Podcast appearances and mentions of branko milanovic

Nos juntamos para revisar una conferencia impartida por el historiador económico Branko Milanovic. Autor que es experto en analizar la desigualdad a nivel mundial y en perspectiva histórica. ¿Ha aumentado la desigualdad en los últimos dos siglos? ¿ Es importante la desigualdad interna de los países? ¿Qué hacer para disminuir la desigualdad? Balam y Christian discuten varios puntos interesantes...#desigualdadeconómica #desigualdadsocial #capitalismo

Az előfizetők (de csak a Belső kör és Közösség csomagok tulajdonosai!) már szombat hajnalban hozzájutnak legfrissebb epizódunk teljes verziójához. A hétfőn publikált, ingyen meghallgatható verzió tíz perccel rövidebb. Itt írtunk arról, hogy tudod meghallgatni a teljes adást. 00:36 Kézigránát. Személyes emlékeink és közéleti szerepe. Orbán és a katonaság. Orbán és az árnyékbox. 04:49 Zelenszkij és Orbán lelke. A rendszer lényegéből fakadó baleset. Vietnámi lájkok a honvédelemért. 08:20 A szerb példa. Branko Milanovic különvéleménye. Na de mi a cél? Angela Merkel hibái. 12:57 A török példa. A szúfi dervis fotója. Erdogan nemzetközi beágyazottsága. Akkor már inkább erőszakmentes autokráciát. 16:35 A baleset valódi felelőse. Támadó hadművelet titkárnőkkel. 20:02 A pillanat uralása zebrás viccekkel. A ciprusi diploma. 23:08 A történelem egyik legnagyobb bankrablás. Maradona és a kubai bolondok. Jeruzsálem-szindróma és egyéb pszichotikus krízisek.a 25:48 Női divat Hollandiában. Venezuelai gyerekek Terézvárosban. Ez neked infláció? Női divat Szolnokon 1960-ban. Édesanyám párducminás bundája. 31:32 A rotterdami kajapiac. A lisszaboni Time Out-piac. Tervek a Corvin aljába. Főétel 5000-ért. A holland csokireszelék. 36:59 Kvíz: Italian pilsner. 40:19 Háborús grupcset. Svejk Amerikában. Hadügyminiszter pia nélkül. Witkoff Moszkvában. 46:49 A sztori nem vicces része. Inkább Vasco da Gama. Ez kevés lesz a húszik ellen. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode, Mark Blyth talks with two inequality experts to try and understand something that's been bugging him for years.It goes like this: inequality has profound effects on our economy, society, and lives. It has also been growing, and today is at historically high levels. Given all that, why does inequality never seem to be a topic around which we organize our politics? Too complicated? Too boring? Too unsolvable? The answers that Mark got made him rethink the question itself, and hopefully will make you see inequality in a new light, too. Guests on this episode:Charlotte Cavaille is an assistant professor of public policy at the University of Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and author of “Fair Enough? Support for Redistribution in the Age of Inequality”.Branko Milanovic is a senior scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the CUNY Graduate Center.Learn more about the Watson Institute's other podcasts

Following the success of last year's ⁠What About China ⁠-trilogy, I'm delighted to introduce a two-part series on the economic history of India. This series examines the origins of modern India by focusing on politics, poverty, and the experience of ordinary Indians from 1600 till today.The first episode covers the decline of the Mughals and the hugely controversial rule of the British East India Company and, later, the British Crown.One thing is clear: Most Indians lived in poverty when the British left. So, how much of Indian poverty was due to British policies? How much was shaped by deeper trends? And what should we make of those infamous railways?To tackle these questions, I'm joined by Bishnupriya Gupta, a professor of economics at the University of Warwick and one of the world's leading historians of the Indian economy. Her new book, ⁠An Economic History of India⁠, provides a uniquely objective and data-driven exploration of India's history, focusing on the well-being of ordinary people.In this episode, we discuss:Indian vs English living standards in 1600 / The impact of British colonialism on India's economy / The Great Famines of Bengal / What both imperial apologists and Indian nationalists get wrong about the British rule. In the end, Gupta also explains why Mahatma Gandhi's education might be a clue as to why India lagged behind East Asia in the 20th Century. Enjoy — and stay tuned for Part II on the era of Independence!MENTIONSBooks: An Economic History of India by Bishnupriya Gupta; The Great Divergence by Kenneth Pomerantz; Other scholars: Stephen Broadberry | Prasannan Parthasarathy | Nico Voigtländer & Hans-Joachim Voth | Indrajit Ray | Oded Galor (see episodes #12 and #13) On Humans episode: What About China (with Yasheng Huang, #44-46); Birth of Modern Prosperity (with Daron Acemoglu; Oded Galor, Brad DeLong; Branko Milanovic, after #40) Keywords: Mughal India | British colonialism | British Rad | East India Company | Indian nationalism | Indian deindustrialisation | Cotton trade | Indian railways | Primary vs higher education | Great Bengali faminesLINKSRead more at ⁠⁠⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. You can also find On Humans on ⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠ and ⁠⁠⁠BlueSky⁠⁠!Feeling generous? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠or get in touch for other ways to support!Email: ⁠⁠makela dot ilari at outlook dot com⁠⁠⁠

“We need to understand the limits of capitalism. Capitalism has serious limits in the sense that it puts exchange value over use value. And this is by definition irrational according to logic of need, but very rational according to logic of profit... But we also need to understand that we are the ones who have produced the system. That's where the empowering voice comes out, because it says, okay, if we have created it, we can also change it. And guess what? The system is really fragile. That's why we need austerity constantly to protect it.” Economist Clara Mattei talks to Steve about the launch of the Center for Heterodox Economics (CHE) on the eve of its inaugural conference, February 6th through 8th, in Tulsa, OK. In the episode, Clara expresses her frustration with the inadequacies of mainstream economic education that neglects the real-life challenges faced by students and communities and explains that the CHE is being designed to break down traditional academic barriers and elitism. She mentions names of some participants in the upcoming conference, including Jamie Galbraith, Anwar Shaikh, Branko Milanovic, and Robert Brenner. From the Mission page on its website, the CHE is built on the following pillars:  1. Critical Political Economy: Understanding the dynamics of power, class, and social relations that shape economic outcomes.  2. Critical History of Economic Thought and Economic History: Exploring diverse schools of thought and the historical evolution of economic systems to inform our understanding of contemporary challenges.  3. Praxis: Economics, at its core, should be about more than analysis—it should be about action. At CHE, we are dedicated to producing knowledge that not only explains the world but transforms it. For information, go to https://sites.utulsa.edu/chetu/ Clara E. Mattei is Professor of Economics and Director of the Center for Heterodox Economics (CHE). She previously taught at the The New School for Social Research Economics Department and has been a fellow of the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton. Her research contributes to the history of capitalism, exploring the critical relation between economic ideas and technocratic policy making. Her first book, The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism (University of Chicago Press 2022) is translated in over 10 languages. Her current book project critically reassesses the Golden Age of Capitalism (1945-1975) and its Keynesianism through the lens of austerity capitalism.

