Podcast appearances and mentions of Alan Greenspan

Tom Bodrovics introduces Chris Whalen, author of Inflated: Money, Debt, and the American Dream, which has been re-released in a second edition with significant updates. The conversation focuses on the current state of markets, the impact of President Trump's tariff policies, and the challenges posed by the federal debt and inflation. Chris explains that he removed 20,000 words from his original book to make space for a new chapter analyzing the Federal Reserve's management of the money supply under Ben Bernanke, Janet Yellen, and Jerome Powell. He highlights how the U.S. housing market has become heavily government-supported, leading to increased volatility and rising costs for consumers. Discussing inflation, Chris notes that it is driven by the inability of governments to generate sufficient income to meet their people's needs, as seen in countries like Argentina. He argues that borrowing from future income through debt creates distortions, particularly in housing markets, where prices have surged due to low interest rates and government intervention. He also critiques the dysfunctionality of Congress, which he believes is unable to pass budgets or manage spending effectively. Chris emphasizes the importance of gold as a hedge against inflation and expresses skepticism about stablecoins and cryptocurrencies, calling them speculative vehicles rather than reliable alternatives to fiat currency. He suggests that the U.S. dollar's dominance in global markets contributes to inflationary pressures, as other countries benefit from using dollars without bearing the associated costs. The discussion concludes with Chris offering an optimistic outlook, noting that while challenges remain, opportunities exist for investors to navigate inflation through real estate and gold. He encourages listeners to manage investments with a long-term perspective, considering the erosive effects of even low levels of inflation over time. Time Stamp References:0:00 - Introduction1:02 - His Revised Book3:08 - Tariffs & Debt Distortions7:12 - Reserve Currency & Inflation11:03 - Debt Markets & Fed/Banks17:32 - National Debt & Spending21:18 - DOGE Cuts & Old Systems30:17 - Trump's Strategy?34:04 - Gold During Nixon Era39:08 - Book & US Administrations44:13 - MMT Era & Cryptocurrency?50:21 - Silver Supply & 1800s52:06 - Stablecoin Backing55:02 - Concluding Thoughts56:33 - Wrap Up Guest Links:Website: https://www.rcwhalen.com/X: https://x.com/rcwhalenBooks (Amazon): https://tinyurl.com/mv3wctcrLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/rcwhalen/ Richard Christopher Whalen is an investment banker and author based in New York. He serves as Chairman of Whalen Global Advisors LLC, focusing on banking, mortgage finance, and fintech sectors. Christopher is a contributing editor at National Mortgage News and a general securities principal and member of FINRA. From 2014 to 2017, he was the Senior Managing Director and Head of Research at Kroll Bond Rating Agency, leading the Financial Institutions and Corporate Ratings Groups. Previously, he was a principal at Institutional Risk Analytics from 2003 to 2013. Over three decades, Chris has worked as an author, financial professional, and journalist in Washington, New York, and London. After graduating, he served under Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY) at the House Republican Conference Committee. In 1993, he was the first journalist to report on secret FOMC minutes concealed by Alan Greenspan. His career included roles at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Bear Stearns & Co., Prudential Securities, Tangent Capital, and Carrington Mortgage Holdings. Christopher holds a B.A. in History from Villanova University. He is the author of three books: "Ford Men: From Inspiration to Enterprise" (2017), published by Laissez Faire Books; "Inflated: How Money and Debt Built the American Dream" (2010) by John Wiley & Sons; and co-author of "Financial Stability: Fraud, Confidence & the Wealth of Nations,

Economic fallacies are like ghost stories for the financially literate: they persist, despite evidence to the contrary. What fallacies might be influencing your real estate and financial decisions?Join me for this episode of Real Estate Lowdown Coffee with Bill as we unravel some of the most entrenched misconceptions shaping our economic landscape.From the aftermath of what President Trump termed "Liberation Day" and the ripple effects of new tariffs to revisiting Alan Greenspan's pre-2008 housing crisis remarks, we'll explore how influential figures can fall into the trap of faulty reasoning. We'll also scrutinize the zero-sum fallacy that perpetuates the notion that one party's gain has to be another's loss, questioning the assumptions that guide our economic thinking and urging a fresh perspective on growth and transactions.Beyond financial fallacies, we of course examine the real estate market's most stubborn misconceptions. Are we really facing a housing shortage, or is that just a narrative spun by those with something to gain? With data in hand, we uncover how increased housing units are outstripping population growth, pointing to a potential oversupply rather than scarcity - underscoring the fallacies maintained by stakeholders whose livelihoods depend on these narratives.Amidst the allure of low interest rates and an era of "free money," we'll dismantle the narrative of cap rates that seemed lower than they should have been.Tune in for a revealing discussion that cuts through the noise to challenge conventional wisdom.First Lien Capital is your investment and resolutions partner delivering security and strong returns while making real impact, and your Special Assets Group for hire delivering customized solutions to your distressed real estate debt scenarios.Schedule a consultation with Bill to ELEVATE (https://billbymel.com/investor/) or REVIVE (https://billbymel.com/advisor/) your portfolio today.To learn more, visit:https://billbymel.com/Listen to more episodes on Mission Matters:https://missionmatters.com/author/bill-bymel/

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. 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

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. Episode two of the second series covers the life and crisis-era times of Ben Bernanke, the man who filled Alan Greenspan's big shoes and ran the Fed from 2006 to 2014. A shy but world-renowned monetary economist and historian of the Great Depression, Bernanke was left holding the proverbial bomb when the financial system came close to collapse in 2008. To discuss Bernanke, Tim is joined by David Wessel, author of In FED We Trust: Ben Bernanke's War on the Great Panic (Crown, 2010). “It wasn't obvious when he was appointed to the Fed in 2006 that having somebody who had spent their life studying the Great Depression would be well equipped to be Alan Greenspan's successor,” says Wessel. “I have sometimes said it was a like being a paleontologist. It's very nice that you know a lot about dinosaurs, but what use is that to us today until one day a Stegosaurus appears on the horizon. And it was remarkable good fortune for the country and the world that there was a guy who happened to have studied all the mistakes that the Fed made in the 1920s and the 1930s in a position to do something about it when a situation, not all that dissimilar, appears both to his surprise and to almost everybody else's”. Wessel is two-time Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who now runs the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at the Brookings Institution. For 30 years, he worked at the Wall Street Journal - reporting mostly from Washington and covering economics and the Fed. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. 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

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/biography

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More than any other single institution, the US Federal Reserve drives global capital markets with its decisions and communications. While its interest rates are set by a committee, for almost a century, the Fed's philosophy and operational approach have been moulded by one person: the Chair of the Board of Governors. In the first series of The Chair, Tim Gwynn Jones talked to authors of books about the Fed's foundational Chairs – Marriner Eccles, Bill Martin, Arthur Burns, and Paul Volcker. In this second series, he covers the people who chaired the Fed through the post-1990 period of financialisation, globalisation, and – perhaps today – deglobalisation. The first episode of the second series explores Alan Greenspan, the chairman who followed Paul Volcker and ran the Fed from 1987 until 2006. Once bestowed with “Maestro” status, Greenspan – who turns 100 in March 2026 – has seen his reputation deflate in the wake of the post-2008 financial crisis. To discuss the fallen Maestro, Tim is joined by Sebastian Mallaby, author of The Man Who Knew: The Life and Times of Alan Greenspan (Bloomsbury, 2016). “Greenspan was the man who knew,” says Mallaby. “He was the man who knew that bubbles were extremely destructive, and yet he was not the man who acted against those bubbles. So, whilst he was great on inflation and on stabilising the price of eggs, he was not good on asset-price inflation or stabilising the price of nest eggs”. A former journalist at The Economist and the Washington Post, Mallaby is the prize-winning author of The World's Banker – a portrait of the World Bank under James Wolfensohn – and More Money Than God: Hedge Funds and the Making of a New Elite. He is now the Paul A. Volcker senior fellow for international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance

Thu, 06 Mar 2025 13:23:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/2063-wiener-borse-party-856-atx-tr-10-000-wie-wars-mir-einer-pk-wir-haben-o-tone-zum-rekord-und-palfinger-erwahnt-rheinmetall 5be7105dec7045a1d364300ab6acfcca Die Wiener Börse Party ist ein Podcastprojekt für Audio-CD.at von Christian Drastil Comm..Unter dem Motto „Market & Me“ berichtet Christian Drastil über das Tagesgeschehen an der Wiener Börse. Inhalte der Folge #856: - ATX TR am 99. Geburtstag von Alan Greenspan erstmals über 10.000 - O-Töne Ute Greutter, Dominik Hojas, Andreas Klauser, Robert Gillinger, Hannes Roither zum Rekord - Palfinger-Story erweitert sich um Defense, Rheinmetall als Aspekt - Zahlen von der Addiko Bank - News zu Telekom, AT&S, FACC - audio-cd in deutschen Podcast-Charts weiter nach oben, das spricht ebenfalls für den Wiener Markt - weiter gehts im Podcast Links: - Börsepeople morgen: Michael Hirt http://www.audio-cd.at/people - kapitalmarkt-stimme.at daily voice Playlist auf spotify: http://www.kapitalmarkt-stimme.at/spotify - kapitalmarkt-stimme-Jingle-Mann Steve Kalen: https://open.spotify.com/intl-de/artist/6uemLvflstP1ZerGCdJ7YU - Stockpicking Österreich: https://www.wikifolio.com/de/at/w/wfdrastil1? - http://www.boersentag.at ATX aktuell: https://www.wienerborse.at/indizes/aktuelle-indexwerte/preise-mitglieder/??ISIN=AT0000999982&ID_NOTATION=92866&cHash=49b7ab71e783b5ef2864ad3c8a5cdbc1 Die 2025er-Folgen der Wiener Börse Party (Co-verantwortlich Script: Christine Petzwinkler) sind präsentiert von Wienerberger, CEO Heimo Scheuch hat sich ebenfalls unter die Podcaster gemischt: https://open.spotify.com/show/5D4Gz8bpAYNAI6tg7H695E . Im Q1 ist die ÖBAG der Co-Presenter. Risikohinweis: Die hier veröffentlichten Gedanken sind weder als Empfehlung noch als ein Angebot oder eine Aufforderung zum An- oder Verkauf von Finanzinstrumenten zu verstehen und sollen auch nicht so verstanden werden. Sie stellen lediglich die persönliche Meinung der Podcastmacher dar. Der Handel mit Finanzprodukten unterliegt einem Risiko. Sie können Ihr eingesetztes Kapital verlieren. Und: Bewertungen bei Apple (oder auch Spotify) machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify http://www.audio-cd.at/apple 2063 full no Christian Drastil Comm.

Mon, 24 Feb 2025 05:00:00 +0000 https://morningbull.podigee.io/1212-new-episode a81ce6ee30694824f425596b8af886e5 full "Imaginez une bande de prix Nobel de finance, des mecs sûrs d'eux, qui pensent avoir trouvé une formule magique pour battre les marchés… Et qui finissent par déclencher une crise MONDIALE. no Morningbull,Swissquote,Bourse,Finance,LTCM,Alan Greenspan Thomas Veillet et Vincent Ganne vous proposent un tour d'horizon de to

La bourse est comme un funambule. Tant qu'elle avance, tout va bien. Mais dès qu'elle vacille, il lui faut un filet de sécurité. Alan Greenspan, l'ancien patron de la banque centrale américaine, avait compris ça mieux que personne dans les années 90-2000. Dès que les marchés boursiers déprimaient il baissait les taux d'intérêt pour relancer la machine. Résultat, les investisseurs savaient qu'en cas de chute boursière, la banque centrale américaine serait là pour les rattraper. On a appelé ça le Greenspan Put. Aujourd'hui, Donald Trump reprend cette recette, mais avec son propre style. Lui ne contrôle pas les taux d'intérêt mais il a trouvé une autre manière de rassurer la Bourse à travers sa politique économique et ses coups de com. Mais au fond, c'est quoi un puts? En bourse, un puts, c'est un contrat qui permet de vendre un actif, une action par exemple, à un prix fixé d'avance, même si sa valeur plonge. En gros, c'est  une assurance contre les crashs boursiers. Avec Trump, les investisseurs savent qu'ils ont un protecteur qui souffle autant le chaud que le froid. Jusqu'ici, tout va bien, la bourse monte, les marchés sont confiants. Mais il y a un détail qui intrigue, c'est l'or. L'or, la valeur refuge, grimpe aussi en flèche en ce moment. Pour quelle raison? Parce que certains sentent que ce petit jeu a ses limites. Entre tensions commerciales, dettes records et incertitudes géopolitiques, la bulle pourrait éclater. En fait, le Trump put marche tant que les marchés boursiers veulent y croire. Mais si un jour Wall Street doute, alors il n'y aura peut être plus personne pour amortir la chute. --- La chronique économique d'Amid Faljaoui, tous les jours à 8h30 et à 17h30. Merci pour votre écoute Pour écouter Classic 21 à tout moment i: https://www.rtbf.be/radio/liveradio/classic21 ou sur l'app Radioplayer Belgique Retrouvez tous les épisodes de La chronique économique sur notre plateforme Auvio.be :https://auvio.rtbf.be/emission/802 Et si vous avez apprécié ce podcast, n'hésitez pas à nous donner des étoiles ou des commentaires, cela nous aide à le faire connaître plus largement. Découvrez nos autres podcasts : Le journal du Rock : https://audmns.com/VCRYfsPComic Street (BD) https://audmns.com/oIcpwibLa chronique économique : https://audmns.com/NXWNCrAHey Teacher : https://audmns.com/CIeSInQHistoires sombres du rock : https://audmns.com/ebcGgvkCollection 21 : https://audmns.com/AUdgDqHMystères et Rock'n Roll : https://audmns.com/pCrZihuLa mauvaise oreille de Freddy Tougaux : https://audmns.com/PlXQOEJRock&Sciences : https://audmns.com/lQLdKWRCook as You Are: https://audmns.com/MrmqALPNobody Knows : https://audmns.com/pnuJUlDPlein Ecran : https://audmns.com/gEmXiKzRadio Caroline : https://audmns.com/WccemSkAinsi que nos séries :Rock Icons : https://audmns.com/pcmKXZHRock'n Roll Heroes: https://audmns.com/bXtHJucFever (Erotique) : https://audmns.com/MEWEOLpEt découvrez nos animateurs dans cette série Close to You : https://audmns.com/QfFankx

