Podcasts about another british

More Liane Moriarty and more Guy Ritchie this week, and the creators of Will and Grace are back with a new comedy. • The Last Anniversary (Binge/Foxtel, 6 episodes) The latest Liane Moriarty adaption for the small screen from the same team who also worked on Big Little Lies and Nine Perfect Strangers. Filmed on the Hawksebury River north of Sydney with an impressive Australian cast plus Miranda Richardson. • MobLand (Paramount+, 10 episodes) Another British crime drama featuring two warring families. Created by Ronan Bennett who adapted the TV series The Day of the Jackal. Pierce Brosnan and Helen Mirren star with great support from Tom Hardy and Anton Boon among many others. • Mid-Century Modern (Disney+) 10 episodes Nathan Lane stars in this sitcom about three gay best-friends who move in together in Palm Springs. Created by Will and Grace’s David Kohan and Max Mutchnick, with veteran James Borrows directing. Lane’s co-stars are Linda Lavin in her final role before he death during production, Matt Bomer and Nathan Lee Graham. We also have a look at new streaming platform Max and Andrew has returned to 80s classic Moonlighting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Chaos and security concerns continue in Washington. Spanish authorities arrest a man suspected of hacking NATO, the UN, and the US Army. A major U.S. hiring platform exposes millions of resumes. Another British engineering firm suffers a cyberattack. Cisco patches multiple vulnerabilities. Cybercriminals exploit SVG files in phishing attacks. SparkCat SDK targets cryptocurrency via Android and iOS apps. CISA directs federal agencies to patch a high-severity Linux kernel flaw. Thailand leaves scamming syndicates in the dark. Positive trends in the fight against ransomware. Our guest is Cliff Crosland, CEO and Co-founder at Scanner.dev, discusses the evolution of security data lakes and the "bring your own" model for security tools. Don't eff with the FCC. Remember to leave us a 5-star rating and review in your favorite podcast app. Miss an episode? Sign-up for our daily intelligence roundup, Daily Briefing, and you'll never miss a beat. And be sure to follow CyberWire Daily on LinkedIn. CyberWire Guest Today on our Industry Voices segment, guest Cliff Crosland, CEO and Co-founder at Scanner.dev, discusses the evolution of security data lakes and the "bring your own" model for security tools. For some additional details, check out their blog on “Security Data Lakes: A New Tool for Threat Hunting, Detection & Response, and GenAI-Powered Analysis.” Selected Reading Musk's DOGE agents access sensitive personnel data, alarming security officials (Washington Post) Union groups sue Treasury over giving DOGE access to sensitive data (The Record) Hacker Who Targeted NATO, US Army Arrested in Spain (SecurityWeek) Hiring platform serves users raw with 5.4 million CVs exposed (Cybernews) IMI becomes the latest British engineering firm to be hacked (TechCrunch) Cisco Patches Critical Vulnerabilities in Enterprise Security Product (SecurityWeek) Scalable Vector Graphics files pose a novel phishing threat (Sophos News) Crypto-stealing apps found in Apple App Store for the first time (Bleeping Computer) Ransomware payments dropped in 2024 as victims refused to pay hackers (TechCrunch) CISA orders agencies to patch Linux kernel bug exploited in attacks (Bleeping Computer) Thailand cuts power supply to Myanmar scam hubs (The Record) Robocallers posing as FCC fraud prevention team call FCC staff (Bleeping Computer) Share your feedback. We want to ensure that you are getting the most out of the podcast. Please take a few minutes to share your thoughts with us by completing our brief listener survey as we continually work to improve the show.  Want to hear your company in the show? You too can reach the most influential leaders and operators in the industry. Here's our media kit. Contact us at cyberwire@n2k.com to request more info. The CyberWire is a production of N2K Networks, your source for strategic workforce intelligence. © N2K Networks, Inc. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Episode 1636, brought to you by our incredible sponsors: DeleteMe: Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan by texting Hard Factor to 64000 Shipstation: Calm the chaos of order fulfillment with the shipping software that delivers. Go to shipstation.com and use code HARDFACTOR to sign up for your FREE trial. Fitbod: Get 25% off your subscription or try the app FREE for seven days at Fitbod.me/HARDFACTOR. Timestamps: 00:02:20 - Another British woman has woken up with an Asian accent 00:04:30 - Grammar is important 00:06:45 - New White House Press Secretary is HOTT & she gives an update on the NJ Drones 00:09:25 - Cant wait for Karoline Leavitt to get mad at someone in the Press 00:11:25 - Google will change the name of the Gulf Of Mexico to the Gulf Of America 00:12:25 - Will Trump put his face on Mount Rushmore? 00:22:55 - Couple lands free donuts for a year after having a baby in Krispy Kreme parking lot 00:27:40 - China will race robots against humans in an upcoming half marathon 00:32:20 - Battle bots China VS USA need to come back 00:33:25 - Horrible murder story from India And much more… Thank you for listening, go to Patreon.com/HardFactor to support the pod and get access to discord chat and bonus podcasts.... But MOST Importantly, HAGFD!! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, we're joined by Laura Siddall, for a game of "Ask the Brit," plus:We All Have Tall Poppy SyndromeT100 BreakdownBeing Universally UnlikableBike Packing 101Book Your Taupo Accommodations NowEven Kelly Has Sentimental Race SwagRegister for the Feisty Summer STRONG Course: https://www.womensperformance.com/strong Leave us a Voicemail:https://www.speakpipe.com/ifwewereriding Follow us on Instagram:@feistytriathlon Feisty Media Website:https://livefeisty.com/ Support "If We Were Riding" Partners:The Amino Co: Shop Feisty's Favorite 100% Science-Backed Amino Acid Supplements. Enter code RIDING at Aminoco.com/RIDING to Save 30% + receive a FREE gift for new purchasers!MOTTIV: Get two months of full premium access with the code FEISTY at mymottiv.com Pillar Performance: Use the code FEISTY for 15% off your first purchase at thefeed.com/PILLAR. If you are outside the US use the same code, FEISTY at pillarperformance.shop. This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacyChartable - https://chartable.com/privacy

Another British voiceover talent stops by the podcast. This is Ally Murphy!

After a very brief TL;DR of this whole sordid business that's been ruining my life for the better part of a year, we dive into an interview with... another British criminologist... named Christopher Lowe (@ChrisLowe1994), who's working on his masters and focusing on incels. It's a lovely conversation that I'm sure you'll enjoy!PS Stay tuned at the end for a little public service announcement regarding certain behaviors that are COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE and their consequences, starting now."Every Breath You Take" by The Police. 1983. Polydor Records. ——————————————————————— INCEL is created and produced by Naama Kates for Crawlspace Media. Music by Cyrus Melchor. —————————————————————— If you or someone you know is struggling emotionally, or having a hard time, please call someone, or contact one of the excellent resources provided below. —————————————————————— Suicide Prevention Lifeline w: https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/ t: 1.800.273.8255 —————————————————————— Samaritans Website: https://www.samaritans.org and telephone (UK): 116.123 —————————————————————— Please contact Naama at INCEL with any comments, inquiries, or just random thoughts: e: theincelproject@gmail.comThis show is part of the Spreaker Prime Network, if you are interested in advertising on this podcast, contact us at https://www.spreaker.com/show/5608426/advertisement

For most of our ten thousand years on the planet, the vast majority of humanity endured lives of dire poverty and extreme material deprivation. Most people spent most of their time worrying about securing the bare minimum of food and shelter. The Industrial Revolution began to change that dynamic. Still, the British economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill was correct to question in the early 1870s whether “all the mechanical inventions yet made have lightened the day's toil of any human being.” Soon after, however, the emergence of globalization, the industrial research laboratory, and the modern corporation made possible a rapid upward trajectory in human flourishing and an end to near-universal agrarian poverty. Another British economist, John Maynard Keynes, foresaw in 1930 that the continued progress of science and compound interest could mean that human beings, liberated from pressing economic cares, might find their real challenge to be how to occupy their leisure time and “live wisely and agreeably and well.” But the explosion of productivity and prosperity over the 140 years that followed the takeoff point in 1870 did not see humanity zooming toward Utopia; at best, we slouched fitfully in that direction. Brad DeLong, an economics professor at the University of California at Berkeley, has written a much-anticipated history of what he calls “the long twentieth century” from 1870 to 2010, entitled Slouching Towards Utopia: An Economic History of the Twentieth Century. In it, he explains how we achieved economic breakthroughs that once would have been considered miraculous — and yet fell short of what that breakthrough promised. And DeLong also explains why he believes that the era of remarkable prosperity, for all its problems and inequities, has now ended. In this podcast discussion, Niskanen's Brink Lindsey and Geoff Kabaservice talk with DeLong about why the material abundance that resulted from the great acceleration after 1870 was unevenly distributed between nations and within them, why developmental social democracy failed its sustainability test, and how the long twentieth century was in a sense a contest between the ideas of the towering thinkers Friedrich Hayek and Karl Polanyi. The discussion also covers differing perspectives on “the neoliberal turn,” speculations about how to benefit from the best aspects of neoliberalism and social democracy while avoiding their pitfalls, and a hypothesis as to why capitalism is like the brooms in “The Sorcerer's Apprentice.”

SynopsisOn today's date in 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, effectively beginning the First World War. Early in the course of that war, a French composer named Albéric Magnard became a national hero when he died defending his home against invading German troops. Maurice Ravel tried to enlist as a French pilot but was refused because of his poor health. Instead, he became a truck driver stationed at the Verdun front. British composer Ralph Vaughan Williams was too old to be drafted, but he enlisted as a private in the Royal Army Medical Corps. Another British composer, George Butterworth, would be killed by a sniper during the Battle of the Somme.The Austrian violinist and composer Fritz Kreisler served briefly in the Austrian Army in 1914 before being wounded and honorably discharged. He arrived in then-neutral New York on November of 1914 and remained in America through the war years. In 1915, Kreisler made a recording of Bach's Double Violin Concerto, performing with the Russian violinist Efrem Zimbalist. Austria and Russian may have been at war in Europe, but in a cramped New Jersey recording studio, at least, the music of Bach provided a brief island of peace and harmony.Music Played in Today's ProgramJ. S. Bach (1685 - 1750) Double Concerto (recorded 1915) Fritz Kreisler, Efrem Zimbalist, vn;string quartet Buddulph CD 21/22

