that Donald Trump took office, the first time around in 2017 now 2.25% is really a rounding error. It's hardly when you have $33 trillion worth of goods moving around, you know, container ships and bulk carriers and so forth all around the world, and air freight and the rest of it, rail. 2% tariff is not any kind of big deal, as I say in some of the things I write, it's not a hill of beans. So somehow, though 45 years ago, Trump got the idea that tariffs were causing a problem and that we had trade deficits, not because our costs were going up owing to bad monetary policy, but because the other guy was cheating. Remember, this is Trump's whole view of the world. It's a zero sum game. I win, you lose, and if I'm not winning, is because you're cheating. Okay? In other words, I'm inherently going to win. America's inherently going to win unless the other guy is cheating. Now, Trump sees the world the same way that I think he looked at electrical and plumbing contractors in the Bronx, you know, in the 1980s and 1990s when he was developing his various Real Estate projects. These are pretty rough and tumble guys. It's a wild, easy way to make a living. So there's a lot of, you know, there's a lot of pretty rough baseball that's played that mentality that the other guy is always trying to screw me, the other guy's always cheating, the other guy's preventing me from winning, is, is his basic mentality. And it's not Applicable. It's not useful at all to try to understand the global economy. Try to understand why America's $29 trillion economy is not chugging along as strongly and as productively as it should be, why real wages are not making the gains that workers should be experiencing and so forth. So he ought to get out of this whole trade, tariff trade war thing, which he started, I don't know how he does, it's a little late, and focus on the problems on the home front. In other words, our trade problem has been caused by too much spending, too much borrowing, too much money printing on the banks of the Potomac. It's not basically caused in Beijing or Tokyo or Seoul or even Brussels, the European Union. And we need to get back to the basic and the real culprit, which is the Federal Reserve and its current chairman, Paul, if he wants to attack somebody, go after the Fed. Go after Paul. But ought to give them a mandate to bring inflation to zero and to stop fooling around with everything else and to stop monetizing the public debt that is buying government debt, take care of your own backyard first before you start taking, yeah, sure, yeah, exactly. You know, I've been in this for a long time. I start, as I said, I started on Capitol Hill. There have been a lot of protectionist politicians, but they always argued free trade is good, but it has to be fair trade. And you know, we have this example in our steel industry, for instance, where we producers abroad are competing unfairly for one reason or another. But the point I'm getting to is they always said this is an exceptional case. Normally we would go for free trade, but we got to have protection here. We got to have a temporary quota. Even when I was in the Reagan administration, we had a big argument about voluntary quotas on Japanese car exports, and I was totally against it. I thought the US industry needed to get its act together, get its costs down. Needed to get the UAW under control, because it had pushed wages, you know, way, way, way too high terms of total cost. But they argued, yeah, well, you're right, but we have to have 10 years in order to allow things to be improved and adjusted and catch up. So this is only temporary. This is just this. Yes, this is protectionism, but it's temporary. It's expedient that we can avoid and so therefore we'll make an exception. But there is no one, and most of these people were, you know, in the payroll of the unions, or they were congressmen from south to South Carolina going to bad for the textile industry, or congressman from Ohio going to bat for the steel industry, whatever, but there was no one who ever came along and said tariffs are big, beautiful things, and we need to have permanent high tariffs, because that's the way we're going to get prosperity back in United States. It's a dumb idea. It's wrong. It's disproven by history and people. Even though Trump has done a lot of things that I like you know, he's got rid of dei he's got rid of all of this green energy, climate crisis nonsense, all of that that he's done is to the good when you come to this basic question, how do we get prosperity in America? The answer is, through free market capitalism, by getting the government out of the way, by balancing the budget and by telling the Fed not to, you know, inflate the economy to the disadvantage that it has today. That's how you get there. And Trump is not a real Republican. Trump is basically what I call a status. He's for big government, right wing status. Okay, there's left wing, Marxist status, then there's right wing status. But you know, all of this tariff business is going to create so much corruption that it's almost impossible to imagine, because every day there's someone down there, right now, I can guarantee it at the, you know, treasury department or at Commerce department saying, but we got special circumstances here in terms of the parts that we're making for aircraft that get assembled in South Korea or something, and we need special relief. Yes, every industry you're doing is putting in for everybody's going to be there the lobby. This is the greatest dream that the Washington lobbyist community ever had. Trump is literally saying he put this reciprocal tariff. You saw the whole schedule. That he had on that easel in the White House on April 2, immigration day. It was called Liberation Day. I called it Demolition Derby Day. There was a reciprocal tariff for every single country in the world based on a phony formula that said, if we have $100 million deficit with somebody, half of that was caused by cheating. So we're going to put a tariff in place closes half of the difference. I mean, just nonsense, Schoolboy idiocy. Now it is. I mean, I know everybody said, Oh, isn't it great? We've finally got rid of the bad guys, Biden, he's terrible, and the Democrats, I agree with all that, but we replaced one set of numb skulls with another set. Unfortunately, Republicans know better, but they're so intimidated, apparently buffaloed by Trump at the moment, that they're going along with this. But they know you don't put 145%tariff on anything. I mean, it's just nuts. David, I feel like you're telling us what you really think and absolutely love that.    Keith Weinhold  41:04   Interestingly, there is a Ronald Reagan clip about tariffs out there in a speech that he gave from Camp David, and it's something that's really had new life lately. In fact, we played the audio of that clip before you came onto the show today, Reagan said that he didn't like tariffs and that they hurt every American worker and consumer as Reagan's economic advisor in the White House. Did you advise him on that?    David Stockman  41:27   Yes, I did. And also I can give you a little anecdote that I think people will find interesting. Yeah, the one time that he deviated in a big way from his free trade commitments was when he put the voluntary export quota on the Japanese auto industry. That was big. I don't remember the exact number, but I think it said they couldn't export more than 1.2 million cars a year, or something like that the United States. And the number was supposed to adjust over time, but we had huge debates in the Cabinet Room about those things, and at the end of the day, here's what he said. He said, You know, I've always been for open trade, free trade. I've always felt it has to be fair trade. But, you know, in this case, the Japanese industry came to us and asked for voluntary quotas, so I didn't put up a trade barrier. I'm only accommodating their request. Well, the Japanese did come to him and ask. They did, but only when they were put up to it by the protectionists in the Reagan administration who, on this took them on the side, you know, their negotiators and maybe their foreign minister. I can't remember exactly who commerce secretary and said, If you don't ask for voluntary quotas, we're going to unleash Capitol Hill and you're going to get a real nasty wall put up against your car. So what will it be? Do you want to front for voluntary quotas? Are we going to unleash Congress? So they came to Reagan and said they were the Japanese industry said they're recommending that he impose voluntary restraints on auto exports. That was just a ruse. He wasn't naive, but he believed what you told him. He