Podcasts about Average

Dana In The Morning Highlights 8/13Pearland ISD, Cy-Fair, Deer Park, Humble & Brenham return to class todaySt. Jude is raffling tickets for a dream home in WallerHow much did YOU spend on back to school this year?

Bob Odenkirk joins Seth and Josh on the podcast! He talks about taking his kids to the Dells, camping in Wisconsin, filming in locations like Winnipeg and Albuquerque, how it's felt becoming an action movie star, and so much more! Plus, he chats about his new movie, Nobody 2, out August 15th! ------------------------- 00:00 Introduction with Seth and Josh04:58 Bob Odenkirk Joins the Podcast06:20 Family and Personal Stories11:26 Dog Training and Family Dynamics14:02 Better Call Saul and Acting Challenges17:57 New Mexico and Family Visits29:17 Religion and Upbringing34:36 Nobody Movie Franchise39:51 The Magic of Over-the-Top Performances40:23 Balancing Darkness and Inclusivity in Film40:54 The Importance of a Great Editor41:26 Unexpected Hollywood Insights46:36 Exploring Winnipeg's Charm53:57 From Italy to Wisconsin Dells59:39 Childhood Memories and Family Trips01:06:25 The Influence of Bad Theater01:08:59 Writing the Superfan Film01:12:03 Speed Round with Bob01:13:41 Grand Canyon Adventures and Final Thoughts ------------------------- Support our sponsors:DeleteMETake control of your data and keep your private life private by signing up for DeleteMe. Now at a special discount for our listeners. Get 20% off your DeleteMe plan when you go to join https://www.deleteme.com/TRIPS and use promo code TRIPS at checkout.Mint MobileGet this new customer offer and your 3-month Unlimited wireless plan for just 15 bucks a month at https://www.MINTMOBILE.com/TRIPS Upfront payment of $45 required (equivalent to $15/mo.). Limited time new customer offer for first 3 months only. Speeds may slow above 35GB on Unlimited plan. Taxes & fees extra. See MINT MOBILE for details.SuperpowerGo to https://www.Superpower.com and use code TRIPS to get $50 Off your annual Superpower subscription. Live up to your 100-Year potential. #superpowerpod FitbodGet in shape this summer with Fitbod. Join Fitbod today to get your personalized workout plan. Get 25% off your subscription or try the app FREE for seven days at https://www.Fitbod.me/TRIP. ------------------------- Family Trips is produced by Rabbit Grin Productions. Theme song written and performed by Jeff Tweedy. ------------------------- About the Show: Lifelong brothers Seth Meyers and Josh Meyers ask guests to relive childhood memories, unforgettable family trips, and other disasters! New Episodes of Family Trips with the Meyers Brothers are available every Tuesday. ------------------------- Executive Producers: Rob Holysz, Jeph Porter, Natalie Holysz Creative Producer: Sam Skelton Coordinating Producer: Derek Johnson Video Editor: Josh Windisch Mix & Master: Josh Windisch Episode Artwork: Analise Jorgensen Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Ever stand up after sitting too long and wonder when your joints started sounding like a bowl of Rice Krispies? You're not alone—and no, you're not broken. Your body's just changing, and you need a new game plan. In this episode, we're joined by orthopedic surgeon and longevity expert Dr. Vonda Wright, who introduces the powerful FACE method for midlife moms. If you're tired of workouts that leave you drained, confused about why your energy has vanished, or feeling like you've lost control of your body, this is the conversation you need. Dr. Wright breaks down exactly how to regain strength, flexibility, and balance without living at the gym or giving up the occasional margarita. Listen in and get the clarity, confidence, and tools to feel strong, energized, and fully you—not just today, but for decades to come. Aging might not be optional, but how you do it? That's entirely up to you. Resources We Shared: Follow Dr. Vonda Wright on Instagram! Get our Stop Doing Checklist absolutely FREE, so you can start taking tasks off your plate today! Join our FREE No Guilt Mom Podcast group Visit No Guilt Mom Follow us on Instagram! Check out our No Guilt Mom Amazon Shop with recommended books and books from podcast guests HERE! Rate & Review the No Guilt Mom Podcast on Apple here. We'd love to hear your thoughts on the podcast! Listen on Spotify? You can rate us there too! Check out our favorite deals and discounts from our amazing sponsors here! #parentingpodcast #parentingtips #noguiltmom #mentalload #selfcare #kids #teenager #toddler #preschooler #baby #aging, #hormonereplacementtherapy, #women'shealth, #lifestylechoices, #longevity, #exercise, #FACEmethod, #strengthtraining, #balance, #healthtips, #HRT, #Perimenopause, #Menopause, #Dr.VondaWright, #UnbreakableBook Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Whitney addresses the WNBA prankster, reveals her career goal, why religion is back, and how to win this video game... Tickets for The Big Baby Tour https://www.whitneycummings.com SHOP: https://whitneycummings.com/index.html#store Thank you to our sponsors!

With the Fed's latest decision to hold rates, one thing became clear- tariffs are already affecting the real estate market.This week on Not Your Average Insights, JWB Co-Founder Gregg Cohen and host Pablo Gonzalez break down the role tariffs play in the Fed's decision, and other headlines to consider.We'll talk about:•⁠  ⁠Why the Fed's pause on rate hikes is tied to tariffs•⁠  ⁠What Florida's governor is proposing that has everyone looking at Florida real estate•⁠  ⁠Where the “10 Slowest Housing Markets” were reported to be, and which ones we agree with•⁠  ⁠and more!Listen NOW!Chapters:00:00 Introduction to Not Your Average Insights01:24 Welcome Back to the Show04:13 Discussion on Fed's Interest Rate Decision06:05 Impact of Tariffs on Housing Market13:05 Jobs Report and Fed's Future Decisions19:34 Ron DeSantis' Proposal to Eliminate Property Taxes25:06 Debating Property Tax Elimination25:44 Governor's Perspective on Government Spending26:19 Impact of Sales Tax on Different Income Groups26:54 Feasibility of Sales Tax Increase28:57 Potential Property Tax Rebate29:14 Revisions to Government Job Numbers32:52 Interest Rates and Mortgage Market36:59 JWB Cares Fundraising Update38:25 Analyzing Housing Market Data42:54 Long-Term Investment Strategies49:40 Conclusion and Upcoming EventsStay connected to us! Join our real estate investor community LIVE: https://jwbrealestatecapital.com/nyai/Schedule a Turnkey strategy call: https://jwbrealestatecapital.com/turnkey/ *Get social with us:*Subscribe to our channel  @notyouraverageinvestor  Subscribe to  @JWBRealEstateCompanies  

Tracy Cherpeski shares insights into the Practice Growth Readiness Intensive, a four-week program designed to help healthcare practice owners move from feeling overwhelmed to gaining crystal-clear direction. This snack episode reveals the market gaps driving demand for this intensive format and the measurable outcomes participants can expect.  Key Highlights:  The number one complaint from practice owners is always time, followed closely by burnout and isolation  Most clients don't see bottom-line changes for 90 days, but the intensive provides immediate clarity and a strategic roadmap  Ideal participants have at least one year of practice ownership experience and are financially stable enough to invest in growth  Physical changes often appear first - better sleep, reduced tension, faster decision-making  Average client ROI is 10x within 12-18 months, with most recouping their investment within 90 days  The program bridges the gap between clinical excellence and business leadership confidence  Memorable Quotes: "There's such a difference between clinical excellence and confidence and business excellence and confidence."  "A lot of times once we get to know somebody, they'll confess later: 'Yeah, I feel like I don't really know what I'm doing,' and that's incredibly difficult for any highly trained professional to admit."  "You set the tone for the culture of your practice. And that can have an incredibly positive impact on your entire team, and that goes out to your patients and that ripples out to your community."  This episode offers a rare glimpse into the methodology behind helping healthcare providers reclaim their time while building thriving, sustainable practices. Whether you're feeling stuck or ready to scale, Tracy's insights provide a clear path forward.  Miranda's Bio:  Miranda Dorta, B.F.A. (she/her/hers) is the Manager of Operations and PR at Tracy Cherpeski International. A graduate of Savannah College of Art and Design with expertise in writing and creative storytelling, Miranda brings her skills in operations, public relations, and communication strategies to the Thriving Practice community. Based in the City of Oaks, she joined the team in 2021 and has been instrumental in streamlining operations while managing the company's public presence since 2022.  Tracy's Bio:  Tracy Cherpeski, MBA, MA, CPSC (she/her/hers) is the Founder of Tracy Cherpeski International and Thriving Practice Community. As a Business Consultant and Executive Coach, Tracy helps healthcare practice owners scale their businesses without sacrificing wellbeing. Through strategic planning, leadership development, and mindset mastery, she empowers clients to reclaim their time and reach their potential. Based in Chapel Hill, NC, Tracy serves clients worldwide and is the Executive Producer and Host of the Thriving Practice podcast. Her guiding philosophy: Survival is not enough; life is meant to be celebrated.  See Where Your Practice Stands: Take our Practice Growth Readiness Assessment  Connect With Us:  Be a Guest on the Show  Thriving Practice Community  Schedule Strategy Session with Tracy  Tracy's LinkedIn  Business LinkedIn Page 

It's time to nerd out on all things Bass Fishing and tackle with our good buddy Andrew Hayes. Andrew runs an amazing podcast called Tackle Talk. If you are looking for great gear coverage and unbiased reviews, give him a follow!On this episode, we are talking underrated and overrated Bass Fishing gear in 2025! And of course we will likely go off the rails and talk about actually fishing!T-SHIRTS and DECALS: aggressivelyaverageanglers.myshopify.comBurly Fishing Content:Follow BurlyFishing: https://www.youtube.com/@aaanglersInstagram: instagram.com/aaanglersFacebook: facebook.com/burlyfishingTik Tok:tiktok.com/@aaanglers

Think you're smarter than the average brain?

