Podcasts about Carlyle

The fellas are joined by actor Wyatt Russell, and director Carlyle Eubank to discuss their new rodeo drama, “Broke”. Wyatt explains the research that went into playing the role of a seasoned bareback rider facing the end of his career. Carlyle delves into why it was so important to keep the film authentic in its depiction of rodeo life.

Fresh news top of the hour: OpenAI and the United Arab Emirates announcing “Stargate UAE” – a massive new data center in the Middle East in partnership with companies like Oracle, Nvidia, and more. OpenAI CFO Sarah Friar joined the team to discuss in a wide-ranging interview also covering the company's future device plans… and possible competition with Apple.   On the broader markets front: stocks trying to rebound after a big sell-off tied to bonds. The team broke down whether the pressure continues with one T. Rowe Price CIO – and the CEO of Authentic Brands brought his read on how the consumer's holding up, fresh off a deal to buy Dockers from Levi Strauss. Plus: the IPO market showing signs of life… Hear from the CEO of MNTN this hour - ahead of their first trade – along with Carlyle's Jeff Currie, breaking down this move lower in oil and where prices go from here.   Squawk on the Street Disclaimer

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America 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

Brandon Daniels is the CEO of Exiger, which provides AI-powered supply chain and third-party risk management solutions to Fortune 500 companies and government agencies. Exiger has annual revenues of over $150 million and received a majority investment by Carlyle, Insight Partners, and JMI Equity for $1.2 billion in 2023.In this episode of World of DaaS, Brandon and Auren discuss:Tariffs and supply chain chaosBringing manufacturing back to the USData validation in supply chain monitoringCountries most vulnerable to China's influenceLooking for more tech, data and venture capital intel? Head to worldofdaas.com for our podcast, newsletter and events, and follow us on X @worldofdaas.  You can find Auren Hoffman on X at @auren and Brandon Daniels and Exiger on LinkedIn. Editing and post-production work for this episode was provided by The Podcast Consultant (https://thepodcastconsultant.com)

In which we talk Met Gala Mania, Pope Crave at the Conclave, Gaga at Copacabana, Netflix's new embrace of AI slop, and the new Real Housewives of Rhose Island. JOIN US ON PATREON About: Hosted by journalists Joan Summers and Matthew Lawson, Eating For Free is a weekly podcast that explores gossip and power in the pop culture landscape: Where it comes from, who wields it, and who suffers at the hands of it. Find out the stories behind the stories, as together they look beyond the headlines of troublesome YouTubers or scandal-ridden A-Listers, and delve deep into the inner workings of Hollywood's favorite pastime. The truth, they've found, is definitely stranger than any gossip. You can also find us on our website, Twitter, and Instagram. Any personal, business, or general inquires can be sent to eatingforfreepodcast@gmail.com  Joan Summers' Twitter, Instagram Matthew Lawson's Twitter, Instagram Skips: Khloé Kardashian gives tour of pristinely organized walk-in pantry in $17M mansion, [Page Six] Teddi Mellencamp shares the heartbreaking reason she only occasionally wears a wig amid cancer battle, [Page Six] Gigi Hadid makes rare comments about boyfriend Bradley Cooper after he skipped 2025 Met Gala [Page Six] Miley Cyrus' House Burned Down. Why She Now Sees the Dark Moment as the 'Biggest Blessing I've Ever Had' [People] Ellen DeGeneres gives rare glimpse of brunette hair while doing common household chore for first time [Page Six] ‘RHONJ' alum Jacqueline Laurita posts jarring video after facelift and neck lift [Page Six] Why Ben Affleck has ‘empathy' for Britney Spears over this ‘cruelty' of fame [Page Six] Main Stories: Lisa's Met Gala Outfit Did Not Have Rosa Parks' Face Embroidered on Panties, Says Rep for Look's Artist [People] Blake Lively takes major swipe at Justin Baldoni and his lawyer in Another Simple Favor [DM] Conclave to Choose New Pope Begins as Cardinals Prepare for First Vote [People] Justin Baldoni's Wayfarer Foundation Is Shutting Down amid His Legal Woes with Blake Lively [People] Ariel Winter Shares the Very Personal Reason She Goes on Undercover Stings to Catch Child Predators (Exclusive) [PEople] Celebrity stylist Jessica Paster dragged away by cops outside the Carlyle before Met Gala: ‘I got manhandled' [Page Six] Taylor Swift live updates: Doechii took a page from the Eras Tour playbook for dramatic Met Gala debut [Page Six] Netflix Plans Major Overhaul of Homepage Design, OpenAI-Powered Search and TikTok-Style Vertical Feeds [THR] Disney Plans New Theme Park in Abu Dhabi, Its “Most Tech-Forward” Resort Yet [THR] Brazilian Police Arrest 2 People Over Plot to Bomb Lady Gaga's Concert in Rio [THR] Lady Gaga Responds to Thwarted Bomb Plot Allegedly Targeting Her Brazil Concert [THR]

Rising interest rates. Distressed deals. A frozen capital market… Sound familiar? Today I interviewed Randy Langenderfer, and he has been through it all—building 4,000+ units across Texas, Oklahoma, and Ohio.  You want to know what really sets him apart though?  His background in private equity at Carlyle, where he learned how to engineer cash flow like a Fortune 500 operator. In this episode, we unpack: The exact buy box Randy is targeting in 2025 (and why he's skipping certain markets) How Carlyle's approach to EBITDA growth directly applies to multifamily Why some distressed deals won't hit the market—and who gets first dibs The surprising reason he's sticking with single-asset syndications over funds Plus, Randy shares how hard lessons from the last cycle are shaping his new deals—and what every LP should look for before writing their next check. If you're serious about investing in this next phase of the market… Tune in to the episode now! Take Control, Hunter Thompson Resources mentioned in the episode: Randy Langenderfer InvestArk Website Multifamily Maestros Website Interested in learning how to take your capital raising game to the next level? Meet us at Capital Raiser's Edge. Learn more here: https://raisingcapital.com/cre

This week on The Luke Branquinho Show, we sit down with filmmaker and lifelong cowboy Carlyle Eubank. Carlyle's feature directorial debut, "Broke," stars Wyatt Russell and Dennis Quaid and hits audiences with the raw emotion and survivalist grit of a contemporary western. Released May 6 from Sony Pictures, "Broke" tells the story of True Brandywine, a bareback rider battling a brutal storm—and his own past. Carlyle shares how growing up ranching shaped his voice as a storyteller, how Western landscapes influence his work, and what it was like stepping into the director's chair for the first time.

In this Reel Insights interview, Sean Tajipour, the Mayor of Nerdtropolis, talks with writer-director Carlyle Eubank about the deeply personal story behind Broke, a modern survival tale starring Wyatt Russell and Dennis Quaid. We dive into Carlyle's real-life rodeo roots, why he cast Russell in the lead role, and how shooting in the raw beauty of Montana shaped the film's emotional core.With real rodeos, real cowboys, and real blizzards, this film is as authentic as it gets. Carlyle also shares behind-the-scenes moments, how his relationship with his father inspired scenes, and why Broke is truly a love letter to rodeo culture.Watch to hear how this stunning indie film came to life—and why it's one of the most heartfelt and grounded Westerns in years.On Digital May 6, 2025Visit Nerdtropolis.comhttps://www.Facebook.com/nerdtropolishttps://Instagram.com/nerdtropolishttps://Twitter.com/nerdtropolis

In today's podcast, we unpack Zomato's quiet retreat from its 15-minute delivery experiment, examine why India's economy is defying global slowdown trends, and hear from Macquarie's Victor Shevts on why global investors are eyeing India as a standalone opportunity. Plus, updates on cheaper jet fuel deals for Indian airlines, Cognizant's fresh hiring spree, Carlyle's exit from PNB Housing, and a sharp take on the politics of caste census. Tune in.

Pooja Goyal, Partner and Chief Investment Officer of the Infrastructure Group at Carlyle, joins our hosts to share her extensive experience in infrastructure investing and the energy transition. Pooja discusses the significance of Copia Power, a company built and developed by Carlyle, and her firm's work on the JFK International Terminal Project. Pooja also explores the rapid growth of digital infrastructure while reflecting on her inspiring professional journey from investment banking to leading Carlyle's infrastructure efforts.   More S&P Global Content:  Scale up for success in private markets with data, valuations, software & services Credits:  Host/Author: Chris Sparenberg, Jocelyn Lewis Guests: Pooja Goyal, Carlyle Editor: Patrick Moroney Producer: Georgina Lee www.spglobal.com www.spglobal.com/market-intelligence