Ahead of the action at Snetterton this weekend, Martyn Lee invites Autosport's BTCC insider Marcus Simmons and Group National Editor Stephen Lickorish to discuss the thrilling prospects of the British Touring Car Championship season so far.   2023 has already seen excitement surrounding the return of option tyres, tweaks to hybrid rules, and the challenges reigning champion Tom Ingram has face in his bid to protect his status as number one.   On the podcast we discuss the changes made to the hybrid rules following their introduction in 2022 and how they will impact the racing landscape. We also talk about the return of option tyres and the potential effects on strategies this season. Finally we spotlight the drivers that are worth watching this season and the TOCA support packages which ensure racing fans have something to watch on track all day. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Humans have probably considered flight since they found birds. As far as 228 million years ago, the Pterosaurs used flight to reign down onto other animals from above and eat them. The first known bird-like dinosaur was the Archaeopteryx, which lived around 150 million years ago. It's not considered an ancestor of modern birds - but other dinosaurs from the same era, the theropods, are. 25 million years later, in modern China, the Confuciusornis sanctus had feathers and could have flown. The first humans wouldn't emerge from Africa until 23 million years later. By the 2300s BCE, the Summerians depicted shepherds riding eagles, as humanity looked to the skies in our myths and legends. These were creatures, not vehicles. The first documented vehicle of flight was as far back as the 7th century BCE when the Rāmāyana told of the Pushpaka Vimāna, a palace made by Vishwakarma for Brahma, complete with chariots that flew the king Rama high into the atmosphere. The Odyssey was written around the same time and tells of the Greek pantheon of Gods but doesn't reference flight as we think of it today. Modern interpretations might move floating islands to the sky, but it seems more likely that the floating island of Aeollia is really the islands off Aeolis, or Anatolia, which we might refer to as the modern land of Turkey.  Greek myths from a few hundred years later introduced more who were capable of flight. Icarus flew into the sun with wings that had been fashioned by Daedalus. By then, they could have been aware, through trade routes cut by Alexander and later rulers, of kites from China. The earliest attempts at flight trace their known origins to 500 BCE in China. Kites were, like most physical objects, heavier than air and could still be used to lift an object into flight. Some of those early records even mention the ability to lift humans off the ground with a kite. The principle used in kites was used later in the development of gliders and then when propulsion was added, modern aircraft. Any connection between any of these is conjecture as we can't know how well the whisper net worked in those ages. Many legends are based on real events. The history of humanity is vast and many of our myths are handed down through the generations. The Greeks had far more advanced engineering capabilities than some of the societies that came after. They were still weary of what happened if they flew too close to the sun. In fact, emperors of China are reported to have forced some to leap from cliffs on a glider as a means of punishment. Perhaps that was where the fear of flight for some originated from. Chinese emperor Wang Mang used a scout with bird features to glide on a scouting mission around the same time as the Icarus myth might have been documented. Whether this knowledge informed the storytellers Ovid documented in his story of Icarus is lost to history, since he didn't post it to Twitter. Once the Chinese took the string off the kite and they got large enough to fly with a human, they had also developed hang gliders. In the third century BCE, Chinese inventors added the concept of rotors for vertical flight  when they developed helicopter-style toys. Those were then used to frighten off enemies. Some of those evolved into the beautiful paper lanterns that fly when lit.There were plenty of other evolutions and false starts with flight after that. Abbas ibn Ferns also glided with feathers in the 9th century. A Benedictine monk did so again in the 11th century. Both were injured when they jumped out of towers in the Middle Ages that spanned the Muslim Golden Age to England.  Leonardo da Vinci studied flight for much of his life. His studies produced another human-power ornithopter and other contraptions; however he eventually realized that humans would not be able to fly on their own power alone. Others attempted the same old wings made of bird feathers, wings that flapped on the arms, wings tied to legs, different types of feathers, finding higher places to jump from, and anything they could think of. Many broke bones, which continued until we found ways to supplement human power to propel us into the air. Then a pair of brothers in the Ottoman Empire had some of the best luck. Hezarafen Ahmed Çelebi crossed the Bosphorus strait on a glider. That was 1633, and by then gunpowder already helped the Ottomans conquer Constantinople. That ended the last vestiges of ancient Roman influence along with the Byzantine empire as the conquerers renamed the city to Instanbul. That was the power of gunpowder. His brother then built a rocket using gunpowder and launched himself high in the air, before he glided back to the ground.  The next major step was the hot air balloon. The modern hot air balloon was built by the Montgolfier brothers in France and first ridden in 1783 and (Petrescu & Petrescu, 2013). 10 days later, the first gas balloon was invented by Nicholas Louis Robert and Jacques Alexander Charles. The gas balloon used hydrogen and in 1785, used to cross the English Channel. That trip sparked the era of dirigibles. We built larger balloons to lift engines with propellers. That began a period that culminated with the Zeppelin. From the 1700s and on, much of what da Vinci realized was rediscovered, but this time published, and the body of knowledge built out. The physics of flight were then studied as new sciences emerged. Sir George Cayley started to actually apply physics to flight in the 1790s.  Powered Flight We see this over and over in history; once we understand the physics and can apply science, progress starts to speed up. That was true when Archimedes defined force multipliers with the simple machines in the 3rd century BCE, true with solid state electronics far later, and true with Cayley's research. Cayley conducted experiments, documented his results, and proved hypotheses. He finally got to codifying bird flight and why it worked. He studied the Chinese tops that worked like modern helicopters. He documented glided flight and applied math to why it worked. He defined drag and measured the force of windmill blades. In effect, he got to the point that he knew how much power was required based on the ratio of weight to actually sustain flight. Then to achieve that, he explored the physics of fixed-wing aircraft, complete with an engine, tail assembly, and fuel. His work culminated in a work called “On Aerial Navigation” that was published in 1810.  By the mid-1850s, there was plenty of research that flowed into the goal for sustained air travel. Ideas like rotors led to rotor crafts. Those were all still gliding. Even with Cayley's research, we had triplane gliders, gliders launched from balloons. After that, the first aircrafts that looked like the modern airplanes we think of today were developed. Cayley's contributions were profound. He even described how to mix air with gasoline to build an engine. Influenced by his work, others built propellers. Some of those were steam powered and others powered by tight springs, like clockworks. Aeronautical societies were created, wing counters and cambering were experimented with, and wheels were added to try to lift off. Some even lifted a little off the ground. By the 1890s, the first gasoline powered biplane gliders were developed and flown, even if those early experiments crashed. Humanity was finally ready for powered flight. The Smithsonian housed some of the earliest experiments. They hired their third director, Samuel Langley, in 1887. He had been interested in aircraft for decades and as with many others had studied the Cayley work closely. He was a consummate tinkerer and had already worked in solar physics and developed the Allegheny Time System. The United States War department gave him grants to pursue his ideas to build an airplane. By then, there was enough science that humanity knew it was possible to fly and so there was a race to build powered aircraft. We knew the concepts of drag, rudders, thrust from some of the engineering built into ships. Some of that had been successfully used in the motorcar. We also knew how to build steam engines, which is what he used in his craft. He called it the Aerodrome and built a number of models. He was able to make it further than anyone at the time. He abandoned flight in 1903 when someone beat him to the finish line.  That's the year humans stepped beyond gliding and into the first controlled, sustained, and powered flight. There are reports that Gustave Whitehead beat the Wright Brothers, but he didn't keep detailed notes or logs, and so the Wrights are often credited with the discovery. They managed to solve the problem of how to roll, built steerable rudders, and built the first biplane with an internal combustion engine. They flew their first airplane out of North Carolina when Orville Wright went 120 feet and his brother went 852 feet later that day. That plane now lives at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC and December 17th, 1903 represents the start of the age of flight. The Wright's spent two years testing gliders and managed to document their results. They studied in wind tunnels, tinkered with engines, and were methodical if not scientific in their approach. They didn't manage to have a public demonstration until 1908 though and so there was a lengthy battle over the patents they filed. Turns out it was a race and there were a lot of people who flew within months of one another. Decades of research culminated into what had to be: airplanes. Innovation happened quickly. Flight improved enough that planes could cross English Channel by 1909. There were advances after that, but patent wars over the invention drug on and so investors stayed away from the unproven technology.  Flight for the Masses The superpowers of the world were at odds for the first half of the 1900s. An Italian pilot flew a reconnaissance mission in Libya in the Italo-Turkish war in 1911. It took only 9 days before they went from just reconnaissance and dropped grenades on Turkish troops from the planes. The age of aerial warfare had begun. The Wrights had received an order for the first plane from the military back in 1908. Military powers took note and by World War I there was an air arm of every military power. Intelligence wins wars. The innovation was ready for the assembly lines, so during and after the war, the first airplane manufacturers were born. Dutch engineer Anthony Fokker was inspired by Wilbur Wright's exhibition in 1908. He went on to start a company and design the Fokker M.5, which evolved into the Fokker E.I. after World War I broke out in 1914. They mounted a machine gun and synchronized it to the  propeller in 1915. Manfred von Richthofen, also known as the Red Baron, flew one before he upgraded to the Fokker D.VII and later an Albatros. Fokker made it all the way into the 1990s before they went bankrupt. Albatros was founded in 1909 by Enno Huth, who went on to found the German Air Force before the war. The Bristol Aeroplane Company was born in 1910 after Sir George White, who was involved in transportation already, met Wilbur Wright in France. Previous companies were built to help hobbyists, similar to how many early PC companies came from inventors as well. This can be seen with people like Maurice Mallet, who helped design gas balloons and dirigibles. He licensed airplane designs to Bristol who later brought in Frank Barnwell and other engineers that helped design the Scout. They based the Bristol Fighters that were used in World War I on those designs. Another British manufacturer was Sopwith, started by Thomas Sopwith, who taught himself to fly and then started a company to make planes. They built over 16,000 by the end of the war. After the war they pivoted to make ABC motorcycles and eventually sold to Hawker Aircraft in 1920, which later sold to Raytheon.  The same paradigm played out elsewhere in the world, including the United States. Once those patent disputes were settled, plenty knew flight would help change the world. By 1917 the patent wars in the US had to end as the countries contributions to flight suffered. No investor wanted to touch the space and so there was a lack of capital to expand. Orville Write passed away in 1912 and Wilbur sold his rights to the patents, so the Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, stepped in and brought all the parties to the table to develop a cross-licensing organization. After almost 25 years, we could finally get innovation in flight back on track globally. In rapid succession, Loughead Aircraft, Lockheed, and Douglas Aircraft were founded. Then Jack Northrop left those and started his own aircraft company. Boeing was founded in 1957 as Aero Products and then United Aircraft, which was spun off into United Airlines as a carrier in the 1930s with Boeing continuing to make planes. United was only one of many a commercial airline that was created. Passenger air travel started after the first air flights with the first airline ferrying passengers in 1914. With plenty of airplanes assembled at all these companies, commercial travel was bound to explode into its own big business. Delta started as a cropdusting service in Macon, Georgia in 1925 and has grown into an empire. The worlds largest airline at the time of this writing is American Airlines, which started in 1926 when a number of smaller airlines banded together. Practically every country had at least one airline. Pan American (Panam for short) in 1927, Ryan Air started in 1926, Slow-Air in 1924, Finnair in 1923, Quantus in 1920, KLM in 1919, and the list goes on. Enough that the US passed the Air Commerce Act in 1926, which over time led to the department of Air Commerce, which evolved into the Federal Aviation Administration, or FAA we know today. Aircrafts were refined and made more functional. World War I brought with it the age of aerial combat. Plenty of supply after the war and then the growth of manufacturers Brough further innovation to compete with one another, and commercial aircraft and industrial uses (like cropdusting) enabled more investment into R&D In 1926, the first flying boat service was inaugurated from New York to Argentina. Another significant development in aviation was in the 1930s when the jet engine was invented. This invention was done by Frank Whittle who registered a turbojet engine patent. A jet plane was also developed by Hans von Ohain and was called the Heinkel He 178 (Grant, 2017).  The plane first flew in 1939, but the Whittle jet engine is the ancestor of those found in planes in World War II and beyond. And from there to the monster airliners and stealth fighters or X-15 becomes a much larger story. The aerospace industry continued to innovate both in the skies and into space.  The history of flight entered another phase in the Cold War. Rand corporation developed the concept of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (or ICBMs) and the Soviet Union launched the first satellite into space in 1957.  Then in 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin made the first landing on the moon and we continued to launch into space throughout the 1970s to 1990s, before opening up space travel to private industry. Those projects got bigger and bigger and bigger. But generations of enthusiasts and engineers were inspired by devices far smaller, and without pilots in the device.