In this episode of Excess Returns, we're joined by Kai Wu of Sparkline Capital to explore one of the most important and overlooked aspects of Warren Buffett's investing evolution: his shift from tangible to intangible value. Based on Kai's research paper “Buffett's Intangible Moats,” we examine how Buffett's portfolio has evolved alongside the economy — and why the intangible drivers of brand equity, intellectual property, human capital, and network effects are central to understanding his success. Kai also shares how quantitative methods can be used to replicate Buffett's approach and what this means for investors today.Topics Covered:The three eras of Buffett's portfolio evolution: industrial, consumer, and information ageWhy Buffett's shift away from deep value investing began earlier than most realizeHow Charlie Munger helped change Buffett's approach — and why that matteredBuffett's preference for intangible assets like brand, IP, and network effectsHow to quantify intangible value and its four key componentsSurprising stats: Buffett rarely buys below book value and holds high price-to-book stocksKai's framework for building an intangible value score across stocksFactor attribution: quality and intangible value explain most of Buffett's alphaThe impact of portfolio size, sector biases, and evolution of circle of competenceHow to replicate Buffett's approach using a systematic, factor-based strategyWhy intangible value may be the "quality of tomorrow" and a forward-looking moatTimestamps:00:00 – Buffett's evolution from value to intangible investor01:55 – Why Kai researched Buffett's investing style now04:00 – The three eras of Buffett: Geico, Coca-Cola, Apple08:15 – How Buffett's thinking changed under Munger's influence10:00 – The rise of intangible moats and Buffett's definition of economic goodwill13:10 – Four components of intangible value15:10 – Mapping Buffett's holdings to intangible assets over time17:30 – Does Buffett get enough credit for evolving?20:30 – Only 8% of his holdings were bought below book value24:00 – Average price-to-book of Buffett's portfolio is 826:00 – Defining Kai's intangible value factor27:50 – Buffett becomes a value investor again — just using a different metric30:00 – Circle of competence vs. expanding opportunity set33:00 – Today's portfolio is 75% intangible by Kai's framework34:45 – Decomposing Buffett's returns into factors38:00 – Quality and intangible value explain 90% of Buffett's alpha43:15 – Sector exposure vs. true value tilt49:00 – Intangible value as a leading indicator of quality52:00 – Building a Buffett-style quant portfolio using two key factors54:00 – Why Buffett's future returns may be more muted

AP correspondent Alex Veiga reports that average mortgage rates dropped again this week.

For your season 6 bonus episode, Chelsea and Madison have dusted off their English degrees and learned how to read (again) to discuss Allison Raskin's debut novel, Save the Date. After Emma's fiancé unexpectedly calls off the engagement, months before the wedding, Emma is left high and dry with a stack of non-refundable wedding deposits. Solution? Save her wedding date and find a new groom! This is certainly not your average rom-com and Madison and Chelsea discuss how it defies tropes and expectations, while still ticking all of the necessary genre boxes. General consensus on the book? It should be made into a movie and Emma's parents must be played by Mandy Patinkin and Kathryn Grody.Digressions include the oppressive heat, Chelsea's weird foot tan line, and so much more.Connect With UsFollow us on Instagram @loveatfirstscreening or send an email to loveatfirstscreening@gmail.comProduction Hosts: Chelsea Ciccone and Madison HillMusic: Good StephArtwork: Chelsea CicconeSocial Media: Marissa CicconeAbout the ShowAn examination of classic tropes and iconic characters pits connoisseur against cynic—one romantic comedy at a time. The cinematic world of love and laughter had rom-com enthusiast Madison head over heels from the time Harry met Sally. For genre skeptic Chelsea, however, it's been a grueling enemies-to-lovers plot. In Love at First Screening, Madison introduces Chelsea to all the fan-favorite love stories she's never wanted to watch. One friend's passion might be the other's displeasure, but doesn't love conquer all? Tune in every Wednesday to find out.

We made some core memories with Youngstown's own Ohayo during this episode. Also, filing a formal complaint with Rock & Roll City Studios for not selling fresh focaccia bread here.After two years in the making, Ohayo is finally dropping their full-length album "Now and Later", and it's coming out just weeks after this episode airs. Keep your ears on these guys as they make their mark on the Cleveland music scene and beyond.SONGS PERFORMED:I'm On My WayPretty LiesLoose ThreadsCONNECT WITH OUR FRIENDS:https://www.instagram.com/ohayohmusic/https://thebandohayo.com/----SAVE THE DATE:Rock the Block 8/22-8/23: https://serocktheblock.com/ ...if you have a sec - please leave us a rating/ review on Apple/ Spotify!Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/locle-grown/id1619510885Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6OpyraRZDUqf6h8ZKq8KE3?si=75f15ec563714a6cApply to be a guest: https://www.loclegrown.com/past-guests-and-how-to-apply Circle K is a proud sponsor of LoCLE Grown! Download the Inner Circle App today to get .25 cents per gallon off your first 5 fill ups and 5 free drinks! Learn more here: https://www.circlek.com/inner-circleCircle K Inner Circle iPhone App: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/circle-k/id1592397814Circle K Inner Circle  Google Play App: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.circlek.gmap.na&hl=en&gl=US&pli=1

Our last day. Weird things you can bring on airplanes. Four reminders. Ketchup smoothie. Tall sunflowers. Juggling is good for you. SPAM taste test. Make your husband sick. Average bedtime. Jokes with Sean.

Job rust out. New Louisiana law. Parm protection. We love cheese. Our last day. Weird things you can bring on airplanes. Four reminders. Ketchup smoothie. Tall sunflowers. Juggling is good for you. SPAM taste test. Make your husband sick. Average bedtime. Jokes with Sean. Minnesota State Fair menu. Weird things found on a plane. Leaving the show early.

Global venture capital (VC) investment in generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) surged to $49.2 billion in the first half of 2025, outpacing the total for all of 2024 ($44.2 billion) and more than double the total for 2023 ($21.3b), according to EY Ireland's latest Generative AI Key Deals and Market Insights study. The sharp rise in overall deal value comes despite a near 25% drop in the number of transactions for the first six months of 2025 versus the second half of 2024, as VC firms concentrate on more mature, revenue-generating AI companies, resulting in fewer but significantly larger deals. Average transaction size for late-stage deals more than tripled to more than $1.55 billion, up from $481 million in 2024, while early-stage VC rounds declined, and angel and seed rounds saw no change. A wave of high-value investment into some of the most established players has underpinned this record first half of the year, including SoftBank's commitment to OpenAI which could reach $40 billion, xAI's $10 billion funding round, and major investments in Databricks ($5 billion), Anthropic ($3.5 billion), Mistral AI ($600 million), and Harvey ($600 million). Additionally, Agentic AI - which enables systems to perceive, decide and act autonomously - has emerged as a key growth area. Capgemini's $3.3 billion acquisition of WNS and Berlin-based Parloa's $120 million raise, propelling it to a $1 billion valuation, are among the notable deals in this area. While not covered in the data for the first half of the year, the recent acquisition of Irish predictive media analytics firm NewsWhip by Sprout Social is a welcome boost to the local sector. Commenting on the findings Grit Young, EY Ireland Techology, Media and Telecoms Lead said: "GenAI continues to reshape the investment landscape at an extraordinary pace. The first half of 2025 has already surpassed last year, which was also a high-water mark. That momentum is expected to continue and build further into the second half of the year with the launch of new GenAI platforms and their faster revenue generation capabilities. "While there was substantial concern at the start of the year with the launch of DeepSeek that investment in GenAI was likely to trend downwards, the results for the first half of the year point to a very different scenario. We are seeing a clear pivot to fewer but more substantial investments, which are pointed towards more mature companies and platforms that can demonstrate they can deliver real-world impact and return on investment. This growth is being fuelled by rising adoption across industries, high demand for sector-specific solutions and continued innovation in AI hardware, particularly semiconductors. "GenAI is entering a new phase, and the scale of investment reflects growing confidence in its commercial potential. The recent results from the 'Magnificent Seven' underscore how rapidly this technology is being adopted by customers, and we would expect that the investment trajectory is likely to accelerate through the second half of the year and beyond. "It would appear that GenAI has skipped through the traditional 'trough of disillusionment' for new technology adoption quite quickly and has now moved into another upswing cycle." Opportunities remain for Ireland Ireland has emerged as a strong adopter of AI, with 63 per cent of startups using the technology and 36 per cent embedding it at the core of their business models. However, many AI startups are struggling with access to capital and infrastructure. Grit Young says: "In Ireland, the appetite for AI adoption is strong, and we are working with many indigenous and international companies who are already well established on their AI journey. However, for AI startups, the funding environment remains challenging, particularly in the €1 million to €10 million funding space. "Many high-potential startups find themselves in a difficult middle ground, too advanced for early-stage support, yet not quite large ...

October 24, 1944, is not a day of national remembrance. Yet, more Americans serving in World War II perished on that day than on December 7, 1941, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, on June 6, 1944, when the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy, or on any other single day of the war. In No Average Day, author Rona Simmons takes us hour by hour and incident by incident

TYP's Chief Investigative Reporter (I just gave her that title - I better get her a badge), Kelly Smith, is back investigating like a mo-fo and as always, doing a deep diving into how humans (those weird creatures) work. Among other things, we speak about why aiming to be a '4' (out of 10) can be a good idea, the potential benefits of consciously choosing pressure, how to get the wheels turning when we feel overwhelmed (where to start) and lots more. Enjoy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

New Orleans is still on pace for the lowest number of murders in decades. We break it down with former NOPD chief Ronal Serpas and whether the good news will keep rolling.

When it comes to running a profitable, sustainable business, it's not just about booking more sessions… it's about building more value into the ones you already have.In this episode, I'm sharing four creative, (semi) low-lift ways to do exactly that, layering thoughtful, high-impact offers into your existing workflow. These aren't gimmicky upsells or pushy pitches. They're smart, strategic solutions that solve real problems for your clients... sometimes before they even know they have them.From headshots and pet portraits to photo clean-up services, family yearbooks, and legacy storytelling, these ideas are designed to increase your sales average and your client loyalty. They're not just about boosting revenue... they're about elevating the experience you provide and positioning yourself as more than a photographer.Resources: New to the podcast? Go to thiscantbethathard.com/welcome to get access to 3 of Annemie's best free resources. Join our community! We'd love to welcome you into our supportive, business-focused private Facebook group. Go to facebook.com/groups/thiscantbethathard to request access. Long-time listener? Leave a review!