Clare Carlisle's biography of George Eliot, The Marriage Question, is one of my favourite modern biographies, so I was really pleased to interview Clare. We talked about George Eliot as a feminist, the imperfections of her “marriage” to George Henry Lewes, what she learned from Spinoza, having sympathy for Casaubon, contradictions in Eliot's narrative method, her use of negatives, psychoanalysis, Middlemarch, and more. We also talked about biographies of philosophers, Kierkegaard, and Somerset Maugham. I was especially pleased by Clare's answer about the reported decline in student attention spans. Overall I thought this was a great discussion. Many thanks to Clare! Full transcript below. Here is an extract from our discussion about Eliot's narrative ideas.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.TranscriptHenry: Today I am talking to Clare Carlisle, a philosopher at King's College London and a biographer. I am a big fan of George Eliot's Double Life: The Marriage Question. I've said the title backwards, but I'm sure you'll find the book either way. Clare, welcome.Clare Carlisle: Hi, Henry. Nice to be here.Henry: Is George Eliot a disappointing feminist?Clare: Obviously disappointment is relative to expectations, isn't it? It depends on what we expect of feminism, and in particular, a 19th-century woman. I personally don't find her a disappointing feminist. Other readers have done, and I can understand why that's the case for all sorts of reasons. She took on a male identity in order to be an artist, be a philosopher in a way that she thought was to her advantage, and she's sometimes been criticized for creating heroines who have quite a conventional sort of fulfillment. Not all of them, but Dorothea in Middlemarch, for example, at the end of the novel, we look back on her life as a wife and a mother with some sort of poignancy.Yes, she's been criticized for, in a way, giving her heroines and therefore offering other women a more conventional feminine ideal than the life she managed to create and carve out for herself as obviously a very remarkable thinker and artist. I also think you can read in the novels a really bracing critique of patriarchy, actually, and a very nuanced exploration of power dynamics between men and women, which isn't simplistic. Eliot is aware that women can oppress men, just as men can oppress women. Particularly in Middlemarch, actually, there's an exploration of marital violence that overcomes the more gendered portrayal of it, perhaps in Eliot's own earlier works where, in a couple of her earlier stories, she portrayed abused wives who were victims of their husband's betrayal, violence, and so on.Whereas in Middlemarch, it's interestingly, the women are as controlling, not necessarily in a nasty way, but just that that's the way human beings navigate their relations with each other. It seems to be part of what she's exploring in Middlemarch. No, I don't find her a disappointing feminist. We should be careful about the kind of expectations we, in the 21st century project onto Eliot.Henry: Was George Henry Lewes too controlling?Clare: I think one of the claims of this book is that there was more darkness in that relationship than has been acknowledged by other biographers, let's put it that way. When I set out to write the book, I'd read two or three other biographies of Eliot by this point. One thing that's really striking is this very wonderfully supportive husbands that, in the form of Lewes, George Eliot has, and a very cheerful account of that relationship and how marvelous he was. A real celebration of this relationship where the husband is, in many ways, putting his wife's career before his own, supporting her.Lewes acted as her agent, as her editor informally. He opened her mail for her. He really put himself at the service of her work in ways that are undoubtedly admirable. Actually, when I embarked on writing this book, I just accepted that narrative myself and was interested in this very positive portrayal of the relationship, found it attractive, as other writers have obviously done. Then, as I wrote the book, I was obviously reading more of the primary sources, the letters Eliot was writing and diary entries. I started to just have a bit of a feeling about this relationship, that it was light and dark, it wasn't just light.The ambiguity there was what really interested me, of, how do you draw the line between a husband or a wife who's protective, even sheltering the spouse from things that might upset them and supportive of their career and helpful in practical ways. How do you draw the line between that and someone who's being controlling? I think there were points where Lewes crossed that line. In a way, what's more interesting is, how do you draw that line. How do partners draw that line together? Not only how would we draw the line as spectators on that relationship, obviously only seeing glimpses of the inner life between the two people, but how do the partners themselves both draw those lines and then navigate them?Yes, I do suggest in the book that Lewes could be controlling and in ways that I think Eliot herself felt ambivalent about. I think she partly enjoyed that feeling of being protected. Actually, there was something about the conventional gendered roles of that, that made her feel more feminine and wifely and submissive, In a way, to some extent, I think she bought into that ideal, but also she felt its difficulties and its tensions. I also think for Lewes, this is a man who is himself conditioned by patriarchal norms with the expectation that the husband should be the successful one, the husband should be the provider, the one who's earning the money.He had to navigate a situation. That was the situation when they first got together. When they first got together, he was more successful writer. He was the man of the world who was supporting Eliot, who was more at the beginning of her career to some extent and helping her make connections. He had that role at the beginning. Then, within a few years, it had shifted and suddenly he had this celebrated best-selling novelist on his hands, which was, even though he supported her success, partly for his own financial interests, it wasn't necessarily what he'd bargained for when he got into the relationship.I think we can also see Lewes navigating the difficulties of that role, of being, to some extent, maybe even disempowered in that relationship and possibly reacting to that vulnerability with some controlling behavior. It's maybe something we also see in the Dorothea-Casaubon relationship where they get together. Not that I think that at all Casaubon was modeled on Lewes, not at all, but something of the dynamic there where they get together and the young woman is in awe of this learned man and she's quite subservient to him and looking up to him and wanting him to help her make her way in the world and teach her things.Then it turns out that his insecurity about his own work starts to come through. He reacts, and the marriage brings out his own insecurity about his work. Then he becomes quite controlling of Dorothea, perhaps again as a reaction to his own sense of vulnerability and insecurity. The point of my interpretation is not to portray Lewes as some villain, but rather to see these dynamics and as I say, ambivalences, ambiguities that play themselves out in couples, between couples.Henry: I came away from the book feeling like it was a great study of talent management in a way, and that the both of them were very lucky to find someone who was so well-matched to their particular sorts of talents. There are very few literary marriages where that is the case, or where that is successfully the case. The other one, the closest parallel I came up with was the Woolfs. Leonard is often said he's too controlling, which I find a very unsympathetic reading of a man who looked after a woman who nearly died. I think he was doing what he felt she required. In a way, I agree, Lewes clearly steps over the line several times. In a way, he was doing what she required to become George Eliot, as it were.Clare: Yes, absolutely.Henry: Which is quite remarkable in a way.Clare: Yes. I don't think Mary Ann Evans would have become George Eliot without that partnership with Lewes. I think that's quite clear. That's not because he did the work, but just that there was something about that, the partnership between them, that enabled that creativity…Henry: He knew all the people and he knew the literary society and all the editors, and therefore he knew how to take her into that world without it overwhelming her, giving her crippling headaches, sending her into a depression.Clare: Yes.Henry: In a way, I came away more impressed with them from the traditional, isn't it angelic and blah, blah, blah.Clare: Oh, that's good.Henry: What did George Eliot learn from Spinoza?Clare: I think she learned an awful lot from Spinoza. She translated Spinoza in the 1850s. She translated Spinoza's Ethics, which is Spinoza's philosophical masterpiece. That's really the last major project that Eliot did before she started to write fiction. It has, I think, quite an important place in her career. It's there at that pivotal point, just before she becomes an artist, as she puts it, as a fiction writer. Because she didn't just read The Ethics, but she translated it, she read it very, very closely, and I think was really quite deeply formed by a particular Spinozist ethical vision.Spinoza thinks that human beings are not self-sufficient. He puts that in very metaphysical terms. A more traditional philosophical view is to say that individual things are substances. I'm a substance, you're a substance. What it means to be a substance is to be self-sufficient, independent. For example, I would be a substance, but my feeling of happiness on this sunny morning would be a more accidental feature of my being.Henry: Sure.Clare: Something that depends on my substance, and then these other features come and go. They're passing, they're just modes of substance, like a passing mood or whatever, or some kind of characteristic I might have. That's the more traditional view, whereas Spinoza said that there's only one substance, and that's God or nature, which is just this infinite totality. We're all modes of that one substance. That means that we don't have ontological independence, self-sufficiency. We're more like a wave on the ocean that's passing through. One ethical consequence of that way of thinking is that we are interconnected.We're all interconnected. We're not substances that then become connected and related to other substances, rather we emerge as beings through this, our place in this wider whole. That interconnectedness of all things and the idea that individuals are really constituted by their relations is, I think, a Spinoza's insight that George Eliot drew on very deeply and dramatized in her fiction. I think it's there all through her fiction, but it becomes quite explicit in Middlemarch where she talks about, she has this master metaphor of the web.Henry: The web. Right.Clare: In Middlemarch, where everything is part of a web. You put pressure on a bit of it and something changes in another part of the web. That interconnectedness can be understood on multiple levels. Biologically, the idea that tissues are formed in this organic holistic way, rather than we're not composed of parts, like machines, but we're these organic holes. There's a biological idea of the web, which she explores. Also, the economic system of exchange that holds a community together. Then I suppose, perhaps most interestingly, the more emotional and moral features of the web, the way one person's life is bound up with and shaped by their encounters with all the other lives that it comes into contact with.In a way, it's a way of thinking that really, it questions any idea of self-sufficiency, but it also questions traditional ideas of what it is to be an individual. You could see a counterpart to this way of thinking in a prominent 19th-century view of history, which sees history as made by heroic men, basically. There's this book by Carlyle, Thomas Carlyle, called The Heroic in History, or something like that.Henry: Sure. On heroes and the heroic, yes.Clare: Yes. That's a really great example of this way of thinking about history as made by heroes. Emerson wrote this book called Representative Men. These books were published, I think, in the early 1850s. Representative Men. Again, he identifies these certain men, these heroic figures, which represent history in a way. Then a final example of this is Auguste Comte's Positivist Calendar, which, he's a humanist, secularist thinker who wants to basically recreate culture and replace our calendar with this lunar calendar, which, anyway, it's a different calendar, has 13 months.Each month is named after a great man. There's Shakespeare, and there's Dante, and there's-- I don't know, I can't remember. Anyway, there's this parade of heroic men. Napoleon. Anyway, that's the view of history that Eliot grew up with. She was reading, she was really influenced by Carlisle and Emerson and Comte. In that landscape, she is creating this alternative Spinozist vision of what an exemplar can be like and who gets to be an exemplar. Dorothea was a really interesting exemplar because she's unhistoric. At the very end of Middlemarch, she describes Dorothea's unhistoric life that comes to rest in an unvisited tomb.She's obscure. She's not visible on the world stage. She's forgotten once she dies. She's obscure. She's ordinary. She's a provincial woman, upper middle-class provincial woman, who makes some bad choices. She has high ideals but ends up living a life that from the outside is not really an extraordinary life at all. Also, she is constituted by her relations with others in both directions. Her own life is really shaped by her milieu, by her relationships with the people. Also, at the end of the novel, Eliot leaves us with a vision of the way Dorothea's life has touched other lives and in ways that can't be calculated, can't really be recognized. Yet, she has these effects that are diffused.She uses this word, diffusion or diffuseness. The diffuseness of the effects of Dorothea's life, which seep into the world. Of course, she's a woman. She's not a great hero in this Carlyle or Emerson sense. In all these ways, I think this is a very different way of thinking about individuality, but also history and the way the world is made, that history and the world is made by, in this more Spinozist kind of way, rather than by these heroic representative men who stand on the world stage. That's not Spinoza's, that's Eliot's original thinking. She's taking a Spinozist ontology, a Spinozist metaphysics, but really she's creating her own vision with that, that's, of course, located in that 19th-century context.Henry: How sympathetic should we be to Mr. Casaubon?Clare: I feel very sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon because he is so vulnerable. He's a really very vulnerable person. Of course, in the novel, we are encouraged to look at it from Dorothea's point of view, and so when we look at it from Dorothea's point of view, Casaubon is a bad thing. The best way to think about it is the view of Dorothea's sister Celia, her younger sister, who is a very clear-eyed observer, who knows that Dorothea is making a terrible mistake in marrying this man. She's quite disdainful of Casaubon's, well, his unattractive looks.He's only about 40, but he's portrayed as this dried-up, pale-faced scholar, academic, who is incapable of genuine emotional connection with another person, which is quite tragic, really. The hints are that he's not able to have a sexual relationship. He's so buttoned up and repressed, in a way. When we look at it from Dorothea's perspective, we say, "No, he's terrible, he's bad for you, he's not going to be good for you," which of course is right. I think Eliot herself had a lot of sympathy for Casaubon. There's an anecdote which said that when someone asked who Casaubon was based on, she pointed to herself.I think she saw something of herself in him. On an emotional level, I think he's just a fascinating character, isn't he, in a way, from an aesthetic point of view? The point is not do we like Casaubon or do we not like him? I think we are encouraged to feel sympathy with him, even as, on the one, it's so clever because we're taken along, we're encouraged to feel as Celia feels, where we dislike him, we don't sympathize with him. Then Eliot is also showing us how that view is quite limited, I think, because we do occasionally see the world from Casaubon's point of view and see how fearful Casaubon is.Henry: She's also explicit and didactic about the need to sympathize with him, right? It's often in asides, but at one point, she gives over most of a chapter to saying, "Poor Mr. Casaubon. He didn't think he'd end up like this." Things have actually gone very badly for him as well.Clare: Yes, that's right. The didactic thing, George Eliot is sometimes criticized for this didacticism because what's most effective in the novel is not the narrator coming and telling us we should actually feel sorry for Casaubon and we should sympathize with him. We'd be better people if we sympathize with Casaubon. There's a moralizing lecture about, you should feel sympathy for this unlikable person. What is more effective is the subtle way she portrays this character and, as I say, lets us into his vulnerabilities in some obvious ways, as you say, by pointing things out, but also in some more subtle ways of drawing his character and hinting at, as I say, his vulnerabilities.Henry: Doesn't she know, though, that a lot of readers won't actually be very moved by the subtle things and that she does need to put in a lecture to say, "I should tell you that I am very personally sympathetic to Mr. Casaubon and that if you leave this novel hating him, that's not--"? Isn't that why she does it? Because she knows that a lot of readers will say, "I don't care. He's a baddie."Clare: Yes I don't know, that's a good question.Henry: I'm interested because, in The Natural History of German Life, she goes to all these efforts to say abstract arguments and philosophy and statistics and such, these things don't change the world. Stories change the world. A picture of life from a great artist. Then when she's doing her picture of life from a great artist she constantly butts in with her philosophical abstractions because it's, she can't quite trust that the reader will get it right as it were.Clare: Yes, I suppose that's one way of looking at it. You could say that or maybe does she have enough confidence in her ability to make us feel with these characters. That would be another way of looking at it. Whether her lack of confidence and lack of trust is in the reader or in her own power as an artist is probably an open question.Henry: There's a good book by Debra Gettelman about the way that novelists like Eliot knew what readers expected because they were all reading so many cheap romance novels and circulating library novels. There are a lot of negations and arguments with the reader to say, "I know what you want this story to do and I know how you want this character to turn out, but I'm not going to do that. You must go with me with what I'm doing.Clare: Yes. You mean this new book that's come out called Imagining Otherwise?Henry: That's right, yes.Clare: I've actually not read it yet, I've ordered it, but funnily enough, as you said at the beginning, I'm a philosopher so I'm not trained at all as a reader of literary texts or as a literary scholar by any means, and so I perhaps foolishly embarked on this book on George Eliot thinking, "Oh, next I'm going to write a book about George Eliot." Anyway, I ended up going to a couple of conferences on George Eliot, which was interestingly like stepping into a different world. The academic world of literary studies is really different from the world of academic philosophy, interestingly.It's run by women for a start. You go to a conference and it's very female-dominated. There's all these very eminent senior women or at least at this conference I went to there was these distinguished women who were running the show. Then there were a few men in that mix, which is the inverse of often what it can be like in a philosophy conference, which is still quite a male-dominated discipline. The etiquette is different. Philosophers like to criticize each other's arguments. That's the way we show love is to criticize and take down another philosopher's argument.Whereas the academics at this George Eliot conference were much more into acknowledging what they'd learned from other people's work and referencing. Anyway, it's really interestingly different. Debra Gettelman was at this conference.Henry: Oh, great.Clare: She had a book on Middlemarch. I think it was 2019 because it was the bicentenary of Eliot's birth, that's why there was this big conference. Debra, who I'd never met before or heard of, as I just didn't really know this world, gave this amazing talk on Middlemarch and on these negations in Middlemarch. It really influenced me, it really inspired me. The way she did these close readings of the sentences, this is what literary scholars are trained to do, but I haven't had that training and the close reading of the sentences, which didn't just yield interesting insights into the way George Eliot uses language but yielded this really interesting philosophical work where Eliot is using forms of the sentence to explore ontological questions about negation and possibility and modality.This was just so fascinating and really, it was a small paper in one of those parallel sessions. It wasn't one of the big presentations at the conference, but it was that talk that most inspired me at the conference. It's a lot of the insights that I got from Debra Gettelman I ended up drawing on in my own chapter on Middlemarch. I situated it a bit more in the history of philosophy and thinking about negation as a theme.Henry: This is where you link it to Hegel.Clare: Yes, to Hegel, exactly. I was so pleased to see that the book is out because I think I must have gone up to her after the talk and said, "Oh, it's really amazing." Was like, "Oh, thank you." I was like, "Is it published? Can I cite it?" She said, "No. I'm working on this project." It seemed like she felt like it was going to be a long time in the making. Then a few weeks ago, I saw a review of the book in the TLS. I thought, "Oh, amazing, the book is out. It just sounds brilliant." I can't wait to read that book. Yes, she talks about Eliot alongside, I think, Dickens and another.Henry: And Jane Austen.Clare: Jane Austen, amazing. Yes. I think it's to do with, as you say, writing in response to readerly expectation and forming readerly expectations. Partly thanks to Debra Gettelman, I can see how Eliot does that. It'd be really interesting to learn how she sees Jane Austen and Dickens also doing that.Henry: It's a brilliant book. You're in for a treat.Clare: Yes, I'm sure it is. That doesn't surprise me at all.Henry: Now, you say more than once in your book, that Eliot anticipates some of the insights of psychotherapy.Clare: Psychoanalysis.Henry: Yes. What do you think she would have made of Freud or of our general therapy culture? I think you're right, but she has very different aims and understandings of these things. What would she make of it now?Clare: It seems that Freud was probably influenced by Eliot. That's a historical question. He certainly read and admired Eliot. I suspect, yes, was influenced by some of her insights, which in turn, she's drawing on other stuff. What do you have in mind? Your question suggests that you think she might have disapproved of therapy culture.Henry: I think novelists in general are quite ambivalent about psychoanalysis and therapy. Yes.Clare: For what reason?Henry: If you read someone like Iris Murdoch, who's quite Eliotic in many ways, she would say, "Do these therapists ever actually help anyone?"Clare: Ah.Henry: A lot of her characters are sent on these slightly dizzying journeys. They're often given advice from therapists or priests or philosophers, and obviously, Murdoch Is a philosopher. The advice from the therapists and the philosophers always ends these characters up in appalling situations. It's art and literature. As you were saying before, a more diffusive understanding and a way of integrating yourself with other things rather than looking back into your head and dwelling on it.Clare: Of course. Yes.Henry: I see more continuity between Eliot and that kind of thinking. I wonder if you felt that the talking cure that you identified at the end of Middlemarch is quite sound common sense and no-nonsense. It's not lie on the couch and tell me how you feel, is it?Clare: I don't know. That's one way to look at it, I suppose. Another way to look at it would be to see Eliot and Freud is located in this broadly Socratic tradition of one, the idea that if you understand yourself better, then that is a route to a certain qualified kind of happiness or fulfillment or liberation. The best kind of human life there could be is one where we gain insight into our own natures. We bring to light what is hidden from us, whether those are desires that are hidden away in the shadows and they're actually motivating our behavior, but we don't realize it, and so we are therefore enslaved to them.That's a very old idea that you find in ancient philosophy. Then the question is, by what methods do we bring these things to light? Is it through Socratic questioning? Is it through art? Eliot's art is an art that I think encourages us to see ourselves in the characters. As we come to understand the characters, and in particular to go back to what I said before about Spinozism, to see their embeddedness and their interconnectedness in these wider webs, but also in a sense of that embeddedness in psychic forces that they're not fully aware of. Part of what you could argue is being exposed there, and this would be a Spinozist insight, is the delusion of free will.The idea that we act freely with these autonomous agents who have access to and control over our desires, and we pick the thing that's in our interest and we act on that. That's a view that I think Spinoza is very critical. He famously denies free will. He says we're determined, we just don't understand how we're determined. When we understand better how we're determined, then perhaps paradoxically we actually do become relatively empowered through our understanding. I think there's something of that in Eliot too, and arguably there's something of that in Freud as well. I know you weren't actually so much asking about Freud's theory and practice, and more about a therapy culture.Henry: All of it.Clare: You're also asking about that. As I say, the difference would be the method for accomplishing this process of a kind of enlightenment. Of course, Freud's techniques medicalizes that project basically. It's the patient and the doctor in dialogue, and depends a lot on the skills of the doctor, doesn't it? How successful, and who is also a human being, who is also another human being, who isn't of course outside of the web, but is themselves in it, and ideally has themselves already undergone this process of making themselves more transparent to their own understanding, but of course, is going to be liable to their own blind spots, and so on.Henry: Which of her novels do you love the most? Just on a personal level, it doesn't have to be which one you think is the most impressive or whatever.Clare: I'm trying to think how to answer that question. I was thinking if I had to reread one of them next week, which one would I choose? If I was going on holiday and I wanted a beach read for pure enjoyment, which of the novels would I pick up? Probably Middlemarch. I think it's probably the most enjoyable, the most fun to read of her novels, basically.Henry: Sure.Clare: There'd be other reasons for picking other books. I really think Daniel Deronda is amazing because of what she's trying to do in that book. Its ambition, it doesn't always succeed in giving us the reading experience that is the most enjoyable. In terms of just the staggering philosophical and artistic achievement, what she's attempting to do, and what she does to a large extent achieve in that book, I think is just incredible. As a friend of Eliot, I have a real love for Daniel Deronda because I just think that what an amazing thing she did in writing that book. Then I've got a soft spot for Silas Marner, which is short and sweet.Henry: I think I'd take The Mill on the Floss. That's my favorite.Clare: Oh, would you?Henry: I love that book.Clare: That also did pop into my mind as another contender. Yes, because it's so personal in a way, The Mill on the Floss. It's personal to her, it's also personal to me in that, it's the first book by Eliot I read because I studied it for A-Level. I remember thinking when we were at the beginning of that two-year period when I'd chosen my English literature A-Level and we got the list of texts we were going to read, I remember seeing The Mill on the Floss and thinking, "Oh God, that sounds so boring." The title, something about the title, it just sounded awful. I remember being a bit disappointed that it wasn't a Jane Austen or something more fun.I thought, "Oh, The Mill on the Floss." Then I don't have a very strong memory of the book, but I remember thinking, actually, it was better than I expected. I did think, actually, it wasn't as awful and boring as I thought