Last time we spoke Hong Rengan was in misery, nothing was going as planned. Li Xiucheng went off on his own to perform a campaign in the east, but it was drawing ire from the foreign community to make Hong Rengans life even worse. To defend Shanghai from Li Xiuchengs men, Ward's mercenary force became the Ever Victorious Army and began to work alongside the foreign community and Qing. Chen Yucheng was hunted down and executed, yet another great Taiping king gone. Zeng Guoquan made an extremely bold move and began a siege of Yuhuatai, a fort guarding Nanjing. Then the foreigners it seems quasi joined the Qing, thus ending any chance of the Taiping earning their support. With what seems the rest of the world against the Taiping, and the enemy nipping at their doors, what could they do to stop the inevitable? #34 This episode is The Taiping Rebellion part 11: The Siege of Heavenly Kingdom   Welcome to the Fall and Rise of China Podcast, I am your dutiful host Craig Watson. But, before we start I want to also remind you this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Perhaps you want to learn more about the history of Asia? Kings and Generals have an assortment of episodes on history of asia and much more  so go give them a look over on Youtube. So please subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry for some more history related content, over on my channel, the Pacific War Channel where I cover the history of China and Japan from the 19th century until the end of the Pacific War. Meanwhile, refugees from across Jiangsu and Zhejiang flooded into Shanghai seeked protection. In 1862 alone nearly 1.5 million refugees crammed into the Chinese and foreign held parts of the city. Where there are so many people, comes issues. One particular issue was human waste, with so many people crammed into the city, the waterways literally became clogged with fecal matter and other waste. The rivers were also the primary supply of water for the city and even with the custom of boiling the drinking water, the washing water and that used to prepare food was not. A massive cholera outbreak began in may of 1862 causing the usual symptoms, cramps, vomiting and diarrhea. Death ran rampant and by June it was a full blown pandemic. 10 to 15 Europeans were dying a day based on records, but obviously the Chinese population suffered the most. Hundreds of people died each day and by July thousands. At its peak the Cholera outbreak killed 3000 people a day in the foreing settlement, the streets were ridden with unburied bodies. Some local Chinese called it “fan sha, the foreign infection”. The pandemic spread, first going north to the Taku forts, then Tianjin where it claimed 20,000 lives in a few weeks. From there it hit Beijing, but it was not limited to this northern route, it also went south and over the Yangtze going into the interior of CHina. Zeng Guofan's HQ was hit and men began to die. 10,000 men under Zeng Guoquan at Yuhuatai became sick, 10,000 more under Bao Chaos army in southern Anhui and Bao Chao himself also became sick. 50% of Zuo Zongtangs army in Zhejiang were sick and with the massive amount of illness, the Xiang army simply could no longer continue to be on the offensive.    Zeng Guofan ordered his commanders to distribute Korean ginseng to the sick troops hoping it would at the least alleviate symptoms. Over in Shanghai the British military distributed “cholera belts”, these were wide cummerbunds of flannel wrapped around the persons torso to keep it warm because the belief was the disease was caused by sweaty chills in the bowels. Another British medical officer in Beijing, did not believe the disease was the result of insanitation and instead suspected quote “the operation of certain electrochemical changes in the atmosphere on certain constitutions.” Within Nanjing it seems they fared a bit better, which is understandable as they were more rural and less crowded then places like Shanghai or Tianjin. The disease spread via the trading routes, which were pretty much closed off to the Taiping. Those Taiping around the Shanghai area however got just as smashed by the disease as the rest. The disease would petter off during the winter, but found its way to Manchuria and then Japan. For those of you who know your Bakumatsu period history, the Cholera outbreak began in Shanghai. Overall, in the region surrounding Shanghai for about 40 miles, by September it was estimated by missionaries that cholera had wiped out ⅛ of the population, a population in the several million.   Zeng Guoquans position at Yuhuatai was a precarious one, even before Cholera wreaked its ugly head. Zeng Guofan was shocked by his brothers boldness to dig in so close to the heart of the rebellion. When Cholera began to steal away half of Zeng Guoquans forces, his brother dispatched reinforcements, literally everything he could spare but the Xiang army was fewer than 30,000 strong. The men at Yuhuatai held firm in their trenches, fighting off the occasional Nanjing sorties against them from the southern gate. The Cholera epidemic also gave Li Xiucheng an opportunity to breakoff the Shanghai campaign and return to Nanjing, something  the Heavenly King was begging him to do. Well after a very long time of ignoring the poor heavenly king, Li Xiucheng decided in the late summer to withdrew to Suzhou where he gather 3 separate armies to form a relief expedition back to Nanjing. Each army had its own objective: one was going to attack Bao Chao in southern Anhui, one was going to attack the Xiang and Qing naval forces and logistics line and the third led by Li Xiucheng personally would attack Zeng Guoquan's force at Yuhuatai. By late September his armies were marching, with 120,000 under his immediate command. Rumors at the time talked about his force being as large as 300 to a possible 600,000 men. When Geng Guofan received reports of the Li Xiuchengs force moving back to lift the siege on Nanjing he began to frantically ship provisions and supplies to his brother, but there was simply no way he could send enough men to hold off such a goliath army. Bao Chao was busy fighting in southern Anhui and likewise Duolonga had chased Chen Yucheng north, despite receiving direct orders to turn back to help at Nanjing. It seems the Manchu commander was a bit jealous of Zeng Guofan's brother and was dissatisfied with the special treatment of the Zeng family members. So after the death of Chen Yucheng he went northwest into Shaanxi to suppress another rebellion that was going on at the time, remember there's so many simultaneous rebellions. The Dungan Rebellion was a Muslim rebellion led primarily by Hui groups in Shaanxi, Gangsu and Ningxia. It was a brutal and bloody conflict and would claim the life of Duolonga two years later.    The assault upon Yuhuatai would commence on October the 13th, while Zeng Guofan was tossing as many reinforcements as he could to help his brother, but these figures were in the mere hundreds. Zeng Guofan sent letters to his brother trying to raise his morale, claiming Li Xiucheng would require incredible logistical capabilities to keep his army provisioned and perhaps it would lead to his downfall, but privately he was falling into despair. He had this to write in his diary “Last night, I thought about my brother Guoquan, facing danger in ten thousand forms. Anxiety burned my heart. I repaired to my inner chamber and tried laying out scenarios on a Go board [to distract myself]. Then I paced back and forth, circling the room. At eleven o'clock I went to bed but could not fall asleep. Sometime after three in the morning I finally slept, and had nightmares.” It is alleged, Zeng Guofan began to stop sleeping and refused any visitors while he received daily letters from his brother fanning his anxiety. In one letter dated on October 24th, Zeng Guoquan said his forces were holding the Taiping at bay after 7 days of constant attack. He also noted the enemy were using new weapons purchased from the foreigners, that fired explosive shells, “luodi kaihua pao, shells that bloom like flowers when they fall to earth”. It was two days later, Zeng Guofan learned another Taiping army of at least 100,000 led by Li Xiuchengs cousin the Attending king had left Zhejiang province to help attack the Xiang forces at Yuhuatai. The report was greatly delayed, by the time it reached Zeng Guofan, that said army had been marching for over 3 weeks. There were no letters from his brother after that.   Riddled with anxiety, Zeng Guofan wondered about the fate of his brother. It would turn out his brother was hit by shrapnel from a shell, it struck his face and nearly killed him. Zeng Guoquan was still alive, but there was basically no chance he could escape Yuhuatai. Zeng Guofan pleaded with Li Hongzhang to help send reinforcements, but Li could spare none, though he did recommend sending the EVA force up river using steamships to help. Zeng Guofan was truly desperate as he allowed the EVA force to help, but this did not change the fact it would take weeks for them to get to Nanjing. In the meantime Zeng Guofan sent orders to his brother to retreat at any possible moment the enemy left an opening to flee. His brother refused, and while this sounds like a bit crazy, in reality Zeng Guoquans forces were dishing terrible casualties to the Taiping. The defenses at Yuhaitai were firm with heavy walls and trenches. Each time the Taiping launched an attack several thousand of them paid for it while Zeng Guoquans men faced casualties in the hundreds. While Li Xiucheng's sappers mined under the outer walls of Yuhaitai, the defenders frantically fed the cannons and fired their matchlocks at the Taiping. The defenders tried their best to gauge where the sappers were digging to breach their tunnels before they got under the walls, but just incase they began to build secondary walls in the interior.   Zeng Guofan was so afraid for his brother, he even wrote to his eldest son Jize, in Hunan province asking him to leave home for the first time to come and join him at his HQ in Anqing. Yet Zeng Guoquan managed to hold on, his men wrecked the Taiping tunnels before they could breach his walls. The Xiang force on Yuhaitai survived 45 days of attacks and Li Xiucheng finally broke off the attack on November 26st, absolutely incredible. It turns out Zeng Guofans words of comfort to his brother proved true, Li Xiuchengs logistics failed him. Li Xiucheng was forced to use stores from Nanjing and this began to threaten the city, alongside this the army he sent to attack the Xiang/Qing naval forces failed. Winter was coming and Li Xiuchengs men didnt not have proper winter attire nor equipment. Thus he began to send parts of his army back to Jiangsu and Zhejiang while he took the rest to Nanjing hoping to launch an attack later to dislodge the Yuhaitai force. Zeng Guofan did not give up trying to get his brother to abandon Yuhaitai, insisting that the preservation of his army was more important than maintaining the position. Yet Guoquan kept refusing to budge. Well as Guofan kept worrying about his brother Guoquan, something indeed would occur, but to his other brother Guobao. The younger brother had taken 5000 men to help support Guoquan at Yuhaitai. He had sworn vengeance upon the Taiping whom killed his brother Zeng Guohua in 1858. Zeng Guoquan sent a letter to Zeng Guofan that their brother had fallen gravely ill, he had typhoid. On the morning of january 11th, Zeng Guofan got another letter stating Guohua had died.    Back in the Shanghai front the rambunctious Ward had taken a bullet to his stomach on September 21st and died an apparently very agonizing and slow death the same night of 1862 while in Ningbo. Ward had been campaigning in conjunction with Li Hongzhang's troops taking advantage of Li Xiucheng's massive pull out of the region. In Ward's dying breath he apparently demanded money and declared Wu Xu and Yang Fang, the two juggernaut financial backers in Shanghai owed him 140,000 taels in back pay. He threatened that his family back home would press upon them to make good on their debts. Things began to crumble for the EVA forces after Ward's death, Li Hongzhang began to advise who should take up the mantle of command. One notable prospect was the North Carolinian Henry Burgevine, whom was favored by Admiral Hope and Frederick Bruce. Both Brits of course were keen to have the EVA commander be an American since it certainly took the limelight off their nation. Burgevine was said to be a model southerner type, gallant, charming, but he also loved his alcohol and had a terrible temper.    During the fall of 1862, Burgevine led the EVA to drive the Taiping out of a few towns on the outskirts of Shanghai and by winter the 30 mile radius was met. Burgevine was butting heads however with undue payments from Yang Fang, several months worth. When Li Hongzhang ordered him to take the EVA forces to Nanjing to help Zeng Guoquan, Burgevine refused. It was obvious as to why, being closer to Nanjing greatly risked his and the EVA forces lives and there would be less chance of plundering. Yang Fang then refused to make good on his debts to the EVA force unless they complied with going to Nanjing and apparently Burgevine blew a gasket. On January the 4th of 1863, Burgevine showed up to Yang Fang's house with a few bodyguards and punched the man in the face, robbing him of 40,000 silver dollars before fleeing to Songjiang to pay his men. This led Li Hongzhang to place a bounty over the man's head of 50,000 taels. Well needless to say Burgevine disappeared rather quickly, leaving Frederick Bruce to need to find a new commander. This time Bruce wanted to avoid finding any more filibuster, cowboy types and to find someone more professional, more honorable, who would be more accountable. Thus obviously no Americans were going to fit that role, haha, and Bruce reluctantly had to look towards his fellow Brits.   Bruce eventually found, a rather famous name today, but back then he was a young British officer in the Royal Engineers named Charles Gordon. You may have heard his more famous title as “Chinese Gordon”, he was very much akin to Lawrence of Arabia, similar stories. Gordon was painfully british looking, with an awesome mustache might I add in his defense. Fun fact one of his grandfathers owned a ship that was ransacked during the Boston Tea Party, go USA. One of my sources state he was quote “religiously asexual, never married, and had as early as age fourteen expressed a wish that he were a enuch. He also happened to speak with a pronounced lisp”. There were several allegations to suggest he was gay, seemingly based on the fact he did a lot of charitable work for male youth and that he had a fondness for handsome young men. Honestly if you look him up you will find a wide array of bizarre theories, some suggesting he was a homosexual who was so repressed by his Christian faith that he channeled his frustration into being the perfect soldier. One British historian, Paul Mersh suggested he was not a homosexual, but had Asperger syndrome and this made it extremely difficult for him to express emotions towards women. I have to say that is a wild theory, but I personally don't know enough about the man, nor am I in any way his biographer to say much about this fascination on his sexuality. I will say one thing though as a general rule, when you find older historians, those writing lets say up to the mid 20th century, making excuses as to why some figure was not gay, key words “oh he was just very good friends with so and so”, usually its because the figure was gay, haha. Sigh we have come a long way in the world and there is a lot to be said about prejudices of the past and some that still linger, but anyways.    Gordon inherited a very demoralized force in march of 1863. There were 3000 Chinese soldiers left after many desertions, alongside 30 pieces of artillery and 2 paddle steamers. Gordon unlike his 2 predecessors, was very willing to work closely with Li Hongzhang. He took a leave of absence from the Royal Engineers so he could serve under the Qing, therefore allowing him to campaign outside the 30 mile radius of Shanghai. After a brief period of training he began his campaign by joining the Qing commander Cheng Xueqi to march into Jiangsu province and reclaim lost territory to the Taiping. Gordon's smaller force became the spearhead driving up the waterways to take walled cities by surprise by bashing them with artillery, while Cheng Xueqi's larger army came in to swarm everywhere they struck. By the summer of 1863, their combined forces were approaching Suzhou. All was going great for Li Hongzhang and Charles Gordon, but then came a familiar face to disrupt things, Burgevine. Burgevine showed up to Beijing backed up by the US minister Anson Burlingame, trying to claim back his role as the commander of the EVA forces. Burlingame was able to lobby on his behalf and got Prince Gong to agree to the matter, but Li Hongzhang wanted nothing to do with the ill tempered man who punched Yang Fang in the face. Burgevine showed up to Shanghai with an imperial commissioner instructing Li Hongzhang to put him back in charge, but it is alleged by Li Hongzhang that the letter Prince Gong had sent was more of a suggestion rather than direct order. Regardless, Li Hongzhang was not going to play ball and to get away with not having to take back Burgevine Li Hongzhang simply left on campaign with Gordon to attack Suzhou without taking Burgevine. Well the ill tempered Burgevine got riled up again and quickly made his way into Shanghai where he rallied up 70 foreign mercenaries, many of whom had served Ward but were discharged. He took all these men and stole one of the EVA steamers and they made their way up the waterway to Suzhou to join the Taiping.   Burgevine began training the Taiping in Suzhou how to defeat Gordon's forces and when the battle commenced it seemed the rebels had the upper hand. Burgevine at one point went out at night over to Gordons camp to try and get the man to quit his position, something Gordon allegedly considered because he was having a rough time with the logistics of the EVA force. Regardless while Burgevine looked like he might turn the tides for the Taiping, another event occurred that would give the Qing a distinct edge, Captain Osborn showed up on September 1st to take command of the war fleet. Now what is interesting about the situation was that Prince Gong envisioned using the new naval forces to hit the Taiping along the rivers and then be employed as a patrol force for the eastern coast. But someone else had different ideas about the use of these naval units, Zeng Guofan. Prince Gong had planned to use multiethnic crews, sailors from Shandong, gunners from Hunan and Manchu for marines. Well Zeng Guofan thought the new naval forces would be better employed as an addition to his own naval forces. He began to advise against mixing ethnic groups, because it might cause disunity. He advised instead that all crews should be Hunanese, hmmmm. Thus the squadron of steam powered gunships would be absorbed into his fleet of Long Dragons, Fast Crabs and sampans. With such a fleet Zeng Guofan would control the entire Yangtze River system.   And here emerges the balance of power swinging within the Qing Dynasty. This general with a large amount of autonomy was quasi dictating against the Qing central government. When Captain Osborn arrived he found an official letter from Prince Gong informing him that a Hunanese Admiral would be serving as the new fleets commander in chief, Osborn had just been demoted to assistant commander. Furthermore the letter stated the fleet would take orders from Zeng Guofan and Li Hongzhang. Osborn went to Beijing to protest these changes, but Prince Gong refused to budge on the matter. In fact rumors began to spread that Prince Gong had no choice in the matter, because Zeng Guofan quote “threatened to shut off all the supplies to the Imperial Government”. Osborn was furious “I came here to serve the Emperor, and under him the Regent, not to be the servant of mere provincial authorities.” Osborn resigned, while refusing to surrender control of the fleet to Prince Gong. Then came a real tense situation for Anson Burlingame, because the Confederates had envoys in China who sought to purchase the fleet for themselves so they could use it to fight the Union. Anson Burlingame lobbied hard to make sure this did not occur and in the end the fleet was sold at a loss back to India and then to Britain.   Meanwhile while Gordon was facing the decision to step down at the behest of Burgevine, he decided instead to counter by convincing Burgevine to defect back to the Qing side. Burgevines frequent visits to Gordon were drawing suspicion from his Taiping comrades and his drunken ill tempered behavior did not help his cause too much. Apparently Burgevine really pissed off one Taiping commander, who had sent funds to purchase western guns and ammunition through Burgevines contacts only to find cargo of Brandy showing up. Not only was Burgevine getting on the Taiping's nerves, he also drew ire from his western comrades. On on occasion a western officer brought up Burgevines drinking problem only to have Burgevine fire a shot through the mans cheeks. Thus on October 15th, in the midst of an assault upon Suzhou by Gordons men, several of Burgevines officers defected, forcing Burgevine to do the same. Burgevine was exiled from China, as per the terms of his amnesty, but would show back up later on trying to raise another militia. No one knows for sure how, but Burgevine was captured by Qing soldiers and somehow ended up drowning in a river tied in chains. Local authorities said he had some sort of accident aboard a boat that capsized, but we all know that is not true.    With Burgevine gone, a major obstacle had been overcome for the campaign against Suzhou. Despite this, the battle for Suzhou remained a stalemate by November. The Taiping commander of Suzhou was Tan Shaoguang, he also held the title of “Wang Mu, Esteemed King”, the son in law of Li Xiucheng. He wanted to defend Suzhou to the bitter end, but it turns out many of his subordinate commanders did not feel the same way. On November 28th, one of his subordinates secretly met with Chen Xueqi, promising to give up Suzhou peacefully while getting rid of Tan Shaoguang and his loyal officers. The man's name was Gao Yongkuan whom held the title of “receiving king” though by this point every commander was being given these titles. He offered to open the gates of Suzhou, but was very fearful of being caught by Tan Shaoguang. Gordon and Chen Xueqi agreed with Gao to take the city with minimal bloodshed.   On the morning of December 4th, Tan Shaoguang held a banquet and during a speech he was stabbed by Gao Yongkuans group of mutineers and had his head cut off and sent to Cheng Xueqi. The gates of Suzhou were opened and Gordon with his EVA forces were the first to enter the city peacefully. Gordon spoke with the mutineer commanders and they all shaved their heads ready to surrender, grateful that Gordon kept his word to not slaughter them. Li Hongzhang showed up by boat to take control over the city with his personal guard and this is where things turned dark. Musket fire could be heard, and Gordon went to investigate finding Cheng Xueqi outside the walls of Suzhou looking very uneasy. Gordon asked him what was going on and Cheng replied that the Taiping commanders never showed up to surrender. Gordon rode back into the city to see what was going on, finding Qing forces looting the city. Gordon suspected this was the work of Cheng Xueqi who must be deceiving him, so he hunted down Li Hongzhang for answers. Yet he could not find Li Hongzhang, nor the Taiping commanders, he went back to Cheng Xueqi who simply told him he had no idea what was going on. Now the sources are mirky on this one. One thing to take note is that Cheng Xueqi was a Taiping defector himself, thus it gives some plausibility for his side of the story. Cheng Xueqi was said to be seen weeping on the ground as he sent a western officer to send a message to Gordon. The message was an apology, stating he did what he did because he had to follow Li Hongzhangs orders. Gordon eventually found the remains of the Taiping commanders, he had this to say of the scene. “The hands and bodies were gashed in a frightful way and cut down the middle, the receiving king's body was partially buried.” Gordon was livid, he had promised these men their safety and Li Hongzhang brutally executed them. To this breach of his honor, Gordon renounced his service under Li Hongzhang and this spread to the foreing community like wildfire. This spelled the end of military cooperation between Britain and the Qing dynasty. The British parliament fell back upon the policy of neutrality, but allowed for the defense of Shanghai. Ironically, by the time Britain had finally reached its decision to go back to neutrality, their assistance was basically no longer needed.   The situation in the interior of China was becoming quite horrid. Zeng Guofan wrote in his diary on June 8th “Everywhere in southern Anhui they are eating people”. It was not the first note of cannibalism from his diary entries and not to be the last. He carried on to write it was not new news that human flesh was being eaten, but the price for said flesh had gone up considerably. The price per ounce had gone up four times that which it was sold at the year prior. Cannibalism was found in Jiangsu province as well. Northern Anhui was a wasteland reported Bao Chao who was desperately trying to scout for a supply line for the drive upon Nanjing. Yet as absolutely horrifying as the situation was in central china, it did benefit the Qing, because the Taiping depended on the peasants amongst them, and the famine was creating internal conflict. As Zeng Guofan put it in his diary about the situation of the Taiping around Nanjing. “Campaigning in a region with no people, the rebels will be like fish out of water. In a countryside devoid of cultivation, they will be like birds on a mountain with no trees.”   On June 13th, Zeng Guoquan finally seized the stone fort atop Yuhuatai. Having control of it meant Zeng Guoquan was able to shut Nanjing's southern gate. The west and northern gates of Nanjing open onto the Yangtze River and their defense laid in these large Taiping forts across the mile wide Yangtze corridor to the city. On June 30th, the Xiang navy attacked these forts in a intense bombardment battle. The Taiping fort shore batteries fired back upon the Xiang, causing 2000 casualties, but in the end the Xiang forces were able to take the forts, slaughtering their defenders. Having taken the forts, the Xiang forces now controlled the Yangtze River northwest of Nanjing. Before the Yangtze River way was closed, Li Xiucheng had left in February of 1863, 3 months after failing to defeat Zeng Guoquan. He took his force into northern Anhui, searching for a supply line for Nanjing. Much like Bao Chao, he found a wasteland and his troops suffered immensely. They were starving, forced to eat grass while facing the Xiang forces who were better provisioned. When word spread that Zeng Guoquan took the fort atop Yuhaitai, Li Xuicheng immediately headed back to Nanjing, managing to cross the river just 10 days before the northern Taiping forts fell. He estimated the campaign into northern Anhui cost him 100,000 men. Yet as soon as he returned to the capital he had to leave yet again because Li Hongzhang was attacking Suzhou and Zuo Zongtang was attacking Hangzhou.    Nanjing's western gate was shut because of Xiang dominance along the Yangtze and its southern gate was shut because of Zeng Guoquans dominance over Yuhaitai. With this in mind Zeng Guofan turned his attention to the remaining easternand northern gates. He sent Bao Chao to lay siege to the Shence Gate, the primary northern inland gate. But Bao Chao faced a terrible epidemic. Simultaneously there were troubles breaking out in southern Anhui and Jiangxi provinces, so he sent Bao Chao to quell them. Meanwhile Zeng Guoquans forces expanded their position at Yuhaitai, seizing 10 bridges and mountain passes allowing them to control the supply roads southeast of Nanjing. By November Zeng Guoquans focus were blocking the eastern approach to the city. The eastern gate to Nanjing was still open and 2 large forts defended atop a mountain that edged towards the city. The mountain was known as the Dragon's shoulder and its fort was the Fortress of Heaven, to its bottom was the Fortress of Earth. By December the eartern gate and the Shence gate were the only points of entry still under Taiping control, out of Nanjing's 23 mile circumference.  I would like to take this time to remind you all that this podcast is only made possible through the efforts of Kings and Generals over at Youtube. Please go subscribe to Kings and Generals over at Youtube and to continue helping us produce this content please check out www.patreon.com/kingsandgenerals. If you are still hungry after that, give my personal channel a look over at The Pacific War Channel at Youtube, it would mean a lot to me. The Qing coalition lost their foreign support, but it seems it was no longer needed anyways. Zeng Guoquans gambit payed off brilliantly and now the great city of Nanjing was finally under siege, it was only a matter of time for the end.  