Atlas Shrugged seems to be everywhere today. Randian villains are in the news. Rand remains influential on the right, from the Reagan era to the modern libertarian movement. Perhaps most significantly, entrepreneurs like Elon Musk and Marc Andreessen who are moving into government with DOGE, have been influenced by Rand, and, fascinatingly, Andreessen only read the novel four years ago. Hollis Robbins (@Anecdotal) and I talked about how Atlas Shrugged is in conversation with the great novels of the past, Rand's greats skills of plotting, drama, and character, and what makes Atlas Shrugged a serious novel, not just a vehicle for ideology. Love it or loathe it, Atlas Shrugged is having a moment. Everyone brings a preconception of Ayn Rand, but she has been opposed by the right and the left ever since she first published. Other than Jennifer Burns' biography, academic study has largely declined to notice Rand. But Rand deserves our serious attention, both as a novelist, and as an influence on the modern world. Here are a couple of excerpts.We talk a lot these days about, “how can I be my best self?” That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Also this.What would Ayn Rand think about the influencer economy? Oh, she'd despise it. She would despise it… all these little girls wanting to grow up to be influencers, they're caught in some algorithm, which is awful. Why would you want to spend your life influencing others? Go create something. It's a hard medicine.And.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.TranscriptHenry: Today, I am talking with Hollis Robbins, former dean of the humanities at Utah University and special advisor on the humanities and AI. We are talking about Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Hollis, hello.Hollis Robbins: Hello. I'm really glad to have this conversation with you. We've known each other for some years and follow each other's work. I was trained as a scholar of 19th-century American, Victorian, and African-American literature, mostly novels, and love having conversations with you about big, deep novels. When I suggested that we read this book, I was hoping you would be enthusiastic about it, so I'm really happy to be having this conversation. It's hard to know who's interviewing you or what conversation this is, but for you coming at this middle-aged. Not quite middle-aged, what are you?Henry: I'm middle enough. No. This is not going to be an interview as such. We are going to have a conversation about Atlas Shrugged, and we're going to, as you say, talk about it as a novel. It always gets talked about as an ideology. We are very interested in it as a novel and as two people who love the great novels of the 19th century. I've been excited to do this as well. I think that's why it's going to be good. Why don't we start with, why are we doing this?Hollis: I wanted to gesture to that. You are one of the leading public voices on the importance of reading literature and the importance of reading novels particularly, though I saw today, Matt Yglesias had a blog post about Middlemarch, which I think he just recently read. I can credit you with that, or us, or those of us who are telling people read the big novels.My life trajectory was that I read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead before I read Dickens, before I read Jane Austen, before I read Harriet Beecher Stowe or Melville or the Brontës. For me, Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead were foundational novels as novels. I wondered what it would be like to talk to somebody whose experience was flipped.Henry: Right, I'm 38 and I'd never read this book. I was coming at it partly having read all those other books, but partly for my whole life, people have said, "Oh, that's really a bad book. That's so badly written. That book is no good." The number one thing I can say to people is this book is fun.Hollis: It's really fun. I was going to say usually what I forget to do in talking about books is give the summary. I'm going to hold up my copy, which is my dog-eared copy from high school, which is hilarious. It's got the tiniest print, which I couldn't possibly read now. No underlining, which is interesting. I read this book before I understood that you were supposed to underline when you liked passages in the book.It was interesting to me. I'd probably read it five or six times in my youth and didn't underline anything. The story is--- You can help me fill in the blanks. For readers who haven't read it, there's this young woman, Dagny Taggart, who's the heiress of the Taggart Transcontinental Railroad fortune. She's a woman. This takes place in about, I think, the '40s, '50s. Her older brother, Jim Taggart, is CEO. She's COO, so she's the operations person. It is in some ways the story of her-- It's not quite a bildungsroman. This is the way I tell the story. It's the story of her coming to the realization of how the world works. There's many ways to come at this story. She has multiple boyfriends, which is excellent. Her first boyfriend, his name is Francisco d'Anconia. He's the head of d'Anconia Copper. He too is an heir of this longstanding copper fortune. Her second is a metals magnate, Hank Rearden, who invents this great metal, Rearden metal.Really, it's also the story of the decline of America, and the ways that, in this Randian universe, these villainous group of people who run the country are always taking and extracting from producers. As she's creating and building this great railroad and doing wonderful things and using Rearden metal to do it, something is pulling all the producers out of society, and she's like, "What is going on?"It turns out there's this person, John Galt, who is saying, "I don't like the way the country is run. I don't like this extractive philosophy. I am going to take all the producers and lure them voluntarily to a--" It's a hero's lair. It's not like a James Bond villain lair. It's a hero lair in Colorado called Galt's Gulch. He is John Galt. It ends up being a battle between who is right in a wrong world. Is it the ethical person, Dagny Taggart, who continues to strive and try to be a producer and hold on to her ethics in this corrupt world, or is it somebody saying, "To hell with this. I am going on strike. You guys come with me and let the world collapse." How's that for summary?Henry: No, I think that's great. I couldn't have done a better job. One thing that we can say is that the role of reason, of being a rational person, of making reason the sole arbiter of how you make choices, be they practical, ethical, financial, whatever, that's at the heart of the book, right?Hollis: That's the philosophy. We could go there in a second. I think the plot of the book is that she demonstrates this.Henry: What she has to learn, like what is the big lesson for Dagny, is at the beginning, she hasn't fully understood that the good guys use reason and the bad guys do not, as it were.Hollis: Right. I think that's right. I like thinking about this as a bildungsroman. You said that the book is fun. Her part of the book is fun, but not really fun. The fun part of the book, and you can tell me because every time you kept texting me, "Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart. Oh my God, Jim Taggart."--Henry: These guys are so awful. [laughs]Hollis: They're so awful. The fun parts of the book, the Rand villains are the government entities and the cabals of business leaders who she calls looters and second-handers who run the country and all they do is extract value. Marc Andreessen was on a podcast recently and was all about these Rand villains and these looters. I think, again, to get back to why are we doing this and why are we doing this now, Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged is in the air with the second Trump administration.Henry: Yes. In a way, we're doing this because the question is, is this the novel of the future? Right? What we're seeing is it's very influential on the right. Rand's ideas have long been a libertarian inspiration. Elon Musk's read her. You mentioned Andreessen, Peter Thiel, all these people. It goes back to the Reagan days. People in the Republican Party have been quoting Ayn Rand. Then more broadly, we see all these worries about social collapse today. What happens in the plot of Atlas Shrugged is that society does slowly collapse.Dagny has to realize it's because of these people who are not using their reason and they're nationalizing things and taking resource away from proficient entrepreneurs and stuff. It's all about infrastructure, energy, people doing exploitation in the name of the common good, ineffective political leaders, people covering up lies and misdemeanors, people being accepting of what is obviously criminal behavior because it's in the cause of the greater good. We have free speech, all these topics, energy production. We're seeing this in the headlines. When I was reading this book, I was like, "Oh my God, how did she know?"Hollis: How did she know?Henry: How did she know.Hollis: I think the bildungsroman aspect of this as a novel. It's hard to read it as a novel. I think it's hard. By the way, I have to really I applaud you for not, until you got almost to the end of the book, texting me about this person or that person, or how it's political. I admire you for looking at the book and coming to the book as an expert in novels.What she comes to terms with, and it's a real slowly-- It's not even scales falling from her eyes. She doesn't sit and say, "Oh my God, the world is corrupt." She just is like, "That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them. That person's corrupt. I'm not going to deal with them." She just keeps going, but she doesn't ever accept with a fatalism that she's living in this world where every single person who's in charge is going to let her down.Henry: It's also interesting to me that she doesn't complain.Hollis: No.Henry: Now, that reminded me of I wrote about Margaret Thatcher in my book. She was another big one for however hard it was, however difficult it was, why would you complain? Let's just go to work. A lot of people found her difficult for that reason. When I was reading this, I was like, "Ayn Rand clearly has the same idea. You can nationalize every last inch of the economy. I'm going to get up and go to work and try and beat you. I'm not going to sit around and complain." It's a very stern attitude in a way. She's very strict with herself. I found the book to be-- I know Rand is very atheist, but a very Protestant book.Hollis: Yes, it really is.Henry: Intensely Protestant, yes.Hollis: That's a nice way to think about it. A certain kind of Protestant, a Weberian Protestant.Henry: Sure.Hollis: Not a Southern Baptist Protestant who believes in the absence of reason. I was thinking I was teaching in Mississippi years ago. I was teaching a course on Wordsworth and had to do a unit on Voltaire because you can't really understand Wordsworth unless you understand Voltaire. There was a woman in my class. She was a version of Presbyterian who doesn't believe in reason, believes that in the fall, man lost their reason.Therefore, she asked if she could be excused from class because I was talking about Voltaire and the importance of reason. She said, "This is against my religion. If you believe that man has reason, you are actually going about it wrong, so may I be excused?" Which in all the years I've had people ask for excuses to miss class, that was a memorable one.Henry: That's unique. [laughs]Hollis: It's interesting because, again, I should get back to the novel, the opposition from Rand is as strong on the religious right as it is on the left. In fact, very strong. When Atlas Shrugged came out, William F. Buckley famously had Whittaker Chambers write the review. He hated her. He despised her. He despised the fact that she put reason first.Henry: Yes. I think that's worth emphasizing that some people listening will think, "I'm Rand. These nasty ideas, she's on the right." She's been ideologically described in that way so many times. Deirdre McCloskey in the Literary Review has just in the most recent edition written an absolutely scathing article about Rand. That's libertarian opposition to Rand.McCloskey is saying Hayek is the real thing here and Rand would have hated everything that Hayek did. She got everything wrong. I think the opposition to her, as you say, it's on both sides. One thing that's interesting about this novel is that because she created her own philosophy, which people will have different views on how well that went, but there isn't anyone else like this. All the other people like this are her followers.Hollis: Exactly.Henry: She's outside of the other systems of thought in a way.Hollis: We should talk about Rand. I'm going to quote a little bit from this book on feminist interpretation of Ayn Rand. Let's talk a little bit, if we can, about Dagny as the heroine of a novel, or a hero, because one of the really interesting things about reading Rand at this moment is that she's got one pronoun, he, him, man. She is in this era where man means man and women. That there isn't men and women, he and she, and now it's he, she, and them. She is like, "There's one pronoun." Even she talks about the rights of man or man believes. She means everybody, but she only means man too. It's interesting.I was very much part of the first pronoun wars in the 1980s when women scholars were like, "He and she." Now we're thrown out the window with that binary. Again, we don't need to talk about pronouns, but it's really important to understanding Rand and reading this novel, how much she embraces men and the male pronoun, even while she is using it both ways, and even while her story is led by this woman. She's beautiful. She's beautiful in a very specific way. She's tall, she's slender, she's got great cheekbones, she's got great shoulders, she's got long legs.Her aesthetic is very classical, draped. She doesn't wear flowery patterns. She wears draped, clearly close-fitting gowns and gray tailored suits and a minimum of jewelry, though she does have this bracelet chain made of Rearden metal. You don't know when she possibly has time to go shopping, but she's perfectly dressed all the time in the fashion that we would understand as feminist. She wears trousers, she wears suits, but when she goes out, this black velvet cape. I think it's important to see her as that, even though nobody talks about that in terms of this novel, what a heroine she is. I know that when I was reading her as a teenage girl, that's it.Henry: I want to be Dagny.Hollis: I want to be Dagny. I want to have capes, right?Henry: There's a very important scene, it's not too much of a plot spoiler, where Hank Rearden has invented this new metal. It's very exciting because it's much more efficient and it's much stronger and you can build new bridges for the trains and everything. He makes a bracelet of his new metal. It's a new steel alloy, I think, and gives it to his wife. His wife basically doesn't care.She's not really interested in what it takes to earn the money, she just wants to have the money. You get the strong impression throughout the book that some of the people that Rand is most scathingly disapproving of are wives who don't work. None of those people come out well. When Dagny goes to a party at the Rearden house and she is romantically involved with Hank Rearden, she sees the bracelet.Hollis: She isn't then, right? Isn't she not then?Henry: No, but they have feelings for each otherHollis: Right. Reasonable feelings for each other.Henry: That's right, reasonable feelings, but they're not currently acting on those feelings. She sees the bracelet and she exchanges her, I think, diamonds-Hollis: Diamond bracelet.Henry: -for the Rearden metal bracelet with the wife. It's this wonderful moment where these two opposite ideals of womanhood that Rand is presenting. It's a great moment of heroism for Dagny because she is saying, "Who cares about glittering diamonds when you have a new steel alloy that can make this incredible bridge?" It sounds crazy, but this is 1957. Dagny is very much what you might call one of the new women.Hollis: Right.Henry: I think in some ways, Rand-- I don't like the phrase she's ahead of her time. I've read a lot of 1950s fiction. This is not the typical woman.Hollis: No, this is not Cheever. This is not a bored suburban housewife at a time when the way the '50s are taught, certainly in America, it's like women could work during the war, then they were suburban housewives, there was bored, there were key parties and all sorts of Cheever sorts of things. This is not that. I read this first. I was only 15 years after it was published, I think, in the '60s, early '70s reading it.This, to me, seemed perfectly normal and everything else seemed regressive and strange and whiny. There's a lot to be said for reading this novel first. I think if we can talk a little bit about these set pieces because I think for me reading it as a novel and hearing you talk about it as a novel, that novels, whether we're thinking about-- I want to see if you want to compare her to Dorothea or just to any other Victorian women novel that you can think of. That's the closest, right? Is there anybody that's closest to Dorothea from Middlemarch? Is that there are these set pieces. People think that Rand-- the idea is that she's not a great writer. She is a great writer. She started in Hollywood. Her first book, The Fountainhead, was made into a movie. She understands plotting and keeping the reader's attention. We go forward, we go backwards. There's her relationship with Francisco d'Anconia that we see her now, years after, then we have flashbacks to growing up and how they became lovers.There are big meeting set pieces where everybody's in the room, and we have all the backstories of the people in the room, what is going to happen. There are these big party scenes, as you say. For example, this big, glorious, glamorous party at the Rearden house, Francisco is there. Francisco and Hank Rearden get in a conversation, and she's like, "I want to go see what my old boyfriend is talking to the guy I like about."There are these moments where you're not supposed to come at the book that way in this serious philosophical way. Then later on when there's this wonderful scene where Francisco comes to see Dagny. This is much later. Hank and Dagny are lovers, so he has a key to her apartment. He walks in and everybody sees immediately what's going on. It's as good as any other farce moment of somebody hiding behind a curtain, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Everything is revealed all at once. She's very good at scenes like that.Henry: Yes, very good. She's very good at high drama. One of the phrases that kept coming back to me was that this book is a melodrama of ideas.Hollis: Yes.Henry: Right? It's not a novel of ideas as such, it's a melodrama of ideas. I think one thing that people who think she's a bad writer will say is it's melodrama, the characters are flat, the prose is not lyrical, all these different things. Whereas when I read it, I was like, "She's so good at melodrama." I feel like, in some ways, it does not feel like a 1950s novel because there's so much excitement about technology, so much feminism, just so many things that I do not associate--Maybe I'm being too English, but I don't read John Cheever, for example, and think, "Oh, he loves the train." Whereas this book is very, very exciting as a story about inventing a new kind of train that goes really fast," which sounds silly, but that's a really Dickensian theme, that's in Middlemarch. Actually, that's what Matt Yglesias was talking about in his excellent piece today. What does feel very 1950s is you've got the Hollywood influence. The dialogue, I think, is not always great, but it is often great.I often would read pages and think, "This would actually be really good in, not an A++ movie, but in a decent crime movie or something. This would be quite good dialogue." There's a comic book aesthetic to it in the way that the scenes play out. Just a lot of these '50s aesthetics actually are present in the book. I'm going to read one paragraph. It's from part one. I think we should read out loud a few bits to give people a sense.Hollis: Yes.Henry: This is when Dagny has built a new train line using grid and metal to make the bridge so that it can go over a valley. I think that's right. The train can do 100 miles an hour. It's this very, very exciting new development. It means that energy can be supplied to factories, and so it's a huge, big deal. This is when she's on the train going at 100 miles an hour and she just can't believe it's happening."Things streaked past a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield wiper motion. They were rising, describing a curve, and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky. She looked ahead at the haze that melted rail and distance, a haze that could rip apart at any moment to some shape of disaster.""She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine. Safer here where it seemed as if should an obstacle rise, her breast and the glass shield would be the first to smash against it. She smiled, grasping the answer. It was the security of being first with full sight and full knowledge of one's own course, not the blind sense of being pulled into the unknown by some unknown power ahead."That's not MFA prose or whatever, but it turns the pages. I think she's very good at relating we're on the train and it's going very fast to how Dagny is thinking through the philosophical conundrum that is basically going to drive the whole plot forwards. I was reminded again and again of what Virginia Woolf said about Walter Scott, where she compared Scott to Robert Louis Stevenson. She said that Stevenson had beautiful sentences and dapper little adjectives. It was all jeweled and carefully done. You could marvel over each sentence.She said, "Whereas Scott, it's just page after page and no sentence is beautiful," but she says, "He writes at the level of the page. He's not like Stevenson. He's not writing at the level of the sentence. You have to step into the world." You can say, 'Oh, that wasn't a very good sentence,' but my goodness, the pages keep turning and you're there in the world, right?Hollis: Exactly.Henry: I think she made a really important point there and we just undervalue that so much when we say, oh, so-and-so is not a good writer. What we mean is they're not a Robert Louis Stevenson, they're a Walter Scott. It's like, sure, but Walter Scott was great at what he did. Ayn Rand is in the Walter Scott inheritance in the sense that it's a romance, it's not strictly realistic novel. You have to step into the world. You can't spend your whole time going, "Was that a great sentence? Do I really agree with what she just--" It's like, no, you have to go into this utopian sci-fi universe and you have to keep turning the pages. You get caught up and you go, "Wow, this is this is working for me."Hollis: Let me push back on that-Henry: Yes, good.Hollis: -because I think that was a beautiful passage, one of my favorite passages in this book, which is hard to say because it's a really, really big book. It's a memorable passage because here she is in a place at this moment. She is questioning herself. Isn't she questioning why? Why do I feel safe? Then it strikes her. In this moment, all interior while all this stuff is happening. This whole Rearden metal train bridge set piece is one of the highlights of at least the first half of the book. You come away, even if we've had our entire life up to her, understanding her as a philosophical this woman. How is that different from Dorothea or from Elizabeth Bennet? Yes, Elizabeth Bennet, right?Henry: Oh, no, I agree. My point was purely about prose style, which was to say if you say, "Oh, she writes like a Walter Scott, not like a Robert Louis Stevenson," you're going to deny yourself seeing what you've just said, which is that actually, yes, she has the ability to write philosophical characters.Hollis: When I first read Pride and Prejudice, I read it through the lens of Rand. Now, clearly, these heroines had fewer choices. Dorothea marries Casaubon, I don't know how you pronounce it, because she thinks he's a Randian expert, somebody who's got this grand idea. She's like, "Whoa, I want to be part of this endeavor, the key to all mythologies." Then she's so let down. In the Randian sense, you can see why she would have wanted him.Henry: That's right. I think George Eliot would have strongly disagreed with Rand philosophically. The heroines, as you say, what they're doing in the novel is having to realize that there are social conventions I have to understand and there are things I have to learn how to do, but actually, the key to working all that out is more at the moral philosophical level. This is what happens to Dagny. I think it's on the next page from what I just read. There's another passage where it says that she's in the train and she's enjoying. It's working and she's thrilled that her train is working. She was trying not to think, but she couldn't help herself.She said, "Who made the train. Is it the brute force of muscle? Who can make all the dials and the levers? How is it possible that this thing has even been put together?" Then she starts thinking to herself, "We've got a government who's saying it's wrong to do this, you're taking resources, you're not doing it for the common good." She says, "How can they regard this as evil? How can they believe that this is ignoble to have created this incredible thing?"She says she wants to be able to toss the subject out of the window and let it get shattered somewhere along the track. She wants the thoughts to go past like the telegraph poles, but obviously, she can't. She has this moment of realization that this can't be wrong. This type of human accomplishment can't be against the common good. It can't be considered to be ignoble. I think that is like the Victorian heroines.To me, it was more like Fanny Price, which is that someone turns up into a relatively closed system of ideas and keeps their own counsel for a long time, and has to admit sometimes when they haven't got it right or whatever. Basically, in the end, they are vindicated on fairly straightforward grounds. Dagny comes to realize that, "I was right. I was using my reason. I was working hard. I was being productive. Yes, I was right about that." Fanny, it's more like a Christian insight into good behavior, but I felt the pattern was the same.Hollis: Sure. I'll also bring up Jane Eyre here, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: Jane Eyre, her relationship, there's a lot to be said of both Mr. Darcy and Mr. Rochester with Hank Rearden because Hank Rearden has to come to his sense. He's married. He doesn't like his wife. He doesn't like this whole system that he's in. He wants to be with a woman that's a meeting of the mind, but he's got all this social convention he has to deal with. Rochester has to struggle, and of course, Bertha Mason has to die in that book. He ends up leaving his wife, but too late. If we're going to look at this novel as a novel, we can see that there are these moments that I think have some resonance. I know you don't seem to want to go to the Mr. Darcy part of it.Henry: No. I had also thought about Jane Eyre. My thought was that, obviously, other than being secular because Jane Eyre is very Christian, the difference is that Hank Rearden and Dagny basically agree that we can't conduct our relationship in a way that would be morally compromising to her. They go through this very difficult process of reasoning like, "How can we do this in a good way?"They're a little bit self-sacrificing about it because they don't want to upset the moral balance. Whereas Mr. Rochester, at least for the first part of the book, has an attitude that's more like, "Yes, but she's in the attic. Why does it matter if we get married?" He doesn't really see the problem of morally compromising Jane, and so Jane has to run away.Hollis: Right.Henry: One of the interesting things about Rand, what is different from like Austen and the Brontës and whatever, is that Dagny and Hank are not in opposition before they get together. They have actually this unusual thing in romance and literature, which is that they have a meeting of minds. What gets in the way is that the way their minds agree is contra mundum and the world has made this problem for them.Hollis: I think in a way, that's the central relationship in--Henry: Yes. That was how I read it, yes.Hollis: Yes. The fact as we think about what the complications are in reading this novel as a novel is that here is this great central romance and they've got obstacles. She's got an old boyfriend, he's married. They've got all these things that are classic obstacles to a love story. Rand understands that enough to build it, that that will keep a lot of readers' interest, but then it's like, "That's actually not the point of my book," which is how the second half or the last third of the novel just gets really wiggy." Again, spoiler alert, but Hank is blackmailed to be, as the society is collapsing, as things are collapsing--Henry: We should say that the government has taken over in a nationalizing program by this point.Hollis: Right, because as John Galt is pulling all the thought leaders and the industrialists and all the movers of the world into his lair, things are getting harder and harder and harder, things are getting nationalized. Some of these big meetings in Washington where these horrible people are deciding how to redistribute wealth, again, which is part of the reason somebody like Congressman Paul Ryan would give out copies of Atlas Shrugged to all of his staffers. He's like, "You've got to read this book because we can't go to Washington and be like this. The Trumpian idea is we've got to get rid of people who are covering up and not doing the right thing."They've blackmailed Hank Rearden into giving up Rearden Metal by saying, "We know you've been sleeping with Dagny Taggart." It's a very dramatic point. How is this going to go down?Henry: Right. I think that's interesting. What I loved about the way she handled that romance was that romance is clearly part of what she sees as important to a flourishing life. She has to constantly yoke it to this idea that reason is everything, so human passion has to be conducted on the basis that it's logically reasonable, but that it therefore becomes self-sacrificing. There is something really sad and a little bit tragic about Hank being blackmailed like that, right?Hollis: Yes. I have to say their first road trip together, it's like, "Let's just get out of here and go have a road trip and stay in hotels and have sex and it'll be awesome." That their road trip is like, "Let's go also see some abandoned factories and see what treasures we might find there." To turn this love road trip into also the plot twist that gets them closer to John Galt is a magnificent piece of plot.Henry: Yes. I loved that. I know you want to talk about the big John Galt speech later, but I'm going to quote one line because this all relates to what I think is one of the most central lines of the book. "The damned and the guiltiest among you are the men who had the capacity to know yet chose to blank out reality." A lot of the time, like in Brontë or whatever, there are characters like Rochester's like that. The center of their romance is that they will never do that to each other because that's what they believe philosophically, ethically. It's how they conduct themselves at business. It's how they expect other people to conduct themselves. They will never sacrifice that for each other.That for them is a really high form of love and it's what enables huge mutual respect. Again, it's one of those things I'm amazed-- I used to work in Westminster. I knew I was a bit of a libertarian. I knew lots of Rand adjacent or just very, very Randian people. I thought they were all insane, but that's because no one would ever say this. No one would ever say she took an idea like that and turned it into a huge romance across hundreds of pages. Who else has done that in the novel? I think that's great.Hollis: It really is hard. It really is a hard book. The thing that people say about the book, as you say, and the reason you hadn't read it up until now, is it's like, "Oh, yes, I toyed with Rand as a teenager and then I put that aside." I put away my childish things, right? That's what everybody says on the left, on the right. You have to think about it's actually really hard. My theory would be that people put it away because it's really, really hard, what she tried is hard. Whether she succeeded or not is also hard. As we were just, before we jumped on, talking about Rand's appearance on Johnny Carson, a full half hour segment of him taking her very seriously, this is a woman who clearly succeeded. I recently read Jennifer Burn's biography of her, which is great. Shout out to Jennifer.What I came away with is this is a woman who made her living as a writer, which is hard to do. That is a hard thing to do, is to make your living as a writer, as a woman in the time difference between 1942, The Fountainhead, which was huge, and 57, Atlas Shrugged. She was blogging, she had newsletters, she had a media operation that's really, really impressive. This whole package doesn't really get looked at, she as a novelist. Again, let me also say it was later on when I came to Harriet Beecher Stowe, who is another extraordinary woman novelist in America who wrote this groundbreaking book, which is filled--I particularly want to shout out to George Harris, the slave inventor who carried himself like a Rand hero as a minor character and escapes. His wife is Eliza, who famously runs across the ice flows in a brave Randian heroine escape to freedom where nobody's going to tell them what to do. These women who changed literature in many ways who have a really vexed relationship or a vexed place in academia. Certainly Stowe is studied.Some 20 years ago, I was at an event with the great Elaine Showalter, who was coming out with an anthology of American women writers. I was in the audience and I raised my hand, I said, "Where's Ayn Rand?" She was like, "Ha, ha, ha." Of course, what a question is that? There is no good reason that Ayn Rand should not be studied in academia. There is no good reason. These are influential novels that actually, as we've talked about here, can be talked about in the context of other novels.Henry: I think one relevant comparison is let's say you study English 19th-century literature on a course, a state-of-the-nation novel or the novel of ideas would be included as routine, I think very few people would say, "Oh, those novels are aesthetically excellent. We read them because they're beautifully written, and they're as fun as Dickens." No one's saying that. Some of them are good, some of them are not good. They're important because of what they are and the barrier to saying why Rand is important for what she is because, I think, people believe her ideas are evil, basically.One central idea is she thinks selfishness is good, but I think we've slightly dealt with the fact that Dagny and Hank actually aren't selfish some of the time, and that they are forced by their ethical system into not being selfish. The other thing that people say is that it's all free-market billionaire stuff, basically. I'm going to read out a passage from-- It's a speech by Francisco in the second part. It's a long speech, so I'm not going to read all eight pages. I'm going to read this speech because I think this theme that I'm about to read out, it's a motif, it's again and again and again.Hollis: Is this where he's speaking to Hank or to Dagny?Henry: I think when he's speaking to Dagny and he says this."Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he want. Money will not give him a code of values if he has evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose if he has evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent."The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him with his money replacing his judgment ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered, that no man may be smaller than his money."Hollis: That's a good--Henry: Right? It's a great paragraph. I feel like she says that in dozens of ways throughout the book, and she wants you to be very clear when you leave that this book is not a creed in the name of just make money and have free market capitalism so you can be rich. That paragraph and so many others, it's almost biblical in the way she writes it. She's really hammering the rhythms, and the tones, and the parallels. She's also, I think, trying to appropriate some of the way the Bible talks about money and turn it into her own secular pseudo-Aristotelian idea, right?Hollis: Yes.Henry: We talk a lot these days about, how can I be my best self? That's what Rand is saying. She's saying, actually, it's not about earning money, it's not about being rich. It is about the perfection of the moral life. It's about the pursuit of excellence. It's about the cultivation of virtue. These are the important things. This is what Dagny is doing. When all the entrepreneurs at the end, they're in the happy valley, actually, between them, they have not that much money, right?Hollis: Right.Henry: The book does not end in a rich utopia, it's important to say.Hollis: It's interesting. A couple of things. I want to get this back since we're still in the novel. Let me say when we get to Galt's great speech, which is bizarre. He says a similar thing that I'll bring in now. He says, "The mother who buys milk for her baby instead of a hat is not sacrificing because her values are feeding the baby. The woman who sacrifices the hat to feed her baby, but really wants the hat and is only feeding the baby out of duty is sacrificing." That's bad. She's saying get your values in order. Understand what it is you want and do that thing, but don't do it because somebody says you have to. She says this over and over in many ways, or the book says this.Henry: We should say, that example of the mother is incidental. The point she's always making is you must think this through for yourself, you must not do it because you've been told to do it.Hollis: Right, exactly. To get back to the love story aspects of the book because they don't sit and say they love each other, even all the great romances. It's not like, "I love you. I love you." It's straight to sex or looks and meetings of the minds. It's interesting. We should deal with the fact that from The Fountainhead and a little bit in this book, the sex is a little rapey. It's a difficult thing to talk about. It's certainly one of the reasons that feminists, women writers don't approve of her. In the book, it's consensual. Whatever one wants to think about the ways that people have sex, it is consensual in the book. Also in The Fountainhead.I'm sure I'll get hate mail for even saying that, but in her universe, that's where it is. What's interesting, Francisco as a character is so interesting. He's conflicted, he's charming, he's her first lover. He's utterly good in every way. He ends up without her. Hank is good. Hank goes through his struggles and learning curve about women prioritizing. If you don't like your wife, don't be married to your wife. It's like he goes through his own what are my values and how do I live them.I know you think that this is bizarre, but there's a lot of writing about the relationship of Hank and Francisco because they find themselves in the same room a lot. They happen to have both been Dagny's lovers or ex-lovers, and they really, really like each other. There's a way that that bonding-- Homosexuality does not exist in her novels, whatever, but that's a relationship of two people that really are hot for one another. There is a lot of writing. There are queer readings of Rand that make a lot of that relationship.Again, this isn't my particular lens of criticism, but I do see that the energy, which is why I asked you which speech you were reading because some of Francisco's best speeches are for Hank because he's trying to woo Hank to happy valley. Toward the end when they're all hanging out together in Galt's Gulch, there's clearly a relationship there.Henry: Oh, yes. No, once you pointed out to me, I was like, "That makes sense of so many passages." That's clearly there. What I don't understand is why she did that. I feel like, and this is quite an accomplishment because it's a big novel with a lot of moving parts, everything else is resolved both in terms of the plot, but also in terms of how it fits her philosophical idea. That, I think, is pretty much the only thing where you're left wondering, "Why was that in there? She hasn't made a point about it. They haven't done anything about it." This I don't understand. That's my query.Hollis: Getting ready to have this conversation, I spent a lot of time on some Reddit threads. I ran Atlas Shrugged Reddit threads where there's some fantastic conversations.Henry: Yes, there is.Hollis: One of them is about, how come Francisco didn't end up with anybody? That's just too bad. He's such a great character and he ends up alone. I would say he doesn't end up alone, he ends up with his boyfriend Hank, whatever that looks like. Two guys that believe in the same things, they can have whatever life they want. Go on.Henry: Are you saying that now that they're in the valley, they will be more free to pursue that relationship?Hollis: There's a lot of things that she has said about men's and women's bodies. She said in other places, "I don't think there'll ever be a woman president because why would a woman want to be president? What a woman really wants is a great man, and we can't have a president who's looking for a great man. She has to be a president." She's got a lot of lunacy about women. Whatever. I don't understand. Someplace I've read that she understands male homosexuality, but not female homosexuality. Again, I am not a Rand scholar. Having read and seen some of that in the ether, I see it in the book, and I can see how her novel would invite that analysis.I do want to say, let's spend a few seconds on some of the minor characters. There are some really wonderful minor characters. One of them is Cherryl Taggart, this shop girl that evil Jim Taggart meets one night in a rainstorm, and she's like, "Oh, you're so awesome," and they get married. It's like he's got all this praise for marrying the shop girl. It's a funny Eliza Doolittle situation because she is brought into this very wealthy society, which we have been told and we have been shown is corrupt, is evil, everybody's lying all the time, it's pretentious, Dagny hates it.Here's the Cherryl Taggart who's brought into this. In the beginning, she hates Dagny because she's told by everybody, "Hate Dagny, she's horrible." Then she comes to her own mini understanding of the corruption that we understand because Dagny's shown it in the novel, has shown it to us this entire time. She comes to it and she's like, "Oh my God," and she goes to Dagny. Dagny's so wonderful to her like, "Yes. You had to come to this on your own, I wasn't going to tell you, but you were 100% right." That's the end of her.Henry: Right. When she meets Taggart, there's this really interesting speech she has where she says, "I want to make something of myself and get somewhere." He's like, "What? What do you want to do?" Red flag. "What? Where?" She says, "I don't know, but people do things in this world. I've seen pictures of New York," and she's pointing at like the skyscrapers, right? Whatever. "I know that someone's built that. They didn't sit around and whine, but like the kitchen was filthy and the roof was leaking." She gets very emotional at this point. She says to him, "We were stinking poor and we didn't give a damn. I've dragged myself here, and I'm going to do something."Her story is very sad because she then gets mired in the corruption of Taggart's. He's basically bit lazy and a bit of a thief, and he will throw anyone under the bus for his own self-advancement. He is revealed to be a really sinister guy. I was absolutely hissing about him most of the time. Then, let's just do the plot spoiler and say what happens to Cherryl, right? Because it's important. When she has this realization and Taggart turns on her and reveals himself as this snake, and he's like, "Well, what did you expect, you idiot? This is the way the world is."Hollis: Oh, it's a horrible fight. It's the worst fight.Henry: Right? This is where the melodrama is so good. She goes running out into the streets, and it's the night and there are shadows. She's in the alleyway. Rand, I don't have the page marked, but it's like a noir film. She's so good at that atmosphere. Then it gets a little bit gothic as well. She's running through the street, and she's like, "I've got to go somewhere, anywhere. I'll work. I'll pick up trash. I'll work in a shop. I'll do anything. I've just got to get out of this."Hollis: Go work at the Panda Express. Henry: Yes. She's like, "I've got to get out of this system," because she's realized how morally corrupting it is. By this time, this is very late. Society is in a-- it's like Great Depression style economic collapse by this point. There really isn't a lot that she could do. She literally runs into a social worker and the social-- Rand makes this leering dramatic moment where the social worker reaches out to grab her and Cherryl thinks, "Oh, my God, I'm going to be taken prisoner in. I'm going back into the system," so she jumps off the bridge.This was the moment when I was like, I've had this lurking feeling about how Russian this novel is. At this point, I was like, "That could be a short story by Gogol," right? The way she set that up. That is very often the trap that a Gogol character or maybe a Dostoevsky character finds themselves in, right? That you suddenly see that the world is against you. Maybe you're crazy and paranoid. Maybe you're not. Depends which story we're reading. You run around trying to get out and you realize, "Oh, my God, I'm more trapped than I thought. Actually, maybe there is no way out." Cherryl does not get a lot of pages. She is, as you say, quite a minor character, but she illustrates the whole story so, so well, so dramatically.Hollis: Oh, wow.Henry: When it happens, you just, "Oh, Cherryl, oh, my goodness."Hollis: Thank you for reading that. Yes, you could tell from the very beginning that the seeds of what could have been a really good person were there. Thank you for reading that.Henry: When she died, I went back and I was like, "Oh, my God, I knew it."Hollis: How can you say Rand is a bad writer, right? That is careful, careful plotting, because she's just a shop girl in the rain. You've got this, the gun on the wall in that act. You know she's going to end up being good. Is she going to be rewarded for it? Let me just say, as an aside, I know we don't have time to talk about it here. My field, as I said, is 19th century African American novels, primarily now.This, usually, a woman, enslaved woman, the character who's like, "I can't deal with this," and jumps off a bridge and drowns herself is a fairly common and character. That is the only thing to do. One also sees Rand heroes. Stowe's Dred, for example, is very much, "I would rather live in the woods with a knife and then, be on the plantation and be a slave." When you think about, even the sort of into the 20th century, the Malcolm X figure, that, "I'm going to throw out all of this and be on my own," is very Randian, which I will also say very Byronic, too, Rand didn't invent this figure, but she put it front and center in these novels, and so when you think about how Atlas Shrugged could be brought into a curriculum in a network of other novels, how many of we've discussed so far, she's there, she's influenced by and continues to influence. Let's talk about your favorite minor character, the Wet Nurse.Henry: This is another great death scene.Hollis: Let's say who he is, so the government sends this young man to work at the Rearden Mills to keep an eye on Hank Rearden.Henry: Once they nationalize him, he's the bureaucrat reporting back, and Rearden calls him the Wet Nurse as an insult.Hollis: Right, and his job, he's the Communist Party person that's in every factory to make sure that everything is--Henry: That's right, he's the petty bureaucrat reporting back and making sure everyone's complying.Hollis: He's a young recent college graduate that, Hank, I think, early on, if it's possible even to find the Wet Nurse early scene, you could tell in the beginning, too, he's bright and sparkly right out of college, and this is, it seems like a good job for him. He's like, "Woohoo, I get to be here, and I get to be--" Yes, go ahead.Henry: What happens to him is, similarly to Cherryl, he has a conversion, but his conversion is not away from the corruption of the system he's been in, he is converted by what he sees in the Rearden plant, the hard work, the dedication, the idealism, the deep focus on making the metal, and he starts to see that if we don't make stuff, then all the other arguments downstream of that about how to appropriate, how to redistribute, whatever, are secondary, and so he becomes, he goes native, as it were. He becomes a Reardenite, and then at the end, when there's a crowd storming the place, and this crowd has been sent by the government, it's a fake thing to sort of--Hollis: Also, a very good scene, very dramatic.Henry: She's very good at mobs, very good at mobs, and they kill, they kill the Wet Nurse, they throw him over. He has a couple of speeches in dialogue with Rearden while he's dying, and he says--Hollis: You have to say, they throw him, they leave him on this pile of slag. He crawls up to the street where Rearden happens to be driving by, and car stops, and so that finding the Wet Nurse there and carrying him in his arms, yes.Henry: That's right, it's very dramatic, and then they have this dialogue, and he says, "I'd like to live, Mr. Rearden, God, how I'd like to, not because I'm dying, but because I've just discovered tonight what it means to be alive, and it's funny, do when I discovered it? In the office, when I stuck my neck out, when I told the bastards to go to hell, there's so many things I wish I'd known sooner, but it's no use crying over spilt milk," and then Rearden, he goes, "Listen, kid, said Rearden sternly, I want you to do me a favor." "Now, Mr. Rearden?" "Yes, now." "Of course, Mr. Rearden, if I can," and Rearden says, "You were willing to die to save my mills, will you try and live for me?"I think this is one of those great moments where, okay, maybe this isn't like George Eliot style dialogue, but you could put that straight in a movie, that would work really well, that would be great, right? I can hear Humphrey Bogart saying these things. It would work, wouldn't it?She knows that, and that's why she's doing that, she's got that technique. He's another minor character, and Rand is saying, the system is eating people up. We are setting people up for a spiritual destruction that then leads to physical destruction. This point, again, about it's not just about the material world. It's about your inner life and your own mind.I find it very moving.Hollis: These minor characters are fantastic. Then let's talk a little bit about Eddie Willers, because I think a lot about Eddie Willers. Eddie Willers, the childhood three, there were three young people, we keep going back to this childhood. We have Dagny, Francisco, because their parents were friends, and then Eddie Willers, who's like a neighborhood kid, right?Henry: He's down the street.Hollis: He lives down the street. He's like the neighborhood kid. I don't know about you. We had a neighborhood kid. There's always neighborhood kids, right? You end up spending time with this-- Eddie's just sort of always there. Then when they turn 15, 16, 17, and when there's clearly something going on between Dagny and Francisco, Eddie does take a step back, and he doesn't want to see.There's the class issues, the status issues aren't really-- they're present but not discussed by Rand. Here we have these two children heirs, and they don't say like, "You're not one of us, Eddie, because you're not an heir or an heiress." He's there, and he's got a pretty good position as Dagny's right-hand man in Taggart Transcontinental. We don't know where he went to college. We don't know what he does, but we know that he's super loyal, right?Then when she goes and takes a break for a bit, he steps in to be COO. James is like, "Eddie Willers, how can Eddie Willers be a COO?" She's like, "It's really going to be me, but he's going to be fine." We're not really supposed to identify with Eddie, but Eddie's there. Eddie has, all through the novel, all through the big old novel, Eddie eats lunch in the cafeteria. There's always this one guy he's having lunch with. This is, I don't know, like a Greek chorus thing, I don't quite know, but there's Eddie's conversations with this unknown person in the cafeteria give us a sense, maybe it's a narrator voice, like, "Meanwhile, this is going on in the world." We have these conversations. This guy he's having lunch with asks a lot of questions and starts asking a lot of personal questions about Dagny. Then we have to talk to-- I know we've gone for over an hour and 15 minutes, we've got to talk about Galt's Speech, right? When John Galt, toward the end, takes over the airwaves and gives this big three-hour speech, the big three-hour podcast as I tweeted the other day, Eddie is with Dagny.Henry: He's in the radio studio.Hollis: He's in the studio along with one of John Galt's former professors. We hear this voice. Rand says, or the narrator says, three people in the room recognize that voice. I don't know about you, did you guess that it was Galt before that moment that Eddie was having lunch with in the cafeteria?Henry: No, no, no, I didn't.Hollis: Okay, so you knew at that moment.Henry: That was when I was like, "Oh, Eddie was talking, right?" It took me a minute.Hollis: Okay, were you excited? Was that like a moment? Was that a big reveal?Henry: It was a reveal, but it made me-- Eddie's whole character puzzles me because, to me, he feels like a Watson.Hollis: Yes, that's nice, that's good.Henry: He's met Galt, who's been under their noses the whole time. He's been going through an almost Socratic method with Galt, right? If only he could have paid a little bit more attention, he would have realized what was going on. He doesn't, why is this guy so interested in Dagny, like all these things. Even after Galt's big speech, I don't think Eddie quite takes the lesson. He also comes to a more ambiguous but a bad end.Hollis: Eddie's been right there, the most loyal person. The Reddit threads on Eddie Willers, if anybody's interested, are really interesting.Henry: Yes, they are, they're so good.Hollis: Clearly, Eddie recognizes greatness, and he recognizes production, and he recognizes that Dagny is better than Jim. He recognizes Galt. They've been having these conversations for 12 years in the cafeteria. Every time he goes to the cafeteria, he's like, "Where's my friend, where's my friend?" When his friend disappears, but he also tells Galt a few things about Dagny that are personal and private. When everybody in the world, all the great people in the world, this is a big spoiler, go to Galt's Gulch at the end.Henry: He's not there.Hollis: He doesn't get to go. Is it because of the compromises he made along the way? Rand had the power to reward everybody. Hank's secretary gets to go, right?Henry: Yes.Hollis: She's gone throughout the whole thing.Henry: Eddie never thinks for himself. I think that's the-- He's a very, I think, maybe one of the more tragic victims of the whole thing because-- sorry. In a way, because, Cherryl and the Wet Nurse, they try and do the right thing and they end up dying. That's like a more normal tragedy in the sense that they made a mistake. At the moment of realization, they got toppled.Eddie, in a way, is more upsetting because he never makes a mistake and he never has a moment of realization. Rand is, I think this is maybe one of the cruelest parts of the book where she's almost saying, "This guy's never going to think for himself, and he hasn't got a hope." In a novel, if this was like a realistic novel, and she was saying, "Such is the cruelty of the world, what can we do for this person?" That would be one thing. In a novel that's like ending in a utopia or in a sort of utopia, it's one of the points where she's really harsh.Hollis: She's really harsh. I'd love to go and look at her notes at some point in time when I have an idle hour, which I won't, to say like, did she sit around? It's like, "What should I do with Eddie?" To have him die, probably, in the desert with a broken down Taggart transcontinental engine, screaming in terror and crying.Henry: Even at that stage, he can't think for himself and see that the system isn't worth supporting.Hollis: Right. He's just going to be a company man to the end.Henry: It's as cruel as those fables we tell children, like the grasshopper and the ants. He will freeze to death in the winter. There's nothing you can do about it. There are times when she gets really, really tough. I think is why people hate her.Hollis: We were talking about this, about Dickens and minor characters and coming to redemption and Dickens, except Jo. Jo and Jo All Alones, there are people who have redemption and die. Again, I don't know.Henry: There's Cherryl and the Wet Nurse are like Jo. They're tragic victims of the system. She's doing it to say, "Look how bad this is. Look how bad things are." To me, Eddie is more like Mr. Micawber. He's hopeless. It's a little bit comic. It's not a bad thing. Whereas Dickens, at the end, will just say, "Oh, screw the integrity of the plot and the morals. Let's just let Mr. Micawber-- let's find a way out for him." Everyone wants this guy to do well. Rand is like, "No, I'm sticking to my principles. He's dead in the desert, man. He's going to he's going to burn to death." He's like, "Wow, that's okay."Hollis: The funny thing is poor John Galt doesn't even care about him. John Galt has been a bad guy. John Galt is a complicated figure. Let's spend a bit on him.Henry: Before we do that, I actually want to do a very short segment contextualizing her in the 50s because then what you say about Galt will be against this background of what are some of the other ideas in the 50s, right?Hollis: Got it.Henry: I think sometimes the Galt stuff is held up as what's wrong with this novel. When you abstract it and just say it, maybe that's an easier case to make. I think once you understand that this is 1957, she's been writing the book for what, 12 years, I think, or 15 years, the Galt speech takes her 3 years to write, I think. This is, I think the most important label we can give the novel is it's a Cold War novel. She's Russian. What she's doing, in some ways, is saying to America, "This is what will happen to us if we adopt the system of our Cold War enemies." It's like, "This is animal farm, but in America with real people with trains and energy plants and industry, no pigs. This is real life." We've had books like that in our own time. The Mandibles by Lionel Shriver said, that book said, "If the 2008 crash had actually gone really badly wrong and society collapsed, how would it go?" I think that's what she's reacting to. The year before it was published, there was a sociology book called The Organization Man.Hollis: Oh, yes. William Whyte.Henry: A great book. Everyone should read that book. He is worrying, the whole book is basically him saying, "I've surveyed all these people in corporate America. They're losing the Protestant work ethic. They're losing the entrepreneurial spirit. They're losing their individual drive. Instead of wanting to make a name for themselves and invent something and do great things," he says, "they've all got this managerial spirit. All the young men coming from college, they're like, 'Everything's been done. We just need to manage it now.'" He's like, "America is collapsing." Yes, he thinks it's this awful. Obviously, that problem got solved.That, I think, that gives some sense of why, at that moment, is Ayn Rand writing the Galt speech? Because this is the background. We're in the Cold War, and there's this looming sense of the cold, dead hand of bureaucracy and managerialism is. Other people are saying, "Actually, this might be a serious problem."Hollis: I think that's right. Thank you for bringing up Whyte. I think there's so much in the background. There's so much that she's in conversation with. There's so much about this speech, so that when you ask somebody on the street-- Again, let me say this, make the comparison again to Uncle Tom's Cabin, people go through life feeling like they know Uncle Tom's Cabin, Simon Legree, Eliza Crossing the Ice, without having ever read it.Not to name drop a bit, but when I did my annotated Uncle Tom's Cabin, this big, huge book, and it got reviewed by John Updike in The New Yorker, and I was like, "This is freaking John Updike." He's like, "I never read it. I never read it." Henry Louis Gates and then whoever this young grad student was, Hollis Robbins, are writing this book, I guess I'll read it. It was interesting to me, when I talk about Uncle Tom's Cabin, "I've never read it," because it's a book you know about without reading. A lot of people know about Atlas Shrugged without having read it. I think Marc Andreessen said-- didn't he say on this podcast that he only recently read it?Henry: I was fascinated by this. He read it four years ago.Hollis: Right, during COVID.Henry: In the bibliography for the Techno-Optimist Manifesto, and I assumed he was one of those people, he was like you, he'd read it as a teenager, it had been informative. No, he came to it very recently. Something's happening with this book, right?Hollis: Huge things are happening, but the people who know about it, there's certain things that you know, you know it's long, you know that the sex is perhaps not what you would have wanted. You know that there's this big, really long thing called John Galt's Speech, and that it's like the whaling chapters in Moby-Dick. People read Moby-Dick, you're like, "Oh, yes, but I skipped all the chapters on cetology." That's the thing that you say, right? The thing that you say is like, "Yes, but I skipped all the John Galt's Speech." I was very interested when we were texting over the last month or so, what you would say when you got to John Galt's Speech. As on cue, one day, I get this text and it's like, "Oh, my God, this speech is really long." I'm like, "Yes, you are the perfect reader."Henry: I was like, "Hollis, this might be where I drop out of the book."Hollis: I'm like, "Yes, you and the world, okay?" This is why you're an excellent reader of this book, because it is a frigging slog. Just because I'm having eye issues these days, I had decided instead of rereading my copy, and I do have a newer copy than this tiny print thing, I decided to listen on audiobook. It was 62 hours or whatever, it was 45 hours, because I listen at 1.4. The speech is awesome listening to it. It, at 1.4, it's not quite 3 hours. It's really good. In the last few days, I was listening to it again, okay? I really wanted to understand somebody who's such a good plotter, and somebody who really understands how to keep people's interest, why are you doing this, Rand? Why are you doing this, Ms. Rand? I love the fact that she's always called Miss. Rand, because Miss., that is a term that we