it would be. It's a personal book to Eliot. I think that exploring the life of a mind of a young woman who has no access to proper education, very limited access to art and culture, she's stuck in this little village near a provincial town full of narrow-minded conservative people. That's Eliot's experience herself. It was a bit my experience, too, as, again, not that I even would have seen it this way at the time, but a girl with intellectual appetites and not finding those appetites very easily satisfied in, again, a provincial, ordinary family and the world and so on.Henry: What sort of reader were you at school?Clare: What sort of reader?Henry: Were you reading lots of Plato, lots of novels?Clare: No. I'm always really surprised when I meet people who say things like they were reading Kierkegaard and Plato when they were 15 or 16. No, not at all. No, I loved reading, so I just read lots and lots of novels. I loved Jane Eyre. That was probably one of the first proper novels, as with many people, that I remember reading that when I was about 12 and partly feeling quite proud of myself for having read this grown-up book, but also really loving the book. I reread that probably several times before I was 25. Jane Austen and just reading.Then also I used to go to the library, just completely gripped by some boredom and restlessness and finding something to read. I read a lot and scanning the shelves and picking things out. That way I read more contemporary fiction. Just things like, I don't know, Julian Barnes or, Armistead Maupin, or just finding stuff on the shelves of the library that looked interesting, or Anita Brookner or Somerset Maugham. I really love Somerset Maugham.Henry: Which ones do you like?Clare: I remember reading, I think I read The Razor's Edge first.Henry: That's a great book.Clare: Yes, and just knowing nothing about it, just picking it off the shelf and thinking, "Oh, this looks interesting." I've always liked a nice short, small paperback. That would always appeal. Then once I found a book I liked, I'd then obviously read other stuff by that writer. I then read, so The Razor's Edge and-- Oh, I can't remember.Henry: The Moon and Sixpence, maybe?Clare: Yes, The Moon and Sixpence, and-Henry: Painted Veils?Clare: -Human Bondage.Henry: Of Human Bondage, right.Clare: Human Bondage, which is, actually, he took the title from Spinoza's Ethics. That's the title. Cluelessly, as a teenager, I was like, "Ooh, this book is interesting." Actually, when I look back, I can see that those writers, like Maugham, for example, he was really interested in philosophy. He was really interested in art and philosophy, and travel, and culture, and religion, all the things I am actually interested in. I wouldn't have known that that was why I loved the book. I just liked the book and found it gripping. It spoke to me, and I wanted to just read more other stuff like that.I was the first person in my family to go to university, so we didn't have a lot of books in the house. We had one bookcase. There were a few decent things in there along with the Jeffrey Archers in there. I read everything on that bookshelf. I read the Jeffrey Archers, I read the True Crime, I read the In Cold Blood, just this somewhat random-- I think there was probably a couple of George Eliots on there. A few classics, I would, again, grip by boredom on a Sunday afternoon, just stare at this shelf and think, "Oh, is there anything?" Maybe I'll end up with a Thomas Hardy or something. It was quite limited. I didn't really know anything about philosophy. I didn't think of doing philosophy at university, for example. I actually decided to do history.I went to Cambridge to do history. Then, after a couple of weeks, just happened to meet someone who was doing philosophy. I was like, "Oh, that's what I want to do." I only recognized it when I saw it. I hadn't really seen it because I went to the local state school, it wasn't full of teachers who knew about philosophy and stuff like that.Henry: You graduated in theology and philosophy, is that right?Clare: Yes. Cambridge, the degrees are in two parts. I did Part 1, theology, and then I did Part 2, philosophy. I graduated in philosophy, but I studied theology in my first year at Cambridge.Henry: What are your favorite Victorian biographies?Clare: You mean biographies of Victorians?Henry: Of Victorians, by Victorians, whatever.Clare: I don't really read many biographies.Henry: Oh, really?Clare: [laughs] The first biography I wrote was a biography of Kierkegaard. I remember thinking, when I started to write the book, "I'd better read some biographies." I always tend to read fiction. I'm not a big reader of history, which is so ironic. I don't know what possessed me to go and study history at university. These are not books I read for pleasure. I suppose I am quite hedonistic in my choice of reading, I like to read for pleasure.Henry: Sure. Of course.Clare: I don't tend to read nonfiction. Obviously, I do sometimes read nonfiction for pleasure, but it's not the thing I'm most drawn to. Anyway. I remember asking my editor, I probably didn't mention that I didn't know very much about biography, but I did ask him to recommend some. I'd already got the book contract. I said, "What do you think is a really good biography that I should read?" He recommended, I think, who is it who wrote The Life of Gibbon? Really famous biography of Gibbon.Henry: I don't know.Clare: That one. I read it. It is really good. My mind is going blank. I read many biographies of George Eliot before I wrote mine.Henry: They're not all wonderful, are they?Clare: I really liked Catherine Hughes's book because it brought her down from her pedestal.Henry: Exactly. Yes.Clare: Talking about hedonism, I would read anything that Catherine Hughes writes just for enjoyment because she's such a good writer. She's a very intellectual woman, but she's also very entertaining. She writes to entertain, which I like and appreciate as a reader. There's a couple of big archival biographies of George Eliot by Gordon Haight and by Rosemary Ashton, for example, which are both just invaluable. One of the great things about that kind of book is that it frees you to write a different kind of biography that can be more interpretive and more selective. Once those kinds of books have been published, there's no point doing another one. You can do something more creative, potentially, or more partial.I really like Catherine Hughes's. She was good at seeing through Eliot sometimes, and making fun of her, even though it's still a very respectful book. There's also this brilliant book about Eliot by Rosemary Bodenheimer called The Real Life of Mary Ann Evans. It's a biographical book, but it's written through the letters. She sees Eliot's life through her letters. Again, it's really good at seeing through Eliot. What Eliot says is not always what she means. She can be quite defensive and boastful. These are things that really come out in her letters. Anyway, that's a brilliant book, which again, really helped me to read Eliot critically. Not unsympathetically, but critically, because I tend to fall in love with thinkers that I'm reading. I'm not instinctively critical. I want to just show how amazing they are, but of course, you also need to be critical. Those books were--Henry: Or realistic.Clare: Yes, realistic and just like, "This is a human being," and having a sense of humor about it as well. That's what's great about Catherine Hughes's book, is that she's got a really good sense of humor. That makes for a fun reading experience.Henry: Why do you think more philosophers don't write biographies? It's an unphilosophical activity, isn't it?Clare: That's a very interesting question. Just a week or so ago, I was talking to Clare Mac Cumhaill I'm not quite sure how you pronounce her name, but anyway, so there's--Henry: Oh, who did the four women in Oxford?Clare: Yes. Exactly.Henry: That was a great book.Clare: Yes. Clare MacCumhaill co-wrote this book with Rachael Wiseman. They're both philosophers. They wrote this group biography of Iris Murdoch, Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, and Mary Midgley. I happened to be having dinner with a group of philosophers and sitting opposite her. Had never met her before. It was just a delight to talk to another philosopher who'd written biography. We both felt that there was a real philosophical potential in biography, that thinking about a shape of a human life, what it is to know another person, the connection between a person's life and their philosophy. Even to put it that way implies that philosophy is something that isn't part of life, that you've got philosophy over here and you've got life over there. Then you think about the connection between them.That, when you think about it, is quite a questionable way of looking at philosophy as if it's somehow separate from life or detachment life. We had a really interesting conversation about this. There's Ray Monk's brilliant biography of Wittgenstein, The Duty of Genius. He's another philosopher who's written biography, and then went on to reflect, interestingly, on the relationship between philosophy and biography.I think on the one hand, I'd want to question the idea that biography and philosophy are two different things or that a person's life and their thought are two separate questions. On the other hand, we've got these two different literary forms. One of them is a narrative form of writing, and one of them- I don't know what the technical term for it would be- but a more systematic writing where with systematic writing, it's not pinned to a location or a time, and the structure of the text is conceptual rather than narrative. It's not ordered according to events and chronology, and things happening, you've just got a more analytic style of writing.Those two styles of writing are very, very different ways of writing. They're two different literary forms. Contemporary academic philosophers tend to write, almost always-- probably are pretty much forced to write in the systematic analytic style because as soon as you would write a narrative, the critique will be, "Well, that's not philosophy. That's history," or "That's biography," or, "That's anecdote." You might get little bits of narrative in some thought experiment, but by definition, the thought experiment is never pinned to a particular time, place, or context. "Let's imagine a man standing on a bridge. There's a fat man tied to the railway line [crosstalk]." Those are like little narratives, but they're not pinned. There is a sequencing, so I suppose they are narratives. Anyway, as you can tell, they're quite abstracted little narratives.That interests me. Why is it that narrative is seen as unphilosophical? Particularly when you think about the history of philosophy, and we think about Plato's dialogues, which tend to have a narrative form, and the philosophical conversation is often situated within a narrative. The Phaedo, for example, at the beginning of the book, Socrates is sitting in prison, and he's about to drink his poisoned hemlock. He's awaiting execution. His friends, students, and disciples are gathered around him. They're talking about death and how Socrates feels about dying. Then, at the end of the book, he dies, and his friends are upset about it.Think about, I know, Descartes' Meditations, where we begin in the philosopher's study, and he's describing--Henry: With the fire.Clare: He's by the fire, but he's also saying, "I've reached a point in my life where I thought, actually, it's time to question some assumptions." He's sitting by the fire, but he's also locating the scene in his own life trajectory. He's reached a certain point in life. Of course, that may be a rhetorical device. Some readers might want to say, "Well, that's mere ornamentation. We extract the arguments from that. That's where the philosophy is." I think it's interesting to think about why philosophers might choose narrative as a form.Spinoza, certainly not in the Ethics, which is about as un-narrative as you can get, but in some of his other, he experimented with an earlier version of the Ethics, which is actually like Descartes' meditation. He begins by saying, "After experience had taught me to question all the values I'd been taught to pursue, I started to wonder whether there was some other genuine good that was eternal," and so on. He then goes on to narrate his experiments with a different kind of life, giving up certain things and pursuing other things.Then you come to George Eliot. I think these are philosophical books.Henry: Yes.Clare: The challenge lies in saying, "Well, how are they philosophical?" Are they philosophical because there are certain ideas in the books that you could pick out and say, "Oh, here, she's critiquing utilitarianism. These are her claims." You can do that with Eliot's books. There are arguments embedded in the books. I wouldn't want to say that that's where their philosophical interest is exhausted by the fact that you can extract non-narrative arguments from them, but rather there's also something philosophical in her exploration of what a human life is like and how choices get made and how those choices, whether they're free or unfree, shape a life, shape other lives. What human happiness can we realistically hope for? What does a good life look like? What does a bad life look like? Why is the virtue of humility important?These are also, I think, philosophical themes that can perhaps only be treated in a long-form, i.e., in a narrative that doesn't just set a particular scene from a person's life, but that follows the trajectory of a life. That was a very long answer to your question.Henry: No, it was a good answer. I like it.Clare: Just to come back to what you said about biography. When I wrote my first biography on Kierkegaard, I really enjoyed working in this medium of narrative for the first time. I like writing. I'd enjoyed writing my earlier books which were in that more analytic conceptual style where the structure was determined by themes and by concepts rather than by any chronology. I happily worked in that way. I had to learn how to do it. I had to learn how to write. How do you write a narrative?To come back to the Metaphysical Animals, the group biography, writing a narrative about one person's life is complicated enough, but writing a narrative of four lives, it's a real-- from a technical point of view-- Even if you only have one life, lives are not linear. If you think about a particular period in your subject's life, people have lots of different things going on at once that have different timeframes. You're going through a certain period in your relationship, you're working on a book, someone close to you dies, you're reading Hegel. All that stuff is going on. The narrative is not going to be, "Well, on Tuesday this happened, and then on Wednesday--" You can't use pure chronology to structure a narrative. It's not just one thing following another.It's not like, "Well, first I'll talk about the relationship," which is an issue that was maybe stretching over a three-month period. Then in this one week, she was reading Hegel and making these notes that were really important. Then, in the background to this is Carlisle's view of history. You've got these different temporal periods that are all bearing on a single narrative. The challenge to create a narrative from all that, that's difficult, as any biographer knows. To do that with four subjects at once is-- Anyway, they did an amazing job in that book.Henry: It never gets boring, that book.Clare: No. I guess the problem with a biography is often you're stuck with this one person through the whole--Henry: I think the problem with a biography of philosophers is that it can get very boring. They kept the interest for four thinkers. I thought that was very impressive, really.Clare: Yes, absolutely. Yes. There's a really nice balance between the philosophy and the-- I like to hear about Philippa Foot's taste in cushions. Maybe some readers would say, "Oh, no, that's frivolous." It's not the view I would take. For me, it's those apparently frivolous details that really help you to connect with a person. They will deliver a sense of the person that nothing else will. There's no substitute for that.In my book about Kierkegaard, it was reviewed by Terry Eagleton in the London Review of Books. It was generally quite a positive review. He was a bit sneering about the fact that it had what he calls "domestic flourishes" in the book. I'd mentioned that Kierkegaard's favorite flower was the lily of the valley. He's like, "Huh." He saw these as frivolities, whereas for me, the fact that Kierkegaard had a favorite flower tells us something about the kind of man he was.Henry: Absolutely.Clare: Actually, his favorite flower had all sorts of symbolism attached to it, Kierkegaard, it had 10 different layers of meaning. It's never straightforward. There's interesting value judgments that get made. There's partly the view that anything biographical is not philosophical. It is in some way frivolous or incidental. That would be perhaps a very austere, purest philosophical on a certain conception of philosophy view.Then you might also have views about what is and isn't interesting, what is and isn't significant. Actually, that's a really interesting question. What is significant about a person's life, and what isn't? Actually, to come back to Eliot, that's a question she is, I think, absolutely preoccupied with, most of all in Middlemarch and in Daniel Deronda. This question about what is trivial and what is significant. Dorothea is frustrated because she feels that her life is trivial. She thinks that Casaubon is preoccupied with really significant questions, the key to all mythologies, and so on.Henry: [chuckles]Clare: There's really a deep irony there because that view of what's significant is really challenged in the novel. Casaubon's project comes to seem really futile, petty, and insignificant. In Daniel Deronda, you've got this amazing question where she shows her heroine, Gwendolyn, who's this selfish 20-year-old girl who's pursuing her own self-interest in a pretty narrow way, about flirting and thinking about her own romantic prospects.Henry: Her income.Clare: She's got this inner world, which is the average preoccupation of a silly 20-year-old girl.Henry: Yes. [laughs]Clare: Then Eliot's narrator asks, "Is there a slenderer, more insignificant thread in human history than this consciousness of a girl who's preoccupied with how to make her own life pleasant?" The question she's asking is-- Well, I think she wants to tell us that slender thread of the girl's consciousness is part of the universe, basically. It's integral. It belongs to a great drama of the struggle between good and evil, which is this mythical, cosmic, religious, archetypal drama that gets played out on the scale of the universe, but also, in this silly girl's consciousness.I think she's got to a point where she was very explicitly thematizing that distinction between the significant and the insignificant and playing with that distinction. It comes back to Dorothea's unhistoric life. It's unhistoric, it's insignificant. Yet, by the end of Middlemarch, by the time we get to that description of Dorothea's unhistoric life, this life has become important to us. We care about Dorothea and how her life turned out. It has this grandeur to it that I think Eliot exposes. It's not the grandeur of historic importance, it's some other human grandeur that I think she wants to find in the silly girls as much as in the great men.Henry: I always find remarks like that quite extraordinary. One of the things I want a biography to tell me is, "How did they come to believe these things?" and, "How did they get the work done?" The flowers that he likes, that's part of that, right? It's like Bertrand Russell going off on his bicycle all the time. That's part of how it all happened. I remember Elizabeth Anscombe in the book about the four philosophers, this question of, "How does she do it all when she's got these six children?" There's this wonderful image of her standing in the doorway to her house smoking. The six children are tumbling around everywhere. The whole place is filthy. I think they don't own a Hoover or she doesn't use it. You just get this wonderful sense of, "This is how she gets it done."Clare: That's how you do it.Henry: Yes. The idea that this is some minor domestic trivial; no, this is very important to understanding Elizabeth Anscombe, right?Clare: Yes, of course.Henry: I want all of this.Clare: Yes. One of the things I really like about her is that she unashamedly brings that domesticity into her philosophical work. She'll use examples like, "I go to buy some potatoes from the grocer's." She'll use that example, whereas that's not the thing that-- Oxford dons don't need to buy any potatoes because they have these quasi-monastic lives where they get cooked for and cleaned for. I like the way she chooses those. Of course, she's not a housewife, but she chooses these housewifely examples to illustrate her philosophy.I don't know enough about Anscombe, but I can imagine that that's a deliberate choice. That's a choice she's making. There's so many different examples she could have thought of. She's choosing that example, which is an example, it shows a woman doing philosophy, basically. Of course, men can buy potatoes too, but in that culture, the buying of the potatoes would be the woman's work.Henry: Yes. She wasn't going to run into AJ Ayre at the grocer's.Clare: Probably not, no.Henry: No. Are you religious in any sense?Clare: I think I am in some sense. Yes, "religious," I think it's a really problematic concept. I've written a bit about this concept of religion and what it might mean. I wrote a book on Spinoza called Spinoza's Religion. Part of what I learned through writing the book was that in order to decide whether or not Spinoza was religious, we have to rethink the very concept of religion, or we have to see that that's what Spinoza was doing.I don't know. Some people are straightforwardly religious and I guess could answer that question, say, "Oh yes, I've always been a Christian," or whatever. My answer is a yes and no answer, where I didn't have a religious upbringing, and I don't have a strong religious affiliation. Sorry, I'm being very evasive.Henry: What do you think of the idea that we're about to live through or we are living through a religious revival? More people going to church, more young people interested in it. Do you see that, or do you think that's a blip?Clare: That's probably a question for the social scientists, isn't it? It just totally depends where you are and what community you're--Henry: Your students, you are not seeing students who are suddenly more religious?Clare: Well, no, but my students are students who've chosen to do philosophy. Some of them are religious and some of them are not. It will be too small a sample to be able to diagnose. I can say that my students are much more likely to be questioning. Many of them are questioning their gender, thinking about how to inhabit gender roles differently.That's something I perceive as a change from 20 years ago, just in the way that my students will dress and present themselves. That's a discernible difference. I can remark on that, but I can't remark on whether they're more religious.Just actually just been teaching a course on philosophy of religion at King's. Some students in the course of having discussions would mention that they were Muslim, Christian, or really into contemplative practices and meditation. Some of the students shared those interests. Others would say, "Oh, well, I'm an atheist, so this is--" There's just a range-Henry: A full range.Clare: -of different religious backgrounds and different interests. There's always been that range. I don't know whether there's an increased interest in religion among those students in particular, but I guess, yes, maybe on a national or global level, statistically-- I don't know. You tell me.Henry: What do you think about all these reports that undergraduates today-- "They have no attention span, they can't read a book, everything is TikTok," do you see this or are you just seeing like, "No, my students are fine actually. This is obviously happening somewhere else"?Clare: Again, it's difficult to say because I see them when they're in their classes, I see them in their seminars, I see them in the lectures. I don't know what their attention spans are like in their--Henry: Some of the other people I've interviewed will say things like, "I'll set reading, and they won't do it, even though it's just not very much reading,"-Clare: Oh, I see. Oh, yes.Henry: -or, "They're on the phone in the--" You know what I mean?Clare: Yes.Henry: The whole experience from 10, 20 years ago, these are just different.Clare: I'm also more distracted by my phone than I was 20 years ago. I didn't have a phone 20 years ago.Henry: Sure.Clare: Having a phone and being on the internet is constantly disrupting my reading and my writing. That's something that I think many of us battle with a bit. I'm sure most of us are addicted to our phones. I wouldn't draw a distinction between myself and my students in that respect. I've been really impressed by my students, pleasantly surprised by the fact they've done their reading because it can be difficult to do reading, I think.Henry: You're not one of these people who says, "Oh students today, it's really very different than it was 20 years ago. You can't get them to do anything. The whole thing is--" Some people are apocalyptic about-- Actually, you're saying no, your students are good?Clare: I like my students. Whether they do the reading or not, I'm not going to sit here and complain about them.Henry: No, sure, sure. I think that's good. What are you working on next?Clare: I've just written a book. It came out of a series of lectures I gave on life writing and philosophy, actually. Connected to what we were talking about earlier. Having written the biographies, I started to reflect a bit more on biography and how it may or may not be a philosophical enterprise, and questions about the shape of a life and what one life can transmit to another life. Something about the devotional labor of the biographer when you're living with this person and you're-- It's devotional, but it's also potentially exploitative because often you're using your subjects, of course, without their consent because they're dead. You're presenting their life to public view and you're selling books, so it's devotional and exploitative. I think that's an interesting pairing.Anyway, so I gave these lectures last year in St Andrews and they're going to be published in September.Henry: Great.Clare: I've finished those really.Henry: That's what's coming.Clare: That's what's coming. Then I've just been writing again about Kierkegaard, actually. I haven't really worked on Kierkegaard for quite a few years. As often happens with these things, I got invited to speak on Kierkegaard and death at a conference in New York in November. My initial thought was like, "Oh, I wish it was Spinoza, I don't want to--" I think I got to the point where I'd worked a lot on Kierkegaard and wanted to do other things. I was a bit like, "Oh, if only I was doing Spinoza, that would be more up my street." I wanted to go to the conference, so I said yes to this invitation. I was really glad I did because I went back and read what Kierkegaard has written about death, which is very interesting because Kierkegaard's this quintessentially death-fixated philosopher, that's his reputation. It's his reputation, he's really about death. His name means churchyard. He's doomy and gloomy. There's the caricature.Then, to actually look at what he says about death and how he approaches the subject, which I'd forgotten or hadn't even read closely in the first place, those particular texts. That turned out to be really interesting, so I'm writing-- It's not a book or anything, it's just an article.Henry: You're not going to do a George Eliot and produce a novel?Clare: No. I'm not a novelist or a writer of fiction. I don't think I have enough imagination to create characters. What I love about biography is that you get given the characters and you get given the plots. Then, of course, it is a creative task to then turn that into a narrative, as I said before. The kinds of biography I like to write are quite creative, they're not just purely about facts. I think facts can be quite boring. Well, they become interesting in the context of questions about meaning interpretations by themselves. Again, probably why I was right to give up on the history degree. For me, facts are not where my heart is.That amount of creativity I think suits me well, but to create a world as you do when you're a novelist and create characters and plots, and so, that doesn't come naturally to me. I guess I like thinking about philosophical questions through real-life stories. It's one way for philosophy to be connected to real life. Philosophy can also be connected to life through fiction, of course, but it's not my own thing. I like to read other people's fiction. I'm not so bothered about reading other biographies.Henry: No. No, no.[laughter]Clare: I'll write the biographies, and I'll read the fiction.Henry: That's probably the best way. Clare Carlisle, author of The Marriage Question, thank you very much.Clare: Oh, thanks, Henry. It's been very fun to talk to you.Henry: Yes. It was a real pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk/subscribe

