Podcasts about Alternatives

This week, we're sharing an interview with Julie and Jeremy, two anarchists and participants in the Asheville Community Bail Fund. We speak about the US system of pre-trial incarceration aka bail and bond, the work of the bail fund locally, the overcrowding of the Buncombe County Jail here in Asheville, the ICE holds happening in the local jail, and how local policy choices regarding criminalization are being compounded by recent and new North Carolina legislation. Even if you aren't in Asheville or North Carolina, it's likely that much of this conversation will be pertinent to goings-ons in your neck of the woods (though hopefully not). If you're a regular listener to The Final Straw Radio, have a passion for enriching the anarchist media environment, feel like your values align with what you've heard on the show and want a chance to help out and hone your skills, we're always looking for help. If you've thought of getting a podcast or other media project going but aren't sure how to start, we can be a good jumping off point. Feel free to reach out via our emails Links https://avlcommunitybail.carrd.co/ National Bail Fund Network: https://www.communityjusticeexchange.org Immigration Resources info: https://www.communityjusticeexchange.org/es/directorio-para-inmigracion Emancipate NC: https://emancipatenc.org/ Lecture on Crime Data: https://www.haymarketbooks.org/blogs/338-counting-crime-a-lecture-on-the-politics-of-crime-data-and-its-uses NC Coalition for Alternatives to the Death Penalty: https://nccadp.org/ North Carolina Laws discussed NC SB-153 – Border Protection Act (pending): https://www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/legislation/sb-153-border-protection-act-anti-immigrant/ NC HB-10: https://www.ncjustice.org/nc-justice-center-statement-on-house-bill-10-veto-override/ NC HB-318: https://www.carolinajournal.com/nc-senate-passes-criminal-alien-enforcement-act/ Iryna's Law (HB-307) https://southerncoalition.org/justice-system-reform/reframing-public-safety/public-safety-solutions-we-deserve-better-than-this/ https://lincnc.org/when-tragedy-becomes-a-banner-reflections-on-irynas-law-and-the-politics-of-grief/ Related Past interviews The Prairieland Case: https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/category/prairieland-case/ NSPM-7 conversation: https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2025/09/28/the-implications-of-trumps-war-on-antifa-with-moira-meltzer-cohen/ Asheville politics and police repression https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2024/05/09/clean-for-who-safe-for-who-asheville-business-improvement-district/ https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2023/03/19/felony-littering-trials-under-way-in-asheville/ https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2021/08/01/ashevilles-policing-crisis-with-ursula-wren-of-asheville-free-press/ Public surveillance by ALPR systems like Flock https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2025/04/13/pushing-back-on-flock-cameras-with-kate-bertash/ https://thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org/post/2025/11/02/southerners-against-surveillance-systems-infrastructure-with-ed/ . ... . .. Featured Track: TFSR by The Willows Whisper

DEATH BY DRYWALL Season 2, Episode 4 A podcast about architecture, materials, and the buildings we actually live inside.   Episode Summary Drywall is everywhere. It's in almost every wall of every home built in America in the last 60 years. But how did it get there — and is it actually the best we can do? This episode traces the full arc of drywall's history: from the pre-industrial craft of lath and plaster, through the wartime shortcuts that gave rise to gypsum board, to the environmental and health questions we're only now starting to take seriously. We also look at traditional wall systems from Japan — built from bamboo, rope, earthen plaster, and lime — that outperform modern drywall on almost every meaningful measure. And we close with a bigger question: why do we accept a lower standard of quality in our walls than we do in almost every other part of our lives?     What We Cover •       The ancient techniques drywall replaced and why they were better in many ways •       Japanese tsuchikabe wall systems: bamboo lattice, rice-straw rope, earthen plaster, and lime finish / walls that breathe, flex, and last centuries •       Augustine Sackett's 1894 invention and how U.S. Gypsum turned it into the default building material •       The four forces that drove drywall adoption: wartime labor shortages, mass housing demand, industrial standardization, and fire-resistance marketing •       What drywall is actually made of:  calcined gypsum, paper facing, starch binders, foaming agents, biocides, and chemical modifiers •       Why drywall fails: moisture absorption, mold, fragility, poor acoustics, and limited lifespan •       The environmental profile of gypsum board production: energy use, landfill waste, and hydrogen sulfide off-gassing •       Alternatives gaining traction: rammed earth, compressed earth block, lime plaster, hemp-lime, and wood fiber panels •       The quality question: why we demand quality in food, clothes, and cars  BUT NOT IN THE WALLS SURROUNDING US (???) In our homes????   Key Takeaway "Drywall didn't replace inferior systems. It replaced better ones because it was faster and cheaper."   Before paper-faced gypsum board, builders across cultures constructed walls from bamboo, rope, earth, and lime.  These materials managed humidity, flexed under seismic stress, and lasted generations. The Japanese tsuchikabe wall system is a working example of what we traded away for construction speed. Drywall solved an industrial problem. It was never designed to solve a human one.     The Quality Question We've learned to look deeper in almost every other domain. We ask where our food comes from. We think about the fibers in our clothes. We care about the engineering in our cars. But inside the very structure that surrounds us every day, we routinely accept the lowest common denominator.   The wall is one of the largest material surfaces in a home. It defines how a building manages moisture, sound, air quality, and durability. As architecture moves toward healthier, longer-lasting building systems, the question isn't whether drywall is cheap and convenient - it clearly is. The real question is whether we're willing to apply the same standard of quality to our buildings that we already expect everywhere else.     Go Deeper — Further Reading   The History of Drywall (Wikipedia) A solid overview of drywall's origins, manufacturing process, and fire-resistance properties. → en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drywall   Augustine Sackett — National Inventors Hall of Fame The story of the man who invented Sackett Board in 1894 — the direct precursor to every sheet of drywall installed today. → invent.org/inductees/augustine-sackett   Drywall: EWG Healthy Living Home Guide A detailed breakdown of what's actually in drywall and joint compound — including biocides, formaldehyde, crystalline silica, and synthetic gypsum made from coal plant waste. → ewg.org/healthyhomeguide/drywall   A Brief History of Drywall — Hackaday A concise and readable account of how drywall went from wartime shortcut to universal construction default. → hackaday.com — Brief History of Drywall     If you found this episode useful, share it with someone building, renovating, or thinking about what's actually inside their walls.     AK links: Four D Design – Organic Architecture www.fourddesign.com Star Tile – Fractal Ceramics www.star-tile.com Star Tile Studio - Joshua Tree, CA https://g.co/kgs/DUMmCLh   Contact: ak@fourddesign.com

In the second of our two-part panel discussion from Morgan Stanley's TMT conference, our analysts break down the complexity of financing AI's infrastructure and the technological disruption happening across industries.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome back to Thoughts on the Market, and welcome to part two of our conversation live from the Technology, Media and Telecom conference. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist at Morgan Stanley. Today we're continuing our conversation with Stephen Byrd, Josh Baer and Lindsay Tyler. This time looking at financing AI and some of the risks to the story. It's Friday, March 6th at 11am in San Francisco. So yesterday we spoke about AI adoption. And while there's a lot of excitement on this theme, there've also been some concerns bubbling up. Lindsay, I want to start with you around financing. That's another critical component of the AI build out. What's your latest on the magnitude of the data center financing gap, and what role [are] credit markets playing here? Lindsay Tyler: Yeah, in partnership with Thematic Research, Stephen and team, and colleagues across fixed income research last summer, we did put out a note, thinking about the data center financing gap, right? So, Stephen and team modeled a $3 trillion global data center CapEx need over a four-year timeframe. So, in partnership with fixed income across asset classes, we thought: okay, how will that really be funded? And we came to the conclusion that the hyperscalers, the high quality hyperscalers, generate a good amount of cash flow, right? So, there's cash from ops that can fund approximately half of that. But then we think that fixed income markets are critical to fund the rest of the funding gap. And really private credit is the leader in that and then aided by corporate credit and also securitized credit. What we've seen since is that yes, private credit has served a role. There is this difference between private credit 1.0, which is more of that middle market direct lending. And then private credit 2.0, which is more ABF – Asset Based Finance or Asset Backed Finance. And what we see there is an interest in leases of hyperscaler tenants, right? We've also seen in the market over the past nine months or so, investment grade bond issuance by hyperscalers. Obviously, a use of cash flow by hyperscalers. We've seen the construction loans with banks and also private credit per reports. We've also seen high yield bond issuance, which is kind of a new trend for construction financing. We've seen ABS and CMBS as well. And then something new that's emerging in focus for investors is more of a chip-backed or compute contract backed financings, like more creative solutions. We're really in early innings of the spend right now. And so, there is this shift. As we start to work through the construction early phases, the next focus is: okay, but what about the chips? And so, I think a big focus is that, you know, chips are more than 50 percent of the spend for if you're looking at a gigawatt site. And it depends what type of chips and kind of what generation. But that's the next leg of this too. So, it's kind of a focus, you know, for 2026. Michelle Weaver: And how do you view balance sheet leverage and financing when you think about hyperscaler debt raising magnitude and timelines? Lindsay Tyler: So just to bring it down to more of a basic level, if you need compute, you really might need two things, right? A powered shell and then the chips. And so, if you're looking for that compute, you could kind of go in three basic ways. You could look to build the shell and kind of build and buy the whole thing. You could lease the shell, from, you know, a developer, maybe a Bitcoin miner too – that is converted to HBC. And then you kind of buy the chips and you put them in yourselves. Or you could lease all the compute; quote unquote lease, it's more of a contract. In terms of the funding, if you're thinking about the cash flows of some of the big companies – think of that as primarily being put towards chip spend. If you're thinking about the construction that's kind of split between cash CapEx but also leases. And so, what we've seen is that there is more than [$]600 billion of un-commenced lease obligations that will commence over the next two to five years, across the big four or five players. And then my equity counterparts estimate around [$]700 billion of cash CapEx that needs this year for some of those players as well. So, these are big numbers. But that's kind of how, at a basic level, they're approaching some of the financing. It's a split approach. Michelle Weaver: And what have you learned around financing the past few days at the conference? Anything incremental to share there? Lindsay Tyler: Sure. Yeah. I think I found confirmation of some key themes here at the conference. The first being that numerous funding buckets are available. That was a big focus of our note last year is that you can kind of look at asset level financing. You can look at public bonds, you can look at some equity. There are these different funding buckets available.The second is that tenant quality matters for construction financing. I think I've seen this more in the markets than maybe at this conference over the past two to three weeks. But that has been a focus of pricing for the deals, but also market depth for the deals. A third confirmation of a key theme was around the neo clouds and also the GPU as a service business models. Thinking about those creative financings, right. Are they thinking about from their compute counterparties? Would they like upfront payments? Might they look to move financing off [the] balance sheet, if they have a very high-quality investment grade rated counterparty? So, there is some of this evolution around those solutions. And then a fourth key theme is just around the credit support. And Stephen has and I have talked about this around some of the Bitcoin miners – is that, you know, there can be these higher quality investment grade players that might look to lend their credit support. Maybe a lease backstop to other players in the ecosystem in order to get a better pricing on construction financing. And we are seeing some press pickup around how that might play out in chip financing down the road too. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. AI driven risk and potential disruption has been a big feature of the price action we've seen year-to-date in this theme. Stephen, what are some asset classes or businesses you see as resistant to some of this disruption? Stephen Byrd: We spend a lot of time thinking about, sort of, asset classes that are resistant to deflation and disruption. And what's interesting is there's actually a handful of economists in the world that are doing remarkable work on this concept. That they would call it the economics of transformative AI. There are three Americans, two Canadians, two Brits, a number of others who are doing really, really interesting work. And essentially what they're looking at is what do economies look like? As we see very powerful AI enter many industries – cause price reductions, deflation… What does that do? They have a lot of interesting takeaways, but one is this idea that the relative value of assets that cannot be deflated by AI goes up. Very simple idea. But think of it this way, I mean, there's only, you know, one principle resort on Kauai. You know, there's a limited amount of metals. And so, what we go through is this list that's gotten a lot of investor attention of resistant asset classes or more of the resistant asset classes that can go up in value. So, there are obvious ones like land, though you have to be a little careful with real estate in the sense that like, office real estate probably wouldn't be where you would go. Nor would you potentially go sort of towards middle income, lower income housing. But more, you know, think of industrial REITs, higher-end real estate. But there are a lot of other categories that are interesting to me. All kinds of infrastructure should be quite resistant, all kinds of critical materials. Metals should do extremely well in this. But then when you go beyond that, it's actually kind of interesting that there; arguably there's a longer list than those classic sort of land and metals examples.Examples here would be compute… Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Stephen Byrd: I thought Jensen put it, well, you know, if there's a limited amount of infrastructure available, you want to put the best compute. And ultimately, in some ways, intelligence becomes the new coin of the realm in the world, right? So, I would want to own the purveyors of intelligence. It could include high-end luxury. It could include unique human experiences. So, I don't know how many of y'all have children who are sort of college age. But my children are college age, and they absolutely hate what they would call AI slop.They want legit human content, and they seek it out. And they absolutely hate it when they see bad copies of human content. And so, I think there is a place in many parts of the economy for unique human experiences, unique human content, and it's interesting to kind of seek out where that might be in the economy. So those would be some examples of resistant assets. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, software's been at really the center of this AI disruption debate. How would you compare the current pullback in software multiples to prior periods of peak uncertainty? And do you think any of these concerns are valid? Or how are you thinking about that? Josh Baer: Great question. I mean, software multiples on an EV to sales basis are down 30 – 35 percent just from the fall, I will say. And that's overall in the group. A lot of stocks, multiple handfuls, are down 60-70 percent over the last year. And what's being priced in is really peak uncertainty, a lot of fear. And these multiples, now four times sales – takes us all the way back about 10 years to the shift to cloud. And this time in many ways reminds us of that period of peak fear. In this case, what's being priced in is terminal value risk. We talked about this TAM yesterday. But you know, who is going to win that share? How is it divided from a competitive perspective across these model providers? The LLMs with new entrants. Of course, the incumbents. And this other idea of in-housing. Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh Baer: So, there's competitive risk, there's business model risk. Are companies going to need to change their pricing models from seat-based to consumption or hybrid. And then last margin risk. Just thinking about the higher input costs and higher capital intensity. And so, you know, all of those fears are being priced in right now. Michelle Weaver: And we, of course though, had a bunch of these companies live with us at the conference. How are they responding to some of these risks? How are they addressing these investor concerns? Josh Baer: Most of the companies here from our coverage are the incumbent software vendors. And I think that the leadership teams did a really nice job coming out and defending their competitive moats and really articulating the story of why they are in a great position to capitalize on the opportunity. And the reasons can vary across different companies. But some of the commonalities are around enterprise grade, trust, security, governance, acceptance from IT organizations.The idea of vibe coding all apps in an organization get squashed when you actually talk to companies and chief information officers. For some companies there's proprietary data moats, network effects. All of that's on top of existing customer relationships. And so, you know, that was the message from the companies that we had. That we're the incumbents. We get to use all of the same innovative AI technology in the same way that all these different competitive buckets do. But we have, you know, that differentiation in that moat. And so, we're in a good place. Michelle Weaver: I want to wrap on a positive note. Stephen, what did you hear at the conference that you're most excited about? Stephen Byrd: I'd say the life sciences. A few investors pointed out that perhaps AI has a PR problem these days. And I do think showing a significant benefit to humanity in terms of improved health outcomes, whether that's just better diagnosis, you know. Away from this event, but I was in India the week before and, you know, AI can have a powerful benefit to the people who suffer the most in terms of providing very powerful medical tools in a distributed manner. So, I'm a big fan there.But you know, in many ways, curing the most challenging diseases plaguing humanity. The kind of problems involved in providing those and developing those cures are perfect for AI. So that, for me – stepping way back – that is by far the most exciting thing. Michelle Weaver: Josh, same to you. What are you most excited about? Josh Baer: From my perspective, it's potentially the turning point for software. The ability to showcase that we are at this inflection point and acceleration. To actually see that it takes time for our software companies to develop new AI technologies. Put that into products that have been tested and proven and go through the enterprise adoption cycle. And that we're at the cusp of more adoption – that's what our survey work says. And to see that inflection, I think can help to rerate this sector. Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, same question for you… Lindsay Tyler: Maybe I'll tie it to markets. I've already had a lot of more conversations with equity investors over the past, how many months? There's a big fixed income focus right now, which is a great, you know, spot and really interesting opportunity in my seat. And there's a lot of interesting structures coming to be right now in the credit space. So, I think it's an exciting time. Michelle Weaver: Lindsay, Stephen, Josh, thank you very much for joining to recap the event and let us know what you learned at the conference. To our audience, thank you for listening here live. And to our audience tuning in, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Live from Morgan Stanley's TMT conference, our panel break down where AI is already delivering real returns—and where rapid advances are raising new risks.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michelle Weaver: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michelle Weaver, U.S. Thematic and Equity Strategist here at Morgan Stanley.Today we've got a special episode on AI adoption. And this is a first in a two-part conversation live from our Technology, Media and Telecom conference.It's Thursday, March 5th at 11am in San Francisco.We're really excited to be here with all of you taping live. And we've got on stage with me. Stephen Byrd, he's our Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research; Josh Baer, Software Analyst; and Lindsay Tyler, TMT Credit Research Analyst.So, Stephen, I want to start with you, pretty broad, pretty high level. We recently published our fifth AI Mapping Survey that identifies how different companies are exposed to the broad AI theme. Can you just share with us some insights from that piece and how stocks are performing with this AI exposure?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, it's interesting. I mean, we've been doing this survey now, thanks to you, Michelle, and your excellent work, for quite a while. And every six months it is pretty telling to see the progression.I would say a few things that got my attention from our most recent mapping was the number of companies that are quantifying the adoption benefits continues to go up quite a bit. And to me that feels like that's going to be table stakes very soon as in every industry you see two or three companies that are really laying out quite specifically what they expect to be able to do with AI and lay out the math. I think that really is going to pull all the other companies to follow suit. So, we're seeing that in a big way.We do see adopters, with real tangible benefits performing well. But a new thing that we're seeing now, of course, in the market is concerns that in some cases adoption can lead to dramatic deflation, disruption, et cetera. That's coming up as well. So, we're seeing greater concerns around disruption as well.But broadly, I'd say a proliferation of adoption, that that universe of companies continues to grow, increases in quantification of the benefits. So, that is good. What's really surprised me though, is the narrative among investors has so quickly moved from those benefits which we've talked about into flipping that to toggle all negative, which I know some of our analysts have to deal with every day. The mapping work suggests significant benefits. But the market is fast forwarding to very powerful AI that is very disruptive in deflation. And that's been a surprise to me.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. Josh, I want to bring software into this. Your team has been arguing that AI is actually good for software. And it's really something that you need that application layer to then enable other companies to adopt AI. Can you tell us a little bit about how much GenAI could add to the broader enterprise software market? And how are you thinking about monetization these days?Josh Baer: Of course. I think the best starting place is a reminder that AI is software, and so we see software as a TAM expander. And in many ways, even though this is extremely exciting innovation, it's following past innovation trends where first you see value accrue and market cap accrue to semiconductors, and then hardware and devices, and then eventually software and services. And we do think that that absolutely will occur just given [$]3 trillion in infrastructure investment into data centers and GPUs.There's got to be an application layer that brings all of these productivity and efficiency gains to enterprises and advanced capabilities to consumers as well. And so we see AI more as an evolution for software than a revolution. An evolution of capabilities and expansion of capabilities. LLMs and diffusion engines absolutely unlocked all of these new features of what software can do. But incumbents will play a key role in this unlock.And our CIO surveys really support that. Quarterly we ask chief information officers about their spending intentions, and these application vendors who we cover in the public markets are increasingly selected as vendors that companies will go to, to help deploy and apply AI and LLM technologies.So, to answer your question, we estimate GenAI could unlock [$]400 billion in incremental TAM for software; for enterprise software by 2028. And this is based on looking at the type of work able to be automated, the labor costs associated with that work, the scope of automation, and then thinking about how much of that value is captured typically by software vendors.Michelle Weaver: And you have a bit of a different lens on AI adoption. So, what are some of the ways you're hearing software customers using these AI tools and anything interesting that popped up at the conference?Josh Baer: To echo what Stephen laid out, I mean, all of our software companies are using AI internally, both to drive efficiencies, but also to move faster. So thinking about product. Innovation, you know, the incumbents are able to use all of the same coding tools and, you know, …Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Josh Bear: … products geared to developers to move faster and more efficiently on R&D. So, they're doing more. From a sales and marketing perspective, a G&A perspective, every area of OpEx, our software companies are in a great position to deploy the AI tools internally.I think more important[ly], speaking to this TAM and expanded opportunity, is our companies have skews that they're monetizing. It might be a separate suite that incorporates advanced AI functionality. It might be a standalone offering, or it might be embedded into the core platform because the essence of software is AI and it, you know, leading to better retention rates and acceleration from here.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. And Stephen, going back to you on the state of play for AI, we had the AI labs here and we heard a lot about the developments and what's to come. So, what's your view on the trajectory for LLM advancements and what are some of the key signposts or catalysts you're watching here?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, this is for me, maybe the most important takeaway of the conference – is this continued non-linear improvement of LLMs, which we've been writing about for quite some time. And just to give you an example, we think many of the labs have achieved a step change up in terms of the compute that they have, in some cases 10 x the amount of compute to train their LLMs. And that [if] the scaling laws hold – and we see every sign that they will – a 10x increase in compute used to train the models results in about a doubling of the model capabilities.Now just let that sink in for a moment. Let's just think about that. A doubling from here in a relatively short period of time is difficult to predict. It's obviously very significant and I think several of the LLM execs at our event sounded to me extremely bullish on what that will be. A lot of that I think will be evident in greater agentic capabilities.But also, I'd say greater creativity. It was about three weeks ago, three of the best physics minds in the world worked with an LLM to achieve a true breakthrough in physics – solving a problem that had never been solved before. A couple of days ago, a math team did the same thing. And so, what we're seeing is sort of these breakthrough capabilities in creativity. This morning I thought Sam speaking to, you know, incredible increases in what these models can do – which also brings risk. You know, I think it was interesting he spoke to, you know, the risk of misalignment, the risk of what these models are doing.But for me, that's the single biggest thing that I'm thinking about, and that's going to be evident in the next several months.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm.Stephen Byrd: So, you know, on the positive side, it leads to greater benefits from AI adoption. And to Josh's point that, you know – more and more the economy can be addressed by AI, I do get concerned about the risk that that kind of step change will create greater concerns about disruption and deflation.That causes me to think a lot about that dynamic. Interestingly, we think the Chinese labs will not be able to keep pace just for one reason, which is compute. We think the Chinese labs have everything else they need. They have the talent, the infrastructure. They certainly have the energy, power. But they don't have the chips.If what we laid out with the American models turns out to be true, I could see a chain reaction where the Chinese government pushes the Trump administration for full transfer of the best technology to China. And China could use their rare earth trade position to ensure that. So, that's sort of the chain reaction I've been thinking about.Michelle Weaver: Mm-hmm. So, let's think about then bottlenecks in the U.S. Power is still one of the main bottlenecks. We had several of the solutions providers here at the conference. So, what are you thinking in terms of the size of the power bottleneck in the U.S. and how are we going to fix that?Stephen Byrd: Yeah, absolutely. I am bullish on the companies that can de-bottleneck power, not just in the U.S., a few other places. Let's go through the math in terms of the problem we face and then the solution.So, we have this very cool – it is cool if you're a nerd – power model that starts in the chip level up, from our semiconductor teams. And from that, we build a global power demand model for data centers. We then apply that to the U.S.Through 2028 we need about 74 gigawatts of data centers, both AI and non-AI to be built in the United States. I don't think we'll be able to achieve that for lots of reasons. But starting from that 74, we have sort of 10 gigs that have been recently built or are under construction. We have 15 gigs of incremental grid access, but after those two, we have to go to unconventional solutions, meaning typically off-grid solutions, over 40 gigawatts of unconventional solutions.So that will be repurposing Bitcoin sites, which could be sort of 10 to 15 gigawatts. That'll be big. Renewable energy, fuel cells will be part of the solution. Gas turbines will be a big part of the solution. Co-locating at a few nuclear plants. I'm less bullish than I used to be on that. But when we net all that out, we think the U.S. is likely to be 10 to 20 percent short of the data center capacity that will need to be in.It's not just a power grid access issue, though, that's a big one. Labor is now showing up as a huge issue. Many of the companies I speak to trying to develop data centers struggle with availability of labor. Electricians being one very tangible example. In the U.S. we need hundreds of thousands of additional electricians.So, for any of your children, like mine, thinking about careers, you know, you'd be surprised [at] the amount of money that people are making in the infrastructure business that does feel like it's a labor shift that's going to have to happen, but it's going to take years. So, in that context, we had a number of the Bitcoin companies at our event here. And the economics of turning a Bitcoin site into hosting a data center are extremely attractive. I mean, extremely attractive.To give you a sense of that. Before this opportunity presented itself to these Bitcoin players, those stocks tended to trade at an enterprise value per watt of about $1 to $2 a watt. Then we started to see these deals in which the Bitcoin players build a data center and lease them to hyperscalers. Those deals – depends a lot on the deal but – have created between $10 and $18 a watt of value. Let me repeat that. 10 to 18 – relative to where these stocks were at 1 to 2.Now many of these stocks have rerated, but not all of them. And there's still quite a bit of upside. And what we've noticed is the economics that the hyperscalers are paying are trending up and up and up. Because of this power shortage that we're dealing with. So, a lot of exciting opportunities are still in the power space.Michelle Weaver: Great. Well, I think that's a good place to wrap this first part of our conversation around AI adoption and the state of play. We'll be back again tomorrow with Part Two, looking at financing and risks.To our panelists, thank you for talking with me. And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