The US stock market is in "the mother of all bubbles", with the market capitalization of publicly traded companies at 206% of GDP. This is higher than the dot-com bubble of 2000, and even the peak of the crash of 1929. Meanwhile, just 25 companies make up over half of the weight of the S&P 500, and the Magnificent 7 Big Tech monopolies are 35% of the market cap of the index. However, the US economy was built upon this financial house of cards, and politicians are profiting from it. Ben Norton explains the dangers. VIDEO with charts here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rguHublkxCQ Topics 0:00 American exceptionalism 0:53 US stock market is over 60% of world 1:16 USA is 74% of MSCI World Index 2:10 Top 25 companies in world 3:29 Exorbitant privilege of US dollar 4:59 S&P 500 and Nasdaq indices 6:07 Magnificent 7 6:50 Just 25 companies make up 50.3% of S&P 500 8:26 Tesla is insanely overvalued 12:03 Big US companies are really financial firms 13:11 How to measure a bubble 14:15 Buffett Indicator (market cap to GDP) 15:57 Public & private equities to GDP 17:00 How the US government inflated the bubble 21:10 Richest 10% of Americans own 93% of stocks 22:23 Warren Buffett's warnings 23:56 Berkshire Hathaway dumps stocks 26:32 Jeff Bezos sells Amazon shares 27:22 Mark Zuckerberg sells Meta stocks 27:40 Elon Musk sold Tesla shares 28:08 The "greatest bubble in human history" 30:27 Alan Greenspan and "irrational exuberance" 31:16 Fears of "pent-up exuberance" 32:19 P/E ratios 33:41 Irrational investing 34:54 Donald Trump's tax cuts help the rich 37:54 Trump and Ronald Reagan 39:04 Trickle-down economics 41:16 Wall Street fills Trump's cabinet 42:02 Financialization of US economy 43:44 Will Trump reverse de-industrialization? 45:38 Real estate & homelessness 46:38 US dollar 47:34 Wall Street vs Main Street 49:06 Outro

When testifying to the Senate Banking Committee back in 1987, the newly-appointed Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan, provided some insight into his views on communication: “Since becoming a central banker”, he said, “I have learned to mumble with great incoherence. If I seem unduly clear to you, you must have misunderstood what I said.” His successors have generally tried to be more open with regard to both their opinions and their intentions. However, there are times, when the Fed will want to communicate to financial markets without piquing the interest of either the general public or the administration.

Judy Shelton: "Why Don't We Use Our Gold As Collateral For A New Treasury Debt Instrument" Former Trump economic advisor Judy Shelton has talked a lot about bringing gold back into the monetary system in the US. And while she has not yet been officially brought back aboard Trump's team, it sure is fascinating to imagine what could happen if she is. Because in a recent interview with David Morgan of The Morgan Report, in addition to sharing some fascinating monetary history, including how even Fed officials like Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan agree that 2% inflation is far from the definition of stable, she also proposes the idea of using the nation's gold as collateral for a new treasury debt instrument. Which is fascinating to hear, especially at the same time when the eastern half of the world continues to express a desire to turn to gold in place of treasuries. So whether you're a monetary advocate, historian, or someone who just wants to navigate the changes to our monetary system that are coming, you're really going to enjoy this interview. And to hear David Morgan talk with Judy Shelton, just click to watch the video now! - To get a copy of Judy's new book: https://www.amazon.com/Good-Gold-Unleash-Power-Sound/dp/1598133896/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.GilhQVjnPROPl6focmPkwdiu42Gnk08bS4zXzi14jI2uYTO4yE4rXnsnHKKKiOgtpodlzFs9Vxat6ryKHl_dScQffL3yaBoiXVcqRqcEV8381nl0KCDYBv7ZXIPXt9dQ.G_wRy6cDB9R0bI5oK_y_ZHTvsZT_qDJTZPJDSAA9QNY&dib_tag=se&hvadid=713541207529&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9012034&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=e&hvrand=11505215478072804659&hvtargid=kwd-2320378241923&hydadcr=22565_13730680&keywords=judy+shelton+good+as+gold&qid=1732378002&sr=8-1 - To get access to David's research at “The Morgan Report” go to: https://www.themorganreport.com/membersportal/aff/go/ArcadiaEconomics - To get your very own 'Silver Chopper Ben' statue go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/chopper-ben-landing-page/ - Join our free email list to be notified when a new video comes out: click here: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/email-signup/ - Follow Arcadia Economics on twitter at: https://x.com/ArcadiaEconomic - To get your paperback or audio copy of The Big Silver Short go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/thebigsilvershort/ - Listen to Arcadia Economics on your favorite Podcast platforms: Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/75OH2PpgUpriBA5mYf5kyY Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/arcadia-economics/id1505398976 - #silver #silverprice And remember to get outside and have some fun every once in a while!:) (URL0VD)Subscribe to Arcadia Economics on Soundwise

Long before there was Alan Greenspan to turn the Federal Reserve into Casino Central, there was John Law, France's minister of finance.Original article: The Birth of “Irrational Exuberance”

Long before there was Alan Greenspan to turn the Federal Reserve into Casino Central, there was John Law, France's minister of finance.Original article: The Birth of “Irrational Exuberance”

President of the Mises Institute and author of “How Capitalism Saved America”, Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo joins us to uncover the current state of capitalism and if it still exists in America. Earlier in the episode, Keith discusses the inaccuracy of economic predictions, citing examples like the 2023 recession that never happened, the negative impact of misinformed predictions on investment decisions and business growth.  Persistent housing price crash predictions have been consistently wrong despite global pandemics and higher mortgage rates. Dr. DiLorenzo advocates for #EndTheFed to reduce inflation and restore free market principles. Learn how voluntary exchange between buyer and seller through market prices communicates information and influences production. Resources: Learn more about Austrian economics and Ludwig von Mises through visiting mises.org  Show Notes: GetRichEducation.com/521 For access to properties or free help with a GRE Investment Coach, start here: GREmarketplace.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 For advertising inquiries, visit: GetRichEducation.com/ad Will you please leave a review for the show? I'd be grateful. Search “how to leave an Apple Podcasts review”  GRE Free Investment Coaching: GREmarketplace.com/Coach 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  00:00 Keith, welcome to GRE. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, reviewing some terrible economic predictions and why it matters to you. Then the President of the Mises Institute joins us. Does capitalism still exist in the US and what would happen if we ended the Fed, today on get rich education.   00:24 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 a flipper or landlord. Show Host Keith Weinhold writes for both Forbes and Rich Dad advisors, who delivers a new show every week since 2014 there's been millions of listener downloads of 188 world nations. He has a list show. Guess who? 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 getricheducation.com   Corey Coates  01:09 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  01:25 welcome to GRE from Syracuse, Sicily to Syracuse, New York, and across 188 nations worldwide, you're listening to one of the longest running and most listened to shows on real estate investing. This is Get Rich Education. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold, now a lot of media companies and pundits and influencers like to make predictions. Listeners like learning about predictions and by engaging just a little of that each of the past few years on one of the last episodes of the year. Here, I forecast the national home price appreciation rate for the following year, many media outlets, pundits and influencers have made terrible, just absolutely terrible, predictions about interest rates and other financial forecasts. Last year, a majority of Pro prognosticators firmly forecast six or eight Fed rate cuts this year, for example, well, we're going to have far fewer, and that's because high inflation kept hanging around. Then there's the 2023 recession that never happened, yet both Bloomberg and the economist actually published some rather ignominious headlines, as it turned out, they published these in the fall of 2022 Bloomberg, big headline was forecast for us, recession within year hits 100% in blow to Biden, well, That was false. That didn't come true. I mean, 100% that doesn't leave you any room for an out. And then also published in the fall of 2022 The Economist ran this headline why a global recession is inevitable in 2023 All right, well, they both believed in a recession, and they believed in it so deeply that it got fossilized. Well, an economic archeologist like me dug it up.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  03:31 We are going to die   Keith Weinhold  03:35 well, but I didn't risk my life like Indiana Jones did there. This archeology, it only involves some Google searches. Well, here's the thing. What's remarkable about America staving off a mammoth recession and leaving all the other g7 nations in the economic dust is the fact that merely predicting a recession often makes it come true. Just predicting one often turns a recession into a self fulfilling prophecy. Yeah, recession forecast headlines alone, they can spook employers from making new hires and slow down manufacturing, and it can also disillusion real estate investors from expanding their portfolios. Well, the US economy grew anyway, besides the farcical prognostications about myriad interest rate cuts in a quote, unquote definite 2023 recession that never happened. You know, there's also a third forecast that so many got wrong. And you probably know what I'm gonna say. I've brought it up before, because this hits our world, those erstwhile and well still ever present housing price crash predictions. I mean this facet of the gloom boom really ramped up from 2020 One until today, even a global pandemic, new wars and a triplicate mortgage rates couldn't stop the housing price surge and the rent surge. A lot of doomsdayers just couldn't see, or they didn't even want to see that a housing shortage would keep prices afloat. They didn't want to see it because they get more clicks when they talk about the gloom government stimulus programs also buoyed prices, and deep homeowner equity cushions will still keep prices afloat. Ever since 2021 here on the show, I've used that rationale and more to explain that home prices would keep appreciating, but that the rate of appreciation would slow down, and it has slowed down since 2021 see YouTubers tick tockers. They notoriously use woe begone housing crash headlines, because that gets more clicks and then some of the rationale behind this. The reasoning is just dreadful, like, what goes up must come down, all right? Well, this is like, why does it matter? Who cares about wrong predictions anyway? What's the point? Well, people become misinformed. People waste their time on these things and see no one loses money on dismal economic predictions. But the damage is done, because when investors don't act well, then they didn't get the gain that they should have had. Businesses didn't get the gain that they should have had when they could have made new investment and hired new employees sooner. And of course, a recession is going to happen sometime. They occur, on average, every five to six years. It is just a normal part of the business cycle will collectively these three faulty economic predictions, rate cuts, a recession and a housing price crash. I think if you bundle them all up combined, it could be as bad as one doomsday prediction about worldwide starvation or the Mayan apocalypse. Remember that the wide to K bug, the acid rain, even that the internet is just a fad that ran a buck 30 years ago. World War Three is eminent, robots overtaking humans, or how about running out of crude oil. I mean, we're definitely all supposed to have jet packs in flying cars by now, right? But yet, did anyone have the clairvoyance to predict the stock market crash of 1929 or September 11 terrorist attacks, or Trump's surprise, 2016 presidency or Bitcoin hitting 70k A while back, or the coronavirus. So really, overall, the bottom line here with predictions is that no one knows the future. Control what you can maintain equanimity, add good properties, gradually raise rent, reduce expenses, create leverage and expect inflation truly the best way to predict the future is to create it in just that way. Well is the USA capitalistic nation today. That's what we'll discuss later with this week's guest. When Chuck Todd hosted the show Meet the Press, he interviewed AOC about this. Yes, I'm talking about us. House Rep from New York, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, what she say? You   08:34 have said you are democratic socialist. Can you be a Democratic socialist and a capitalist? Well, I think it depends on your interpretation. So there are some Democratic socialists that would say, Absolutely not. There are other people that are democratic socialists that would say, I think it's possible. What are you? I think it's possible. I think you say to yourself, I'm a capitalist, but I don't say that. You know, if anything, I would say, I'm I believe in a democratic economy, but.   Keith Weinhold  09:03 okay, well, I'm not sure if that clears it up at all. And I've listened to more of that clip, and it just makes things more confusing. But I think that most people have trouble drawing a line between capitalism and neighboring economic systems. Where exactly do you draw that line? I don't know exactly where to draw it. When I think of capitalism, I think of things though, like removal of interventionist central planning and allowing the free market to run with few guardrails. And then there's an issue like labor unionization. I don't really know about something like that. This is a real estate show. I'm still forming an opinion on a topic like that. In you know, some of this gets political, and that's beyond the scope of get rich education. The Fed was created in 1913 that central planning, its central banking from 1987 to. 2006 Alan Greenspan reigned as Fed chair. Those were his years, and he became even more interventionist. And then his successor, Ben Bernanke, maybe even more so with quantitative easing and such. Let's talk about, should they end the Fed and capitalism with this week's expert guest. You very well may have heard of the late, famed Austrian American economist Ludwig von Mises today, the Mises Institute carries on his legacy, and this week's guest is none other than the President of the Mises Institute. He's also the number one best selling author of how capitalism saved America and his newer book with a title that I love, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Economics. Hey, it's great to have you here. It is. Dr Thomas DiLorenzo.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  11:00 pleased to be with you. Thanks for having me.Th   Keith Weinhold  11:02 Well, Dr DiLorenzo, for those that don't know, just tell us a bit in an overview about Austrian economics and what Ludwig von Mises stood for.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  11:02 Well, Ludwig von Mises was the preeminent critic of socialism and fascism in Europe, and in his day, he fled the Nazis literally hours before the Gestapo broke into his apartment in Geneva, because he was the preeminent critic of fascism and socialism, and he was also Jewish, and so he had to get out of town. And he miraculously ended up after wandering through Europe with his wife in New York City, and he taught at New York University for many years, until he died in 1973 and but the Austrian School of Economics is a school of thought. It has nothing to do with, necessarily, with the Government of Austria, the country of Austria, just this the founder of a man named Carl Menger happened to be from Austria, but probably the most famous or well known among Americans would be Friedrich Hayek, who won the Nobel Prize in 1970s he was a student of Ludwig von Mises and critics of interventionism, critics of socialism. We teach about free markets, of how markets actually work and how governments don't work. And that's in a nutshell, that's what it's about. And you could check out our website, mises.org, M, I, S, E, S.org, you can get a great economic education. We have a lot of free books to download. Some of them are downloaded 30 or 40,000 times a month. Still, it's even Mises old books like human action, first published in the 1960s and so you can get a great education just by reading our website.   Keith Weinhold  12:42 Well, congratulations, that's proof that you're doing an excellent job of carrying on the Mises legacy into the present day, a lot of which is championing capitalism. Do we have capitalism in the United States today?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  12:59 I was an economics professor from 40 years before I got this job as President of the Mises Institute. And I used to say we had islands of socialism in a sea of capitalism at the beginning of my career. But now I'd say it's the opposite, that we have islands of capitalism in a sea of socialism. And socialism, this data is not defined anymore as government ownership. That was, you know, about 100 years ago, the socialism. It's basically government control of industry and in addition to government ownership. So the instruments of the welfare state, the income tax and the regulatory state, is our version of socialism, or central planning, if you will. And it's the Federal Reserve the Fed, which is a government agency that orchestrates the whole thing, really, it's a big, massive central planning industry that controls, regulates basically every aspect of any kind of financial transaction imaginable. They list in their publications over 100 different functions of the Federal Reserve. It's not just monetary policy. It's a big regulatory behemoth, and so that's that's what the Fed is. That's what I think we have today. A friend of mine, Robert Higgs, a well known economic historian, says our system is what he calls participatory fascism. And fascism was a system where private enterprise was permitted, but it was so heavily regulated and regimented by the government that industry had to do what government wanted to do, not what its customers wanted it to do, so much, and a large part of our economic system is just like that, and we get to vote still, so that's where the participatory and comes in, and the pin of Robert Hinz.   Keith Weinhold  14:41 yeah, maybe at best, I can think of today's system as capitalism with guardrails on but the guardrails keep getting taller. And I think of guardrails as being, for example, regulatory agencies like the Fed in FINRA. In the FDA.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  15:01 It is the beginning of my career. You know, I studied economics and a PhD in economics, and there was a big literature on what's called regulatory capture. And it was sort of a big secret among US economic academics. There was all this research going on and how the big regulatory agencies created by the federal government in the late 19th, early 20th centuries, were captured by the industries that they were supposed to be regulating. Right? The theory was they would regulate these industries in the public's best interests. But what has happened from the very beginning is they were captured by the industries, and they benefit the industry at the expense of the public. But today, that's caught on thanks to people like Robert Kennedy Jr, frankly, has been a very popular author. He sold a gazillion copies of his book on Anthony Fauci, and in it, he explains in tremendous detail how the Food and Drug Administration was long ago captured by the pharmaceutical companies. And he's not the only one. I think that that is being more and more recognized by people outside of academic economics, like me, and that's a good thing, and that's sort of the worst example of crony capitalism. It's not real capitalism, but crony capitalism making money through government connections, rather than producing better products, cheaper products and so forth.   Keith Weinhold  16:21 I watched RFK Jr speak in person recently, and I was actually disappointed when he effectively dropped out of the upcoming presidential race. And I do want to talk more with you about the Fed shortly, but with all these regulatory agencies and how I liken them to guard rails. You know, I sort of think of it as a watchdog system that's failing. You mentioned the FDA. I know RFK Jr brought them up an awful lot, the Food and Drug Administration that are supposed to help regulate what we put inside our own bodies in our diet. But these systems are failing. We have regulatory agencies in industry, industry in regulatory agencies. I mean, look at the obesity rate. Look at all the ultra processed food that's allowed. Look at all the seed oils that are allowed in food that people actually think are healthy for them. So this system of capitalism with guardrails is failing almost everywhere you look.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  16:22 I wouldn't call it capitalism. I wouldn't use the word capitalism at all, other than crony capitalism, people can relate to that. You know, a lot of these regulatory agencies were lobbied for in the first place by industry. That while the very first one was the Interstate Commerce Commission, it was in the 1880s it was meant to regulate the railroad companies. The first president was the president of a Railroad Corporation, the head of the Interstate Commerce Commission. So talk about the fox guarding the hen house. That was from the very beginning. And so in a sense, this word capture theory of regulation, which Kennedy has used, they weren't really captured. They always were created by the government. The same is true of all the so called Public Utilities. It was the corporations, the electric power companies, the water supply companies, that lobbied for governments to give them a monopoly, a legal monopoly, in electricity, water supply and all these things that were called natural monopolies, but there was nothing natural about them. There was vigorous competition in the early 20th century in telephone, electricity, water supply, and that was all set aside by government regulation, creating monopolies. For example, in electric power, there's an economist named Walter primo who wrote a book some years ago showing that always have been several dozen cities in America that never went this way, that always allowed direct competition between electric power companies. And what do you know, better service and lower prices. As a result, they did dozens of statistical studies to demonstrate this in his book.   Keith Weinhold  18:58 Okay, well, that's a great case study. Why don't we talk about what things would look like if we took down one of these agencies? We're a real estate investing in finance show. Sometimes it's a popular meme or hashtag to say, end the Fed. What would it look like if we ended the Fed?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  19:18 Well, the Fed was created in 1913 in the same era, with all these other regulatory captured agencies were created, right? And it was created basically to cartelize and create a cartel for the banking industry to make it almost impossible to go bankrupt. They've been bailing out foolish bankers for 111 years. And of course, the biggest example was that as the crash of 08 after they they handed Goldman Sachs and other big investment banks billions of dollars. That was a direct assault on capitalism itself, because capitalism, as you know, is a profit and loss system. It's not a I keep the profits. You pay for my losses system. You're the taxpayer. But that's what happened with that. So the Fed would. Fall into that the Fed is actually the fourth central bank in America. We had three other ones. First one was called Bank of North America. Its currency was so unreliable, nobody trusted it went out of business in a year and a half. And then we created something called the Bank of the United States in 1791 same thing. It created boom and bust cycles, high unemployment, price inflation, corrupted politics. It was defunded after 20 years, and then it was brought back to fund the debt from the war of 1812 and so we had a Second Bank of the United States. It did the same thing, boom and bust cycles, price inflation, corrupted politics. Benefited special interest, but not the general interest, and President Andrew Jackson defunded it, and so we went without a central bank from roughly 1840 until 1913 so we've had experience of that. And what we had been was competing currencies, and that would be sort of a stepping stone. If we got rid of the fed, we wouldn't have to abolish the Fed altogether. We could amend the charter to the Fed to say you're no longer permitted to buy bonds. Can't buy government bonds anymore. That's how they inflate the money supply, right? By buying bonds. That's totally unnecessary. And we could just just that would be a great step forward, and we would sort of whittle away our $80 trillion debt, if you count again upon count the unfunded liabilities of the federal government,   Keith Weinhold  21:26 if we did end the Fed, what would the price of money? Which are interest rates really look like? Would a new market rate be sent by individuals and companies on the free market like Bank of America, with a customer or borrower settling on an interest rate that they both agree to.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  21:44 You know, the Fed uses sort of Soviet style economics, price control. The economists and are all getting all over Kamala Harris for recommendations for price controls on rent and other things. Well, the Fed price control. They control the price of money. That's what they do. And so there's a big, kind of a comical thing that here you have all these economists, if they were to teach economics in the week one, they would teach about the bad effects of price controls, and then they get a job at the Fed, and they spend their whole career enforcing price controls on money, and the interest rate would be determined by supply and demand for credit and inflationary expectations. That's what the market does. And you wouldn't have these bureaucrats at the Fed tinkering around with interest rates, creating tremendous arbitrage opportunities for Wall Street investors. With all the movements and interest rates, you'd have much more stable interest rates, and and you wouldn't have this ridiculous system where the Fed says we need to always have forever at least 2% inflation. And of course, they never meet that, and they lie about it. I don't believe for one minute that the price inflation right now is 3% or under 3% that's ridiculous, right? And so things should be getting cheaper. Everything should be getting cheaper because of all the technology we have. My first PC I bought in the early 80s for $4,000 and it was a piece of prehistoric junk compared to my cell phone today, that almost for free. Almost everything should be like that agriculture, but the reason it isn't is the Fed keeps pumping so much money in circulation, that it pumps up the demand for goods and services, and that's what creates price inflation. And by its own admission, that's what it does, even though it's charter, it's original charter said they're supposed to fight inflation. All of a sudden, about 10 years ago or so, they announced, south of blue, we always have to have at least 2% inflation. Congress had nothing to do with that. President had nothing to do with that, and the people of America had nothing to do with that. It was dictators like Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke that just make these announcements. And where does that come from when we live under the dictatorship of the Fed? And of course, the people who are hurt the most by the Fed are elderly people are living on relatively fixed incomes and are forced to become Wall Street speculators they want to make any more money other than their fixed income, where, you know, during the days of Greenspan, when they're pursuing zero interest rates, maybe the mortgage industry like that, but the people on retirement income were starving as a result of that. So it's been sort of an economic war on the retired population.   Keith Weinhold  24:24 Things should get faster and cheaper to produce, like you said. However, there's definitely one thing that's not getting faster to produce, that's housing build times. Housing build times have actually gone up, which is sort of another discussion unto itself. But we talk about the Fed and then setting prices. People wouldn't stand for setting the price or having price controls on oil or lumber or bananas, but yet we set the price of money itself. People have just become accustomed to that. Yet it's that money itself that we use to buy oil and lumber and bananas the fed with that dual mandate of stable prices and maximum employment. If we did abolish the Fed, what would happen to the rate of inflation?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  25:12 Well, we would have less inflation. It's supposed to what we replace it with. There's some system would be a replacement, but we wouldn't have the boom and bust cycles that we have now. There's been research in the past 100 years or so of the Fed, and what the academic researchers have concluded is that the Fed has made the economy in general more unstable than it was before we had the Fed and price inflation. That's a joke. The dollar is worth maybe three cents of what it was in the year 1913 right when the Fed was created. So it has failed on all accounts. And so if we got rid of it, we would reverse that. The idea would be to start out with a competing money system. And I'll tell you a quick story is, you know the word Dixie from the south, you know land of Dixie that was named after a currency by a New Orleans bank called the Dix D, I x 10 in French, and it was 100% gold reserve. It was backed by something real and valuable, and it was so popular as even used in Minnesota. But that's why the whole south, the states in the South, were using this currency, because it was so reliable. But during the Civil War, the national currency acts imposed taxes on the competing currencies and taxed them out of business and established the greenback dollar, as it was called, as the Monopoly money of the country. We didn't get a central bank during the Civil War, but we got that. And so that's the kind of system that we would have. Friedrich Hayek wrote a whole book about this, about competing currencies, called the denationalization of money. He poses that as a good stepping stone to a freer market in money. And like you said, Money is the most important thing. Is most more important than bananas or shoes or any of these other things that we might have price controls on.   Keith Weinhold  27:01 All right, so we're talking about the case for ending the Fed. What is the counter argument? I mean, other than the government wanting control, is there a valid, or any academic counter argument for keeping the Fed in place?   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  27:16 The Fed has an army. I call it the Fed's Praetorian Guard of academics. There was a research article published by an economist named Larry White at George Mason University several years ago, and he found that 75% of all the articles in the academic journals regarding money, monetary policy and so forth, are by people who are basically paid by the Fed, one way or the other. Either they're fed economists, or they've been invited to a conference by the Fed, or they're an intern some relationship with the Fed. The late Milton Friedman once said, If you want a career as a monetary economist, it's not a good idea to criticize the biggest employer in your field. So there's a lot of nonsense about that. And so yes, you'll have all sorts of rationales, but it basically comes down to this, that we think we can do central planning better than the Russians did under communism, because the Fed is basically an economic central planning agency, and there's no reason to believe Americans are better at it than the Russians or anybody else. And it basically comes down to that, you know, studying the past 111 years that's showing Well, yeah, they've been trying that for 111 years. They've made the economy more unstable, and they have failed miserably to control inflation. And why should we give them another chance? Why should we continue along this road? We shouldn't So, yeah, there'll be all kind of excuses the late Murray Rothbard, who was one of the founders of the Mises, who once answered this question by saying, It's as though people said, Well, say the government always made shoes. 100 years ago they took over the shoe industry. People would be saying, who will make shoes if the government doesn't make shoes? The government has always made shoes, right? But the government has not always monopolized the money supply. It's only like I said, we abolished three Feds in our history. In American history, they weren't called the Fed, but they were central banks. And the Fed is called a central bank, and we've done that three times. We've abolished more central banks than we have kept in American history.   Keith Weinhold  29:17  We're talking with Dr Thomas D Lorenzo. He is the president of the Mises Institute. About, is there really any capitalism left more when we come back, this is Get Rich Education. I'm your host. Keith Weinhold,  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 RidgeLendingGroup.com, that's Ridgelendinggroup.com. Your bank is getting rich off of you. The national average bank account pays less than 1% on your savings. If your money isn't making 4% you're losing your hard earned cash to inflation. Let the liquidity fund help you put your money to work with minimum risk, your cash generates up to an 8% return with compound interest year in and year out. Instead of earning less than 1% sitting in your bank account, the minimum investment is just 25k you keep getting paid until you decide you want your money back. Their decade plus track record proves they've always paid their investors 100% in full and on time. And I would know, because I'm an investor too. Earn 8% hundreds of others are text family to 66866, learn more about freedom. Family investments, liquidity fund on your journey to financial freedom through passive income. Text, family to 66866.   Kristen Tate  31:11 This is author Kristen Tate. Listen to Get Rich Education with Keith Weinhold, and Don't quit Your Daydream.   Keith Weinhold  31:27 welcome back to get rich education. We're talking with Dr Thomas DiLorenzo. He is the president of the Mises Institute. You can learn more about them @mises.org and Dr DiLorenzo. Frederick Hayek, an economist that you mentioned very well known and a student of Ludwig von Mises, he believed that prices are a communication mechanism between a buyer and a seller. Say, for example, there's a new style of single family rental home that everyone wants to rent. So therefore the rent price goes up when other builders see that the rent price goes up, that brings in more builder competition, and with more competition, that brings rent prices down, and then the world is filled with abundant housing, rather than a scarcity of housing. So that's how I think of a free market system within capitalism as working, as defined through Hayek.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  32:22 You know, the consumer is king. Von Mises once wrote about the same point where he said that people mistakenly believe that it's the bankers and the CEOs and the businesses that control what gets produced and so forth, but it's really the consumer. You build a housing development then people don't want those houses. You'll find out real fast who's in charge. It's not the mortgage brokers. It's not the bankers. It's not you, it's the consumer. That's the free market system, and if you do without it, and not using the free market system, whether it's for money or anything else, is kind of like trying to find your way around a strange city with no street signs, and the prices are the street signs that tell us what to do, exactly like you said, if there's strong demand for a certain type of housing, that'll drive the price up, and that'll tell the home builders, we can make money building more of these. And they will do that. Nobody tells them. The Chairman of the Fed doesn't have to tell them that the President doesn't have to tell them that Congress doesn't have to issue a declaration telling them to do that. That was the Soviet Union where they tried that. And that's the great thing about the market, is that the consumer can tell the richest man in the world like Elon Musk, go play in the traffic. Elon Musk, if they don't like his cars or whatever he's producing, even though he's the richest man in the world. And he understands that he's a pretty successful businessman, I would say, and so so he understands that the consumer is his boss.   Keith Weinhold  33:53 Well, what else do we need to know? You have published a lot of celebrated books, from how capitalism saved America to the politically incorrect guide to economics. What else might a real estate investor or an economic enthusiast need to know today? Oh,   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  34:10 well, I think everybody needs to be their own economist. You can listen to the talking heads on TV and on podcasts and all that, but educate yourself and become your own economist. Because a lot of the people on TV, as you might see on the news, they have an ax to grind, or they have a sort of a hidden financial interest beyond what they're saying, Be your own economist. And that's why I'm selling my website, which is everything on it, it's for free, mises.org, and there are quite a few others too. You don't have to go to school, you don't have to get a degree. You can get a good economic education, for example, on money. We're in the middle of giving away 100,000 copies of a book called What has government done to our money. I'm Murray rothbar. You go to our website, scroll down to the bottom, and you can fill out a form online, and we'll send you free books and. You can educate yourself that way. And so just in general, I think that's what people need to do. I taught MBA students for many years who are people in their 30s or maybe even early 40s, who didn't have economics degrees, but they were really into it, and for the first time in their careers, they decided maybe I should understand how the economic world that I live in and work in every day operates rather than going through your life and your career without you. Might know all about real estate sales, but it's also useful to know about the economy in general and how things work.   Keith Weinhold  35:35 And when one becomes their own economic student and they take that on, I think it's important for them, like you touched on to not just consume the economic news that's on CNBC or other major media, because that doesn't really tell you how to create wealth. It might inform you, but it doesn't necessarily tell you how to take action. For example, on this show an educational channel, you might learn about a story about rising inflation like we had starting three or four years ago. And here we talk about how, okay, if inflation is going to be a long term economic force, you may or may not like what the Fed is doing, but rather than save money, borrow money, outsource that debt service to the tenant on a cash flowing asset like a single family home or an apartment building. And that inflation that you're learning about on CNBC will actually benefit you and debase your debt with prudent leverage on a property, for example, so not just consuming the news, but learning and educating yourself and acting.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  36:34 Oh, sure, well It just so happens that last night, I was talking to a friend of mine who's a real estate professional. They're all talking about, Oh, are we going to have a slight drop in interest rates? And I reminded them that there will be a part of the market if they see it, if we do have a slight drop in interest rates, we'll look at that and say, well, maybe this is a new trend. And so I'll sit back and I'll wait. I'm not going to buy now, because I think the interest rates are going to go down even further in the next six months there were, there would be some segment of the market that thinks that way. And so that's just one little thing. Another thing I would mention is that one of the basic tenets of free market economics is that voluntary trade is mutually beneficial. People buy and sell from each other, because both sides benefit. And that's very important for any business person to keep in mind as you structure business deals, because you know about business deal that is successful is basically, I will give you what you want, and you give me what I want, and we're both happy. And that's that's one of the main tenets of how the market works. Voluntary exchange is mutually beneficial. So think about how to make it mutually beneficial, and you'll succeed in making a deal.   Keith Weinhold  37:45 Well, it's been an excellent discussion on Is there any capitalism left, and how would it look like if we turned the course and created more capitalism here in the United States? It's been great having you on the show.   Dr Thomas DiLorenzo  37:58 Thank you.   Keith Weinhold  38:05 Yeah , again, Learn more @mises.org or look up books by Dr Thomas DiLorenzo. His viewpoint is that there are now merely islands of capitalism in a sea of socialism where those conditions were inverted last century. We've got to end the complex between the government and corporations that these watchdogs are basically powerless when the fox is guarding the henhouse. Dr dilorezzo says we could change the Fed charter so that they couldn't buy bonds, which should reduce inflation. So he does offer a way forward there, a solution.  In capitalism, he consumer is king. This is a good thing. You yourself are empowered because you get to vote with your dollars. So therefore what you buy more of society will see and make more of but a prosperous, progressive economy that should be able to produce goods and services that are constantly cheaper because they get more and more efficient to make with innovation, but centrally planned inflation makes them more expensive, at least in dollar denominated terms. So progress should make things cheaper? Well, then everything should take fewer dollars to buy, homes, oil, bananas, grapes, but it doesn't, and it won't anytime soon, like I mentioned in the interview, there single family build times are taking even longer. That's not more efficient, and they're sure not getting cheaper. In fact, the National Association of Home Builders tells us that from permit to completion in 2015 it took 7.2 months to build a single family home. By 2019 it was up to 8.1 months and then. Last year, the time required to build a single family home from permit to completion was 10.1 months. That's not the side of an efficient economy. So basically, therefore, in the last eight, nine years, the time to build a home has gone from 7.2 months up to 10.1 months. That is a drastic increase in a short period of time. Just amazing. And we now have data after covid as well, broken down by region. The longest build time, by the way, is in New England, where it is 13.9 months to build a home from permit to completion. Gosh, such inefficiency. But despite all that stuff that you might find discouraging like that, I want to go out on a good news note here some encouraging sentiment for you, if you champion free markets, then invest in us rental property down the road, there is no centrally controlled ceiling on what you can sell your property for. Most places don't have rent control. In fact, there's been no federal rent control on private property since World War Two. And somewhat ironically, you benefit. You actually benefit from government backed loans at these low fixed rates, and now they're moderate fixed rates. You often get these through Fannie Freddie or the FHA. See you benefit from that particular government backing as a savvy borrower for rental property. And on top of this, you use the GRE inflation triple crown to flip over that not so capitalistic inflationary force. You flip it upside down and use it to your benefit, profiting fantastically from inflation. So you know how to take the situation you're given and use it to your advantage rather than your detriment. Big thanks to Dr Thomas DiLorenzo today, longtime econ professor and current Mises Institute president, more ways to build Real Estate Wealth coming up here for you on the show in future weeks, as always, with the dash of economics and wealth mindset. Until then, I'm your host. Keith Weinhold, Don't Quit Your Daydream.   42:28 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, exclusively,   Keith Weinhold  42:56 The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth, building, getricheducation.com.  