Nicole Zuraitis is a 2X GRAMMY® winning and 4X GRAMMY-nominated jazz singer-songwriter, pianist and arranger, New York-based bandleader, and winner of the prestigious 2021 American Traditions Vocal Competition Gold Medal. With a “heart as big as her remarkable voice,” (Jazz Police), Nicole is a trailblazing artist who isredefining vocal jazz, earning her a place as one of the top artists and "prolificsongwriters" (Broadway World) to watch in jazz and beyond. As a recording artist, Nicole has released five albums as leader, and her sixth albumHow Love Begins, co-produced with eight-time GRAMMY-winner Christian McBride,features all original music and was awarded the 2024 GRAMMY for BEST JAZZVOCAL ALBUM. Nicole is the only artist ever to have won this award who wrote andarranged the entire album herself. In addition to leading her quartet, Nicole performedand recorded with the Birdland Big Band as premier vocalist before taking off as a large ensemble leader of her own, co-producing the Dan Pugach Big Band and guesting for major European big bands. She has headlined at Newport Jazz Festival, Melbourne International Jazz Festival, and Tanglewood, along with iconic NYC jazz clubs like Dizzy’s Club at Jazz at Lincoln Center, Birdland, the Blue Note, the Carlyle, 54 Below and the late, great 55 Bar. She also has appeared as a featured soloist with the Savannah Philharmonic, Asheville Symphony, and Macon Pops. Nicole is a featured artist and producer on her husband, renowned drummer,bandleader, and composer Dan Pugach’s 2025 GRAMMY-winning album, “BiancaReimagined: Music for Paws and Persistence” (Best Large Ensemble) for which theycomposed the GRAMMY-nominated song, “Little Fears” (Best Jazz Performance). Nicole is a vocalist on the GRAMMY-winning “Last Sunday in Plains: A CentennialCelebration” alongside Jon Batiste, Keb’ Mo’, and LeeAnn Rimes. In 2024, BroadwayWorld honored Nicole with the “Best Big Band Show” Award. Nicole's arrangement ofDolly Parton's Jolene, co-written with renowned drummer and bandleader Dan Pugach, was nominated for a 2019 GRAMMY®, springboarding her career and making her a household name in the modern-day jazz landscape. Nicole has collaborated with an extensive list of luminaries, including Christian McBride, David Cook, Gilad Hekselman, Veronica Swift, Benny Benack, Stephen Feifke, Cyrille Aimee, Antonio Sanchez, Dave Stryker, Omar Hakim, Rachel Z, Helen Sung, Melanie, Morgan James, Darren Criss, Livingston Taylor, and Bernard Purdie. She is a proud educator and currently vocal faculty at NYU and SUNY Purchase. FOLLOW HARMONYTALK PODCAST @harmonytalkpodcast Join Our Mailing List: https://mailchi.mp/fa5d124c4e19/harmonytalk-mailing-list Instagram: https://instagram.com/harmonytalkpodcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/harmonytalkpodcast YouTube: https://youtube.com/@HarmonyTALKPodcast LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/harmonytalkpodcast https://harmonytalkpodcast.com/ Follow Host, Greg Frigoletto: https://www.instagram.com/gjfrig7/ Email harmonytalkpodcast@gmail.com for sponsorship and guest opportunities! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Cloud 9fin, Tanvi Gupta, global head of CLOs at 9fin, talks with Carlyle's Lauren Basmadjian, global head of liquid credit, and Matt Maxwell, head of US loans, to discuss how CLO managers are positioning themselves in the current tariff induced volatility.They talk about taking advantage of the dislocation in the market, sector specific tariff risk, opportunities for a pull to par trade, how to pick the right assets with the current backdrop of LME risk and how these pockets of volatility could be another positive data point for CLOs.