believed that everybody was honest like he was, and so he didn't understand that the Japanese industry that was brought to meet with him in the Oval Office had been put up to, it been threatened with, you know, something far worse, mandatory quote is imposed by Congress. But anyway, it's a little anecdote. What happened? On the other hand, he continued to articulate the case for small government sound money. We had deficit problems, but he always wanted a balanced budget. It was just hard to get there politically. And he believed that capitalism produces prosperity if you let capitalism work and keep the government out of the marketplace. And there is no bigger form of intervention and meddling and disruption in the capitalist system, in the free market, in the marketplace, than quotas on every product in every country at different levels. They're going to have 150 different countries negotiating bilaterally deals with the United States. That's the first thing that's ridiculous. They can't happen. The second thing is they're going to come up with deals that don't amount to a hill of beans, but they'll say, we have a deal. The White House will claim victory. Let me just give one example. As we know, one of the big things that Trump did in the first administration was he renegotiated NAFTA. And NAFTA was the free trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, United States. Before he started in 2017 the trade deficit of the US with Mexico and Canada combined with 65 billion. And he said, That's too big, and we got to fix NAFTA. We have got to rebalance the provisions so that the US comes out, not on the short end of the stick 65 billion. So they negotiated for about a year and a half, they announced a new deal, which he then renamed the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement, usmca, and, you know, made a big noise about it, but it was the same deal with the new name. They didn't change more than 2% of the underlying machinery and structure, semantics. Well now, so now we fast forward to 2024 so the usmca Trump's pride and joy, his the kind of deal that he says he's going to seek with every country in the world is now four years into effect. And what is the trade deficit with Canada and Mexico today, it's 230 5 billion okay? It's four times higher now than it was then when he put it in place. Why? Because we have a huge trade deficit with Mexico. Why because, you know, average wages there are less than $10 an hour, and they're $40 an hour here. That's why it has nothing to do with a bad trade deal. It has to do with cost differences.    Keith Weinhold  46:27   David, this has been great, and as we're winding down here, we have a lot of real estate investor listeners tell us what this administration's overall policies, not just tariffs, but overall policies, mean for future employment, and then tell us about your highly regarded contra corner newsletter.    David Stockman  46:45   Well, those are that's a big question. I think it doesn't mean good, because if they were really trying to get America back on track our economy, they would be fighting inflation tooth and nail to get it down to zero. They would be working day and night to implement what Musk came up with in the doge that is big spending cuts and balancing the budget. They're not doing that. They're letting all these announcements being made, but they're not actually cutting any spending. They would not be attempting to impose this huge apparatus of tariffs on the US economy, but they're not doing that. So I'm not confident we were going in the wrong direction under Biden, for sure, and we're going in an even worse direction right now under Trump. So that's the first thing. The second thing is, I put out a daily newsletter called David stockman's Country corner. You can yes signers on the internet, but this is what we write about every day, and I say A plague on both their houses, the Democrats, the Republicans. They're all, in many ways, just trying to justify government meddling, government spending, government borrowing, government money printing, when we would do a lot better if we went in the opposite direction, sound money, balanced budgets, free markets and so forth, so. And in the process, I'm not partisan. You know, I was a Republican congressman. I was a budget director of the Reagan administration. I have been more on the Republican side, obviously, over my career than the Democrats, but now I realize that both parties are part of the problem, and I call it the uni party when push comes to shove, the uni party has basically been for a lot of wars abroad and a lot of debt at home, and a lot of meddling in the economy That was unnecessary. So if you look at what I write every day, it tries to help people see through the pretenses and the errors of the unit party, Democrats and Republicans. And in the present time, I have to focus on Trump, because Trump is making all the noise.    Keith Weinhold  48:59   100% Yes, it sure has kept life and the news cycle exciting, whether someone likes that news or not. Well, David, this has been great. In fact, it sounds a lot like what Reagan might have told me, perhaps because you were a chief economic informant for him, smaller government, letting the free trade flow and lower inflation. Be sure to check out David stockman's contra corner newsletter if you like what we've been talking about today, just like it was last year, David, it's been a real pleasure having you on GRE today.    David Stockman  49:30   Well, thank you very much. And these are important issues, and we've got to stay on top of them.   Keith Weinhold  49:41   Oh, yeah. Well, David Stockman truly no mincing words. He doesn't like tariffs. In summary, telling GRE listeners that the problem with trade imbalances is inflation attack that instead quell inflation, don't impose tariffs. A lot of developing nations and China have distinct advantages over manufacturing in the United States, besides having the trained labor and all the factories and systems in place, think about how many of these nations have built in lower costs they don't have to deal with these regulatory agencies, no EPA, no OSHA, and not even a minimum wage law to have to comply with. And here in the US get this, 80% of American workers agree that the US would benefit from more manufacturing jobs, but almost 75% disagree that they would personally be better off working in a factory themselves. That's according to a joint Cato Institute in YouGov survey. It's sort of like how last century, Americans lamented the demise of the family farm, yeah, but yet, they sure didn't want to work on a farm themselves. Now there are some types of manufacturing, like perhaps pharmaceuticals or computer chips that could likely be onshore, because those items are high value items. Their value can exceed the cost of being produced in the USA, but a lot of these factory goods, not again. If these topics interest you do a search for David stockman's contra corner, or you can directly visit David stockman's contra corner.com. Big thanks to the father of Reaganomics, David Stockman on the show this week. As for next week, we're back more toward the center of real estate investing. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, don't quit your Daydream. Y   Unknown Speaker  51:42   nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice. Please consult an appropriate tax, legal, real estate, financial or business professional for individualized advice. Opinions of guests are their own. Information is not guaranteed. All investment strategies have the potential for profit or loss. The host is operating on behalf of get rich Education LLC   Keith Weinhold  52:02   You know, whenever you want the best written real estate and finance info, oh, geez, today's experience limits your free articles access and it's got paywalls and pop ups and push notifications and cookies disclaimers, it's not so great. So then it's vital to place nice, clean, free content into your hands that adds no hype value to your life. That's why this is the golden age of quality newsletters. And I write every word of ours myself. It's got a dash of humor, and it's to the point because even the word abbreviation is too long. My letter usually takes less than three minutes to read, and when you start the letter, you also get my one hour fast real estate video. Course, it's all completely free. It's called The Don't quit your Daydream. Letter, it wires your mind for wealth, and it couldn't be easier for you to get it right now. Just text GRE to 66866, while it's on your mind, take a moment to do it right now. Text GRE to 66866   The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com.  