In this week's episode of Retire in Texas, Darryl Lyons, CEO and Co-Founder of PAX Financial Group, dives into the often misunderstood yet vital topic of the Federal Reserve and its profound influence on the economy and your investments. Darryl breaks down the complex functions of the Federal Reserve, from setting monetary policy to banking supervision, and explains how decisions made by the Fed impact everything from inflation to employment. Through personal anecdotes, historical examples, and even a few dad jokes, Darryl demystifies the Fed's role in the market and answers key questions such as whether the Fed is truly independent from the presidency, and how its decisions affect your investment journey. Whether you're a seasoned investor or someone just beginning to explore the financial world, this episode provides a clear and engaging roadmap to better understand the central bank's crucial influence. Key show highlights include: An introduction to the Federal Reserve and its key functions in the U.S. financial system. The Fed's dual mandate: controlling inflation and maximizing employment. How the Fed's interest rate decisions impact everyday investors and the broader economy. Historical moments in the Fed's history, from the Panic of 1907 to the 2008 financial crisis. Insights into past and present Fed Chairs, including Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Jerome Powell. Practical takeaways on how understanding the Fed can help you make smarter, long-term investment decisions. Tune in to learn how the Federal Reserve shapes your financial future and gain a better understanding of its influence on both the stock market and the economy. For more resources, visit www.paxfinancialgroup.com. If you enjoyed today's episode, don't forget to share it with a friend! Disclaimer: Clicking the Like button does not constitute a testimonial for, recommendation or endorsement of our advisory firm, any associated person, or our services. Clicking the Like button is merely a mechanism to circulate our social media page. “Like” is not meant in the traditional sense. In addition, postings must refrain from recommending us or providing testimonials for our firm.

Ci sono tutti i grandi marchi della nautica, e anche volti nuovi, a presentare gli ultimi modelli dei più innovativi, performanti, eleganti e anche sostenibili yacht, barche a vela e imbarcazioni di ogni taglia e tipologia. Il Salone Nautico internazionale di Genova, arrivato alla 64 esima edizione ha aperto i battenti oggi e durerà fino al 24 settembre, con più spazi rispetto all'edizione precedente e un "contenitore" più completo, grazie all'avanzamento dei lavori del Waterfront di levante di Genova, progettato dall'architetto Renzo Piano, anche se resta ancora un pezzo di cantiere: il nuovo ingresso nel "vecchio" Palasport ristrutturato, le barche esposte anche nel canale che circonda per intero l'isola del Padiglione Blu.Il dato annunciato oggi dal presidente di Confindustria Nautica Saverio Cecchi subito dopo la cerimonia di inaugurazione del Salone Nautico e contenuto nel report dell'ufficio studi "La nautica in cifre Log" è storico: il fatturato della nautica italiana nel 2023 è arrivato a quota 8,33 miliardi, un nuovo massimo per l'industria. Un miliardo di euro in più, pari al 13,6% di crescita sul 2022 per un fatturato quasi triplicato negli ultimi otto anni. Lo stesso presidente Cecchi, lo scorso 2 settembre in occasione della presentazione dell'evento, ha ricordato che il settore è ormai stabilmente il quarto pilastro del made in Italy (insieme a moda, arredo, alimentare).Sono intervenuti ai microfoni di Sebastiano Barisoni: Marco Fortis, docente di Economia industriale e Commercio estero presso la Facoltà di Scienze politiche dell'Università Cattolica di Milano, è anche direttore e vicepresidente della Fondazione Edison, Carla Demaria consigliere delegato di Sanlorenzo, CEO di Blugame brand del gruppo Sanlorenzo e Past President di Confindustria Nautica, Piero Formenti vice presidente di Confindustria Nautica da due mandati e dal 1979 proprietario e A.D. di Zar Formenti e Pietro Lucchese, CEO di Mr.Blu Yacht Dealers. La Fed taglia i tassi di mezzo punto e lo farà ancoraLa Fed apre una nuova era e taglia i tassi di interesse di mezzo punto, in quella che è la prima riduzione dal 2020. La decisione di portare il costo del denaro ad una forchetta compresa fra il 4,75% e il 5% punta a prevenire che il graduale raffreddamento del mercato del lavoro si trasformi in un completo stop. E mostra la determinazione della banca a centrare l'obiettivo di un atterraggio morbido per l'economia, evitando una tanto temuta recessione. E, sicuramente, i tassi scenderanno di altro mezzo punto entro la fine dell'anno, decidendo riunione per riunione. "L'economia è forte e siamo impegnati a mantenerla così forte", ha detto il presidente Jerome Powell osservando come la crescita media del Pil è stimata restare "solida" al +2% con un tasso di disoccupazione al 4,4% alla fine di quest'anno e un'inflazione al 2,1% nel 2025. "I rischi al rialzo per l'inflazione sono calati", ha aggiunto Powell che, mentre Wall Street ha ingranato la marcia positiva e l'oro ha toccato nuovi record, ha osservato come l'approccio paziente adottato dalla Fed nell'ultimo anno ha dato i suoi frutti sul fronte dei prezzi.Nell'annunciare la sua storica decisione, la banca centrale americana ha ribadito il suo "impegno alla massima occupazione e a un'inflazione al 2%", ovvero gli obiettivi stabiliti nel suo mandato. "Abbiamo guadagnato una maggiore fiducia in merito a un calo sostenibile dell'inflazione verso il 2%, e riteniamo che i rischi per centrare i nostri obiettivi sull'occupazione e l'inflazione siano più bilanciati. Le prospettive economiche sono incerte, e saremo attenti ai rischi", ha assicurato la Fed nel comunicato diffuso al termine della riunione, dal quale emerge che la decisone non è stata unanime. Il taglio aiuterà l'economia a due mesi dalle elezioni americane, esponendo la Fed a critiche. Con al decisione odierna infatti la banca centrale scontenta quei democratici che chiedevano un taglio di 75 punti base e tutti i repubblicani che premevano invece per rimandare ogni decisione a dopo il voto. "Questo taglio dimostra che Powell ha atteso troppo per tagliare i tassi", ha commentato la senatrice liberal Elizabeth Warren, chiedendo ulteriori riduzioni del costo del denaro. La prossima riunione della Fed cade proprio il giorno dopo le elezioni, liberando le mani alla Fed anche se i risultati - secondo gli osservatori - non saranno ancora noti. Per la Fed il taglio in un contesto di economia solida ma in rallentamento. Mai in passato si è trovata infatti in un simile situazione. L'obiettivo di Powell è quello di un atterraggio morbido, che sarebbe una vittoria per la Fed. Negli ultimi sei cicli di allentamento monetario dal 1989, solo in due casi - nel 1995 e nel 1998 - la banca centrale americana è riuscita a evitare una recessione. In ambedue i casi alla guida c'era Alan Greenspan mentre Jerome Powell spera di centrare il suo successo. Il mercato azionario e quello dei bond anticipano che la Fed centrerà un soft landing stile 1995, e il taglio da mezzo punto sembra puntare - secondo gli osservatori - proprio in questa direzione.Il commento di Riccardo Sorrentino, Il Sole 24 Ore a Focus Economia.

Is the Federal Reserve inadvertently widening the wealth gap? Tune in as we tackle this provocative question and dissect the proposed tax changes that are shaking up the political and market landscapes. Our special guest, Chris Martsenson of Peak Prosperity, joins us to shed light on these critical issues. We explore the potential increase in capital gains tax to 44.6%, the elimination of the 1031 transfer, and the reduction of allowances in oil and gas. Chris also shares his journey from corporate finance to becoming a public educator on economic realities, discussing his influential "Crash Course" and growing community engagement.Ever wondered how algorithmic trading and Federal Reserve policies are transforming financial markets? We delve into the challenges faced by day traders in the era of automated systems and the mysterious overnight gains in the S&P 500 linked to futures trading. Our conversation spans the evolving role of the Federal Reserve, from Alan Greenspan's era to the present, and scrutinizes interventions like the sweeps program and quantitative easing. With upcoming elections on the horizon, we speculate on the future implications of these market dynamics and the broader consequences for financial stability.Lastly, we confront rising economic inequality and the Federal Reserve's role in it. From taxing unrealized capital gains to the controversial influence of pharmaceutical advertisements on media narratives, we leave no stone unturned. We discuss the erosion of public trust in official narratives and highlight the importance of navigating today's unreliable information landscape. Wrapping up, we touch on societal issues such as student debt and the addictive nature of modern foods, offering insights on how to break free from these cycles. Join us for an eye-opening conversation that challenges conventional wisdom and provides invaluable perspectives on today's most pressing economic and political issues.The content in this program is for informational purposes only. You should not construe any information or other material as investment, financial, tax, or other advice. The views expressed by the participants are solely their own. A participant may have taken or recommended any investment position discussed, but may close such position or alter its recommendation at any time without notice. Nothing contained in this program constitutes a solicitation, recommendation, endorsement, or offer to buy or sell any securities or other financial instruments in any jurisdiction. Please consult your own investment or financial advisor for advice related to all investment decisions. Sign up to The Lead-Lag Report on Substack and get 30% off the annual subscription today by visiting http://theleadlag.report/leadlaglive. Foodies unite…with HowUdish!It's social media with a secret sauce: FOOD! The world's first network for food enthusiasts. HowUdish connects foodies across the world!Share kitchen tips and recipe hacks. Discover hidden gem food joints and street food. Find foodies like you, connect, chat and organize meet-ups!HowUdish makes it simple to connect through food anywhere in the world.So, how do YOU dish? Download HowUdish on the Apple App Store today:

This week we're doing more listener requests, and this one is a doozy. We are talking about Rush and their almost concept album 2112, released in Jan. 1976. In this episode we discuss Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, cultural insensitivity, diabetes, Cobra Commander, Equilibrium, ransoms, tears, Germans, Equilibrium again (thanks Tim), elders, copycats, professors and so much more! Hatepod.com | TW: @AlbumHatePod | IG: @hatePod | hatePodMail@gmail.com  Episode Outline: Top of the show "Do you hate it?" Personal History History of Artist  General Thoughts  Song by Song - What do they mean!?! How Did it Do Reviews Post Episode "Do you hate it?"

Andrew For America finishes talking about the Olympics, and then pivots to talking about the "big club," the central banking system, the history of inflation, money printing, government spending, how taxation is theft, the gold standard, treasury bonds, debt slavery, how capitalism empowers the individual, how communism works, secret societies, the importance of bravery and courage, willful ignorance, the birth of religions, and how BRICs is a threat to our reserve currency. Andrew plays clips from Joe Rogan, Gerard DGAF, Dave Smith, Andrew Tate, Simon King, Andy Frisella, David Graeber, Bill Cooper, Alan Greenspan, Ray Dalio, RFK on the Shaun Ryan podcast, Bek Lover on the Julian Dorey podcast, even Skeletor and Sonic the Hedgehog! The song selection is the song, "Call of the Void" by the band Deny. Visit allegedlyrecords.com and check out all of the amazing punk rock artists! Visit soundcloud.com/andrewforamerica1984 to check out Andrew's music! Like and Follow The Politics & Punk Rock Podcast PLAYLIST on Spotify!!! Check it out here: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1Y4rumioeqvHfaUgRnRxsy... politicsandpunkrockpodcast.com https://linktr.ee/andrewforamerica Watch and learn about these awesome offers for your survival needs from former Afghanistan war veteran, police officer, and citizen journalist, Mr. Teddy Daniels: Operation Blackout Survival Guide: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://internalblackout.com/?a=683&c=434&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠ Famine Fighter Survival Food Supply: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://foodforthesoul.co/?a=683&c=407&s1=⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Final Famine Survival Food Growing Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://finalfoodprepper.com/?a=683&c=433&s1=⁠⁠⁠⁠ Devils Dollar Currency Survival Book: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://dbhtrkg.com/?a=683&c=468&s1=⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/andrew-foramerica/support

India Slashes Gold, Silver Import Tax From 15% To 6% India has a long history of gold and silver, and is known to be a price sensitive buyer. Which is one of the reasons why the news this week that they slashed the gold and silver import taxes from 15% to 6% is so significant. India has already repatriated its gold from London this year, and has continued adding gold to its reserves. And the change in policy facilitates even more gold and silver investment in the 2nd half of 2024. So in today's show I'm joined by Steve Cope of Silver Viper minerals, who talks about the news from India, and also gives an update on the silver short position, the Mexican mining laws, and a shocking admission from Alan Greenspan. To find out more, click to watch the video now! - To find out more about Silver Viper Minerals go to: https://silverviperminerals.com/ - To join our free email list and never miss a video click here: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/email-signup/ - To get on the waiting list for your very own ´Silver Chopper Ben´ sterling silver figurine click here: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/get-a-chopper-ben/ - To get your paperback or audio copy of The Big Silver Short go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/thebigsilvershort/ Find Arcadia Economics content on these sites: YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/user/ArcadiaEconomics Rumble - https://rumble.com/c/ArcadiaEconomics Bitchute - https://www.bitchute.com/channel/kgpeiwO1dhxX/ LBRY/Odysee - https://odysee.com/@ArcadiaEconomics:5 Listen to Arcadia Economics on your favorite Podcast platforms: Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/show/75OH2PpgUpriBA5mYf5kyY Apple - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/arcadia-economics/id1505398976 Google-https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9teXNvdW5kd2lzZS5jb20vcnNzLzE2MTg5NTk1MjMzNDVz Anchor - https://anchor.fm/arcadiaeconomics Amazon - https://podcasters.amazon.com/podcasts Follow Arcadia Economics on these social platforms Twitter - https://twitter.com/ArcadiaEconomic Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/arcadiaeconomics/ #silver #silverprice And remember to get outside and have some fun every once in a while!:) (URL0VD) This video was sponsored by Silver Viper Minerals, and Arcadia Economics does receive compensation. For our full disclaimer go to: https://arcadiaeconomics.com/disclaimer-silver-viper-minerals/Subscribe to Arcadia Economics on Soundwise

Hey, kids--what day is it? Lance reorients himself and shares foreigners' perspectives of the U.S. Advice: Avoid the negativity and don't feed the fear. Looking at astronomical rotation from Large- to Small-cap stocks over the past five days: Russell 2000 is elevated by 4.4 standard deviations from its moving average. Markets needed a healthy rotation, and this is actually bullish in creating more breadth in markets. Bad Coffee & YouTube audio; What are the odds for a Fed rate cut in September? Michael Lebowitz joins the conversation: Is inflation "back in the range?" Markets are giving the Fed a green light to cut rates. Are we back to a pre-Covid economy with 5% rates? It's important to separate our personal views from what the markets pay attention to (Government numbers). Is sentiment shifting? Markets are very reflexive. Is the Small-cap chase sustainable? Markets are not responding to Trump/Vance: it's about excess liquidity looking for someplace to go. Michael review's Alan Greenspan's "Irrational Exuberance" thesis then vs now. The internet DID change the world and affected economic growth. What will AI outcomes be? Lance intones the importance of credit spreads as leading indicators; their pick up is worth paying attention to. SEG-1: Others' Perspectives of the US, Markets' Perspective of Astronomical Rotation? SEG-2: Are We Back to a Pre-COVID Economy? SEG-3: Is the Small-cap Chase Sustainable? SEG-4: Are Markets Re-experiencing Irrational Exuberance? Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Financial Advisor, Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Watch today's show video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUbIu4YZlO0&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s ------- Articles mentioned in this report: "Irrational Exuberance Then And Now" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/irrational-exuberance-then-and-now/ "Fed Rate Cuts – A Signal To Sell Stocks And Buy Bonds?" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/fed-rate-cuts-a-signal-to-sell-stocks-and-buy-bonds/ "The “Broken Clock” Fallacy & The Art Of Contrarianism" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/the-broken-clock-fallacy-the-art-of-contrarianism/ "Put Options – Nobody Wants Them" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ ------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "Astronomical Rotation from Large to Small Cap" is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yFSeF0LxIk&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 ------- Our previous show is here: "Avoiding the Sexy Stock Plays" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBh7AGlIQsY&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=9s ------- Get more info & commentary: https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #AlanGreenspan #IrrationaExuberance #MarketRotation #AI #CreditSpreads #PortfolioBalance #SexyStocks #MagnificentSeven #2024Election #MonetaryPolicy #JeromePowell #JamieDimon #RateCuts #Bonds #TenYearTreasury #FedFundsRate #TreasuryYields #FallingYields #HighCorrelation #RateCuttingEnvironment #FederalReserve #EconomicPolicy #MarketTiming #InvestingStrategies #PortfolioManagement #BuyingTheDip #StockMarket #InvestmentTiming #CashManagement #MarketMoves #StrategicInvesting #FinancialTips #InvestmentDecisions #StockPortfolio #FinancialMarkets #MaximizingCash #Buying shares #BetterPrice #Market#Entry #MarketExit #InvestmentAdvice #Markets #Money #Investing

ey, kids--what day is it? Lance reorients himself and shares foreigners' perspectives of the U.S. Advice: Avoid the negativity and don't feed the fear. Looking at astronomical rotation from Large- to Small-cap stocks over the past five days: Russell 2000 is elevated by 4.4 standard deviations from its moving average. Markets needed a healthty rotation, and this is actually bullish in creating more breadth in markets. Bad Coffee & YouTube audio; What are the odds for a Fed rate cut in September? Michael Lebowitz joins the conversation: Is inflation "back in the range?" Markets are giving the Fed a green light to cut rates. Are we back to a pre-Covid economy with 5% rates? It's important to separate our personal views from what the markets pay attention to (Government numbers). Is sentiment shifting? Markets are very reflexive. Is the Small-cap chase sustainable? Markets are not responding to Trump/Vance: it's about excess liquidity looking for someplace to go. Michael review's Alan Greenspan's "Irrational Exuberance" thesis then vs now. The internet DID change the world and affected economic growth. What will AI outcomes be? Lance intones the importance of credit spreads as leading indicators; their pick up is worth paying attention to. SEG-1: Others' Perspectives of the US, Markets' Perspective of Astronomical Rotation? SEG-2: Are We Back to a Pre-COVID Economy? SEG-3: Is the Small-cap Chase Sustainable? SEG-4: Are Markets Re-experiencing Irrational Exuberance? Hosted by RIA Advisors Chief Investment Strategist Lance Roberts, CIO, w Senior Financial Advisor, Danny Ratliff, CFP Produced by Brent Clanton, Executive Producer ------- Watch today's show video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUbIu4YZlO0&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=4s ------- Articles mentioned in this report: "Irrational Exuberance Then And Now" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/irrational-exuberance-then-and-now/ "Fed Rate Cuts – A Signal To Sell Stocks And Buy Bonds?" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/fed-rate-cuts-a-signal-to-sell-stocks-and-buy-bonds/ "The “Broken Clock” Fallacy & The Art Of Contrarianism" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/the-broken-clock-fallacy-the-art-of-contrarianism/ "Put Options – Nobody Wants Them" https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ ------- The latest installment of our new feature, Before the Bell, "Astronomical Rotation from Large to Small Cap" is here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yFSeF0LxIk&list=PLwNgo56zE4RAbkqxgdj-8GOvjZTp9_Zlz&index=1 ------- Our previous show is here: "Avoiding the Sexy Stock Plays" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBh7AGlIQsY&list=PLVT8LcWPeAugpcGzM8hHyEP11lE87RYPe&index=1&t=9s ------- Get more info & commentary:  https://realinvestmentadvice.com/newsletter/ -------- SUBSCRIBE to The Real Investment Show here: http://www.youtube.com/c/TheRealInvestmentShow -------- Visit our Site: https://www.realinvestmentadvice.com Contact Us: 1-855-RIA-PLAN -------- Subscribe to SimpleVisor: https://www.simplevisor.com/register-new -------- Connect with us on social: https://twitter.com/RealInvAdvice https://twitter.com/LanceRoberts https://www.facebook.com/RealInvestmentAdvice/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/realinvestmentadvice/ #AlanGreenspan #IrrationaExuberance #MarketRotation #AI #CreditSpreads #PortfolioBalance #SexyStocks #MagnificentSeven #2024Election #MonetaryPolicy #JeromePowell #JamieDimon #RateCuts #Bonds #TenYearTreasury #FedFundsRate #TreasuryYields #FallingYields #HighCorrelation #RateCuttingEnvironment #FederalReserve #EconomicPolicy #MarketTiming #InvestingStrategies #PortfolioManagement #BuyingTheDip #StockMarket #InvestmentTiming #CashManagement #MarketMoves #StrategicInvesting #FinancialTips #InvestmentDecisions #StockPortfolio #FinancialMarkets #MaximizingCash #Buying shares #BetterPrice #Market#Entry #MarketExit #InvestmentAdvice #Markets #Money #Investing

This month's newsletter is dedicated to the memory of Gerry Corrigan, the sixth president of the New York Fed from 1985 to 1993, known as the Fed's plumber, the go-to guy Paul Volcker and Alan Greenspan turned to in a financial crisis. Subscribe to The Bank Treasury Newsletter and Podcast at thebanktreasurynewsletter.com for professional Insights and commentary on bank treasury issues, investment portfolio strategy, and more. Listen on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, and Amazon. Follow us on LinkedIn.Music by Phantom Sun.