According to Carlyle today is the greatest day in American History as we are to see the end of Low flow showers and toilets. low flow sucks! Plus Sam Bregman to announce his Gubernatorial run. Then Senator Ben Ray Lujan comes in to talk to TJ on News Radio KKOB See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hoosiers are going to be a highly functional team next year - despite their transfer class not being as highly ranked as last year. Ballo, Goode, Rice, Carlyle, and Hatton were ranked in the top five, but never competed to the level of their rankings. Houston looks like the tougher team - plus they are the #1 defensive team in basketball as well as the top three point shooting team. Hard to pick against that kind of team, but I WANT Florida to win! Joe Flacco has retire from being a pretty good quarterback and terrible mentor! Yarden Garzon has committed to Maryland! https://mybookie.website/joinwithKENT Promocode: KENT Here is the link for the world's greatest autobiographical book featuring only the mistakes the author has made: https://www.amazon.com/Oops-Art-Learning-Mistakes-Adventures/dp/173420740X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kanaan Carlyle transferring! Bryson Tucker and Luke Goode lone remain! Hate for players leaving - no. Just pity. LeBron tip wins for Lakers over Pacers! Sweet 16 tonight as brackets get serious! Jim Nantz to retire after 20236 Masters! Illinois State wins CBI! Loyola on to Hinkle in NIT - over Dopey Rob Senderoff and Kent State! https://mybookie.website/joinwithKENT Promocode: KENT Buying or selling a home in Indy - call Sean Hartwick NOW - (317) 373-3724. InstaGram - https://www.instagram.com/the317agent/ Here is the link for the world's greatest autobiographical book featuring only the mistakes the author has made: https://www.amazon.com/Oops-Art-Learning-Mistakes-Adventures/dp/173420740X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tariffs have rattled the markets, but Carlyle co-founder and chairman David Rubenstein says they won't push us into a recession. He suspects M&A could pick up soon, though at a discount. Rubenstein discusses owning the Orioles and his departure from the chairman role at The Kennedy Center. “How to Build a Happy Life” host and AEI President Emeritus Arthur Brooks has hope for America's future, despite partisan vitriol. Plus, a Signal group chat has made it out of the White House and into news headlines, and Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway March Madness bracket competition has a winner–or 12.  Arthur Brooks - 14:53David Rubenstein - 31:18 In this episode:Becky Quick, @BeckyQuickJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkKatie Kramer, @Kramer_Katie