It's Mental Health Awareness Week and in a series of special podcasts for Sky Sports, Adam Smith sits down with Premier League stars to discuss the times in their careers where they've struggled with their mental health. In this episode, Adam is joined by defender Conor Coady who explains how it felt to leave his boyhood club Liverpool, how relegation with Leicester City is the toughest moment of his career, and how he balances life as a footballer with being a dad of four.If you've been affected by any of the themes covered in this podcast, advice and organisations that can help can be found at sky.com/viewersupport.

Did Jesus really tell people to hate their mom & dad? I thought we were supposed to love everyone. How does this fit with all that “love your enemy” stuff? Is Jesus really commanding us to hate people? What are we missing? Why is He using such harsh language? And why in the world would you bring this up on Mother's Day? If you're new with us, let us know how we can be praying for you, we invite you to fill out an online Connect Card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/91550—If you are looking for what is next for you, we invite you to fill out an online “Next Steps” card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/672517To give with us select the Give tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/giving/ and select the Corona Fund or Corona BOW Fund—Visit our Linktree to find out more about everything mentioned in today's message or follow along with the message slides:https://linktr.ee/SouthHillsCorona —To RSVP for On-Campus Events select the Events tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/corona/

Acts 22:22-23:11 | Adam Smith

Acts 22:22-23:11 | Adam Smith

Tầm nhìn Kinh tế Đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis - Một Lời Kêu Gọi Cải Cách Hệ ThốngGiáo hoàng Francis không chỉ là một lãnh đạo tôn giáo mà còn là một nhà phê bình sắc sảo về hệ thống kinh tế toàn cầu. Với góc nhìn từ Mỹ Latinh, ngài chỉ trích chủ nghĩa tư bản hiện đại vì đã đánh mất la bàn đạo đức, đặt lợi nhuận trên con người và dẫn đến bất bình đẳng, nghèo đói, cùng suy thoái môi trường. Thay vì bác bỏ hoàn toàn chủ nghĩa tư bản, ngài kêu gọi tái định hướng kinh tế dựa trên nền tảng đạo đức, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế không chỉ là kỹ thuật mà là một hệ thống phản ánh các giá trị nhân văn.Giáo hoàng Francis gọi hệ thống kinh tế hiện nay là “một nền kinh tế loại trừ và bất bình đẳng” – một hệ thống “giết chết” khi phục vụ lợi ích của một số ít thay vì cộng đồng. Từ trải nghiệm ở Argentina, ngài chứng kiến sự tàn khốc của bất công kinh tế: cộng đồng tan rã, bất bình đẳng gia tăng, và các tệ nạn xã hội lan rộng. Ngài chỉ trích sự tập trung của cải, cho rằng thị trường, thay vì tạo ra giá trị chung, đang trở thành công cụ bóc lột. Quan điểm này thách thức các giả định tân cổ điển về tính tự điều chỉnh của thị trường, khẳng định rằng nghèo đói và bất công là “tội lỗi cấu trúc” cần được sửa chữa.Trong thông điệp Laudato Si', Giáo hoàng Francis gắn kết kinh tế với sinh thái, coi suy thoái môi trường là hệ quả tất yếu của một nền kinh tế biến thiên nhiên thành hàng hóa và bỏ rơi người nghèo. Ngài gọi Trái Đất là “người nghèo bị ngược đãi nhất”, nhấn mạnh rằng kinh tế và sinh thái là hai mặt của trách nhiệm đạo đức. Cách tiếp cận này không chỉ phê phán mô hình tăng trưởng vô hạn mà còn kêu gọi một nền kinh tế tôn trọng cả con người lẫn thiên nhiên.Giáo hoàng Francis không dừng lại ở phê bình mà đưa ra tầm nhìn về một nền kinh tế dựa trên đoàn kết, công lý và quản lý sinh thái. Hội nghị Kinh Tế của Francesco năm 2020 là minh chứng cho nỗ lực này, khuyến khích các nhà kinh tế đặt câu hỏi cơ bản: “Chúng ta muốn loại thị trường nào, và vì ai?”. Ngài kêu gọi tái thiết hệ thống kinh tế từ nền tảng đạo đức, thay vì chỉ sửa chữa bề mặt. Các đề xuất cụ thể bao gồm từ bỏ độc quyền sở hữu trí tuệ trong y tế (như vắc-xin COVID-19) và xóa nợ cho các nước đang phát triển, xem đó là vấn đề công lý hơn là từ thiện.Tầm nhìn của Giáo hoàng Francis không phải là một sáng tạo riêng lẻ mà nằm trong truyền thống tư tưởng kinh tế nhân văn. Ngài chia sẻ quan điểm với các nhà kinh tế như Joseph Stiglitz, Amartya Sen, và Thomas Piketty, những người nhấn mạnh công lý, năng lực con người, và quản trị dân chủ trong kinh tế. Ngay cả Adam Smith, với lời cảnh báo về sự đồng cảm và lòng tin, được ngài viện dẫn để nhắc nhở rằng kinh tế phải