My guest today is Kristin Olson, Global Head of Alternatives for Wealth at Goldman Sachs. Last year she was named one of the 100 Most Influential Women in US Finance by Barron's. In today's episode, Kristin discusses the explosive growth of the alternatives market over the past decade. She explains what has driven interest from individual investors, particularly millennials, and touches on recent volatility within software and private credit BDCs. Finally, she shares her expectations for the 2026 IPO market, the potential for renewed interest in hedge funds, and how AI is set to reshape sourcing, underwriting, and portfolio construction. (0:00) Starts (1:31) Introduction of Kristin Olson (3:16) Evolution of alternative investments (10:19) Secondary strategies (13:05) Private equity alpha and liquidity concerns (19:13) Private credit market concerns (22:29) Manager selection and due diligence (24:17) Non-traditional investments and hedge fund interest (27:17) Millennial interest in alternatives (31:40) Infrastructure and global opportunities ----- Follow Meb on X, LinkedIn and YouTube For detailed show notes, click here To learn more about our funds and follow us, subscribe to our mailing list or visit us at cambriainvestments.com ----- Sponsor: Register for Alpha Architect's LIVE HIDE webinar on March 26th ⁠here⁠. Want to Learn More about Alpha Architect? Visit ⁠www.funds.alphaarchitect.com ⁠Follow The Idea Farm: X | LinkedIn | Instagram | TikTok ----- Interested in sponsoring the show? Email us at Feedback@TheMebFaberShow.com ----- Past guests include Ed Thorp, Richard Thaler, Jeremy Grantham, Joel Greenblatt, Campbell Harvey, Ivy Zelman, Kathryn Kaminski, Jason Calacanis, Whitney Baker, Aswath Damodaran, Howard Marks, Tom Barton, and many more.  ----- Meb's invested in some awesome startups that have passed along discounts to our listeners. Check them out here! ----- Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The study will examine a dietary supplement and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy.

Today on The Craft Room Podcast, let's talk about something that most crafters will probably consider at some point in their lives … a no spend year. Sometimes it's a month, a quarter, six months … but most commonly I see people setting this goal for a whole year. It might sound drastic, even unthinkable to some, but in this economy, especially with the rising prices of craft supplies, there are plenty of people doing a no-spend year. I'm not trying to talk anyone into such a dramatic situation, and, of course, there are some alternatives, so let's talk about the difference between a no spend, low spend and mindful spend year, the reasons you might consider them, and how you can succeed at such a challenge. If you've never heard of a no-spend year, the goal is to spend zero dollars on non-essential items for a full calendar year. On TikTok I see a lot of people doing this specifically for fashion, beauty products or home decor, but as this is a crafting podcast, we are talking about spending zero dollars on craft supplies. There are a lot of reasons why someone might go no-spend, usually falling into one of two categories … voluntary or involuntary. For involuntary, it's usually due to a lack of finances, but I have known people forced to stop their retail therapy due to a lack of space, downsizing or moving house, travel or loss of employment. For voluntary, again, there could be any number of reasons … including a change in lifestyle, lack of time, change of craft preference, injury or illness, change in family dynamics, personal challenge or even a dare. Whatever your reason, if you are considering a no-spend year, there are some things you can do to set yourself up for success. 1. Create your roadmap 2.Assess your craft stash 3. Set the Rules 4. Remove Temptation 5. Have a support person 6. Gamify it 7. Look for freebies So, what if you're not doing a no-spend year, but I've piqued your interest with low-spend or mindful spending. Let's talk about those. Low spend and mindful spend are different, financially speaking, but often go hand-in-hand. Let's talk Low spend Usually the goal here is to spend less than you have been spending, and it might be voluntary (to redirect money to something else) or involuntary (like retirement). In order to spend less, you kind of need to know what you have been spending, and from my experience of owning an online craft store for 11 years, a lot of people are … hesitant … to add up their receipts. They just don't want to know, but knowledge is power. So even if it's difficult, I do recommend you at least get a ballpark figure from your Paypal or bank statements.  Then you have some decisions to make. Are you going to set a firm budget for the year or per month? Or are you aiming to generally spend less than you usually would? Are you going to buy essentials only? Just like with a no-spend year, knowing why you're doing this, and what success is going to look like for you will be helpful. Mindful Spending Mindful spending is less about budgeting and saving money, and more about taking time to consider the purchase. Essentially, it's a pause. When you take a little time to truly consider what you are buying, and how it fits into your existing collection, as well as your current crafting habits, you are exercising mindful spending. Doing a full audit of your craft supplies before starting will help. If you have it in you to catalogue your supplies, even better. Each time you're adding to cart, you can refer to your catalog, or check your stash, and see if you already have something that will do the same job. Sometimes the way we shop for craft supplies changes with our financial situation, our phase of life, or general interest in a particular craft. Sometimes it's unexpected and we have to react on the fly. Sometimes we can spot patterns, and adjust accordingly. Sometimes it's an epiphany, a life changing event or new information. Whatever your situation, if you find yourself staring down the barrel of a no-spend period of time, I hope that these tips help you achieve success, whatever that looks like for you. Happy crafting, and I will see you next time. LINKS Episode 44 Blog Post (with transcript)Sign up for newsletterOne Sheet Wonder Template Free 6" x 6" card making template Benable budget crafting boardRule of Three NotepadCards on Time productsOnline Courses & Classes Birthday Card address bookWhat to Write Inside Birthday Cards bookWhat to Write Inside Cards for All Occasions

In this episode of the Global Thinking Podcast, host Rob Duncan sits down with Nimar Bangesh of Obsiido to unpack one of the most infuriating developments in Canadian investing this year: fund gating.   After years of rapid growth, private markets have become mainstream in Canadian portfolios. But recent gating events have forced investors to confront a hard truth — liquidity in alternatives isn't guaranteed. Is this simply how private markets are designed to function, or is it a warning sign that investor expectations have drifted too far from reality?   Rob and Nimar break down the evolution of alternatives in Canada, the role they play in portfolio construction, and where the risks may be hiding. They explore whether the industry oversold accessibility, how advisors should think about sizing and liquidity management, and whether this moment marks a structural shift in how private investments are packaged and sold.   From private credit crowding to valuation pressures and de-globalization, this conversation goes beyond headlines to tackle the deeper issues shaping alternatives today and why a thorough due diligence process is more important than ever.   If you think alternatives are a free lunch — this episode may change your mind.   Speakers Nimar Bangesh, Co-Founder and CEO, Obsiido https://www.obsiido.com/    Chapters 01:23 Guest Background and the Genesis of Obsiido 04:03 The Evolution of Private Markets and Accessibility 06:52 Understanding Alternatives: Definitions and Structures 09:48 Liquidity and Governance in Alternatives 11:35 Changes in the Canadian Alternative Landscape 15:46 Why Alternatives Exist: Capital Market Construction 20:01 Benefits of Alternatives: Diversification and Return Enhancement 21:27 Common Misunderstandings About Alternatives 23:02 Resources to Learn More About Alternatives 26:29 Impact of Capital Abundance on Private Companies 27:08 Market Gating and Liquidity Challenges 30:25 The Role of Gating in Private Markets 38:14 Building a Portfolio: Strategies and Best Practices 41:52 Diversification and Manager Selection in Alternatives 43:52 The Future of Private Capital and Market Trends 45:26 Private Companies Staying Private Longer 46:13 Red Flags in Private Market Dealings 48:09 Final Remarks and Future Outlook 50:46 Book Recommendations and Closing Thoughts   Disclosures: https://forstrong.com/disclosures/    Global Thinking Podcast Series - https://forstrong.com/podcast/    Global Thinking Insights - https://forstrong.com/insights/    Who is Forstrong Global - https://forstrong.com/who-we-are/    Ask Forstrong - https://forstrong.com/category/ask-forstrong/    Invest With Us - https://forstrong.com/invest-with-us/     Thank for you listening, please considering leaving a review and subscribing for future episodes.   For any questions, comments or suggested topics please reach out to Rob Duncan, rduncan@forstrong.com  

Our Deputy Global Head of Research Michael Zezas and Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore assess the potential market outcomes of the Middle East conflict, weighing its possible duration and economic impact.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Global Head of Research. Ariana Salvatore: And I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Michael Zezas: Today we're discussing the escalating U.S.-Iran conflict, the market reaction, and what investors should be watching for next. It's Wednesday, March 4th at 7:30am in San Francisco. Ariana Salvatore: And 10:30am in New York. Michael Zezas: So, Ariana, I'm in San Francisco at Morgan Stanley's TMT Conference, but obviously events in the Middle East have captured everyone's attention. There's uncertainty around the conflict and really important questions about how it affects all of us. And of course, markets have to discount all sorts of future uncertainty about very specific impacts – to financial asset prices, to commodity prices – and really look at it through that narrow lens.And so, Ariana, the administration has suggested that this conflict and this campaign could last a few weeks. But also it said it could continue as long as it takes. So, what are the clearest signals investors should watch for to gauge duration? Ariana Salvatore: For now, we're focused on three main indicators. First, I would say, and most important, is clarity around the objectives. The president and others in the administration have referenced things like eliminating Iran's missile arsenal, its navy and limiting proxy activity. Those goals are broader than the earlier focus on just the nuclear programs. Each objective, of course, implies a different timeline. A narrower objective likely means a shorter engagement. Broader ambitions, conversely, would extend it. So that's the first thing. Second, obviously extremely important is traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. We'd viewed a full closure as unlikely, given the economic consequences for Iran itself. But tanker flows have at least temporarily fallen close to zero, and that's significant because production across the region has not been impaired. This is not about oil fields going offline. It's about whether or not oil can actually move. If shipping lanes normalize within weeks, markets can recalibrate. However, if flows remain materially curtailed beyond five weeks, the risks rise meaningfully. Third, the frequency of strikes and proxy activity. Sustained or escalating engagement would suggest a longer conflict. Signs of diplomacy, on the other hand, might indicate de-escalation. Michael Zezas: Right. So, let's build on that and talk about oil. And our colleague, Martijn Rats has really laid this out with a lot of different scenarios. But what we're seeing right now is that when it comes to oil, this is really a shock to the transport of it, not necessarily a shock to its production. So, oil supply exists. The question is really – can it be delivered or not? So, if tanker flows normalize and the geopolitical risk premium fades, what Martijn is saying is that global oil prices could move back towards $60 to $65 a barrel. If the logistical disruption lasts four to five weeks, then prices maybe trade in the $75 to $80 range. And if disruption extends beyond five weeks and flows are materially constrained, then you could see a situation where oil prices have to rise towards $120 or $130 a barrel. And at that level, demand destruction is what becomes the balancing mechanism in setting price for oil. So, one signal to watch is longer dated oil prices. Early month contracts can spike during geopolitical stress, but a sustained move materially above $80 to $85 [per] barrel would likely require longer dated prices to move higher as well. And that might signal that markets believe the disruption is persistent and not temporary. Ariana, what about natural gas here? How does gas situation fit into the energy story? Ariana Salvatore: As of this recording, Qatar has halted liquified natural gas production putting roughly 20 percent of global supply at risk. Prices have, as you might expect, risen sharply, which likely reflects expectations of a relatively short disruption. If exports were to resume quickly, prices could retrace. But, of course, if the outage lasts longer, prices could move meaningfully higher. Again, duration of the conflict is really critical here. Michael Zezas: So, let's bring this back to the U.S. Ariana, how does this conflict feed into the domestic, political and economic backdrop? Ariana Salvatore: When we're thinking about the midterm elections later this year, the way we see it, the clearest transmission channel is gasoline prices. Polling shows a majority of Americans oppose military action related to Iran, but voters typically prioritize domestic issues: things like inflation, cost of living, affordability over foreign policy. However, there's a very clear caveat here. If oil prices stay elevated, gasoline prices rise, and that's where this becomes politically more salient. Michael Zezas: Right, and so our economists and our chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen has been all over this. And the way he assesses it is if oil prices remain about 10 percent higher than where they were before the conflict for several months, headline inflation would likely rise by 0.3 percent before dissipating. Historically, oil price shocks primarily affect headline inflation rather than underlying inflation. That's an important distinction that they point out. So maybe that could delay Federal Reserve rate cuts, even if policymakers ultimately look through the move. But if oil prices rise enough to weaken economic activity, particularly in the labor market or consumer spending, then our economists say the Fed could pivot toward easing despite elevated inflation. Ariana Salvatore: So, given that backdrop, what's the simple takeaway for investors in stocks or bonds? Michael Zezas: Right. So, I think we have to think about this in terms of duration of conflict and economic impact. So, if tanker flows normalize within a few weeks and oil prices move back towards that $60 to $65 range, then our economists are saying economic damage would be limited. And historically geopolitical events alone have not led to sustained volatility for U.S. equities. So, in that environment, our cross-asset team points out that stocks would likely remain supported. If instead, oil prices remain elevated long enough to push inflation higher and weigh on growth, the picture would change. A sharp and persistent rise in oil prices – that can pose a risk to the duration of the business cycle, and in that scenario, we'd expect stocks to struggle. Importantly, bonds may not provide the same diversification benefit if inflation remains sticky as a consequence of all of this. We could see stock and bond prices move in the same direction. That could challenge traditional balanced portfolios. Ariana Salvatore: And what are we seeing specifically in U.S. Treasury markets? Michael Zezas: So, as Matt Hornbach and our global macro strategy team have pointed out here, you've got two competing forces in the U.S. Treasury market. There's been some demand for safety, but investors are also focused on the risk that higher oil prices would lift inflation. So far, inflation concerns have taken precedence over growth concerns. How long that balance holds – that might depend on incoming data, especially labor market data. If you get weaker labor market data suggesting that growth could weaken, then you could see treasuries rally more meaningfully and yields come down. If you don't see that and inflation concerns dominate, then maybe you're not going to see yields come down as much. And bonds rally as much. Ariana Salvatore: So, stepping back, it seems like the key variables remain tanker traffic, longer dated oil prices and duration of the conflict itself. Michael Zezas: I think that's right. Ariana, thanks for speaking with me. Ariana Salvatore: Always a pleasure, Mike. Michael Zezas: And thanks to our listeners for joining us. We'll continue tracking developments and what they mean for markets. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague.Important note regarding economic sanctions. This report references jurisdictions which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