DAMION1In our 'Treaty Talks Begin With Bold New Commitment to Avoid Commitment: Delegates agree to form a task force to consider considering action and then unite to Say 'Plastic Is Bad'—Then Go Back to Their Plastic-Filled Hotels' headline of the week. Here's what to watch for at this month's global plastics treaty talksNegotiators from more than 170 countries are arriving in Geneva, Switzerland, this week to resume discussions over the United Nations plastics treaty, eight months after they missed their original deadline for finalizing the pact. Many delegates, advocacy groups, and U.N. officials are hopeful that the 10-day session will result in a final agreement that delivers on the U.N.'s objective to “end plastic pollution.” But progress has been slow at each of the five preceding sessions, in large part due to a consensus-based decision-making structure that has allowed oil-producing countries to obstruct progress. In our 'Hey Ma, the dude who got his BA at Haverford College which costs $93,600 and received his JD from Stanford is mansplaining about elite colleges, can you grab my water bottle and my red lawn chair?!' headline of the week. Palantir CEO Alex Karp takes a shot at elite colleges and says the company offers 'a new credential independent of class In our 'It's better off helping people without formal biology expertise design or recreate biological threats like toxins or pathogens' headline of the week. OpenAI says ChatGPT shouldn't tell you to break up with someone In our 'What an asshole! The next thing he'll probably do is call out other banks for breaking their climate pledges ' headline of the week. Banking CEO breaks from the pack on return to office. He goes in 4 days a week but leaves the rest up to the ‘adults' he works withStandard Chartered CEO Bill Winters In our 'Citizen Journalist Robbie Starbuck and The National Legal and Policy Center prepare shareholder proposal calling out Microsoft and asking “What about MEN'S ovaries? This is woke biology gone too far.”' headline of the week. Gates Foundation is giving $2.5 billion to fund women's health researchMATT1In our '8Ks revealed that Charlie Scharf, Wells Fargo's CEO, was awarded $30m to open his mindspace, Steven Hemsley at UnitedHealth was given $60M to center his chi, and Goldman's CEO DJ DSol got $80m to attune his crystals and align his money aura.' headline of the week. Tesla Grants Musk $29 Billion in Stock to Keep ‘Elon's Energies Focused'In our 'Specifically, the part where they ran someone over' headline of the week. Jury Says Tesla Was Partly to Blame for Fatal CrashIn our 'Reports suggested the awning was made of cybertruck trim, the tables were actually crashed robotaxis, and the chicken wings were made from old Nazi bathroom graffiti' headline of the week. Tesla Diner Patio Covering Collapses, Smashes Mother on Head and Barely Misses BabyIn our 'Retention awards for "continued leadership"? Or pay for focus? Pay to show up? Pay for "energy"? Relocation pay for my sister's cousin's condo in Ottawa? ' headline of the week. 2025 CEO PrioritiesAdapt to changing external environments and regulatory landscapeManage growth and investment amid current fiscal outlookCreate a resilient supply chainAccess to talent and workforceArticulate a vision for an AI and tech-enabled enterprisesEmbrace opportunities for personalized consumer experiencesUnderstand the changing environmental challengesShape the leadership teamArticulate Vision and strategy, and tell your story as a leaderDrive performanceEnsure proper governance processesCollaborate with the boardOptimize organizational structureAlign communicationsSatisfy shareholders and stakeholdersBuild the cultureNavigate geopolitical uncertaintyIn our 'If you can't tell your kid with a fever of 102 to suck it up and fuck off, maybe this company isn't for you' headline of the week. 5 things the AT&T CEO's sweeping memo says about where corporate America is headedHis name is John Stankey"If a self-directed, virtual, or hybrid work schedule is essential for you to manage your career aspirations and life challenges, you will have a difficult time aligning your priorities with those of the company and the culture we aim to establish," Stankey wrote.DAMION2In our 'I refuse to celebrate until we reach 7.3%' headline of the week. The share of female CEOs running Global 500 companies hits a record high of 6.6% In our 'Houston American Energy Corp. announces that finally the phrase “Let's hear what she thinks” can be said in the boardroom without an immediately ironic chuckle, now it can be an authentic condescending chuckle' headline of the week. Houston American Energy Corp. Appoints Martha J. Crawford to Board of DirectorsIn our 'Great, when he's done creating a practical application of cold fusion, could he explain why anyone would buy a Cybertuck, have him finish my daughter's algebra homework, and then share the wisdom behind Intel's stock price being down 22% from the day he started as Intel CEO?' headline of the week. Jim Cramer on Intel CEO: “He Totally Understands Everything” In our 'After a nice brunch, they went to the aquarium and then to a poetry reading' headline of the week. Mary McDowell Joins Zebra Technologies Board of Directors In our 'They named him Peter Semple, after their great grandfather, and then chained him to his desk ' headline of the week. Depop names permanent CEOMATT2 In our 'US companies give investors a break from voting NO on every shareholder proposal this year' headline of the week. US companies deny record number of shareholder votesAverage vote for ESG proposal: 20%. Average vote against ESG proposal: 80%.In our 'Please don't say suicidal ideation, aggression, reality detachment, and hallucinations, please don't say suicidal ideation, aggression, reality detachment, and hallucinations, please don't say suicidal ideation, aggression, reality detachment, and hallucinations...' headline of the week. A New Paper Just Found Something Horrifying About Kids Who Get Phones Early in LifeChief scientist Tara Thiagarajan found that among the more than 100,000 18-to-24-year-olds whose outcomes they tracked, those who got phones when they were younger experienced more suicidal ideation, aggression, reality detachment, and hallucinations as they aged.In our 'Man leaves gym and goes to Wendy's to get fit' headline of the week. Barclays leaves Net Zero Banking Alliance to combat climate changeIf you want to prove your commitment to transitioning Barclays, feel free to use our data to vote out every director that underperforms on climate!In our 'Olive Garden appoints car mechanic as executive chef' headline of the week. Harley-Davidson board appoints Topgolf executive as next CEOArtie Starrs has been golf CEO, Pizza Hut CEO, is on a non profit board that helps underprivileged children, got an economics degree from Princeton, and he enjoys hiking, playing golf, listening to live music. He sounds exactly like someone who rides a Harley.In our 'SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY FIGHTING. And of course it's a female founder.' headline of the week. A long-running anti-DEI lawsuit could help companies defend themselves from reverse-racism claimsElizabeth Gore of Hello Alice is fighting Stephen Miller's AFL lawsuit brought on behalf of a white trucker in Ohio who says they didn't get a shot at a grant that went to someone black - and Gore is winning because it's all a fucking jokeMeanwhile, Brown, Harvard, Colombia and the high priced Ivies are folding like cowardsReach out to Hello Alice or Gore, offer help or support, join the service, because somewhere there is someone fighting bullshitFigma IPO QUIZThe Figma IPOFigma founder and CEO Dylan FieldWhat percentage of shares does he actually own in the company?17%What is total voting power?74%How many votes per share are magical Class B shares worth?15 votes per shareWhat percentage of Class B shares does Dylan control?99%There are 5 executive officers and 10 directors, how many are women?2 (directors)Who is the chair of the Figma board?CEO and founder and controlling shareholder Dylan FieldHow many friendships with Peter Thiel does Dylan Field have?1How many college degrees does Dylan Field have?0Where did Dylan Field drop out of?BrownWho paid Dylan Field to drop out of college?Peter ThielIn addition to his shareholdings, how much is Dylan Field due to receive if the stock price hits $130 (it already was over $124)$2B in equityWhich CEO's pay package was Dylan Field's pay package modeled after?Elon MuskHow many years does Dylan Field have to reach that stock price hurdle?10How old is this very rich college dropout?33In response to a question about how he was going to change the world, what did Dylan Field say?He was going to build better software for drones.Then I'm guessing Figma must truly benefit humanity if this guy is so rich, what does Figma do exactly?Figma is a collaborative web application for interface design, with additional offline features enabled by desktop applications for macOS and Windows. The feature set of Figma focuses on user interface and user experience design, with an emphasis on real-time collaboration,[3] utilizing a variety of vector graphics editor and prototyping tools.

Eleanor Roosevelt

Shoot us a Text.Episode #1112: Carvana's stock hits jaw-dropping highs while negative equity haunts car buyers. At the same time, a new report says Gen X may quietly be the most powerful consumer group of the next decade.Show Notes with links:What once seemed like a dying online used‑car startup has roared back. Carvana's share price hit an all‑time high in late July 2025—up over 10,000% from the December 2022 bottom—while short-sellers suffered nearly $7.42 billion in losses.Q2 2025 sales hit $4.84 billion, up 42% year-over-year. Retail units sold jumped 41% to 143,280; wholesale units rose 44.5% to 72,770.Net income surged to $308 million with record profit margins across the board.Traditional peers have seen modest stock gains by comparison — AutoNation is up about 80% and Lithia around 44% — with CarMax actually down roughly 7% in the same period.CEO Ernie Garcia III called Carvana “the fastest‑growing and most profitable automotive retailer.”“This rally…is one of the most spectacular recoveries in modern market history,” said Dave Mazza, CEO of Roundhill Financial.A growing share of U.S. car buyers are finding themselves stuck in negative equity, with Edmunds reporting the average underwater loan balance at $6,754 in Q2 2025 — one of the highest levels seen in years.26.6% of new‑car trade‑ins were upside down, a four‑year high.Average negative equity climbed to $6,754, up $500 from 2024.Nearly one in three underwater trade‑ins carried $5,000–$10,000 in debt.The average monthly payment for these buyers hit $915 — $159 above the industry average.Edmunds' Ivan Drury warns: “Many are at risk of getting stuck in a cycle of debt that only grows harder to break over time.”While millennials and Gen Z grab headlines, new research shows Gen X — those born between 1965 and 1980 — may be the most influential consumer group of the next decade.Gen X is set to remain the world's highest-spending demographic through 2033.In 2025 alone, they're projected to drive $507B in food and beverage sales, $80B in beauty, and $42B in alcohol.Nearly 40% use AI assistants for shopping recommendations, defying “tech-averse” stereotypes.72% prefer name brands over private label, bucking the store-brand trend.“Gen Xers are the gatekeepers of trillions in spending, effectively serving as the CFOs of three generations,” said Wolfgang Fengler of World Data Lab.Join Paul J Daly and Kyle Mountsier every morning for the Automotive State of the Union podcast as they connect the dots across car dealerships, retail trends, emerging tech like AI, and cultural shifts—bringing clarity, speed, and people-first insight to automotive leaders navigating a rapidly changing industry.Get the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/

On this episode of The GameCola Podcast, Joseph Martin and Blu Ryder go deep in the paint on Creature Creators and the Creature Collector and Monster Taming videogames they make. If you can see the thumbnail for this episode, you'll see my attempts at my own Creature Creation, so you can judge for yourself if I have a right to speak on this topic, along with many other topics including - Warner Bros. Discovery has been cleft in twain, what does this mean for videogames that Blu likes? - The genre names people use to avoid mentioning their game is like Pokémon - Tentpole games of comparison for various videogame genres - The harmony of nature and technology inherent to the setting of Pokémon - How did Overwatch get people to care about their characters so quickly? - Should all videogames start by having a TV show? - The importance of good human characters in Creature videogames - Blu's experiences with card game rougelikes such as Monster Train - Joe's continuing investigation into Coromon [Podcast Intro/Outro “5 is Average” by Meteo Xavier]

  Something many can relate too...The average parent feels like a failure 156 times per year, according to studyfinds.org. Greg and Holly discuss.  

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Think you're smarter than the average brain?

We all have different things going on in life ... from work, to home projects, to staying fit, to hobbies. Today, we're talking about what an average day looks like -- for each of us, whether a weekday or a weekend. Join us, won't you? See if you learn something about either one of us that you didn't know before.Podcast: 15 Good Minutes on all your favorite podcast platforms.Youtube: youtube.com/15goodminutesBlueSky: @15goodminutes.bsky.socialemail: rusty@15goodminutes.com

Nailing your virtual PA school interview takes more than just showing up in a clean shirt. In this episode, we're spilling the top tips to help you stand out on screen, avoid common tech slip-ups, and make a powerful impression so you can land an acceptance!______________________________

2/9/2025If you were blessed by this message, please feel free to visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠http://www.svbaptistchurch.com.⁠⁠⁠⁠ There you will find links to our other social platforms, years of recorded messages, statement of faith, and more.For online giving: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://svbckuna.churchtrac.com/give⁠⁠⁠⁠God bless you!