phục vụ lợi ích chung. Quan điểm này bác bỏ ý tưởng về kinh tế “trung lập giá trị”, khẳng định mọi chính sách đều phản ánh một hệ giá trị đạo đức.Là tiếng nói cho Thế giới phía Nam, Giáo hoàng Francis đã trở thành một lực lượng đạo đức toàn cầu, nhắc nhở thế giới rằng kinh tế tồn tại để phục vụ con người và phẩm giá. Di sản của ngài nằm ở việc đặt nền móng cho một hệ thống tài chính quốc tế công bằng hơn, thông qua các sáng kiến như Ủy ban Năm Thánh. Trong bối cảnh khủng hoảng toàn cầu, thông điệp của ngài mang tính cấp bách: kinh tế cần được “cứu chuộc” bằng cách đặt công lý, đoàn kết và trách nhiệm sinh thái làm trung tâm. Thách thức đặt ra là liệu thế giới có sẵn sàng đáp ứng lời kêu gọi tái định hình này hay không.Tầm nhìn kinh tế đạo đức của Giáo hoàng Francis là một lời cảnh tỉnh mạnh mẽ, thách thức các nhà kinh tế và lãnh đạo toàn cầu nhìn nhận lại mục đích của kinh tế. Bằng cách kết nối bất công kinh tế, suy thoái môi trường và trách nhiệm đạo đức, ngài không chỉ phê phán mà còn truyền cảm hứng cho một mô hình kinh tế nhân văn hơn. Trong một thế giới đối mặt với bất bình đẳng và biến đổi khí hậu, thông điệp của ngài không chỉ là lý thuyết mà là kim chỉ nam cho hành động, hướng tới một tương lai công bằng và bền vững. To hear more, visit changngocgia.substack.com

In Episode 1 of I'm in This Movie, Chelsea introduces the series concept and once again finds an excuse to talk about her favorite movie, Back to the Future! Adam Smith's review for Back to the Future on Empire Contact Chelsea Instagram - @ChelseaLeeH17 Letterboxd An American Workplace | A Retrospective The Office Podcast Crossroads of Destiny | An Avatar: TLA Universe Podcast Cinescope Instagram - @cinescopepodcast YouTube Website Email thecinescopepodcast@gmail.com

Tariffs are back in the headlines—so what should Christians make of them? Economist Dr. Kenneth Barnes joins us to unpack how trade policies, rising prices, and global tensions intersect with our everyday work and Gospel witness. In a world where economic headlines stir fear, we explore how the gospel reframes our perspective and response. This timely conversation will challenge you to think biblically about policy, productivity, and peace. Do you like The Faith & Work Podcast? Be sure to subscribe! Now available on iTunes and Spotify. HIGHLIGHTS  On Economies of Mutuality "That has also uniquely given us the ability to create technology. And that's important because it's technology that ultimately creates wealth. And so what we do with that and how we treat our neighbors... all comes down to our means of exchange. And if our means of exchange is fair, if it's just, if it's genuinely relational and mutual, everybody benefits." On God's Vision for the Economy Ross Chapman: "If you had to summarize God's vision for economics in a sentence or two, what would it be? How could you make that as clear and understandable based on scripture? What would you say that is?" Dr. Kenneth Barnes: "I would say: Just Flourishing." RESOURCES  Download the Episode Transcript Here Books By Dr. Barnes:  NEW - Sabbath as Resilience: Spiritual Refreshment for a Stressed-Out World Redeeming Capitalism Economic Wisdom Project Free Denver Institute Download - Deep Rest: A Study of Sabbath Harvard Study on Flourishing - Explore the 6 Dimensions of Flourishing  QUOTES “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” - Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations “God doesn't need your good works, but your neighbor does.” - Martin Luther DICTIONARY OF TERMS Worker par excellence: being an example of excellence; superior; preeminent Egality: a state of being essentially equal or equivalent; equally balanced Abberation: a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome "Bretton Woods Agreement":The creation of a fixed currency exchange rate pegged to the gold standard Macheavellian: cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous, especially in politics Prescient: having or showing knowledge of events before they take place Impetus: the force or energy with which a body move  נוּחַ (nuach): The Hebrew word meaning "to rest" or "to be at rest". It can also imply settling down, remaining, or finding repose. 

KGMI's Dianna Hawryluk and Adam Smith chat about David Cross performing at the Mount Baker Theatre, Big Jam Stories at the Pioneer Pavilion in Ferndale, Mother's Day brunch options, and the Spring Wine Walk in downtown Bellingham.