On disinformation, NATO vs Russia, terrorism + more. [Full episode for subscribers only. Go to patreon.com/bungacast] We look back at a turbulent last month or so with the help of guest and "disinformation bot" Tara McCormack. We put it all in the context of Trump's return, post-neoliberalism and deglobalisation. 00:13:52 – Jacob Siegel  talks to Alex about Meta's policy U-turn on censorship and what it means for the public-private partnership on digital surveillance. 00:50:11 – How will European powers react to the US's relative withdrawal of its protection? Will France, Britain and Germany double-down on the Ukraine war? 01:06:21 – Why is Luigi Mangione not understood as 'terrorism' while the Magdeburg Christmas market attack is? What drives terrorism and is that even the right term to understand explosive anomie?  01:15:24 – Letters to the Editors: on the global radical right, and Trump's foreign policy Links: /369/ Information-War and War-Politics ft. Jacob Siegel /34/ War Propaganda ft. Tara McCormack To the Finland Station, Branko Milanovic, Substack Trumpism & Geopolitics, Tim Pendry, Substack Class Patricide, Dustin Guastella, Damage

Today's discussion was recorded in October of 2024 and was held with Dr. Branko Milanovic. Dr. Milanovic is a senior scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality and one of the leading scholars on income inequality in the world.  He worked as a lead economist at the World Bank's research department for 20 years, and as a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He has held numerous professorships at universities such as the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins University, London School of Economics, and the New School, where he currently teaches. He is the author of several influential books including The Haves and the Have—Nots, Capitalism Alone, and his newest book, Visions of Inequality. Dr. Milanovic earned his Ph.D. from the University of Belgrade.  Together, we discussed his newest book, a history of thought around inequality, and why he did not include Henry George in his book, even though he is such an important thinker on this subject.  To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: https://www.hgsss.org/ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/smart-talk-hgsss/support

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

This is episode three Cited Podcast's new season, the Use & Abuse of Economic Expertise. This season tells stories of the political and scholarly battles behind the economic ideas that shape our world. For a full list of credits, and for the rest of the episodes, visit the series page. For much of the 20th century, few economists studied inequality. “Watching the study of inequality was like watching the grass grow,” is the way inequality scholar James K. Galbraith put it to us. Yet, the inequality studies grass is growing today–really, it's something of a lush jungle. Arguably, the return of inequality studies is biggest change that has happened in economics over the last decade or so. Why did it return? Just as importantly, how could it have possibly disappeared? On this episode, we survey the broad political and intellectual history of inequality studies in economics. First, economist Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War, introduces us to a few of the reasons why inequality was marginalized, including the mathematization of the economic mainstream. In short, we sidelined the political in political economy. Then, political theorist Michael Thompson, author of The Politics of Inequality: A Political History of the Idea of Economic Inequality in America, introduces us to the work of Frank Knight and other market-friendly economists who provided ideological justification for widening inequality. Finally, inequality scholar Poornima Paidipaty, speaks to us about the return of inequality studies, particularly through the landmark work of Thomas Piketty. Yet, Paidipaty and her co-author Pedro Ramos Pinto highlight some of the limits of Picketty's vision in their article “Revisiting the “Great Levelling”: The limits of Piketty's Capital and Ideology for understanding the rise of late 20th century inequality.” Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Balzer, Jens www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Balzer, Jens www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Balzer, Jens www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Balzer, Jens www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Studio 9

Niobe Way, author of Rebels with a Cause, talks about the emotional and social lives of boys and what they're telling us about society. Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality, reviews what economists have said about the topic over the centuries.Behind the News, hosted by Doug Henwood, covers the worlds of economics and politics and their complex interactions, from the local to the global. Find the archive online: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/radio.html Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Where is China today? Will its rise continue to benefit the vast majority of its population? Or is Xi Jinping's increasingly repressive government committing one of the biggest blunders of modern history? This is the final episode in the China-trilogy, the product of hours of conversations I've had with ChinaTalk's Jordan Schneider and MIT professor Yasheng Huang. In part 1, we discussed the deep currents of Chinese history, shaping the country's destiny from its early technological lead to its more recent decline and stagnation. In part 2, we discussed China during and after Mao, trying our best to explain the Chinese economic miracle. In this final episode, we discuss questions about China's present and future, guided by lessons from its recent past. We touch upon issues such as: The causes and consequences of Xi Jinping's rise Why both Chinese leaders and Western observers misunderstand China's miracle – and why this matters for the future Why China is on course towards a sudden eruption of political chaos As always, we finish with my guest's reflections on humanity. LINKS You can read my essays and get the On Humans newsletter at ⁠OnHumans.Substack.com⁠. Are you a long-term listener? Feeling generous today? Join the wonderful group of my patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠! For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the ⁠⁠⁠⁠Birth of Modern Prosperity⁠⁠⁠⁠, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic. MENTIONS Scholars Gordon Tullock | Joseph Torigian CCP figures Hua Guofeng 华国锋 | "Gang of Four" 四人幫 | Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 | Zhao Ziyang 赵紫阳 | 习近平 China's history | Xi Jinping | Chinese miracle | China's political leadership | Xi Jinping reforms | Hu Jintao policies | China leadership generations | Chinese Communist Party | Deng Xiaoping reforms | Chinese economy | China's political control | Chinese corruption | Rural poverty in China | China's environmental policies | China economic inequality | Chinese rural income | Chinese political system | China's globalized economy | Chinese private sector | China geopolitical tensions | China-West relations | Chinese GDP growth | CCP succession | Xi Jinping succession | Autocracy in China | China's term limits | China's leadership transitions | Vietnam-China war | China's authoritarianism | Chinese economic growth | Xi Jinping's leadership style | Chinese politics and reforms | China's environmental issues | China's green policies | Urban-rural gap

Behind the News, 10/19/24 - guests: Niobe Way on masculinization, Branko Milanovic on economists' view of inequality over the centuries - Doug Henwood

Niobe Way, author of Rebels with a Cause, on the emotional and social lives of boys and what they're telling us about our society • Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality, reviews what economists have had to say about the topic The post The problem with boys and a history of inequality appeared first on KPFA.

China's rise has shook the world. It has changed the lives of over a billion people in China. It has flooded humanity with cheap goods, from single-use toys to high-tech solar panels. And it has changed the logic of war and peace in the 21st Century. But how to explain China's dramatic rise? Was it due to the wisdom of China's leaders after Mao? Or was it all about foreign investors searching for cheap labor?  Both and neither, argues MIT professor Yasheng Huang. Yes, the Chinese leaders learned from the mistakes of Mao. And yes, foreign money made a difference. But there is a hidden story behind China's rise - a story which merits our attention. This is a story with deep roots in history, but with the main act being played in the Chinese countryside during 1980's. It is also a drama whose characters have never recovered from the tragedy that took place on the streets around Tiananmen Square during a warm summer night in 1989. This is part 2 of this 3-part mini-series "What About China", hosted by me, Ilari Mäkelä, together with ChinaTalk's Jordan Schneider. Part 1 looked at China's deep history. Part 3 will look at China's present and future. In this part 2, we sketch the story of China's rise, meeting many colorful characters and discussing fascinating themes, such as: How did Mao shape the direction of Chinese history? Why did China become richer than India? Why was 80's a golden era for liberal Chinese? How did the 1989 crackdown at Tiananmen square paved the way for China today? MENTIONS Modern scholars  Meijun Qian | Amartaya Sen | Branko Milanovic (ep. 32) | Zheng Wang (auth. Never Forget National Humiliation) CCP Old Guard Mao Zedong 毛泽东 | Deng Xiaoping 邓小平 | Xi Zhongxun 习仲勋 | Chen Yun 陈云 | Li Xiannian 李先念 CCP liberals of the 1980's  Hu Yaobang 胡耀邦 | Zhao Ziyang 赵紫阳 CCP leaders after 1989 Jiang Zemin 江泽民 | Hu Jintao 胡锦涛 | Xi Jinping 习近平. LINKS You can read my essays and get the On Humans Newsletter at OnHumans.Substack.com. Are you a long-term listener? Join the wonderful group of patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the ⁠⁠⁠Birth of Modern Prosperity⁠⁠⁠, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic.