Top 10 Mental Skills Every Athlete Needs to Master Grab the list here: https://t.co/yoaXVzPw9H-This Episode is Brought to you by:GameDay Videos - Professional recruitment videos that help you stand out to college coaches, scouts, and recruiters.Use Code Champions10 for 10% off https://www.gamedayvideos.com/-Champions Adjust Use code CAPod10 for 10% OFF

Should you train differently for Ironman Wisconsin and Lake Placid than you do for Florida or California? The answer is, yes. Today we talk about the differences in swim, bike, and run training for different courses. We talk about the the grime and grind of tougher swims and rides vs. downstream swims and flatter bikes. They all have their challenges and we get into upper body strength, riding hills, staying in aero, more or less swim training, and how it all affects your run. We also talk about how you can train more specifically to meet the demands of your race, no matter what it is. Lower back sore on the bike? Neck hurt after the swim? Should you ride more big gear or high cadence? It's all in today's episode. Support the podcast and get some awesome C26 gear in the process at our store!  Topics: More on the Wisconsin course Hoodie and shorts weather What's the best course for you? Sturdy body training Building durability Long and grinding Z2 rides What are you willing to train the most at? Upper body focus Average power vs. Normalized power Energy spent navigating people around you on the swim and bike Signing more and how it takes energy Why is your lower back sore? Pull Buoy and Paddles Fatigued arms and how that affects bike RPE Hit hills hard Big gear climbing Extra riding to train your saddle Smoothing out your gearing Training for the specific race course Practice sighting in the pool Train to be in the wrong gear   Mike Tarrolly - mike@c26triathlon.com Robbie Bruce - robbie@c26triathlon.com

Episode Sponsor CTC Math – The no-prep, self-paced homeschool math curriculum that takes the pressure off parents and actually makes sense to kids. Try it free at ctcmath.com. Episode Snapshot College costs are soaring, ideological climates are shifting, and more students than ever are graduating late—or not at all—with mountains of debt. In this candid info-session, Lisa Nehring (director of True North Academy) unpacks the “college dilemma” and lays out two practical alternatives: Dual Degree High School – earn an accredited bachelor's while you finish high school. Tech & Trades Diploma – a two-year fast-track that marries solid academics with apprenticeship-ready skills. Along the way she tackles FAFSA headaches, the national trades shortage, protecting your teen's faith on campus, and how True North's advising team walks families through every step. Key Takeaways Sticker Shock: College tuition up 20 % in 10 years; textbooks up 400 %. Average in-state cost now ~$28K/yr; many privates top $65K. Debt Trap: U.S. student-loan debt = $1.1 trillion; deregulated lenders can capitalize unpaid interest during forbearance, ballooning balances. Completion Crisis: Average time to a bachelor's is 6 years; >50 % of freshmen never finish. Ideological Pressure: 70 % of incoming evangelical students renounce faith by Thanksgiving of freshman year; many never return. Trades Opportunity: 7 million skilled-trade openings now; projected shortfall of 2 million more by 2030. Starting wages often $18–$30/hr with zero college debt. True North Solutions: Dual Degree: 120 credits + high-school diploma, fully Cognia-accredited, ESA/and may be 529-eligible, no debt. Tech & Trades: 22 HS credits in two years, core academics + life & soft-skills, direct links to vetted apprenticeships (HVAC, electrical, auto, welding & more). Mix-and-Match: Students can start with trades and layer on the dual degree—or vice versa—based on goals. Support Built In: Dedicated advisors, robust LMS “virtual campus,” study-guide-plus-exam model (re-takeable), and a Christ-centered worldview throughout. Timestamp Guide Time Segment 00:00 Sponsor message – CTC Math 01:05 Lisa's intro & credentials (5 graduate degrees + 30 yrs homeschooling) 05:20 What's changed since 2020: rising costs & ideological shift 10:40 The true price tag: tuition, textbooks, student-loan traps 17:15 Why so many students need remediation & still drop out 22:50 Faith on campus: statistics that should sober parents 27:30 Trades shortage by the numbers – and why it matters 31:45 Dual Degree vs. Dual Credit: critical differences 36:10 Inside True North's Dual Degree structure (10 classes/yr) 42:05 Tech & Trades Diploma overview & first-year core 46:30 Q&A: transferring credits, finding apprenticeships, combining paths 53:10 Next steps & free advising call   (Times are approximate – use your podcast player's chapter markers.) Memorable Quote “Why pay for extra years of school when your teen can graduate with no debt, real-world skills, and a degree in hand before their peers even move into the dorms?” Resources & Links True North Academy Dual Degree Program – Details, sample course map, FAQs Tech & Trades Diploma – Curriculum snapshot & tuition info Free PDF: College Dilemma Checklist (QR code shared during the info meeting) Schedule a 15-minute advising call (no cost) Book recommendation: The Defining Decade by Dr. Meg Jay Dave Ramsey video on student-loan forbearance pitfalls (All links available in the episode description.) Ready to explore a dual-degree or trades track for your teen? Book a free advising session with True North Academy today and discover a path that fits your family's budget, timeline, and values.