词汇提示1.undefended 不设防的2.deserter 逃兵3.outnumber 比...点4.troops 军队5.bold 勇敢6.ally 联盟7.scattered 分散的8.treaty 协议原文The War That Both Sides WonToday, the 3000 mile boundary between Canada and the United States is known as "the longest undefended boundary" in the world.But for three years in a row--1812, 1813and 1814--U.S. armies invaded Canada.When both sides failed to win a clear victory, and the costs of the war kept growing, the two countries decided that peace was the best policy.On June 18, 1812, the United States declared war on Great Britain.The United States had proclaimed their independence from Britain in 1776--36 years earlier.There were still bad feelings between the two countries.Great Britain was not treating the United States as an equal independent country.British ships were stopping American ships from trading with Europe.British sailors went aboard American ships looking for deserters from the British Navy.If an American sailor could not prove that he was an American, he was taken to work for the British.At the same time, the population of the United States was expanding.Americans wanted to move west into lands held by various American Indian tribes.Some Americans felt that Britain was encouraging the Indians to fight them and was supplying guns to the Indians.In 1812, Canada was made up of a small number of British colonies just north of the American border.Americans felt that it would be easy to take over Canada;then Canadian land would provide homes for their growing population.Since Americans outnumbered Canadians ten to one, the U.S. government thought that no one in Canada would dare to oppose them.Moreover, Britain was fighting a terrible war in Europe against Napoleon, the Emperor of Francem, and could not spare any troops to help defend Canada.But, in 1812, Canada had one advantage over the U.S.A. - good leadership.British General Isaac Brock had served in Canada for ten years.He knew how to inspire both his own soldiers and the ordinary people of Canada to fight for their country.He was a bold and energetic leader who moved quickly to attack American positions before they could attack him.Brock found a valuable ally in the American Indian Chief Tecumseh.Tecumseh had been trying to unite the scattered groups of Indians to fight together against American expansion.He convinced the Indians that their best chance for success was to join the British and Canadians against the Americans.Although both Brock andT ecumseh were killed in battles,their example continued to inspire the defenders of Canada to fight against the American invasions.Before the end of 1814, all American forces had been driven out of Canada.By 1814, Britain had defeated the French Emperor Napoleon.Now it was the turn of the United States to be invaded,and burned the government buildings at Washington.Another British force attacked the U.S.A. near the mouth of the Mississippi River, but it was defeated at the Battle of New Orleans.Both sides were tired of fighting by this time, and a peace treaty was signed on December 24, 1814.This agreement restored everything to the way it had been when the war began.Although this really meant that no one had won the war, both sides claimed victory.The Americans felt that they had gained full recognition of their independence.Britain would no longer board their ships, or encourage the Indians to fight them.Canadians felt that they had shown Americans that they wanted to develop heir own country in their own way,separate from the United States.But the biggest result of the war was the decision by both countries never to fight each other again.翻译双方都赢了的战争今天，加拿大和美国之间3000英里的边界被称为世界上“最长的不设防边界”。但连续三年，即1812年、1813年和1814年，美国军队入侵加拿大。当双方都未能取得明显的胜利，战争的代价不断增加时，两国决定和平是最好的政策。1812年6月18日，美国向大不列颠宣战。美国于1776年宣布脱离英国独立，距今36年。这两个国家之间仍有不好的感情。英国没有将美国视为一个平等的独立国家。英国船只正在阻止美国船只与欧洲进行贸易。英国水手登上美国船只，寻找英国海军的逃兵。如果一名美国水手不能证明他是美国人，他就被带到英国工作。与此同时，美国的人口也在增加。美国人想向西迁移到由美洲印第安部落控制的土地上。一些美国人认为英国在鼓励印第安人与他们作战，并向印第安人提供枪支。1812年，加拿大由美国边境以北的少数英国殖民地组成。美国人觉得接管加拿大很容易；那么加拿大的土地将为他们不断增长的人口提供住房。由于美国人的人数比加拿大人多十倍，美国政府认为加拿大没有人敢反对他们。此外，英国正在欧洲与法国皇帝拿破仑进行一场可怕的战争，无法腾出任何军队来帮助保卫加拿大。但是，在1812年，加拿大比美国有一个优势——良好的领导能力。英国将军艾萨克·布洛克在加拿大服役十年。他知道如何激励自己的士兵和加拿大普通民众为国家而战。他是一位勇敢而精力充沛的领导人，在美国的阵地攻击他之前，他迅速行动起来。布洛克在美国印第安酋长特库姆塞身上找到了一个宝贵的盟友。特库姆塞一直试图团结分散的印第安人群体，共同对抗美国的扩张。他让印度人相信，他们取得成功的最佳机会是加入英国和加拿大对抗美国。尽管布洛克和特埃克姆什都在战斗中阵亡，但他们的榜样仍激励着加拿大的守军抗击美国的入侵。在1814年底之前，所有美国军队都被赶出了加拿大。到1814年，英国击败了法国皇帝拿破仑。现在轮到美国被入侵，烧毁了华盛顿的政府大楼。另一支英国军队在密西西比河口附近袭击了美国，但在新奥尔良战役中被击败。双方此时已经厌倦了战斗，并于1814年12月24日签署了和平条约。这项协议使一切恢复到战争开始时的样子。虽然这真的意味着没有人赢得这场战争，但双方都声称胜利。美国人觉得他们已经充分认识到自己的独立性。英国将不再登上他们的船，或鼓励印第安人与他们作战。加拿大人觉得，他们已经向美国人表明，他们希望以自己的方式发展自己的国家，与美国分开。但这场战争的最大结果是两国都决定不再相互开战。

Another British manager gets the boot. When will football learn? Sports Horn is a sitcom hosted by comedians Anthony Richardson and Mark Davison, best known collectively as the popular online sketch duo 'The Exploding Heads'.Tell all your friends, and make sure to give them those all-important five stars wherever you stream your podcasts, which will allow us to make more shows! Sports Horn is a Stak Production.This is a work of fiction. Any names or characters, businesses or places, events or incidents, are fictitious. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Another British PM closer to UnityLiz Truss is now the leader of the Conservative Party and British Prime Minister.  No real surprise there. She is the fourth leader of the Tories in six years. And as each has tried and failed to reshape Britain to a post Brexit world Tory government policy – especially under Johnson - has shifted further and further to the right. ON DANGEROUS GROUND.This is not a book review. It is a book recommendation. On Dangerous Ground is a memoir by Máire Comerford, edited by Hilary Dully, with an introduction by Margaret Ward.THE CHIEFTAINS WALK.The Chieftains Walk will be on Sunday 18th September at 1pm in Derry. It is in memory of Martin McGuinness. So why not join us and Martin's family. The walk is organised by The Martin McGuinness Peace Foundation. The foundation was established in September 2019, two years after Martin's death.

Today on The Day After, (05:32) Headlines: The Tory leadership rivals bring out the gloves, Unprecedented temperatures in the UK (15:42) What You Sayin? Honestly, in 2022, are the Tories really racist? (01:16:06) Headlines: Ghana confirms first case of Marburg, Racist Chinese filmmaker extradited to Malawi (1:20:55) Word On Road: Nick Cannon engaged? - what a great guy LOOL, Jennifer Lopez & Ben Affleck are married, Tiwa Savage honorary degree from University of Kent, OG Niki attacked by her baby father, Jacques speaks out since quitting Love Island (01:36:21) The Rotation: Ardee, Llyod Bank, Brent Fiyaz (01:51:57) Love Island: The Day After (02:15:20) Headlines: Man who left his family for his Ukrainian babes is broke and starts rapping, Another British soldier captured by Russians (02:21:03) Done Out 'Ere: Doctor Caught Raping Pregnant Woman Undergoing C-Section (02:26:29) Outro --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/thedayaftertnb/message

Well, we did it! The Sidetracked Sisters have a book! We got together. We wrote words on paper. We drank margaritas. We laughed and argued. We wrote more words and sorted through lots and lots of old pictures. Then Michelle did her computer magic and now we have a book of thoughts and memories to share with our loved ones. English writer Neil Gaimon was once asked how to write a book. His response was "This is how you do it; you sit down at the keyboard and you put one word down after another until it is done. It's that easy, and that hard." Michelle, Sandy, Judy, and I talk about our book in this episode. Then we get into our plans for the not-too-distant future. Buckle up friends, we want to take YOU along on this legacy train. We want to make it easy for you to get your own legacy project going. Another British writer, journalist Sheeren El Feki said, "If you really want to know yourself, start by writing a book". So perhaps there is an even deeper goal to our writing. We want to share our legacy with our communities, friends, and families. We want to be seen and heard and know that our voice matters. And, we want to know ourselves...

Today's what we're watching features you guessed it... another British Cop Show.