Helen Wong, Managing Partner of AC Ventures, and Jeremy Au talked about three main themes: 1. AC Ventures Managing Partner Leadership Journey: Helen shared her extensive journey from Oxford University to investment banking to GGV Capital to INSEAD MBA to Qiming Ventures to Managing Partner of AC Ventures. She highlighted her 20 years of investing experience across the booming Silicon Valley tech ecosystem to the early rapidly growing China tech scene of the early 2000s. The Asian Financial Crisis with Asia corporate over-leveraging debt and Alan Greenspan's interest rate hikes reshaped her understanding of risk and investment. She shared insights on investing in 4 unicorns, 3 M&A exits and 7 IPOs, e.g. Alibaba's growth from 1,000 to thousands of employees 2. China VC Acceleration: Helen discussed the early days of China's tech ecosystem, where returnees and local entrepreneurs started to build unicorns across the internet boom and the mobile internet era, despite the nascent talent pool and then-lack of exit opportunities. She noted the intense competition, global liquidity pools, rapid pace of deal-making, and the strategic focus shifts from consumer internet to deep tech and enterprise software due to government policies and market saturation. 3. Indonesia Growth Optimism: Helen highlighted the significant growth potential in Southeast Asia, particularly in Indonesia, which she identified as a critical market due to its large 275 million population, rising middle class, and economic resilience. She drew parallels between the region's current tech landscape and China's early days, noting the opportunities for substantial returns. She also discussed Indonesia's favorable economic fundamentals, with Goldman Sachs projecting the country's GDP to rank fourth globally by 2050, and the public and private debt levels being relatively low at about 40% of GDP, which indicates a healthier balance sheet compared to more leveraged economies. Jeremy and Helen also talked about the challenges of balancing career and family, strategic investments like Akulaku, reflections on missed investments, and her advice to her younger self. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/helen-wong Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di https://www.bravesea.com/blog/helen-wong-id 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 https://www.bravesea.com/blog/helen-wong-cn Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://chat.whatsapp.com/CeL3ywi7yOWFd8HTo6yzde TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremya LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Join us at the startup conference Echelon X! We have 30 exclusive complimentary tickets for our podcast listeners. Sign up and use the promo codes BRAVEPOD or ECXJEREMY to claim your free tickets now!

As I often remind subscribers to Faster, Please!, predictions are hard, especially about the future. The economic boom of the 1990s came as a surprise to most economists. Equally surprising was that it ended so soon. Neither of these events caught Ed Yardeni off-guard. Some forecasters, Yardeni included, anticipated a new Roaring '20s for this century… only to be interrupted by the pandemic. But is it too late for this prediction to become a reality? According to Yardeni, not at all.Ed Yardeni is president of Yardeni Research, and he previously served as chief investment strategist at a number of investment companies, including Deutche Bank.  He has additionally held positions at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, and US Treasury Department. For more economic insights and investment guidance, visit yardeni.com.In This Episode* The '90s Internet boom (1:25)* The Digital Revolution (5:01)* The new Roaring '20s (9:00)* A cautious Federal Reserve (14:24)* Speedbumps to progress (18:18)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationThe '90s Internet boom (1:25)Pethokoukis: Statistically speaking, the PC Internet boom that you first started writing about back in the early '90s ended in 2004, 2005. How surprising was that to economists, investors, policy makers? I, to this day, have a report, a 2000 report, from Lehman Brothers that predicted, as far as the eye could see, we would have rapid growth, rapid productivity growth for at least another decade. Now, of course, Lehman didn't make it another decade. Was that a surprise to people that we didn't have an endless productivity boom coming out of the '90s?Yardeni: I think it definitely was a surprise. I mean, it was surprising both ways. Not too many people expected to see a productivity boom in the second half of the 1990s, which is what we had. I did, as an economist on Wall Street. More importantly, Alan Greenspan was a big promoter of the idea that the technology revolution would in fact lead to better productivity growth and that that might mean better economic growth and lower inflation. And it didn't look that way for a while; then suddenly the Bureau of Economic Analysis went back and revised the data for the late 1990s and, lo and behold, it turned out that there was a productivity boom. And then it all kind of fizzled out, and it raises the question, why did that happen? Why was it such a short lived productivity boom? And the answer is—well, let me give you a personal anecdote.I worked at Deutsche Bank in New York in the late 1990s, and I had to be very careful walking down the corridors of Deutsche Bank in midtown Manhattan not to trip over Dell boxes. Everybody was getting a Dell box, everybody was getting the Dell boxes loaded up with the Windows Office. And when you think back on what that was able to do in terms of productivity, if you had a lot of secretaries on Selectric typewriters, Word could obviously increase productivity. If you had a lot of bookkeepers doing spreadsheets, Excel could obviously increase productivity. But other than that, there wasn't really that much productivity to be had from the technology at the time. So again, where did that productivity boom come from? It couldn't have been just secretaries and bookkeepers. Now the answer is that the boxes themselves were measured as output, and so output per man hour increased dramatically. It doesn't take that many workers to produce Dell boxes and Windows Office and Windows software. So as a result of that, we had this big boom in the technology output that created its own productivity boom, but it didn't really have the widespread application to all sorts of business model the way today's evolution of the technology boom is, in fact, capable of doing.What you've just described, I think, is the explanation by, for instance, Robert Gordon, Northwestern University, that we saw a revolution, but it was a narrow revolution.It was the beginning! It was the beginning of a revolution. It was the Technology Revolution. It started in the 1990s and it's evolved, it's not over, it's ongoing. I think a big development in that revolution was the cloud. What the cloud allowed you to do was really increase productivity in technology itself, because you didn't need to have several hundred people in the IT department. Now, with the cloud, one person can upgrade the software on hundreds of computers, and now we're renting software so that it automatically upgrades, so that's been a big contribution to productivity.The Digital Revolution (5:01)So perhaps I spoke too soon. I talked about that boom—that '90s boom—ending. Perhaps I should have said it was more of a pause, because it seems what we're seeing now, as you've described it, is a new phase of the Digital Revolution—perhaps a broader phase—and, to be clear, if I understand what you've been speaking about and writing about, this isn't an AI story, this predates what we're seeing in the data now, it predates ChatGPT, when do you date this new phase beginning—and you mentioned one catalyst perhaps being the cloud, so—when did it begin and, again, what are the data markers that you've been looking at?I don't remember the exact date, but I think it was 2011 where my little investment advisory got ourselves on the Amazon cloud, and that's been a tremendous source of productivity for us, it saves us a lot of money. We used to have a couple of servers on a server farm in the old days, and every now and then it would go down and we'd have to reach somebody on the server farm and say, “Would you mind turning it on and off?” Remember the word “reboot?” I don't remember the word “reboot” being used in quite some time. Amazon's never gone down, as far as I can recall. I think they've always had their systems in Virginia, and they had a backup somewhere overseas, but it's always worked quite well for us.But now we're finding with some of the other software that's available now, we can actually cut back on our Amazon costs and use some of these other technologies. There's lots of technologies that are very user-friendly, very powerful, and they apply themselves to all sorts of different businesses, and, as you said, it's not just AI. I think the cloud—let's put it around 2011 or so—was a huge development because it did allow companies to do information processing in a much more efficient way, and the software gets automatically updated, and with what it used to take hundreds of people in an IT department to do, now you can do it with just one, which is what we, in fact, have, just one person doing it all for us. But I would say that's as good a point as any. But along the way here, what's really changed is the power of the software that's available, and how cheap it is, and how you can rent it now instead of having to own it.That's a fantastic example, and, of course, we want to see these sort of examples at some point reflected in the data. And going through some of your writings, one period that you were very focused on was, we may have seen a bottom, maybe at the end of 2015, before the pandemic, where we saw the slowest, I think 20-quarter average… annual average growth rate of productivity.0.5 annual rate.But by 2019, leading into the pandemic, it tripled. Is the story of that tripling, is it the cloud? And that certainly has to be one reason why you, among other people, thought that we might see a new Roaring '20s, right into the teeth of the pandemic, unfortunately.Well, it's not so unfortunate, I mean, clearly nobody saw the pandemic coming, but we weathered the storm very, very well, and I don't think we can come to any conclusion about productivity during the pandemic, it was all over the place. At first, when we were on lockdown, it actually soared because we were still producing a lot with fewer workers, and then it took a dive, but we're now back up to two percent. We had a really, really good year last year in productivity. The final three quarters of last year, we saw above-trend growth in productivity. And so we're already now back up to two percent, which, again, compared to 0.5, is certainly moving in the right direction, and I don't see any particular reason why that number couldn't go to three-and-a-half, four-and-a-half percent per year kind of growth—which sounds delusional unless you look back at the chart of productivity and see that that's actually what productivity booms do: They get up to something like three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half percent growth, not just on a one-quarter basis, but on a 20-quarter trailing basis at an annual rate.The new Roaring '20s (9:00)This forecast predates the word “generative AI,” predates ChatGPT, and, in fact, if I understand your view, it's even broader than information technology. So tell me a bit about your broader Roaring '20s thesis and the technological underpinnings of that.One of the developments we've seen here, which has been somewhat disconcerting, is the challenge to globalization. I'm a big believer in free trade, and the free trade creates more economic growth, but, on the other hand, we have to be realistic and realize that China hasn't been playing by the rules of the game. And so now, as a result, we're seeing a lot of production moving out of China to other countries, and we're seeing a lot of on-shoring in the United States, so we're building state-of-the-art manufacturing facilities that are full of robots and automation that I think are going to bring manufacturing productivity back quite significantly.Everybody seems to be of the opinion that the reason productivity is weak is because of services. It's actually manufacturing. What happened is, when China joined the World Trade Organization back at the end of 2001—December 11th, 2001, to be exact—manufacturers said hasta la vista to the United States, and we've had absolutely no increase in industrial production capacity since that time, since 2001. And so companies basically gave up on trying to do anything, either expand capacity or improve productivity of manufacturing here, when they could do it so much more cheaply over in China.I think what's really the most important thing that's changed here is, demographically, we've run out of workers. Certainly even in China, we don't have a growth in the working-age population. We don't have a growth in the working-age population here. And when it comes to skilled labor, that's even more the case, so there's tremendous incentive and pressure on companies to figure out, well, how do we deal with an environment where our business is pretty good, but we can't find the workers to meet all the demand? And the answer has to be productivity. Technology is part of the solution. Managing for productivity is another part of the solution. Giving workers more skills to be more productive is a very good use of money, and it makes workers sticky, it makes them want to stay with you because you're going to have to pay them more because they're more knowledgeable, and you want to pay them more because you want to keep them.I think a big part of the productivity story really has to do with the demographic story. China, of course, accelerated all that with the One Child Policy that, as a result, I kind of view China as the world's largest nursing home. They just don't have the workforce that they used to have. Japan doesn't have the workforce. Korea, Taiwan, all these countries… If you want to find cheap, young labor, it's still in Africa and in India, but there are all sorts of issues with how you do business in these countries. It's not that easy. It's not as simple as just saying, “Well, let's just go there.” And so I think we are seeing a tremendous push to increase productivity to deal with the worldwide labor shortage.We have three really good quarters of productivity growth and, as you mentioned, economists are always very cautious about those productivity numbers because of revisions, they're volatile. But if this is something real and sustainable, it should also reflect in other parts of the economy. We should see good capital investment numbers for here on out if this is a real thing.I think not only capital investment, but also real wages. Productivity is fairy dust. I mean it's a win-win-win situation. With better-than-expected productivity, you get better-than-expected, real GDP, you get lower-than-expected unit labor costs, which, by the way, unit labor costs, which reflect hourly wages offset by productivity, they're under two percent—or they're around two percent, I should say more accurately—and that's highly correlated with the CPI, so the underlying inflation rate has already come down to where the Fed wants it to be. This is not a forecast, this is where we are right now with unit labor costs. So there's a very strong correlation between productivity growth and the growth of inflation-adjusted compensation. So you can take average hourly earnings, you can take hourly compensation…There are a bunch of measures of wages, and divide them by the consumption deflator, and you'll see on a year-over-year basis that the correlation is extremely high. And, theoretically—it's the only thing I learned when I went to college in economics that ever made any sense to me, and that is—people in a competitive marketplace—it doesn't have to be perfectly competitive, but in a relatively competitive marketplace—people get paid their real wage. The productivity the workers have, they get paid in their real wages, and we've seen, for all the talk about how “standards of living have stagnated for decades,” if you look at average hourly earnings divided by the consumption deflator, it's been going up 1.4 percent since 1995. That's a doubling of the standard of living every 40 years. That's pretty good progress. And if productivity grows faster than that, you'll get even a better increase in real wages.If we don't have workers, if there's a shortage of workers—though, obviously, immigration puts a whole different spin on these things—but for what we know now in terms of the workers that are available that are allowed to work, they are getting paid higher real wages. I know that prices have gone up, but people sometimes forget that wages have also gone up quite a bit. But again, it's fairy dust: You get better real growth, you get lower inflation, you get real wages going up, and you get better profit margins. Everybody wins.A cautious Federal Reserve (14:24)In the '90s, we had a Fed chairman who was super cautious about assuming a productivity boom, but eventually saw the reality of it and acted accordingly. It seems to me that we have a very similar such situation where we have a Federal Reserve chairman who is certainly aware of these numbers, but seems to me, at this point, certainly reluctant to make decisions based on those numbers, but you would expect that to change.Yeah, well, I mean if you just look at the summary of economic projections that the Federal Open Market Committee… that comes out on a quarterly basis reflecting the consensus of Fed Chair Powell's committee that determines monetary policy, they're looking for real GDP growth of less than two percent per year for the next couple of years, and they're obviously not anticipating any improvement in productivity. So I think you're right, I think Fed Chair Powell is very much aware that productivity can change everything; and, in fact, he's talked about productivity, he knows the equation. He says, “Look, it's okay to have wages growing three percent if inflation's two percent.” Then he implied, therefore, that productivity is growing one percent. So he's basically in the one percent camp, recognizing that, if productivity is more than that, then four percent wage growth is perfectly fine and acceptable and non-inflationary. But at this point he's, in terms of his pronouncements, he's sticking to the kind of standard line of economists, which is, maybe we'll get one percent, and if we get one percent and the Fed gets inflation down, let's say to only two-and-a-half percent, then wages can grow three-and-a-half percent, and right now wages are growing at a little bit above. I think we're growing more like four percent, so the wage numbers aren't there yet, but they could be the right numbers if, in fact, productivity is making a comeback.If we hit productivity gains of the sort you've talked about—three percent, four percent by the end of the decade—that is a radically different-looking economy than what the Fed, or the CBO, or even a lot of Wall Street firms are talking about. So it's not just this statistic will be different; we're looking at really something very different. I would assume a much higher stock market; I'm not sure what interest rates look like, but what does that world look like in 2030?These are all good questions, they're the ones I'm grappling with. I mean, should interest rates be lower or should they be higher? It's the so-called real interest rates, so if the economy can live with a Fed funds rate of, let's say five and a half percent—five and a quarter, five and a half percent, which is what it is now—and the bond yield at four and a half percent and the economy is doing perfectly fine and inflation's coming down, and it's all because productivity is making comeback, then those rates are fine. They're doing their job, they're allocating capital in a reasonable fashion, and capital is going to get allocated to where capital should go. You mentioned before that, in order to increase productivity, we are going to need more capital investments.Here the Fed has raised interest rates dramatically, and most of the economists said, “Oh, that's going to lead to a big drop in capital,” because capital spending is dependent on interest rates, and that hasn't happened at all, really, because the technology capital spending—which now, in current dollars, technology capital spending accounts for about 50 percent of capital spending in nominal terms. You can't do it in real terms because there's an indexing problem. But in nominal terms, half of capital spending is technology. And by the way, that's an understatement because that's information technology, hardware, it's software and R&D. It doesn't even include industrial machinery, which is mostly technology, hardware and software these days. And even the trucking industry, the truck is sort of the device, and then there's a software that runs the device logistics. There's so many areas of the economy that have become very high-tech that people still think of as a low-tech industry.Speedbumps to progress (18:18)If this doesn't happen. Well, I suppose one thing we could say may have happened is that we've really overestimated these technologies and they're not as transformative. But let me give you two other things that people might point to as being—and you've written a bit about these—that could be speed bumps or barriers. One: debt, possible debt crisis. And two: this energy revolution, climate change transition, which we really have a lot of government involvement and a lot of government making decisions about allocating resources. So what is the risk that those two things could be a slow things down, speed bump, or what have you?There's three issues that you're raising. One is sort of the private sector issue of whether a lot of this artificial intelligence and technology stuff is hype, and it's not going to have the impact on productivity. The other one, as you mentioned, is the two government issues, government's meddling in the climate change policies, and then the government having this irresponsible fiscal excesses.With regards to artificial intelligence, even though I should be a cheerleader on this, because I should say, “See, I told you so…” I have been telling people I told you so because I said, I'll tell you when the stock market started to discount the Roaring '20s was November 30th, 2022 when Open AI introduced ChatGPT, and that's when these AI stocks went crazy. A week later I signed up for the $20 a month version of ChatGPT, figuring, “This is great! I'm not going to have to work anymore. This is going to do all my writing for me. I'll just ask it the question and say, ‘What do you think we should be writing about this? Go ahead and write about it.'” Well, it took me more time to correct all the errors for what it produced than it would've taken me just to write the damn thing.So I kind of cooled off to chat GPT, and I come to the conclusion that, from what I see right now in terms of what is available to the public and what's tied to the internet, it's really autofill on speed and the steroids. You know when you type Word and sometimes it guesses what you're going to say next? That's what this thing does at the speed of light. But, you know, “haste makes waste,” as Benjamin Franklin used to say, and it makes a lot of mistakes. And, by the way, garbage in, garbage out. It could create even more garbage on the internet because I've seen situations where it starts quoting its own sources that would never have existed in the first place. So there's some really funky stuff when you have it in the public domain.But I think that when you have it sort of segmented off and it only has the data that you need for your specific industry, and it's not polluted by other the open source ability to take any data, I think it may very well work very well. But it's basically just a really fast, lightning-speed calculations. So I think it has lots of potential in that regard, but I think there is a certain amount of hype. But look, so much money is being spent in this area. I can't believe it's all going to go for naught. I mean, we saw a lot of money spent in the late 1990s on internet and dotcoms and all that. The internet's still here, but the dotcoms are gone.With regards to the government policies, I have this very simplistic view that it's amazing how well this country has done despite Washington. Washington just keeps meddling and meddling, it just keeps picking our pockets, keeps interfering, comes up with industrial policies that, to a large extent, don't work. And yet, the economy continues to do well because working stiffs like you and me and people listening in, that's what we do for a living: we work. We don't have time for politics. So the politicians have plenty of time to figure out how to pick our pockets. Well, we have to just figure out, “Okay, given their meddling, how do we make our businesses better, notwithstanding these challenges.” Maybe it's really more my hope that we somehow in the private sector figure out how to keep doing what we're doing so well, including increasing productivity, in the face of the challenges that the government poses with its policies.But then, if we are successful in the private sector at creating good productivity growth that gives you better real GDP growth, that real growth is one way to reduce the debt burden. It doesn't make it go away and it would be a lot better if we didn't have it, but some of these projections of how this debt is going to eat us all up may be too pessimistic about their assumptions for economic growth. But look… I guess I had a happy childhood, so I tend to be an optimist, but I can't say anything good at all about this deficit problem. And we did get a little glimpse in August, September, October, of what happens when the bond market starts to worry about something like supply. It worried about it for three months, and then lower inflation and less supply of long-term bonds helped to rally the bond market. But here we are back at four and a half percent, and if we do have some more fears about inflation coming back, then we could very well have a debt crisis more imminently. People like Ray Dalio has been saying that we're under verge of getting it. I think it's an issue, but I don't think it's an issue that's going to be calamitous at this time.The problems people talk about, you have the skepticism about free enterprise, or the skepticism about trade, and immigration. I would like to see what this country looks like in 2030 with the economic scenario you've just outlined: Strong real wage growth. Maybe it's too simplistic, but I think people being able to see in their everyday lives, big gains year after year, I think the national mood would be considerably different.Well, I think, even now, if you look at real consumption per household, it's $128,000, it's at an all-time record high. And yeah, I guess the rich might be gluttons and might eat more than the rest of us, and maybe they have bigger and more houses and cars, but there just aren't enough of them to really explain how it could possibly be that real consumption per household is at an all-time record high. And I know that's materialistic, but I can't think of a better way to measure the standard of living than looking at real consumption per household: All-time record high.Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.Micro Reads▶ Business/ EconomicsMeta, in Its Biggest A.I. Push, Places Smart Assistants Across its Apps - NYTGoogle streamlines structure to speed up AI efforts - FTTesla's Layoffs Won't Solve Its Growing Pains - Wired▶ PolicyPut Growth Back on the Political Agenda - WSJRegulate AI? How US, EU and China Are Going About It - BbergThree ways the US could help universities compete with tech companies on AI innovation - MIT▶ AI/DigitalThe AI race is generating a dual reality - FTSearching for the Next Big AI Breakthrough at the TED Conference - BbergThese photos show AI used to reinterpret centuries-old graffiti - NSEnvironmental Damage Could Cost You a Fifth of Your Income Over the Next 25 Years - WiredAI now surpasses humans in almost all performance benchmarks - New Atlas▶ Biotech/HealthA new understanding of tinnitus and deafness could help reverse both - New ScientistBeyond Neuralink: Meet the other companies developing brain-computer interfaces - MIT▶ RoboticsHello, Electric Atlas: Boston Dynamics introduces a fully electric humanoid robot that “exceeds human performance” - IEEE Spectrum▶ Space/TransportationNASA may alter Artemis III to have Starship and Orion dock in low-Earth orbit - Ars▶ Up Wing/Down WingTechnological risks are not the end of the world - Science▶ Substacks/NewslettersFive things to be optimistic about in America today - NoahpinionWho Governs the Internet? - HyperdimensionalMeta is Surprisingly Relevant in Generative AI - AI SupremacyLarry Summers isn't worried about secular stagnation anymore - Slow BoringFaster, Please! 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 fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Carlos Lozada is currently an Opinion columnist at The New York Times, after spending nearly 20 years at The Washington Post - where he earned the Pulitzer Prize in 2019 for criticism as The Post's nonfiction book critic. He's also an author, with his second book -  The Washington Book - recently published: a collection of essays exploring what books by and about D.C. power players reveal about the people and political conflicts that define Washington. In this conversation, Carlos talks his path from Peru to South Bend to D.C., his accidental route to working in the press, some of his favorite Washington books and stories, and deeply mining his own insights into our current political moment.IN THIS EPISODECarlos' personal journey from Lima, Peru to Washington D.C...Carlos "gateway drug" books into the genre of Washington books...How Carlos defines what exactly is a "Washington Book"...Carlos weighs in on what he considers some of the earliest Washington Books...Carlos' rave  review of the U.S. Grant memoir...The place of All The President's Men in the pantheon of Washington Books...Carlos' favorite cliches from presidential campaign memoirs...The D.C. corridors of power that are undercovered in Washington Books...The Washington Books that are purely exercises in settling scores...Carlos compares the Donald Trump of 2016 to the Donald Trump of 2024...The Washington Books that never were that Carlos would love to read...What reading Vladimir Putin revealed to Carlos about the Russian leader...Carlos' 101 on sharp essay-writing...Carlos waxes nostalgic about the late Washinton Post Outlook Section...AND The 1619 Project, Alexis de Tocqueville, all sorts of minutia, Jody Allen, the American Enterprise Institute, Carol Anderson, animating impulses, The Appalachian Trail, Appomattox, asymmetric polarization, Peter Baker, Steve Bannon, Bob Barnett, beleaguered officials, Joe Biden, Joan Biskupic, Kate Boo, George H.W. Bush, Robert Caro, Jimmy Carter, Jesus Christ, Julie Davis, drop-down menus, enabling environments, farm foremen, The Federal Reserve, Craig Fehrman, Foreign Policy magazine, full absorption, Susan Glasser, Garret Graff, Lindsay Graham, Alan Greenspan, Stephanie Grisham, Maggie Haberman, Susan Hennessey, Fiona Hill, Dustin Hoffman, holy crap anecdotes, David Ignatius, joining-ness, Jurassic Park, Bob Kaiser, Ibram X. Kendi, the Kerner Commission, Adam Kushner, Robert E. Lee, Joe Lieberman, Steve Luxenberg, Thomas Mann, David Maraniss, Mark Meadows, mid-level authoritarian regimes, military duds, Mark Milley, Robert Moses, Robert Mueller, murdered darlings, murky institutions, The New York Review of Books, Kirstjen Nielsen, Notre Dame, Barack Obama, obligatory campaign memoirs, obscene crescendos, Norm Ornstein, parallel histories, the paralysis of power, George Pataki, Tim Pawlenty, policy wonks, John Pomfret, Robert Redford, Marco Rubio, Mark Sanford, Michael Schaffer, Brent Scowcroft, Michael Shear, silent Moscow, John Sununu, Barton Swaim, targeted excerpts, Mark Twain, Mario Vargas Llosa, velociraptors, Scott Walker, Ben Wittes, Michael Wolff, Bob Woodward...& more!

Around the turn of the previous century, Alan Greenspan made the following famous and prescient comment regarding the dot-com bubble: “A decline in perceived risk is often self-reinforcing in that it encourages presumptions of prolonged stability and thus a willingness to reach for risk over an ever-more extended time period. History cautions that extended periods of low concern about risk have invariably been followed by reversal, with an attendant fall in the prices of risky assets.” On today's show, we'll ponder and discuss several sources that we think you'll find helpful in considering these issues as they relate to your own well-being and retirement. Next, Heidi will discuss the importance of getting good Social Security advice as well as explore some of the problems others have encountered in getting that guidance. Lastly, Deann will provide all of us stats of the day to help us all gain perspective.  Tune in and take control!

JD and Joel discuss gold's new record high and silver's tear upwards, an earthquake in NYC, headline jobs numbers, and Peter's most recent podcast. OTHER TOPICS DISCUSSED -Gold is trading at $2,329 (up $100 on the week) -Silver is trading at $27.46 (up about 10% on the week) -Fed governor Adriana Kugler's dovish comments push gold above $2300) -Nonfarm payrolls come in above expectations (303,000 vs. 200,000) -The recent spike in commodities -Peter Schiff's recent podcast -Alan Greenspan's affinity for Rothbard Quote from Murray Rothbard: It is easy to be conspicuously 'compassionate' if others are being forced to pay the cost.” The SchiffGold Friday Gold Wrap podcast combines a succinct summary of the week's economic precious metals news coupled with thoughtful analysis. You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts and other podcasting platforms. The links are below. SchiffGold on Instagram: www.instagram.com/schiffgoldnews SchiffGold on Twitter: twitter.com/SchiffGold SchiffGold on Facebook: www.facebook.com/schiffgold SchiffGold's website: www.schiffgold.com

Come along as I discuss financial shenanigans.  Find all of our wonderful links in one place on the linktree: https://linktr.ee/allts   AI generated description that probably has nothing to do with the episode:  The term "Greenspan Put" refers to the perceived monetary policy approach associated with Alan Greenspan during his tenure as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006. The concept of the Greenspan Put is rooted in the idea that Greenspan, known for his pragmatic approach to economic challenges, would intervene to support financial markets in times of crisis. The "Put" in Greenspan Put is a reference to a financial option that provides the holder with the right, but not the obligation, to sell an asset at a predetermined price. In the context of the Greenspan Put, it suggests that investors believed Greenspan would act as a safety net, stepping in with accommodative monetary policy measures, such as interest rate cuts, to prevent or mitigate significant market downturns. Investors came to expect that the Federal Reserve, under Greenspan's leadership, would respond to adverse economic conditions by implementing policies that would support financial markets and stabilize the economy. This perception influenced market behavior, with investors potentially taking on more risk under the assumption that the central bank would provide a cushion during difficult times. It's worth noting that the Greenspan Put is a retrospective characterization, and the term gained prominence after Greenspan's tenure. Critics argue that relying too much on central bank intervention can lead to moral hazard, as market participants might take excessive risks, expecting the central bank to bail them out.

The origins of the populist backlash against free trade and Wall Street hegemony may be traced to the excessively optimistic 1990s when breaking down trade barriers with Mexico and China was seen as essential to America's long-term prosperity. The decade also saw figures such as Bob Rubin and Alan Greenspan exert their influence to deregulate financial markets, putting ideological faith in banks and hedge funds to regulate themselves, and in the potential of technological innovation to solve societal problems. In this episode, labor historian Nelson Lichtenstein discusses his important new book, "A Fabulous Failure," which charts the Clinton administration's drift away from outdated policies of New Deal, Keynesian liberalism to a neoliberal order prioritizing the free flow of capital, open markets, the decline of labor power, and smaller government. Was the Clinton boom built on sand?

Economics Explored host Gene Tunny speaks with David Stockman,  President Reagan's first Office of Management and Budget director. Stockman discusses his new book, "Trump's War on Capitalism," and shares his frank and fearless commentary on the former president's economic policies. In his foreword to the book, Robert F. Kennedy Jr wrote, “Stockman has become one of the nation's most steadfast and eloquent crusaders against the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”Please get in touch with us with any questions, comments and suggestions by emailing us at contact@economicsexplored.com or sending a voice message via https://www.speakpipe.com/economicsexplored. What's covered in EP224Trump and capitalism. (0:04)Trump's fiscal and monetary policies. (4:41)Government spending and lockdowns during the Trump presidency. (10:04)Trump's handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and its economic impact. (15:06)COVID-19 response and blame game. (20:05)US economy under Trump, job growth, and performance. (25:51)Economic growth and tax cuts during Trump's administration. (30:10)Monetary policy and inflation during Trump's presidency. (36:26)Corruption in US government and military spending. (41:56)Alan Greenspan's legacy and economic challenges. (49:54)TakeawaysDavid Stockman argues that while Trump portrayed himself as a capitalist, his fiscal and monetary policies like large tax cuts, increased spending and pressure on the Fed to keep rates low were reckless and a threat to capitalism.According to Stockman, the data shows the US economy was not in its strongest position ever pre-COVID, as Trump claimed, with key metrics like GDP growth, job growth and investment lower under Trump compared with some previous presidents.Stockman believes Trump bears responsibility for the unprecedented pandemic spending and deficits, as he could have resisted lockdowns but instead endorsed huge stimulus packages.Stockman views Trump as the worst president for sound money policy due to his pressure on the Fed to keep rates low.Links relevant to the conversationAmazon page for Trump's War on Capitalism:https://www.amazon.com/Trumps-War-Capitalism-David-Stockman/dp/1510779329William Greider's famous 1981 Atlantic article “The Education of David Stockman”:https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/12/the-education-of-david-stockman/305760/Thanks to Obsidian Productions for mixing the episode and to the show's sponsor, Gene's consultancy business www.adepteconomics.com.au. Full transcripts are available a few days after the episode is first published at www.economicsexplored.com.