In this episode we answer emails from Connor, Zachary and Brian.  We discuss fund selection, doing the Big Law dance, portfolio construction basics and analyzing alternatives, and a partial retirement drawdown scenario involving early withdrawals, avoiding temptations to market time based on recent performances and funding a vacation property with a dedicated portfolio.But first we thank donors supporting Fairfax CASA and share Jillian Johnsrud's moving story about adoption, foster care, and how a steadfast CASA changed her kids' lives.Links:Fairfax CASA Donation Page:  Donate - Fairfax CASAFather McKenna Center Donation Page:  Donate - Father McKenna Center"Retire Often" by Jillian Johnsrud:  Book | Retire OftenBridgewater Paper Describing the Four Quadrant Model:  Microsoft Word - 2009.12 AW Info Pack.docBlog Article Describing Risk Parity Principles and the Four Quadrant Model:  15 Uncorrelated Assets | SSiSVideo Describing Correlations of Alternatives (start timestamp 1:10): iMGP DBi Managed Futures Strategy ETF Update with Andrew Beer | January 2026Breathless AI-Bot Summary:  A single constant can change a child's life. That's the heart of Jillian Johnsrud's adoption and CASA story, where a determined CASA volunteer carried the full thread of her kids' journey through seven case managers and years of upheaval. We open with gratitude for Fairfax CASA donors and a candid look at what Court Appointed Special Advocates really do: show up, remember, advocate, and persist in an unreasonably hard job that needs every ounce of support we can give.From there we pivot to the questions you care about. We unpack why SCHG works fine as a large cap growth sleeve and then dive into a pragmatic guide to risk parity. Using a four-quadrant map of growth and inflation, we explain how to pair equities with long-term Treasuries, gold, and managed futures to raise safe withdrawal rates without pretending to predict the future. You'll hear how uncorrelated return streams and disciplined rebalancing—Shannon's Demon in action—turn volatility into a feature, not a bug. We also draw a bright line between true diversifiers and crowded “alts” that secretly track stocks.We get tactical: how to treat accounts as one portfolio while keeping extra liquidity in taxable during a low-stress, lower-income phase; when to tax-gain harvest; and why tilting heavily into whatever just outperformed (gold now, bonds avoided) is classic recency bias. For those juggling work and life pivots, Frank shares hard-won Big Law advice: build stamina, communicate clearly, be relentlessly reliable, and stay curious as practice areas shift. Finally, we brainstorm a small, dedicated portfolio to fund a shared family vacation home, and why this sandbox is perfect for testing a slightly higher equity mix you can always top up.If this resonates, help us amplify the work of Fairfax CASA, then subscribe, share the episode with a friend who's rethinking their allocation, and leave a quick review so more DIY investors can find the show. Your support keeps the conversation smart, practical, and focused on what actually works.Support the show

Synopsis:   From Resistance to Revolution How Communities Are Creating a New Economy This show is made possible by you! To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donate Description: People across the country are resisting authoritarianism in creative and powerful ways, and this is just the start. The folks at The People's Network for Land & Liberation (PNLL) say the forces that got us here are bigger than one bad leader; entire systems must be taken down. Building a brighter future requires a vision of economic and social justice — and lots of practice. Today on Laura Flanders & Friends, we look at some of those practical experiments and paths for radical change, and discuss why they're just as important as resistance. The members of PNLL, a multiracial, multiethnic consortium of six community-based organizations, are doing politics and economics differently in real places across the U.S. right now. Joining us are Edget Betru, an attorney, activist and Coordinator of the People's Network for Land & Liberation; David Cobb, PNLL staff person and Co-coordinator of the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network; and Blair Evans, Founder and Executive Director of Incite Focus, a production and training lab based in Idlewild, Michigan. Find out how to build for the future — even in the toughest circumstances. All that, plus a commentary from Laura on William Morris's News From Nowhere. “We've been colonized in our minds . . . Involving people in day-to-day produce, meeting their needs through a different way, through thinking, Hey, who in my neighborhood knows how to fix this? . . . It's really that shift in consciousness that needs to happen that's going to allow for this new economy to emerge.” - Edget Betru “My mama and my mamaw and my papa who raised me taught me a lesson as a little boy, and that is, there's enough to go around as long as we share. That made sense to me when I was five years old. It makes sense to me now when I'm 63 years old. There's enough to go around as long as we share. It's just as simple as that.” - David Cobb “We can make things that make things, we can design and build our own equipment that can then use locally sourced materials, hyper localizing the supply chain . . . We can stop feeding the monster that's consuming us and actually disconnect from that process and use what we have.” - Blair Evans Guests: • Edget Betru: Coordinator, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Board Member, Community Movement Builders • David Cobb: Staff, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Manager, Butterfly Impact Fund; Co-Coordinator, U.S. Solidarity Economy Network • Blair Evans: Coalition Member, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Founder & Executive Director, Incite Focus; Designer & Trainer, Fab Lab   Watch on YouTube this episode that includes video clips referenced in this episode from Third World Newsreel; PBS World Channel 11:30am ET Sundays and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio (check here to see if your station airs the show). Full Conversation Release: While our weekly shows are edited to time for broadcast on Public TV and community radio, we offer to our members and podcast subscribers the full uncut conversation.  Music Credit:  "Solace" by Antibalas from their album Hourglass released on Daptone Records, 'Steppin' by Podington Bear, and original sound design by Jeannie Hopper Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriends   RESOURCES:   Full Episode Notes are located HERE. *Recommended book: “Beautiful Solutions: A Toolbox for Liberation”, Learn More Here* (*Bookshop is an online bookstore with a mission to financially support local, independent bookstores. The LF Show is an affiliate of bookshop.org and will receive a small commission if you click through and make a purchase.)   Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes: •  Jackson Rising: Creating the Mondragon of the South: Watch •  Resisting Trump & Authoritarianism: The “Beautiful Solutions” Toolbox:  Watch / Listen •  Community Wealth Building: An Economic Reset: Watch / Listen:  Full Uncut Conversation and Episode Cut Related Articles and Resources: •  Community Movement Builders' Community Sea Moss Cooperative •  Tale of the Tape:  An Expert Weighs In on the ‘Cop City' Bodycam Footage, by Madeline Thigpen, February 15, 2023, Capital B • Cooperation Jackson, The Build and Fight Educational Series •  The Butterfly Effect Fund •  Cooperation Vermont, Seeding the Alternatives for the Future •  Cooperation Vermont Buys Former Rainbow Sweets Building, by Paul Fixx, February 4, 2025, The Hardwick Gazette • Incite Focus, where ideas and imagination meet inspiration and innovation •  Wellspring Cooperative, building a just and sustainable economy, one co-op at a time •  U.S. Solidarity Economy Network (US SEN) Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design, Narrator; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Menopause Mastery Show | Starting HRT After 65: Is It Too Late? Transdermal Estrogen and Bone, Sleep & Dementia Risk   Welcome to Menopause Mastery! In this episode, Dr. Betty Murray examines whether starting menopausal hormone therapy after age 65 is always unsafe, arguing that blanket "no" answers stem from an evidence vacuum and fear following the 2002 Women's Health Initiative (WHI), which used oral conjugated equine estrogen and synthetic progestins.    Dr. Murray contrasts oral therapy's first-pass liver metabolism and clotting risk with transdermal bioidentical estradiol, which has observational and retrospective data (including a large Medicare analysis) associated with no increased DVT, stroke, or heart attack risk. She highlights evidence for fracture reduction and maintained vertebral bone density with long-term therapy, discusses sleep benefits (a modifiable dementia risk factor), notes limited cognitive trials in older starters, and emphasizes individualized risk assessment (cardiovascular screening, genetics like APOE4) and monitoring; she also recommends vaginal estrogen to reduce UTIs and urosepsis risk.    This episode is for women who feel they may have missed their window on starting HRT, and why it may not be too late. In fact, women of all ages will benefit from this information, so don't forget to share it with someone you know!    00:00 HRT After 65 02:36 The Evidence Vacuum 04:55 Myth of the Window 06:27 WHI vs Modern Estrogen 08:36 Transdermal Safety Data 10:08 Why Observational Counts 14:51 Risk Math in Your 70s 19:32 Bone Density Benefits 23:08 Sleep and ApoE4 24:30 APOE4 Risk Basics 25:07 Sleep as Brain Protection 25:55 Transdermal Estrogen for Sleep 27:12 Insomnia Raises Dementia Risk 28:22 Personalizing HRT for Sleep 30:03 Cardiovascular Risks and Screening 34:56 Evidence Gaps and WHI Context 38:38 APOE4 Sleep and Estradiol Link 40:09 Decision Framework Over 65 43:08 Monitoring and Follow Up 45:47 Alternatives and Tradeoffs 48:16 Vaginal Estrogen and Wrap Up   Connect with Dr. Betty Murray:  Betty Murray Website: https://www.bettymurray.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drbettymurray/   Like, comment, and subscribe on YouTube:  @drbettymurray     Links:  The Fierce Female Method for Longevity (Dr. Betty's book): https://fierce.hormoneshelp.com/  Menrva Telemedicine: https://gethormonesnow.com/  FREE Hormone Quiz: https://bit.ly/3wNJOec  Living Well Dallas: https://www.livingwelldallas.com/  Hormone Reset: https://hormonereset.net/   More from the Podcast:  Subscribe to #MenopauseMastery → https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwONPdSvb2-YYY74VhD-XBw  Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/menopause-mastery/id1607369247  Spotify → https://open.spotify.com/show/0tNsjm32CZNXSgSFEwS3uH   Thank you for listening to Menopause Mastery. Empowering your health journey, one episode at a time.  

With recent dissatisfaction around Roblox's chat and safety changes, Adam and Fedor explore if alternatives like Fortnite's UEFN or Polytoria could ever take its crown. They break down the "identity crisis" holding UEFN back and the chicken-and-egg problem facing smaller nostalgic platforms.Episode 19Sources:- Fortnite Going All-In on UGC but Chasing Roblox: https://www.platformaeronaut.com/p/fortnite-going-all-in-on-ugc-but- Unreal Engine GDC 2025 Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dF1Q7FDBfGw- Polytoria: https://polytoria.com/home- Polytoria Documentation: https://docs.polytoria.com/- Reddit: Why Polytoria (and every other Roblox clone) is doomed to fail: https://www.reddit.com/r/roblox/comments/1qw67t6/why_polytoria_and_every_other_roblox_clone_is/Hosts:- Adam (BanTech): https://lastlevel.co.uk/adam- Fedor (LoadingL0n3ly): https://x.com/LoadingL0n3ly----------------------------Watch or listen wherever you get your podcasts.Visit https://lastlevel.co.uk/podcast for more.Join the Discord: https://discord.lastlevel.co.ukBeyond The Blox is produced by Seb Jensen for Last Level Studios.----------------------------Chapters:(00:00) Intro(01:29) Exploring UEFN as an Alternative(08:08) Fortnite's Identity Crisis(15:45) Discovery Problems on UEFN(23:43) Fortnite vs Roblox by the Numbers(27:13) Polytoria: The Hobbyist Alternative(34:45) The Cost of Running a UGC Platform(41:39) Will AAA Studios Build a Competitor?(47:07) Outro

The MacVoices Live! panel continues to examine Apple's latest hardware news. This time,Chuck Joiner, David Ginsburg, Brian Flanigan-Arthurs, Marty Jencius, Jeff Gamet, Eric Bolden, Web Bixby, and Jim Rea examine the refreshed Studio XDR display, an M4 iPad Air update, and the iPhone 17e. The crew debates whether premium displays justify their cost, why “pro” products struggle with mainstream perception, and how the iPad Air fits real workflows. They also praise the 17e's value, especially MagSafe and higher base storage, and speculate that rising base specs may be preparing for a smarter Siri.  This edition of MacVoices is supported by MacVoices Magazine, our free magazine on Flipboard. Updated daily with the best articles on the web to help you do more with your Apple gear and adjacent tech, access MacVoices Magazine content on Flipboard, on the web, or in your favorite RSS reader. Show Notes: Chapters: 00:00 Opening and topics preview00:11 Support message and transition to announcements00:35 New Studio XDR: specs and the “monitor market” question01:36 Price vs. value: who should buy an XDR?02:42 Alternatives and real-world studio display satisfaction03:36 Stands, VESA mounts, and Apple pricing quirks04:28 “Gorgeous, but…” comparing to other high-end displays04:55 Pro reference monitors vs. consumer expectations06:16 Apple stepping back from the pro display space06:38 Mac Pro vs. Mac Studio: is the tower era over?09:41 “Studio” devices as the new pro lineup10:06 Laptops as pro machines and Thunderbolt expandability11:12 TV pricing collapse and why specialty stores quit TVs14:46 M4 iPad Air announcement: what changed and why15:00 Press reactions and positioning vs. iPad Pro16:08 Real-world cost build-up with keyboards/cellular17:25 iPad Air use cases: consumption, value, and longevity20:13 iPhone 17e: why coverage is surprisingly positive22:19 17 vs. 17e: display/camera tradeoffs, MagSafe returns23:44 Storage bump and expected sales impact25:59 Who the 17e is for—and who's waiting for the Fold30:10 A “modem phone” use case and privacy hopes31:32 iPad Pro in daily workflow: Notes + iCloud33:18 “Base specs” theory: preparing for the next Siri35:28 Timing, memory pressure, and avoiding future backlash37:14 Wrap-up and credits Links: Apple announces Studio Display XDR with 120Hz refresh rate, mini-LED, morehttps://9to5mac.com/2026/03/03/apple-announces-studio-display-xdr-with-120hz-refresh-rate-mini-led-more/ Apple Unveils iPad Air With M4 Chip, Increased RAM, Wi-Fi 7, and Morehttps://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/02/apple-announces-ipad-air-with-m4-chip/ Apple officially announces iPhone 17e with MagSafe, 256GB storage, morehttps://9to5mac.com/2026/03/02/apple-officially-announces-iphone-17e-with-magsafe-256gb-storage-more/ Guests:   Web Bixby has been in the insurance business for 40 years and has been an Apple user for longer than that.You can catch up with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, but prefers Bluesky. Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him on Twitter, by email at embolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast. Brian Flanigan-Arthurs is an educator with a passion for providing results-driven, innovative learning strategies for all students, but particularly those who are at-risk. He is also a tech enthusiast who has a particular affinity for Apple since he first used the Apple IIGS as a student. You can contact Brian on twitter as @brian8944. He also recently opened a Mastodon account at @brian8944@mastodon.cloud. Jeff Gamet is a technology blogger, podcaster, author, and public speaker. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's Managing Editor, and the TextExpander Evangelist for Smile. He has presented at Macworld Expo, RSA Conference, several WordCamp events, along with many other conferences. You can find him on several podcasts such as The Mac Show, The Big Show, MacVoices, Mac OS Ken, This Week in iOS, and more. Jeff is easy to find on social media as @jgamet on Twitter and Instagram, jeffgamet on LinkedIn., @jgamet@mastodon.social on Mastodon, and on his YouTube Channel at YouTube.com/jgamet. David Ginsburg is the host of the weekly podcast In Touch With iOS where he discusses all things iOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and related technologies. He is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users. Visit his YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/daveg65 and find and follow him on Twitter @daveg65 and on Mastodon at @daveg65@mastodon.cloud. Dr. Marty Jencius has been an Associate Professor of Counseling at Kent State University since 2000. He has over 120 publications in books, chapters, journal articles, and others, along with 200 podcasts related to counseling, counselor education, and faculty life. His technology interest led him to develop the counseling profession ‘firsts,' including listservs, a web-based peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Technology in Counseling, teaching and conferencing in virtual worlds as the founder of Counselor Education in Second Life, and podcast founder/producer of CounselorAudioSource.net and ThePodTalk.net. Currently, he produces a podcast about counseling and life questions, the Circular Firing Squad, and digital video interviews with legacies capturing the history of the counseling field. This is also co-host of The Vision ProFiles podcast. Generally, Marty is chasing the newest tech trends, which explains his interest in A.I. for teaching, research, and productivity. Marty is an active presenter and past president of the NorthEast Ohio Apple Corp (NEOAC). Jim Rea built his own computer from scratch in 1975, started programming in 1977, and has been an independent Mac developer continuously since 1984. He is the founder of ProVUE Development, and the author of Panorama X, ProVUE's ultra fast RAM based database software for the macOS platform. He's been a speaker at MacTech, MacWorld Expo and other industry conferences. Follow Jim at provue.com and via @provuejim@techhub.social on Mastodon. Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon     http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:     http://macvoices.com      Twitter:     http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner     http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:     https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:     http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:     https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:     https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes     Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

Google officially retired its workhorse analytics platform, affectionately known as Universal Analytics, almost 3 years ago. Since then, people have started to learn about other platforms as they scrambled to find something more useful than GA4.Jason Packer wrote the book on Google Analytics alternatives (literally, it's titled "Google Analytics Alternatives: A Guide to Navigating the World if Options Beyond Google").Here's what we think of the analytics landscape - how we got here, and what's coming next.Links from the show:(eBook) Google Analytics Alternatives(paperback) Google Analytics Alternatives01:29 Universal Analytics Sunset02:31 Meet Jason Packer05:53 Jasons Early Web Days10:20 Why Analytics Matters13:05 Fragmentation vs Consolidation17:22 GA4 as Ads Companion21:13 Googles Motives23:50 GA4 Pain Points24:32 Why Users Are Leaving26:51 Privacy Compliance Pressure29:33 Top GA4 Alternatives30:15 Simplified Analytics Tools32:06 Product Analytics Picks35:38 Comprehensive Web Platforms36:42 Future of Analytics AI42:23 MCP, LLMs and Trust49:49 Closing Insight and Wrap