*EXPLICIT CONTENT WARNING* This week the gang was joined by an actual real life celebrity guest. Luke Toki. You may know him from Survivor Australia, winner of Big Brother Australia VIP Season 2, and his podcast Who Authorised This? Thanks for coming on, man. We'll be discussing a killer chat room that led to a teenage boy attempting to murder his best friend. You will literally never be able to predict what happens next. If you'd like to help keep Unethical Podcast at the top of your feeds, please join us on Patreon or donate to us on Ko-fi! Thanks in advance for your support. Get 20% OFF @manscaped + Free Shipping with promo code UNETHICAL20 at MANSCAPED.com! #ad #manscapedpod JOIN THE UNETHICULT FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM BUY  UNETHICAL MERCH DONATE ON KO-FI Music by: Chandler Edom Thomas https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/the-boy-who-incited-his-own-murder https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/may/29/crime.uknews https://www.smh.com.au/world/boy-used-chat-room-to-get-himself-killed-20040530-gdj0ya.html https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/depressed-teenager-planned-his-own-death-in-chat-1113733 https://medium.com/crimebeat/how-a-british-14-year-old-boy-was-charged-with-plotting-his-own-murder-e0e70018ac4c https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/mark-and-john-the-fantasists

*EXPLICIT CONTENT WARNING* This week the gang was joined by an actual real life celebrity guest. Luke Toki. You may know him from Survivor Australia, winner of Big Brother Australia VIP Season 2, and his podcast Who Authorised This? Thanks for coming on, man. We'll be discussing a killer chat room that led to a teenage boy attempting to murder his best friend. You will literally never be able to predict what happens next.  If you'd like to help keep Unethical Podcast at the top of your feeds, please join us on Patreon or donate to us on Ko-fi! Thanks in advance for your support. Get 20% OFF @manscaped + Free Shipping with promo code UNETHICAL20 at MANSCAPED.com! #ad #manscapedpod JOIN THE UNETHICULT FOLLOW US ON INSTAGRAM BUY  UNETHICAL MERCH DONATE ON KO-FI Music by: Chandler Edom Thomas https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/article/the-boy-who-incited-his-own-murder https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2004/may/29/crime.uknews https://www.smh.com.au/world/boy-used-chat-room-to-get-himself-killed-20040530-gdj0ya.html https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/local-news/depressed-teenager-planned-his-own-death-in-chat-1113733 https://medium.com/crimebeat/how-a-british-14-year-old-boy-was-charged-with-plotting-his-own-murder-e0e70018ac4c https://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/crime-files/mark-and-john-the-fantasists

The day is finally here, after six years imprisoned in Iran, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is coming home. The mother-of-one is on a flight along with British–Iranian businessman Anoosheh Ashoori, who had also been detained since 2017. Another British national, Morad Tahbaz, has been released from prison but remains in Iran. We hear from Eilidh Macpherson, an Amnesty International UK campaigner who has worked closely with the families.Today we talk about:EiIidh's reaction to photo of Nazanin on the plane (2:05)How it feels knowing Nazanin and Anoosheh are coming home (2:30)Amnesty International UK calls on the government to do more (7:19) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today i have guest Helen Llewellyn sharing some of her best tips on moving to Spain and working in Learn some great tips for moving to Spain and what to do and not do.Spain Contact Helen in our facebook group , link below or on her new website coming soon here www.elementaltribe.comJoin our private expats group here.https://www.facebook.com/groups/BritishExpatsInSpainSee all Davids 4 new books on Amazon and kindle here. https://livinginspainbooks.com/

On this edition of How To Bet, Daryl roasts the Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings again, Sean remains in England and brags about taking an under, and both reveal their "Parlay Power Plays of the Week" for Week 14 of the NFL season, discuss their Prime Time Bets, and preview the College Football Playoffs! Let's Get It!!

On this edition of How To Bet, Daryl roasts the Chicago Bears and Minnesota Vikings again, Sean remains in England and brags about taking an under, and both reveal their "Parlay Power Plays of the Week" for Week 14 of the NFL season, discuss their Prime Time Bets, and preview the College Football Playoffs! Let's Get It!!