The Serbian-American economist Branko Milanovic is one of the world's leading authorities on inequality. In this KEEN ON America conversation, we talked about Milanovic's interpretation of the history of American economic inequality - from slavery to contemporary capitalism. Why has America become so much unequal over the last fifty years, I asked. And today, in what Milanovic sees as a post neo-liberal age, how does he imagine the future of economic inequality?Branko Milanovic obtained his Ph.D. in economics (1987) from the University of Belgrade with a dissertation on income inequality in Yugoslavia. He served as lead economist in the World Bank's Research Department for almost 20 years, leaving to write his book on global income inequality, Worlds Apart (2005). He was a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington (2003-2005) and has held teaching appointments at the University of Maryland (2007-2013) and at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (1997- 2007). He was a visiting scholar at All Souls College in Oxford, and Universidad Carlos III in Madrid (2010-11). Professor Milanovic's main area of work is income inequality, in individual countries and globally, including in preindustrial societies. He has published articles in Economic Journal, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Economic Literature, Journal of Development Economics, and Journal of Political Philosophy, among others. His book The Haves and the Have-nots (2011) was selected by The Globalist as the 2011 Book of the Year. Global Inequality (2016) was awarded the Bruno Kreisky Prize for the best political book of 2016 and the Hans Matthöfer Prize in 2018, and was translated into 16 languages. It addresses economic and political effects of globalization and introduces the concept of successive “Kuznets waves” of inequality. In March 2018, Milanovic was awarded (jointly with Mariana Mazzucato) the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Knowledge. His most recent books are Capitalism, Alone, published in 2019, and Visions of Inequality, published in 2023..Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

The West has ruled history — at least the way history has been written. This is a shame. To tell the story of humans, we must tell the story of us all. So what about the rest? What themes and quirks does their history hide? And what forces, if anything, prevented them of matching Europe's rise?  I aim to cover these topics for several countries and cultures over the next year. But I wanted to start with China. To do so, I've teamed up with Jordan Schneider, the host of ChinaTalk. Our guest is MIT professor Yasheng Huang (黄亚生). Huang is the author of Rise and Fall of the EAST – one of my all-time favorite books on China's past and present.  In this episode, we explore the deep currents shaping China's history. We trace the forces shaping China's early mastery of technology to its falling behind Europe in the modern era. We also discuss the surprising role that standardized exams have played in Chinese history, and why certain democratic elements in China's past actually bolstered the emperor's authority.  The episode covers all of Chinese imperial history, ending with a brief note on the early 20th Century. In part 2, will zoom into China's economic miracle and its uncertain future. NOTES A Rough Timeline of Chinese history: Pre–221 BCE: Disunity (e.g. Warring States)  221 BCE – 220: Unity (Qin & Han dynasties) 220 – 581: Disunity (“Han-Sui Interregnum”) 581 – 1911: Unity (Sui, Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, and Qing Dynasties) Historical figures Emperor Wanli 萬曆帝 | Shen Kuo 沈括 (polymath) | Zhu Xi 朱熹 (classical philosopher) | Hong Xiuquan 洪秀全 (leader of the Taiping Rebellion) | Yuan Shikai 袁世凯 (military leader) | Chiang Kai-shek 蔣介石 (military leader and statesman) Modern scholars Ping-ti Ho 何炳棣 (historian) | Clair Yang (economist) | Joseph Needham (scientist and historian) | Daron Acemoglu | James Robinson Historical terms Kējǔ civil service exams | Taiping Rebellion References For more links and some impressive graphs, see this article at OnHumans.Substack.com. LINKS Are you a long-term listener? Join the wonderful group of patrons at ⁠⁠⁠⁠Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠. For other episodes on economic history, see my series on the ⁠⁠Birth of Modern Prosperity⁠⁠, with Daron Acemoglu, Oded Galor, Brad DeLong, and Branko Milanovic.

Last year, we had a great conversation with Branko Milanovic, author of Visions of Inequality, about how classical economists like Smith, Riccardo, Marx and Pareto analyze inequality. Our guest today, David Lay Williams, asks the same question - but from the perspective of political philosophers like Rousseau, JS Rousseau and Hobbes. In his new book, The Greatest of All Plagues, Williams traces how economic inequality has shaped political theory over the last two thousand years. And in our age of increasingly sharp economic inequalities, Williams reminds us, what Plato called “the greatest of all plagues” is anything but an academic problem. David Lay Williams is Professor of Political Science at DePaul University. He earned his PhD in Government from the University of Texas at Austin and the author of Rousseau's Platonic Enlightenment (2007), Rousseau's 'Social Contract': An Introduction (2014), and The Greatest of All Plagues: How Economic Inequality Shaped Political Thought from Plato to Marx (2024). He has frequently written on themes in the history of political thought for outlets such as the Washington Post, Bloomberg, The Hill, the Chicago Sun-Times, and Time Magazine, among others.Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.Keen On is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

You are so much more lucky than you think, even if you think you're not. Most of us are dead proud of the good things we've done, and we tell ourselves how hard we have worked and how much we deserve it. But unfortunately we don't. This also works the other way round: we are never as much to blame for our 'failures' as we think. Thing is most things in life are down to luck: not just whether you win the lottery or meet the perfect person, but deeper stuff. Like who your parents were and where (and when) you were born.  That's a big idea to get your head around and it runs counter to most things our society tells us. And it's as true about climate change as anything else - what it means to us, and how important we think it is.  Joining Dave this episode are Will Snell and Anita Sangha from the Fairness Foundation.  They talk all about their brilliant and challenging report, Rotten Luck. You'll never look the same way at someone down on their luck again. Owl noises: — 14:23 - Branko Milanovic says here “80% of your income can be explained by the two factors of your country of birth (60%) and your parents' income position (20%)”. — 19:38 - Just World Theory, courtesy of the excellent Decision Lab. — 31:02 - Kim Stanley Robinson's Ministry for the Future: “chilling yet hopeful”. — 36:18 - The Welsh Well-being of Future Generations Act is here. — 36:49 - all rise for the UN's Summit of the Future, September 2024. — 40:45 - Over to Wiki for more on luck egalitarianism (or read Will's report). Your Brain on Climate is a podcast about human psychology vs the climate crisis: what we think, why we think it, and how it all adds up to a planet-sized emergency.  Contact the show:  @brainclimate on Twitter, or hello@yourbrainonclimate.com. Support the show on Patreon: www.patreon.com/yourbrainonclimate. The show is hosted and produced by me, Dave Powell, who you can find @powellds on Twitter.  Original music by me too. Show logo by Arthur Stovell at www.designbymondial.com.  