The MacVoices Live! panel continues to examine Apple's latest hardware news. This time,Chuck Joiner, David Ginsburg, Brian Flanigan-Arthurs, Marty Jencius, Jeff Gamet, Eric Bolden, Web Bixby, and Jim Rea examine the refreshed Studio XDR display, an M4 iPad Air update, and the iPhone 17e. The crew debates whether premium displays justify their cost, why "pro" products struggle with mainstream perception, and how the iPad Air fits real workflows. They also praise the 17e's value, especially MagSafe and higher base storage, and speculate that rising base specs may be preparing for a smarter Siri.  This edition of MacVoices is supported by MacVoices Magazine, our free magazine on Flipboard. Updated daily with the best articles on the web to help you do more with your Apple gear and adjacent tech, access MacVoices Magazine content on Flipboard, on the web, or in your favorite RSS reader. Show Notes: Chapters: 00:00 Opening and topics preview 00:11 Support message and transition to announcements 00:35 New Studio XDR: specs and the "monitor market" question 01:36 Price vs. value: who should buy an XDR? 02:42 Alternatives and real-world studio display satisfaction 03:36 Stands, VESA mounts, and Apple pricing quirks 04:28 "Gorgeous, but…" comparing to other high-end displays 04:55 Pro reference monitors vs. consumer expectations 06:16 Apple stepping back from the pro display space 06:38 Mac Pro vs. Mac Studio: is the tower era over? 09:41 "Studio" devices as the new pro lineup 10:06 Laptops as pro machines and Thunderbolt expandability 11:12 TV pricing collapse and why specialty stores quit TVs 14:46 M4 iPad Air announcement: what changed and why 15:00 Press reactions and positioning vs. iPad Pro 16:08 Real-world cost build-up with keyboards/cellular 17:25 iPad Air use cases: consumption, value, and longevity 20:13 iPhone 17e: why coverage is surprisingly positive 22:19 17 vs. 17e: display/camera tradeoffs, MagSafe returns 23:44 Storage bump and expected sales impact 25:59 Who the 17e is for—and who's waiting for the Fold 30:10 A "modem phone" use case and privacy hopes 31:32 iPad Pro in daily workflow: Notes + iCloud 33:18 "Base specs" theory: preparing for the next Siri 35:28 Timing, memory pressure, and avoiding future backlash 37:14 Wrap-up and credits Links: Apple announces Studio Display XDR with 120Hz refresh rate, mini-LED, more https://9to5mac.com/2026/03/03/apple-announces-studio-display-xdr-with-120hz-refresh-rate-mini-led-more/ Apple Unveils iPad Air With M4 Chip, Increased RAM, Wi-Fi 7, and More https://www.macrumors.com/2026/03/02/apple-announces-ipad-air-with-m4-chip/ Apple officially announces iPhone 17e with MagSafe, 256GB storage, more https://9to5mac.com/2026/03/02/apple-officially-announces-iphone-17e-with-magsafe-256gb-storage-more/ Guests:   Web Bixby has been in the insurance business for 40 years and has been an Apple user for longer than that.You can catch up with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, but prefers Bluesky. Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him on Twitter, by email at embolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast. Brian Flanigan-Arthurs is an educator with a passion for providing results-driven, innovative learning strategies for all students, but particularly those who are at-risk. He is also a tech enthusiast who has a particular affinity for Apple since he first used the Apple IIGS as a student. You can contact Brian on twitter as @brian8944. He also recently opened a Mastodon account at @brian8944@mastodon.cloud. Jeff Gamet is a technology blogger, podcaster, author, and public speaker. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's Managing Editor, and the TextExpander Evangelist for Smile. He has presented at Macworld Expo, RSA Conference, several WordCamp events, along with many other conferences. You can find him on several podcasts such as The Mac Show, The Big Show, MacVoices, Mac OS Ken, This Week in iOS, and more. Jeff is easy to find on social media as @jgamet on Twitter and Instagram, jeffgamet on LinkedIn., @jgamet@mastodon.social on Mastodon, and on his YouTube Channel at YouTube.com/jgamet. David Ginsburg is the host of the weekly podcast In Touch With iOS where he discusses all things iOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and related technologies. He is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users. Visit his YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/daveg65 and find and follow him on Twitter @daveg65 and on Mastodon at @daveg65@mastodon.cloud. Dr. Marty Jencius has been an Associate Professor of Counseling at Kent State University since 2000. He has over 120 publications in books, chapters, journal articles, and others, along with 200 podcasts related to counseling, counselor education, and faculty life. His technology interest led him to develop the counseling profession 'firsts,' including listservs, a web-based peer-reviewed journal, The Journal of Technology in Counseling, teaching and conferencing in virtual worlds as the founder of Counselor Education in Second Life, and podcast founder/producer of CounselorAudioSource.net and ThePodTalk.net. Currently, he produces a podcast about counseling and life questions, the Circular Firing Squad, and digital video interviews with legacies capturing the history of the counseling field. This is also co-host of The Vision ProFiles podcast. Generally, Marty is chasing the newest tech trends, which explains his interest in A.I. for teaching, research, and productivity. Marty is an active presenter and past president of the NorthEast Ohio Apple Corp (NEOAC). Jim Rea built his own computer from scratch in 1975, started programming in 1977, and has been an independent Mac developer continuously since 1984. He is the founder of ProVUE Development, and the author of Panorama X, ProVUE's ultra fast RAM based database software for the macOS platform. He's been a speaker at MacTech, MacWorld Expo and other industry conferences. Follow Jim at provue.com and via @provuejim@techhub.social on Mastodon. Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:      http://macvoices.com      Twitter:      http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

Menopause Mastery Show | Starting HRT After 65: Is It Too Late? Transdermal Estrogen and Bone, Sleep & Dementia Risk   Welcome to Menopause Mastery! In this episode, Dr. Betty Murray examines whether starting menopausal hormone therapy after age 65 is always unsafe, arguing that blanket "no" answers stem from an evidence vacuum and fear following the 2002 Women's Health Initiative (WHI), which used oral conjugated equine estrogen and synthetic progestins.    Dr. Murray contrasts oral therapy's first-pass liver metabolism and clotting risk with transdermal bioidentical estradiol, which has observational and retrospective data (including a large Medicare analysis) associated with no increased DVT, stroke, or heart attack risk. She highlights evidence for fracture reduction and maintained vertebral bone density with long-term therapy, discusses sleep benefits (a modifiable dementia risk factor), notes limited cognitive trials in older starters, and emphasizes individualized risk assessment (cardiovascular screening, genetics like APOE4) and monitoring; she also recommends vaginal estrogen to reduce UTIs and urosepsis risk.    This episode is for women who feel they may have missed their window on starting HRT, and why it may not be too late. In fact, women of all ages will benefit from this information, so don't forget to share it with someone you know!    00:00 HRT After 65 02:36 The Evidence Vacuum 04:55 Myth of the Window 06:27 WHI vs Modern Estrogen 08:36 Transdermal Safety Data 10:08 Why Observational Counts 14:51 Risk Math in Your 70s 19:32 Bone Density Benefits 23:08 Sleep and ApoE4 24:30 APOE4 Risk Basics 25:07 Sleep as Brain Protection 25:55 Transdermal Estrogen for Sleep 27:12 Insomnia Raises Dementia Risk 28:22 Personalizing HRT for Sleep 30:03 Cardiovascular Risks and Screening 34:56 Evidence Gaps and WHI Context 38:38 APOE4 Sleep and Estradiol Link 40:09 Decision Framework Over 65 43:08 Monitoring and Follow Up 45:47 Alternatives and Tradeoffs 48:16 Vaginal Estrogen and Wrap Up   Connect with Dr. Betty Murray:  Betty Murray Website: https://www.bettymurray.com/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/drbettymurray/   Like, comment, and subscribe on YouTube:  @drbettymurray     Links:  The Fierce Female Method for Longevity (Dr. Betty's book): https://fierce.hormoneshelp.com/  Menrva Telemedicine: https://gethormonesnow.com/  FREE Hormone Quiz: https://bit.ly/3wNJOec  Living Well Dallas: https://www.livingwelldallas.com/  Hormone Reset: https://hormonereset.net/   More from the Podcast:  Subscribe to #MenopauseMastery → https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwONPdSvb2-YYY74VhD-XBw  Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/menopause-mastery/id1607369247  Spotify → https://open.spotify.com/show/0tNsjm32CZNXSgSFEwS3uH   Thank you for listening to Menopause Mastery. Empowering your health journey, one episode at a time.  

Our Hong Kong/China Transportation & Infrastructure Analyst Qianlei Fan discusses how China's travel industry is shifting from a post-pandemic rebound to a multi-year expansion.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Qianlei Fan, Morgan Stanley's Hong Kong / China Transportation Analyst. Today, I'll share my thoughts on why travel is quickly emerging as one of [the] key drivers of China's economic rebalancing.It's Tuesday, March the 3rd, at 2pm in Hong Kong. I've just gotten back from my Lunar New Year trip to mainland China. With the longest Chinese New Year break in history, people were out roaming, exploring, laughing, and the whole country felt like it was buzzing with people on a mission to enjoy every minute. According to the Ministry of Culture and Tourism, total domestic tourism spending recorded a robust 19 percent year-on-year growth during the holiday. In fact, China's tourism industry isn't just rebounding after the pandemic. It's entering a structurally stronger phase, supported by policy tailwinds, demographic shifts, and a clear pivot toward experience-driven consumption. By 2030, tourism revenue could reach RMB 12 trillion – equal to roughly USD $1.7 trillion – implying 11 percent annual growth from the mid-2020s. Over the next five years, cumulative domestic and inbound revenue may approach RMB 50 trillion, or USD $7.2 trillion. That scale makes travel more than a cyclical recovery – it's becoming a core pillar of China's consumption-led growth. We expect tourism's share of GDP to rise to about 6.7 percent by 2030, up from 4.8 percent in 2024.Domestic travel remains the backbone. People aren't just traveling again; they're traveling more than before. Policy is reinforcing demand. Extended public holidays, new school breaks, and event-driven tourism are boosting activity. In 2025 alone, around 3,000 large-scale performances attracted more than 43 million attendees. And spending reflects that shift. Domestic tourism spending reached RMB 6.3 trillion in 2025, about 11 percent above pre-COVID levels. Even with slightly lower spend per trip, more frequent travel is lifting overall revenue.International travel is emerging as a second growth engine. By 2030, inbound travel could represent 16 percent of total tourism revenue. In late 2025, inbound visitor growth in major cities was up about 30–50 percent year-over-year, supported by expanded visa-free access, which now accounts for the majority of foreign arrivals. These visitors often stay longer and spend more. Outbound travel is strengthening too. International air traffic grew 22 percent in 2025, far outpacing domestic growth, and now contributes a meaningful share of airline revenue. Demographics and technology are reinforcing the trend. Younger consumers prioritize travel, while older households – with substantial savings – are beginning to spend more as services improve. At the same time, smart hotels, virtual reality attractions, and data-driven operations are enhancing engagement and willingness to pay. This isn't just pent-up demand. It's policy, demographics, technology, and supply aligning at once. – with travel at the center of China's consumption story.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

In this year-in-review episode, Matt Nollman, Head of Product Marketing at SEI LifeYield and Producer of WealthTech on Deck, steps into the host chair and interviews Jack Sharry on the five defining WealthTech themes of 2025. From household-level tax optimization and AI-powered advisor capacity to the industry's struggle with organic growth, the mainstreaming of alternatives, and the rise of human-centered advice, Jack connects the dots across 44 conversations and 80,000 downloads. Together, they explore how wealth-as-a-service operating models, integrated platforms, and scalable personalization are reshaping financial advice—offering a clear, practical blueprint for firms seeking sustainable growth in 2026 and beyond. In this episode: (00:00) - Intro (01:48) - The five defining WealthTech themes of 2025 (03:58) - From accounts to households: the push for unified, tax-smart advice (07:00) - AI as an amplifier: scaling personalized advice without replacing advisors (09:51) - The organic growth dilemma facing the industry (15:22) - Building a true growth engine: wealth as a service in action (18:22) - Alternatives go mainstream: opportunity, risk, and execution challenges (22:28) - Human-centered advice: longevity, purpose, and the next generation (26:18) - Jack's key takeaways (30:01) - Jack's interests outside of work Quotes "Better financial outcomes can be achieved for clients, advisors, and firms through household-level tax smart advice at scale." ~ Jack Sharry "Organic growth is not achieved as a function of better salespeople or better sales tactics. Successful organic growth is achieved through a combination and coordination of highly competitive investment products, state-of-the-art, fully integrated technology and platforms, seamless coordinated digital operations, and savvy digital marketing." ~ Jack Sharry "Human-centered advice conversations consistently reinforce that the endgame is about better human outcomes, with tech products, alts, and platforms as enablers." ~ Jack Sharry Links  Jack Sharry on LinkedIn Matt Nollman on LinkedIn Scott Smith Cerulli Associates Justin Singer EY Parker Ence Jump AI Arnulf Hsu GReminders Ritik Malhotra Savvy Alicia Rich Broadridge Colleen Bell Cambridge Investment Research Connor Coughlin Apex Fintech Solutions Arthur Worthington Morgan Stanley J.P. Morgan Fidelity Investments John Amore Kestra Financial Mike Capelle Modern Wealth Management Randy Morris Summit Wealth Group Doug Fritz F2 Strategy Randy Lambert Rafael Couto Jeffrey Levi Deloitte Neil Bathon Fuse Research Network Tony Davidow Franklin Templeton Ryan Eisenman Arch Ryan VanGorder Opto Investments David Goldman  Pontera Ken Dychtwald Age Wave Suzanne Schmitt Next Chapter Lacy Garcia Trust Willow Adam Holt Asset-Map Steve Chen Boldin Steven Miyao Jamie Hopkins WSFS Bank Brooke Elliott Hale Education Westport River Watershed Alliance Connect with our hosts LifeYield Matt Nollman on LinkedIn Jack Sharry on Twitter Subscribe and stay in touch Apple Podcasts Spotify LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

Ranmore Global Equity (IE00B61ZVB30) is a value fund that has grown very quickly over the past 18 months. In June 2024, it had a $300mn portfolio, but by January 2026 this had hit $1.5bn.The fund's manager, Sean Peche, talks to Val Cipriani about how he finds underappreciated and undervalued stocks, why he doesn't meet company CEOs, and why buying and holding ‘forever', a strategy favoured by star managers Terry Smith and Nick Train, no longer works in today's rapidly changing world.Timestamps00:00: Intro03:17: Three ways to get returns in markets and from companies07:05: Value investing08:31: Why I don't meet CEOs10:57: ‘Buy and hold forever' doesn't work in a rapidy changing world15:22: A ‘fresh sheet approach' and Qualcomm17:40: The Magnificent Seven19:21: Investors are starting to turn away from the US23:09: Alternatives to the US24:35: Terry Smith and passives26:15: Greggs29:01: Diageo31:31: EasyJetInvestors' Chronicle has supported private investors in the UK for over 160 years by highlighting rewarding investment opportunities. Investors' Chronicle is a service by the Financial Times. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:26:54 - De cause à effets, le magazine de l'environnement - par : Aurélie Luneau - Comment concilier pêche et écologie ? Le marin-pêcheur Charles Braine évoque son parcours, puis sa vision d'une pêche durable comme alternative pour une alimentation saine. - réalisation : Alexandra Malka - invités : Charles Braine Marin pêcheur, ingénieur agronome en ressources halieutiques de formation, et fondateur de l'association Pleine Mer. ; Manon Dugré Ingénieure en agroalimentaire et cheffe indépendante, engagée pour une alimentation durable. ; Chloé Charles (Cuisinière) Cuisinière indépendante

Our Chief Fixed Income Strategist Vishy Tirupattur and U.S. Head of Credit Strategy Vishwas Patkar discuss the implications of private credit's exposure to the software industry.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Vishy Tirupattur: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Vishy Tirupattur, Morgan Stanley's Chief Fixed Income Strategist. Vishwas Patkar: I'm Vishwas Patkar, Morgan Stanley's U.S. Head of Credit Strategy. Vishy Tirupattur: While potential disruption from AI has been a key driver for markets [in the] last few weeks, the focus of investor agenda has been in the software sector. On today's podcast, we will talk about software in the credit markets and its implications. It's Monday, March 2nd at 10am in New York. Vishwas, let's start by understanding how the exposure in software manifests in the credit markets. How does it compare to software, say, in the equity market? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so the software exposure in credit markets is large, and understandably that's why investors are closely watching what's happening with software in the equity market. But what's interesting and important for investors to note is the exposure in credit is very different from what it is in equities. So, for instance, a good chunk of exposure in the credit market is around private issuers. So, we estimate about 80 percent of companies are private in the whole sample set that we looked at. And that's largely a function of the fact that software is not a big part of the more liquid spaces like Investment Grade and High Yield. But it is heavily represented in the more opaque parts of the market, like leveraged loans, CLOs, and, you know, BDCs. So, our analysis found that about 25 percent of BDC portfolios are in software, closely followed by private credit CLOs. And leveraged loan market was about 16 percent. So, that's an important distinction to keep in mind versus the equity market. The second thing I would flag is – because the software sector grew a lot in the loan market through the LBO wave of 2020 and 2021, it has a weaker credit quality skew to it than the overall market. So about 50 percent of borrowers in the sector are rated B - or lower. So, that's the lowest rungs of the rating spectrum. Many of these software deals were underwritten with higher leverage than the broad market. And as a result of that you also have more front-loaded maturities in the sector, which brings the risks of refinancing, if some of this disruption persists. But Vishy, that's a nice segue to you. Over the past couple of years, you looked at the private credit market in depth and that's where I think the exposure we found is the highest in BDCs, you know, which is the public face of private credit. So, in your assessment, what is the risk of software to private credit, given all of the headlines that are popping up? Vishy Tirupattur: Public face of private credit – Vishwas, that's a great line. BDCs – business development corporations for those who are not familiar – are companies that invest in the debt of small and medium sized companies, sourced through non-bank channels. BDCs fund themselves through equity and debt issuance. So, if you look at the portfolios of BDCs to look at their exposure to software, there's a wide variation across the various BDC portfolios. What makes the assessment of these software risks in BDCs challenging is that many of these companies are private companies without the reporting obligations of public companies. So, no earnings reports, no 10-Ks or cues or broadly publicly available financials look at. So, in effect, these companies need to be re underwritten to evaluate which of these companies would be disrupted from AI; and which companies could actually benefit from AI and see their margins expand. So, in the context of BDCs, liability spreads are something we are watching closely. BDC liability spreads have widened but we think more needs to happen there. The clearing levels need to wait for the full resolution of the companies that benefit and that get hurt by disruption that is still awaited. So, we expect credit spreads of BDCs to remain volatile for some time to come. Vishwas Patkar: Okay. So, seems like this is a significant, or at least a non-trivial risk factor for credit markets, given the growth of the sector, leverage, the skew and quality. But Vishy, do you think this could be systemic for risk markets at large? Vishy Tirupattur: So, I do think that this is a significant risk, but I don't think it's a systemic risk. The amount of leverage in BDC is fairly small. About 2x is the kind of leverage. You compare that to the kind of leverage that existed in the financial system before the financial crisis – that's orders of magnitude smaller risk. And also the linkage to the banking system comes through the back leverage provided to the non-bank lenders. But this leverage is substantially risk remote with very high subordination levels. So, my conclusion here is this is a significant risk but not a systemic risk. So let me turn the same question to you, Vishwas. Taking on a sort of historical perspective as well as a macro perspective, how do you see this risk manifesting in the broader credit space? Vishwas Patkar: Yeah, so I would agree with you Vishy, that we need to see a valuation reset. We think spreads should go wider because of disruption concerns, even if they affect a relatively narrow part of the market. But a lot of that's happening against issuance that's rising. But I would say the risk of systemic concerns really emerging is relatively low. if you look at historical cycles where credit has been the weak link in the economy, those are typically characterized by a lot of corporate re-leveraging. So, think about the late 1990s or from 2004 to 2007 or the early 2000-teens. These are all cycles where corporates were being very aggressive, adding a lot of debt. And you know, when the economy slowed, credit became the source of some default and downgrade concerns. We haven't really seen that type of credit cycle play out at all in the past few years. If you look at corporate debt to GDP, for example, it's gone down each of the last five years. Balance sheet corporate leverage has been flat or actually gone lower in spots. M&A activity, which is usually a good indicator of corporate aggressiveness, still remains below trend. So, I think we have had a fairly restrained credit cycle where in place fundamentals are quite strong. And that's why I think the systemic contagion from any credit spread weakness, I think could be relatively muted. Vishy Tirupattur: So, the key takeaway from us is that software and credit is a significant risk but is not quite systemic risk. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the podcast, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

As the Fidelity Canadian Long/Short Alternative Fund marks two years, join Reetu Kumra for a timely update on the fund's progress and positioning. She'll also share the alternative‑investing themes she's tracking – and what they could mean for diversified portfolios in the current environment. Recorded on February 24, 2026. At Fidelity, our mission is to build a better future for Canadian investors and help them stay ahead. We offer investors and institutions a range of innovative and trusted investment portfolios to help them reach their financial and life goals. Fidelity mutual funds and ETFs are available by working with a financial advisor or through an online brokerage account. Visit fidelity.ca/howtobuy for more information. For a fifth year in a row, FidelityConnects by Fidelity Investments Canada was ranked #1 podcast by Canadian financial advisors in the 2025 Environics' Advisor Digital Experience Study.   --   Alors que le Fonds Fidelity Alternatif canadien à positions longues/courtes marque son deuxième anniversaire, joignez-vous à Reetu Kumra pour une mise à jour pertinente sur l'évolution et la structure du fonds. Elle présentera également les thèmes liés aux placements alternatifs qu'elle suit de près et ce qu'ils pourraient signifier pour les portefeuilles diversifiés dans le contexte actuel. Date : 24 février 2026 Chez Fidelity, notre mission consiste à aider le public investisseur canadien à se bâtir un meilleur avenir et à rester à l'avant-garde. Nous offrons aux particuliers et aux institutions une gamme de portefeuilles de placement innovants et fiables pour les aider à atteindre leurs objectifs financiers et personnels. Les fonds communs de placement et les FNB de Fidelity sont offerts par l'intermédiaire des conseillers et conseillères en placements et de comptes de courtage en ligne. Pour de plus amples renseignements, visitez fidelity.ca/commentinvestir. Les baladodiffusions DialoguesFidelity se sont classées au premier rang pour une cinquième année consécutive lors du sondage 2025 d'Environics sur l'expérience numérique des conseillers et conseillères en placements au Canada.