Today, Thursday, May 8 on Urban Forum Northwest:* Eric Evans, Treasurer, Democrats for Diversity & Inclusion (DDI) is an organization that knows diversity is not their problem-it is our promise. Treasurer Evans invites you to support their fund raising efforts that will be beneficial to promising students.*Sophia Benalfew, Executive Director, Ethiopian Community in Seattle is hosting the Housing Justice & Community Power Summit on Friday, May 16 9:30 am-11:45 am at the Ethiopian Community of Seattle 8323 Rainier Avenue South. Agnes Navarro, Executive Director, Filipino community of Seattle will be panelist. Sameth Mell is one of the organizers for the event. The summit will feature remarks by Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Congressman Adam Smith, State Senator Rebecca Saldana, King County Council Chair Girmay Zahilay, Seattle City Council members Alexis Mercedes Rinck, Mark Solomon and Sunaree Marshall Director, King County Housing and Community Development (HCD). There will be a panel of Government and Institutional Partners.*Retired Seattle Black Firefighters Clarence Williams who was also past president of the International Association of Black Professional Firefighters and now serves as president of the Northwest Retired Black Firefighters Association comments on his expectations of MLK County Superior Court Judge Josephine Wiggs-Martin ruling will be on the questionable sale of the 23rd & East Pike Street property that was paid for by the retired Black Firefighters. He will be joined by Seattle's first Black Firefighter and first Black Chief of the Seattle Fire Department Claude Harris. Attorney Yohannes Sium has represented the retired and Seattle Firefighters who opposed the sale of the property and he will comment on this case.Urban Forum Northwest streams live at www.1150kknw.com. Visit us at www.urbanforumnw.com for archived programs and relevant information. Like us on facebook. X@Eddie_Rye.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"Are You Being Mindful – Or Is Your Mind Just Full?" In this episode, Smith & Mayhew dive headfirst into the world of mindfulness, meditation, and mental resilience — but don't worry, it's not all incense and chanting. The lads discuss how mindfulness has shaped their daily routines, the difference between healthy standards and obsessive habits, and why it's actually powerful to just sit still with your own thoughts (even if it's bloody uncomfortable). Mayhew shares insights from his recent meditation teacher training, including the teachings of Jon Kabat-Zinn, silent Zoom sessions, and the unexpected power of wiggling your fingers in a Yorkshire accent. From ADHD to mobile phone dependency, they explore how men can start taking back control of their attention and inner calm — one deep breath at a time. Warning: contains unsolicited bush trimming, poo parties, and a few spiritual epiphanies! Resources mentioned during this episode: Jon Kabat-Zinn – Wherever You Go, There You Are : Buy on Amazon UK If you want your question answered on a future episode, please drop the lads a line : hello@agameconsultancy.com Adam Smith From depressed and suicidal to the happiest and fittest he's ever been, Adam Smith's self-development journey hasn't been easy but it has been worth it. Today, he's a qualified mindset coach in neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and a certified Time Line Therapist®. Adam has coached many high performers, using NLP to rewire his clients' thoughts and behaviours so they can destroy limiting beliefs and engineer the change needed to excel. Connect with Adam Smith: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-smith-high-performance-coach/ Adam Mayhew Adam Mayhew swapped burnout and binge drinking for ultra marathons, CrossFit and sobriety. A registered nutritional therapist specialising in performance nutrition, Adam supports everyone from office workers to athletes to build healthy eating habits. Using science (and never fad diets, quick fixes or gym bro culture) he helps clients target their problem areas and confidently master diet, training and lifestyle. Connect with Adam Mayhew: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-mayhew-nutrition-coaching/ To find out more about Smith & Mayhew: https://agameconsultancy.com/about/

For a long time, Republicans and many Democrats espoused some version of free-trade economics that would have been familiar to Adam Smith. But Donald Trump breaks radically with that tradition, embracing a form of protectionism that resulted in his extremely broad and chaotic tariff proposals, which tanked markets and deepened the fear of a global recession. John Cassidy writes The New Yorker's The Financial Page column, and he's been covering economics for the magazine since 1995. His new book, “Capitalism and Its Critics: A History,” takes a long view of these debates, and breaks down some of the arguments that have shaped the U.S.'s current economic reality. “Capitalism itself has put its worst face forward in the last twenty or thirty years through the growth of huge monopolies which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability,” Cassidy tells David Remnick. “And young people—they look at capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.”

KGMI's Dianna Hawryluk and Adam Smith chat about ways to deal with depression and the US News and World Report's list of the best states to live in.

For a long time, Republicans and many Democrats espoused some version of free-trade economics that would have been familiar to Adam Smith. But Donald Trump breaks radically with that tradition, embracing a form of protectionism that resulted in his extremely broad and chaotic tariff proposals, which tanked markets and deepened the fear of a global recession. John Cassidy writes The New Yorker's The Financial Page column, and he's been covering economics for the magazine since 1995. His new book, “Capitalism and Its Critics: A History,” takes a long view of these debates, and breaks down some of the arguments that have shaped the U.S.'s current economic reality. “Capitalism itself has put its worst face forward in the last twenty or thirty years through the growth of huge monopolies which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability,” Cassidy tells David Remnick. “And young people—they look at capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.” Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Dr. Adam Smith, more popularly known as Doc Adam, is a British-Australian medical doctor and social media content creator who debunks medical misinformation and discusses medical-related problems that are relevant to Filipinos. In 2025, he published a book called "Quacks," detailing what he calls his "journey through Filipino health scams." We talked about changing the minds of health scam victims, the white savior complex and Pinoybaiting, Pinoy doctors on social media, the attention span of today's social media users, the first step an ordinary person can take to fight health scams, and more.FULL TRANSCRIPT OF EPISODE 161: https://www.flipscience.ph/podcast/ask-theory-podcast-161-162-debunking-medical-misinformation-doc-adamFollow Doc Adam:YouTube: @DrAdamSmithFacebook: fb.com/DocAdamSmithX/Twitter: @docadamsmithInstagram: @docadamsmithGet a copy of Doc Adam's book, "Quacks: My Journey Through Filipino Health Scams," here - https://www.quacks.ph/