The Industrial Revolution played in the hands of the rich. A century after James Watt revealed his steam engine in 1776, the richest 1% owned a whopping 70% of British wealth. Then things changed. Across rich countries, inequality plummeted for decades.  Join Branko Milanovic on this quest to understand the evolution of inequality during the building of modern prosperity. Our conversation ranges from Karl Marx to the "golden age” of American capitalism and from Yugoslavia's market socialism to China's rise. To explore this theme with the help of graphs and visuals, see my essay at OnHumans.Substack.com. SUPPORT THE SHOW On Humans is free and without ads. If you want to support my work, you can do so at Patreon.com/OnHumans⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Thank you for all my existing supporters for their invaluable help in keeping the show running! ANNOUNCEMENT I'm writing a book! It is about the history of humans, for readers of all ages. Patreon members get access to early drafts. Chapters 1-3 are available now.

In dieser Folge diskutieren wir über das Rentenpaket 2 der Ampel, das Hochwasser in Bayern, den Rheinmetall-Deal vom BVB, steigende Reallöhne, Steuererhöhungen von Putin, die Berlin-Erklärung führender Ökonomen, das Recht auf Reparatur, den Green New Deal und vieles mehr. Außerdem schauen wir auf Videos mit Robert Habeck und Branko Milanovic. Diskussionsforum ► http://forum.jungundnaiv.de/ Tickets für die Palastrevolution: https://palastrevolution.com Gutscheincode: SELTSAMFRAGER Bitte unterstützt das WIRTSCHAFTSBRIEFING finanziell: Konto: Jung & Naiv IBAN: DE854 3060 967 104 779 2900 GLS Gemeinschaftsbank PayPal ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv Youtube-Kanal von Maurice ► @Maurice_Hoefgen Maurice Newsletter ► https://www.geldfuerdiewelt.de/ 00:00:00 Hinweise 00:02:55 Hochwasser in Bayern 00:27:27 Habeck und Merz über Klimaschutz 00:30:57 Klimakonferenz und Klimarat 00:35:02 Recht auf Reparatur, Tennet, Batteriefabrik 00:40:57 Rheinmetall sponsert BVB 00:47:27 Umsatzschwund & Lohnentwicklung 00:57:22 Rentenpaket beschlossen 01:12:27 Rentenvorschläge 01:18:22 Putins Steuererhöhung 01:21:27 Agenda gegen Populismus 01:26:37 Interview mit Branko Milanovic 01:54:57 Naive Fragen Quellen: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zdv03Jp_TM2J4QTo7aATj9b_UkW3v8C6AgnGG5WLm24/edit?usp=sharing Support ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv #bayern #hochwasser #rente

Yascha Mounk and Branko Milanovic discuss the history and trajectory of global inequality. Branko Milanovic is an economist and a professor in the Graduate Center at The City University of New York. Formerly a lead economist at the World Bank, he is the author, most recently, of Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War. In this week's conversation, Yascha Mounk and Branko Milanovic discuss Milanovic's famous “Elephant Curve” graph and why global income growth is not as unequally distributed as he once thought; how we should think about globalization and its effects on the global balance of power; and why Milanovic does not consider himself a philosophical liberal. This transcript has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. Please do listen and spread the word about The Good Fight. If you have not yet signed up for our podcast, please do so now by following this link on your phone. Email: podcast@persuasion.community  Website: http://www.persuasion.community Podcast production by Jack Shields, and Brendan Ruberry Connect with us! Spotify | Apple | Google Twitter: @Yascha_Mounk & @joinpersuasion Youtube: Yascha Mounk LinkedIn: Persuasion Community Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

EPISODE 1823: In this KEEN ON show, Andrew talks to Branko Milanovic, author of VISIONS OF INEQUALITY, about how different economists have made sense of economic inequality over the last 250 yearsBRANKO MILANOVIC is a Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the CUNY Graduate Center and the author of the forthcoming Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War. Branko's main area of work is income inequality, in individual countries and globally, including in pre-industrial societies. He has published articles in The Economic Journal, Review of Economics and Statistics, Journal of Economic Literature, Economic History Review, and Journal of Political Philosophy, among others. His book, The Haves and the Have-nots (2011) was selected by The Globalist as the 2011 Book of the Year. His book Global Inequality (2016), was awarded the Bruno Kreisky Prize for the best political book of 2016, and Hans Matthöfer Prize in 2018, and was translated into sixteen languages. It addresses economic and political effects of globalization and introduces the concept of successive “Kuznets waves” of inequality. In March 2018, Branko was awarded (jointly with Mariana Mazzucato) the 2018 Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Knowledge. His new book Capitalism, Alone was published in September 2019. He has contributed numerous op-eds and essays to Social Europe, VoxEU, The Guardian, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, Vox, The Financial Times, Le Monde, El Pais, La Vanguardia, Le Monde Diplomatique and blogs ProMarket (U of Chicago), Global Policy (Durham University), Brave New Europe (Berlin). His blog posts are regularly translated into Spanish (Letras Libres), German (Makronom), Italian (Fata Turchina) and French (Atlanico).Named as one of the "100 most connected men" by GQ magazine, Andrew Keen is amongst the world's best known broadcasters and commentators. In addition to presenting KEEN ON, he is the host of the long-running How To Fix Democracy show. He is also the author of four prescient books about digital technology: CULT OF THE AMATEUR, DIGITAL VERTIGO, THE INTERNET IS NOT THE ANSWER and HOW TO FIX THE FUTURE. Andrew lives in San Francisco, is married to Cassandra Knight, Google's VP of Litigation & Discovery, and has two grown children.

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/european-studies

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

"How do you see income distribution in your time, and how and why do you expect it to change?" That is the question Branko Milanovic imagines posing to six of history's most influential economists: François Quesnay, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Karl Marx, Vilfredo Pareto, and Simon Kuznets. Probing their works in the context of their lives, he charts the evolution of thinking about inequality, showing just how much views have varied among ages and societies. Indeed, Milanovic argues, we cannot speak of "inequality" as a general concept: any analysis of it is inextricably linked to a particular time and place. Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War (Harvard UP, 2023) takes us from Quesnay and the physiocrats, for whom social classes were prescribed by law, through the classic nineteenth-century treatises of Smith, Ricardo, and Marx, who saw class as a purely economic category driven by means of production. It shows how Pareto reconceived class as a matter of elites versus the rest of the population, while Kuznets saw inequality arising from the urban-rural divide. And it explains why inequality studies were eclipsed during the Cold War, before their remarkable resurgence as a central preoccupation in economics today. Meticulously extracting each author's view of income distribution from their often voluminous writings, Milanovic offers an invaluable genealogy of the discourse surrounding inequality. These intellectual portraits are infused not only with a deep understanding of economic theory but also with psychological nuance, reconstructing each thinker's outlook given what was unknowable to them within their historical contexts and methodologies. Branko Milanovic is Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality at the City University of New York and Visiting Professor at the International Inequalities Institute at the London School of Economics and Political Science. Caleb Zakarin is the Assistant Editor of the New Books Network. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