Theresa chats to pioneering precognitive dream Professor, Carlyle T Smith, PhD, C Psych. Carlyle is lifetime Professor Emeritus at Trent University, Canada and director of Trent University Sleep Research Laboratories. He has published widely on the subject of sleep and dreams and his work has been the subject of numerous radio and TV documentaries.To email Carlyle, order Heads Up Dreaming and find out more:carlyleheadsup@gmail.comTo find out more about Theresa's bestselling dream, intuition, afterlife, astrology and mystical titles and mission, and order her latest title, Dreaming of Your Future, visit:Www.theresacheung.comYou can contact Theresa via @thetheresacheung on Instagram and her author pages on Facebook and Twitter and you can email her directly at: angeltalk710@aol.comThank you to Cluain Ri for the blissful episode music.White Shores is produced by Matthew Cooper  

US equity futures are higher after Wednesday's gains. European markets opened little changed, and Asian equities ended mixed. Markets reacted positively to a dovish-leaning Fed policy decision. The Fed kept rates unchanged and signaled greater uncertainty around the economic outlook, driven largely by ongoing tariff concerns. Although policymakers downgraded the US GDP growth outlook and raised inflation forecasts, Chair Powell indicated that tariff-driven inflation pressures may be temporary. The Fed also decided to slow the pace of quantitative tightening starting April 1st. Elsewhere, Ukraine's President Zelenskiy voiced support for a ceasefire focused on energy infrastructure during discussions with President Trump, with both sides agreeing to collaborate on air defense systems and Ukraine's electricity supply.Companies Mentioned: SoftBank, Ampere, Carlyle, Oracle, Beacon Roofing Supply, QXO, NVIDIA, Intel

Chcete-li podpořit tuto i další Konference Svobodného přístavu, prosím, pošlete dobrovolný příspěvek v krypto či korunách! BTC: 34xD6RUfqvjfbDRtahNqX3Ecf6iRSH9dNG LTC: LKcFtAi7U2dUaAiKspVpg3AFmmJzKiBiPr Číslo účtu: 2201359764/2010; variabilní symbol: 5 -------- Čtvrtým přednášejícím „Konference Svobodného přístavu 2025: Kulturní války včera, dnes a zítra“ byl Vláďa Krupa se svou přednáškou „Historie kulturních válek“. Politická agitace od masového rozšiřování volebního práva probíhá nejen přímými metodami, jako jsou předvolební kampaně nebo reklamní spoty, ale také prostřednictvím nepřímých vlivů, které mají dlouhodobý a často nenápadný dopad na veřejné mínění. Těmito nepřímými metodami jsou například romány, písně, divadelní hry, filmy a další formy masově konzumované kultury. Tyto kulturní vlivy často formují politické názory lidí, kteří se straní přímým politickým poselstvím. Příklad vlivu těchto kulturních metod je proces, který probíhal ve Velké Británii 19. století. Tam se kombinací literárních vlivů a programů Fabiánské společnosti podařilo přetvořit étos klasického liberalismu na evoluční socialismus. Klíčovými postavami této změny byli například John Stuart Mill, Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb nebo autoři jako Carlyle, Ruskin a Kingsley. Tento proces přeměny veřejného mínění z vnímání státní moci jako brzdícího faktoru pokroku na vnímání státu jako záruky svobody a motoru pokroku byl do značné míry dosažen právě nenásilnou cestou kulturních vlivů. Vladimír Krupa je spoluzakladatel českého Mises institutu, organizace zaměřující se na šíření myšlenek rakouské ekonomické školy a svobody jednotlivce. Jako významný překladatel a autor článků se dlouhodobě věnuje tématům hospodářských dějin a peněžní historie, což mu umožňuje pohled na kulturní války z unikátního ekonomického a historického úhlu.

Today on Dry Powder, we're sharing a live recording from this year's NEXUS conference in Orlando, Florida. My guest is Brian Bernasek, Co-Head of Americas Corporate Private Equity at Carlyle. We had a wide-ranging discussion about his market outlook for 2025, how he thinks about sector expertise at scale, the rising cost of alpha, and, of course, AI. Our conversation touches on many of the key themes in Bain's Global Private Equity Report, which we've linked to below, but Brian is one of those rare investors who can actually bring these themes to life. Read Bain's 2025 Global Private Equity Report, here.

Carlyle Group Inc. Chief Executive Officer Harvey Schwartz said he expects increased market volatility in the wake of President Donald Trump’s tariffs on the biggest US trading partners. He is joined by Bloomberg's Sonali Basak.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The distributed generation market is shifting rapidly as capital tightens, power prices rise, and smaller developers bump up against capital and market constraints. Independent power producers (IPPs) like Aspen Power are stepping in to bridge the gap—partnering with developers, securing financing, and scaling solar assets in key markets. But what does it take to succeed in today's distributed energy sector? And what does distributed energy mean in today's evolving market?Jorge Vargas, co-founder and CEO of Aspen Power, has spent over two decades in structured finance and solar project development, with past roles at Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, and Lennar Homes. Aspen Power emerged from his work at Energy Impact Partners, where he identified the need for a full-scale IPPs focused on distributed generation. Backed by private equity firm Carlyle, Aspen Power has grown rapidly, now managing over 250MW of assets. Jorge breaks down how they are reshaping distributed generation through innovative financing, project buybacks, repowering existing assets, and long-term investment in clean energy infrastructure. Expect to learn:Why smaller developers are struggling to access capital—and how Aspen is helpingThe four market segments driving distributed generation todayHow Aspen's buyback strategy is unlocking new value in older solar assetsThe role of Safe Harbor in securing ITC benefits amid policy uncertaintyThe biggest regulatory and financial challenges facing developers in 2025If you want to connect with today's guest, you'll find links to his contact info in the show notes on the blog at https://mysuncast.com/suncast-episodes/.Our Platinum Presenting Sponsor for SunCast is CPS America!SunCast is proudly supported by Trina Solar.You can learn more about all the sponsors who help make this show free for you at www.mysuncast.com/sponsors.Remember, you can always find resources, learn more about today's guest and explore recommendations, book links, and more than 730 other founder stories and startup advice at www.mysuncast.com.Subscribe to Valence, our weekly LinkedIn Newsletter, and learn the elements of compelling storytelling: https://www.linkedin.com/newsletters/valence-content-that-connects-7145928995363049472/You can connect with me, Nico Johnson, on:Twitter - https://www.twitter.com/nicomeoLinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/nickalus

Happy Thursday! Here's a quick look at our top local stories for Thursday, February 27, 2025. Find the complete articles in today's paper and online at iolaregister.com. Thanks for reading and listening local!

The best credit opportunity lies in middle-market collateralized loan obligation equity, according to Carlyle. “It is a newer market and not everyone’s investing and chasing that asset class,” said Lauren Basmadjian, the firm’s global head of liquid credit. “We’re seeing mid-to-high teens IRRs,” Basmadjian tells Bloomberg News’ James Crombie and Bloomberg Intelligence’s Mike Campellone in the latest Credit Edge podcast. That compares to 12%-13% internal rates of return from CLOs backed by broadly syndicated loans, she adds. Basmadjian and Campellone also discuss growing risk from liability management exercises, private/public debt convergence, default rates, M&A and European leveraged loan market opportunities.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Begbie himself, and surely a frontrunner for British cinema's scariest man (on screen only, we might add), is our guest this week—it's Robert Carlyle. This time he's playing staunchly moral councilor Sam Hagen in new Netflix drama ‘Toxic Town'. Penned by Jack Thorne (of course), and with a cracking cast of Jodie Whittaker, Aimee Lou Wood, Rory Kinnear and more alongside Carlyle, it tells the true story of the Corby poisonings. Following the closure of the town's steelworks, mismanagement of toxic waste begins to affect the health of local mothers and their babies—who are dismissed by the council and must fight for justice. Robert unpacks his character, and gives us the screen zinger of the year that had us reaching for the birdsong button... Mark reviews ‘Toxic Town', as well as Indian feelgood flick ‘Superboys of Malegaon'. The Hindi language film follows a gang of amateur filmmakers whose shoestring budget spoofs of their favourite Bollywood hits become a cult phenomenon. Plus, Gia Coppola's ‘The Last Showgirl'--the story of a Las Vegas dancer's fading glamour, starring Pamela Anderson in a critically acclaimed comeback performance. All the usual box office madness and top takes from our emergency mailers too. Don't miss it! Timecodes (for Vanguardistas listening ad-free): Superboys of Malegaon Review: 09:24 Toxic Town Review: 44:10 Robert Carlyle Interview: 30:19 Laughter Lift: 49:30 The Last Showgirl Review: 55:53 You can contact the show by emailing correspondence@kermodeandmayo.com or you can find us on social media, @KermodeandMayo EXCLUSIVE NordVPN Deal ➼ https://nordvpn.com/take Try it risk-free now with a 30-day money-back guarantee! A Sony Music Entertainment production. Find more great podcasts from Sony Music Entertainment at sonymusic.com/podcasts and follow us @sonypodcasts To advertise on this show contact: podcastadsales@sonymusic.com And to find out more about Sony's new show Origins with Cush Jumbo, click here Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

There was a high point this week for employees riding the rollercoaster that is currently the FDA, as 300 recently fired employees are reportedly being asked to return. This could serve to boost spirits at the agency, which is reeling from unpredictable and seemingly ‘indiscriminate' layoffs—and low morale as a result.   Trump made additional waves over the weekend, threatening to enact tariffs on the largest pharmaceutical companies—unless they relocate their manufacturing operations to the U.S. And the early impacts of the new administration continue to be felt, as the CDC's vaccine advisory board postponed its first meeting of 2025—just a week after RFK Jr.'s confirmation as HHS secretary.   In weight loss news, the Outsourcing Facilities Association (OFA), which represents compounders, is suing the FDA after the agency declared an end to the shortage of semaglutide, marketed by Novo Nordisk as Ozempic and Wegovy. This followed a similar OFA lawsuit last fall, filed after the FDA removed Eli Lilly's tirzepatide— Zepbound and Mounjaro—from its shortage list. In a possible attempt to protect Zepbound from compounder competition, Lilly announced Tuesday that it will expand single dose vials options of the blockbuster weight loss drug at a reduced price. This all comes as a new study compares physician wishlists with investment in the obesity space—and reveals key indicators for drug developers.  And it's been a good news/bad news kind of week in gene therapy, as Pfizer discontinued hemophilia B drug Beqvez worldwide, Regeneron reported more positive data from its gene therapy for genetic deafness and, facing a cash crunch, bluebird bio elected to go private in an acquisition by global investment firms Carlyle and SK Capital Partners.   Finally, let us leave you with a ghost story—the story of so-called “ghost assets” that have found a new home, and a new purpose.  