Welcome to podcast episode #100.I've never met anyone who has met Joshua Davis that has had anything bad so say about him.He's had a pretty special career since releasing his first record with the band Steppin' In It 25 years ago. A beloved member of the Michigan music community and a one time Top 3 contestant on The Voice, Josh has shifted to playing out less and making his living closer to his home in the Traverse City area. I've tried to catch him on a few of his recent visits to Southeast Michigan, but this time it fell together quickly. We realized timing worked and 16 hours after I booked the studio, with little preparation time, we met at Grove Studios. Problem is, neither one of us had enough time to wake up for this 8:00 a.m. session and I forgot to his record on the cameras. I did spend a fair amount of time setting them up at a good angle and this one was going to turn out great. I guess we'll never know.Songs written by Joshua Davis:Paper BoatsCongratulations and Condolences99 NamesJoshua Davis' website: https://joshuadavismusic.com/Acoustic Alternatives' website: https://johnmbommarito.wixsite.com/johnbommarito/acoustic-alternativesGrove Studios website: https://grovestudios.space/

Our Deputy Head of Global Research Michael Zezas and Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research, discuss how the U.S. is positioning AI as a pillar of geopolitical influence and what that means for nations and investors.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Morgan Stanley's Deputy Head of Global Research.Stephen Byrd: And I'm Stephen Byrd, Global Head of Thematic and Sustainability Research.Michael Zezas: Today – is AI becoming the new anchor of geopolitical power?It's Wednesday, February 27th at noon in New York.So, Stephen, at the recent India AI Impact Summit, the U.S. laid out a vision to promote global AI adoption built around what it calls “real AI sovereignty.” Or strategic autonomy through integration with the American AI stack. But several nations from the global south and possibly parts of Europe – they appear skeptical of dependence on proprietary systems, citing concerns about control, explainability, and data ownership. And it appears that stake isn't just technology policy. It's the future structure of global power, economic stratification, and whether sovereign nations can realistically build competitive alternatives outside the U.S. and China.So, Stephen, you were there and you've been describing a growing chasm in the AI world in terms of access to strategies between the U.S. and much of the global south, and possibly Europe. So, from what you heard at the summit, what are the core points of disagreement driving that divide?Stephen Byrd: There definitely are areas of agreement; and we've seen a couple of high-profile agreements reached between the U.S. government and the Indian government just in the last several days. So there certainly is a lot of overlap. I point to the Pax Silica agreement that's so important to secure supply chains, to secure access to AI technology. I think the focus, for example, for India is, as you said; it is, you know, explainability, open access. I was really struck by Prime Minister Modi's focus on ensuring that all Indians have access to AI tools that can help them in their everyday life.You know, a really tangible example that really stuck with me is – someone in a remote village in India who has a medical condition and there's no doctor or nurse nearby using AI to, you know, take a photo of the condition, receive diagnosis, receive support, figure out what the next steps should be. That's very powerful. So, I'd say, open access explainability is very important.Now, the American hyperscalers are very much trying to serve the Indian market and serve the objectives really of the Indian government. And so, there are versions of their models that are open weights, that are being made freely available for health agencies in India, as an example; to the Indian government, as an example.So, there is an attempt to really serve a number of objectives, but I think this key is around open access, explainability, that I do see that there's a tension.Michael Zezas: So, let's talk about that a little bit more. Because it seems one of the concerns raised is this idea of being captive within proprietary Large Language Models. And maybe that includes the risk of having to pay more over time or losing control of citizen data. But, at the same time, you've described that there are some real benefits to AI that these countries want to adopt.So, what is effectively the tension between being captive to a model or the trade off instead for pursuing open and free models? Is it that there's a major quality difference? And is that trade off acceptable?Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so fascinating, Mike, is, you know, what we need to be thinking about is not just where the technology is today, but where is it in six months, 12 months, 24 months? And from my perspective, it's very clear. That the proprietary American models are going to be much, much more capable.So, let's put some numbers around that. The big five American firms have assembled about 10 times the compute to train their current LLMs compared to their prior LLMs, and that's a big deal. If the scaling laws hold, then a 10x increase in training compute to result in models are about twice as capable.Now just let that sink in for a minute, twice as capable from here. That's a big deal. And so, when we think about the benefit of deploying these models, whether it's in the life sciences or any number of other disciplines, those benefits could start to get very large. And the challenge for the open models will be – will they be able to keep up in terms of access to compute, to training, access to data to train those models? That's a big question.Now, again, there's room for both approaches and it's very possible for the Indian government to continue to experiment and really see which approach is going to serve their citizens the best. And I was really struck by just how focused the Indian government is on serving all of their citizens. Most notably, you know, the poorest of the poor in their nation. So, we'll just have to see.But the pure technologist would say that these proprietary models are going to be increasing capability much faster than the open-source models.So, Mike, let's pivot from the technology layer to the geopolitical layer because the U.S. strategy unveiled at the summit goes way beyond innovation.Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's a good point. And within this discussion of whether or not other countries will choose to pursue open models or more closely adhere to U.S. based models is really a question about how the United States exercises power globally and how it creates alliances going forward.Clearly some part of the strategy is that the U.S. assumes that if it has technology that's alluring to its partners, that they'll want to align with the U.S.' broad goals globally. And that they'll want to be partners in supporting those goals, which of course are tied to AI development.So, the Pax Silica [agreement], which you mentioned earlier, is an interesting point here because this is clearly part of the U.S. strategy to develop relationships with other countries – such that the other countries get access to U.S. models and access to U.S. AI in general. And what the U.S. gets in return is access to supply chain, critical resources, labor, all the things that you need to further the AI build out. Particularly as the U.S. is trying to disassociate more and more from China, and the resources that China might have been able to bring to bear in an AI build out.Stephen Byrd: So, Mike, the U.S. framed “real AI sovereignty” as strategic autonomy rather than full self-sufficiency. So, essentially the. U.S. is encouraging nations to integrate components of the American AI stack. Now, from your perspective, Mike, from a macro and policy standpoint, how significant is that distinction?Michael Zezas: Well, I think it's extremely important. And clearly the U.S. views its AI strategy as not just economic strategy, but national security strategy.There are maybe some analogs to how the U.S. has been able to, over the past 80 years or so, use its dominance in military and military equipment to create a security umbrella that other countries want to be under. And do something similar with AI, which is if there is dominant technology and others want access to it for the societal or economic benefits, then that is going to help when you're negotiating with those countries on other things that you value – whether it be trade policy, foreign policy, sanctions versus another country. That type of thing.So, in a lot of ways, it seems like the U.S. is talking about AI and developing AI as an anchor asset to its power, in a way that military power has been that anchor asset for much of the post World War II period.Stephen Byrd: See, that's what's so interesting, Mike, [be]cause you've highlighted before to me that you believe AI could replace weaponry as really the anchor asset for U.S. global power. Almost a tech equivalent of a defense umbrella.So how durable is that strategy, especially given that some countries are expressing unease about dependency?Michael Zezas: Yeah, it's really hard to know, and I think the tension you and I talked about earlier, Stephen, about whether countries will be willing to make the trade off for access to superior AI models versus open and free models that might be inferior, that'll tell us if this is a viable strategy or not. And it appears like this is still playing out because, correct me if I'm wrong, it's not like we've received some very clear signals from India or other countries about their willingness to make that trade off.Stephen Byrd: No, I think that's right. And just building on the concept of the trade-offs and, sort of, the standard for AI deployment, you know, the U.S. has explicitly rejected centralized global AI governance in favor of national control aligned with domestic values.So, what does that signal about how global technology standards may evolve, particularly as in the U.S., the National Institute of Standards and Technology, or NIST, works to develop interoperable standards for agentic AI systems.Michael Zezas: Yeah, Stephen, I think it's hard to know. It might be that the U.S. is okay with other countries having substantial degrees of freedom with how they use U.S.-based AI models because they could use U.S. law to, at a later date, change how those models are being used – if there's a use case that comes out of it that they find is against U.S. values. Similar in some way to how the U.S. dollar being the predominant currency and, therefore, being the predominant payment system globally, gives the U.S. degrees of freedom to impose sanctions and limit other types of economic transactions when it's in the U.S. interest.So, I don't know that to be specifically true, but it's an interesting question to consider and a potential motivation behind why a laissez-faire approach might be, ultimately, still aligned with U.S. interests.Stephen Byrd: So, Michael, it sounds like really AI is becoming the new strategic infrastructure globally.Michael Zezas: Yeah, I think that's actually a great way to think about it. And so, Stephen, if that were the case, and we're talking about the potential for this to shape geopolitical competition, potentially economic differentials across the globe. And if that is correlated, at least, to some degree with the further development and computing power of these models, what do you think investors should be looking at for signals from here?Stephen Byrd: Number one, by a mile for me, is really the pace of model progress. Not just American models, but Chinese models, open-source models. And there the big reveal for the United States should be somewhere between April and June – for the big five LLM players. That's a bit of speculation based on tracking their chip purchases, their power access, et cetera. But that appears to be the timeframe and a couple of execs have spoken to that approximate timeframe.I would caution investors that I think we're going to be surprised in terms of just how powerful those models are. And we're already seeing in early 2026, these models that were not trained on that kind of volume of compute have really exceeded expectations, you know, quite dramatically in some cases. And I'll give you one example.METR is a third-party that tracks the complexity, what these models can do. And METR has been highlining that every seven months, the complexity of what these models are able to do approximately doubles. It's very fast. But what really got my attention was about a week ago, one of the LLMs broke that trend in a big way to the upside.So, if the scaling laws would hold, based on what METR would've expected, they would expect a model to be able to act independently for about eight hours, a little over eight hours. And what we saw was, the best American model that was recently introduced was more like 15. That's a big deal. And so, I think we're seeing signs of non-linear improvement.We're also going to see additional statements from these AI execs around recursive self-improvement of the models. One ex-AI executive spoke to that. Another LLM exec spoke to that recently as well. So, we're starting to see an acceleration. That means we then need to really consider the trade-offs between the open models and the proprietary. That's going to become really critical and that should happen really through the spring and summer.Michael Zezas: Got it. Well, Stephen, thanks for taking the time to talk.Stephen Byrd: Great speaking with you, Mike.Michael Zezas: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Synopsis:  Members of PNLL are experimenting with new ways of doing politics and economics in communities across the US, focusing on local solutions and shared resources. This show is made possible by you! To become a sustaining member go to LauraFlanders.org/donate Description: People across the country are resisting authoritarianism in creative and powerful ways, and this is just the start. The folks at The People's Network for Land & Liberation (PNLL) say the forces that got us here are bigger than one bad leader; entire systems must be taken down. Building a brighter future requires a vision of economic and social justice — and lots of practice. Today on Laura Flanders & Friends, we look at some of those practical experiments and paths for radical change, and discuss why they're just as important as resistance. The members of PNLL, a multiracial, multiethnic consortium of six community-based organizations, are doing politics and economics differently in real places across the U.S. right now. Joining us are Edget Betru, an attorney, activist and Coordinator of the People's Network for Land & Liberation; David Cobb, PNLL staff person and Co-coordinator of the U.S. Solidarity Economy Network; and Blair Evans, Founder and Executive Director of Incite Focus, a production and training lab based in Idlewild, Michigan. Find out how to build for the future — even in the toughest circumstances. All that, plus a commentary from Laura on William Morris's News From Nowhere. “We've been colonized in our minds . . . Involving people in day-to-day produce, meeting their needs through a different way, through thinking, Hey, who in my neighborhood knows how to fix this? . . . It's really that shift in consciousness that needs to happen that's going to allow for this new economy to emerge.” - Edget Betru “My mama and my mamaw and my papa who raised me taught me a lesson as a little boy, and that is, there's enough to go around as long as we share. That made sense to me when I was five years old. It makes sense to me now when I'm 63 years old. There's enough to go around as long as we share. It's just as simple as that.” - David Cobb “We can make things that make things, we can design and build our own equipment that can then use locally sourced materials, hyper localizing the supply chain . . . We can stop feeding the monster that's consuming us and actually disconnect from that process and use what we have.” - Blair Evans Guests: • Edget Betru: Coordinator, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Board Member, Community Movement Builders • David Cobb: Staff, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Manager, Butterfly Impact Fund; Co-Coordinator, U.S. Solidarity Economy Network • Blair Evans: Coalition Member, People's Network for Land & Liberation; Founder & Executive Director, Incite Focus; Designer & Trainer, Fab Lab Watch on YouTube this episode that includes video clips referenced in this episode from Third World Newsreel; PBS World Channel 11:30am ET Sundays and on over 300 public stations across the country (check your listings, or search here via zipcode). Listen: Episode airing on community radio (check here to see if your station airs the show) & available as a podcast March 4, 2026. Full Conversation Release: While our weekly shows are edited to time for broadcast on Public TV and community radio, we offer to our members and podcast subscribers the full uncut conversation.  Music Credit:  'Thrum of Soil' by Bluedot Sessions, 'Steppin' by Podington Bear, and original sound design by Jeannie Hopper Support Laura Flanders and Friends by becoming a member at https://www.patreon.com/c/lauraflandersandfriends   RESOURCES:   Full Episode Notes are located HERE. *Recommended book: “Beautiful Solutions: A Toolbox for Liberation”, Learn More Here* (*Bookshop is an online bookstore with a mission to financially support local, independent bookstores. The LF Show is an affiliate of bookshop.org and will receive a small commission if you click through and make a purchase.)   Related Laura Flanders Show Episodes: •  Jackson Rising: Creating the Mondragon of the South: Watch •  Resisting Trump & Authoritarianism: The “Beautiful Solutions” Toolbox:  Watch / Listen •  Community Wealth Building: An Economic Reset: Watch / Listen:  Full Uncut Conversation and Episode Cut Related Articles and Resources: •  Community Movement Builders' Community Sea Moss Cooperative •  Tale of the Tape:  An Expert Weighs In on the ‘Cop City' Bodycam Footage, by Madeline Thigpen, February 15, 2023, Capital B • Cooperation Jackson, The Build and Fight Educational Series •  The Butterfly Effect Fund •  Cooperation Vermont, Seeding the Alternatives for the Future •  Cooperation Vermont Buys Former Rainbow Sweets Building, by Paul Fixx, February 4, 2025, The Hardwick Gazette • Incite Focus, where ideas and imagination meet inspiration and innovation •  Wellspring Cooperative, building a just and sustainable economy, one co-op at a time •  U.S. Solidarity Economy Network (US SEN) Laura Flanders and Friends Crew: Laura Flanders-Executive Producer, Writer; Sabrina Artel-Supervising Producer; Jeremiah Cothren-Senior Producer; Veronica Delgado-Video Editor, Janet Hernandez-Communications Director; Jeannie Hopper-Audio Director, Podcast & Radio Producer, Audio Editor, Sound Design, Narrator; Sarah Miller-Development Director, Nat Needham-Editor, Graphic Design emeritus; David Neuman-Senior Video Editor, and Rory O'Conner-Senior Consulting Producer. FOLLOW Laura Flanders and FriendsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/lauraflandersandfriends/Blueky: https://bsky.app/profile/lfandfriends.bsky.socialFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/LauraFlandersAndFriends/Tiktok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lauraflandersandfriendsYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCFLRxVeYcB1H7DbuYZQG-lgLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lauraflandersandfriendsPatreon: https://www.patreon.com/lauraflandersandfriendsACCESSIBILITY - The broadcast edition of this episode is available with closed captioned by clicking here for our YouTube Channel

Corn rootworm management is a pressing concern for many growers, but the best strategy isn't the same for everybody. In this week's podcast episode, we explore effective management strategies based on recent research findings. With expert insights from Brent Tharp and Eric Wilson, gain a deeper understanding of how to optimize your corn production while mitigating rootworm damage.Effective management of corn rootworm requires a combination of proactive monitoring and research-backed treatment options. As we continue to explore and refine these strategies, growers can enhance their crop resilience and yield potential. For more insights, consider implementing the discussed practices and continuing to monitor your fields for rootworm activity. Links discussed in this episode:Wyffels Hybrids Corn Rootworm MonitoringOur Corn Products - Wyffels HybridsWyffels Hybrids Seed Corn Technology OptionsBetween The Rows® - Monitoring CRW PopulationsWe want to hear from you. Have questions you want us to address on future episodes? Ideas for how we can make this better? Email us at agronomy@wyffels.com. Wyffels Hybrids. Fiercely independent, and proud of it.►  Let's ConnectFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/WyffelsHybridsX: https://www.x.com/WyffelsHybridsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/wyffelshybrids/LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/wyffelshybrids

https://www.gethookd.ai/blog/alternative-to-facebook-ads-library-how-ai-can-transform-your-ad-strategyTired of Meta's clunky Ad Library? Discover why e-commerce marketers are switching to AI-powered spy tools that reveal competitor strategies, accelerate creative testing, and turn intelligence into profitable campaigns - faster than ever before. GetHookd LLC City: Miami Address: 40 SW 13th street Website: https://www.gethookd.ai/

Our Global Commodities Strategist Martijn Rats discusses the geopolitical drivers behind the recent spike in oil prices and outlines four Iran scenarios.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Martijn Rats, Morgan Stanley's Global Commodities Strategist.Today – what's fueling the latest oil market rally.It's Thursday, February 26th, at 3pm in London.What happens when oil prices jump, even though there's no actual shortage of oil? That's the situation we're in right now. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have escalated again. Naturally, markets are paying attention.Over the past week, Brent crude rose about $3 to around $72 per barrel. WTI climbed into the mid-$60s. Shipping costs surged. And traders have started paying a premium for protection against a sudden oil spike – the levels we haven't seen since the early days of the Ukrainian invasion.But here's the key point: there's no clear evidence that global oil supply has tightened. Exports are still flowing. Tankers are still moving. And some near-term indicators of physical tightness have actually softened. When oil is truly scarce, buyers scramble for immediate barrels and short-term prices spike relative to future delivery. Instead, those spreads have narrowed, and physical premiums have eased.This isn't a supply shock. It's a risk premium. In simple terms, investors are buying insurance. So what could happen next? We see four broad scenarios.Before I outline them though, here's something we do not see as a core case: a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Roughly 15 million barrels per day of crude and another 5 million of refined product moves through that corridor. A sustained shutdown would be enormously disruptive. But we think the probability is very low.Now coming back to our four scenarios. The first is straightforward. A negotiated settlement; conflict is avoided. Iranian exports continue and shipping lanes remain open. In that scenario, what unwinds is the geopolitical risk premium – which we estimate at roughly $7 to $9 per barrel. If that fades, Brent could drift back to the low-to-mid $60s, similar to past episodes where prices spiked on fear and then retraced once supply proves unaffected.Second, we could see short-lived frictions – shipping delays, higher insurance costs, temporary logistical issues. That might remove a few hundred thousand barrels per day for, say, a few weeks.. Prices could briefly spike into the $75–80 range. But balancing forces would kick in relatively quickly. For example, China has been building inventories at a steady pace. At higher prices, that stockbuilding would likely slow, helping offset temporary disruptions. That points to some further upside in prices – but then normalization.The third scenario is more serious, but still contained: localized export losses of perhaps 1 to 1.5 million barrels per day for a month or two. Prices would stay elevated longer, but spare capacity and demand adjustments could eventually stabilize the market.Now our last scenario is the more serious and considers a potential shipping shock. The real risk here isn't wells shutting down – it's shipping disruption. Global trade of crude oil depends on efficient tanker movement. If transit times were extended even modestly, effective shipping capacity could fall sharply, creating what amounts to a temporary tightening of about 2 to 3 million barrels per day – or about 6 percent of global seaborne supply. That is a logistics shock, not a production outage – but it would push prices toward early-2022-type levels, at least briefly.Now let's zoom out. Beyond geopolitics, the fundamentals look weak. OPEC+ supply is rising, and our forecasts show a sizable surplus building in 2026. Even if some of that oil ends up in China's stockpiles, a lot would still likely flow into core OECD inventories. Historically, when the market looks like this, prices tend to fall, not rise.Which brings us back to the central point. Oil isn't rallying because the world has run out of barrels. It's rallying because markets are pricing geopolitical risk. And unless that risk turns into actual, sustained disruption, insurance premiums tend to expire.Thank you for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.This podcast references jurisdiction(s) or person(s) which may be the subject of economic sanctions. Readers are solely responsible for ensuring that their investment activities are carried out in compliance with applicable laws.