Writing a book like that makes you really think brutally about the past. It makes you really think about the current time and also how the future would look at you.Branko MilanovicAccess Bonus Episodes on PatreonMake a one-time Donation to Democracy Paradox.A full transcript is available at www.democracyparadox.com.Branko Milanovic is a Research Professor at the City University of New York and a Senior Scholar at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality. He served as the lead economist in the World Bank's Research Department for almost 20 years. His most recent book is Visions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War.Key HighlightsIntroduction - 0:31Why Economic Inequality - 2:53Ideas Before 1820 - 13:26Marx and Socialism - 19:52Piketty and Modern Thought - 40:17Key LinksVisions of Inequality: From the French Revolution to the End of the Cold War by Branko Milanovicglobalinequality blog by Branko MilanovicFollow Branko Milanovic on X @BrankoMilanDemocracy Paradox PodcastThomas Piketty on EqualityJacob Hacker and Paul Pierson on the Plutocratic Populism of the Republican PartyMore Episodes from the PodcastMore InformationApes of the State created all MusicEmail the show at jkempf@democracyparadox.comFollow on Twitter @DemParadox, Facebook, Instagram @democracyparadoxpodcast100 Books on DemocracySupport the show

Økonomen Branko Milanovic fortæller i denne udgave af Langsomme Samtaler  om, hvordan vores ideer om ulighed har udviklet sig over 200 år. Og så forklarer han, hvorfor vækstkritikerne i hans optik tager fejl og overser de globale interessemodsætninger. Eksempelvis bryder sig ikke om vækstkritikernes 'vi'. Han kalder det for »vi-isme«, fordi han mener, det har karakter af en ideologi, når nogle, som selv har meget, hævder at tale på alles vegne, når de siger: »vi« skal tage et opgør med vækst og gå ned i forbrug. Som han siger: »Jeg arbejder med ulighed, jeg ser ikke et 'vi'.«

In the first two years of the pandemic, globally the top 1% captured nearly double the amount of new wealth as the other 99%. In Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World, BRANKO MILANOVIC says we're all capitalists now. Liberal capitalism delivers rampant inequality and excess as it fights for hearts and minds with political capitalism, as practiced by China. What are the prospects for a fairer world now that capitalism is the only game in town? 

The EU, writes Loukas Tsoukalis, is “a strange vehicle … unlike any others on the roads of the world, surely not a flashy vehicle – rather slow and not easy to drive. However, it has been able to accommodate ever-increasing numbers of passengers and covered a remarkably long distance – often in adverse conditions and with accidents on the way”. However, while the union has shown itself to be resilient, the new economic, societal and geopolitical challenges it faces mean it has to be much more than that. It has to project as well as protect. It has to grow up. In Europe's Coming of Age (Polity, 2022), Tsoukalis explains why and how. Born in Athens, Loukas Tsoukalis studied economics and international relations in Manchester, Bruges, and Oxford where he also taught for many years, followed by chairs at the University of Athens and the London School of Economics, and visiting professorships at Harvard and the College of Europe. Today, he is a professor at Sciences Po in Paris. This is the latest of his many books on the EU including The Politics and Economics of European Monetary Integration, What Kind of Europe? and In Defence of Europe: Can the European Project Be Saved? *The authors' own book recommendations are: The Globalization Paradox: Why Global Markets, States, and Democracy Can't Coexist by Dani Rodrik (Oxford University Press, 2012), and Capitalism, Alone: The Future of the System That Rules the World by Branko Milanovic (Belknap Press, 2019). Tim Gwynn Jones is an economic and political-risk analyst at Medley Advisors and writes the Twenty-Four Two newsletter on Substack. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

On Communism's historic role.   We talk to renowned Serbian-American economist Branko Milanovic about growing up in Yugoslavia and how, in much of the world, History never ended. We then dedicate much of the episode to discussing Branko's claim that communism was essentially an engine of economic convergence, allowing developing countries to haul themselves into the industrial age.   We also talk about Branko's work on inequality and why growth still matters.    Readings: Capitalism, Alone, Branko Milanovic, Harvard UP The Aloofness of Pax Sinica, Branko Milanovic, Global Policy Journal