We've covered the US Agency for International Development, or USAID, pretty consistently on Statecraft, since our first interview on PEPFAR, the flagship anti-AIDS program, in 2023. When DOGE came to USAID, I was extremely critical of the cuts to lifesaving aid, and the abrupt, pointlessly harmful ways in which they were enacted. In March, I wrote, “The DOGE team has axed the most effective and efficient programs at USAID, and forced out the chief economist, who was brought in to oversee a more aggressive push toward efficiency.”Today, we're talking to that forced-out chief economist, Dean Karlan. Dean spent two and a half years at the helm of the first-ever Office of the Chief Economist at USAID. In that role, he tried to help USAID get better value from its foreign aid spending. His office shifted $1.7 billion of spending towards programs with stronger evidence of effectiveness. He explains how he achieved this, building a start-up within a massive bureaucracy. I should note that Dean is one of the titans of development economics, leading some of the most important initiatives in the field (I won't list them, but see here for details), and I think there's a plausible case he deserves a Nobel.Throughout this conversation, Dean makes a point much better than I could: the status quo at USAID needed a lot of improvement. The same political mechanisms that get foreign aid funded by Congress also created major vulnerabilities for foreign aid, vulnerabilities that DOGE seized on. Dean believes foreign aid is hugely valuable, a good thing for us to spend our time, money, and resources on. But there's a lot USAID could do differently to make its marginal dollar spent more efficient.DOGE could have made USAID much more accountable and efficient by listening to people like Dean, and reformers of foreign aid should think carefully about Dean's criticisms of USAID, and his points for how to make foreign aid not just resilient but politically popular in the long term.We discuss* What does the Chief Economist do?* Why does 170% percent of USAID funds come already earmarked by Congress?* Why is evaluating program effectiveness institutionally difficult?* Why don't we just do cash transfers for everything?* Why institutions like USAID have trouble prioritizing* Should USAID get rid of gender/environment/fairness in procurement rules?* Did it rely too much on a small group of contractors?* What's changed in development economics over the last 20 years?* Should USAID spend more on governance and less on other forms of aid? * How DOGE killed USAID — and how to bring it back better* Is depoliticizing foreign aid even possible?* Did USAID build “soft power” for the United States?This is a long conversation: you can jump to a specific section with the index above. If you just want to hear about Dean's experience with DOGE, you can click here or go to the 45-minute mark in the audio. And if you want my abbreviated summary of the conversation, see these two Twitter threads. But I think the full conversation is enlightening, especially if you want to understand the American foreign aid system. Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious edits.Our past coverage of USAIDDean, I'm curious about the limits of your authority. What can the Chief Economist of USAID do? What can they make people do?There had never been an Office of the Chief Economist before. In a sense, I was running a startup, within a 13,000-employee agency that had fairly baked-in, decentralized processes for doing things.Congress would say, "This is how much to spend on this sector and these countries." What you actually fund was decided by missions in the individual countries. It was exciting to have that purview across the world and across many areas, not just economic development, but also education, social protection, agriculture. But the reality is, we were running a consulting unit within USAID, trying to advise others on how to use evidence more effectively in order to maximize impact for every dollar spent.We were able to make some institutional changes, focused on basically a two-pronged strategy. One, what are the institutional enablers — the rules and the processes for how things get done — that are changeable? And two, let's get our hands dirty working with the budget holders who say, "I would love to use the evidence that's out there, please help guide us to be more effective with what we're doing."There were a lot of willing and eager people within USAID. We did not lack support to make that happen. We never would've achieved anything, had there not been an eager workforce who heard our mission and knocked on our door to say, "Please come help us do that."What do you mean when you say USAID has decentralized processes for doing things?Earmarks and directives come down from Congress. [Some are] about sector: $1 billion dollars to spend on primary school education to improve children's learning outcomes, for instance. The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) [See our interview with former PEPFAR lead Mark Dybul] is one of the biggest earmarks to spend money specifically on specific diseases. Then there's directives that come down about how to allocate across countries.Those are two conversations I have very little engagement on, because some of that comes from Congress. It's a very complicated, intertwined set of constraints that are then adhered to and allocated to the different countries. Then what ends up happening is — this is the decentralized part — you might be a Foreign Service Officer (FSO) working in a country, your focus is education, and you're given a budget for that year from the earmark for education and told, "Go spend $80 million on a new award in education." You're working to figure out, “How should we spend that?” There might be some technical support from headquarters, but ultimately, you're responsible for making those decisions. Part of our role was to help guide those FSOs towards programs that had more evidence of effectiveness.Could you talk more about these earmarks? There's a popular perception that USAID decides what it wants to fund. But these big categories of humanitarian aid, or health, or governance, are all decided in Congress. Often it's specific congressmen or congresswomen who really want particular pet projects to be funded.That's right. And the number that I heard is that something in the ballpark of 150-170% of USAID funds were earmarked. That might sound horrible, but it's not.How is that possible?Congress double-dips, in a sense: we have two different demands. You must spend money on these two things. If the same dollar can satisfy both, that was completely legitimate. There was no hiding of that fact. It's all public record, and it all comes from congressional acts that create these earmarks. There's nothing hidden underneath the hood.Will you give me examples of double earmarking in practice? What kinds of goals could you satisfy with the same dollar?There's an earmark for Development Innovation Ventures (DIV) to do research, and an earmark for education. If DIV is going to fund an evaluation of something in the education space, there's a possibility that that can satisfy a dual earmark requirement. That's the kind of thing that would happen. One is an earmark for a process: “Do really careful, rigorous evaluations of interventions, so that we learn more about what works and what doesn't." And another is, "Here's money that has to be spent on education." That would be an example of a double dip on an earmark.And within those categories, the job of Chief Economist was to help USAID optimize the funding? If you're spending $2 billion on education, “Let's be as effective with that money as possible.”That's exactly right. We had two teams, Evidence Use and Evidence Generation. It was exactly what it sounds like. If there was an earmark for $1 billion dollars on education, the Evidence Use team worked to do systematic analysis: “What is the best evidence out there for what works for education for primary school learning outcomes?” Then, “How can we map that evidence to the kinds of things that USAID funds? What are the kinds of questions that need to be figured out?”It's not a cookie-cutter answer. A systematic review doesn't say, "Here's the intervention. Now just roll it out everywhere." We had to work with the missions — with people who know the local area — to understand, “What is the local context? How do you appropriately adapt this program in a procurement and contextualize it to that country, so that you can hire people to use that evidence?”Our Evidence Generation team was trying to identify knowledge gaps where the agency could lead in producing more knowledge about what works and what doesn't. If there was something innovative that USAID was funding, we were huge advocates of, "Great, let's contribute to the global public good of knowledge, so that we can learn more in the future about what to do, and so others can learn from us. So let's do good, careful evaluations."Being able to demonstrate what good came of an intervention also serves the purpose of accountability. But I've never been a fan of doing really rigorous evaluations just for the sake of accountability. It could discourage innovation and risk-taking, because if you fail, you'd be seen as a failure, rather than as a win for learning that an idea people thought was reasonable didn't turn out to work. It also probably leads to overspending on research, rather than doing programs. If you're doing something just for accountability purposes, you're better off with audits. "Did you actually deliver the program that you said you would deliver, or not?"Awards over $100 million dollars did go through the front office of USAID for approval. We added a process — it was actually a revamped old process — where they stopped off in my office. We were able to provide guidance on the cost-effectiveness of proposals that would then be factored into the decision on whether to proceed. When I was first trying to understand Project 2025, because we saw that as a blueprint for what changes to expect, one of the changes they proposed was actually that process. I remember thinking to myself, "We just did that. Hopefully this change that they had in mind when they wrote that was what we actually put in place." But I thought of it as a healthy process that had an impact, not just on that one award, but also in helping set an example for smaller awards of, “This is how to be more evidence-based in what you're doing.”[Further reading: Here's a position paper Karlan's office at USAID put out in 2024 on how USAID should evaluate cost-effectiveness.]You've also argued that USAID should take into account more research that has already been done on global development and humanitarian aid. Your ideal wouldn't be for USAID to do really rigorous research on every single thing it does. You can get a lot better just by incorporating things that other people have learned.That's absolutely right. I can say this as a researcher: to no one's surprise, it's more bureaucratic to work with the government as a research funder than it is to work with foundations and nimble NGOs. If I want to evaluate a particular program, and you give me a choice of who the funder should be, the only reason I would choose government is if it had a faster on-ramp to policy by being inside.The people who are setting policy should not be putting more weight on evidence that they paid for. In fact, one of the slogans that I often used at USAID is, "Evidence doesn't care who pays for it." We shouldn't be, as an agency, putting more weight on the things that we evaluated vs. things that others evaluated without us, and that we can learn from, mimic, replicate, and scale.We — and the we here is everyone, researchers and policymakers — put too much weight on individual studies, in a horrible way. The first to publish on something gets more accolades than the second, third and fourth. That's not healthy when it comes to policy. If we put too much weight on our own evidence, we end up putting too much weight on individual studies we happen to do. That's not healthy either.That was one of the big pieces of culture change that we tried to push internally at USAID. We had this one slide that we used repeatedly that showed the plethora of evidence out there in the world compared to 20 years ago. A lot more studies are now usable. You can aggregate that evidence and form much better policies.You had political support to innovate that not everybody going into government has. On the other hand, USAID is a big, bureaucratic entity. There are all kinds of cross-pressures against being super-effective per dollar spent. In doing culture change, what kinds of roadblocks did you run into internally?We had a lot of support and political cover, in the sense that the political appointees — I was not a political appointee — were huge fans. But political appointees under Republicans have also been huge fans of what we were doing. Disagreements are more about what to do and what causes to choose. But the basic idea of being effective with your dollars to push your policy agenda is something that cuts across both sides.In the days leading up to the inauguration, we were expecting to continue the work we were doing. Being more cost-effective was something some of the people who were coming in were huge advocates for. They did make progress under Trump I in pushing USAID in that direction. We saw ourselves as able to help further that goal. Obviously, that's not the way it played out, but there isn't really anything political about being more cost-effective.We'll come back to that, but I do want to talk about the 2.5 years you spent in the Biden administration. USAID is full of people with all kinds of incentives, including some folks who were fully on board and supportive. What kinds of challenges did you have in trying to change the culture to be more focused on evidence and effectiveness?There was a fairly large contingent of people who welcomed us, were eager, understood the space that we were coming from and the things that we wanted, and greeted us with open arms. There's no way we would've accomplished what we accomplished without that. We had a bean counter within the Office of the Chief Economist of moving about $1.7 billion towards programs that were more effective or had strong evaluations. That would've been $0 had there not been some individuals who were already eager and just didn't have the path for doing it.People can see economists as people who are going to come in negative and a bit dismal — the dismal science, so to speak. I got into economics for a positive reason. We tried as often as possible to show that with an economic lens, we can help people achieve their goals better, period. We would say repeatedly to people, "We're not here to actually make the difficult choices: to say whether health, education, or food security is the better use of money. We're here to accept your goal and help you achieve more of it for your dollar spent.” We always send a very disarming message: we're there simply to help people achieve their goals and to illuminate the trade-offs that naturally exist.Within USAID, you have a consensus-type organization. When you have 10 people sitting around a room trying to decide how to spend money towards a common goal, if you don't crystallize the trade-offs between the various ideas being put forward, you end up seeing a consensus built: that everybody gets a piece of the pie. Our way of trying to shift the culture is to take those moments and say, "Wait a second. All 10 might be good ideas relative to doing nothing, but they can't all be good relative to each other. We all share a common goal, so let's be clear about the trade-offs between these different programs. Let's identify the ones that are actually getting you the most bang for your buck."Can you give me an example of what those trade-offs might be in a given sector?Sure. Let's take social protection, what we would call the Humanitarian Nexus development space. It might be working in a refugee area — not dealing with the immediate crisis, but one, two, five, or ten years later — trying to help bring the refugees into a more stable environment and into economic activities. Sometimes, you would see some cash or food provided to households. The programs would all have the common goal of helping to build a sustainable livelihood for households, so that they can be more integrated into the local economy. There might be programs providing water, financial instruments like savings vehicles, and supporting vocational education. It'd be a myriad of things, all on this focused goal of income-generating activity for the households to make them more stable in the long run.Often, those kinds of programs doing 10 different things did not actually lead to an observable impact over five years. But a more focused approach has gone through evaluations: cash transfers. That's a good example where “reducing” doesn't always mean reduce your programs just to one thing, but there is this default option of starting with a base case: “What does a cash transfer generate?"And to clarify for people who don't follow development economics, the cash transfer is just, “What if we gave people money?”Sometimes it is just that. Sometimes it's thinking strategically, “Maybe we should do it as a lump sum so that it goes into investments. Maybe we should do it with a planning exercise to make those investments.” Let's just call it “cash-plus,” or “cash-with-a-little-plus,” then variations of that nature. There's a different model, maybe call it, “cash-plus-plus,” called the graduation model. That has gone through about 30 randomized trials, showing pretty striking impacts on long-run income-generating activity for households. At its core is a cash transfer, usually along with some training about income-generating activity — ideally one that is producing and exporting in some way, even a local export to the capital — and access to some form of savings. In some cases, that's an informal savings group, with a community that comes and saves together. In some cases, it's mobile money that's the core. It's a much simpler program, and it's easier to do it at scale. It has generated considerable, measured, repeatedly positive impacts, but not always. There's a lot more that needs to be learned about how to do it more effectively.[Further reading: Here's another position paper from Karlan's team at USAID on benchmarking against cash transfers.]One of your recurring refrains is, “If we're not sure that these other ideas have an impact, let's benchmark: would a cash-transfer model likely give us more bang for our buck than this panoply of other programs that we're trying to run?”The idea of having a benchmark is a great approach in general. You should always be able to beat X. X might be different in different contexts. In a lot of cases, cash is the right benchmark.Go back to education. What's your benchmark for improving learning outcomes for a primary school? Cash transfer is not the right benchmark. The evidence that cash transfers will single-handedly move the needle on learning outcomes is not that strong. On the other hand, a couple of different programs — one called Teaching at the Right Level, another called structured pedagogy — have proven repeatedly to generate very strong impacts at a fairly modest cost. In education, those should be the benchmark. If you want to innovate, great, innovate. But your goal is to beat those. If you can beat them consistently, you become the benchmark. That's a great process for the long run. It's very much part of our thinking about what the future of foreign aid should look like: to be structured around that benchmark.Let's go back to those roundtables you described, where you're trying to figure out what the intervention should be for a group of refugees in a foreign country. What were the responses when you'd say, “Look, if we're all pulling in the same direction, we have to toss out the three worst ideas”?One of the challenges is the psychology of ethics. There's probably a word for this, but one of the objections we would often get was about the scale of a program for an individual. Someone would argue, "But this won't work unless you do this one extra thing." That extra thing might be providing water to the household, along with a cash transfer for income-generating activity, financial support, and bank accounts. Another objection would be that, "You also have to provide consumption and food up to a certain level."These are things that individually might be good, relative to nothing, or maybe even relative to other water approaches or cash transfers. But if you're focused on whether to satisfy the household's food needs, or provide half of what's needed — if all you're thinking about is the trade-off between full and half — you immediately jump to this idea that, "No, we have to go full. That's what's needed to help this household." But if you go to half, you can help more people. There's an actual trade-off: 10,000 people will receive nothing because you're giving more to the people in your program.The same is true for nutritional supplements. Should you provide 2,000 calories a day, or 1,000 calories a day to more people? It's a very difficult conversation on the psychology of ethics. There's this idea that people in a program are sacrosanct, and you must do everything you can for them. But that ignores all the people who are not being reached at all.I would find myself in conversations where that's exactly the way I would try to put it. I would say, "Okay, wait, we have the 2,000,000 people that are eligible for this program in this context. Our program is only going to reach 250,000. That's the reality. Now, let's talk about how many people we're willing to leave untouched and unhelped whatsoever." That was, at least to me, the right way to frame this question. Do you go very intense for fewer people or broader support for more people?Did that help these roundtables reach consensus, or at least have a better sense of what things are trading off against each other?I definitely saw movement for some. I wouldn't say it was uniform, and these are difficult conversations. But there was a lot of appetite for this recognition that, as big as USAID was, it was still small, relative to the problems being approached. There were a lot of people in any given crisis who were being left unhelped. The minute you're able to help people focus more on those big numbers, as daunting as they are, I would see more openness to looking at the evidence to figure out how to do the most good with the resources we have?” We must recognize these inherent trade-offs, whether we like it or not.Back in 2023, you talked to Dylan Matthews at Vox — it's a great interview — about how it's hard to push people to measure cost-effectiveness, when it means adding another step to a big, complicated bureaucratic process of getting aid out the door. You said,"There are also bandwidth issues. There's a lot of competing demands. Some of these demands relate to important issues on gender environment, fairness in the procurement process. These add steps to the process that need to be adhered to. What you end up with is a lot of overworked people. And then you're saying, ‘Here's one more thing to do.'”Looking back, what do you think of those demands on, say, fairness in the procurement process?Given that we're going to be facing a new environment, there probably are some steps in the process that — hopefully, when things are put back in place in some form — someone can be thinking more carefully about. It's easier to put in a cleaner process that avoids some of these hiccups when you start with a blank slate.Having said that, it's also going to be fewer people to dole out less money. There's definitely a challenge that we're going to be facing as a country, to push out money in an effective way with many fewer people for oversight. I don't think it would be accurate to say we achieved this goal yet, but my goal was to make it so that adding cost-effectiveness was actually a negative-cost addition to the process. [We wanted] to do it in a way that successfully recognized that it wasn't a cookie-cutter solution from up top for every country. But [our goal was that] the work to contextualize in a country actually simplified the process for whoever's putting together the procurement docs and deciding what to put in them. I stand by that belief that if it's done well, we can make this a negative-cost process change.I just want to push a little bit. Would you be supportive of a USAID procurement and contracting process that stripped out a bunch of these requirements about gender, environment, or fairness in contracting? Would that make USAID a more effective institution?Some of those types of things did serve an important purpose for some areas and not others. The tricky thing is, how do you set up a process to decide when to do it, when not? There's definitely cases where you would see an environmental review of something that really had absolutely nothing to do with the environment. It was just a cog in the process, but you have to have a process for deciding the process. I don't know enough about the legislation that was put in place on each of these to say, “Was there a better way of deciding when to do them, when not to do them?” That is not something that I was involved in in a direct way. "Let's think about redoing how we introduce gender in our procurement process" was never put on the table.On gender, there's a fair amount of evidence in different contexts that says the way of dealing with a gender inequity is not to just take the same old program and say, "We're now going to do this for women." You need to understand something more about the local context. If all you do is take programs and say, "Add a gender component," you end up with a lot of false attribution, and you don't end up being effective at the very thing that the person [leading the program] cares to do.In that Vox interview, your host says, "USAID relies heavily on a small number of well-connected contractors to deliver most aid, while other groups are often deterred from even applying by the process's complexity." He goes on to say that the use of rigorous evaluation methods like randomized controlled trials is the exception, not the norm.On Statecraft, we talked to Kyle Newkirk, who ran USAID procurement in Afghanistan in the late 2000s, about the small set of well-connected contractors that took most of the contracts in Afghanistan. Often, there was very little oversight from USAID, either because it was hard to get out to those locations in a war-torn environment, or because the system of accountability wasn't built there. Did you talk to people about lessons learned from USAID operating in Afghanistan?No. I mean, only to the following extent: The lesson learned there, as I understand it, wasn't so much about the choice on what intervention to fund, it was procurement: the local politics and engagement with the governments or lack thereof. And dealing with the challenge of doing work in a context like that, where there's more risk of fraud and issues of that nature.Our emphasis was about the design of programs to say, “What are you actually going to try to fund?” Dealing with whether there's fraud in the execution would fall more under the Inspector General and other units. That's not an area that we engaged in when we would do evaluation.This actually gets to a key difference between impact evaluations and accountability. It's one of the areas where we see a lot of loosey-goosey language in the media reporting and Twitter. My office focused on impact evaluation. What changed in the world because of this intervention, that wouldn't otherwise have changed? By “change in the world,” we are making a causal statement. That's setting up things like randomized controlled trials to find out, “What was the impact of this program?” It does provide some accountability, but it really should be done to look forward, in order to know, “Does this help achieve the goals we have in mind?” If so, let's learn that, and replicate it, scale it, do it again.If you're going to deliver books to schools, medicine to health clinics, or cash to people, and you're concerned about fraud, then you need to audit that process and see, “Did the books