Dr. Adam Smith, more popularly known as Doc Adam, is a British-Australian medical doctor and social media content creator who debunks medical misinformation and discusses medical-related problems that are relevant to Filipinos. In 2025, he published a book called "Quacks," detailing what he calls his "journey through Filipino health scams."We talked about how serious the problem of medical misinformation in the Philippines really is, why there are so many health scams and scammers in the Philippines, an alarming observation about journalists in the Philippines, how the ordinary Filipino can avoid getting scammed, how to talk about possible medical scams without getting sued, and more.FULL TRANSCRIPT OF EPISODE 161: https://www.flipscience.ph/podcast/ask-theory-podcast-161-162-debunking-medical-misinformation-doc-adamFollow Doc Adam:YouTube: @DrAdamSmithFacebook: fb.com/DocAdamSmithX/Twitter: @docadamsmithInstagram: @docadamsmithGet a copy of Doc Adam's book, "Quacks: My Journey Through Filipino Health Scams," here - https://www.quacks.ph/

Did Jesus really say God might not forgive you if you don't forgive others? I thought salvation was a free gift from God. Is His forgiveness conditional? If so, how many conditions are there? What if you can't live up to all of them? Does this mean—if someone hurts you and you can't put it behind you, you don't get to go to heaven? If you're new with us, let us know how we can be praying for you, we invite you to fill out an online Connect Card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/91550—If you are looking for what is next for you, we invite you to fill out an online “Next Steps” card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/672517To give with us select the Give tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/giving/ and select the Corona Fund or Corona BOW Fund—Visit our Linktree to find out more about everything mentioned in today's message or follow along with the message slides:https://linktr.ee/SouthHillsCorona —To RSVP for On-Campus Events select the Events tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/corona/

Acts 21:27-22:21 | Adam Smith

Acts 21:27-22:21 | Adam Smith

In this episode of the Modern Man Podcast, host Ted engages with high-performance coach Adam Smith, who shares insights on personal development, the pursuit of potential, and the internal blocks that high achievers face. They discuss the importance of progress over perfection, the role of beliefs and standards in achieving success, and the necessity of stillness in a fast-paced world. Adam emphasizes that purpose is not something to be found but created through action and progress, and he highlights the common struggle of feeling 'not good enough' among men, particularly in high-pressure environments. TakeawaysThe pursuit of potential is a continuous journey.Progress equals happiness, not destination.Many men feel they are not good enough.Purpose is something we create, not find.The 'when and then' mentality hinders action.High achievers often struggle with internal blocks.Beliefs shape our actions and results.Discipline is key to high performance.Standards determine the quality of our work.Stillness allows for powerful action and reflection. Meditation can feel uncomfortable due to the overwhelming number of thoughts we have.We often avoid pain rather than seeking pleasure, which affects our perception of experiences.Being fully present can help us appreciate the world around us.Stillness is essential for achieving inner peace and calm.Many people feel they are 'doing it wrong' regarding mindfulness practices.Compartmentalization can lead to chaos in different areas of life.Success can be redefined to include joy and fulfillment, not just achievement.The cost of unchecked ambition can be high, including divorce and mental health issues.Asking for help is a sign of strength, not weakness.You don't have to hit rock bottom to initiate change in your life.Chapters 00:18 - Introduction to the Modern Man Podcast 01:17 - Adam Smith: The High Performance Coach 02:16 - The Pursuit of Potential 04:13 - Understanding Purpose and Progress 07:07 - The 'When and Then' Mentality 09:18 - Internal Blocks for High Achievers 12:07 - The Role of Beliefs and Standards 15:24 - Discipline and High Performance 20:14 - The Importance of Stillness 23:59 - The Challenge of Meditation and Mindfulness 27:31 - The Importance of Stillness for Inner Peace 30:10 - Compartmentalization and Its Impact on Life 35:43 - The High Cost of Unchecked Ambition 38:56 - Redefining Success: Finding Joy and PurposeSmith's Links Website:agameconsultancy.comLinkedIn: Adam SmithInstagram: agameconsultancyFacebook: agameconsultancyPodcast: agameunfilteredFree eBook Here: Mastering Self-Development: Strategies of the New Masculine: https://rebrand.ly/m2ebook ⚔️JOIN THE NOBLE KNIGHTS MASTERMIND⚔️https://themodernmanpodcast.com/thenobleknights

Welcome to the Professor Liberty Podcast, where your favorite slightly libertarian social studies teacher, Mr. Palumbo, dives into the life and legacy of Adam Smith, the father of modern economics. Discover how Smith's groundbreaking ideas during the Enlightenment era continue to influence economic thought and practices today.  