Global Policy Watch #1: The Many Transitions In China Global issues and their implications for India— RSJIn a few editions in the past, we have alluded to structural challenges in the Chinese economy and the window of opportunity that it presents India. I thought it would be useful to take a more comprehensive view of this. China reported a GDP growth of 0.4 per cent in the quarter that ended in June 2022. China's National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) isn’t known for its allegiance to truth. It is safe to assume the real GDP would have shrunk in the quarter. The daft ‘zero Covid’ policy led to total lockdowns in major cities during the quarter. The government crackdown on the real estate sector has meant that investment in the sector fell sharply. These contributed to the slowdown. Two other data points are interesting to note. The unemployment rate among the youth aged between 16-24 was at an all-time high of about 20 per cent. Also, retail sales continued to be weak at about 2.7 per cent, much below the 5 per cent forecast. Domestic consumption, the great desire of Chinese policymakers, remained sluggish. The spokesperson for the NBS put up a brave face while spinning these numbers as short-term bumps on the road. He raised the possibility of global stagflation and its negative impact on China to possibly justify weak numbers in the future. But is this slowdown just a blip in the impressive rise of China in the past three decades? I’m not sure. There are three transitions underway in China right now. It is difficult for nations to pull off any one of these in normal times. To attempt three simultaneously is ambitious. It is most likely to fail. Anyway, back to these transitions.The first transition started a few years back. This was forced on it because economics doesn’t bow to the party's diktats. China is finding it difficult to transition from a manufacturing-heavy, investment-led economic model to a consumption-driven one. This couldn’t be avoided. There would always be a limit to the world’s capacity to absorb China’s imports. Also, as China grew richer, it knew its low-cost edge in manufacturing would wither away. So after a few years of structural overinvestment in building capacity - the bridges to nowhere, the ghost cities, empty airports and other excesses - it had to pivot to a consumption-driven economy. It did try to delay the inevitable transition by aiming to export this overcapacity through its belt and road initiative. But after the initial hoopla, most countries have come to see it as what it is. A debt trap. So, this transition was necessary to move away from growth predicated on size and scale of investment to a more sustainable model of higher quality. But this is proving to be difficult. The history of unproductive investments has led to a debt build-up in the system (the debt to GDP ratio in China is over 300 per cent) and a drag on productivity that will continue for a long time. The state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that led this investment-driven growth are in a debt trap, and many continue to stay afloat by evergreening their loans. New productive investments have suffered because of this. People aren’t sure of their future, so instead of consumption, there’s an increase in domestic savings. Also, the pandemic and the recent lockdowns haven’t helped consumption growth. This is going to be a long, painful road.The second transition has been brought upon it because of its confidence in creating a ‘patterned’ society based on a premeditated design of the society. The prime example of ignoring spontaneous order was its plan to control the population through a one-child policy. China is now past the peak of its demographic dividend. The Labour force in China peaked in 2015 at around 800 million. It has now shrunk to 783 million, almost what it was in 2010. In the next 15 years, this is projected to go down to about 650 million. The stupid notion of the population as a liability has meant a rapidly shrinking and ageing workforce. The government has now reversed the one-child policy with a two-child policy without learning that such top-down interventions worsen things. Other similar ideas like patterned migration from villages to specific cities, controlling information flow for its citizens and taking some lofty top-down emission targets that have contributed to a serious energy crisis right now will also turn out the same way. The fault isn’t in their stars but in their ideology.  The final transition is the more perplexing one. This was articulated in a speech by Xi Jinping on August 17, 2021, where he introduced the notion of ‘common prosperity.’ This marked the most cogent articulation of Xi’s shift towards greater ideological rigidity. The days of economic growth based on ideological compromises were coming to an end. As Xi mentioned, ‘common prosperity is the essential requirement of socialism and an important feature of Chinese-style modernization’ and China ‘must resolutely prevent polarization, promote common wealth, and achieve social harmony and stability.’ The crackdown on the consumer tech sector (virtually destroying Jac Ma’s empire) and the ‘three red lines’ drawn for the real estate sector, that has disproportionate weight on its economy, should be viewed in this backdrop. It is unclear whether this is a real commitment to ideology or a way to consolidate his position as dictator-for-life by appealing to the masses. But Xi has doubled down on this, as seen by his remarks at the World Economic Forum:"We will first make the pie bigger and then divide it properly through reasonable institutional arrangements. As a rising tide lifts all boats, everyone will get a fair share from development, and development gains will benefit all our people in a more substantial and equitable way,"In my (very broad) view, Xi has concluded that China might have peaked in economic growth. You start talking about redistribution and ‘dividing it properly’ when you know the pie won’t grow at the same rate as it was earlier. Importantly, I also suspect this is the reason why Xi is acting like a bully in the neighbourhood. If you know you have hit the peak of your geopolitical and geoeconomic leverage, you will be foolish to let the moment pass without maximising your gains.Some might argue furnishing other economic data that this ‘peaking’ theory isn’t true. China is still a global manufacturing engine. Its trade surplus has ballooned in the past year suggesting the world is hungrier for its goods. And so on. There’s this insightful column by Michael Pettis in FT that I will quote, which puts in perspective the record trade surpluses that China has been notching up in recent months while making these three transitions together. Pettis writes:Contrary to what many assume, the country’s burgeoning trade surplus is not a symptom of manufacturing prowess, nor is it evidence of a culture of thrift. It is instead a consequence of the great difficulty China has had in rebalancing its domestic economy and reining in its soaring debt. This is because the very conditions that explain stagnant domestic consumption also explain the rapid growth in Chinese exports relative to imports.Beijing has known the solution to this problem for years. In order to control soaring debt and the non-productive investment it funds, it had to rebalance the distribution of income by enough that growth would be driven mainly by rising consumption, as is the case in most other economies. But this requires a politically-difficult restructuring of the economy in which a larger share of total income — as much as 10-15 percentage points of GDP — is transferred from local governments to Chinese households.This is why the trade surplus matters. In recent years, Beijing has tried to slow the growth in debt by reducing non-productive investment in property and infrastructure. This year, as we saw with Evergrande, Beijing came down hard on the property sector.If a rising share of China’s total income had been going to ordinary households, the resulting reduction in investment by property developers could have been balanced by a rise in consumption. But that’s not what’s happened. In the past two years, partly as a consequence of the Covid pandemic, growth in wages has actually lagged behind growth in GDP. The share Chinese workers have received of what they produce has declined rather than increased, and with it so has the share they are able to consume.Rising exports are usually a good thing, but for countries like China, rising trade surpluses are not. In this case they are symptoms of deep and persistent imbalances in the domestic distribution of income. Until the country is able to reverse these imbalances, something which has proven politically very difficult, these large surpluses are just the obverse of attempts by Beijing to control debt, and so they will persist.For India, all of this is a golden opportunity. China will remain busy with these transitions that it has wrought upon itself. The jury is still out on whether it will have a soft landing on them. Global businesses that started seeking more resilient and cost-effective alternatives to China during COVID-19, are now convinced that they must employ a ‘China + 1’ model to safeguard their long-term interests. There are only that many economies that have the labour pool, capital and a business environment that can take advantage of this shift away from China, however gradual. To me, it might be faster than what we all anticipate. And it will pass India by if it doesn’t stay alert to its possibilities.There is a high likelihood of a golden decade ahead for MSMEs in India if it plays its cards right. A long overdue factor market reforms (possible at the state level), kickstarting a government capex cycle that will instil confidence in the private sector to follow suit, not overdoing aatmanirbhar Bharat beyond the rhetoric and remaining an open and liberal democracy that convinces others that it will have sufficient checks and balances to not lose its way. These are the basic block and tackle moves to capitalise on the opportunity. Because the only lesson to learn from a possible China misstep is that overdetermined leadership and top-down economic thinking eventually fail.Course Advertisement: The Sept 2022 intake of Takshashila’s Graduate Certificate in Public Policy programme ends soon! Visit this link to apply.India Policy Watch #1: A Potent CocktailInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay KotasthaneThe ongoing political saga in Delhi over a new (now suspended) excise policy is a heady cocktail for policy analysts. The cocktail’s components include a tussle over alcohol licenses, Maximum Retail Price (MRP), privatisation, regulation, allegations of corruption, rent-seeking, and political contestation.The political motivations behind the current actions are quite clear. But it might be useful to look at the under-discussed policy aspects of the debate. Useful, because it’s not the last time we have seen a stand-off on alcohol policy.The underlying motivation for the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 is to increase government revenue. Although we know that the best way to do that is lower the tax rate and broaden the base, India’s poor economic performance over the last decade has made it politically risky to bring additional people under the tax net. Hence, states are opting for the easier—and counterproductive—option instead: raise tax rates and increase non-tax revenue. With the GST taking away the power to raise tax rates on most items unilaterally, state governments are exploring other options. One lucrative option is liquor excise. The Indian State heavily regulates the production, sale, and consumption of alcohol. Streamlining the licensing policies for the production and sale of alcohol can generate non-tax revenue, while higher overboard consumption can result in an increase in tax revenue (excise duty). One reform, two revenue handles. This is why the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) governments in Delhi and Punjab have set their eyes on this sector. Moreover, raising the fees on government-provided private goods doesn’t fit its existing political persona. To be fair, the Delhi Excise Policy 2021-22 is fairly progressive. It states that the policy's objectives are to augment the state excise duty revenue, simplify liquor pricing, prevent duty evasion, and transform the liquor trade commensurate with Delhi’s position as a city of global importance. To achieve these objectives, the policy aims to award new licenses for alcohol sale, dividing the city into 32 zones, with a fixed number of shops allowed per zone. It aims to end government-run booze shops, distributing those licenses to private players instead. To foster competition, it allows shops to offer discounts below the Maximum Retail Price (MRP), permits shops to stay open till 3 am, and authorises bars to serve alcohol in licensed open spaces. A report in the Business Standard captured the view of a craft beer brand as follows:“The new excise policy is facing teething issues like any other but we find the policy very good since there is now a lot more opportunity to showcase our brand. Earlier, stores were dingy with no proper brand display, but now the stores have a mandated minimum floor area and are women-friendly. This helps with visibility of our brand.” There were quite a few initial hiccups. Some dealers started giving deep discounts to capture the market. That led the government to change the no-MRP policy to a “discount only up to 25% of MRP” policy. After that, retailers started offering “buy one bottle, get another free”. And hence, big dealers could attract more customers, while the smaller ones were finding it difficult to compete. Some licenses didn’t attract any buyers at all. These seem to be transient-state shocks. The steady-state promised to be much better. Alas.Reforming a tightly regulated policy area in which powerful rent-seekers have flourished for decades is not easy. The old status quo has powerful defenders. Like many other reforms, the benefits are widely dispersed while the costs are concentrated. And so, many existing licensees have ganged up on the government. We can be sure that some of these licensees also have political connections, which they have used to oppose the policy. There is also the additional issue specific to alcohol — any policy that is seen to liberalise its sale becomes an easy target for conservative moralisers. Further, the Delhi government made a mistake by pausing the policy implementation amidst the criticism.Then came the political pushback. Despite the government’s revenue increasing by 27 per cent after the policy was put in place, some notional revenue loss of the “2G spectrum allocation” vintage has surfaced. There are also charges of favouritism and corruption in the allocation of new licenses, an issue so sensational that it requires the combined might of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Enforcement Directorate. (Sarcasm is intended.) Many state governments must be eying this Delhi experiment with excise policy reform. Moreover, this case illustrates the difficulty in reforming sub-optimal licensing arrangements. As for the Delhi government, are they reaping what they sowed in the name of anti-corruption?Global Policy Watch #2: Xi Jinping’s Thoughts Global issues and their implications for India— RSJTalking of China (and I’m intruding into Pranay’s area of expertise), I came across this wonderful blog, globalinequality by Branko Milanovic. In his latest post, he writes about what he learnt from reading a translated version of the book, ' Anecdotes and Sayings of Xi Jinping’. Milanovic writes:The undisputable emphasis in the “Chinese” part of the book is on the matters of governance. By giving numerous examples from Chinese history of rulers and their aides who cared about people’s welfare, lived modestly (“One should be the first when taking care of state affairs, the last when taking care of personal affairs”), strove to improve themselves morally and educationally, Xi proposes a theory of governance that is based on virtue of rulers and results achieved, not procedure. While Western theories emphasize the procedural aspect (how is one selected to be the ruler, is it by a well-established democratic process or not), Xi’s concern is with the results. The tacit premise is not to discuss how one is selected to rule….The success is defined in terms of improvement in the well-being and happiness of people whom they govern.…In all cases of a good rule, there is the emphasis on individual characteristics of rulers. What is required, they (the editors) write, is “morality inside and virtue outside”; what is sought is the rule of virtue, and by virtue.  But how to bring about such a rule? Obviously, by having moral rulers. Hence--the reader begins to realize--Xi’s ideological campaign: if Confucian-cum-Communist  ideology is disregarded and everything is simply esteemed in terms of money and economic success, there cannot be a moral and virtuous rule.The key question, unanswered in the book, then becomes: is it possible to achieve an educational and moral “rejuvenation” under the current “normal” conditions of capitalism where money-making is held by the majority of the population to be the highest objective revealing also one’s individual worth?Xi is fighting against the spirit of the times, and while his struggle may be driven by a genuine desire to create a morally superior China, the odds of succeeding in this endeavor are, I am afraid, not particularly high. This is, to put it mildly, a brilliant summary of the ideological battle Xi has picked up and his odds of winning it. I tend to agree with its conclusion.   India Policy Watch #2: Value Addition, Not Import SubstitutionInsights on burning policy issues in India— Pranay Kotasthane“Import Substitution” is still in vogue. One would have thought that the unsuccessful pursuit of this goal since independence would’ve discredited it. That doesn’t seem to be the case.Every few weeks, we come across policies targeting import substitution, implicitly if not explicitly. Just a few days back came the rumour that the government plans to ban Chinese phones priced under Rs 12,000 in order to give a leg up to domestic champions. Thankfully, unnamed sources in the government have denied this story for now. Even so, import tariff hikes and industrial policies continue to chase the illusory target of import substitution. Some policies for display fabs and drones explicitly mention import substitution as the target. Of late, this idea has morphed into targets for maximising value addition per unit of exports. Now, readers of this newsletter know what we think of this idea. In edition #161, we had warned that Atmanirbhar Bharat is approaching a wrong turn. We have also cautioned against the proliferation of Production Linked Incentives (PLIs) beyond a few critical sectors. I will make the case against import substitution in this edition using another example. Look at the chart below, which shows the import profile of a country for the year 2020. This country’s largest import by value is Integrated Circuits (chips) at 18.8%. The total import bill is $259 billion. Can you guess the country? If you need a hint, here’s one: as exports rise, imports also rise. The world’s top two exporters are China and the US. And the world’s top two importers are also the US and China.The answer is neither the US nor China. India can be ruled out because we know that our biggest import is crude oil. Here’s another hint. Look at this country’s export profile for the same year. Its biggest export is again integrated circuits, at 36.9% out of a total exported value of $374 billion. Do you have an answer now? The right answer might surprise you. This is the typical year-wise trade profile of a country that is acclaimed as the world’s semiconductor superpower: Taiwan! We forget that despite its unmatched prowess in contracted chip manufacturing, Taiwan is not even close to being self-sufficient. Some Taiwanese companies import chips, do value addition through packaging and testing, and then export the final commodity. A portion of the imported chips goes into the machines that are used to manufacture chips by the famed Taiwanese chip foundries. The fundamental message is that imports are critical to exports, even in sophisticated economies. PLI scheme began with the aim of promoting India’s exports. But my sense is that import substitution has displaced exports as the primary goal. How else does one explain the simultaneous increase in import tariffs and a phased manufacturing programme (PMP) that aims to increase tariffs on imported components? Atmanirbhar Bharat needs to return to its goal of creating competitive manufacturing capabilities in India by allowing companies to start, grow, and close with considerably less bureaucratic friction. Shielding domestic component makers from international competition on the one hand, and subsidising end-equipment manufacturers on the other will end up helping neither. Equipment manufacturers will merely make expensive, poor-quality products. Some others will use the production subsidies to import components at higher prices, with no net benefit to them or the consumers. As RSJ writes in the first section, this decade is India’s to lose. Imports aren’t evil. Target value maximisation, not import substitution. Counterproductive policies targeting import substitution won’t help. HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Article] Why the MRP should be abolished. A 2015 article by Anupam Manur remains relevant. [Paper] PIIE has a good paper with a framework to analyse the world’s dependence on China for strategic minerals.[Book] Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means So Much by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir is a useful read. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