Subscribe on Apple Podcasts | Spotify  World leading thinkers join Fund Shack's 50th anniversary debate on Milton Friedman's article The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits.   Ross Butler: It's half a century since Nobel prize winning economist, Milton Friedman wrote an AR opinion. Article entitled the social responsibility of business is to increase profits. With me to discuss this are four of the world's former thinkers on the subject. Professor John Kay is one of Britain's leading economists his work centers around the interplay between economics, finance, business and society. His most recent book is Radical Uncertainty written with Sir Mervyn King. Joanne Ciulla is a professor at Rutgers's business school of which I think Milton Friedman was an alumni, correct me if I'm mistaken. She is the director for the Institute of ethical leadership and she's founding faculty member at the Jepson school of leadership studies at the university of Richmond, where she teaches courses on ethics, critical thinking and leadership. Brad Cornell is professor of finance UCLA and has been involved in a number of challenging involving the application of finance theory and his research applies financial economic models of incomplete information to the problem of ethnic discrimination among other things. Guido Palazzo is a professor of business ethics at the university of Losan in his research. He is passionate about the dark side of the force, which I like and examines an unethical unethical decision making from various angles. His studies include those on human rights violations in global supply chains. The article represents in my mind an argument against corporate social responsibility, perhaps not in its entirety, but certainly broadly in the last 50 years, of course terminologies have changed somewhat. So CSR has been to some extent replaced by ESG, but I'd say that they're broadly similar enough. And what I hope to do is have a first principles debate so that we can get beneath, these concepts and hopefully provide some form of bedrock for corporate executives to use in their ethical decision making. Before I turn to the panel, I'd like to do a quick poll. Do you broadly agree with Milton Friedman's article entitled the social responsibility of business is to increase profits? Yes. I broadly agree. No overall I am opposed or that's what I'm here to decide and everyone's voting. Interesting. So 17% broadly agree. 69% are overall opposed and 14% are here to decide. Great. So I'm going to start by asking each of the panelists in turn to provide some uninterrupted opening remarks on the Friedman doctrine. So, if I could ask Brad for you to kick us off, please Brad Cornell: Well, I think I'm probably in that 17%, but let me start with something where I do slightly disagree with professor Friedman and that is his characterization of maximizing profit. That's not the way we in financial economics think of it anymore because profit is too ill defined profit win profit next year, profit five years from now, profit 10 years from now and so forth. The way we approach this problem is to say that in a free enterprise economy, what companies are trying to do is maximize shareholder value and shareholder value value is really the present value of the stream of all future profits. And when you think of it that way value is by definition a long-term concept. There can't be any short-term value because all future profits enter and to maximize the value of a company executives must take account of long, the run impacts of their decisions. Brad Cornell: And that means that if, for example, if they treat their employees poorly this year they're gonna lose employees and that's gonna win the long run, destroy value. If they don't respect their customers, privacy, they'll lose customers and that will reduce their long run value. And if they fail to account, let's say of environmental impacts of their decisions that may bring down regulatory limitations, and that will reduce the long run value. So when we think of the right criterion, which is maximize shareholder value, some of this distinction between pursuing ESG type goals and pursuing value maximization disappears, but it doesn't disappear entirely. So let me take us to a, a short thought experiment, which hopefully will, will be interesting to the, the attendees and my colleagues can comment on it. Here's the way this thought experiment works. It's a very simple company, it's a delivery company and the only decision it has to make, and I'm focusing on the E part of ESG. Brad Cornell: The only decision it has to make is whether to use gas or electric delivery vehicles. The company can compute the total cost of either one. And the question is, does the company fall the Friedman doctrine of maximizing shareholder value, or does it diverge from that in order to take account of environmental issues. And, and I've got three scenarios to run through here in the first scenario, they do their valuation analysis us and the electric vehicles are cheaper. Well, if the electric vehicles are cheaper, value maximization says, use the electric vehicles. And in that case, there's no conflict with broader corporate executives that take account of let's say CO2 emissions, because they both lead to the same conclusion. Use the electric vehicles. That's scenario one, scenario two, there is a carbon tax that reflects the external cost of burning fossil fuels. Brad Cornell: Let's say that William is the prime minister of this country. He's figured out what the social cost, the burning fossil fuels is, and it's reflected in the tax. But even after the tax, the gas vehicles are still cheaper. So value maximization says use the gas vehicles. Some of my students say, but ESG says use the electric vehicles. That is not correct from a purely economic point of view, from a purely economic point of view, even taking account of the social effects, it's better to use the gas vehicles that's because the government will collect the revenues from the carbon tax. And that can go to other benefits. And even after reflecting these external costs, it's still better to use the gas vehicles. So once again, from an economic standpoint, there's no dispute here. If the external cost of the fossil fuels is reflected in prices, then value maximization works. Brad Cornell: And, and it's what people should follow now, where it gets confusing. And I'm sure my colleagues will wanna weigh in on this is scenario three in scenario three, the gas vehicles are cheaper, but there, there is no tax that reflects the cost of using them. There are social externalities, which are not priced. And in fact, in some countries, there may even be subsidies to using fossil fuels. So value maximization of course says, use the cheaper one, use the gas vehicles, but a broader ESG objective may say use the more expensive vehicles, even though you're gonna damage shareholders because of the social benefits of it. And this is where I think the rubber meets the road where value maximization and a broader social criterion diverge. Brad Cornell: But here are the problems that arise if you're gonna tax shareholders. And if you actually tax employees and customers as well, if you use the more expensive electric vehicles, because they'll bear part of the cost, how much customer money should be used to subsidize these electric vehicles. Second, what training do senior managers have to make decisions regarding the cost and benefits of climate change and other externalities Associa with fossil fuels. If I'm running a social media company my godsend runs the social media company, snap. He's incredibly busy with his job. How's he gonna know how to take account of climate change? Three. What if different managers reach different conclusions? Some may be socialists and think the environmental impact is very important. Others may be right wing of free market people who think it shouldn't be paid any attention at all. How do you reach a consensus ? Brad Cornell: Four, what right do corporate management have to make social policy that's in effect what they're doing when they're taxing their shareholders to promote the electric vehicles they've but not been elected or appointed. So my conclusion, and this is why I'm part of the 17%, I suppose, the managers who believe that we do not have a so appropriate rules of the game that we do not properly price externalities should definitely take that view and attempt to make it part of social policy. They should vote for candidates. They think will promote the right policy. They should attempt to get taxes levied if that's the appropriate policy, but somehow making corporations, the philosopher Kings that are going to decide public policy on their own in my view is a mistake. So ultimately I would agree with professor Friedman, the rules of the game have to be set through a fair democratic process. And then once the rules have been properly set private corporations should go back to attempting to maximize shareholder value. And that does it for me, Ross, at least my opening comments. Thank you. Ross Butler: Great, thanks. Thanks Brad. That's very clear. Say from an economist and segues quite nicely to Joan more on the philosophical side of things, Joan, can I pass to you? Joanne Ciulla: Yes. Thank you. And, and Brad, thank you. That was a, a really nice defense of some of the points in Freedman. I'm a floser. So I'm gonna look at it in a somewhat different way. I actually took us is questioned seriously, and looked at the argument itself. I've been teaching this argument for many, many years, and it's a fascinating one, and there are some really strong things in it that are important to the field of business ethics. When I started working in this area over 35 years ago it, it Friedman raises some of the most fundamental questions in business ethics. First of all, a question of what are the responsibilities of businesses what is the kind of, what kind of moral agency does a corporation have? Those were very important parts, especially in the early days of business ethics to ask. Joanne Ciulla: The second thing that's interesting about this is the context of it. It's a newspaper article by a very brilliant economist, and I think there are some faults in it because it is a much more casual writing than probably the more sophisticated work in economics. We have to ask ourselves, to what extent is this a period piece? What does the historical context have to say about this kind of argument? And that of course is the other question of, is there something about the period of time that he was writing that a stronger argument than perhaps today, but the strength, the other great strength of the piece is it forces us to consider who ought to be responsible for what as was pointed out by Brad, there's a lot of dangers in business making social policy, not only their knowledge, but the political questions in a democracy of whether they ought to be doing it. Joanne Ciulla: And I would add a third, somewhat economic consideration that if, if businesses had social responsibilities, such as let's say, running schools that could be very dangerous because what happens when the business goes out of business we want our wellbeing of society to be contingent on government because it is supposed to be something that goes on over time and businesses as we know, come and go. So I wouldn't want to rely on business to take care of the public. Good. And I think Friedman's exactly right about that. But the question is as we go on is Freeman's article always seems to assume a zero sum gain that social responsibilities must always go against the interests of employers and profits. And he gives examples about, and I love by the way in, in today's world, I cannot imagine a business thinking that they can't raise their prices, cuz it might contribute to inflation. Joanne Ciulla: Obviously we think of inflation in a different way today, but it just strikes me as a strange argument. The second one he says is, you know, imagine reducing pollution more than necessary. He seems to who assume that if you do that in a business, it's going to have all sorts of bad effects, lowering wages, increasing prices, affecting consumers, lowering profits, affecting owners, and all sorts of horrible things will Enue and his central notion is that you're spending other people's money. Well, it, the, it's kind of interesting to look at that the idea of reducing pollution more than necessary because in, in business ethics, there are several sort of classic cases about businesses that did exactly that and commons engine, by the way, that's one of the more famous old cases in business ethics. And what's compelling about that case is the fact that Cummins did reduce pollution more than necessary. Joanne Ciulla: And it turned out to be a competitive advantage because they had the foresight, the strategic foresight to see that it would eventually come around that there would be regulations, which is really speaks to one of the points. I think Brad was trying to make with his examples. So there are ways in which social responsibilities are related to corporate strategy. Now the question is you know, does this, does it always make them money? And of course that I think is a tricky thing. People who have been doing research in business ethics for many years have tried to show that ethics pays and we can't always show that. So that of course is a problem. I find it amusing that he mentions the GM crusade in this. I, I always found that a fascinating case for those of you who aren't familiar with it. Joanne Ciulla: This was a crusade by Ralph Nader and Nader's Raiders. And it was about a car that they produced called the Corver that was very unsafe on the road. And Nader went in to GM stockholders meetings and tried to make the company tried to have proxy, tried to get stockholders, to make the company decide to focus on safer and cleaner cars. GM didn't go for this and neither did the stockholders and they spent their money on having Nader followed around by a private detective. They got sued by Nader. They lost money and of course, Nader prevailed and all sorts of legislation came into play about auto safety. So there's a lot of ways in which Friedman argues that social responsibility is shortsighted. But when we look at actual cases, we see that that strategic social responsibility is farsighted. Joanne Ciulla: So what Freeman wants us to do is stay at the moral minimum and that moral minimum is, as I said, strategically unwise in many cases now here's where I get to the part of the argument that I find the most fun as a philosopher and someone who does ethics. And that's when we get near the end, there is this very odd notion that Friedman has. It's a kind of moral purity where he seems to almost get himself in a tizzy over the fact that companies could have corporate social responsibility. That's actually initiatives that are good for them. The hypocrisy of it, he tells us is, is horrible. And for some reason, if you're going to be socially responsible, it shouldn't be good for you. Well, that assumption really doesn't make sense sometimes. He seems to have missed in Adam Smith that there is enlightened self-interest. Joanne Ciulla: And I think most companies that engage in corporate social responsibility are not moral martyrs. Who've decided to lose profits to do something thing good, but rather they're people who want to do things that are good for them good for all of their stakeholders, et cetera. That's why the theory that, that emerges in business ethics that responds to this is stakeholder theory, which is also always looked at as a theory. That's also related to strategy. So ultimately when we get to the end of this argument, we see that there's this assumption that is very much an individualist argument, as well as a kind of libertarian argument that if everybody took care of themselves, if a all the businesses just took care of themselves and followed the law and, and did what businesses were supposed to be, everything would be fine. The problem with this is it's a kind of Robinson Crusoe argument it's as if we all lived on desert islands where nothing else touched us, there was a lot of water around us. Joanne Ciulla: Don't live on desert islands. We can't take care of ourselves without the interactions with others. And that goes for individuals as well as companies last year, Tim cook from apple gave a speech where he said sometimes when governments seem to be failing at things, businesses have to take up the have to step up. He said, now that's a very controversial notion going back to Friedman one, we have to examine carefully. But the real issue I think is, is not really whether a businesses ought to be socially responsible or at, or not. The real question is whether is then they should be and how they should be socially responsible. As we look at this time of COVID 19, we see that if businesses behave the way Friedman wanted them to behave, they would find themselves in quite a bit of trouble. They've got sick employees, they have people working at home. Joanne Ciulla: There are all sorts of things that are affecting the way their businesses run. And if they were only concerned about their stockholders and they were only concerned about the profitability of their business not in the way that Brad described value, but in the way that Friedman does. I think they'd find themselves in quite a bit of trouble. And just as the human being who work in the business would also probably not feel very good about sticking to the Freedman line. So in closing, I'd say there's a lot of things people love about this argument. They love the fact that it's simple. It's a, my students, a lot of my MBA students adore this are, they say, that's exactly what should go on in business. The rest is just messy, but so much of this is really wishful thinking about business and non-systemic thinking businesses exist in a system. So while I, I look at this, not as, I'm not an either percentage group, I, I am grateful to this article for the many things that it highlights that are important about corporate social responsibility. But I also think that in terms of the realities of business it's a little naive and no business can really go it alone without engaging in many of the elements of corporate social responsibility. So with that I'm pleased to turn it over to an economist. Thank you Ross Butler: Very full provoking. Thank you very much. Joanne, if we move further west John, can I yeah. Move, move on to you. John Kay: Okay, indeed. Joanna's talked about as a, were the moral critique of this kind of argument, but the elements in that of an operational critique and it's the operational critique, which I actually want to focus on Brad set out right at the beginning. I think correctly, that if you interpret, if you make sense of read has to be about maximizing shareholder volume rather than profit in any particular time period. So how do you go about maximizing shareholder volume? Well, he gives us a very simple illustration of how you might do that with a choice between an electric and a gas vehicle. And to make that decision, all you have to do is forecast gas prices for the next, however long. The length of life of the vehicle is 20 years and electricity prices for the same 20 year period. Well, good luck with that. And then the carbon tax introduced as well. John Kay: And in order to impose a carbon tax, the government, or will come to the qualifications of that in the moment someone has to estimate the actual cost of putting a ton of carbon in the, in the atmosphere and good luck with that. And then you have to walk iron some wrinkles in relation to the tax, like, is it levied on carbon production, carbon consumption, and who is it levied by where? And then you have to persuade most of the governments of the world to agree to that. Well, good luck with that as well. The truth is that we can't do this because the sums simply it cannot be done. And if we move into the, the real world and take that 20 year horizon a moment, if we go back 20 years and ask who has created the most shareholder value in the last 20 years we come up with apple, Amazon Google, three companies that have not only created most much of the shareholder value in the last 20 years, but much of the shareholder value that have ever been created in history of the world. John Kay: So when were they 20 years ago? Well, apple was pretty much on its knees. Amazon was five years old. Google was two years old where Steve jobs, Jeff Bezos, Sergi Brin and Larry Page sitting down with these kind of spreadsheets computing, the next present value of free cash flows for the next 20 years. I don't think so. I think what they were doing was Steve jobs was trying to create the coolest product you could imagine which in that 20 years ago was actually, he was working on creating the iPod, Jeff, Bezo trying to build the everything store and trying to shut books out the door. And Larry Page, I think were trying to create some pretty smart algorithms. What all all of them were trying to do was to build fantastic businesses. And of course, all three of them succeeded. John Kay: Let's contrast that with people who actually try to take the Friedman doctrine seriously, the example which I must often use is ICI Imperial chemical industries, which is actually Britain's leading industrial company for most of the 20th century. And for most of that period, been a clear of what their mission and objective was. And that mission was described as responsible application of chemistry and related science to business. But in the early nineties, that company called the shareholder value back, they changed their mission statement to our job as to create, share over value by focusing on businesses, in which we had a, a competitive advantage, what they did was they hired off the pharmaceutical business, which had actually become a most interesting part of the company. And the, the company was left in more traditional chemicals. it was very successful for a period ICI share price peaked in 1997, declined steadily thereafter until in 2007, the rather pathetic rum of the company was taken over by a Dutch company X. John Kay: And about that was ICI story. Another British stories of Mark and Spencer, which almost everyone around the world has heard of has the iconic British retailer on the 20th century. Unfortunately they caught the shareholder involving bug two in the early 1990s and under a new chief executive called a green break. They decided they had a target of making a billion pounds of profits. So they edged up prices. They squeezed their suppliers. They started moving some of their offshore production offshore. And once again, it worked for a bit in 1998, they actually achieved their billion pound profit target. And the share the price of the shares hit six pounds a share. Then unfortunately sales fell off a cliff only in one year, since then, as the company made a billion pounds of profits and the shares, which peaked at six pounds in 1998 are now one pounds 25. John Kay: I can tell this story over and over again. I can take [inaudible] the company that was regarded as the paradigm of shareholder while creation for time, which was of course, gen of electric. And we now understand that the extraordinary performance of general electric was in fact largely based on our financial services business, which after 2008 was shown to be essentially Aira. And that had served to guys the weaknesses in term created by the cost reduction and lack of forward planning and investment in I GEs more traditional business. So the share price, which would zoom from $2 to $50. Well, I've now rooted been having a rather bad week this week. And it's now just struggling to say about $5 a share all these people in their attempt to purportedly create shareholder value actually destroyed masses of shareholder value. And actually these are not atypical cases. I can tell this story, as I said over over again, I could tell it of Britain's GC dis distinguished from the American general electric and Britain's British general electric company, which was Britain's second largest industrial company in 1990. And which went essentially the same way as ice. I could tell a story like this, about Boeing. I could tell a story about this, about Sears. I can tell it over and over again. John Kay: What business is about is actually about creating great businesses. And that's what Steve jobs and Jeff be resource and SEI Bri and Larry Page actually did. They weren't about creating shareholder value. They were about building great businesses and they did, and they created masses and masses of shareholder value along the way. And that's what the earlier generation of business leaders that had created these businesses actually did. It's what Harry McGowan had done at ICI. It's what Simon marks had done at marks and Spencer. It's what red Jones and Ralph cord before Jack had done generally left. These are people who are dedicated to building businesses. British law actually says that the duty of directors is to promote the success of the company for the benefit of the members. And that's the way round it is. If you create a successful company shareholders, and everyone else will benefit from that, I should probably end with from Jack Welch, who famously said eight years after we retired from GE in 2009. John Kay: And so the chickens were coming home to roost shareholder value used said is the dumbest idea in the world. Shareholder value was a result, not a strategy. And he's exactly right on that. And that echoes the words of other people as well. People like Sam Walton, who said I've concentrated on and all on building the finest retailer company that could, we possibly could period, creating a huge personal fortune has never been particularly a goal of mine. And of course, Jim Bezos adopted the same approach that Sam Walton had adopted 40 50 years earlier with the same results, including particularly in Bezos case, creating a quite extraordinary personal, or to go back a bit further. You of George me the executive of the Merck pharmaceutical business many years, he said medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. He said the profits to follow. And if we have remembered that they have never to appear the better we have remembered it, the larger they have been, that is what, in my view is the social responsibility of business to create great businesses, to create returns for investors, serve customers while are convincing for employees and the calculations of shareholder value. It's not within the bounds of possibility that we could imagine actually undertaking them. Thank you. Ross Butler: Thank you, John. And finally let's move to if you, yeah. Guido Palazzo: Yes. Thanks Ross. I couldn't agree more with you, John. We at a few more companies maximizing shoulder value that would even go one step further in, in your list, like companies like Enron, Deutsche bank or Wells Fargo. So companies who maximize profits so much that at the end, they misunderstood the limits of what is right and what is wrong. And that's very often a consequence of maximizing profit. I would, would like to do, to make another 0.1 that we haven't heard before and one that refers to or builds on what Joanne said about seeing Friedman in a historic context. When I was writing my PhD thesis in the, in the middle of the 1990s for, I wanted to work on, on corporate social responsibility. And I wrote this thesis with a philosopher in the philosophy department, and I started to read all around what I find in political science, sociology philosophy. Guido Palazzo: And I was stumbling over a lot of analysis that had been written by political scientists like David held by philosophers like [INAUDIBLE] by, sociologists like Manuel castells or Urich back who were reflecting upon the profound consequences of globalization for our society. And then I went into the CSR, the corporate social through responsibility literature. And I was surprised that even if they went a bit further than Milton Friedman, they somehow reflected one thing. He had written in this article and they took it for granted as well that companies should follow, the, the roots of the game in their respective contexts, which is the laws and some, some moral roots that are necessary for economic transactions. So they should follow the law. What the other guys in these other scientists were telling us is, well, the nation state is disappearing. It is weakening, it's eroding. Guido Palazzo: We have multinational corporations suddenly, and they are escaping this container of the nation state regulatory system. And nobody in the discuss on, on CSR had taken that into consideration. So what we now had was a situation that companies could pretty much escape from regulation because they could bargain with governments as they do until today. They could say, if, if, if you ask me too high taxes, I go somewhere else. If you have two strict on pollution, I can go somewhere else. So they became stronger than governments. They could run away from regulation to the lowest regulator. That was one thing. The other element that was striking me was that Milton Friedman had written this theory in the seventies part of it in the sixties already at the climax of the fight between communism and capitalism. And of course he was super extreme, cuz any step in the other direction, would've been unacceptable from that kind of position. Guido Palazzo: But what he had in mind was a theory of economic transactions within a well regulated context because at his time capitalism existed in, in, in Japan, in the USA in parts of Europe. So it was always embedded in more or less well-functioning democracies. Now with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, what happened was that corporations invented global supply chain management and they're stretched out into regions like the Congo, which is a civil war region with no government in the parts where they dig the the Quan into Bangladesh, which is a highly corrupt and weak government all into China and, and other Iran that are repress regimes, at least partly so suddenly we had capitalism in context that had nothing to do with how mid Friedman saw the world in the 1970s. And the consequence was that companies suddenly were connected if not directly involved in all kind of human right violations and atrocities for which they would go to prison in their own countries. Guido Palazzo: And there was no one to regulate them because there was, there is no global regulator. There is just international law for governments, but not for private actors. So we moved into a kind of regulatory vacuum which made this idea of myth and Friedman highly dysfunctional that's 0.1 0.2. If you look into this article and you look at how he is environmental issues, pollution, it's almost funny. It's a bit of pollution in the river. So, and if the government wants to regulate that for everyone to create a level playing field, then they should make a law. And then the pollution disappears. Now the world in which we are moving now is a world in which the pollution that for him was local and small and controllable is a threat to our very existence as a human species, just to go through a few bits of information from, from recent month and weeks today, the world, the WWF published a study in which they showed that 20,000 species of mammals, fish and bird have lost up to 70% of, of, of, of, of their, of their animals over the last 20 years. Guido Palazzo: A study in, in Germany that was published in nature, says that we have lost 80% of the insects in Germany. The us army published a study last October saying we are running into a, of the us army and the us infrastructure because of global warming within the next 20 years. Another study in science published in may this year says that most trees that are currently existing on this planet will not survive the next 40 years. So this is not the world in which you out the river a bit. And then there is a democratic government and that will step in and keep you from polluting it if necessary. This is a world in which we are collapsing because we have globalized the narrative of neoliberalism. So these are two elements that connect to, to, to globalization that in my view of course we not visible to him, but that make his theory today. Totally inappropriate. That's it. Ross Butler: Great. Thank you very much. I've got lots to come back to you all on. But I wonder if I can just put one question to you all, which is, we all agree the responsibility has to be taken, but where does that responsibility reside? My reading of the article is not that no responsibility needs to be taken, that it doesn't reside at the corporate level. Brad, please. Brad Cornell: And, and that's my reading too Ross. I agree with that climate change is an absolute preeminent issue of extreme importance, but I don't want to turn it over to managers of thousands of corporations. This is something that has to be done at the, the governmental level and probably at the international level and trying to have businesses weigh in on it when they're not prepared. And don't have legal standing is just not the way to go. Ross Butler: Guido Guido Palazzo: Look at some of these globalized supply chains. Imagine you are apple. And, and one of your suppliers is is a, a mining company in the Congo. And there is slavery and child labor and civil war around the minds. Now, who is the government who interferes and who should solve these problems, there is no government. So it has to be done by other actors. And who are these other actors? Well, the most powerful actor is in that context, the, the Western, my mining company can the Western mining company say, we just follow the rules of the game. Well, they could, but is that an acceptable argument today? I don't think so. Or if you are a company that, that, that produces chocolate and you have your plantation or your farmers somewhere at ivory coast, and there is child labor all over the place can say, let the government solve that problem. Well, the go, you know, exactly what will happen. They will do nothing. They, they don't have the power, they don't have the will to regulate you further because you are more powerful as a corporation that kind of context that Ross Butler: Isn't there. A isn't there a third way. So we're not saying that governments need to do it. We're not saying that corporations need to do it, but corporations are made up of people and people can still take ethical decisions, Guido Palazzo: But who are the people? If, if you are Glenco the, the mining company in the Congo, who are the people who, who should be that person who is responsible in that case, it has to be the company I see. So it's interesting, Ross Butler: I suppose, you know, that you have a CEO and the CEO owes in one sense, it's a role, but in another sense, it's a human being and the CEO as a role perhaps just has to follow corporate policy, but the CEO as a human being can take ethical decisions and take a moral stand. And so I wonder if there is that third way. And I think, I wonder if that's what mil Friedman's arguing. UJohn would like want to comment and John first, then Joe, John Kay: I'm not sure there is, in that sense a third way. We we're confronted with two kinds of situations. One is the situation we have in Western democracy where I don't agree with the proposition that where governments are failing to act appropriately, it's up to corporations and to step up to the plate. And I think particularly in the United States, but also in much of Europe, a corporate influence on politics is not too small, but too large. I would like to get business the business of lobbying and Washington. And the way it moment on the Julio is talking about the situations we face in countries, where there is no government in the sense in which we mean government in Britain or the United States or, or Germany. And in that case, I think there is no alternative for countries which want to operate in the Congo to take his example of saying either we just accept, we can't operate at all in these jurisdictions, or we have to take in these jurisdictions, some of the responsibilities, which would be taken on by a government if if there were a government in a meaningful sense in these countries.   