I've had it beaten into me from an early age how important it is to write clearly and simply. My father, himself a writer, drilled it into me. In my teenage years and into my 20s, we used to work together like mad on things I had written, trimming them down, rephrasing, editing, and he would always talk about the importance of clarity, as he taught me the craft of writing. “Make it easy for the reader,” he would say.As I've said many times, the discipline of comedy also forces clarity. If the audience doesn't understand, they don't laugh and you die.But in academia and across the financial world, and probably elsewhere, no such discipline applies. In fact, it often pays not to be clear. In the case of finance, if you can obfuscate a little, you are less likely to be caught out or have things thrown back at you. Former Chair of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan, who could speak in total gobbledygook if he needed, called what he did “purposeful obfuscation”. How right was George Orwell, another clear speech advocate, when he said “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity”.In the case of academia, unreadable sentences and long words can make you look cleverer than you actually are.There are so many books that have become wildly popular, which I've tried to read, and found unreadable. Thomas Pickety's Capital In The 21st Century, for example. In the past I've tried and failed with James Joyce, Umberto Eco (except for The Name of the Rose), Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Kurt Vonnegut, Herman Melville, Salman Rushdie, Joseph Heller, Stephen Hawking, Ayn Rand, Mary Shelley, Virginia Woolf, Marcel Proust and more. Let's be honest I've tried and failed to complete Homer, Dante and the Bible (King James version), as well. Maybe I lack persistence, but a large part of me thinks, “if you haven't made the effort, why should I?”Picketty's book sold millions of copies, but the stats from Amazon showed that hardly anyone actually finished it. It became one of those books that was cool to talk about having read, without anyone actually heaving read it. I settled for the Wikipedia entry - and I'm not even sure I finished that.Subscribe to this amazing publication and all your ailments will be cured.I'm currently working on a new book about gold and so I find myself reading a lot more than usual, as I research. Here is something, I've observed. Often you will stumble across a website where the writer has put some history or science or economics in beautifully clear and simple language. To do that takes effort. Such websites can become the most fantastic reference points. But sometimes because something is so simply written, I somehow think that by citing it - as I should - it doesn't reflect very well on me. But cite some unreadable academic trove and that makes me look clever - even if I haven't actually read it.As people who have read my books will know, I am pretty scrupulous about my citations. But if I find myself drawn to the temptation, for sure others will be too. People will cite the stuff they haven't actually read, and not cite the stuff they have read. The unclear, pompous, badly written stuff with long words and endless sentences ends up getting the recognition, while the better, simpler stuff, where the writer has worked harder to make it easier for the reader, gets overlooked and even plagiarised. It's the opposite of a virtuous circle. It's another symptom of the midwit-dominated society in which we live, I suppose. The flannel gets the acclaim, the clear and simple stuff at either end of the bell curve not so much.We all think that we are not getting the credit we deserve. But I do sometimes wonder if perhaps I had worked less hard to make my stuff readable, I would have got more recognition - especially from the establishment (whatever that is). I've had so much stuff plagiarised over the years: books and articles, jokes and stand-up routines, even a film I helped write. It leaves a very sour taste in the mouth. But I don't think I'll ever bring myself to deliberately write unreadable stuff. I'm too programmed to try and keep things clear. Ah, the crosses we have to bear.On reading this, my girlfriend said I need to read the book The Four Agreements. Those agreements are: "Be impeccable with your word", "Do not take anything personally", "Do not make assumptions" and "Always do your best". She may have a point. It had better be clearly written …Tell your mates about this amazing article.Live shows coming upIf you have not seen my lecture with funny bits about gold, we have two more dates in London lined up for Feb 14 and 15.And I am taking my musical comedy show, An Evening of Curious Songs, on a mini tour in the spring with dates in London, Somerset, Hampshire, Surrey and Essex. This is a really fun show.Here are the dates and places.* London, Crazy Coqs, W1. Wednesday March 20th. On sale now.* Bordon, Hampshire. Saturday March 23. On sale now.* Guildford, Surrey. Friday April 5. On sale now.  * Bath, Somerset. Saturday April 6. On sale now.* Southend, Essex . Sunday April 14. On sale now.Buying gold?Interested in protecting your wealth in these extraordinary times? Then be sure to own some gold bullion. I use The Pure Gold Company, whether you are taking delivery or storing online. Premiums are low, quality of service is high, you can deal with a human being. I have an affiliation deal with them. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

Kicking off Season 3 of Deep Tracks we explore the birth of the King of Rock 'n' Roll himself, Alan Greenspan! Okay, just kidding, we're gonna be FINALLY diving into the life of Elvis Presley! But, in order to lay some groundwork for the launch of his career, we also have to talk about the people who helped make that happen. So, this episode will also feature "minisodes" about Dewey Phillips and Sam Phillips. Then we look at the birth of Elvis, his childhood in Tupelo, leaving off when his family is just about to make the move that would change their lives forever, to Memphis, Tennessee...

Alan Greenspan served as chair of the Federal Reserve for 18 years, cooling inflation in the 1990s and demonstrating that the Fed was independent from politicians. But he also made mistakes that helped lead to the financial crisis of 2008. In this episode, biographer Sebastian Mallaby dives into Greenspan’s complicated legacy. Plus, why beef and other animal product prices haven’t fallen to pre-pandemic levels, and what wholesale inventory numbers signal about the economy.

Alan Greenspan served as chair of the Federal Reserve for 18 years, cooling inflation in the 1990s and demonstrating that the Fed was independent from politicians. But he also made mistakes that helped lead to the financial crisis of 2008. In this episode, biographer Sebastian Mallaby dives into Greenspan’s complicated legacy. Plus, why beef and other animal product prices haven’t fallen to pre-pandemic levels, and what wholesale inventory numbers signal about the economy.