Das Bruttoinlandsprodukt ist noch immer der wichtigste Indikator, mit denen Länder ihre Wirtschaftsleistung ausdrücken. Jedoch sollte man das BIP keinesfalls mit der Lebensqualität oder dem allgemeinen Wohlstand verwechseln. Ein Land kann ein sehr hohes BIP haben, wie zum Beispiel die Vereinigten Staaten, dennoch kann die Lebensqualität niedrig sein. Viel Geld fließt dann in das Gesundheitssystem oder in Mieten, weil sich der Staat aus diesen Märkten zurückgezogen hat. Darauf macht der Degrowth-Theoretiker Jason Hickel aufmerksam, denn seine These lautet: Mit einem Pro-Kopf-Einkommen von 10.000 Dollar pro Jahr könnten wir ein zufriedenes Leben führen, wenn wir bereit sind, unsere Art des Wirtschaftens zu ändern und der Staat wieder mehr Aufgaben übernimmt. Hickel räumt aber auch auf mit vielen liberalen Träumen, wonach man durch CO2-Bepreisung und Innovationen schon bald einen grünen Kapitalismus erreicht habe. Dem sei nicht so, eine relative Entkoppelung von Wirtschaftswachstum und CO2-Emissionen sei keineswegs ausreichend. In der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“ sprechen Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt über einen weiteren Degrowth-Ansatz, der das Wirtschaftswachstum nicht per se abschaffen will, jedoch eine Abkehr vom BIP für dringend geboten hält. Werbung: Jens Liljestrand: Der Anfang von morgen. S. Fischer Verlag. Weitere Infos zum Buch: https://www.fischerverlage.de/buch/jens-liljestrand-der-anfang-von-morgen-9783103971903 Literatur: Jason Hickel: Weniger ist mehr. Warum der Kapitalismus den Planeten zerstört und wir ohne Wachstum glücklicher sind, Oekom. Jason Hickels Antwort auf Branko Milanovic: https://www.jasonhickel.org/blog/2017/11/19/why-branko-milanovic-is-wrong-about-de-growth. Informationen zum deutschen BIP 2019: https://www.destatis.de/DE/Presse/Pressekonferenzen/2020/BIP2019/pressebroschuere-bip.pdf;jsessionid=BD470EAD16E77351B6A7D112A53DB339.live732?__blob=publicationFile. Der „Corporate Therapy“-Podcast über Degrowth: https://corporate-therapy.com/62-post-growth-okonomie/. hr könnt uns unterstützen - herzlichen Dank! Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/oleundwolfgang Konto: Wolfgang M. Schmitt, Ole Nymoen Betreff: Wohlstand fuer Alle IBAN: DE67 5745 0120 0130 7996 12 BIC: MALADE51NWD Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Twitter: Ole: twitter.com/nymoen_ole Wolfgang: twitter.com/SchmittJunior Die gesamte WfA-Literaturliste: https://wohlstand-fuer-alle.netlify.app