Did Jesus really smash up someone's business? If He's so kind and loving, why would He break displays, damage merchandise, and run off customers? Isn't that vandalism? I thought Jesus was anti-violence. Didn't He tell us to love, serve, & pray for our enemies? Why would He destroy their livelihood? Is it ok for me to?If you're new with us, let us know how we can be praying for you, we invite you to fill out an online Connect Card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/91550—If you are looking for what is next for you, we invite you to fill out an online “Next Steps” card by visiting https://southhillschurch.churchcenter.com/people/forms/672517To give with us select the Give tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/giving/ and select the Corona Fund or Corona BOW Fund—Visit our Linktree to find out more about everything mentioned in today's message or follow along with the message slides:https://linktr.ee/SouthHillsCorona —To RSVP for On-Campus Events select the Events tab on the Church Center App or visit https://southhills.org/corona/

From the workings of financial markets to our response to the ecological crisis, economic theory shapes the world. But where do these ideas come from? Ricardo's Dream: How Economists Forgot the Real World and Led Us Astray (Bristol University Press, 2024) tells the fascinating story of David Ricardo, Adam Smith's only real rival as the ‘founder of economics'. The wealthiest stock trader of his day, Ricardo introduced the study of abstract models to economics. He also developed the theory of trade that underpinned globalization and hides, behind its mathematical facade, a history of power, empire, and slavery. Brimming with fresh ideas and stories, Ricardo's Dream shows how too many economists, from Ricardo's day to our own, have turned away from observing the real world and led us astray. Nat Dyer is a writer and researcher specialising in global political economy. He is a Fellow of the Schumacher Institute and the Royal Society of Arts. He has worked for Global Witness and for Promoting Economic Pluralism and his stories have been reported on by the BBC, the New York Times and Bloomberg Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

From the workings of financial markets to our response to the ecological crisis, economic theory shapes the world. But where do these ideas come from? Ricardo's Dream: How Economists Forgot the Real World and Led Us Astray (Bristol University Press, 2024) tells the fascinating story of David Ricardo, Adam Smith's only real rival as the ‘founder of economics'. The wealthiest stock trader of his day, Ricardo introduced the study of abstract models to economics. He also developed the theory of trade that underpinned globalization and hides, behind its mathematical facade, a history of power, empire, and slavery. Brimming with fresh ideas and stories, Ricardo's Dream shows how too many economists, from Ricardo's day to our own, have turned away from observing the real world and led us astray. Nat Dyer is a writer and researcher specialising in global political economy. He is a Fellow of the Schumacher Institute and the Royal Society of Arts. He has worked for Global Witness and for Promoting Economic Pluralism and his stories have been reported on by the BBC, the New York Times and Bloomberg Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Adam Smith and Spencer Oliver hosted the latest edition of the Fight Night Daily Podcast as Oleksandr Usyk and Daniel Dubois launched their rematch at Wembley Stadium. They were joined by Don Charles and George Fox. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Sign up for Alex's course here: https://www.patreon.com/courseswithalex/shop/introduction-to-political-economy-3-20-1424227?utm_campaign=productshare_fan "Political Economy" is precisely what the name implies: a unity between political and economic policy. It is the father of modern economics, joined with the mother (cousin?) of history and political science. As the scientific study of economics emerged, it was integrally tied to political incentives and, by extension, questions of morality. We will explore the foundational texts of modern political economy from Adam Smith, Ricardo, Marx, Menger, Marshall, Keynes, and more. This course is highly recommended before exploring Karl Marx's Capital. Check out our new bi-weekly series, "The Crisis Papers" here: https://www.patreon.com/bitterlakepresents/shop Thank you guys again for taking the time to check this out. We appreciate each and everyone of you. If you have the means, and you feel so inclined, BECOME A PATRON! We're creating patron only programing, you'll get bonus content from many of the episodes, and you get MERCH! Become a patron now https://www.patreon.com/join/BitterLakePresents? Please also like, subscribe, and follow us on these platforms as well, (specially YouTube!) THANKS Y'ALL YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCG9WtLyoP9QU8sxuIfxk3eg Twitch: www.twitch.tv/thisisrevolutionpodcast ​ Twitter: @TIRShowOakland Instagram: @thisisrevolutionoakland Read Jason Myles in Sublation Magazine https://www.sublationmag.com/writers/jason-myles Read Jason Myles in Damage Magazine https://damagemag.com/2023/11/07/the-man-who-sold-the-world/ Read Jason in Unaligned here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-161586946?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

On Strike provides news & analysis from a working-class perspective, putting forward a strategy to take on the billionaires and their political servants, and win.We don't run any ads and we don't take corporate money. We rely on support from working people like you, so SUBSCRIBE NOW to On Strike and BECOME A MEMBER of Workers Strike Back: www.workersstrikeback.org/joinOn Strike is a production of Workers Strike Back, which was launched by Kshama Sawant and other working people in 2023 to spread the lessons of her decade as a socialist City Councilmember in Seattle, where she led movements to win historic victories like the first major $15 minimum wage, the Amazon Tax for affordable housing, and landmark renters' rights like the first-in-the-nation ban on winter evictions. Workers Strike Back is building a movement across the country to fight for things like a $25/hour minimum wage, free healthcare and quality affordable housing for all, an end U.S. military aid to the Israeli war machine, and an end the genocide and occupation in Gaza. We're organizing to begin laying the foundation for a new party for working people.Start a monthly donation and support On Strike by becoming a member of Workers Strike Back today!www.workersstrikeback.org/join

From the workings of financial markets to our response to the ecological crisis, economic theory shapes the world. But where do these ideas come from? Ricardo's Dream: How Economists Forgot the Real World and Led Us Astray (Bristol University Press, 2024) tells the fascinating story of David Ricardo, Adam Smith's only real rival as the ‘founder of economics'. The wealthiest stock trader of his day, Ricardo introduced the study of abstract models to economics. He also developed the theory of trade that underpinned globalization and hides, behind its mathematical facade, a history of power, empire, and slavery. Brimming with fresh ideas and stories, Ricardo's Dream shows how too many economists, from Ricardo's day to our own, have turned away from observing the real world and led us astray. Nat Dyer is a writer and researcher specialising in global political economy. He is a Fellow of the Schumacher Institute and the Royal Society of Arts. He has worked for Global Witness and for Promoting Economic Pluralism and his stories have been reported on by the BBC, the New York Times and Bloomberg Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