Original Release Date: Feb 6, 2026Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research Andrew Sheets and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter unpack the inner workings of the Federal Reserve to illustrate the challenges that Fed chair nominee Kevin Warsh may face.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Andrew Sheets, Global Head of Fixed Income Research at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter: And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. Andrew Sheets: And today on the podcast, a further discussion of a new Fed chair and the challenges they may face. It's Friday, February 6th at 1 pm in New York. Seth, it's great to be here talking with you, and I really want to continue a conversation that listeners have been hearing on this podcast over this week about a new nominee to chair the Federal Reserve: Kevin Warsh. And you are the perfect person to talk about this, not just because you lead our economic research and our macro research, but you've also worked at the Fed. You've seen the inner workings of this organization and what a new Fed chair is going to have to deal with. So, maybe just for some broad framing, when you saw this announcement come out, what were some of the first things to go through your mind? Seth Carpenter: I will say first and foremost, Kevin Warsh's name was one of the names that had regularly come up when the White House was providing names of people they were considering in lots of news cycles. So, I think the first thing that's critically important from my perspective, is – not a shock, right? Sort of a known quantity. Second, when we think about these really important positions, there's a whole range of possible outcomes. And I would've said that of the four names that were in the final set of four that we kept hearing about in the news a lot. You know, some differences here and there across them, but none of them was substantially outside of what I would think of as mainstream sort of thinking. Nothing excessively unorthodox at all like that. So, in that regard as well, I think it should keep anybody from jumping to any big conclusions that there's a huge change that's imminent. I think the other thing that's really important is the monetary policy of the Federal Reserve really is made by a committee. The Federal Open Market Committee and committee matters in these cases. The Fed has been under lots of scrutiny, under lots of pressure, depending on how you want to put it. And so, as a result, there's a lot of discussion within the institution about their independence, making sure they stick very scrupulously to their congressionally given mandate of stable prices, full employment. And so, what does that mean in practice? That means in practice, to get a substantially different outcome from what the committee would've done otherwise… So, the market is pricing; what's the market pricing for the funds rate at the end of this year? About 3.2 percent. Andrew Sheets: Something like that. Yeah. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. So that's a reasonable forecast. It's not too far away from our house view. For us to end up with a policy rate that's substantially away from that – call it 1 percentage, 2 percentage points away from that. I just don't see that as likely to happen. Because the committee can be led, can be swayed by the chair, but not to the tune of 1 or 2 percentage points. And so, I think for all those reasons, there wasn't that much surprise and there wasn't, for me, a big reason to fully reevaluate where we think the Fed's going. Andrew Sheets: So let me actually dig into that a little bit more because I know our listeners tune in every day to hear a lot about government meetings. But this is a case where that really matters because I think there can sometimes be a misperception around the power of this position. And it's both one of the most public important positions in the world of finance. And yet, as you mentioned, it is overseeing a committee where the majority matters. And so, can you take us just a little bit inside those discussions? I mean, how does the Fed Chair interact with their colleagues? How do they try to convince them and persuade them to take a particular course of action? Seth Carpenter: Great question. And you're right, I sort of spent a bunch of time there at the Fed. I started when Greenspan was chair. I worked under the Bernanke Fed. And of course, for the end of that, Janet Yellen was the vice chair. So, I've worked with her. Jay Powell was on the committee the whole time. So, the cast of characters quite familiar and the process is important. So, I would say a few things. The chair convenes the meetings; the chair creates the agenda for the meeting. The chair directs the staff on what the policy documents are that the committee is going to get. So, there's a huge amount of influence, let's say, there. But in order to actually get a specific outcome, there really is a vote. And we only have to look back a couple weeks to the last FOMC meeting when there were two dissents against the policy decision. So, dissents are not super common. They don't happen at every single meeting, but they're not unheard of by any stretch of the imagination either. And if we go back over the past few years, lots going on with inflation and how the economy was going was uncertain. Chair Powell took some dissents. If we go back to the financial crisis Chair Bernanke took a bunch of dissents. If we go back even further through time, Paul Volcker, when he was there trying to staunch the flow of the high inflation of the 1970s, faced a lot of resistance within his committee. And reportedly threatened to quit if he couldn't get his way. And had to be very aggressive in trying to bring the committee along. So, the chair has to find a way to bring the committee along with the plan that the chair wants to execute. Lots of tools at their disposal, but not endless power or influence. Does that make sense? Andrew Sheets: That makes complete sense. So, maybe my final question, Seth, is this is a tough job. This is a tough job in… Seth Carpenter: You mean your job and my job, or… Andrew Sheets: [Laughs] Not at all. The chair of the Fed. And it seems especially tricky now. You know, inflation is above the Fed's target. Interest rates are still elevated. You know, certainly mortgage rates are still higher than a lot of Americans are used to over the last several years. And asset prices are high. You know, the valuation of the equity market is high. The level of credit spreads is tight. So, you could say, well, financial conditions are already quite easy, which can create some complications. I am sure Kevin Warsh is receiving lots of advice from lots of different angles. But, you know, if you think about what you've seen from the Fed over the years, what would be your advice to a new Fed chair – and to navigate some of these challenges? Seth Carpenter: I think first and foremost, you are absolutely right. This is a tough job in the best of times, and we are in some of the most difficult and difficult to understand macroeconomic times right now. So, you noted interest rates being high, mortgage rates being high. There's very much an eye of the beholder phenomenon going on here. Now you're younger than I am. The first mortgage I had. It was eight and a half percent. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: I bought a house in 2000 or something like that. So, by those standards, mortgage rates are actually quite low. So, it really comes down to a little bit of what you're used to. And I think that fact translates into lots of other places. So, inflation is now much higher than the committee's target. Call it 3 percent inflation instead core inflation on PCE, rather than 2 percent inflation target. Now, on the one hand that's clearly missing their target and the Fed has been missing their target for years. And we know that tariffs are pushing up inflation, at least for consumer goods. And Chair Powell and this committee have said they get that. They think that inflation will be temporary, and so they're going to look through that inflation. So again, there's a lot of judgment going on here. The labor market is quite weak. Andrew Sheets: Hmm. Seth Carpenter: We don't have the latest months worth of job market data because of the government shutdown; that'll be delayed by a few days. But we know that at the end of last year, non-farm payrolls were running well below 50,000. Under most circumstances, you would say that is a clear indication of a super weak economy. But! But if we look at aggregate spending data, GDP, private-domestic final purchases, consumer spending, CapEx spending. It's actually pretty solid right now. And so again, that sense of judgment; what's the signal you're going to look for? That's very, very difficult right now, and that's part of what the chair is going to have to do to try to bring the committee together, in order to come to a decision. So, one intellectually coherent argument is – the main way you could get strong aggregate demand, strong spending numbers, strong GDP numbers, but with pretty tepid labor force growth is if productivity is running higher and if productivity is going higher because of AI, for example, over time you could easily expect that to be disinflationary. And if it's disinflationary, then you can cut it. Interest rates now. Not worry as much as you would normally about high inflation. And so, the result could be a lower path for policy rates. So that's one version of the argument that I suspect you're going to hear. On the other hand, inflation is high and it's been high for years. So what does that mean? Well. History suggests that if inflation stays too high for too long, inflation psychology starts to change the way businesses start to set. Andrew Sheets: Mm-hmm. Seth Carpenter: Their own prices can get a little bit loosey-goosey. They might not have to worry as much about consumers being as picky because everybody's got used to these price changes. Consumers might be become less picky because, well, they're kind of sick of shopping around. They might be more willing to accept those higher prices, and that's how things snowball. So, I do think that the new chair is going to face a particularly difficult situation in leading a committee in particularly challenging times. But I've gone on for a long, long time there. And one of the things that I love about getting to talk to you, Andrew, is the fact that you also talked to lots of investors all around the world. You're based in London. And so when the topic of the new Fed chair comes up, what are the questions that you're getting from clients? Andrew Sheets: So, I think that there are a few questions that stand out. I mean, I think a dominant question among investors was around the stability of the U.S. dollar. And so, you could say a good development on the back of Kevin Warsh's nomination is that the market response to that has been the price action you would associate with more stability. You've seen the dollar rise; you've seen precious metals prices fall. You've seen equity markets and credit spreads be very stable. So, I think so far everything in the market reaction is to your; to the point that you raised, you know, consistent with this still being orthodox policy. Every Fed chair is different, but still more similar than different now. I think where it gets more divergent in client opinions is just – what are we going to see from the Fed? Are we going to see a real big change in policy? And I think that this is where there are very different views of Kevin Warsh from investors. Some who say, ‘Well, he's in the past talked about fighting inflation more aggressively, which would imply tighter policy.' And he's also talked more recently about the productivity gains from AI and how that might support lower interest rates. So, I think that there's going to be a lot of interest when he starts to speak publicly, when we see testimony in front of the Senate. I think the other, the final piece, which I think again, people do not have as fully formed an opinion on yet is – how does he lead the Fed if the data is unexpected? And you know, you mentioned inflation and, you know, Morgan Stanley has this forecast that: Well, owner's equivalent rent, a really key part of inflation, might be a little bit higher than expected, which might be a distortion coming off of the government shutdown and impacts on data. But there's some real uncertainty about the inflation path over the near term. And so, in short, I think investors are going to give the benefit of the doubt. For now, I think they're going to lean more into this idea that it will be generally consistent with the Fed easing policy over time, for now. Generally consistent with a steeper curve for now. But I think there's a lot we're going to find out over the next couple of weeks and months. Seth Carpenter: Yeah. No, I agree with you. Andrew, I have to say, I'm glad you're here in New York. It's always great to sit down and talk to you. Let's do it again before too long. Andrew Sheets: Absolutely, Seth. Thanks for taking the time to talk. And to our audience, thank you as always for your time. If you find Thoughts the Market useful, let us know by leaving a review wherever you listen. And also tell a friend or colleague about us today.

In today's episode, Aaron Mulvihill, Global Alternatives Strategist, is joined by Brian Coleman, Co-Head of Investments for the Private Credit Solutions Group within J.P. Morgan Asset Management, to dive into private credit, an asset class that continues to be popular with investors due to its yield pick-up compared to traditional fixed income. However, private credit does not come without risk. They discuss some of these risks in certain sectors, as well as the outlook for private credit and opportunities outside of direct lending. Watch the video version on YouTube.  Resources: For more resources on Alternatives, visit our Guide to Alternatives and Principles of Alternatives Investing Listen to the audio version of the Alternative Realities podcast: Apple Podcasts | Spotify

What's really happening inside the larynx when we ‘tilt?' In this episode, Alexa is joined by voice researcher Mathias Aaen to unpack the science behind thyroid tilt - exploring what his latest studies reveal about pitch, vocal fold lengthening, and healthy singing. The pair cut through common misconceptions, translate research into studio-ready language, and ask the big question: are our teaching prompts actually doing what we think they are? If you love practical pedagogy grounded in solid science, this one's for you.  WHAT'S IN THIS PODCAST?  2:58 What is tilt? Anatomy & physiology  6:35 CVT framework 16:13 Study results  22:45 Physiology vs the perceptual  25:36 Teaching prompts  43:10 Vocal fold length and pitch change  48:14 Enemies of tilt 52:37 Common misconceptions about tilt   About the presenter HERE RELEVANT MENTIONS & LINKS Investigating Laryngeal “Tilt” on Same-pitch Phonation—Preliminary Findings of Vocal Mode, Metal and Density Parameters as Alternatives to Cricothyroid-Thyroarytenoid “Mix” by Mathias Aaen et al Correlating Degree of Thyroid Tilt Independent of fo Control as a Mechanism for Phonatory Density with EGG and Acoustic Measures across Loudness Conditions by Mathias Aaen et al Singing Teachers Talk - Ep.131 Mastering Research Papers: How to Read with Ease and Extract Knowledge  Complete Vocal Training  Ian Howell Dr Mark Tempesta Kerrie Obert  Dr Ingo Titze Estill CVT App Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica  Manuel Garcia  Praat  ABOUT THE GUEST  Mathias Aaen, PhD, is a voice researcher, educator, and certified rehabilitation specialist. He serves as Honorary Researcher at Nottingham University Hospitals and VP of Research & Collaboration at CVI, and was previously a Fulbright Fellow at UC Berkeley. His work focuses on voice physiology, acoustics, auditory-perceptual analysis, and voice habilitation and rehabilitation, with groundbreaking research into the physiology and health of contemporary commercial music styles, including rock and heavy metal. He recently completed a PostDoc investigating the CVT framework as a clinical treatment for dysphonia in MTD and ABI patients. An award-winning researcher and Authorised CVT Teacher, Mathias is also an active performer who has worked with leading opera houses and voice professionals worldwide.  SEE FULL BIO HEREWebsite

Preview for later today: Liz Peek joins John Batchelor to discuss how AI developments are causing market sell-offs in software and logistics, prompting investors to seek alternatives to MAG 7 stocks.1963

Our CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Mike Wilson explains why he still believes in a growth cycle for equity markets, even as investors show growing concerns around AI.Mike Wilson: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley's CIO and Chief U.S. Equity Strategist. Today on the podcast, I'll be discussing recent concerns around AI disruption. It's Tuesday, February 24th at 1pm in New York. So, let's get after it. Last week you could feel it, that anxious undercurrent in the market. The headlines were noisy, volatility ticked higher, and AI disruption, once again, dominated investor conversations. But beneath the surface level unease something important happened. The S&P 500 Equal Weight Index pushed to a new relative high, keeping our broadening thesis alive and well. On one hand, investors are worried about AI driven disruption, CapEx intensity, and potential labor force reductions. On the other hand, capital is still flowing into formerly lagging areas of the market, just as the median stock is seeing its strongest earnings growth in four years. Let's unpack this. First, there's concern AI will lead to job losses. But even if that's the case, there's typically a phase-in period. Companies don't just eliminate labor overnight. Importantly, before these productivity gains are fully realized, we need broad enterprise adoption. That means building out the agentic application layer, integrating AI into workflows, retraining systems and processes. That takes time, and it is still early days in that regard. Second, what we're seeing now is typical of a major investment cycle. Volatility increases as markets challenge the pace of unbridled spending. Dispersion increases as investors debate winners and losers. Leadership rotates, sometimes sharply. There's also something different this time compared to the internet bubble of the late 1990s. Today we're in an early cycle earnings backdrop. We've just emerged from what was effectively a rolling recession between 2022 and 2025. So, as capital rotates out of the perceived structural losers, it's not just chasing long-term AI beneficiaries, it's also finding classic cyclical winners. On the losing side is long duration services-oriented sectors, particularly software. These areas are more sensitive to uncertainty around longer term cash flows. This area also has a large overhang of private capital deployed over the last 10 to 15 years. There are other forces at play too. Small cap growth, arguably the longest duration segment of the market, began breaking down in late January around the time Kevin Warsh was nominated as Fed chair. While major indices barely reacted, more speculative areas may be responding to expectations of tighter liquidity given Warsh's, reputation as a balance sheet hawk. Finally, equity markets are typically more volatile when new Fed chairs assume office. Bottom line, our broader thesis of an early cycle rolling recovery remains intact. Market internals are supportive even if index level action feels choppy. That said, near term volatility is likely to persist as we enter a weaker seasonal window for retail demand, while liquidity remains ample, but far from abundant. With this backdrop, a quality cyclical barbell with healthcare makes sense. In small caps, the higher quality S&P 600 looks more attractive than the Russell 2000. And any short-term volatility could present opportunities to add exposure in preferred cyclical areas like Consumer Discretionary Goods, Industrials, and Financials. Of course, risks remain. AI adoption could accelerate faster than expected, pressuring labor markets more abruptly. Pricing power could erode as efficiency spread, and policy makers could react in ways that slow the CapEx cycle while crowded momentum positioning remains vulnerable. Nevertheless, the signal from the internals is clear. Beneath the volatility this looks less like a market rolling over, and more like one that is confirming an early cycle economic expansion. Thanks for tuning in. I hope you found it informative and useful. Let us know what you think by leaving us a review. And if you find Thoughts on the Market worthwhile, tell a friend or colleague to try it out.

We answer the following Biohacking and lifehacking questions in this Q&A podcast...11:30 How to overcome vibrator addiction?19:28 Alternatives to 5-HTP for depression?33:43 What is the best combination of brain supplements?36:52 Alternatives to Resveratrol?39:35 Phenylalanine for bipolar depression?43:06 Is a large Choline dose the same as a smaller Alpha-GPC dose?46:07 Does N-Acetyl Cysteine treat Phenibut withdrawal?Read

The Supreme Court's latest ruling on tariffs has thrown existing trade agreements into uncertainty. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore and Arunima Sinha, from the U.S and Global Economics teams break down the fallout.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research. Arunima Sinha: And I am Arunima Sinha on the U.S. and Global Economics teams. Ariana Salvatore: Today we'll be talking about the recent Supreme Court decision on tariffs, what it means for existing trade deals, and where trade policy is headed from here. It's Monday, February 23rd at 9am in New York. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the president could not use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to impose broad-based tariffs. The ruling didn't give a clear signal on what it could mean for potential refunds, but the Trump administration said it plans to replace the existing tariffs, which is something that we'd long expected – first leveraging Section 122 to impose 15 percent tariffs for 150 days. The president is simultaneously going to launch a few new Section 301 investigations to eventually replace those Section 122 tariffs, since they're only allowed to be in place temporarily. So Arunima, let's start by breaking down some of this tariff math. What does this mean for the headline and effective rate given where we are now versus before? Arunima Sinha: Before the decision, Ariana, we were at a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent. What this decision does is that with the move, especially to 15 percent, for other countries, we think that it takes about a percentage point off of the headline tariff rate. So, we would go to about 12 percent, and then we have another percentage point coming off just because of the shifts in trade patterns. And so instead of a headline tariff rate of about 13 percent, we think that we're going to be at a headline tariff of just about 11 percent. But that's really just related to the Section 122s. And as you noted, this is only going to apply for the next 150 days. So how should we be thinking about trade policy going forward? Ariana Salvatore: I think we should view the 15 percent as probably a likely ceiling for these rates in the medium term; in particular because this 150-day period expires some time around the summer, so even closer to the midterm elections. And as we've been saying politically speaking, it's unpopular to impose high levels of tariffs. We've also been saying that the president will continue to lean on trade policy as his real, only way to address the affordability issue for voters, which is something that we've actually seen on the policy side for the past few months with the imposition of exemptions, more trade framework agreements, et cetera.So really, I think this is just another way for him to continue leaning on this policy avenue. But in that vein, let's talk about specific pockets of relief. What are we thinking about some of their findings on a sector level? Arunima Sinha: So, let's tie this into the affordability aspect that you mentioned, Ariana, and specifically using the consumer goods sector. What we think is that with, just in the near-term period, with the Section 122s applying, for different consumer goods categories, we could see tariff rate differentials go down. So, they could be anywhere between 1 to 4 percentage points lower across different categories. But what we also think could happen is that once we get beyond the 150-day period, and there are no additional sector tariffs that go on. So, the 232s or the 301s, particularly for this particular sector, we could see some of the largest tariff relief that we're expecting to see. So, for example, apparel and accessories could see something like a 16 to 17 percentage point tariff drop. So that particular part I think is important. Just the upside risks to consumer goods. But that of course brings us to the question of bilateral trade deals and how they come into play. What do you think about that, Ariana? Ariana Salvatore: Yeah. So, I think when it comes to the bilateral deals, as we mentioned, there's some opportunities for relief depending on the sectors and the type of tariff exposure by country. As you mentioned, the consumer goods are a good example of this. So, in general, I think that trading partners will have little incentive to abandon the existing deals or framework agreements, just given that the president and the administration have messaged this idea of continuity. So, replacing the IEEPA tariffs with a more durable, legitimate, legal authority. But what's notable is that many of our trading partners are actually now facing potentially even lower levels than they were before. Even with the increase to 15 percent on the 122s from 10 percent over the weekend. In particular, many countries in Southeast Asia are actually now facing lower tariff levels since there were somewhere in the range of 20 or maybe even 25 percent before. But as I mentioned, the export composition of these countries matters a lot. So, Vietnam, for example, most exports are subject to the 20 percent tariff because of the IEEPA exposure. This ruling is more meaningful than somewhere like South Korea, where the exports are more exposed to the Section 232 tariffs. Based on the export composition – and that's a level, remember, that's not changing as a result of this ruling. So that's how we're trying to disaggregate the impact here. Now, my last question to you, Arunima, what does this all mean for the macro-outlook? As we mentioned, refunds weren't addressed in this ruling. We've sketched out a few different scenarios, most of which leaned toward a long lead time to eventually paying back the money – if and when the administration is actually, in fact, mandated to do that. But safe to say in the near term that we aren't going to see much action on that front. That probably means status quo. But why don't you put a finer point on what this means for the macroeconomic outlook? Arunima Sinha: That's absolutely right, Ariana, for the very near term and the second quarter, we don't think we're going to be very different from what our baseline expectation is. In the third quarter and in the last part of this year, there could be some upside risks, especially once the timeline on the 122s run out, they're not extended. And the different sector and country investigations take longer to implement. So, there could be some upside risks to demand. Consumer goods, for example. If there were to be some sort of an incremental tailwind to corporate margins that might lead to better labor demand from these companies. There could be additional goods disinflation; that would support just purchasing power. So, both of those things could be some incremental uplift to demand, relative to our baseline outlook. But then the last thing I think just to emphasize from our perspective, is that we do think that there is some sort of a near-term ceiling about how high effective tariff rates can go. We don't think that we're going to be going back to Liberation Day tariff rates in the near-term or even in the latter half of this year. Because if history is any guide, many of these investigations are going to take time and that full implementation may not actually occur before early 2027. Ariana Salvatore: Makes sense. Arunima, thanks for joining. Arunima Sinha: Thanks so much for having me.Ariana Salvatore: And thank you for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen, and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

I did my February 2026 celebrity book club audit: covering Read with Jenna, Reese's Book Club, Good Morning America (adult + YA), Oprah's Book Club, Reese's Gen Z arm Sunnie Reads, and Dua Lipa's Service95. I broke down each pick's premise and vibes, shared whether I felt it was worth your time, and offered alternatives I would've chosen instead.