Die russische Kriegskasse ist gut gefüllt. Ökonomen halten es sogar für möglich, dass der russische Präsident seinen Angriff auf die Ukraine trotz der Sanktionen noch zwei Jahre lang weiterführen kann. Aber Geld ist im Krieg nicht alles: Verbrauch und Verlust von Mensch und Maschine sind bei den russischen Truppen hoch, Nachschub nicht in Sicht.Sie haben Fragen an uns? Schreiben Sie eine E-Mail an podcasts@n-tv.de oder wenden Sie sich direkt an Christian Herrmann. Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://datenschutz.ad-alliance.de/podcast.html Unsere allgemeinen Datenschutzrichtlinien finden Sie unter https://art19.com/privacy. Die Datenschutzrichtlinien für Kalifornien sind unter https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info abrufbar.

A conversation on prosperity, opportunity, and inequality, with https://www.newyorkencounter.org/jeanpaul-fitoussi (Jean-Paul Fitoussi), Professor Emeritus of Economics at the Institut d'Etudes Politiques de Paris, and https://www.newyorkencounter.org/branko-milanovic (Branko Milanovic), senior fellow at the Stone Center on Socio-Economic Inequality, https://nyencounter.squarespace.com/samuele-rosa (Samuele Rosa), senior economist, International Monetary Fund, moderated by https://www.newyorkencounter.org/anujeet-sareen (Anujeet Sareen), portfolio manager, Brandywine GlobalAmerica, we believe, is the land of opportunity, a country where people of diverse backgrounds have the opportunity to make the most of their talents. But is this narrative true today?  Do we truly offer equality of opportunity?  Income and wealth inequality are the worst they have been in nearly a century. Indeed, the deepening unease across the political spectrum and the increasing distrust of our institutions are perhaps largely a consequence of an erosion of the American dream.  These trends are similar in many advanced economies. How does America once again offer the promise of shared prosperity?

Globalization is possibly the most important economic phenomenon of the past several decades. Opening borders, increasing trade and deepening integration has transformed our economies, our societies and our politics. Globalization changed establishment politics; the reaction against it transformed those against the establishment. But there's a world of difference between Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders' critiques of globalization. And those who have concerns about globalization due so for different reasons, building different alliances as they work to implement, reform or roll back globalization. Anthea Roberts and Nicolas Lamp, authors of Six Faces of Globalization: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why It Matters (Harvard University Press: 2021) looks more closely at these debates, building out distinct narratives that classify how we should think about the politics of globalization, and how different political movements understand who wins from globalization: everyone, a few, or nobody. Those interested in learning more about the book and its arguments: “Who wins and who loses from globalization? There are (at least) six answers”, a book excerpt published on BigThink “Want to know what future battles over globalization will be about? Look to the chip shortage”, a commentary piece published on Fortune Paul Krugman and Branko Milanovic in conversation with Anthea Roberts and Nicolas Lamp In this interview, Anthea, Nicolas and I talk about the politics of globalization: the arguments used to support it, and the stories used to criticize it. We explore some of the interesting intersections between these arguments … and where we think the politics of globalization might go from here. Anthea Roberts is professor in the School of Regulation and Global Governance at Australian National University and author of the prizewinning Is International Law International? (Oxford University Press: 2017). Nicolas Lamp is associate professor in the Faculty of Law at Queen's University, Ontario. Before joining Queen's University, he worked as a dispute settlement lawyer at the World Trade Organization. You can find more reviews, excerpts, interviews, and essays at The Asian Review of Books, including its review of Six Faces of Globalization. Follow on Facebook or on Twitter at @BookReviewsAsia. Nicholas Gordon is an associate editor for a global magazine, and a reviewer for the Asian Review of Books. He can be found on Twitter at @nickrigordon. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/asian-review

Memos oggi vi ha riproposto l'intervista a Branko Milanovic, uno dei maggiori studiosi delle disuguaglianze economiche e sociali. Milanovic è un economista, insegna negli Stati Uniti. Il suo ultimo libro pubblicato in Italia si intitola "Capitalismo contro capitalismo" (Laterza, 2020).

Today, we are pleased to welcome a thinker and scholar who is a master at communicating the complex in a simple and relatable way. Branko Milanovic served as lead economist in the World Bank's research department for twenty years and has had teaching appointments at the University of Maryland, Johns Hopkins and currently is a Visiting President Professor at City University of New York. Branko and I will discuss the state of income inequality today, the impact of COVID-19, universal basic income and more.For more information about this episode and the Global Governance Forum visit GlobalGovernanceForum.org

In this week's Political Economy, Branko Milanovic discusses the future of capitalism, the political significance of inequality, and the compatibility of capitalism and democracy. The post https://www.aei.org/multimedia/branko-milanovic-the-future-of-capitalism/ (Branko Milanovic: The future of capitalism) appeared first on https://www.aei.org (American Enterprise Institute - AEI).