A conversation with Tim Hwang about historical simulations, the interaction of policy and science, analogies between research ecosystems and the economy, and so much more.  Topics Historical Simulations Macroscience Macro-metrics for science Long science The interaction between science and policy Creative destruction in research “Regulation” for scientific markets Indicators for the health of a field or science as a whole “Metabolism of Science” Science rotation programs Clock speeds of Regulation vs Clock Speeds of Technology References Macroscience Substack Ada Palmer's Papal Simulation Think Tank Tycoon Universal Paperclips (Paperclip maximizer html game) Pitt Rivers Museum   Transcript [00:02:02] Ben: Wait, so tell me more about the historical LARP that you're doing. Oh, [00:02:07] Tim: yeah. So this comes from like something I've been thinking about for a really long time, which is You know in high school, I did model UN and model Congress, and you know, I really I actually, this is still on my to do list is to like look into the back history of like what it was in American history, where we're like, this is going to become an extracurricular, we're going to model the UN, like it has all the vibe of like, after World War II, the UN is a new thing, we got to teach kids about international institutions. Anyways, like, it started as a joke where I was telling my [00:02:35] friend, like, we should have, like, model administrative agency. You know, you should, like, kids should do, like, model EPA. Like, we're gonna do a rulemaking. Kids need to submit. And, like, you know, there'll be Chevron deference and you can challenge the rule. And, like, to do that whole thing. Anyways, it kind of led me down this idea that, like, our, our notion of simulation, particularly for institutions, is, like, Interestingly narrow, right? And particularly when it comes to historical simulation, where like, well we have civil war reenactors, they're kind of like a weird dying breed, but they're there, right? But we don't have like other types of historical reenactments, but like, it might be really valuable and interesting to create communities around that. And so like I was saying before we started recording, is I really want to do one that's a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. But like a serious, like you would like a historical reenactment, right? Yeah. Yeah. It's like everybody would really know their characters. You know, if you're McNamara, you really know what your motivations are and your background. And literally a dream would be a weekend simulation where you have three teams. One would be the Kennedy administration. The other would be, you know, Khrushchev [00:03:35] and the Presidium. And the final one would be the, the Cuban government. Yeah. And to really just blow by blow, simulate that entire thing. You know, the players would attempt to not blow up the world, would be the idea. [00:03:46] Ben: I guess that's actually the thing to poke, in contrast to Civil War reenactment. Sure, like you know how [00:03:51] Tim: that's gonna end. Right, [00:03:52] Ben: and it, I think it, that's the difference maybe between, in my head, a simulation and a reenactment, where I could imagine a simulation going [00:04:01] Tim: differently. Sure, right. [00:04:03] Ben: Right, and, and maybe like, is the goal to make sure the same thing happened that did happen, or is the goal to like, act? faithfully to [00:04:14] Tim: the character as possible. Yeah, I think that's right, and I think both are interesting and valuable, right? But I think one of the things I'm really interested in is, you know, I want to simulate all the characters, but like, I think one of the most interesting things reading, like, the historical record is just, like, operating under deep uncertainty about what's even going on, right? Like, for a period of time, the American [00:04:35] government is not even sure what's going on in Cuba, and, like, you know, this whole question of, like, well, do we preemptively bomb Cuba? Do we, we don't even know if the, like, the warheads on the island are active. And I think I would want to create, like, similar uncertainty, because I think that's where, like, that's where the strategic vision comes in, right? That, like, you have the full pressure of, like, Maybe there's bombs on the island. Maybe there's not even bombs on the island, right? And kind of like creating that dynamic. And so I think simulation is where there's a lot, but I think Even reenactment for some of these things is sort of interesting. Like, that we talk a lot about, like, oh, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Or like, the other joke I had was like, we should do the Manhattan Project, but the Manhattan Project as, like, historical reenactment, right? And it's kind of like, you know, we have these, like, very, like off the cuff or kind of, like, stereotype visions of how these historical events occur. And they're very stylized. Yeah, exactly, right. And so the benefit of a reenactment that is really in detail Yeah. is like, oh yeah, there's this one weird moment. You know, like that, that ends up being really revealing historical examples. And so even if [00:05:35] you can't change the outcome, I think there's also a lot of value in just doing the exercise. Yeah. Yeah. The, the thought of [00:05:40] Ben: in order to drive towards this outcome that I know. Actually happened I wouldn't as the character have needed to do X. That's right That's like weird nuanced unintuitive thing, [00:05:50] Tim: right? Right and there's something I think about even building into the game Right, which is at the very beginning the Russians team can make the decision on whether or not they've even actually deployed weapons into the cube at all, yeah, right and so like I love that kind of outcome right which is basically like And I think that's great because like, a lot of this happens on the background of like, we know the history. Yeah. Right? And so I think like, having the team, the US team put under some pressure of uncertainty. Yeah. About like, oh yeah, they could have made the decision at the very beginning of this game that this is all a bluff. Doesn't mean anything. Like it's potentially really interesting and powerful, so. [00:06:22] Ben: One precedent I know for this completely different historical era, but there's a historian, Ada Palmer, who runs [00:06:30] Tim: a simulation of a people election in her class every year. That's so good. [00:06:35] And [00:06:36] Ben: it's, there, you know, like, it is not a simulation. [00:06:40] Tim: Or, [00:06:41] Ben: sorry, excuse me, it is not a reenactment. In the sense that the outcome is indeterminate. [00:06:47] Tim: Like, the students [00:06:48] Ben: can determine the outcome. But... What tends to happen is like structural factors emerge in the sense that there's always a war. Huh. The question is who's on which sides of the war? Right, right. And what do the outcomes of the war actually entail? That's right. Who [00:07:05] Tim: dies? Yeah, yeah. And I [00:07:07] Ben: find that that's it's sort of Gets at the heart of the, the great [00:07:12] Tim: man theory versus the structural forces theory. That's right. Yeah. Like how much can these like structural forces actually be changed? Yeah. And I think that's one of the most interesting parts of the design that I'm thinking about right now is kind of like, what are the things that you want to randomize to impose different types of like structural factors that could have been in that event? Right? Yeah. So like one of the really big parts of the debate at XCOM in the [00:07:35] early phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is You know, McNamara, who's like, right, he runs the Department of Defense at the time. His point is basically like, look, whether or not you have bombs in Cuba or you have bombs like in Russia, the situation has not changed from a military standpoint. Like you can fire an ICBM. It has exactly the same implications for the U. S. And so his, his basically his argument in the opening phases of the Cuban Missile Crisis is. Yeah. Which is actually pretty interesting, right? Because that's true. But like, Kennedy can't just go to the American people and say, well, we've already had missiles pointed at us. Some more missiles off, you know, the coast of Florida is not going to make a difference. Yeah. And so like that deep politics, and particularly the politics of the Kennedy administration being seen as like weak on communism. Yeah. Is like a huge pressure on all the activity that's going on. And so it's almost kind of interesting thinking about the Cuban Missile Crisis, not as like You know us about to blow up the world because of a truly strategic situation but more because of like the local politics make it so difficult to create like You know situations where both sides can back down [00:08:35] successfully. Basically. Yeah [00:08:36] Ben: The the one other thing that my mind goes to actually to your point about it model UN in schools. Huh, right is Okay, what if? You use this as a pilot, and then you get people to do these [00:08:49] Tim: simulations at [00:08:50] Ben: scale. Huh. And that's actually how we start doing historical counterfactuals. Huh. Where you look at, okay, you know, a thousand schools all did a simulation of the Cuban Missile Crisis. In those, you know, 700 of them blew [00:09:05] Tim: up the world. Right, right. [00:09:07] Ben: And it's, it actually, I think it's, That's the closest [00:09:10] Tim: thing you can get to like running the tape again. Yeah. I think that's right. And yeah, so I think it's, I think it's a really underused medium in a lot of ways. And I think particularly as like you know, we just talk, talk like pedagogically, like it's interesting that like, it seems to me that there was a moment in American pedagogical history where like, this is a good way of teaching kids. Like, different types of institutions. And like, but it [00:09:35] hasn't really matured since that point, right? Of course, we live in all sorts of interesting institutions now. And, and under all sorts of different systems that we might really want to simulate. Yeah. And so, yeah, this kind of, at least a whole idea that there's lots of things you could teach if you, we like kind of opened up this way of kind of like, Thinking about kind of like educating for about institutions. Right? So [00:09:54] Ben: that is so cool. Yeah, I'm going to completely, [00:09:59] Tim: Change. Sure. Of course. [00:10:01] Ben: So I guess. And the answer could be no, but is, is there connections between this and your sort of newly launched macroscience [00:10:10] Tim: project? There is and there isn't. Yeah, you know, I think like the whole bid of macroscience which is this project that I'm doing as part of my IFP fellowship. Yeah. Is really the notion that like, okay, we have all these sort of like interesting results that have come out of metascience. That kind of give us like, kind of like the beginnings of a shape of like, okay, this is how science might work and how we might like get progress to happen. And you know, we've got [00:10:35] like a bunch of really compelling hypotheses. Yeah. And I guess my bit has been like, I kind of look at that and I squint and I'm like, we're, we're actually like kind of in the early days of like macro econ, but for science, right? Which is like, okay, well now we have some sense of like the dynamics of how the science thing works. What are the levers that we can start, like, pushing and pulling, and like, what are the dials we could be turning up and turning down? And, and, you know, I think there is this kind of transition that happens in macro econ, which is like, we have these interesting results and hypotheses, but there's almost another... Generation of work that needs to happen into being like, oh, you know, we're gonna have this thing called the interest rate Yeah, and then we have all these ways of manipulating the money supply and like this is a good way of managing like this economy Yeah, right and and I think that's what I'm chasing after with this kind of like sub stack but hopefully the idea is to build it up into like a more coherent kind of framework of ideas about like How do we make science policy work in a way that's better than just like more science now quicker, please? Yeah, right, which is I think we're like [00:11:35] we're very much at at the moment. Yeah, and in particular I'm really interested in the idea of chasing after science almost as like a Dynamic system, right? Which is that like the policy levers that you have You would want to, you know, tune up and tune down, strategically, at certain times, right? And just like the way we think about managing the economy, right? Where you're like, you don't want the economy to overheat. You don't want it to be moving too slow either, right? Like, I am interested in kind of like, those types of dynamics that need to be managed in science writ large. And so that's, that's kind of the intuition of the project. [00:12:04] Ben: Cool. I guess, like, looking at macro, how did we even decide, macro econ, [00:12:14] Tim: how did we even decide that the things that we're measuring are the right things to measure? Right? Like, [00:12:21] Ben: isn't it, it's like kind of a historical contingency that, you know, it's like we care about GDP [00:12:27] Tim: and the interest rate. Yeah. I think that's right. I mean in, in some ways there's a triumph of like. It's a normative triumph, [00:12:35] right, I think is the argument. And you know, I think a lot of people, you hear this argument, and it'll be like, And all econ is made up. But like, I don't actually think that like, that's the direction I'm moving in. It's like, it's true. Like, a lot of the things that we selected are arguably arbitrary. Yeah. Right, like we said, okay, we really value GDP because it's like a very imperfect but rough measure of like the economy, right? Yeah. Or like, oh, we focus on, you know, the money supply, right? And I think there's kind of two interesting things that come out of that. One of them is like, There's this normative question of like, okay, what are the building blocks that we think can really shift the financial economy writ large, right, of which money supply makes sense, right? But then the other one I think which is so interesting is like, there's a need to actually build all these institutions. that actually give you the lever to pull in the first place, right? Like, without a federal reserve, it becomes really hard to do monetary policy. Right. Right? Like, without a notion of, like, fiscal policy, it's really hard to do, like, Keynesian as, like, demand side stuff. Right. Right? And so, like, I think there's another project, which is a [00:13:35] political project, to say... Okay, can we do better than just grants? Like, can we think about this in a more, like, holistic way than simply we give money to the researchers to work on certain types of problems. And so this kind of leads to some of the stuff that I think we've talked about in the past, which is like, you know, so I'm obsessed right now with like, can we influence the time horizon of scientific institutions? Like, imagine for a moment we had a dial where we're like, On average, scientists are going to be thinking about a research agenda which is 10 years from now versus next quarter. Right. Like, and I think like there's, there's benefits and deficits to both of those settings. Yeah. But man, if I don't hope that we have a, a, a government system that allows us to kind of dial that up and dial that down as we need it. Right. Yeah. The, the, [00:14:16] Ben: perhaps, quite like, I guess a question of like where the analogy like holds and breaks down. That I, that I wonder about is, When you're talking about the interest rate for the economy, it kind of makes sense to say [00:14:35] what is the time horizon that we want financial institutions to be thinking on. That's like roughly what the interest rate is for, but it, and maybe this is, this is like, I'm too, [00:14:49] Tim: my note, like I'm too close to the macro, [00:14:51] Ben: but thinking about. The fact that you really want people doing science on like a whole spectrum of timescales. And, and like, this is a ill phrased question, [00:15:06] Tim: but like, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around it. Are you saying basically like, do uniform metrics make sense? Yeah, exactly. For [00:15:12] Ben: like timescale, I guess maybe it's just. is an aggregate thing. [00:15:16] Tim: Is that? That's right. Yeah, I think that's, that's, that's a good critique. And I think, like, again, I think there's definitely ways of taking the metaphor too far. Yeah. But I think one of the things I would say back to that is It's fine to imagine that we might not necessarily have an interest rate for all of science, right? So, like, you could imagine saying, [00:15:35] okay, for grants above a certain size, like, we want to incentivize certain types of activity. For grants below a certain size, we want different types of activity. Right, another way of slicing it is for this class of institutions, we want them to be thinking on these timescales versus those timescales. Yeah. The final one I've been thinking about is another way of slicing it is, let's abstract away institutions and just think about what is the flow of all the experiments that are occurring in a society? Yeah. And are there ways of manipulating, like, the relative timescales there, right? And that's almost like, kind of like a supply based way of looking at it, which is... All science is doing is producing experiments, which is like true macro, right? Like, I'm just like, it's almost offensively simplistic. And then I'm just saying like, okay, well then like, yeah, what are the tools that we have to actually influence that? Yeah, and I think there's lots of things you could think of. Yeah, in my mind. Yeah, absolutely. What are some, what are some that are your thinking of? Yeah, so I think like the two that I've been playing around with right now, one of them is like the idea of like, changing the flow of grants into the system. So, one of the things I wrote about in Microscience just the past week was to think [00:16:35] about, like sort of what I call long science, right? And so the notion here is that, like, if you look across the scientific economy, there's kind of this rough, like, correlation between size of grant and length of grant. Right, where so basically what it means is that like long science is synonymous with big science, right? You're gonna do a big ambitious project. Cool. You need lots and lots and lots of money Yeah and so my kind of like piece just briefly kind of argues like but we have these sort of interesting examples like the You know Like framing a heart study which are basically like low expense taking place over a long period of time and you're like We don't really have a whole lot of grants that have that Yeah. Right? And so the idea is like, could we encourage that? Like imagine if we could just increase the flow of those types of grants, that means we could incentivize more experiments that take place like at low cost over long term. Yeah. Right? Like, you know, and this kind of gets this sort of interesting question is like, okay, so what's the GDP here? Right? Like, or is that a good way of cracking some of the critical problems that we need to crack right now? Right? Yeah. And it's kind of where the normative part gets into [00:17:35] it is like, okay. So. You know, one way of looking at this is the national interest, right? We say, okay, well, we really want to win on AI. We really want to win on, like, bioengineering, right? Are there problems in that space where, like, really long term, really low cost is actually the kind of activity we want to be encouraging? The answer might be no, but I think, like, it's useful for us to have, like, that. Color in our palette of things that we could be doing Yeah. In like shaping the, the dynamics of science. Yeah. Yeah. [00:18:01] Ben: I, I mean, one of the things that I feel like is missing from the the meta science discussion Mm-Hmm. is, is even just, what are those colors? Mm-Hmm. like what, what are the, the different and almost parameters of [00:18:16] Tim: of research. Yeah. Right, right, right. And I think, I don't know, one of the things I've been thinking about, which I'm thinking about writing about at some point, right, is like this, this view is, this view is gonna piss people off in some ways, because where it ultimately goes is this idea that, like, like, the scientist or [00:18:35] science Is like a system that's subject to the government, or subject to a policy maker, or a strategist. Which like, it obviously is, right? But like, I think we have worked very hard to believe that like, The scientific market is its own independent thing, And like, that touching or messing with it is like, a not, not a thing you should do, right? But we already are. True, that's kind of my point of view, yeah exactly. I think we're in some ways like, yeah I know I've been reading a lot about Keynes, I mean it is sort of interesting that it does mirror... Like this kind of like Great Depression era economic thinking, where you're basically like the market takes care of itself, like don't intervene. In fact, intervening is like the worst possible thing you could do because you're only going to make this worse. And look, I think there's like definitely examples of like kind of like command economy science that like don't work. Yes. But like, you know, like I think most mature people who work in economics would say there's some room for like at least like Guiding the system. Right. And like keeping it like in balance is like [00:19:35] a thing that should be attempted and I think it's kind of like the, the, the argument that I'm making here. Yeah. Yeah. I [00:19:41] Ben: mean, I think that's, [00:19:42] Tim: that's like the meta meta thing. Right. Right. Is even [00:19:46] Ben: what, what level of intervention, like, like what are the ways in which you can like usefully intervene and which, and what are the things that are, that are foolish and kind of. crEate the, the, [00:20:01] Tim: Command economy. That's right. Yeah, exactly. Right. Right. And I think like, I think the way through is, is maybe in the way that I'm talking about, right? Which is like, you can imagine lots of bad things happen when you attempt to pick winners, right? Like maybe the policymaker whoever we want to think of that as like, is it the NSF or NIH or whatever? Like, you know, sitting, sitting in their government bureaucracy, right? Like, are they well positioned to make a choice about who's going to be the right solution to a problem? Maybe yes, maybe no. I think we can have a debate about that, right? But I think there's a totally reasonable position, which is they're not in it, so they're not well positioned to make that call. Yeah. [00:20:35] Right? But, are they well positioned to maybe say, like, if we gave them a dial that was like, we want researchers to be thinking about this time horizon versus that time horizon? Like, that's a control that they actually may be well positioned to inform on. Yeah. As an outsider, right? Yeah. Yeah. And some of this I think, like, I don't know, like, the piece I'm working on right now, which will be coming out probably Tuesday or Wednesday, is you know, some of this is also like encouraging creative destruction, right? Which is like, I'm really intrigued by the idea that like academic fields can get so big that they become they impede progress. Yes. Right? And so this is actually a form of like, I like, it's effectively an intellectual antitrust. Yeah. Where you're basically like, Basically, like the, the role of the scientific regulator is to basically say these fields have gotten so big that they are actively reducing our ability to have good dynamism in the marketplace of ideas. And in this case, we will, we will announce new grant policies that attempt to break this up. And I actually think that like, that is pretty spicy for a funder to do. But like actually maybe part of their role and maybe we should normalize that [00:21:35] being part of their role. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. [00:21:37] Ben: I I'm imagining a world where There are, where this, like, sort of the macro science is as divisive as [00:21:47] Tim: macroeconomics. [00:21:48] Ben: Right? Because you have, you have your like, your, your like, hardcore free market people. Yeah. Zero government intervention. Yeah, that's right. No antitrust. No like, you know, like abolish the Fed. Right, right. All of that. Yeah, yeah. And I look forward to the day. When there's there's people who are doing the same thing for research. [00:22:06] Tim: Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah when I think that's actually I mean I thought part of a lot of meta science stuff I think is this kind of like interesting tension, which is that like look politically a lot of those people in the space are Pro free market, you know, like they're they're they're liberals in the little L sense. Yeah, like at the same time Like it is true that kind of like laissez faire science Has failed because we have all these examples of like progress slowing down Right? Like, I don't know. Like, I think [00:22:35] that there is actually this interesting tension, which is like, to what degree are we okay with intervening in science to get better outcomes? Yeah. Right? Yeah. Well, as, [00:22:43] Ben: as I, I might put on my hat and say, Yeah, yeah. Maybe, maybe this is, this is me saying true as a fair science has never been tried. Huh, right. Right? Like, that, that, that may be kind of my position. Huh. But anyways, I... And I would argue that, you know, since 1945, we have been, we haven't had laissez faire [00:23:03] Tim: science. Oh, interesting. [00:23:04] Ben: Huh. Right. And so I'm, yeah, I mean, it's like, this is in [00:23:09] Tim: the same way that I think [00:23:11] Ben: a very hard job for macroeconomics is to say, well, like, do we need [00:23:15] Tim: more or less intervention? Yeah. Yeah. [00:23:17] Ben: What is the case there? I think it's the same thing where. You know, a large amount of science funding does come from the government, and the government is opinionated about what sorts of things [00:23:30] Tim: it funds. Yeah, right. Right. And you [00:23:33] Ben: can go really deep into that. [00:23:35] So, so I [00:23:35] Tim: would. Yeah, that's actually interesting. That flips it. It's basically like the current state of science. is right now over regulated, is what you'd say, right? Or, or [00:23:44] Ben: badly regulated. Huh, sure. That is the argument I would say, very concretely, is that it's badly regulated. And, you know, I might almost argue that it is... It's both over and underregulated in the sense that, well, this is, this is my, my whole theory, but like, I think that there, we need like some pockets where it's like much less regulated. Yeah. Right. Where you're, and then some pockets where you're really sort of going to be like, no. You don't get to sort of tune this to whatever your, your project, your program is. Yeah, right, right. You're gonna be working with like [00:24:19] Tim: these people to do this thing. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, and I think there actually is interesting analogies in like the, the kind of like economic regulation, economic governance world. Yeah. Where like the notion is markets generally work well, like it's a great tool. Yeah. Like let it run. [00:24:35] Right. But basically that there are certain failure states that actually require outside intervention. And I think what's kind of interesting in thinking about in like a macro scientific, if you will, context is like, what are those failure states for science? Like, and you could imagine a policy rule, which is the policymaker says, we don't intervene until we see the following signals emerging in a field or in a region. Right. And like, okay, that's, that's the trigger, right? Like we're now in recession mode, you know, like there's enough quarters of this problem of like more papers, but less results. You know, now we have to take action, right? Oh, that's cool. Yeah, yeah. That would be, that would be very interesting. And I think that's like, that's good, because I think like, we end up having to think about like, you know, and again, this is I think why this is a really exciting time, is like MetaScience has produced these really interesting results. Now we're in the mode of like, okay, well, you know, on that policymaker dashboard, Yeah. Right, like what's the meter that we're checking out to basically be like, Are we doing well? Are we doing poorly? Is this going well? Or is this going poorly? Right, like, I think that becomes the next question to like, make this something practicable Yeah. For, for [00:25:35] actual like, Right. Yeah. Yeah. One of my frustrations [00:25:38] Ben: with meta science [00:25:39] Tim: is that it, I [00:25:41] Ben: think is under theorized in the sense that people generally are doing these studies where they look at whatever data they can get. Huh. Right. As opposed to what data should we be looking at? What, what should we be looking for? Yeah. Right. Right. And so, so I would really like to have it sort of be flipped and say, okay, like this At least ideally what we would want to measure maybe there's like imperfect maybe then we find proxies for that Yeah, as opposed to just saying well, like here's what we can measure. It's a proxy for [00:26:17] Tim: okay. That's right, right Yeah, exactly. And I think a part of this is also like I mean, I think it is like Widening the Overton window, which I think like the meta science community has done a good job of is like trying to widen The Overton window of what funders are willing to do. Yeah. Or like what various existing incumbent actors are willing to [00:26:35] do. Because I think one way of getting that data is to run like interesting experiments in this space. Right? Like I think one of the things I'm really obsessed with right now is like, okay, imagine if you could change the overhead rate that universities charge on a national basis. Yeah. Right? Like, what's that do to the flow of money through science? And is that like one dial that's actually like On the shelf, right? Like, we actually have the ability to influence that if we wanted to. Like, is that something we should be running experiments against and seeing what the results are? Yeah, yeah. [00:27:00] Ben: Another would be earmarking. Like, how much money is actually earmarked [00:27:05] Tim: for different things. That's right, yeah, yeah. Like, how easy it is to move money around. That's right, yeah. I heard actually a wild story yesterday about, do you know this whole thing, what's his name? It's apparently a very wealthy donor. That has convinced the state of Washington's legislature to the UW CS department. it's like, it's written into law that there's a flow of money that goes directly to the CS department. I don't think CS departments need more money. I [00:27:35] know, I know, but it's like, this is a really, really kind of interesting, like, outcome. Yeah. Which is like a very clear case of basically just like... Direct subsidy to like, not, not just like a particular topic, but like a particular department, which I think is like interesting experiment. I don't like, I don't know what's been happening there, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Natural, natural experiment. [00:27:50] Ben: Totally. Has anybody written down, I assume the answer is no, but it would be very interesting if someone actually wrote down a list of sort of just all the things you [00:28:00] Tim: could possibly [00:28:00] Ben: want to pay attention to, right? Like, I mean, like. Speaking of CS, it'd be very interesting to see, like, okay, like, what fraction of the people who, like, get PhDs in an area, stay in this area, right? Like, going back to the, the [00:28:15] Tim: health of a field or something, right? Yeah, yeah. I think that's right. I, yeah. And I think that those, those types of indicators are interesting. And then I think also, I mean, in the spirit of like it being a dynamic system. Like, so a few years back I read this great bio by Sebastian Malaby called The Man Who Knew, which is, it's a bio of Alan Greenspan. So if you want to ever read, like, 800 pages about [00:28:35] Alan Greenspan, book for you. It's very good. But one of the most interesting parts about it is that, like, there's a battle when Alan Greenspan becomes head of the Fed, where basically he's, like, extremely old school. Like, what he wants to do is he literally wants to look at, like, Reams of data from like the steel industry. Yeah, because that's kind of got his start And he basically is at war with a bunch of kind of like career People at the Fed who much more rely on like statistical models for predicting the economy And I think what's really interesting is that like for a period of time actually Alan Greenspan has the edge Because he's able to realize really early on that like there's It's just changes actually in like the metabolism of the economy that mean that what it means to raise the interest rate or lower the interest rate has like very different effects than it did like 20 years ago before it got started. Yeah. And I think that's actually something that I'm also really quite interested in science is basically like When we say science, people often imagine, like, this kind of, like, amorphous blob. But, like, I think the metabolism is changing all the [00:29:35] time. And so, like, what we mean by science now means very different from, like, what we mean by science, like, even, like, 10 to 20 years ago. Yes. And, like, it also means that all of our tactics need to keep up with that change, right? And so, one of the things I'm interested in to your question about, like, has anyone compiled this list of, like, science health? Or the health of science, right? It's maybe the right way of thinking about it. is that, like, those indicators may mean very different things at different points in time, right? And so part of it is trying to understand, like, yeah, what is the state of the, what is the state of this economy of science that we're talking about? Yeah. You're kind of preaching [00:30:07] Ben: to the, to the choir. In the sense that I'm, I'm always, I'm frustrated with the level of nuance that I feel like many people who are discussing, like, science, quote, making air quotes, science and research, are, are talking about in the sense that. They very often have not actually like gone in and been part of the system. Huh, right. And I'm, I'm open to the fact that [00:30:35] you [00:30:35] Tim: don't need to have got like [00:30:36] Ben: done, been like a professional researcher to have an opinion [00:30:41] Tim: or, or come up with ideas about it. [00:30:43] Ben: Yeah. But at the same time, I feel like [00:30:46] Tim: there's, yeah, like, like, do you, do you think about that tension at all? Yeah. I think it's actually incredibly valuable. Like, I think So I think of like Death and Life of Great American Cities, right? Which is like, the, the, the really, one of the really, there's a lot of interesting things about that book. But like, one of the most interesting things is sort of the notion that like, you had a whole cabal of urban planners that had this like very specific vision about how to get cities to work right and it just turns out that like if you like are living in soho at a particular time and you like walk along the street and you like take a look at what's going on like there's always really actually super valuable things to know about yeah that like are only available because you're like at that like ultra ultra ultra ultra micro level and i do think that there's actually some potential value in there like one of the things i would love to be able to set up, like, in the community of MetaScience or whatever you want to call it, right, [00:31:35] is the idea that, like, yeah, you, you could afford to do, like, very short tours of duty, where it's, like, literally, you're just, like, spending a day in a lab, right, and, like, to have a bunch of people go through that, I think, is, like, really, really helpful and so I think, like, thinking about, like, what the rotation program for that looks like, I think would be cool, like, you, you should, you should do, like, a six month stint at the NSF just to see what it looks like. Cause I think that kind of stuff is just like, you know, well, A, I'm selfish, like I would want that, but I also think that like, it would also allow the community to like, I think be, be thinking about this in a much more applied way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. [00:32:08] Ben: I think it's the, the meta question there for, for everything, right? Is how much in the weeds, like, like what am I trying to say? The. It is possible both to be like two in the weeds. Yeah, right and then also like too high level Yeah, that's right. And in almost like what what is the the right amount or like? Who, who should [00:32:31] Tim: be talking to whom in that? That's right. Yeah, I mean, it's like what you were saying earlier that like the [00:32:35] success of macro science will be whether or not it's as controversial as macroeconomics. It's like, I actually hope that that's the case. It's like people being like, this is all wrong. You're approaching it like from a too high level, too abstract of a level. Yeah. I mean, I think the other benefit of doing this outside of like the level of insight is I think one of the projects that I think I have is like We need to, we need to be like defeating meta science, like a love of meta science aesthetics versus like actual like meta science, right? Like then I think like a lot of people in meta science love science. That's why they're excited to not talk about the specific science, but like science in general. But like, I think that intuition also leads us to like have very romantic ideas of like what science is and how science should look and what kinds of science that we want. Yeah. Right. The mission is progress. The mission isn't science. And so I think, like, we have to be a lot more functional. And again, I think, like, the benefit of these types of, like, rotations, like, Oh, you just are in a lab for a month. Yeah. It's like, I mean, you get a lot more of a sense of, like, Oh, okay, this is, this is what it [00:33:35] looks like. Yeah. Yeah. I'd like to do the same thing for manufacturing. Huh. Right. [00:33:39] Ben: Right. It's like, like, and I want, I want everybody to be rotating, right? Huh. Like, in the sense of, like, okay, like, have the scientists go and be, like, in a manufacturing lab. That's right. [00:33:47] Tim: Yeah. [00:33:48] Ben: And be like, okay, like, look. Like, you need to be thinking about getting this thing to work in, like, this giant, like, flow pipe instead of a [00:33:54] Tim: test tube. That's right, right. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, [00:33:57] Ben: unfortunately, the problem is that we can't all spend our time, like, if everybody was rotating through all the [00:34:03] Tim: things they need to rotate, we'd never get anything done. Yeah, exactly. [00:34:06] Ben: ANd that's, that's, that's kind of [00:34:08] Tim: the problem. Well, and to bring it all the way back, I mean, I think you started this question on macroscience in the context of transitioning away from all of this like weird Cuban Missile Crisis simulation stuff. Like, I do think one way of thinking about this is like, okay, well, if we can't literally send you into a lab, right? Like the question is like, what are good simulations to give people good intuitions about the dynamics in the space? Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially quite interesting. Yeah. Normalized weekend long simulation. That's right. Like I love the idea of basically [00:34:35] like like you, you get to reenact the publication of a prominent scientific paper. It's like kind of a funny idea. It's just like, you know, yeah. Or, or, or even trying to [00:34:44] Ben: get research funded, right? Like, it's like, okay, like you have this idea, you want yeah. [00:34:55] Tim: I mean, yeah, this is actually a project, I mean, I've been talking to Zach Graves about this, it's like, I really want to do one which is a game that we're calling Think Tank Tycoon, which is basically like, it's a, it's a, the idea would be for it to be a strategy board game that simulates what it's like to run a research center. But I think like to broaden that idea somewhat like it's kind of interesting to think about the idea of like model NSF Yeah, where you're like you you're in you're in the hot seat you get to decide how to do granting Yeah, you know give a grant [00:35:22] Ben: a stupid thing. Yeah, some some some congressperson's gonna come banging [00:35:26] Tim: on your door Yeah, like simulating those dynamics actually might be really really helpful Yeah I mean in the very least even if it's not like a one for one simulation of the real world just to get like some [00:35:35] common intuitions about like The pressures that are operating here. I [00:35:38] Ben: think you're, the bigger point is that simulations are maybe underrated [00:35:42] Tim: as a teaching tool. I think so, yeah. Do you remember the the paperclip maximizer? Huh. The HTML game? Yeah, yeah. [00:35:48] Ben: I'm, I'm kind of obsessed with it. Huh. Because, it, you've, like, somehow the human brain, like, really quickly, with just, like, you know, some numbers on the screen. Huh. Like, just like numbers that you can change. Right, right. And some, like, back end. Dynamic system, where it's like, okay, like based on these numbers, like here are the dynamics of the [00:36:07] Tim: system, and it'll give you an update. [00:36:09] Ben: Like, you start to really get an intuition for, for system dynamics. Yeah. And so, I, I, I want to see more just like plain HTML, like basically like spreadsheet [00:36:20] Tim: backend games. Right, right, like the most lo fi possible. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. Yeah, I think it's helpful. I mean, I think, again, particularly in a world where you're thinking about, like, let's simulate these types of, like, weird new grant structures that we might try out, right? Like, you know, we've got a bunch [00:36:35] of hypotheses. It's kind of really expensive and difficult to try to get experiments done, right? Like, does a simulation with a couple people who are well informed give us some, at least, inclinations of, like, where it might go or, like, what are the unintentional consequences thereof? Yeah. [00:36:51] Ben: Disciplines besides the military that uses simulations [00:36:56] Tim: successfully. Not really. And I think what's kind of interesting is that like, I think it had a vogue that like has kind of dissipated. Yeah, I think like the notion of like a a game being the way you kind of do like understanding of a strategic situation, I think like. Has kind of disappeared, right? But like, I think a lot of it was driven, like, RAND actually had a huge influence, not just on the military. But like, there's a bunch of corporate games, right? That were like, kind of invented in the same period. Yeah. That are like, you determine how much your steel production is, right? And was like, used to teach MBAs. But yeah, I think it's, it's been like, relatively limited. Hm. [00:37:35] Yeah. It, yeah. Hm. [00:37:38] Ben: So. Other things. Huh. Like, just to, [00:37:41] Tim: to shift together. Sure, sure, go ahead. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I guess another [00:37:44] Ben: thing that we haven't really talked about, but actually sort of plays into all of this, is thinking about better [00:37:50] Tim: ways of regulating technology. [00:37:52] Ben: I know that you've done a lot of thinking about that, and maybe this is another thing to simulate. [00:38:00] Tim: Yeah, it's a model OSTP. But [00:38:04] Ben: it's maybe a thing where, this is actually like a prime example where the particulars really matter, right? Where you can't just regulate. quote unquote technology. Yeah. Right. And it's like, there's, there's some technologies that you want to regulate very, very closely and very tightly and others that you want to regulate very [00:38:21] Tim: loosely. Yeah, I think that's right. And I think that's actually, you know, I think it is tied to the kind of like macro scientific project, if you will. Right. Which is that I think we have often a notion of like science regulation being like. [00:38:35] literally the government comes in and is like, here are the kind of constraints that we want to put on the system. Right. And there's obviously like lots of different ways of doing that. And I think there's lots of contexts in which that's like appropriate. But I think for a lot of technologies that we confront right now, the change is so rapid that the obvious question always becomes, no matter what emerging technology talking about is like, how does your clock speed of regulation actually keep up with like the clock speed of technology? And the answer is frequently like. It doesn't, right? And like you run into these kind of like absurd situations where you're like, well, we have this thing, it's already out of date by the time it goes into force, everybody kind of creates some like notional compliance with that rule. Yeah. And like, in terms of improving, I don't know, safety outcomes, for instance, it like has not actually improved safety outcomes. And I think in that case, right, and I think I could actually make an argument that like, the problem is becoming more difficult with time. Right? Like, if you really believe that the pace of technological change is faster than it used to be, then it is possible that, like, there was a point at which, like, government was operating, and it could actually keep [00:39:35] pace effectively, or, like, a body like Congress could actually keep pace with society, or with technology successfully, to, like, make sure that it was conformant with, sort of, like, societal interests. Do you think that was [00:39:46] Ben: actually ever the case, or was it that we didn't, we just didn't [00:39:50] Tim: have as many regulations? I would say it was sort of twofold, right? Like, I think one of them was you had, at least, let's just talk about Congress, right? It's really hard to talk about, like, government as a whole, right? Like, I think, like, Congress was both better advised and was a more efficient institution, right? Which means it moved faster than it does today. Simultaneously, I also feel like for a couple reasons we can speculate on, right? Like, science, or in the very least, technology. Right, like move slower than it does today. Right, right. And so like actually what has happened is that both both dynamics have caused problems, right? Which is that like the organs of government are moving slower at the same time as science is moving faster And like I think we've passed some inflection [00:40:35] point now where like it seems really hard to craft You know, let's take the AI case like a sensible framework that would apply You know, in, in LLMs where like, I don't know, like I was doing a little recap of like recent interoperability research and I like took a step back and I was like, Oh, all these papers are from May, 2023. And I was like, these are all big results. This is all a big deal. Right. It's like very, very fast. Yeah. So that's kind of what I would say to that. Yeah. I don't know. Do you feel differently? You feel like Congress has never been able to keep up? Yeah. [00:41:04] Ben: Well, I. I wonder, I guess I'm almost, I'm, I'm perhaps an outlier in that I am skeptical of the claim that technology overall has sped up significantly, or the pace of technological change, the pace of software change, certainly. Sure. Right. And it's like maybe software as a, as a fraction of technology has spread up, sped up. And maybe like, this is, this is a thing where like to the point of, of regulations needing to, to. Go into particulars, [00:41:35] right? Mm-Hmm. . Right, right. Like tuning the regulation to the characteristic timescale of whatever talk [00:41:40] Tim: technology we're talking about. Mm-Hmm. , right? [00:41:42] Ben: But I don't know, but like, I feel like outside of software, if anything, technology, the pace of technological change [00:41:52] Tim: has slowed down. Mm hmm. Right. Right. Yeah. [00:41:55] Ben: This is me putting on my [00:41:57] Tim: stagnationist bias. And would, given the argument that I just made, would you say that that means that it should actually be easier than ever to regulate technology? Yeah, I get targets moving slower, right? Like, yeah, [00:42:12] Ben: yeah. Or it's the technology moving slowly because of the forms of [00:42:14] Tim: the regulator. I guess, yeah, there's like compounding variables. [00:42:16] Ben: Yeah, the easiest base case of regulating technology is saying, like, no, you can't have [00:42:20] Tim: any. Huh, right, right, right. Like, it can't change. Right, that's easy to regulate. Yeah, right, right. That's very easy to regulate. I buy that, I buy that. It's very easy to regulate well. Huh, right, right. I think that's [00:42:27] Ben: That's the question. It's like, what do we want to lock in and what don't we [00:42:31] Tim: want to lock in? Yeah, I think that's right and I think, you [00:42:35] know I guess what that moves me towards is like, I think some people, you know, will conclude the argument I'm making by saying, and so regulations are obsolete, right? Or like, oh, so we shouldn't regulate or like, let the companies take care of it. And I'm like, I think so, like, I think that that's, that's not the conclusion that I go to, right? Like part of it is like. Well, no, that just means we need, we need better ways of like regulating these systems, right? And I think they, they basically require government to kind of think about sort of like moving to different parts of the chain that they might've touched in the past. Yeah. So like, I don't know, we, Caleb and I over at IFP, we just submitted this RFI to DARPA. In part they, they were thinking about like how does DARPA play a role in dealing with like ethical considerations around emerging technologies. Yep. But the deeper point that we were making in our submission. was simply that like maybe actually science has changed in a way where like DARPA can't be the or it's harder for DARPA to be the originator of all these technologies. Yeah. So they're, they're almost, they're, they're placing the, the, the ecosystem, the [00:43:35] metabolism of technology has changed, which requires them to rethink like how they want to influence the system. Yeah. Right. And it may be more influence at the point of like. Things getting out to market, then it is things like, you know, basic research in the lab or something like that. Right. At least for some classes of technology where like a lot of it's happening in private industry, like AI. Yeah, exactly. Yeah. [00:43:55] Ben: No, I, I, I think the, the concept of, of like the metabolism of, of science and technology is like really powerful. I think in some sense it is, I'm not sure if you would, how would you map that to the idea of there being a [00:44:11] Tim: research ecosystem, right? Right. Is it, is it that there's like [00:44:17] Ben: the metabolic, this is, this is incredibly abstract. Okay. Like, is it like, I guess if you're looking at the metabolism, does, does the metabolism sort of say, we're going to ignore institutions for now and the metabolism is literally just the flow [00:44:34] Tim: of [00:44:35] like ideas and, and, and outcomes and then maybe like the ecosystem is [00:44:41] Ben: like, okay, then we like. Sort of add another layer and say there are institutions [00:44:46] Tim: that are sure interacting with this sort of like, yeah, I think like the metabolism view or, you know, you might even think about it as like a supply chain view, right? To move it away from, like, just kind of gesturing at bio for no reason, right? Is I think what's powerful about it is that, you know, particularly in foundation land, which I'm most familiar with. There's a notion of like we're going to field build and what that means is we're going to name a field and then researchers Are going to be under this tent that we call this field and then the field will exist Yeah, and then the proper critique of a lot of that stuff is like researchers are smart They just like go where the money is and they're like you want to call up like I can pretend to be nanotech for a Few years to get your money Like, that's no problem. I can do that. And so there's kind of a notion that, like, if you take the economy of science as, like, institutions at the very beginning, you actually miss the bigger [00:45:35] picture. Yes. Right? And so the metabolism view is more powerful because you literally think about, like, the movement of, like, an idea to an experiment to a practical technology to, like, something that's out in the world. Yeah. And then we basically say, how do we influence those incentives before we start talking about, like, oh, we announced some new policy that people just, like... Cosmetically align their agendas to yeah, and like if you really want to shape science It's actually maybe arguably less about like the institution and more about like Yeah, the individual. Yeah, exactly. Like I run a lab. What are my motivations? Right? And I think this is like, again, it's like micro macro, right? It's basically if we can understand that, then are there things that we could do to influence at that micro level? Yeah, right. Which is I think actually where a lot of Macro econ has moved. Right. Which is like, how do we influence like the individual firm's decisions Yeah. To get the overall aggregate change that we want in the economy. Yeah. And I think that's, that's potentially a better way of approaching it. Right. A thing that I desperately [00:46:30] Ben: want now is Uhhuh a. I'm not sure what they're, they're [00:46:35] actually called. Like the, you know, like the metal, like, like, like the [00:46:37] Tim: prep cycle. Yeah, exactly. Like, like, like the giant diagram of, of like metabolism, [00:46:43] Ben: right. I want that for, for research. Yeah, that would be incredible. Yeah. If, if only, I mean, one, I want to have it on [00:46:50] Tim: my wall and to, to just get across the idea that. [00:46:56] Ben: It is like, it's not you know, basic research, applied [00:47:01] Tim: research. Yeah, totally. Right, right, right. When it goes to like, and what I like about kind of metabolism as a way of thinking about it is that we can start thinking about like, okay, what's, what's the uptake for certain types of inputs, right? We're like, okay, you know like one, one example is like, okay, well, we want results in a field to become more searchable. Well what's really, if you want to frame that in metabolism terms, is like, what, you know, what are the carbs that go into the system that, like, the enzymes or the yeast can take up, and it's like, access to the proper results, right, and like, I think that there's, there's a nice way of flipping in it [00:47:35] that, like, starts to think about these things as, like, inputs, versus things that we do, again, because, like, we like the aesthetics of it, like, we like the aesthetics of being able to find research results instantaneously, but, like, the focus should be on, Like, okay, well, because it helps to drive, like, the next big idea that we think will be beneficial to me later on. Or like, even being [00:47:53] Ben: the question, like, is the actual blocker to the thing that you want to see, the thing that you think it is? Right. I've run into far more people than I can count who say, like, you know, we want more awesome technology in the world, therefore we are going to be working on Insert tool here that actually isn't addressing, at least my, [00:48:18] Tim: my view of why those things aren't happening. Yeah, right, right. And I think, I mean, again, like, part of the idea is we think about these as, like, frameworks for thinking about different situations in science. Yeah. Like, I actually do believe that there are certain fields because of, like, ideologically how they're set up, institutionally how [00:48:35] they're set up, funding wise how they're set up. that do resemble the block diagram you were talking about earlier, which is like, yeah, there actually is the, the basic research, like we can put, that's where the basic research happens. You could like point at a building, right? And you're like, that's where the, you know, commercialization happens. We pointed at another building, right? But I just happen to think that most science doesn't look like that. Right. And we might ask the question then, like, do we want it to resemble more of like the metabolism state than the block diagram state? Right. Like both are good. Yeah, I mean, I would [00:49:07] Ben: argue that putting them in different buildings is exactly what's causing [00:49:10] Tim: all the problems. Sure, right, exactly, yeah, yeah. Yeah. But then, again, like, then, then I think, again, this is why I think, like, the, the macro view is so powerful, at least to me, personally, is, like, we can ask the question, for what problems? Yeah. Right? Like, are there, are there situations where, like, that, that, like, very blocky way of doing it serves certain needs and certain demands? Yeah. And it's like, it's possible, like, one more argument I can make for you is, like, Progress might be [00:49:35] slower, but it's a lot more controllable. So if you are in the, you know, if you think national security is one of the most important things, you're willing to make those trade offs. But I think we just should be making those trade offs, like, much more consciously than we do. And [00:49:49] Ben: that's where politics, in the term, in the sense of, A compromise between people who have different priorities on something can actually come in where we can say, okay, like we're going to trade off, we're going to say like, okay, we're going to increase like national security a little bit, like in, in like this area to, in compromise with being able to like unblock this. [00:50:11] Tim: That's right. Yeah. And I think this is the benefit of like, you know, when I say lever, I literally mean lever, right. Which is basically like, we're in a period of time where we need this. Yeah. Right? We're willing to trade progress for security. Yeah. Okay, we're not in a period where we need this. Like, take the, take, ramp it down. Right? Like, we want science to have less of this, this kind of structure. Yeah. That's something we need to, like, have fine tuned controls over. Right? Yeah. And to be thinking about in, like, a, a comparative sense, [00:50:35] so. And, [00:50:36] Ben: to, to go [00:50:36] Tim: back to the metabolism example. Yeah, yeah. I'm really thinking about it. Yeah, yeah. [00:50:39] Ben: Is there an equivalent of macro for metabolism in the sense that like I'm thinking about like, like, is it someone's like blood, like, you know, they're like blood glucose level, [00:50:52] Tim: like obesity, right? Yeah, right. Kind of like our macro indicators for metabolism. Yeah, that's right. Right? Or like how you feel in the morning. That's right. Yeah, exactly. I'm less well versed in kind of like bio and medical, but I'm sure there is, right? Like, I mean, there is the same kind of like. Well, I study the cell. Well, I study, you know, like organisms, right? Like at different scales, which we're studying this stuff. Yeah. What's kind of interesting in the medical cases, like You know, it's like, do we have a Hippocratic, like oath for like our treatment of the science person, right? It's just like, first do no harm to the science person, you know? [00:51:32] Ben: Yeah, I mean, I wonder about that with like, [00:51:35] with research. Mm hmm. Is there, should we have more heuristics about how we're [00:51:42] Tim: Yeah, I mean, especially because I think, like, norms are so strong, right? Like, I do think that, like, one of the interesting things, this is one of the arguments I was making in the long science piece. It's like, well, in addition to funding certain types of experiments, if you proliferate the number of opportunities for these low scale projects to operate over a long period of time, there's actually a bunch of like norms that might be really good that they might foster in the scientific community. Right. Which is like you learn, like scientists learn the art of how to plan a project for 30 years. That's super important. Right. Regardless of the research results. That may be something that we want to put out into the open so there's more like your median scientist has more of those skills Yeah, right, like that's another reason that you might want to kind of like percolate this kind of behavior in the system Yeah, and so there's kind of like these emanating effects from like even one offs that I think are important to keep in mind [00:52:33] Ben: That's actually another [00:52:35] I think used for simulations. Yeah I'm just thinking like, well, it's very hard to get a tight feedback loop, right, about like whether you manage, you planned a project for 30 years [00:52:47] Tim: well, right, [00:52:48] Ben: right. But perhaps there's a better way of sort of simulating [00:52:51] Tim: that planning process. Yeah. Well, and I would love to, I mean, again, to the question that you had earlier about like what are the metrics here, right? Like I think for a lot of science metrics that we may end up on, they may have these interesting and really curious properties like we have for inflation rate. Right. We're like, the strange thing about inflation is that we, we kind of don't like, we have hypotheses for how it happens, but like, part of it is just like the psychology of the market. Yeah. Right. Like you anticipate prices will be higher next quarter. Inflation happens if enough people believe that. And part of what the Fed is doing is like, they're obviously making money harder to get to, but they're also like play acting, right? They're like. You know, trust me guys, we will continue to put pressure on the economy until you feel differently about this. And I think there's going to be some things in science that are worth [00:53:35] measuring that are like that, which is like researcher perceptions of the future state of the science economy are like things that we want to be able to influence in the space. And so one of the things that we do when we try to influence like the long termism or the short termism of science It's like, there's lots of kind of like material things we do, but ultimately the idea is like, what does that researcher in the lab think is going to happen, right? Do they think that, you know, grant funding is going to become a lot less available in the next six months or a lot more available in the next six months? Like influencing those might have huge repercussions on what happens in science. And like, yeah, like that's a tool that policymakers should have access to. Yeah. Yeah. [00:54:11] Ben: And the parallels between the. The how beliefs affect the economy, [00:54:18] Tim: and how beliefs [00:54:19] Ben: affect science, I think may also be a [00:54:21] Tim: little bit underrated. Yeah. In the sense that, [00:54:24] Ben: I, I feel like some people think that It's a fairly deterministic system where it's like, ah, yes, this idea's time has come. And like once, once all the things that are in place, like [00:54:35] once, once all, then, then it will happen. And like, [00:54:38] Tim: that is, that's like how it works. [00:54:40] Ben: Which I, I mean, I have, I wish there was more evidence to my point or to disagree with me. But like, I, I think that's, that's really not how it works. And I'm like very often. a field or, or like an idea will, like a technology will happen because people think that it's time for that technology to happen. Right. Right. Yeah. Obviously, obviously that isn't always the case. Right. Yeah. Yeah. There's, there's, there's hype [00:55:06] Tim: cycles. And I think you want, like, eventually, like. You know, if I have my druthers, right, like macro science should have like it's Chicago school, right? Which is basically like the idea arrives exactly when it should arrive. Scientists will discover it on exactly their time. And like your only role as a regulator is to ensure the stability of scientific institutions. I think actually that that is a, that's not a position I agree with, but you can craft a totally, Reasonable, coherent, coherent governance framework that's based around that concept, right? Yes. Yeah. I think [00:55:35] like [00:55:35] Ben: you'll, yes. I, I, I think like that's actually the criteria for success of meta science as a field uhhuh, because like once there's schools , then, then, then it will have made it, [00:55:46] Tim: because [00:55:47] Ben: there aren't schools right now. Mm-Hmm. , like, I, I feel , I almost feel I, I, I now want there to b