John Kay: So we have to be somewhere in between. And I think what companies have to do when they operate internationally is see if they can operate in a way, which is a good by local standard, but consistent ethical standards, which their executives, their shareholders, their customers would almost all subscribe to. And in way we may well be in some cases and the congos and getting sample of this, that it is simply too difficult to reconcile these and you can't great there, but that's a real dilemma which corporate executives have to face. And I don't think Ross, there is another group of people who are in a position to make these kind of decisions. It's the it's the executives of the corporation, which wishes to operate in these jurisdictions to decide whether they can do it consistently with ethical behavior or not. Ross Butler: Didn't make myself clear. I meant the same thing, not a third group of people, the same group of people taking individual responsibility, not hide, not sheltering under, under a kind of an artificial non-human construct, which is the corporation. And you can see there if, if they're acting as individuals, rather than in the role of a CEO, suddenly they're taking personal risk, cuz it could be that they're going against what compliance is telling them, for example. And Joanne, anyway, let me move on to, sorry. Joanne Ciulla: Okay. Just a couple short points. First of all, in large corporations, there are whole separate units that are engaged in CSR of specialists and people who actually know the field. So it's not like Friedman's day where somebody decides to do something good. Secondly, we are living in a fascinating period in America right now because the current administration has dismantled a number of environmental laws. And what I think is gonna be interesting is you can burn dirty coal. Now you can put more pollution into the air. Now you can put coal dust into water and streams. This is all allowed now. So it's all permitted. And the question is, are companies gonna say, oh boy, now, now you, the energy companies say, let's, let's fire up those old coal plants because we can use them now. Well, of course they're not going to do it. Joanne Ciulla: So it's, it's kind of interesting. And then my last point, when you look at the financial services industry, it's fascinating to hear them talk because the thing they really hate is getting regulated. And I think most businesses don't like being regulated by the government. And I know in financial service they often say, well, look, we've gotta take care of this on our own or the government's gonna step in and regulate us. So there's a way again, in which businesses can think about this, that requires them to do things on their own speed and their own time within industries, without waiting for the government to step in and, and some find that highly proud. Ross Butler: Joanne, let me stay with you for a moment. You mentioned that Milton Friedman takes a bit of a zero sum approach and that sometimes social responsibility can align with corporate responsibility, but in such an instance there's no conflict in the sense. There's no moral, no dilemma. And so I, as it plays out, there's, you know, you, you are not necessarily opposed with the, the Freeman world view. And let me add something to that as well, which is that the, the vaguely I agree, humorous conclusion to the article where he takes Umbridge with, with people kind of getting cued off from doing good things. but isn't there a moral problem with that in Sofar as if you're doing something because you want to look good. I E and therefore get a good reputation and therefore sell more stuff. Isn't isn't that somewhat imoral because you are, you are presenting yourself as someone that's as an entity. That's doing good because you are good, whereas you're doing good in order to sell stuff. Joanne Ciulla: Well, Ross, that's a very sophisticated, philosophical question you've asked me, and you sound like a good because in one theory of ethics, you know, the only good is when you do something entirely from good intentions, but there's a whole lot of other ways to think about ethics. And if you take that view, then companies, you know, McDonald's has a promotion and they say, we're gonna give $1 to every, every sale of a hamburger to this charity. Well, they're doing it to promote their hamburgers, certainly, but they're still giving the money to charity Ross. And if we preclude that kind of moral action, then you're just saying, oh, don't give the money to charity because it benefits. Mcdonald's, where's, where's the logic in that in terms of how companies operate. So yeah, you may hold your nose a little and say, you know, it kind of stinks. Joanne Ciulla: And I agree with that, but, and everybody nowadays knows the game. They know that companies often do promotions and they give to charity and they know that it benefits them in PR in terms of customers, it's easier to recruit bright, young people to companies that behave this way. So there's, there's a whole lot of reasons why you do it, but it doesn't make it unethical. And it doesn't undercut the fact that you're actually helping people. So that, that, that argument pops up all the time in business ethics. And I have to say, I have to take the utilitarian approach and say, well, do people actually benefit from it? And if the answer is yes, then it's probably okay. Ross Butler: The trouble with that. And I find this particularly with ESG rather than CSR that it's ESG is full of kind of performative contradictions because of this. Yeah, because people are able to, I keep saying people, corporations are able to wallow in the reflected glory of making moralistic statements and doing moralistic acts. But without actually living it or without actually doing a proper, you know, cost benefit analysis of such overtly charitable actions. We in a complex world can very often backfire. And if this is a project that we are undertaking at colosal scale, then, then I just think that little bit more thought rather than just, you know, reputational gloss needs to come into it. John, is that your hand? John Kay: It is this suit here, I think, which is that I, I agree that a lot of what is called CSR or ESG is essentially performative. And the classic illustration of that for me was I told I remember giving a talk about what happened at ICI in 2006, just before ICI finally disappeared. And I got a follow up a few days letter later in the form of a letter from a vice president for corporate social responsibility at ICI. And to paraphrase the letter said, we might have screwed up the business, but we did a great job on corporate social responsibility and include included the brochure, which we've all seen on corporate response, social responsibility, as it was then in this corporation printed on recycled paper with pictures of happy minority and diverse groups. Some of them in wheelchairs. And I thought you are so far from getting what the real corporate social responsibility of business is, which is to produce goods and services that people want. It is to give satisfying employment to the people who work there. It is to generate returns for investment. That's what the social responsibility of business is about. It is not to subvert democratic governments either because in order to promote corporate interests or in order to remedy what they believe to be the deficiencies of democratic it, government it's about running good businesses. And that's what we need to focus on. And that's my understanding of social responsibility in business. Joanne Ciulla: One response to that is that part of what we are arguing. And, and your example, Ross is yes. When, when are anything else is done badly, it's done badly, but that doesn't mean you throw it all out. And so, yeah, you've gotta do it, right. It has to be all of those things. I totally agree with you, John. It has to do all of those things and it has to be done thoughtfully. Yeah, some people do it badly. Some people do it in a phony way, but that doesn't mean you throw it all out, Ross Butler: Right? Brad Cornell: Yeah. I wanted to, to stress too the point that much of value creation in business is about relationships. Like John mentioned Amazon. Well, I have a relationship with Amazon. I buy products from them all the time. They deliver them on time. If the product is shotty, they take it back. They make useful recommendations to me. So that much of business value creation is improperly managing your relationships with people. So there really isn't in many situations, a conflict. If Amazon refused to take back a shotty product, I wouldn't order the next one. If faced book, doesn't protect my privacy I'll log off. So value creation needs to be thought of in a, in a broad context, that includes human relationships. Ross Butler: I just keep coming back to this idea of look who's heads on the block. You know, we are only 10 years out of a global financial crisis. And one more way of viewing that was that it was a, a result of collective responsibility. And one way of looking at that is that collective responsibility clearly means no responsibility, cuz I'm not aware of many people that you know, were sent to prison, for example, over the global financial crisis. And so is that not a warning at least that perhaps we need to be clearer on where responsibility resides. I'm sorry to ask kind of the same question again, but Guido go. Guido Palazzo: Well there two answers fir first I agree partially because since years I say in the very moment where managers of multinational corporations will go to of prison because they have slaves in their supply chain, slavery will stop in their supply chain. That's one point. So we, we have to help hold managers responsible on the other side we give corporations all kind of rights and why, or shouldn't we give them duties as well. And in a globalized world, these duties extend over their duties in a well regulated context. If you, if you give this responsibility to people companies can escape the responsibility and you put these people inside. The companies may be in, in, in a situation where they, they have to manage contradictory things. And that is not possible. So it has we, and as society, anyway, we do this already. We assign to corporations, the responsibility to keep their supply chains clean. We do this already and companies react to the price from civil society. So what we see right now is a changing context of how we assign legitimacy to organizations. And that is something that also is not considered into the calculation of myth and Friedman, if you don't have legitimacy, that can be very expensive. Yeah,   Ross Butler: John, John Kay: I think it's perfectly clear what a responsibility for financial crisis lay and that was with the senior executives of very large financial companies. And the fact that they didn't go to jail is a demonstration of the inadequacy of corporate law for dealing with these kind of situations. Not a QUT of that. And right. I I'll tell, give two illustrations. I remember going to one event at which the chief executive of a major bank actually said, you know, we were just the waiters at the party and the remark, which I thought it would be inappropriate to to make was you've got quite, you've got tips that were quite more larger than the waiters at the party typically get, or another event right. This was a, another senior executive or a bank saying to me, gosh, the regulator should have stopped us from doing that. And I thought what ,uresponsibility for proper conduct for social responsibility lies with, senior executives of corporations. There shouldn't be any doubt about that. And I think we have, unfortunately in the financial sector has been the extreme of this, got into a frame of mind in which if the corporations write very large checks in settlements that somehow reckon to absorb both the corporation and the more importantly, the individuals in the corporation from further responsibility for what they've done, I think we need to stop that. Ross Butler: John, you went into some detail in your opening remarks about the detrimental effect of perhaps a fixation with profit maximization that's had on some notably large companies. I'm not sure though that that's entirely in conflict with Friedman insofar as you can have a goal, you have a strategy and they're, and they're different things and you, your strategy may be excellent customer service, but if your goal is excellent customer service, then pretty soon the business doesn't become is no longer sustainable in the kind of in the literal sense. And in that sense, Milton Friedman's very simple focus on profits means that well, a very unsophisticated view of it, just if you're going head long towards profits, yes, you'll run a business into the ground. But if you view that as a goal, and then you have a sophisticated corporate strategy to get there, then they're not necessarily incompatible. John Kay: No, I think that's right Ross, but let's remember how the Friedman doctrine actually went. And we ought to understand that the Friedman doctrine was actually part of what was essentially a concerted campaign in the 1970s and early eighties to create a different frame of reference for thinking about corporations. It goes along with the, the famous Louis Powell memorandum in 1971, which leaks back to the remarks you made earlier about Nader and the attack on corporations. The Friedman doctrine goes into the, the notorious Jensen article in 1976, which talks about the need to align incentives of of, of corporate executives, of those of shareholders, and which provides the basis for the widespread use of stock options and the explosive growth, then shareholder remuneration and the preoccupation with share prices on the part of the, on the part of senior executives. Now I made to, in response to Brad, the point that it's very difficult to work out whether you are creating shareholder value or not, that if you believe seriously in the efficient market hypothesis, as many economists and most economists of the time do and did do and did then you don't have to worry about that calculation because the market is doing it for you.   John Kay: The stock price at the moment is the best estimate that could be made of the long term shareholder value that you created. So taking that set of arguments together, that was the basis of seeing management attention on what, what happened to stock prices. And that was what was behind the whole series of corporate failures and disasters, which I described. So, although it's absolutely right to say that a sophisticated interpretation of the Friedman doctrine takes you into maximizing shareholder volume and over sophisticated application of the Weedman doctrine takes you back to say, this is about getting the stock price up. And what happened in the next 20, 30 years was corporate executives did focus on getting the stock price up, which for short periods they did. I described how Welch did I describe how green did I described how I see I did. We saw that playbook being played over and over again, always with the same, in the same way you get this short term sugar rush. Cause there are things that you can do that make the business look better in the short run. And they don't mostly, they don't certainly they don't always, and they don't often work out well in the long run. Brad Cornell: Well, the way I would respond to John in my view, maximizing shareholder values a little bit like going to sleep. If you're having trouble sleeping, the solution is not to lie in bed and say, I'm gonna figure out how to sleep it's to do something else. And I think John is right. What companies need to do is think about making their business as effective as possible. Warren buffet has often said, you create a great business by watching what's going on on the field, not keeping your eye on the scoreboard because the market may get things right. May get things wrong. You really shouldn't pay attention. You should do what Jeff Bezos does. And I think what John agreed to is do what you have to do to make a great business. And eventually a relatively efficient market will recognize you if you're successful in that effort, Guido Palazzo: I just wanted to highlight a point that I made already. I think efficiency is not the only issue for companies and, and markets are not the only criteria they have to take into consideration when they make decisions because they have to be perceived as legitimate. If they're not perceived as legitimate, they will run into all kind of limitations of what they can do. Just look at the tobacco industry. Their legitimacy is perceived as very, very low and in return for that, they are limited in what they can do by a lot of laws that other industries do not have a lack of legitimacy makes you less efficient creates costs. And that is a purely ethical thing. It's how you are perceived in how you do things. Is it perceived as appropriate or not? So this is something, if you don't keep it in mind, when you make decisions you create paradoxically pro profit problems. So you have to manage efficiency, profit, but also legitimacy. Ross Butler: Just wanna raise one. Oh, so go, go ahead, John. John Kay: Well, I think Guido's made a very important point there, which is what has happened and it's to, to some degree directly attributable to the Friedman doctrine is to undermine the legitimacy of business in the, of the public with this paradox at the moment that Google and Facebook each have 2 billion customers. Each that's more than anyone has imagined any business having in the history of the world. And yet I can read every day, an article flagging off Google and Facebook, but in this where we love the products, but we hate the producers. And there's something very wrong with that. And what business ought to be saying is not the social responsibility of a business it's to maximize its profit. It's saying the social responsibility of business is to make the contribu, which business can make to the community, which is producing goods and services that people want. It's providing good returns to investors it's providing satisfying employment for the people who work there. It's making a proper contribution through corporate taxation, to the other activities of the community. That's what responsible business in my book is about fall, right? And businesses presented a description of itself and Friedman takes a lot of responsibility for this, a description of itself, which is both repellant and full as a description of how good business actually operates. Ross Butler: I could make a, an entirely opposite argument for the deterioration of trust in businesses though, which is that rather than kind of a focus on profits, you, I think you'll find that most of these large Silicon valley tech giants are very much focused on their social responsibility, certainly in their outward pronouncements. I mean, I think Google listed when it listed its corporate motto is do no evil and these places are full of what they call social justice warriors. These days, it's deep within their culture to take social responsibility very seriously. And yet trust in these organizations is falling and falling. And so you could take the opposite view and say that people just don't buy it. And they, they, they just don't see a real world link between what these companies say and what, what they do. And if you could just come back and then Joanne. John Kay: Yeah. And that's not very simple. One of the most incredible things happening at the moment is I don't know whether anyone on this zoom has followed the case of it's a class action led by Arkansas teachers against Goldman Sachs. And the basis of the class action is that Goldman Sachs ethics statement said, and still does say our client's interests always come first. Now, the, the, the case being brought by Arkansas teachers and others is that it's essentially, they were misled by this statement into thinking this was a respectable company, which would be a rewarding investment for Arkansas teachers and others, the defense, which is being put up to this and don't get me wrong. If the defense is to say that actually is to provide a list of over 30 occasions on which conflicts of interest in, within Goldman Sachs were reported adversely in the papers. John Kay: So defense is producing this list of things in order to argue that the revelations that Goldman Sachs did not follow its ethics statement was well known, public information. That market participants didn't take the statement seriously. And its what is in legal terms called am mere path. And the us chamber of commerce has actually weighed in with an Amika's Curi brief in defense of Goldman Sachs, which says all companies make statements like integrity and honesty at the heart of our business. And they says, they say this actually almost defies belief that if the case against Goldman were to succeed, companies would in future make these statements at their per well, they should make them at their per they should make them, they should make them at their per and the way of dealing with it is not to say that these things are a mere puffs. John Kay: Like red bull gives you wings or Heineken refreshes the parts have a beers, cannot reach, which is what they are claiming. It is to say that these statements ought to be true about the business. And people ought not to make them if they're not true. And if they're not true, they probably ought not to be in business very well. But that's what I mean by saying businesses presented itself as being birth repellent and thoughts. And that's why people do not want business near the hospitals, those schools and, and indeed their water supply and their electricity business Ross Butler: Inflation is a problem. Just a different kind. Joanne, did you want to make a comment? Joanne Ciulla: Yeah. Just, just to comment on that, there's, there's another way you to look at your question and, and one of the reasons why people don't like these companies is, is not only the SI it, it's not their social responsibility statements alone, but it's also the me size and wealth of these companies in a time of growing inequality. So I think there's, there are social reasons why everybody's getting very nervous about these large companies, as well as of course, some of the political reasons, certainly in the us that these companies are, are impinging on things like our privacy and other things. But I I'm glad that John brought up the, the Goldman case, cuz that is amusing. And I think every company on wall street is probably looking at their ethics statement to see if they can move up to it. And you know, it is a lesson to learn. I worked, I did a case study Harvard case study many years ago of a company that had their ethics codes on these beautiful big wall posters. All it was a manufacturing concern and it started with our employees come first. And as soon as I finished writing the case study, they shipped 500 jobs overseas. So, you know, the question is what, what, what is our understanding of what companies say to people? Ross Butler: Great. I wanna address some of the audience questions now. Some people have suggested empowering stakeholders, such as employees on the board boards of trustees, et cetera, representing broader society. Do you see this as part of the solution or is potentially problematic due to conflicts of interest among stake themselves? Does anyone wanna tackle that? Brad Cornell: I'll just say one thing about it and turn it over to my, my colleagues, but it certainly causes a big agency problem. And when you say employees, who, what employees, how are they elected? Why is it employees rather than customers or suppliers or distributors in a John Kay type of outlook? How do you actually make this work and work effectively? It seems like it would be very difficult.   John Kay: I basically agree with that. I don't think the way you make business take proper account of its stakeholders is to have representatives of all the stakeholder groups on the board to say we in the, in the shop floor at X, think the following indeed most, most people outside the management of the company and don't have the expertise to make. So the kind of decisions of out the corporate strategy of the company that are needed, what we need is professional managers with a proper sense of the responsibilities of the job. And that's what I think certainly what I would be arguing for Guido Palazzo: If you look at some economies who are working very well, like the German economy, what you have, there is a, a power balance between governments, worker, representatives and corporations. So I think the idea of giving power to workers to have a say in how companies make decisions isn't that bad, it works, it works under certain conditions. And in Germany you have a good example for that, but we probably have to go much further Pula tour. The sociologist has recently written a book on the climate crisis where he says, well, we have to give stakeholder rights to nature. Otherwise they will never have a, a say on board. So it can be the river next to my factory. It can be a mountain, it can be a species that disappears. We have to give a voice to these actors as well in our decision making, if we don't currently Ross Butler: Great, okay. We are actually, I'm afraid running out of time. So does it anyone want to go first in perhaps summing up their thoughts on this topic or from this conversation? Brad Cornell: I'll start cuz I started the first time, but given what I've heard, it's my view. We have some major problems related to business and society. And I think climate change is probably at the top of the list, but there's there's many others, but I just don't see, particularly in light of John's comment about Goldman Sachs and the Arkansas teachers, how turning more power over to corporations and asking them to make these decisions is the right way to go. I think we need fundamentally rethinking certain government policies include those dealing with climate and we should start there. Ross Butler: Great. Thank you. Who wants to go next? Joanne Ciulla: Well, since I was second, I might as well go next. I'll follow in. Brad's thinking here. Well first of all, I, I learned a lot from this conversation, so I wanna thank my co-panelists here and I guess, you know, there, there's a couple things that gel together that really have to do with how we construct certain ideas. John, you talked about great companies and what great means and Brad, you mentioned something similar. What great means is really what's on the table. Does does great mean taking into account the obligations that businesses have to their stakeholders and, you mentioned stakeholder rights. I actually prefer to think of it in terms of duties because rights are a political kind of construction. And so while I know that it has to be a kind of a notion part of what Friedman's talking about is what is the business' responsibility and with stakeholders, they do have responsibilities to different stakeholders and they, the stakeholders have that standing, whether they're on committees or not like they are in Germany. Joanne Ciulla: I leave that question aside, but so, so I think what, what there is a consensus on is the great company has to be one that functions well and serves the purposes of giving goods and, and services to society. But great, but it's a loaded term. And I think it's a socially constructed term in terms of what society expects from business and what their obligations are. We haven't talked about social media, but the awareness that people have of what businesses do nowadays is unprecedented for good or for evil. And so I think you can't, you can't be a socially responsible business unless you're in business. That's one thing and you certainly can't ignore social responsibilities in business today because it will eventually be a detriment. So I think that in terms of Milton Friedman, I still admire some of the questions he's put on the table that I think are serious and that we've touched on here. But I don't think many companies can afford to follow his advice in today's world. John Kay: That I think has taken the German case, which is parti really interesting because article 14 of the German basic law which is effectively the constitution of the federal Republic of Germany says that property confers obligations and must be used for the public will and intere