Today, we are joined by Jeff Wenninger, a retired LAPD Lieutenant, a nationally recognized law enforcement expert and author of “On Thin Ice,” an analysis of how poor leadership and entrenched mindsets have eroded public trust in police.Good policing requires standardization and training. The lack of standardized training nationwide is evident. Police academies across the nation vary significantly in required training hours, with the national average being about 800 hours. For context, a cosmetology license requires 1,500 hours of training. In contrast, Nordic countries train their police for two to three years and continuously monitor candidates to ensure they possess the necessary characteristics for success.Often a department's culture may not align with its standards. Law enforcement policies are only as effective as the culture that enforces them. Training must be assessed, and officers must be held accountable for their actions.Proper police response requires self-awareness, both of the situation and how an officer's actions can escalate or de-escalate an incident. Officers must ensure that any force used is proportional to the threat and the severity of the crime. Alternatives to force should always be considered, and training should instill this mindset rather than defaulting to force as the first solution. But there is often a disconnect between policy, practice, and culture—what Jeff refers to as the "policy-practice divide."Many officers are not fully aware of the legal standards by which their use of force will be judged. Organizations should be responsible for ensuring their officers are not just trained, but competent and able to justify their decisions under stress.Despite clear guidelines, the culture within some departments may foster a mentality where disobedience is met with excessive force—a “contempt of cop” attitude. This underscores the need for good judgment and accountability, both at the individual and organizational levels. Agencies must hold officers to high standards and not simply defend their actions because they are found to be legally justified.Post-incident debriefs, modeled after those used by the Blue Angels, are critical for learning and improvement. These debriefs should happen soon after incidents and involve honest self-assessment and peer feedback.Unfortunately, some leaders undermine trust by publicly defending officers before investigations are complete. True professionalism in law enforcement requires transparency, honest evaluation of incidents, and accountability at every level.

Our Head of European Sustainability Research Rachel Fletcher talks about how AI's is quickly reshaping employment and productivity across key industries and regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Rachel Fletcher: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I am Rachel Fletcher, Head of European Sustainability Research at Morgan Stanley. Today, how AI is shaking up the global job market. It's Friday, February 20th at 2pm in London. You've probably asked yourself when all the excitement around AI is going to move beyond demos and headlines, and start showing up in ways that matter to your job, your investments, and even your day-to-day life. Our latest global AlphaWise AI survey suggests that the turning point may already be unfolding – especially in the labor market where AI is beginning to influence hiring, productivity, and workplace skills. Our survey covered the U.S., UK, Germany, Japan, and Australia, across five sectors where we see a significant AI adoption benefit. Consumer staples, distribution in retail, real estate, transportation, healthcare, equipment and services, and autos. We found that AI contributed to 11 percent of jobs being eliminated over the past 12 months, with another 12 percent not backfilled. These job cuts were partially offset by 18 percent new hires, which results in a net 4 percent global job loss. It's important to note that the survey focused on companies that had already been adopting AI for at least a year. In fact, most of the companies in our survey had been adopting AI for more than two years. So, this is likely the most significant downside case in terms of the impact of AI on jobs, but it is still an early signal of potential job disruption. In Europe, the picture is nuanced. The UK saw the highest net job loss at 8 percent. This was primarily driven by a lower level of new hires in the UK compared to other countries that we surveyed, as well as a high level of positions not backfilled. This compares to Germany, which posted a 4 percent net job loss in line with the all-country average. There could be some other factors amplifying the impact in the UK. For example, broader labor market weakness driven by higher labor costs and higher levels of unemployment amongst younger workers. Ultimately, disentangling AI from macro forces remains challenging. Moving to sector impacts in Europe, autos experience the largest net job loss at 13 percent, and this compares to a 10 percent global average for the sector. It's possible these numbers reflect persistent sales weakness, and AI driven cost cutting. Transportation was least affected at 3 percent, whilst other sectors clustered around 6 to 7 percent. If we look at the top quintile of European companies reducing headcount, they've outperformed other companies that are more actively hiring. This suggests that investors are rewarding efficiency. On the downside, staffing firms face potential growth risks from AI displacement. On productivity, European firms report 10 to 11 percent gains from AI, close to the 11.5 percent global average, and the U.S. at 10.8 percent. It's worth noting that whilst Europe lags the U.S. in exposure to AI enablers, adopters and adopter enablers make up more than two-thirds of the MSCI Europe Index. However, European AI adopters have traded at a material discount versus their equivalent U.S. AI adoption peers. So, turning AI adoption into real ROI and defending pricing power is crucial for European companies. If we shift our focus to the U.S., there's a contrast. Whilst the global net job change was a 4 percent loss, the U.S. actually saw a 2 percent net gain, driven by AI related hiring. Our U.S. strategists have lifted expectations for S&P 500 margin expansion by 40 basis points in 2026 and 60 basis points in 2027. In our survey, the most frequently cited goals of AI deployment in the U.S. are boosting productivity, personalizing customer interactions, and accelerating data insights. Other common use cases include search, content generation, dashboards, and virtual agents. What's becoming clear is AI is no longer theoretical. Our survey data suggests that it is reshaping hiring, productivity and margins. The investor question is not whether AI matters, but who captures the value. Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Welcome to episode 347 of Growers Daily! We cover: some soil blocking alternatives (with a fun AI question attached—you know how that goes with me), saving the soil for the future, and it's feedback friday!  We are a Non-Profit! 

File: P-STRADNER-2-19.mp3 Headline: Viktor Orban's Continued Reliance on Russian Energy Guest Name: Stradner 25 Word Summary: Hungarian leader Viktor Orban falsely claims a lack of alternatives to Russian gas, prioritizing his grip on power and ties to Moscow over Hungary's interests.1870 BUCHAREST

Our Global Head of FX and EM Strategy James Lord and Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter discuss what's driving the U.S. policy for the dollar and the outlook for other global currencies.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----James Lord: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm James Lord, Global Head of FX and EM Strategy at Morgan Stanley. Seth Carpenter:  And I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. James Lord: Today we're talking about U.S. currency policy and whether recent news on intervention and nominations to the Fed change anything for the outlook of the dollar. It's Thursday, February 19th at 3pm in London. So it's been an interesting few weeks in currency markets. Plenty of dollar selling going on But then, we got news that Kevin Warsh is going to be nominated to Chair of the Board of Governors. And that sent the dollar back higher, reminding everybody that monetary policy and central bank policy still matter. So, in the aftermath of the dollar-yen rate check, investors started to discuss whether or not the U.S. might be starting to target a weaker currency. Not just be comfortable with a weaker currency, but actually explicitly target a weaker currency, which would presumably be a shift away from the stronger strong dollar policy that Secretary Bessent referenced. So, what is your understanding? What do you think the strong dollar policy actually means? Seth Carpenter: Strong dollar policy, that's a phrase, that's a term; it's a concept that lots of Secretaries of the Treasury have used for a long time. And I specifically point to the Secretary of the Treasury because at least in the recent couple of decades, there has been in standard Washington D.C. approach to things, a strong dichotomy that currency policy is the policy of the Treasury Department, not of the central bank. And that's always been important. I remember when I was working at the Treasury Department, that was still part of the talking points that the secretary used. However, you also hear Secretaries of the Treasury say that exchange rates should be market determined; that that's a key part of it. And with the back and forth between the U.S. and China, for example, there was a lot of discussion: Was the Chinese government adjusting or manipulating the value of their currency? And there was a push that currencies should be market determined. And so, if you think about those two things, at the same time – pushing really hard that the dollar should be strong, pushing really hard that currencies should be market determined – you start to very quickly run into a bit of an intellectual tension. And I think all of that is pretty intentional. What does it mean? It means that there's no single clear definition of strong dollar policy. It's a little bit of the eye of the beholder. It's an acknowledgement that the dollar plays a clear key role in global markets, and it's good for the U.S. for that to happen. That's traditionally been what it means. But it has not meant a specific number relative to any other currency or any basket of currency. It has not meant a specific value based on some sort of long run theoretical fair value. It is always meant to be a very vague, deliberately so, very vague concept. James Lord: So, in that version of what the strong dollar policy means, presumably the sort of ambiguity still leaves space for the Treasury to conduct some kind of intervention in dollar-yen, if they wanted to. And that would still be very much consistent with that definition of the strong dollar policy. I also, in the back of my head, always wonder whether the strong dollar policy has anything to do with the dollar's global role. And the sort of foreign policy power that gives the Treasury in sanctions policy. And other areas where, you know, they can control dollar flows and so on. And that gives the U.S. government some leverage. And that allows them to project strength in foreign policy. Has that anything to do with the traditional versions of the strong policy? Seth Carpenter: Absolutely. I think all of that is part and parcel to it. But it also helps to explain a little bit of why there's never going to be a very crisp, specific numerical definition of what a strong dollar policy is.So, first and foremost, I think the discussion of intervention; I think it is, in lots of ways, consistent, especially if you have that more expansive definition of strong dollar, i.e. the currency that's very important, or most important in global financial markets and in global trade. So, I think in that regard, you could have both the intervention and the strong dollar at the same time. I will add though that the administration has not had a clear, consistent view in this regard, in the following very specific sense. When now Governor Myron was chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, he penned a piece on the Council of Economics website that said that the reserve currency status of the dollar had brought with it some adverse effects on the U.S., and in terms of what happened in terms of trade flows and that sort of thing.So again, this administration has also tried to find ways to increase the nuance about what the currency policy is, and putting forward the idea that too strong of a dollar in the FX sense. In the sense that you and your colleagues in FX markets would think about is a high valuation of the dollar relative to other currencies – could have contributed to these trade deficits that they're trying to push back against. So, I would say we went from the previous broad, perhaps vague definition of strong dollar. And now we're in an even murkier regime where there could be other motivations for changing the value of the dollar. Seth Carpenter: So, James, that's been our view in terms of the Fed, but let me come back to you because there are lots of different forces going on at the same time. The central bank is clearly an important one, but it's only one factor among many. So, if you think about where the dollar is likely to go over the next three months, over the next six months, maybe over the next year, what is it that you and your team are looking for? Where are the questions that you're getting from clients? James Lord: Yeah, so when we came into the start of this year, we did have a bearish view on the dollar. I would say that the drivers of it, we'd split up into two components. The first component was a lot more of the conventional stuff about growth expectations, what we see the Fed doing. And then there was another component to it where – what we defined as risk premia, I suppose. The more unconventional catalysts that can push the dollar around, as we saw, come very much to market attention during the second quarter of last year, when the Liberation Day tariffs were announced and the dollar weakened far in excess of what rate differentials would imply. And so, I would say so far this year, the majority of the dollar move that we've seen, the weakening in the dollar that we've seen, has been driven by that second component. What we've kind of called risk premia. And the conversations that, you know, investors have been having about U.S. policy towards Greenland, and then more recently, the conversations that people have been having around FX intervention following the dollar-yen rate check. These sorts of things have been really driving the currency up until , when the Kevin Warsh nomination was announced. When we look at the extent of the risk premia that we see in the dollar now, it is pretty close to the levels that we saw in the second quarter of last year, which is to say it's pretty big. Euro dollar would probably be closer to 1-10, if we were just thinking about the impact of rate differentials and none of this risk premia stuff over the past year had materialized. That's obviously a very big gap. And I think for now that gap probably isn't going to widen much further, particularly now that market attention is much more focused on the impact that Kevin Warsh will have on markets and the dollar. We also have, you know, the ECB and the Bank of England; , house call for those two central banks is for them to be cutting rates. That could also put some downward pressure on those currencies, relative to the dollar. So all of that is to say for some of the major currencies within the G10 space, like sterling, like euro against the dollar, this probably isn't the time to be pushing a weaker dollar. But I think there are some other currencies which still have some opportunity in the short term, but also over the longer run as well. And that's really in emerging markets. So all of that is to say, I think there is a strong monetary policy anchor for emerging market currencies. This is an asset class that has been under invested in for some time. And we do think that there are more gains there in the short term and over the medium term as well. Seth Carpenter: So on that topic, James, would you then agree? So if I think about some of the EM central banks, think about Banxico, think about the BCB – where the dollar falling in value, their currency gaining in value – that could actually have a couple things go on to allow the central bank, maybe to ease more than they would've otherwise. One, in terms of imported inflation, their currency strengthening on a relative basis probably helps with a bit lower inflation. And secondly, a lot of EM central banks have to worry a bit about defending their currency, especially in a volatile geopolitical time. And you were pointing to sort of lower volatility more broadly. So is this a reinforcing trend perhaps, where if the dollar is coming down a little bit, especially against DM currencies, it allows more external stability for those central banks, allowing them to just focus on their domestic mandates, which could also lead to a further reduction in their domestic rates, which might be good for investors. James Lord: Yeah, I think there's something to that. given the strength of emerging market currencies. There should be, over time, more space for them to ease if the domestic conditions warrant it. But so far we're not really seeing many EM central banks taking advantage of that opportunity. There is a sort of general pattern with a lot of EMs that they're staying pretty conservative and more hawkish than I think what markets have generally been expecting, and that's been supporting their currencies. I think it's interesting to think about what would happen if they're on the flip side. What would happen if they did start to push monetary easing at a faster pace? I'm sure on the days where that happens, the currencies would weaken a little bit. However, if the market backdrop is generally constructive on risk, and investors want to have exposure to EM – then what could ultimately happen is that asset managers will simply buy more bonds as they price in a lower path for central bank policy over time. And that causes more capital inflows. And that sort of overwhelms the knee jerk effect from the more dovish stance of monetary policy on the currency. You get more duration flows coming into the market and that helps their currency. So, yes, if EM central banks push back with more dovish policy, significantly, it could pose some short-term volatility. But assuming we remain a low-vol environment globally, I would use those as buying opportunities. Seth Carpenter: Thanks, James. It's been great being on the show with you. Thank you for inviting me, and I hope to be able to come back and join you at some point in the future if you'll have me. James Lord: Thank you, Seth, for making the time to talk. And to all you listening, thank you for lending us your ears. Let us know what you think of this podcast by leaving us a review. And if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, tell a friend or colleague about us today.

In this investigative solo deep dive, Darin exposes the ongoing PFAS contamination crisis, the "forever chemicals" found in drinking water, clothing, carpets, cookware, cosmetics, food packaging, and even firefighting foam. Sparked by a Frontline investigation into the carpet industry in Dalton, Georgia, this episode expands far beyond one region and reveals a global supply chain problem affecting nearly every American. This episode is urgent. With 99% of people showing measurable PFAS levels in their blood, this is not about fear. It's about sovereignty. It's about awareness. It's about eliminating silent accumulation and reclaiming control over your environment. This is not luxury health. This is foundational freedom.     In This Episode What PFAS are and why they're called "forever chemicals" The Dalton, Georgia carpet industry case and wastewater contamination Internal corporate knowledge from 3M and DuPont decades ago Why PFAS contamination is global, not regional Everyday exposure: waterproof clothing, yoga pants, school uniforms, outdoor gear Nonstick cookware and safer alternatives Microwave popcorn bags and grease-resistant packaging Cosmetics, mascara, and fluorinated compounds Firefighting foam contamination at airports and military bases Health impacts: immune suppression, thyroid disruption, cancer risk Why water filtration is your first line of defense Emerging detox strategies: fiber, blood donation, microbiome support The role of regulation rollbacks and corporate accountability Algae-based PFAS alternatives already entering the market     Chapters 00:00:00 – Welcome to SuperLife: sovereignty, health, and responsibility 00:00:33 – Sponsor: Truniagen NAD supplement 00:02:17 – Why this PFAS episode is urgent and investigative 00:03:07 – The Frontline documentary: Dalton, Georgia & carpet contamination 00:04:31 – What PFAS / PFOA actually do and why they were adopted 00:05:45 – "Miracle chemistry" without proper safety testing 00:06:07 – Persistence: PFAS do not break down in the environment 00:06:38 – Wastewater discharge & farmland contamination 00:07:50 – Dead livestock, contaminated groundwater & generational impact 00:08:23 – 3M, DuPont, internal documents & decades of corporate knowledge 00:08:52 – Long-chain vs short-chain PFAS replacements 00:09:20 – Clothing exposure: waterproof jackets, yoga pants, uniforms 00:10:24 – Cookware exposure & safer alternatives 00:10:57 – Cosmetics & Environmental Working Group resources 00:11:17 – Sponsor: Shakeology & seven layers of quality testing 00:13:03 – Lack of labeling transparency 00:13:20 – Firefighting foam & military base contamination 00:14:05 – Health risks: immune suppression, thyroid, cholesterol, cancer 00:14:35 – 99% of Americans have PFAS in their blood 00:15:01 – Erin Brockovich & environmental legal activism 00:15:33 – Personal action step #1: Reverse osmosis water filtration 00:16:04 – Testing well water & municipal pressure 00:16:28 – Personal action step #2: Eliminating household exposures 00:17:25 – Emerging research: oat beta glucan fiber 00:18:03 – Firefighter study: blood donation lowering PFAS levels 00:18:32 – Microbiome & mycelium detox research 00:18:56 – Moving beyond fear into empowered action 00:19:23 – Phasing out toxic clothing & upgrading environment gradually 00:20:15 – Stockholm Convention & global treaties 00:20:52 – EPA regulations & rollback frustrations 00:21:19 – Innovation outrunning safety 00:21:50 – Share this episode & create consumer pressure 00:22:28 – Clean water, clean soil, clean products as human rights 00:22:54 – Terem Labs & algae-based PFAS alternatives 00:23:27 – Building a safe home environment as first step 00:24:15 – Final call to action: demand transparency & push reform     Thank You to Our Sponsors Shakeology: Get 15% off with code DARINO1BODI at Shakeology.com. Truniagen: Go to www.truniagen.com and use code DARIN20 at checkout for 20% off     Join the SuperLife Community Get Darin's deeper wellness breakdowns, beyond social media restrictions: Weekly voice notes Ingredient deep dives Wellness challenges Energy + consciousness tools Community accountability Extended episodes Join for $7.49/month → https://patreon.com/darinolien     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolien Podcast: SuperLife Podcast Website: superlife.com Book: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway PFAS shows us what happens when innovation outruns safety. This is not about panic. It's about power. Clean water, clean soil, clean products; these are not luxuries. They are the foundation of sovereignty, freedom, and long-term health. Awareness is rising. Alternatives are emerging. Industry shifts when consumers shift. Make one change today. Then another. That's how we win.     Bibliography/Sources Australian Red Cross Lifeblood / University of New England. (2022). Effect of Plasma and Blood Donations on Levels of Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Firefighters in Australia: A Randomized Clinical Trial. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2791196 Boston University / University of Massachusetts Lowell. (2024). An oat fiber intervention for reducing PFAS body burden: A pilot study. (Published in Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2024.117163 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2022). Guidance on PFAS Exposure, Testing, and Clinical Follow-Up. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/26156/guidance-on-pfas-exposure-testing-and-clinical-follow-up Environmental Health Perspectives. (2021). Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substance Toxicity and Human Health Review: Current State of Knowledge and Strategies for Informing Future Research. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7906952/ New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) / IARC. (2024). Carcinogenicity of Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctanesulfonic Acid (PFOS). https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2401611 FRONTLINE. (2024). Contaminated: The Carpet Industry's Toxic Legacy. (Investigative Documentary). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_j66vAunXk United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2024). Final PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation. https://www.epa.gov/sdwa/and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas

Send a textKristin Olson, Goldman Sachs' Head of Alternatives for Wealth and Asset and Wealth Management, sits down with us for the most candid, no-fluff conversation about private equity and private credit we've ever had. .She walks us through the very real benefits of investing in private capital while also answering the cynical questions: do “retail” investors in private equity products like evergreen funds and perpetual funds get the A-team investors? Are those structures getting the best deals? How do the fees compare to the fees on products for institutional investors? Plus, If more buyers flood the market, does that push prices up and compress returns? Kristin breaks down for us how this whole ecosystem actually works, she discusses the biggest shift in private markets right now, and the pros and cons of newer structures that aim to make private assets feel more like “normal investing.” Finally, we go deep on what investors should actually ask before putting money into private equity and private credit. Kristin talks us through how fees can be misleading, when carry is taken, hurdle rates, gating/redemptions, and what “liquidity” really means when markets get stressed. This is an episode every investor should listen to before putting private capital into their portfolio.For a 14 day FREE Trial of Macabacus, click HERE Visit https://iconnections.io/ to learn more about iConnections!Shop our Self Paced Courses: Investment Banking & Private Equity Fundamentals HEREFixed Income Sales & Trading HERE Wealthfront.com/wss. This is a paid endorsement for Wealthfront. May not reflect others' experiences. Similar outcomes not guaranteed. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. Rate subject to change. Promo terms apply. If eligible for the boosted rate of 4.15% offered in connection with this promo, the boosted rate is also subject to change if base rate decreases during the 3 month promo period.The Cash Account, which is not a deposit account, is offered by Wealthfront Brokerage LLC ("Wealthfront Brokerage"), Member FINRA/SIPC. Wealthfront Brokerage is not a bank. The Annual Percentage Yield ("APY") on cash deposits as of 11/7/25, is representative, requires no minimum, and may change at any time. The APY reflects the weighted average of deposit balances at participating Program Banks, which are not allocated equally. Wealthfront Brokerage sweeps cash balances to Program Banks, where they earn the variable APY. Sources HERE.

Joseph Sternberg analyzes Prime Minister Keir Starmer's crash and burn scenario despite a large parliamentary majority, weakened by scandals and party infighting, with survival relying on the lack of compelling alternatives while constant policy reversals leave his government unable to foster growth.1900 NETHERLANDS

More Americans are blaming the AI infrastructure expansion for rising electricity bills. Our Head of Public Policy Research Ariana Salvatore explains how the topic may influence policy announcements ahead of the midterm elections.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Ariana Salvatore: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Ariana Salvatore, Head of Public Policy Research for Morgan Stanley. Today I'll be talking about the relationship between affordability, the data center buildout, and the midterm elections. It's Wednesday, February 18th at 10am in New York. Markets and voters continue to grapple with questions on AI, including its potential scope, impact, and disruption across industries. That's been a clear theme on the policy side as voters seem to be pushing back against AI development and data center buildout in particular. In key states, voters are associating the rise in electricity bills with AI infrastructure – and we think that could be an important read across for the midterm elections in November. Now to be sure, electricity inflation has stayed sticky at around four to 5 percent year-over- year, and our economists expect it to remain in that range through this year and next. Nationally the impact of data centers on electricity prices has been relatively modest so far, but regionally, the pressure has been more visible. To that point, a recent survey in Pennsylvania found that nearly twice as many respondents believe AI will hurt the economy as it will help. More than half – 55 percent – think AI is likely to take away jobs in their own industry, and 71 percent said they're concerned about how much electricity data centers consume. But this isn't just a Pennsylvania story. In other battleground states like Arizona and Michigan, voters have actually rejected plans to build new data centers locally. So, what could that mean for the midterm elections? Think back to the off-cycle elections in November of last year. Candidates who ran on this theme of affordability and actually pushed back against data center construction tended to do pretty well in their respective races. Looking ahead to the midterm elections later this year, we see two clear takeaways from a policy perspective. First, it's important to note that more of the policy action here will actually continue to be at the local rather than federal level. Some states with heavy data center build out – so Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas among others – are now debating who should pay for grid upgrades. Federal proposals on this topic are still pretty nascent and fragmented. Meanwhile, public utility commissions in states like Georgia, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana have adopted or proposed large load tariffs. These require data centers to shoulder more upfront grid costs; or can reflect conditional charges like long-term contracts, minimum demand charges, exit fees or collateral requirements – all of which are designed to prevent costs from spilling over to households. And secondly, because of that limited federal action, we expect the Trump administration to continue leaning on other levers of affordability policy, where the president actually does have some more unilateral control. We've been expecting the administration to continue focusing on broader affordability areas ranging from housing to trade policy, as we've said on this podcast in the past. That dynamic is especially relevant this week as the Supreme Court could rule as soon as Friday on whether or not the president has the authority under IEEPA to impose the broad-based reciprocal tariffs. The administration thus far has been projecting a message of continuity. But we've noted that a decision that constrains that authority could give the president an opportunity to pursue a lighter touch tariff policy in response to the public's concerns around affordability. That's why we think the AI infrastructure buildout debate will continue to be a flashpoint into November, especially in the context of rising data center demand. Next week, when the president delivers his State of the Union address, we expect to hear plenty about not just affordability, but also AI leadership and competitiveness. But an equally important message will be around the administration's potential policy options to address its associated costs. That tension between AI supremacy and rising everyday costs for voters will be critical in shaping the electoral landscape into November. Thanks for listening. As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us wherever you listen; and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

AllMomDoes host Julie Lyles Carr welcomes Christy Osborne back to the podcast! Christy was on the show a few years ago, early in her sobriety journey. Today, she returns to talk about the latest research on alcohol dependence, why women struggle to talk about their alcohol use in church settings, and much more!Show Notes: https://bit.ly/4rIbTe5 Takeaways:Christy Osborne shares her journey to sobriety and its impact on her life.The sober curious movement is gaining traction, especially among younger generations.Alcohol is classified as a class one carcinogen, similar to tobacco.Women often feel unable to discuss their struggles with alcohol in church settings.Socializing without alcohol can lead to deeper connections and authentic interactions.Nootropics and other alternatives to alcohol raise questions about dependency and coping mechanisms.Cortisol levels are affected by alcohol consumption, impacting mental health.Non-alcoholic alternatives can be helpful for those transitioning away from alcohol.Community support is crucial for women navigating sobriety.The journey to sobriety is ultimately about drawing closer to Jesus.Sound Bites:"I had this actual come Jesus moment.""Alcohol is a class one carcinogen.""We are not meant to live life alone."Chapters:00:00 - Introduction and Welcome Back02:12 - Christy's Journey to Sobriety04:43 - The Sober Curious Movement08:43 - Understanding Alcohol's Impact on Health14:06 - Socializing Without Alcohol17:10 - Nootropics and Alternatives to Alcohol18:53 - Avoidance and Alcohol20:53 - Cortisol and Alcohol's Effects22:54 - Non-Alcoholic Alternatives24:33 - The Power of Community27:07 - Upcoming Events and Closing ThoughtsKeywords: sobriety, alcohol, health, community, women, coaching, sober curious, mental health, non-alcoholic, support

Our Head of U.S. Internet Research Brian Nowak joins U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst Nathan Feather to explain why the future of agentic commerce is closer than you think.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Brian Nowak: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Brian Nowak, Morgan Stanley's Head of U.S. Internet ResearchNathan Feather: And I'm Nathan Feather, U.S. Small and Mid-Cap Internet Analyst.Brian Nowak: Today, how AI-powered shopping assistants are set to revolutionize the e-commerce experience.It's Tuesday, February 17th at 8am in New York.Nathan, let's talk a little bit about agentic commerce. When was the last time you reordered groceries? Or bought household packaged goods? Or compared prices for items you [b]ought online and said, ‘Boy, I wish there was an easier way to do this. I wish technology could solve this for me.'Nathan Feather: Yeah. Yesterday, about 24 hours ago.Brian Nowak: Well, our work on agentic commerce shows a lot of these capabilities could be [coming] sooner than a lot of people appreciate. We believe that agentic commerce could grow to be 10 to 20 percent of overall U.S. e-commerce by 2030, and potentially add 100 to 300 basis points of overall growth to e-commerce.There are certain categories of spend we think are going to be particularly large unlocks for agentic commerce. I mentioned grocery, I mentioned household essentials. We think these are some of the items that agentic commerce is really going to drive a further digitization of over the next five years.So maybe Nathan, let's start at the very top. Our work we did together shows that 40 to 50 percent of consumers in the U.S. already use different AI tools for product research, but only a mid single digit percentage of them are actually really starting their shopping journey or buying things today. What does that gap tell you about the agentic opportunity and some of the hurdles we have to overcome to close that gap from research to actual purchasing?Nathan Feather: Well, I think what it shows is that clearly there is demand from consumers for these products. We think agentic opens up both evolutionary and revolutionary ways to shop online for consumers. But at the moment, the tools aren't fully developed and the consumer behavior isn't yet there. And so, we think it'll take time for these tools to develop. But once they do, it's clear that the consumer use case is there and you'll start to see adoption.And building on that, Brian, on the large cap side, you've done a lot of work here on how the shopping funnel itself could evolve. Traditionally discovery has flowed through search, social or direct traffic. Now we're seeing agents begin to sit in the start of the funnel acting as the gatekeeper to the transaction. For the biggest platforms with massive reach, how meaningful is that shift?Brian Nowak: It is very meaningful. And I think that this agentic shift in how people research products, price compare products, purchase products, is going to lead to even more advertis[ing] and value creation opportunity for the big social media platforms, for the big video platforms. Because essentially these big platforms that have large corpuses of users, spending a lot of time on them are going to be more important than ever for companies that want to launch new products. Companies that want to introduce their products to new customers.People that want to start new businesses entirely, it's going to be harder to reach new potential customers in an agentic world. So, I think some of these leading social and reach based video platforms are going to go up in value and you'll see more spend on those for people to build awareness around new and existing products.On this point of the products, you know, our work shows that grocery and consumer packaged goods are probably going to be one of the largest category unlocks. You know, we already know that over 50 percent of incremental e-commerce growth in the U.S. is going to come from grocery and CPG. And we think agentic is going to be a similar dynamic where grocery and CPG is going to drive a lot of agentic spend.Why do you think that is? And sort of walk us through, what has to happen in your mind for people to really pivot and start using agents to shop for their weekly grocery basket?Nathan Feather: I think one of the key things about the grocery category is it's a very high friction category online. You have to go through and select each individual ingredient you want [in] the order, ensure that you have the right brand, the right number of units, and ensure that the substitutions – when somebody actually gets to the store – are correct.And so for a user, it just takes a substantial amount of time to build a basket for online grocery. We think agentic can change that by becoming your personal digital shopper. You can say something as simple as, ‘I want to make steak tacos for dinner.' And it can add all of the ingredients you want to your order. Go from the grocery store you like. And hey, it'll know your preferences. It'll know you already like a certain brand of tortillas, and it'll add those to the cart. And so it just dramatically reduces the friction.Now, that will take time to build the tools. The tools aren't there today, but we think that can come sooner than people expect. Even over the next one to two years that you start to get this revolutionary grocery experience.And so, it's coming. And from your perspective, Brian, once agentic grocery shopping does start to work, how does that impact the broader e-commerce adoption curve? Does it pull forward agentic behavior in other categories as well?Brian Nowak: I think it does. I think it does lead to more durable multi-year, overall e-commerce growth. And potentially in some of our more bull case scenarios, we've built out – even an acceleration in e-commerce growth, even though the numbers and the dollars added are getting larger. But there is some tension around profitability.We are in a world where a lot of e-commerce companies, they generate an outsized percentage of their profit from advertising and retail media that is attached to current transactions. Agentic commerce and agents wedging themself between the consumer and these platforms potentially put some of these high-margin retail media ad dollars at risk.So talk us through some of the math that we've run on that potential risk to any of the companies that are feeding into these agents for people to shop through.Nathan Feather: Well, in our work for most e-commerce companies, a majority – or sometimes even all – of their e-commerce profitability comes from the advertising side. And so this is the key profit pool for e-commerce. To the extent that goes away, there is one potential offset here, which is the lower fee that agentic offers for companies that currently have high marketing spend. To the extent that agentic offers a lower take rate, that could be an offset.But we think it's going to be very important for companies to monitor the retail media landscape and ensure they can try to keep direct traffic as best as possible. And things like onsite agents could be really important to making sure you're staying top of mind and owning that customer relationship.Now, on the platform side, search today captures an implied take rates that are 5-10 times higher than what we're seeing in the early agentic transaction fees. If this model does shift from CPC – or cost per click – towards a more commission based model, Brian, how do you think search platforms respond?Brian Nowak: I think the punchline is the percentage of traffic and transactions that retailers or brands or companies selling their items online that's paid is going to go up. You know, while search is a relatively more expensive channel on a per transaction basis, search works because there's a very large amount of unpaid and direct traffic that retailers benefit from post the first time they spend on search.Just some math on this. We're still at a situation where 80 percent of retailers' online traffic is free. Or direct. And so if we do get into a situation where there's a transition from a higher monetizing per transaction search to a lower monetizing per transaction agent, I would expect the search platforms to react by essentially making it more challenging to get free and direct and unpaid traffic. And we'll have that transition from more transactions at a lower rate; as opposed to fewer transactions at a higher rate, which is what we have now,Nathan, in our work, we also talked about a Five I's framework. We talked about inventory, infrastructure, innovation, incrementality and income statement, sort of a retailer framework to assess positioning within the agentic transition. Maybe walk us through what your big takeaways were from the Five I's framework and what it means that retailers need to be mindful of throughout this agentic transition.Nathan Feather: Well, for retailers, I think it's going to be very important that you're winning by differentiation. Having unique, competitively priced inventory with infrastructure that can fulfill that quickly to the consumer and critically staying on the leading edge of innovation.It's one thing to have the inventory. It's another thing to be able to be actively plugged into these agentic tools and make sure you're developing good experiences for your customers that actually are on this cutting edge. In addition, it's one thing to have all of that, but you want to make sure there's also incrementality opportunity.So [the] ability to go out, expand the TAM and gain market share. And of course what we just talked about with the margin risk, I think all of those are going to be very important. And so on balance for retailers, we do see a lot of opportunity. That's balanced with a lot of risk. But this is one of those key transition moments that we think companies that really execute and perform well should be able to perform nicely.Now finally, Brian, over the next five years, how do you think agent commerce reshapes competitive dynamics across the internet ecosystem?Brian Nowak: I think over the next few years, we're going to realize that agentic commerce is no longer a fringe experiment or a concept. It's a reality. And we may get to the point where we don't even talk about agentic commerce or agentic shopping. We just say, “‘This cool thing I did through my browser.' Or, ‘Look at what my search portal can do. Look at how my search portal found me this product. Look at how my groceries got delivered.' And it'll become part of recurring life. It'll become normal.So right now we say it's agentic, it's far off. It's going to take time to develop. But I would argue that every year that goes by, it's going to be becoming more part of normal life. And we'll just say, ‘This is how I shop online.'Nathan, thanks for taking the time todayNathan Feather: It was great speaking with you, Brian.Brian Nowak: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen. And share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Iconic investors sit down with Morgan Stanley leaders to go behind the scenes on the critical moments – both successes and setbacks – that shaped who they are today.Watch and listen to the series on your favorite platform.

Arunima Sinha, from the U.S. and Global Economics team, discusses how an upcoming Supreme Court decision could reshape consumer prices, retail margins and the inflation outlook in 2026.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Arunima Sinha: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Arunima Sinha from Morgan Stanley's U.S. and Global Economics Teams.Today: How a single Supreme Court ruling could change the tariff math for U.S. consumers.It's Friday, February 13th at 10am in New York.The U.S. Supreme Court is deciding whether the U.S. president has legal authority to impose sweeping tariffs under IEEPA. That decision could come as soon as next Friday. IEEPA, or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, is the legal backbone for a significant share of today's consumer goods tariffs. If the Supreme Court limits how it can be used, tariffs on many everyday items could fall quickly – affecting prices on the shelf, margins for retailers, and the broader inflation outlook.As of now, effective tariff rates on consumer goods are running about 15 percent, and that's based on late 2025 November data. And that's quite a bit higher than the roughly 10 percent average, which we're seeing as tariffs on all goods. In a post IEEPA scenario, we think that the effective tariff rate on consumer goods could fall to the mid-11 percent range.It's not zero, but it is meaningfully lower.An important caveat is that this is not going to be eliminating all tariffs. Other trade tools – like Section 232s, which are the national security tariffs, Section 301s, the tariffs that are related to unfair trade practices – would remain in place. Autos and metals, for example, are largely outside the IEEPA discussion.The main pressure point we think is consumer goods. IEEPA has been used for two major sets of tariffs. The fentanyl-related tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, and the so-called reciprocal tariffs applied broadly across trading partners. And these often stack on top of the existing tariffs, such as the MFN, the Most Favored Nation rates, and the section 301 duties on China that were already existing before 2025.The exposure is really concentrated in certain categories of consumer goods. So, for example, in apparel and footwear, about 60 percent of the applied tariffs are IEEPA related. For furniture and home improvement, it's over 70 percent. For toys, games, and sporting equipment, it's more than 90 percent. So, if the IEEPA authority is curtailed, the category level effects would be meaningful.There are caveats, of course. The court's decision may not be all or nothing. And policymakers could turn to alternative authorities. One example is Section 122, which allows across the board tariffs for up to 15 percent for 150 days. So, tariffs could just reappear under different tools. But in the near term, fully replacing IEEPA-based tariffs on consumer goods may not be straightforward, especially given ongoing affordability concerns.So, how does that matter for the real economy? There are two key channels, prices and margins. On prices we estimate that about 60 percent of the tariff costs are typically passed on to the consumers over two to three quarters, but it's not instant. Margins though could respond faster. If companies get cost relief before they adjust prices downwards, that creates a temporary margin tailwind. That could influence hiring, investment and earnings across retail and consumer supply chains.Over time, lower tariffs could also reinforce that broader return to core goods disinflation starting in the second quarter of this year. And because tariff driven inflation has weighed more heavily on the middle- and lower-income households, any eventual price relief could disproportionately benefit those groups.At the end of the day, this isn't just a legal story. It is a timing story. If IEEPA authority is curtailed, the arithmetic shifts pretty quickly. Margins move first, prices follow later, and the path back to goods disinflation could accelerate. That's why this is one ruling worth watching before the gavel drops.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share thoughts on the market with a friend or colleague today.