get to the schools, the medicine to the people, the cash to the people?” You don't need to ask, "Did the medicine solve the disease?" There's been studies already. There's a reason that medicine was being prescribed. Once it's proven to be an effective drug, you don't run randomized trials for decades to learn what you already know. If it's the prescribed drug, you just prescribe the drug, and do accountability exercises to make sure that the drugs are getting into the right hands and there isn't theft or corruption along the way.I think it's a very intuitive thing. There's a confusion that often takes place in social science, in economic or education interventions. They somehow forget that once we know that a certain program generates a certain positive impact, we no longer need to track continuously to find out what happens. Instead, we just need to do accountability to make sure that the program is being delivered as it was designed, tested, and shown to work.There are all these criticisms — from the waste, fraud, and corruption perspective — of USAID working with a couple of big contractors. USAID works largely through these big development organizations like Chemonics. Would USAID dollars be more effective if it worked through a larger base of contractors?I don't think we know. There's probably a few different operating models that can deliver the same basic intervention. We need to focus on, ”What actually are we doing on the ground? What is it that we want the recipients of the program to receive, hear, or do?” and then think backwards from there: "Who's the right implementer for this?" If there's an implementer who is much more expensive for delivering the same product, let's find someone who's more cost-effective.It's helpful to break cost-effective programming into two things: the intervention itself and what benefits it accrues, and the cost for delivering that. Sometimes the improvement is not about the intervention, it's about the delivery model. Maybe that's what you're saying: “These players were too few, too large, and they had a grab on the market, so that they were able to charge too much money to deliver something that others were equally able to do at lower cost." If that's the case, that says, "We should reform our procurement process,” because the reason you would see that happen is they were really good at complying with requirements that came at USAID from Congress. You had an overworked workforce [within USAID] that had to comply with all these requirements. If you had a bid between two groups, one of which repeatedly delivered on the paperwork to get a good performance evaluation, and a new group that doesn't have that track record, who are you going to choose? That's how we ended up where we are.My understanding of the history is that it comes from a push from Republicans in the ‘80s, from [Senator] Jesse Helms, to outsource USAID efforts to contractors. So this is not a left-leaning thing. I wouldn't say it is right-leaning either. It was just a decision made decades ago. You combine that with the bureaucratic requirements of working with USAID, and you end up with a few firms and nonprofits skilled at dealing with it.It's definitely my impression that at various points in American history, different partisans are calling for insourcing or for outsourcing. But definitely, I think you're right that the NGO cluster around USAID does spring up out of a Republican push in the eighties.We talked to John Kamensky recently, who was on Al Gore's predecessor to DOGE in the ‘90s.I listened to this, yeah.I'm glad to hear it! I'm thinking of it because they also pushed to cut the workforce in the mid-90s and outsource federal functions.Earlier, you mentioned a slide that showed what we've learned in the field of development economics over the past 20 years. Will you narrate that slide for me?Let me do two slides for you. The slide that I was picturing was a count of randomized controlled trials in development that shows a fairly exponential growth. The movement started in the mid-to-late 1990s, but really took off in the 2000s. Even just in the past 10 years, it's seen a considerable increase. There's about 4-5,000 randomized controlled trials evaluating various programs of the kind USAID funds.That doesn't tell you the substance of what was learned. Here's an example of substance, which is cash transfers: probably the most studied intervention out there. We have a meta-analysis that counted 115 studies. That's where you start having a preponderance of evidence to be able to say something concrete. There's some variation: you get different results in different places; targeting and ways of doing it vary. A good systematic analysis can help tease out what we can say, not just about the effect of cash, but also how to do it and what to expect, depending on how it's done. Fifteen years ago, when we saw the first few come out, you just had, "Oh, that's interesting. But it's a couple of studies, how do you form policy around that?” With 115, we can say so much more.What else have we learned about development that USAID operators in the year 2000 would not have been able to act upon?Think about the development process in two steps. One is choosing good interventions; the other is implementing them well. The study of implementation is historically underdone. The challenge that we face — this is an area I was hoping USAID could make inroads on — was, studying a new intervention might be of high reward from an academic perspective. But it's a lot less interesting to an academic to do much more granular work to say, "That was an interesting program that created these groups [of aid recipients]; now let's do some further knock-on research to find out whether those groups should be made of four, six, or ten people.” It's going to have a lower reward for the researcher, but it's incredibly important.It's equivalent to the color of the envelope in direct marketing. You might run tests — if this were old-style direct marketing — as to whether the envelope should be blue or red. You might find that blue works better. Great, but that's not interesting to an academic. But if you run 50 of these, on a myriad of topics about how to implement better, you end up with a collection of knowledge that is moving the needle on how to achieve more impact per dollar.That collection is not just important for policy: it also helps us learn more about the development process and the bottlenecks for implementing good programs. As we're seeing more digital platforms and data being used, [refining implementation] is more possible compared to 20 years ago, where most of the research was at the intervention level: does this intervention work? That's an exciting transition. It's also a path to seeing how foreign aid can help in individual contexts, [as we] work with local governments to integrate evidence into their operations and be more efficient with their own resources.There's an argument I've seen a lot recently: we under-invest in governance relative to other foreign aid goals. If we care about economic growth and humanitarian outcomes, we should spend a lot more on supporting local governance. What do you make of that claim?I agree with it actually, but there's a big difference between recognizing the problem and seeing what the tool is to address it. It's one thing to say, “Politics matters, institutions matter.” There's lots of evidence to support that, including the recent Nobel Prize. It's another beast to say, “This particular intervention will improve institutions and governance.”The challenge is, “What do we do about this? What is working to improve this? What is resilient to the political process?” The minute you get into those kinds of questions, it's the other end of the spectrum from a cash transfer. A cash transfer has a kind of universality: Not to say you're going to get the same impact everywhere, but it's a bit easier to think about the design of a program. You have fewer parameters to decide. When you think about efforts to improve governance, you need bespoke thinking in every single place.As you point out, it's something of a meme to say “institutions matter” and to leave it at that, but the devil is in all of those details.In my younger years — I feel old saying that — I used to do a lot of work on financial inclusion, and financial literacy was always my go-to example. On a household level, it's really easy to show a correlation: people who are more financially literate make better financial decisions and have more wealth, etc. It's much harder to say, “How do you move the needle on financial literacy in a way that actually helps people make better decisions, absorb shocks better, build investment better, save better?” It's easy to show that the correlation is there. It's much harder to say this program, here, will actually move the needle. That same exact problem is much more complicated when thinking about governance and institutions.Let's talk about USAID as it stands today. You left USAID when it became clear to you that a lot of the work you were doing was not of interest to the people now running it. How did the agency end up so disconnected from a political base of support? There's still plenty of people who support USAID and would like it to be reinstated, but it was at least vulnerable enough to be tipped over by DOGE in a matter of weeks. How did that happen?I don't know that I would agree with the premise. I'm not sure that public support of foreign aid actually changed, I'd be curious to see that. I think aid has always been misunderstood. There are public opinion polls that show people thought 25% of the US budget was spent on foreign aid. One said, "What, do you think it should be?" People said 10%. The right answer is about 0.6%. You could say fine, people are bad at statistics, but those numbers are pretty dauntingly off. I don't know that that's changed. I heard numbers like that years ago.I think there was a vulnerability to an effort that doesn't create a visible impact to people's lives in America, the way that Social Security, Medicare, and roads do. Foreign aid just doesn't have that luxury. I think it's always been vulnerable. It has always had some bipartisan support, because of the understanding of the bigger picture and the soft power that's gained from it. And the recognition that we are a nation built on the idea of generosity and being good to others. That was always there, but it required Congress to step in and say, "Let's go spend this money on foreign aid." I don't think that changed. What changed was that you ended up with an administration that just did not share those values.There's this issue in foreign aid: Congress picks its priorities, but those priorities are not a ranked list of what Congress cares about. It's the combination of different interests and pressures in Congress that generates the list of things USAID is going to fund.You could say doing it that way is necessary to build buy-in from a bunch of different political interests for the work of foreign aid. On the other hand, maybe the emergent list from that process is not the things that are most important to fund. And clearly, that congressional buy-in wasn't enough to protect USAID from DOGE or from other political pressures.How should people who care about foreign aid reason about building a version of USAID that's more effective and less vulnerable at the same time?Fair question. Look, I have thoughts, but by no means do I think of myself as the most knowledgeable person to say, here's the answer in the way forward. One reality is, even if Congress did object, they didn't have a mechanism in place to actually object. They can control the power of the purse the next round, but we're probably going to be facing a constitutional crisis over the Impoundment Act, to see if the executive branch can impound money that Congress spent. We'll see how this plays out. Aside from taking that to court, all Congress could do was complain.I would like what comes back to have two things done that will help, but they don't make foreign aid immune. One is to be more evidence-based, because then attacks on being ineffective are less strong. But the reality is, some of the attacks on its “effectiveness,” and the examples used, had nothing to do with poorly-chosen interventions. There was a slipperiness of language, calling something that they don't like “fraud” and “waste” because they didn't like its purpose. That is very different than saying, “We actually agreed on the purpose of something, but then you implemented it in such a bad way that there was fraud and waste.” There were really no examples given of that second part. So I don't know that being more evidence-based will actually protect it, given that that wasn't the way it was really genuinely taken down.The second is some boundaries. There is a core set of activities that have bipartisan support. How do we structure a foreign aid that is just focused on that? We need to find a way to put the things that are more controversial — whether it's the left or right that wants it — in a separate bucket. Let the team that wins the election turn that off and on as they wish, without adulterating the core part that has bipartisan support. That's the key question: can we set up a process that partitions those, so that they don't have that vulnerability? [I wrote about this problem earlier this year.]My counter-example is PEPFAR, which had a broad base of bipartisan support. PEPFAR consistently got long-term reauthorizations from Congress, I think precisely because of the dynamic you're talking about: It was a focused, specific intervention that folks all over the political spectrum could get behind and save lives. But in government programs, if something has a big base of support, you have an incentive to stuff your pet partisan issues in there, for the same reason that “must-pass” bills get stuffed with everybody's little thing. [In 2024, before DOGE, PEPFAR's original Republican co-sponsor came out against a long-term reauthorization, on the grounds that the Biden administration was using the program to promote abortion. Congress reauthorized PEPFAR for only one year, and that reauthorization lapsed in 2025.]You want to carve out the things that are truly bipartisan. But does that idea have a timer attached? What if, on a long enough timeline, everything becomes politicized?There are economic theorems about the nature of a repeated game. You can get many different equilibria in the long run. I'd like to think there's a world in which that is the answer. But we have seen an erosion of other things, like the filibuster regarding judges. Each team makes a little move in some direction, and then you change the equilibrium. We always have that risk. The goal is, how can you establish something where that doesn't happen?It might be that what's happened is helpful, in an unintended way, to build equilibrium in the future that keeps things focused on the bipartisan aspect. Whether it's the left or the right that wants to do something that they know the other side will object to, they hold back and say, "Maybe we shouldn't do that. Because when we do, the whole thing gets blown up."Let's imagine you're back at USAID a couple of years from now, with a broader latitude to organize our foreign aid apparatus around impact and effectiveness. What other things might we want to do — beyond measuring programs and keeping trade-offs in mind — if we really wanted to focus on effectiveness? Would we do fewer interventions and do them at larger scale?I think we would do fewer things simpler and bigger, but I also think we need to recognize that even at our biggest, we were tiny compared to the budget of the local government. If we can do more to use our money to help them be more effective with their money, that's the biggest win to go for. That starts looking a lot like things Mark Green was putting in place [as administrator of USAID] under Trump I, under the Journey to Self-Reliance [a reorganization of USAID to help countries address development challenges themselves].Sometimes that's done in the context of, "Let's do that for five or ten years, and then we can stop giving aid to that country." That was the way the Millennium Challenge Corporation talked about their country selection initially. Eventually, they stopped doing that, because they realized that that was never happening. I think that's okay. As much as we might help make some changes, even if we succeed in helping the poorest country in the world use their resources better, they're still going to be poor. We're still going to be rich. There's still maybe going to be the poorest, because if we do that in the 10 poorest countries and they all move up, maybe the 11th becomes the poorest, and then we can work there. I don't think getting off of aid is necessarily the objective.But if that was clearly the right answer, that's a huge win if we've done that by helping to prove the institutions and governance of that country so that it is rolling out better policies, helping its people better, and collecting their own tax revenue. If we can have an eye on that, then that's a huge win for foreign aid in general.How are we supposed to be measuring the impact of soft power? I think that's a term that's not now much in vogue in DC.There's no one answer to how to measure soft power. It's described as the influence that we gain in the world in terms of geopolitics, everything from treaties and the United Nations to access to markets; trade policy, labor policy. The basic idea of soft power manifests itself in all those different ways.It's a more extreme version of the challenge of measuring the impact of cash transfers. You want to measure the impact of a pill that is intended to deal with disease: you measure the disease, and you have a direct measure. You want to measure the impact of cash: you have to measure a lot of different things, because you don't know how people are going to use the cash. Soft power is even further down the spectrum: you don't know exactly how aid is helping build our partnership with a country's people and leaders. How is that going to manifest itself in the future? That becomes that much harder to do.Having said that, there's academic studies that document everything from attitudes about America to votes at the United Nations that follow aid, and things of that nature. But it's not like there's one core set: that's part of what makes it a challenge.I will put my cards on the table here: I have been skeptical of the idea that USAID is a really valuable tool for American soft power, for maintaining American hegemony, etc. It seems much easier to defend USAID by simply saying that it does excellent humanitarian work, and that's valuable. The national security argument for USAID seems harder to substantiate.I think we agree on this. You have such a wide set of things to look at, it's not hard to imagine a bias from a researcher might lead to selection of outcomes, and of the context. It's not a well-defined enough concept to be able to say, "It worked 20% of the time, and it did not in these, and the net average…" Average over what? Even though there's good case studies that show various paths where it has mattered, there's case studies that show it doesn't.I also get nervous about an entire system that's built around [attempts to measure soft power]. It turns foreign aid into too much of a transactional process, instead of a relationship that is built on the Golden Rule, “There's people in this country that we can actually help.” Sure, there's this hope that it'll help further our national interests. But if they're suffering from drought and famine, and we can provide support and save some lives, or we can do longer term developments and save tomorrow's lives, we ought to do that. That is a good thing for our country to do.Yet the conversation does often come back to this question of soft power. The problem with transactional is you get exactly what you contract on: nothing more, nothing less. There's too many unknowns here, when we're dealing with country-level interactions, and engagements between countries. It needs to be about relationships, and that means supporting even if there isn't a contract that itemizes the exact quid pro quo we are getting for something.I want to talk about what you observed in the administration change and the DOGE-ing of USAID. I think plenty of observers looked at this in the beginning and thought, “It's high time that a lot of these institutions were cleaned up and that someone took a hard look at how we spend money there.”There was not really any looking at any of the impact of anything. That was never in the cards. There was a 90-day review that was supposed to be done, but there were no questions asked, there was no data being collected. There was nothing whatsoever being looked at that had anything to do with, “Was this award actually accomplishing what it set out to accomplish?” There was no process in which they made those kinds of evaluations on what's actually working.You can see this very clearly when you think about what their bean counter was at DOGE: the spending that they cut. It's like me saying, "I'm going to do something beneficial for my household by stopping all expenditures on food." But we were getting something for that. Maybe we could have bought more cheaply, switched grocery stores, made a change there that got us the same food for less money. That would be a positive change. But you can't cut all your food expenditures, call that a saving, and then not have anything to eat. That's just bad math, bad economics.But that's exactly what they were doing. Throughout the entire government, that bean counter never once said, “benefits foregone.” It was always just “lowered spending.” Some of that probably did actually have a net loss, maybe it was $100 million spent on something that only created $10 million of benefits to Americans. That's a $90 million gain. But it was recorded as $100 million. And the point is, they never once looked at what benefits were being generated from the spending. What was being asked, within USAID, had nothing to do with what was actually being accomplished by any of the money that was being spent. It was never even asked.How do you think about risky bets in a place like USAID? It would be nice for USAID to take lots of high-risk, high-reward bets, and to be willing to spend money that will be “wasted” in the pursuit of high-impact interventions. But that approach is hard for government programs, politically, because the misses are much more salient than the successes.This is a very real issue. I saw this the very first time I did any sort of briefing with Congress when I was Chief Economist. The question came at me, "Why doesn't USAID show us more failures?" I remember thinking to myself, "Are you willing to promise that when they show the failure, you won't punish them for the failure — that you'll reward them for documenting and learning from the failure and not doing it again?" That's a very difficult nut to crack.There's an important distinction to make. You can have a portfolio of evidence generation, some things work and some don't, that can collectively contribute towards knowledge and scaling of effective programs. USAID actually had something like this called Development Innovation Ventures (DIV), and was in an earmark from Congress. It was so good that they raised money from the effective altruist community to further augment their pot of money. This was strong because a lot of it was not evaluating USAID interventions. It was just funding a portfolio of evidence generation about what works, implemented by other parties. The failures aren't as devastating, because you're showing a failure of some other party: it wasn't USAID money paying for an intervention. That was a strong model for how USAID can take on some risks and do some evidence generation that is immune to the issue you just described.If you're going to do evaluations of USAID money, the issue is very real. My overly simplistic view is that a lot of what USAID does should not be getting a highly rigorous impact evaluation. USAID should be rolling out, simple and at scale, things that have already been shown elsewhere. Let the innovation take place pre-USAID, funded elsewhere, maybe by DIV. Let smaller and more nimble nonprofits be the innovators and the documenters of what works. Then, USAID can adopt the things that are more effective and be more immune to this issue.So yeah, there is a world that is not first-best where USAID does the things that have strong evidence already. When it comes to actual innovation, where we do need to take risks that things won't work, let that be done in a way that may be supported by USAID, but partitioned away.I'm looking at a chart of USAID program funding in Fiscal Year 2022: the three big buckets are humanitarian, health, and governance, all on the order of $10–12 billion. Way down at the bottom, there's $500 million for “economic growth.” What's in that bucket that USAID funds, and should that piece of the pie chart be larger?I do think that should be larger, but it depends on how you define it. I don't say that just because I'm an economist. It goes back to the comment earlier about things that we can do to help improve local governance, and how they're using their resources. The kinds of things that might be funded would be efforts to work with local government to improve their ability to collect taxes. Or to set up efficient regulations for the banking industry, so it can grow and provide access to credit and savings. These are things that can help move the needle on macroeconomic outcomes. With that, you have more resources. That helps health and education, you have these downstream impacts. As you pointed out, the earmark on that was tiny. It did not have quite the same heartstring tug. But the logical link is huge and strong: if you strengthen the local government's financial stability, the benefits very much accrue to the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Social Protection, etc.Fighting your way out of poverty through growth is unambiguously good. You can look at many countries around the world that have grown economically, and through that, reduced poverty. But it's one thing to say that growth will alleviate poverty. It's another to say, "Here's aid money that will trigger growth." If we knew how to do that, we would've done it long ago, in a snap.Last question. Let's say it's a clean slate at USAID in a couple years, and you have wide latitude to do things your way. I want the Dean Karlan vision for the future of USAID.It needs to have, at the high level, a recognition that the Golden Rule is an important principle that guides our thinking on foreign aid and that we want to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Being generous as a people is something that we pride ourselves in, our nation represents us as people, so we shouldn't be in any way shy to use foreign aid to further that aspiration of being a generous nation.The actual way of delivering aid, I would say, three things. Simpler. Let's focus on the evidence of what works, but recognize the boundaries of that evidence and how to contextualize it. There is a strong need to understand what it means to be simpler, and how to identify what that means in specific countries and contexts.The second is about leveraging local government, and working more to recognize that, as big as we may be, we're still going to be tiny relative to local government. If we can do more to improve how local government is using its resources, we've won.The third is about finding common ground. There's a lot. That's one of the reasons why I've started working on a consortium with Republicans and Democrats. The things I care about are generally non-partisan. The goal is to take the aspirations that foreign aid has — about improving health, education, economic outcomes, food security, agricultural productivity, jobs, trade, whatever the case is — and how do we use the evidence that's out there to move the needle as much as we can towards those goals? A lot of topics have common ground. How do we set up a foreign aid system that stays true to the common ground? I'd like to think it's not that hard. That's what I think would be great to see happen. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