Anthony Leal misses kick! Mike Woodson keeps Mgbako and Carlyle on bench in second half. Purdue loses fourth straight! Mike Woodson still correctly ending run at IU next month! Matt Painter says so very smart things about IU fans - but how they behave is not their fault! Pacers get third straight win with Nuggets visiting tonight! https://mybookie.website/joinwithKENT Promocode: KENT Buying or selling a home in Indy - text "value" to Sean Hartwick - (317) 373-3724. InstaGram - https://www.instagram.com/the317agent/ Here is the link for the world's greatest autobiographical book featuring only the mistakes the author has made: https://www.amazon.com/Oops-Art-Learning-Mistakes-Adventures/dp/173420740X Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Today, Rev. Wendy Craig-Purcell concludes her "Healthy Relationship" series by highlighting the importance of nurturing intimacy through quality time, strong social networks, and supportive environments. Shared activities, meaningful conversations, and silent companionship, like the bond between Emerson and Carlyle, deepen connections. Spiritual traditions, such as Shabbat dinners and Iftar meals, also emphasize relationship-building. Communities, like the Islamic Ummah and Buddhist Sangha, play a key role, as do relationship-friendly spaces like Talk Zones and intentional communities. Ultimately, fostering love and support enhances both personal and communal well-being.~ Website: http://www.theunitycenter.net ~ Download Our New App: https://theunitycenter.churchcenter.com/setup~ Ask Yourself This: https://www.amazon.com/Ask-Yourself-This-Questions-Expand/dp/087159336X~ Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://bit.ly/2hBqp7F ~ Purchase Lesson Series Packages: https://theunitycenter.net/sunday-series-packages~ Listen to our Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/6YJWcAhQUnkEHFqBXQmz1G

On Valentine's night at the Carlyle's grand gala, Sophie and James execute their final plan to catch the killer. Their public debut as a matched couple becomes deadly when Sarah reveals herself as the mastermind, forcing Sophie to confront her past decisions. Between passionate encounters and lethal confrontations, Sophie and James must decide if their attraction is worth dying for. The episode culminates in a rooftop showdown where love proves as dangerous as bullets, and their perfect match becomes a matter of survival.Unlock an ad-free podcast experience with Caloroga Shark Media! Get all our shows on any player you love, hassle free! For Apple users, hit the banner on your Apple podcasts app. For Spotify or other players, visit caloroga.com/plus. No plug-ins needed!Subscribe now for exclusive shows like 'Palace Intrigue,' and get bonus content from Deep Crown (our exclusive Palace Insider!) Or get 'Daily Comedy News,' and '5 Good News Stories' with no commercials! Plans start at $4.99 per month, or save 20% with a yearly plan at $49.99. Join today and help support the show!We now have Merch!  FREE SHIPPING! Check out all the products like T-shirts, mugs, bags, jackets and more with logos and slogans from your favorite shows! Did we mention there's free shipping? Get 10% off with code NewMerch10 Go to Caloroga.comGet more info from Caloroga Shark Media and if you have any comments, suggestions, or just want to get in touch our email is info@caloroga.com

Tener una gran fortuna no convierte a nadie en héroe  o heroína aunque ayuda a la promoción de cualquier idea. Perder o sacrificar la fortuna por una idea es una de las cosas que puede convertir a una persona común en héroe.Hace todos los años del mundo cuando me dijeron que para entender el mundo debía leer los Clásicos que leía los señores Carlyle y Emerson. Thomas Carlyle y Ralph Waldo Emerson que escribieron Los héroes y los hombres representativos.Las disquisiciones intelectuales muy fundamentadas de ambos llevan al mundo a reflexionar cómo sería nuestra vida sin la presencia de algunos seres humanos que en común han estado dispuestos a sacrificar fortunas, bienes, familia, salud y lo más importante su propia vida por las ideas que defienden.Desde Aristoteles para acá la humanidad discute si las sociedades han hecho a los hombre ser o estar de alguna manera o si los hombres y claro está las mujeres han sido quienes han moldeado las sociedades.Sin importar el método de análisis lo cierto es que el sacrificio por una causa, cual que sea, es lo que puede hacer de un común un héroe o una heroína.Bolivar y Duarte, por ejemplo, sacrificaron bienes, vida y fortuna por la independencia de sus países. Madame Curie sacrificó su salud y su vida por la ciencia.Aunque ahora hay mucha gente que no quiere oír eso, los militares constitucionalistas fueron héroes.Los cientos de jóvenes asesinados en la dictadura de los 12 años que sacrificaron su vida se convirtieron en héroes. La sociedad les reconoce ser víctimas de persecuciones, de maltratos, de prisiones y aun así siguieron defendiendo su idea del país mejor. No se trata de si tenían razón o no, se trata del sacrificio.Escuchar hoy día a gente del mundo de la farándula hablar de persecución, horas después de tomarse una foto tomando un trago en un restaurante caro, es risible. Les he dicho que estoy harta de las relaciones públicas de los políticos que pretenden un espacio sin plantear posiciones políticas, pero ahora son los falsos héroes. Con dinero se puede casi  todo y si el propietario del dinero quiere hacer mucho daño lo hará en la proporción de su fortuna, pero, con dinero nadie se convierte en héroe. Es más ni siquiera se convierte en decente. 

Al TapperProducer of AMT TheaterAl Tapper wears many hats.  Besides being Producer of AMT, he considers himself a renaissance man whose various careers as a Broadway composer, lyricist, playwright, humorist, baseball maven, leveraged buyout specialist and philanthropist have woven a rich tapestry of distinction and success. He recently won a prestigious Peabody Award for excellence in broadcasting for his exuberant 2013 documentary Broadway Musicals: A Jewish Legacy; this follows his acclaimed 2004 film “Broadway: The Golden Age”. He has written songs and lyrics for numerous musicals, including Sessions, An Evening at the Carlyle, From Where I Stand, National Pastime, All Aboard, The Paparazzi, David and more. He is co-author of two joke books — A Minister, a Priest, and a Rabbi and A Guy Goes into a Bar – and is a notable collector of baseball memorabilia.  His musical National Pastime has played in Cooperstown and his latest documentary on the great hitter Ted Williams is available online.Tony SportielloArtistic DirectorTony Sportiello is a playwright and producer whose work has been seen all over the country and all over the world.  Along with Al Tapper he has written the book for the shows National Pastime, All Aboard, The Paparazzi and Upside Down.  National Pastime has played in New York, Washington, Phoenix, Austin, Wilkes Barre, The Major League Hall of Fame in Cooperstown and Guadalajara, Mexico.  His play Star Power has been performed in London, Tickets, Please! in Los Angeles and Crossed Wires in China.  He produced the musical Sessions, which ran for 300 performances Off Broadway.  The ultimate goal is to have a Broadway show but in the meantime he's looking to work with theater artists and colleagues to help make AMT the ultimate 'regional theater' for Hell's Kitchen, bringing original shows, children's theater, cabaret and more to the area. 

Elon Musk will withdraw his $97.4 billion bid for OpenAI's nonprofit arm if the ChatGPT maker stops its conversion into a for-profit entity, according to a court filing. Geoff Lewis, Bedrock founder and an investor in OpenAI, discusses AI competition, Elon Musk, and more. President Trump announced new 25% tariffs on all steel and aluminum imports into the U.S., on top of existing metals duties, in another major escalation of his trade policy overhaul. Jeff Currie, Carlyle chief strategy officer of energy pathways, discusses the impact of President Trump's tariffs on commodities, producer inflation, and the state of U.S. oil production. Plus, Alibaba says it will be Apple's AI partner in China, and President Trump announced his call with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, during which they discussed negotiating to end the war in Ukraine. Geoff Lewis - 8:46Jeff Currie - 17:20 In this episode:Geoff Lewis, @GeoffLewisOrgJoe Kernen, @JoeSquawkBecky Quick, @BeckyQuickAndrew Ross Sorkin, @andrewrsorkinCameron Costa, @CameronCostaNY

In this episode, Scott Becker dives into the challenges facing private equity firms like KKR, Carlyle, and Blackstone.

In this episode, Scott Becker dives into the challenges facing private equity firms like KKR, Carlyle, and Blackstone.

In this episode, Anthony and Stephen break down HSBC's decision to scale back parts of its investment banking business, what's driving the move and what it means for the industry. They also dive into Venture Global's troubled IPO, WH Smith's evolving retail strategy, and what Carlyle has to do with private yachts and prosecco vineyards!(00:00) What's on the docket this week(01:52) HSBC's Strategic Shift in Investment Banking(11:26) Venture Global's Troubled IPO(19:02) WH Smith's Retail Challenges and Opportunities(30:33) Carlisle's Controversial Funding in Italy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our student Jesus came to us from a non-target school that sends less than 5 people into investment banking each year. Prior to WSMM, he submitted 50 applications and couldn't get any interviews. After working with us, he secured his first internship within just 1.5 weeks. Hear how he ultimately finished his recruiting process by becoming the first person from his school to receive an offer from private equity megafund Carlyle. Want help securing an offer from a top tier firm on Wall Street? Apply here: wallstmastermind.com/applyutm_source=podcastep321

Carlyle co-founder David Rubenstein, and the firm's CEO, Harvey Schwartz, spoke with Barron's editor-at-large Andy Serwer. This interview was recorded on Jan. 22, 2025, at the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

ALTER EGO is the follow up stand-alone sequel to Alex Segura's thrilling LA Times Book Prize-winning novel, Secret Identity, centered around the world of comic books and featuring another Cuban-American heroine. Acclaimed comic book artist Annie Bustamante believes she's done with the comic book industry, but when an opportunity arises to tackle the Lethal Lynx, one of her longtime favorite superheroes, she's not sure she can pass it up. When Triumph Comics' newest CEO Bert Carlyle, son of its founder Jeffrey Carlyle, proposes for her to tell the Lynx's story Annie is hesitant to accept the offer. What makes matters worse is the ambiguity around who exactly owns the rights to the Lynx, Carlyle's desire to pair her with a disgraced filmmaker for a tie-in media play, and the anonymous messages she's been receiving telling her not to trust anyone. Chasing after the spark she felt when she first picked up her issue of The Legendary Lynx #1, Annie is determined to tell the story her way even if she uncovers dark secrets about the beloved character. In Annie's story, Segura celebrates the childlike wonder and transportive storytelling power of comic books and pays homage to the overlooked and underrepresented storytellers.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.

Rodger Carlyle beats that Dos Equis guy for the title of "most interesting man in the world." He is a storyteller who draws on an enormous personal library of experiences. He's an adventurer, political strategist, and ghostwriter whose love of flying began in the Navy. Visit his website at  ⁠www.rodgercarlyle.com/⁠ Spies, Lies and Private Eyes is copyrighted by Authors on the Air Global Radio Network ⁠#authorsofinstagram⁠ ⁠#authorinterview⁠ ⁠#writingcommunity⁠ ⁠#authorsontheair⁠ ⁠#suspensebooks⁠ ⁠#authorssupportingauthors⁠ ⁠#thrillerbooks⁠ ⁠#suspense⁠ ⁠#wip⁠ ⁠#writers⁠#writersinspiration ⁠#books⁠ ⁠#bookrecommendations⁠ ⁠#bookaddict⁠ ⁠#bookaddicted⁠ ⁠#bookaddiction⁠ ⁠#bibliophile⁠ ⁠#read⁠ ⁠#amreading⁠ ⁠#lovetoread⁠ ⁠#terrencemccauley⁠ ⁠#terrencemccauleybooks⁠ ⁠#bookouture⁠ ⁠#thrillers⁠ ⁠#Chicago63⁠ ⁠#KerrySchafer⁠ ⁠#RodgerCarlyle⁠ ⁠#TheDragonTheEelTheJaguar