The Daily Show jumps in our time machine and heads back to this day in 2013: the nation is in the middle of a Republican-caused government shutdown and the Democrats have just botched the nationwide rollout of Obamacare. Host Jon Stewart recaps the failed launch before diving deep into HealthCare.gov's glitches and issues with John Oliver. Stewart then celebrates the legalization of same-sex marriage in New Jersey, recapping a wedding ceremony officiated by a very excited Cory Booker. Alan Greenspan then joins Jon to discuss his new book "The Map and the Territory" and the lessons learned in the years since the Great Recession. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get our newsletter free here or text “GRE” to 66866. Higher interest rates are cracking the economy—failing banks and failing commercial RE loans. With many expecting rates to go much higher, what else will break? Keith Weinhold, the host of the Get Rich Education podcast, discusses the current state of interest rates and their potential future trajectory.  Jim Rogers, legendary investor with an estimated $300M net worth, returns. He shares his insights on interest rates and inflation.  We discuss the impact of inflation on various asset classes, including real estate, and the potential for higher interest rates in the future.  The conversation also touches on topics such as agricultural real estate, the oil market, central bank digital currencies, and the role of gold and bitcoin as alternative forms of wealth storage.  Overall, the episode provides valuable insights into the current economic landscape and its implications for investors. Title [00:01:56] Introduction and overview of the current state of interest rates and market distortions. Title [00:05:03] Discussion on the unpredictability of interest rate predictions and the acknowledgment of inflation by Jerome Powell. Title [00:08:28] Explanation of the historical trend of interest rates, the recent rise in rates, and predictions for future rate movements. Title [00:12:09] Jim Rogers on Borrowing Money and Interest Rates Discussion on the benefits of borrowing money at low interest rates and the prediction of interest rates going higher. Title [00:14:27] Jerome Powell and the Possibility of a Soft Landing Questioning whether Jerome Powell can raise interest rates enough to control inflation without causing an economic crash. Title [00:18:41] Inflation, Interest Rates, and Real Estate Exploring the impact of inflation and interest rates on real estate investments and the potential risks for property owners. Topic 1: Agricultural Real Estate [00:22:21] Discussion on the opportunities in agricultural real estate due to erratic weather patterns and reduced yields in various crops. Topic 2: Oil Market [00:24:16] Conversation about the current state of the oil market, the decline in known reserves, and the potential for higher energy prices. Topic 3: Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) [00:26:04] Exploration of the proliferation of CBDCs and the implications of a digital currency controlled by central authorities, including potential restrictions on spending and increased government control. Title [00:32:06] History of Money and Gold Standard Discussion on the different forms of money throughout history and the transition from silver to gold as the basis for the US currency. Title [00:32:47] The Diminishing Value of the Dollar The prediction that the value of the dollar will continue to diminish over time and the suggestion to invest in real estate instead of saving in dollars. Title [00:33:33] Invest in What You Know Advice for investors to only invest in what they know about and not rely on advice from others, emphasizing the importance of knowledge and understanding in investment decisions. Resources mentioned: Show Notes: www.GetRichEducation.com/457 Get mortgage loans for investment property: RidgeLendingGroup.com or call 855-74-RIDGE  or e-mail: info@RidgeLendingGroup.com Find cash-flowing Jacksonville property at: www.JWBrealestate.com/GRE 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”  Top Properties & Providers: GREmarketplace.com 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 Keith's personal Instagram: @keithweinhold   Complete episode transcript:   Speaker 1 (00:00:01) - Welcome to GRE. I'm your host, Keith Weinhold. Interest rates rose fast last year, but a lot of experts think that they're going to go substantially higher from today's level, including our guest today, who is a legendary investor. How much higher will rates go and what's driving them higher today on get rich education.   Taxes are your biggest expense. The best way to reduce your burden is real estate. Increase your income with amazing returns and reduce your taxable income with real estate write offs. As an employee with a high salary, you're devastated by taxes. Lighten your tax burden. With real estate incentives, you can offset your income from a W-2 job and from capital gains freedom. Family Investments is the experience partner you've been looking for. The Real Estate Insider Fund is that vehicle. This fund invests in real estate projects that make an impact, and you can join with as little as $50,000. Insiders get preferred returns of 10 to 12%. This means you get paid first. Insiders enjoy cash flow on a quarterly basis, and the tax benefits are life changing.   Speaker 1 (00:01:10) - Join the Freedom Family and become a real estate insider. Start on your path to financial freedom through passive income. Text Family to 66866. This is not a solicitation and is for accredited investors only. Please text family to 66866 for complete details.   Speaker 2 (00:01:33) - You're listening to the show that has created more financial freedom than nearly any show in the world. This is Get rich education.   Speaker 1 (00:01:56) - Welcome to GRE! From Mount Washington, New Hampshire to Mount Whitney, California, and across 188 nations worldwide. I'm Keith Whitefield and you are listening to Get Rich Education. Hey, it's great to have you back. Interest rates are not high today. They're just moderate by historic standards. But of course, the rapid rate of increases last year was faster than it's ever been in our lives. And that's what introduces market distortions. Today's guest is going to talk about that with us later. That's the legendary Jim Rogers. And it's public information that he has an estimated $300 million net worth. When Jim talks, people listen. When he was here with us in 2019, he was emphatic that interest rates were going to go much higher.   Speaker 1 (00:02:43) - He was completely correct. And few others were saying that then. In fact, when he's with us here shortly, all recite the interest rate quote that he stated here on this show back then and get his forecast from this point on as well before discussing interest rates a quarter recently ended. So let's whip around the asset classes as we do here at times, because you need to be able to compare real estate with other investments. The first half of this year, the S&P 500 was up a fat 17%. I'm just running to the nearest whole percent here. The tech heavy Nasdaq index had its best first half of the year in four decades. Gold was up 6%. Oil was down 34%. Bitcoin up an astounding 84% the first six months of the year. And that's partly because it really bottomed out near the beginning of this year per Freddie Mac. The 30 year fixed mortgage began the year at 6.5%, and now it's up to 6.7 for real estate. Since it lags, we've got a realtor.com year over year figure.   Speaker 1 (00:03:48) - The median listing price was up 1% to 440 K financial institutions aced their Fed stress test that they call it that measures how banks are holding up during a downturn. Q1 GDP was revised way higher than they previously calculated, so the economy is doing even better than many thought. And the number of Americans that are filing for new unemployment claims that fell the most in 20 months. So therefore, the economy is still hot by a lot of measures. Well, that puts more upward pressure on interest rates. Well, an interest rate that can be thought of as your cost of money, and they can even affect factors beyond the economic world. For example, in demographics, I mean, historically high interest rates, they've actually been a mild impediment to people's very migration and mobility. Understand the Fed's interest rate predictions and really all of their predictions have been awful, just awful. A long line of them. Fed Chair Jerome Powell's inflation is transitory. I mean, this is the latest notable one. He said that in 2021.   Speaker 1 (00:05:03) - I mean, though, look on your phones weather app, you don't trust the weather forecast ten days into the future. So I don't know why we would listen so intently, even reverentially to what the Fed economists predict for the next month or the next year. I mean, the economy can have as many or more variables than the weather. I'm going to assume. And these people know nothing Volcker, Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, Powell. They know nothing but see, they act like they know. So I just sort of wish they'd say we don't know more often. And by the way, this is why I do not predict interest rates like virtually everyone else. I know nothing on that. I joke around and I say I will let someone else be wrong and go ahead and predict interest rates. It's really hard to do now. A little credit to Jerome Powell later on, though, he did acknowledge that they ought to stop calling inflation transitory. So I think the word transitory has different meanings to different people.   Speaker 1 (00:06:08) - To many, it carries.   Speaker 3 (00:06:09) - A time, a sense of of short lived. We tend to to to use it to mean that that it won't leave a permanent mark in the form of higher inflation. I think it's it's probably a good time to retire that that word and try to explain more clearly what we mean.   Speaker 1 (00:06:26) - Another credit to Powell in today's Fed is that they'll tell you what interest rate decisions they plan to make at upcoming meetings, which is certainly a welcome departure from the opaque Alan Greenspan where you needed to try to translate his Fed speak. So if the Fed rate goes higher, then you can generally expect other rates to go higher. The prime rate mortgage rates, credit card interest rates, automobile loans and more. Jim Grant. Who's been running the interest rate observer since 1983. He recently said that we are embarking into a long era of higher interest rates. He says that that's due to inflation and asset price speculation and of course rates wouldn't move up in some sort of straight line from here. During recessions, interest rates fall.   Speaker 1 (00:07:14) - Well, in that case, if you had recessions during a longer term up spell, where you'd have is higher interest rate lows in a recession. Now, starting in 1958, something strange happened in America. In a recession, prices did not fall into many. This marked the beginning of the age of inflation. That was 65 years ago. So you're pretty used to that. If there is a recession, prices don't fall. All right. Well, after that period, rates went up, up, up until they peaked in 1981. And then they went down. Rates fell from 1981 until 2021, and now they have begun to rise again. Well, because artificially low rates that were set to deal with Covid, because they're still recent, I mean, many people have this sort of muscle memory of zero zero interest rate policy. Maybe you do, too. And it was an all you can eat buffet table of credit. And that buffet table was open for business for ten years. Well, now that we've hiked up the Fed funds rate from 0 to 5%.   Speaker 1 (00:08:28) - All right. Well, back on June 28th, Powell said that more restrictive policy is still the COB because they're continuing to fight inflation. And that includes the likelihood of quarter point interest rate hikes at consecutive meetings and two or more increases by the end of this year. Now, our frequent macro economist contributor here on the show, Richard Duncan. He says there is an unusual divergence between weak credit growth and solid economic growth. And that was probably brought about by the surge in savings from people's government checks during the pandemic. Well, if that divergence persists, then the Fed might have to raise rates even more than the half percent plus that they suggested is necessary by the end of this year. And Duncan says that the stock market is not prepared for the Fed rate to go from 5% today up to 6%. And if it does, the stock market could be in for a painful correction in the months ahead. Now, to my point about interest rates being hard to predict, some economists think that rates will generally fall after this year as well.   Speaker 1 (00:09:34) - So some people see it that way, but I think there are more now predicting that they will rise rather than fall. As the legendary investor that predicted that interest rates were going to go way higher when he was back here with us in 2019 is he joins us soon. We could have some challenging audio quality on this remote to Singapore, but people really hang on what Jim has to say. That's next. I'm Keith Wild. You're listening to episode 457 of Get Rich Education. With real estate capital Jacksonville. Real estate has outperformed the stock market by 44% over the last 20 years. It's proven to be a more stable asset, especially during recessions. Their vertically integrated strategy has led to 79% more home price appreciation compared to the average Jacksonville investor since 2013. Genevieve is ready to help your money make money and to make it easy for everyday investors. Get started at GWB real Estate. Agree that's GWB Real estate agree Jerry Listeners can't stop talking about their service from Ridge Lending Group and MLS 42056. They've provided our tribe with more loans than anyone.   Speaker 1 (00:10:49) - They're truly a top lender for beginners and veterans. It's where I go to get my own loans for single family rental property up to four plex. So start your pre-qualification and you can chat with President Charlie Ridge personally, though, even deliver your custom plan for growing your real estate portfolio. Start at Ridge Lending Group. Hi, this is Russell Gray, co-host of the Real Estate Guys radio show. And you're listening to Get Rich Education with Keith Reinhold. Don't Quit Your Day Dreams. Today's guest is one of the most esteemed celebrated and legendary business moguls, investors and financial commentators of our time. He co-founded the Quantum Fund, one of the world's first truly global funds. He's created his own commodities index, his own ETF, and he is a popular author of a great many books. Welcome back. For your third appearance on Jim Rogers case. There's no reason to go into all that. I'm just a simple Earth. That's why people like listening to you, because you rather plain spoken on what some people deem to be some pretty complex concepts.   Speaker 1 (00:12:09) - So it's good to have you here joining remotely from where you live in Singapore. You were here with us in both 2019 and 2021 and in 2019 here on the show you said and I've got the quote right here, if you can borrow a lot of money for a long period of time at low interest rates, rush out and do it right now, That's what you said. That was prescient. And also in 2019 here on the show, you said, and I quote again, interest rates are going to go much, much, much higher over the next few decades and it is going to ruin a lot of people. And here we are today. So what are your thoughts with regard to interest rates and inflation here? Jim.   Speaker 4 (00:12:52) - You make many mistake. Please. It's made many, many mistakes and I'm sure hope I live long enough to make many, many more mistakes. Yes, interest rates are up. They're up substantially. It sent them, but it is not over yet. Interest rates will go much, much higher because we have friend, not just we, but central banks everywhere have printed huge amounts of money.   Speaker 4 (00:13:17) - And whenever you print lots of money, inflation, college interest rates go higher and the usual amount of money inflation gets very high. And that always leads to central banks having to raise interest rates too high level because they don't know what else to do. In 1980, before you were born, interest rates on central US government Treasury bills, 90 day Treasury bills, interest rates were over 21%. Gosh, that's not a typo. 21% because inflation was out of control and we had to take drastic measures, which meant you have to do something like that again.   Speaker 1 (00:13:58) - That would be interesting. So to bring us up to where we are right now, the federal funds rate is basically gone from 0 to 5% since last year. Mortgage rates rose from 3% to 7% just last year alone. And a lot of nations are jacking up interest rates. Turkey just decided that they are going to raise interest rates 6.5% all at once. And some people don't think that is enough. So here we are. I mean, you talked about what happened about 40 years ago.   Speaker 1 (00:14:27) - Can Jerome Powell engineer a soft landing? Does he have any chance of doing that where he can raise rates enough to quell inflation but yet not crash the economy?   Speaker 4 (00:14:37) - No, of course not. First of all, in 1980, America was still a creditor nation. Now with the largest detonation in the history of the world. Yeah, that's staggering. And they go up every week, and the amount of money that's been printed is beyond comprehension. I don't know how they can solve this problem without really getting drastic and taking interest rates to very high levels back in 1980. The Federal Reserve had the support of the president. The president told him to do whatever you have to do because the head of the central bank was all over. It was a smart man. He knew what he had to do, but he made sure he had political support before he did it. Now, the president did not get reelected because Volcker did what had to be done. We don't have as smart a central bank head now as we did then.   Speaker 4 (00:15:31) - And the amount of money that's been printed is overwhelming. And America's debt with the largest detonation in the history of the world and we were a creditor then. So there are things that are different. So he would be worried if I were you. In fact, I am worried, so I'll leave it to you. But I'm more.   Speaker 1 (00:15:50) - Well, that's right. Carter was a one term president. We'll see if Jerome Powell ends up breaking too many things. If Biden only ends up being a one term president, then as well, whether it's his fault or not, oftentimes the onus could fall on him. You bring up all this debt, the greatest detonation in the history of the world. And maybe the first time you and I spoke back in 2019, I don't know what our debt was then. Maybe it was 25 trillion. Now it's more than $32 trillion. Maybe just as concerning. More our debt to GDP ratio is about 121%. So I guess really what I'm getting at, Jim, is how will we know that things break and things are already breaking in a world of higher interest rates with failing banks and more stress in the commercial real estate market.   Speaker 1 (00:16:37) - So what else is going to break?   Speaker 4 (00:16:40) - Jimmy Carter did say to go do whatever you have to do and I will go you. I doubt Biden would say to the central bank, do whatever you have to do without or you. And I doubt if the central bank Powell, the head of the central bank, now really comprehend what he's gotten us into. You know, he kept saying all along, oh, don't worry, everything is under control. The secretary of the Treasury, Janet Yellen, he's got Ivy League degrees, also kept saying, don't worry, everything is under control. We know what we're doing. We do have different people this time, not many Paul Volcker's that comes along in history. To me, the indications are going to get worse. They will not solve the problem until we have a very, very serious problem. I'm not optimistic. Having said that, if I'm not selling short or anything else at the moment, I'm worried about the markets in a year or two. But at the moment, since nobody seems to understand what they're doing at the Reserve or in the presidency, we can have okay times for a while, but the ultimate problem gets worse and worse and worse unless you deal with it.   Speaker 1 (00:17:56) - I don't know whether the economy has been slowed down enough yet or not. So in the midst of higher interest rates, we continue to create an awful lot of jobs. But there's a greater body of work that shows a lot of these jobs are just jobs that have recovered, that were lost in the pandemic.   Speaker 4 (00:18:13) - The economy is not bad in the US, economy is still strong. You mentioned office. You'll have a lot of jobs. ET cetera. Yes, we have inflation, but inflation is not as bad as it was in the 70s. And you look out the window and everything seems okay. At the moment. I'm just worried about what's coming down the road because I know that some throughout history, if you print a huge amount of money, you create big problems.   Speaker 1 (00:18:41) - We are avid real estate investors here directly investing in real estate. And as we have this chat about inflation and interest rates is real estate investors, ideally we would have low interest rates and high inflation. However, those two are positively correlated.   Speaker 1 (00:18:57) - You typically have both high interest rates and high inflation or low interest rates in low inflation. That positive correlation.   Speaker 4 (00:19:05) - Inflation always in the history has led to higher interest rates for a variety of reasons, which I'm sure you understand. If history is any guide, interest rates are going to go much, much higher eventually. And then you know very well I interest rates are not good for property, not good for real estate investors. They never have that. Even if you don't have any big debt and you don't have that problem or mortgage problems or anything, maybe your neighbors do. And if your neighbors have problems, that means their property prices will go down and that's going to affect you because you're nearby and everybody will say, oh, that property is collapsing. What about teeth? And teeth can say, Oh, no, don't worry about me. I don't have any debt. They'll say, okay, you don't have any debt, but we can buy property in your neighborhood. Very cheap because your neighbors have problems.   Speaker 4 (00:20:06) - That gives you a problem.   Speaker 1 (00:20:08) - That's right. Fortunately, Americans have plenty of protective equity in their properties despite these higher rates. You know, residential real estate here in the second half of 2023 is still doing just fine, probably because there's still a scarce supply of residential real estate. You've got more people working from home driving demand for residential real estate. But of course, office real estate has probably been hit the worst, crunched by high interest rates and the work from home trend both. So really that's where we've seen so many of the cracks in the real estate world, especially around the office space. Where else might we see cracks as interest rates continue to go higher like you think they will?   Speaker 4 (00:20:46) - Well, again, throughout history, when interest rates go higher and it attracts investors and money and people take their money out of property or stocks or whatever with their money and say yielding is you can buy the Treasury bills at 21%. That's attractive to a lot of people. And that's, you know, risk free and it's very high return.   Speaker 4 (00:21:12) - So as interest rates go higher in attracts money from other investment classes in other areas, it's very simple. People are not that dumb. We know that if we can get high interest rates safe, they will do it. And we have to take a risk and the stock market or something else for that spike to do.   Speaker 1 (00:21:33) - Sure. Higher rates just incentivize a few more people to be savers as they can now safely get above 4% in these online bank accounts today, where they are getting pretty close to 0% just a couple years ago. We talk about real estate investment. Oftentimes here we talk about improved property on a piece of land. But of course, the more traditional use of real estate is growing crops on a piece of land. And I know you've been a long time agricultural investing enthusiast and a thought leader in agricultural real estate investing. What are your thoughts about agricultural real estate, since in these past few years really we've seen more of these erratic weather patterns that have resulted in things like reduced peach yields in Georgia and reduced ores yields in Florida.   Speaker 1 (00:22:21) - Something else, Jim, we've seen reduced coffee yield in Panama, that last one, that's sort of a fractional ownership investment that we featured on the show here. Fractional ownership investment in coffee farm parcels in Panama. That's created some problems with their yield. Of course, you can see that reflected in the low levels of the Panama Canal as well that looks to threaten the economy. But what are your thoughts about agricultural real estate in this erratic weather that we've had? Perhaps that's an opportunity if that's reflected in lower agricultural real estate prices?   Speaker 4 (00:22:52) - I'm optimistic about agricultural land prices because, you know, for a long time, nobody wants to be a farmer. The average age of farmers in America is 58. The average age in Japan is 66. Mean, I can go on and on. Although the highest rate of bankruptcy in the UK is in agriculture. So agricultural disaster worldwide for a long time and disaster usually leads to great opportunities. If you know how to drive a tractor, if you should go buy yourself some farmland and become a farmer, if you like getting hot and sweaty every day, it can be a very exciting way to live.   Speaker 4 (00:23:38) - I just see I know from history when something gets very bad for a long time, it usually leads to a great opportunity.   Speaker 1 (00:23:48) - Well, you are so experienced in commodities trading in the number one, the most traded commodity in the world is oil. And it seems that the oil price really isn't very high now, especially when you adjust that for all the inflation that we've had the past few years and of course the oil market and the oil price drives the prices of so many other downstream products. So what are your thoughts with regard to the oil market and where we're headed there? Jim.   Speaker 4 (00:24:16) - I know that known reserves of oil have peaked and are in decline just about worldwide. Does it mean it has to continue going up? But unless somebody finds a lot of oil quickly in accessible areas, the price of energy undoubtedly will go higher. The price of energy is going to stay high. Oil and natural gas, whether we like it or not, and I know we don't like it, but unless you wave a magic wand and you know, in Washington, they keep doing things that they don't help the supply of energy, they they damage it because they put restrictions and controls on energy.   Speaker 4 (00:24:55) - So unless something happens somewhere in the world pretty quickly, energy is not going to be cheap.   Speaker 1 (00:25:01) - Renewables like solar and wind may be the future, but oil has a high degree of energy density that a lot of those renewables still don't. We're talking with legendary investor Jim Rogers. He's joining us from Singapore. You talked about all this dollar printing, which has created inflation. And in order for central governments and central banks to get more control over people, discussion with Cbdcs central bank digital currencies has really percolated quite a bit in the past few years here. And with your international perspective, your world view. I'd like to know what your thoughts are on Cbdcs, whether you see a proliferation of it, where you see it starting for those that aren't aware of it. Central bank, digital currencies. That gives a government central control where all money is digital issued by the central authority, where your money can be stored digitally on your phone so that a central authority like a bank or a government can have control over you.   Speaker 1 (00:26:04) - For example, if your local economy is sagging, well, the government could tell you through your cbdc, your central bank, digital currency, for example, that you need to spend 30% of your income within a ten mile radius or else your money expires. Or this would give central authorities power to do something like say, you know, there's a curfew so you can't spend any of your money after 9 p.m. or this is where they could push ESG, environmental, social and governance agendas through targeting your spending or targeting your spending through diversity, equity and inclusion and getting more control that way through Cbdc. So what are your thoughts with the proliferation potentially of Cbdcs, Jim?   Speaker 4 (00:26:44) - We're all going to have digital money in the future, whether we like it or not. It already happened and China's way ahead of it. You can't take a tax in China with money. You have to have your digital money. Your own money. Yeah. And the ice cream in China with money. So it is happening. And nearly every country is working on computer money.   Speaker 4 (00:27:06) - Let's call it whatever you want to put your money. And governments love computer money is cheaper. It's easier. They don't have to transport it all they love. But mainly they love it because they've complete control over all of us. As you point out, they know everything you do. They'll call you up one day and say, Keith, you've had too much coffee this month. Stop drinking so much. Whatever it is, they love control and they love knowledge. I don't, but they do. So this is the world we're coming to. None of us will have money in our pockets except on our own. And yes, that's the new world. It's not far away in 2023. Okay. Anything that's not good for the citizen, Washington will catch up very fast if it's good for them. So no money is coming.   Speaker 1 (00:28:00) - Yeah. Let's hope the cbdcs don't turn up the coffee for anybody. This might make one wonder, you know, what can they do about it is you see more cbdc sentiment building in other nations with them potentially doing something like this.   Speaker 1 (00:28:15) - Is it a smart thing then for someone rather than store dollars, to instead borrow dollars by having loans on real estate? Or is it better to just completely be out of the government system of currency issuance or at least park more of your prosperity outside of the government system of dollars and euros and pesos and riyals and yen, and instead into a non governmental alternative like gold or Bitcoin. Would that be a better path? What are your thoughts there?   Speaker 4 (00:28:44) - When the government says, okay, now this is money, they're not going to say, okay, but if you want to use that money over there, use their money. We don't care. Governments love control and they love Monopoly, especially when it comes to money. So there may be competing types of money that you dollars now anyway. I guess you and I could swap gold coins or seashells or something if we wanted to. Most of the people in the US use government money and that's the way it's going to be. Whether we like it or not, the government has the monopoly.   Speaker 4 (00:29:22) - They have the guns. And if you can say, All right, I'm not going to use government money, I'll say, okay, but you're not going to be able to pay your taxes, then you're money. You're not going to be able to buy a driver's license or pay your other fees with other money. You're going to have to use government approved money.   Speaker 1 (00:29:42) - Well, the government tried to shut down ownership of gold like they did previously or Bitcoin, which would be unprecedented. I'm talking about the United States government, especially in this case or other developed economies.   Speaker 4 (00:29:54) - But when the US took away the right to go in 30s, that was gold was the basis for. Monetary system. It is much, much, much more important to the world economy. Then gold is not that important in the world's economy now. It's important, but so is right. So a lot of stuff. So I doubt if they will take gold away again. I don't see them outlawing digital money currency unless it becomes very successful and competitive to the government.   Speaker 4 (00:30:30) - Then they'll do. They always have.   Speaker 1 (00:30:33) - Bitcoin's market cap is still under $1 trillion, but increasingly you do have more and more politicians that own Bitcoin and there are a few advocates for Bitcoin there in Congress. So if that's the change you want to see, maybe you want to vote in people that are promoting the holding of prosperity outside of US dollars really by being Bitcoin advocates in Congress there. That's one thing that you can possibly do. But we talk about gold and silver. You know, I really like the fact that it is scarce. Just like Bitcoin has scarcity. There will never be more than 21 million Bitcoin. And of course gold and silver have a finite supply.   Speaker 4 (00:31:14) - Well, but first of all, please remember many digital currencies, not Bitcoin, but many have already disappeared and gone to zero.   Speaker 1 (00:31:23) - And there are some Bitcoin critics out there that say something like, well, there have been more than 20,000 cryptocurrencies. So what makes Bitcoin any better? Well, I think the fact that a lot of these cryptocurrencies that have little or no utility or mean coins, so if they come by and then they die, I don't think that should diminish Bitcoin in its utility in any way.   Speaker 1 (00:31:42) - Just like there have been over 20,000 stocks in history. And if a new stock comes by that doesn't have any value or any fundamentals and it fails, it doesn't diminish the market cap leader Apple one bit at all. So I don't think it's a valid comparison to say that just because a new cryptocurrency comes and goes that shouldn't diminish or knock Bitcoin at all, just like it shouldn't Apple, if a flashy new stock comes by and dies?   Speaker 4 (00:32:06) - Well, throughout history, money has come and gone. People use seashells, people use cows, People use lots of things, glass beads all over the world. You know, the US was founded on a silver standard at 1792. Silver was the basis for the US currency that later changed to gold.   Speaker 1 (00:32:27) - What's so interesting, Jim, written in our United States Constitution, it stated that gold and silver shall be money, but of course it's not. In Nixon completely departed the last vestige of that in 1971. Yet there was no amendment written to the Constitution to supersede it.   Speaker 1 (00:32:47) - Gold and silver shall be money when it comes to currency and how one measures the prosperity in the United States. It is the dollar. We know it's going to continue to be the dollar for some period of time yet, and you can't get too many certainties in investing. And really the second near certainty we can get is that the dollar is going to continue to diminish in value. So that's why rather than save it, we borrow for real estate. Jim, wrap it up here. In this world of higher inflation, though, it's come down in higher interest rates where you tend to think they will keep going higher. What should one do, maybe especially a younger person today, You know, any direction that you would have for a younger person, a younger investor, or maybe that's even investing in themselves and developing skills themselves. So what are your thoughts?   Speaker 4 (00:33:33) - They're all investors. Young, old, whatever should invest only in what they themselves know a lot about. If you want to be successful, don't listen to somebody on the TV or in the magazine or even on the Internet.   Speaker 4 (00:33:48) - You know your program. They should invest only in what they know about you. Listen to somebody and she said, Buy X and you buy x and x goes up. You don't know what to do because you don't know why you bought it. Right? X goes down, you don't know what to do because you don't know why you bought it. So if you want to be successful, just stay with what you yourself know a lot about. You might say that's boring. Be boring If you want to be successful, be boring. You know, invest in what you know. And I cannot tell you how important that is for all investors, young or old.   Speaker 1 (00:34:31) - Yeah, well, to sum it up on rates, Jim Rogers said that governments have debt, therefore governments will keep printing. So then governments will raise rates to keep inflation in check. Remember, just last year, a lot of people didn't think that Powell would have the guts to raise rates so high. Well, he sure did. Who else did I ask about how high interest rates will go? Will, I asked you on our get Recession Instagram poll, the majority of you think.   Speaker 1 (00:35:01) - That the Fed rate will exceed 6%. And again, it's about 5% now. All right. Well, then with mortgage rates around six and three quarters now, perhaps they'd go up to about 8%. But of course, mortgage rates don't track the Fed rate in lockstep. They more closely follow the yield on the ten year note. Now, this is really interesting for real estate investors when inflation is low. So interest rates, well, in those environments, real estate people seem to love that. But you know what? Those two things pretty much cancel out. Well, since we're big borrowers as real estate investors, you get less benefit from low inflation and more benefit from low interest rates, just like high inflation and high interest rates cancel out because now you've got your debt being debase faster and a greater interest expense to pay. So really it's a wash either way. If for some reason real estate investors seem to be more concerned about high interest than they are thinking about the benefits of the high inflation and in fact, real estate investors, hey, we can totally have our cake and eat it too, because when inflation goes high, well, you can stay fixed on your low interest rates.   Speaker 1 (00:36:16) - And then when inflation and rates go low, you can refinance. So savvy real estate investors then in fact benefit from the inflation and interest rate dance. This kind of tango that they do where they stay together. If you enjoy the show here each week, do you mind doing something as a give back that takes less than two minutes of your time? Leave a podcast rating and review. The fastest way to do this is just perform a search. Either search how to leave in Apple Podcasts Review, or how to leave a Spotify podcast review. I'd be grateful that helps others find the show. And we've got a bunch of terrific episodes coming up for you here on Gray, providing you with free content and reliably showing up for you every week. I would greatly appreciate your podcast rating in review. Again, it's easiest to simply search how to leave an Apple Podcasts Review or how to leave a Spotify podcast review until next week. I'm your host, Keith Weintraub. Don't quit, dude. Adrian.   Speaker 5 (00:37:24) - Nothing on this show should be considered specific, personal or professional advice.   Speaker 5 (00:37:28) - 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 exclusively.   Speaker 1 (00:37:52) - The preceding program was brought to you by your home for wealth building Get rich education.com.

In this episode Ted and Ronnie wander to and fro through a variety of topics: Great American business stories: The Happy Rant and Nike. Ted is Alan Greenspan “Air” tried hard to be “Moneyball” and “Jerry Maguire” but fell short 1980s office aesthetics “Without Limits” is the true and better “Air.”  For more ranting, conversation, and cultural analysis check out our book, The Happy Rant: Wandering To and Fro Through Some Things That Don't Matter All That Much (and a Few That Really Do) at https://thehappyrant.com/book/Visit our show store where you can find shirts, notebooks, bags, and more. Our merchandise makes great gifts and is an ideal way to look cooler than all your friends too at https://thehappyrant.com/shop/Check out our sponsor:Visual Theology (https://visualtheology.church) and use the code “happyrant” at checkout for a 20% discount!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Are most modern problems caused by selfishness or a lack of it? Ayn Rand, a Russian American philosopher and writer, would say it's the latter — that selfishness is not a vice but a virtue — and that capitalism is the ideal system. Everyone from Donald Trump, to Alan Greenspan, to Brad Pitt have sung Ayn Rand's praises. The Library of Congress named her novel Atlas Shrugged the second most influential book in the U.S. after the Bible. Ayn Rand wasn't politically correct, she was belligerent and liked going against the grain. And although she lived by the doctrine of her own greatness, she was driven by the fear that she would never be good enough. In this episode, historian Jennifer Burns will guide us through Rand's evolution and how she eventually reshaped American politics, becoming what Burns calls "a gateway drug to life on the right."