AP correspondent Alex Veiga reports on this week's mortgage rates.

If you want to stop chasing prospects and start closing with authority, this episode is your blueprint. I sat down with Armand Farrokh, founder of 30 Minutes to President's Club the #1 sales podcast in the world and we broke down how top 1% sellers diagnose deeper problems, dismantle objections with tone (not pressure), and use identity reframes that make prospects sell themselves.  Armand didn't just grow revenue from $0 to $13M at Pave he engineered it with precision-level sales skills most reps never learn. This episode goes beyond surface-level tactics to show you how to disarm resistance, create urgency, and get buyers to fight for your solution. Watch this and you'll understand why most salespeople are stuck in the shallow end and how to get out fast. Chapters (00:00) Introduction (03:38) Building the Gap: Roleplay with Live Audiences (04:42) How to Clarify Objections Without Triggering Defensiveness (08:25) Reframing Price Objections with Results-Based Thinking (12:12) Why You Should Push Prospects Away (at First) (17:00) The Power of Tone to Trigger Curiosity and Doubt (20:14) Turning Surface-Level Problems Into Emotional Stories (25:38) Magic Moment Questions That Unlock Real Pain (30:03) The 4 Types of Salespeople (Which One Are You?) (33:34) Identity Framing: Making Prospects Justify the Sale (42:17) Why Prospects Buy From You—Even If You're More Expensive