This Episode Charlie and Lucas debate whether you should support other British clubs when they are competing in the major European club competitions? They will also review the final 4 second-leg of the Champions League last 16 games. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/leftbackonthebench/message

On July 28, 1914, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, effectively beginning the First World War. Early in the course of that war, a French composer named Albéric Magnard became a national hero when he died defending his home against invading German troops. Maurice Ravel tried to enlist as a French pilot, but was refused because of his poor health. Instead, he became a truck driver stationed at the Verdun front. British composer Ralph Vaughan Williams was too old to be drafted, but he enlisted as a private in the Royal Army Medical Corps. Another British composer, George Butterworth, would be killed by a sniper during the Battle of the Somme. The total number of military and civilian casualties in World War I is estimated at 37 million. Empires fell. National borders were redefined. Old systems of values seemed shattered forever. The Austrian violinist and composer Fritz Kreisler served briefly in the Austrian Army in 1914 before being wounded and honorably discharged. He arrived in then-neutral New York on November of 1914, and remained in America through the war years. In 1915, Kreisler made a recording of Bach's Double Violin Concerto, performing with the Russian violinist Efrem Zimbalist. Austria and Russian may have been at war in Europe, but in a cramped New Jersey recording studio, at least, the music of Bach provided a brief island of peace and harmony.

Deadlocked with Brexit, Britain has decided to hold another general election on December 12. Campaigning now begins for what is called the most uncertain election in UK history. Bible prophecy supplies some certainty as to how it will play out. As the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump proceeds, more people are not only acknowledging the existence of the "deep state" in America, they are boasting that it is an essential safeguard for the American republic. America decided to cut military aid to Lebanon, a move that puts more pressure on Hezbollah amid anti-government protests there. Russia sent submarines into the North Atlantic in provocative drills larger than any since the Cold War. We also talk about mass protests in Iraq, military cooperation between Germany and the U.S., and even greater cooperation between Europe and Japan. Links [0:54] Another British Election Coming (8 minutes) “Why the Trumpet Watches the UK’s Break From Europe” [9:02] Deep State Exposed (10 minutes) “America’s Coming Civil War” “Is the ‘Deep State’ Real?” America Under Attack [19:31] America’s Response to Anti-government Protests in Lebanon (7 minutes) “Why You Need to Watch Lebanon” VIDEO: “A Second ‘Cedar Revolution’ in Lebanon?” AUDIO: “Will Hezbollah’s Hold on Power Survive the Mass Protests in Lebanon?” [26:26] Russian Sub Threat (6 minutes) “The Crimean Crisis Is Reshaping Europe!” [32:53] Mass Protests in Iraq (5 minutes) “America’s Greatest Defeat—Iran’s Victory” The King of the South [38:27] U.S. Forges New Military Partnership With Germany (5 minutes) “Germany and America Forge Ambitious Military Partnership” Ezekiel: The End-Time Prophet [43:31] EU Forges New Military Partnership With Japan (4 minutes) “The Great ‘Mart of Nations’” Isaiah’s End-Time Vision [48:07] South Africa Drought (3 minutes) “South Africa Suffers Worst Drought in 1,000 Years” Why ‘Natural’ Disasters?

Like a candy bar offered to you by a creepy British man, sink your teeth into this episode as we cover another writer still kickin’ it with the modern classic, Atonement, where we learn how a young girl's lies can ruin the lives of her loved ones but score her a sweet book deal. Also featured: Cat ASMR, being horny on main for Keira Knightley, and Emotions With RJ.

Another British show, Being Human, is on deck this week and it has us still questioning what makes vampires so appealing. Answer: we still don't know. We also talk about our house ghost Geoffrey and his baby Humphrey, review our house rules and have a mini roomie therapy session. What do you think friends? Have you seen the show? Is it worth watching further? Let us know! Twitter - @wehavethoughts3 Also shout out to social anxiety!

Who is staying and who is going and who is on a plane right now?We'll dive into all of the rumors and how they impact the league this year. Miami news as well, and lower division!

Another British royal wedding is coming up, so over the next few days, we'll explore a few moments from the history of royal marriages in Great Britain. Today, we meet Wallis Simpson, the last American divorcee to marry a British royal.

It's another British invasion! Luke Sandoe, James Hollingshead, and Aaron Hudson join us fresh off the UKBFF British finals. Tim Terwilliger comes on to tell us his experience working for Aaron and

Another British publication takes a comment out of context and creates bad publicity for a Star Wars star - this time, David Prowse. Punch it! ***We’re listener supported! Go to http://Patreon.com/sw7x7 to donate to the podcast, and you’ll get some fabulous rewards for your pledge.*** Check out SW7x7.com for full Star Wars 7x7 show notes and links, and to comment on any of the content of this episode! If you like what you've heard, please leave us a rating or review on iTunes or Stitcher, which will also help more people discover this Star Wars podcast. Don't forget to join the fun on Facebook at Facebook.com/SW7x7, and follow the breaking news Twitter feed at Twitter.com/SW7x7Podcast. We're also on Pinterest and Instagram as "SW7x7" too, and we'd love to connect with you there!

Mark Lawson unwraps a further selection of new interviews with arts headline makers of 2011. Stage and screen actor Dominic West discusses playing serial murderer Fred West, Shakespeare's Iago, and upper-class anchorman Hector Madden in The Hour. Tracey Emin, newly-appointed Professor of Drawing at the Royal Academy, reflects on opening the new Turner Contemporary gallery in her home town of Margate, her solo show at the Hayward Gallery, London, and her art-work for 10 Downing Street. Director Tom Hooper considers the success of his Oscar-winning film The King's Speech, and how almost a year after its release it is still winning awards. Another British film The Inbetweeners, based on the TV comedy, has taken more than £45 million at the UK box office and is the biggest-selling DVD this Christmas. Writers Iain Morris and Damon Beesley reveal how far they are prepared to push the cast. And Mark meets Mary Berry and Paul Hollywood, judges on The Great British Bake Off, one of the year's unexpected TV hits. They discuss their approach to cake-tasting, and the art of judging the perfect bake. Producer Lisa Davis.