From the workings of financial markets to our response to the ecological crisis, economic theory shapes the world. But where do these ideas come from? Ricardo's Dream: How Economists Forgot the Real World and Led Us Astray (Bristol University Press, 2024) tells the fascinating story of David Ricardo, Adam Smith's only real rival as the ‘founder of economics'. The wealthiest stock trader of his day, Ricardo introduced the study of abstract models to economics. He also developed the theory of trade that underpinned globalization and hides, behind its mathematical facade, a history of power, empire, and slavery. Brimming with fresh ideas and stories, Ricardo's Dream shows how too many economists, from Ricardo's day to our own, have turned away from observing the real world and led us astray. Nat Dyer is a writer and researcher specialising in global political economy. He is a Fellow of the Schumacher Institute and the Royal Society of Arts. He has worked for Global Witness and for Promoting Economic Pluralism and his stories have been reported on by the BBC, the New York Times and Bloomberg Morteza Hajizadeh is a Ph.D. graduate in English from the University of Auckland in New Zealand. His research interests are Cultural Studies; Critical Theory; Environmental History; Medieval (Intellectual) History; Gothic Studies; 18th and 19th Century British Literature. YouTube channel. Twitter. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/critical-theory

Philippians 2:12-30 | Adam Smith

Philippians 2:12-30 | Adam Smith

Charles Coleman, sitting in for Ali Velshi is joined by Congressman Adam Smith (D-WA), Slate's Mark Joseph Stern, Georgetown's Michele Goodwin, Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund, Kimberly Atkins Stohr, Molly Jong-Fast, the ACLU's Alanah Odoms, the Nation's Ray Suarez, and MacMillan Publishers CEO Jon Yaged.

Across the world, people are mourning the death of Pope Francis at the age of 88. Anderson Cooper is live from Saint George's Cathedral in London, en route to Rome. Plus, the fallout and denials after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed military plans in a second Signal chat, which included his wife and brother. Anderson gets reaction from Democratic congressman Adam Smith. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

// GUEST //Website: https://www.mattridley.co.uk/X: https://x.com/mattwridleySubstack: https://rationaloptimistsociety.substack.com/ // SPONSORS //The Farm at Okefenokee: https://okefarm.com/iCoin: https://icointechnology.com/breedloveHeart and Soil Supplements (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://heartandsoil.co/In Wolf's Clothing: https://wolfnyc.com/Blockware Solutions: https://mining.blockwaresolutions.com/breedloveOn Ramp: https://onrampbitcoin.com/?grsf=breedloveMindlab Pro: https://www.mindlabpro.com/breedloveCoinbits: https://coinbits.app/breedlove // PRODUCTS I ENDORSE //Protect your mobile phone from SIM swap attacks: https://www.efani.com/breedloveNoble Protein (discount code BREEDLOVE for 15% off): https://nobleorigins.com/Lineage Provisions (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://lineageprovisions.com/?ref=breedlove_22Colorado Craft Beef (use discount code BREEDLOVE): https://coloradocraftbeef.com/ // SUBSCRIBE TO THE CLIPS CHANNEL //https://www.youtube.com/@robertbreedloveclips2996/videos // OUTLINE //0:00 - WiM Episode Trailer1:22 - The Rational Optimist, 5:34 - No One Person Can Make a Computer Mouse11:50 - The Role of Money in the Global Hivemind19:51 - Money as a Language24:42 - The Farm at Okefenokee26:08 - iCoin Technology27:38 - Ideas Having Sex35:42 - Nature vs Nurture36:37 - Evolution of Everything: Adam Smith and Charles Darwin 40:58 - Natural Language as Software47:11 - Heart and Soil Supplements48:11 - Helping Lightning Startups with In Wolf's Clothing49:02 - Evolution as Biological Innovation57:51 - Energy and Entropy1:09:29 - Mine Bitcoin with Blockware Solutions1:10:54 - OnRamp Bitcoin Custody1:12:51 - The Evolution of Language1:19:33 - Birds, Sex, and Beauty1:24:29 - Costly Signaling Theory1:31:04 - Mind Lab Pro Supplements1:32:14 - Buy Bitcoin with Coinbits1:33:41 - Objective vs Subjective vs Transjective 1:40:04 - If the Product is Free, You are the Product1:48:03 - Lab Leak or Intentional?1:51:13 - Closing Thoughts and Where to Find Matt Ridley // PODCAST //Podcast Website: https://whatismoneypodcast.com/Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-what-is-money-show/id1541404400Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/25LPvm8EewBGyfQQ1abIsERSS Feed: https://feeds.simplecast.com/MLdpYXYI // SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL //Bitcoin: 3D1gfxKZKMtfWaD1bkwiR6JsDzu6e9bZQ7Sats via Strike: https://strike.me/breedlove22Dollars via Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/RBreedloveDollars via Venmo: https://account.venmo.com/u/Robert-Breedlove-2 // SOCIAL //Breedlove X: https://x.com/Breedlove22WiM? X: https://x.com/WhatisMoneyShowLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/breedlove22/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/breedlove_22/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@breedlove22Substack: https://breedlove22.substack.com/All My Current Work: https://linktr.ee/robertbreedlove

As the dumpster fire of U.S. politics shoots sparks across the globe, will the Pentagon supply safeguards or sycophants? What will MAGA authoritarianism look like for our communities and those abroad? And should Democrats be reconsidering their approach to law and order? Congressman Adam Smith sits down with Tommy to discuss the state of American national security, and what Democrats need to do differently to broaden their coalition. Then, Tommy and Jon answer listeners' questions on whether Democrats need their own Tea Party, Gen Z's rightward shift, and if podcasting is for the faint of heart.