In this episode, Andy Hill sits down with LendingTree's Matt Schulz to break down the real price tag of parenting in 2024 (spoiler: nearly $300K!). They cover rising childcare costs, smart savings strategies, and how your budget can survive the baby years. Then, financial planner Madison Sharick shares how she and her husband hit Coast FIRE in their 30s — while raising two young kids!

Attraction in marriage doesn't just disappear overnight, but it can fade through the habits, energy, and unspoken patterns you fall into over time. In this episode, we reveal the biggest emotional and physical turn-offs (and turn-ons) based on anonymous submissions from real couples. This episode is for couples who want to feel that spark again—without needing to go back to the beginning. In this episode you will hear: What's quietly draining desire in your relationship Five patterns that slowly erode attraction How to reignite emotional connection and physical intimacy—without pressure or perfection Plus, learn how to take small daily actions with the 30-Day Best of Us Intimacy Challenge (sign ups officially open now - only available 3x/year) Reignite emotional & physical intimacy through small, meaningful actions by starting this September 1st challenge here

Intro - Mike Welcome back to another episode of Let's Go Hunt -Gun parts edition. Primarily responsible for 12% of Type 2 diabetes cases: Dave Packard, who is not as fat as he thought Sam Alexander, it's blue Vince H, always running but always running behind   And Mike Gonçalves,    Joining us Around the Campfire - Tonight we are talking camping, running, gunning and fleshing your whet beaver Warheads on Foreheads with Mike https://cowboystatedaily.com/2024/11/10/wyoming-outdoorsmen-say-in-grizzly-country-have-a-round-chambered-in-your-handgun/ What can we learn from this?   Eventual Ad Slot   Personal Gear Chat and Updates: Mike Camping stuff The mix up The fish The boat The crawfish Dave Camping stuff Camp saw Shitter shanty Microwave Zoom in while e-scouting and use topo/hybrid map New pickup update Bear things Sam   Fleshing beaver, it's no joke. Lacking proper tools is a bad idea Process so far Where are we at now? How badly this thing will stink in five days, just like ur mom - New Midwest AKM mount from Aim Surplussy that I bought with my own money because I ain't no simp.   Vince   Mullein: what is it and what is it good for? Run'N'Gun this weekend, REPORT: Wasp stings and Benadryl, heat and humidity Last minute teammate for the Burial Mound Run'N'Gun team event Stages, results, and whutknot The next day, RO duties and the Main Event News and World Events Initiative 82 https://leg.colorado.gov/content/wildlife-and-ecosystem-conservation-commission-0 Spotlighting With Dave:    What are some other uses for thermals? Subsonic 22LR: so  many ammo options, so what's the difference? What the Rut is going on here? or The Otter Creek Labs Polonium 30. What's it good for?   Leave us a review or I will hire a gang of hitmen to come to your house and eat your lunchmeat! Go to lghpodcast.com -> Click on Support the Show -> Leave us a Review! -> Follow the link to your favorite podcast brain beamer and leave us a review! Email contact@lghpodcast.com and get a sticker pack!   Gideon Optics affiliate coupon code: MOIST Camorado affiliate code: LETSGOHUNT Five Star Alterations code: MOIST  10% (11%) off!   Outro - Dave Support the sport and take a buddy hunting! If you like that buddy, tell them about our show! If you don't, wangle his rod and dingleberries. Hit us up at lghpodcast.com.  Thanks for listening and Let's Go Hunt!    EMAIL: contact@lghpodcast.com Let's Go Hunt Archives - Firearms Radio Network

(4:36) New Model Y variant in China(12:28) Grok update(18:15) Tesla diner: awesome(25:04) Average wh/miLISTENER MAILBAG SUBMISSION FORM: here!15% OFF AMERICAN-MADE TESLA ACCESSORIES AT ABSTRACT OCEAN WITH CODE “MY15” (ONE-TIME USE CODE!): abstractocean.com/MY15TESLA REFERRAL PROGRAM: https://ts.la/chad92045

Trigger Warning: In this episode we do discuss sensitive topics related to mental health such as addiction and self harm. If these are triggers for you please feel free to skip this episode.In this week's episode I sat down with Jen Montzingo. Jen is proud to serve in Los Angeles local politics in various ways such as serving on the North Hollywood Neighborhood Council and sitting on the Los Angeles Olympics and Paralympics Advisory Board on Accessibility for the upcoming 2028 Games. She has big aspirations for more public speaking while also being obsessed with her two mini goldendoodles and greenhouse cabinet of rare tropical plants. We have a candid and vulnerable conversation about simply being a little person or person with dwarfism in an average-height world.Follow Jen: Instagram: @jenmontzingoFollow Me: Instagram: @jill_ilana , @alwayslookingup.podcast TikTok: @jillian_ilana Website: https://www.jillianilana.com Email: alwayslookingup227@gmail.comRead With Me:GoodreadsThe StoryGraphMental Health Resources:National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: https://chat.988lifeline.orgStopBullying.GovSAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration)www.ADAA.org Support Immigrant Communities (all links came from @chnge):The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (@chirla_org): https://www.chirla.org/donatenow/Immigrant Defenders Law Center (@immdef_lawcenter): https://www.immdef.orgInland Coalition 4 Imm Justice (@ic4ij): https://secure.actblue.com/donate/jornalerosRelief For Disabled People Impacted By The Los Angeles Fires:Richard Devylder Disaster Relief Fund: https://disabilitydisasteraccess.org/rd-relief-fund/United Spinal Disaster Relief Grant: https://unitedspinal.org/disaster-relief-grant/Inevitable Foundation Emergency Relief Fund: https://www.inevitable.foundation/erf

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump's DOJ granting Ghislaine Maxwell “use immunity” in connection with her discussions with the Department of Justice. Smart Credit: Start with your 7-day trial at https://SmartCredit.com/meidas and for just $1, see how many points you can add to your credit score. * Average point changes are based on historical data. Individual results may vary and are not guaranteed. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join Jesse and the "pleasantly, perplexed, person of positivity" himself, Average Boy, for a hilarious and surprisingly insightful journey into the power of a positive attitude! Bob recounts a classic "Average Boy" family vacation that started with unexpected detours, locked doors and even a run-in with the law (sort of!). Discover how staying optimistic—even when your family forgets to make hotel reservations—can turn a lemon of a trip into the sweetest lemonade. Get ready for laughs, life lessons and a reminder that God's in control, even when things go "sort of" right! Click here to see the new Average Boy book title and cover! Click here to visit the Average Boy Store to gain access to books, devotionals, subscriptions to Clubhouse Magazine, and much more! We'd love to hear from you! Visit our Homepage to leave us a voicemail.

This week on Fresh from the Field Fridays from The Produce Industry Network and AgLife Media...Ross is away, traveling through Europe—so Dan is flying solo!But don't worry, the produce is still piling high. Dan's got a table full of summer stunners from Bay Area produce markets, farmers markets, and his own backyard garden.Fresh on the table: Sharlyn melon Yellow donut peaches and yellow donut nectarinesNectarplumsDry-farmed Early Girl tomatoesAdriatic figsPiel de Sapo melonFlavor King pluotsArmenian cucumbersThat's right—it's your produce market in the podosphere, So tune in and turn on!

Gurus Of The Gram: Is a high-value man equivalent to the average woman?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Training Camp starts on Wednesday for the Packers and it is always a great time of year in Green Bay, Wisconsin. In today's episode of the podcast, Alex and KJ take what they are hearing heading into the gate and dissect if the mainstream media has any good points. Is this the big year for LaFleur, Love, and Quay Walker? Or are the Packers heading into camp worse off than last year. Answering the difficult questions in the last episode of the offseason. You made it - Welcome back to the IKE Packers Podcast!Help the show by telling another Packers fan! Other ways to contribute are by leaving a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts and subscribing wherever you get your podcasts.@IKE_Packers on X