Hamilton Leithauser is a musician most known for his band, The Walkmen. He returns to chat about a bit about his new record, This Side Of The Island, as well as a full report on the fires in Los Angeles from Jason's point of view. Jimmy Carter's funeral, air quality, nut taps, the Trump biopic, producing the music for Pete Buttigiegg's podcast, and the new Jon Hamm TV show, Dennis Quaid gave him a root beer flavored vape, what alcohol he likes to sip, black & milds, which reunion tours work and which don't, his upcoming residency at The Carlyle in New York, dealing with dinner theater hecklers, working at The Met while his hit record was out, Slanted and Enchanted, oaked chardonnay, what tickets he has to get to win daughter points, and a nasty story out of Florida. instagram.com/hamiltonleithauser twitter.com/donetodeath twitter.com/themjeans howlonggone Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Journalist Carlyle seeks answers from rogue ranger Adam Haggler about mysterious deaths in the Pisgah National Forest. Instead, he uncovers a dark secret: the rangers are shapeshifters bound by ancient rules. When Shadow Eyes, a vengeful ranger, storms Carlyle's home, the journalist reveals his own monstrous truth—a bear-like transformation born from their curse. Check out the new horror podcast, After Dark, here: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3gZikZZldwY6J7vFCLV7ox Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/after-dark/id1778979797 Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8f53d71d-0339-4176-b0d9-14a13621f15a  Author: Jake Bible Huge thanks to our sponsors: BetterHelp: Head to betterhelp.com/dns to get 10% off your first month. Acorns: Head to acorns.com/nosleeppod or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. * * * EXPLICIT CONTENT DISCLAIMER: This episode contains explicit content not limited to intense themes, strong language, and graphic depictions of violence intended for adults 18 years of age or older. These stories are NOT intended for children under the age of 18. Parental guidance is strongly advised for children under the age of 18. Listener discretion is advised. #drnosleep #scarystories #horrorstories #doctornosleep #truescarystories #horrorpodcast #horror Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Journalist Carlyle seeks answers from rogue ranger Adam Haggler about mysterious deaths in the Pisgah National Forest. Instead, he uncovers a dark secret: the rangers are shapeshifters bound by ancient rules. When Shadow Eyes, a vengeful ranger, storms Carlyle's home, the journalist reveals his own monstrous truth—a bear-like transformation born from their curse. Check out the new horror podcast, After Dark, here: Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3gZikZZldwY6J7vFCLV7ox Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/after-dark/id1778979797 Amazon Music: https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8f53d71d-0339-4176-b0d9-14a13621f15a  Author: Jake Bible Huge thanks to our sponsors: BetterHelp: Head to betterhelp.com/dns to get 10% off your first month. Acorns: Head to acorns.com/nosleeppod or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. * * * EXPLICIT CONTENT DISCLAIMER: This episode contains explicit content not limited to intense themes, strong language, and graphic depictions of violence intended for adults 18 years of age or older. These stories are NOT intended for children under the age of 18. Parental guidance is strongly advised for children under the age of 18. Listener discretion is advised. #drnosleep #scarystories #horrorstories #doctornosleep #truescarystories #horrorpodcast #horror Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On episode 171 of The Compound and Friends, Michael Batnick and Downtown Josh Brown are joined by Harvey Schwartz, CEO of Carlyle and former president of Goldman Sachs to discuss Harvey's remarkable journey through the financial industry. In this episode, Harvey tells us about his early career as a fitness instructor and cold-caller, lessons learned during the 2008 financial crisis, saving Goldman during the financial crisis, Carlyles current momentum, and the rise of private equity and private credit. This episode is sponsored by Van Eck and Public. To learn more about Van Eck's Uranium and Nuclear ETF, visit: http://vaneck.com/NLR Lock in a 6% or higher yield with a Public Bond Account. Learn more at: https://public.com/compound Sign up for The Compound Newsletter and never miss out! Instagram: https://instagram.com/thecompoundnews Twitter: https://twitter.com/thecompoundnews LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-compound-media/ A Bond Account is a self-directed brokerage account with Public Investing, member FINRA/SIPC. Deposits into this account are used to purchase 10 investment-grade and high-yield bonds. As of 9/26/24, the average, annualized yield to worst (YTW) across the Bond Account is greater than 6%. A bond's yield is a function of its market price, which can fluctuate; therefore, a bond's YTW is not “locked in” until the bond is purchased, and your yield at time of purchase may be different from the yield shown here. The “locked in” YTW is not guaranteed; you may receive less than the YTW of the bonds in the Bond Account if you sell any of the bonds before maturity or if the issuer defaults on the bond. Public Investing charges a markup on each bond trade. See our Fee Schedule. Bond Accounts are not recommendations of individual bonds or default allocations. The bonds in the Bond Account have not been selected based on your needs or risk profile. See https://public.com/disclosures/bond-account to learn more. Investing involves the risk of loss. This podcast is for informational purposes only and should not be or regarded as personalized investment advice or relied upon for investment decisions. Michael Batnick and Josh Brown are employees of Ritholtz Wealth Management and may maintain positions in the securities discussed in this video. All opinions expressed by them are solely their own opinion and do not reflect the opinion of Ritholtz Wealth Management. The Compound Media, Incorporated, an affiliate of Ritholtz Wealth Management, receives payment from various entities for advertisements in affiliated podcasts, blogs and emails. Inclusion of such advertisements does not constitute or imply endorsement, sponsorship or recommendation thereof, or any affiliation therewith, by the Content Creator or by Ritholtz Wealth Management or any of its employees. For additional advertisement disclaimers see here https://ritholtzwealth.com/advertising-disclaimers. Investments in securities involve the risk of loss. Any mention of a particular security and related performance data is not a recommendation to buy or sell that security. The information provided on this website (including any information that may be accessed through this website) is not directed at any investor or category of investors and is provided solely as general information. Obviously nothing on this channel should be considered as personalized financial advice or a solicitation to buy or sell any securities. See our disclosures here: https://ritholtzwealth.com/podcast-youtube-disclosures/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Caitlin and Alan put on their Ghost CSI Monster INC suits and finish The Creeping Shadow! We wish Carlyle and Skull would happen, but we are grateful Lockwood and Co is back. We debate who the unexpected visitor is, ponder how old the protagonists of another Jonathan Stroud series are, and have a flashback to the Lockwood and Co TV show.The trope of shining glasses usually indicates a lack of humanityYin and Yang are not really anything like Lucy and Skull but this doesn't slow Alan downIf you haven't read The Scarlett and Browne books by Jonathan Stroud then you shouldGaslight, Gatekeep, and Girlboss meme might have always been about Penelope FittesFollow Caitlin on Instagram @inferiorcaitreadsFollow the show on Twitter @LockwoodPodcastOur theme music is “Magic Escape Room” by Kevin MacLeod at incompetech.com. It is licensed under a Creative Commons by Attribution 3.0 agreement.If you want to reach out please send an email to contact@hallowedgroundmedia.com or visit our Contact page.

This holiday weekend on our Inside the Coffeehouse series, we welcome Arjun Murti and Jeff Currie back into the SmarterMarkets™ studio.   Arjun is Partner at Veriten and Publisher of "Super-Spiked" on Substack. Jeff Currie is Chief Strategy Officer of Energy Pathways at Carlyle.   David Greely sits down with Jeff and Arjun, reuniting these two former Goldman partners and colleagues to share their perspectives on the market, economic, and political forces shaping the future of our energy markets.

In this episode of The Must Read Alaska Show, host John Quick sits down with Rodger Carlyle, a pilot, adventurer, political strategist, ghostwriter, and novelist. Known for weaving historical truths and current events into compelling thrillers and historical fiction, Rodger shares his journey into writing, the inspiration behind his books, and the secrets to crafting stories that readers can't put down.   Whether he's uncovering hidden history or tackling unfinished global conflicts, Rodger's heroes are ordinary people thrust into extraordinary situations—just like in his own life. Tune in for his advice to aspiring authors and thrilling tales of facing down Russian mobsters, charging grizzlies, and life-threatening adventures that fuel his passion for storytelling.

What I learned from rereading Random Reminiscences of Men and Events by John D. Rockefeller. ----Ramp gives you everything you need to control spend, watch your costs, and optimize your financial operations —all on a single platform. Make history's greatest entrepreneurs proud by going to Ramp and learning how they can help your business control your costs and save more. ----Founders Notes gives you the superpower to learn from history's greatest entrepreneurs on demand. You can search all my notes and highlights from every book I've ever read for the podcast. Get access to Founders Notes here. ----Join my free email newsletter to get my top 10 highlights from every book----Follow Founders Podcast on YouTube (Video coming soon!) ----Notes and highlights from the episode: It has not been my custom to press my affairs forward into public gaze. (Bad boys move in silence)My favorite biography on Rockefeller John D: The Founding Father of the Rockefellers by David Freeman Hawke. (Founders #254)Secrecy covered all of his operations.Taking for granted the growth of his empire, he hired talented people as found, not as needed. — Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow. (Founders #248) We had been frank and aboveboard with each other. Without this, business associates cannot get the best out of their work.Rockefeller said Jay Gould was the best businessman he knew. Jay Gould books and episodes: American Rascal: How Jay Gould Built Wall Street's Biggest Fortune by Greg Steinmetz (Founders #285) and Dark Genius of Wall Street: The Misunderstood Life of Jay Gould, King of the Robber Barons by Edward J. Renehan Jr. (Founders #258) "If I have to choose between agreement and conflict, I'll take conflict every time. It always yields a better result." — Jeff BezosIt's a pity to get a man into a place in an argument where he is defending a position instead of considering the evidence. His calm judgment is apt to leave him, and his mind is for the time being closed, and only obstinacy remainsI like doing deals with the same people. You get to know each other and build a mutual sense of trust. Today, a lot of what I do originates from associations that go back ten, twenty, thirty, even forty years. — Am I Being Too Subtle?: Straight Talk From a Business Rebel by Sam Zell.Writing a check separates conviction from conversation. — Warren BuffettWe had with us a group of courageous men who recognized the great principle that a business cannot be a great success that does not fully and efficiently accept and take advantage of its opportunities. (Do everything and you will win)Such was Rockefeller's ingenuity, his ceaseless search for even minor improvements. Despite the unceasing vicissitudes of the oil industry, prone to cataclysmic booms and busts, he would never experience a single year of loss. — Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow. (Founders #248)Last Train to Paradise: Henry Flagler and the Spectacular Rise and Fall of the Railroad that Crossed an Ocean by Les Standiford. #247 Henry Flagler (Rockefeller's Partner)Rockefeller on the impact Henry Flagler had on the beginning of Standard Oil: He always believed that if we went into the oil business at all, we should do the work as well as we knew how; that we should have the very best facilities; that everything should be solid and substantial; and that nothing should be left undone to produce the finest results. And he followed his convictions of building as though the trade was going to last, and his courage in acting up to his beliefs laid strong foundations for later years. (Build a first class business in a first class way)Young people should realize how, above all other possessions, is the value of a friend in every department of life without any exception whatsoever.When you recruit A players you don't tell them here's 5 things I want you to focus on. Here's your top 10 priorities. NO. You've got one priority. Destroy that priority. Do it more than anybody else possibly will. (Henry Flagler's main priority was controlling the cost of transportation.)Larry Ellison: You don't want turnover on your core product team. Knowledge compounds. Don't interrupt the compounding. — Softwar: An Intimate Portrait of Larry Ellison and Oracle by Matthew Symonds. (Founders #124) We were accustomed to prepare for financial emergencies long before we needed the funds. (Keep a fortress of cash)It is impossible to comprehend Rockefeller's breathtaking ascent without realizing that he always moved into battle backed by abundant cash. Whether riding out downturns or coasting on booms, he kept plentiful reserves and won many bidding contests simply because his war chest was deeper. — Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller by Ron Chernow. (Founders #248)I learned to have great respect for figures and facts, no matter how small they were.This casual way of conducting affairs did not appeal to me.As our successes began to come, I seldom put my head upon the pillow at night without speaking a few words to myself: "Now a little success, soon you'll fall down, soon you'll be overthrown. Because you've got a start, you think you're quite a merchant; look out, or you will lose your head—go steady." These intimate conversations with myself had a great influence on my life. I was afraid I couldn't stand my prosperity, and tried to teach myself not to get puffed up with any foolish notions. (If you go to sleep on a win you'll wake up with a loss)I hope they were properly humiliated to see how far we had gone beyond their expectations. (Chips on shoulders put chips in pockets) 98 percent of our attention was devoted to the task at hand. We are believers in Carlyle's Prescription, that the job a man is to do is the job at hand and not see what lies dimly in the distance. — Charlie Munger in Buffett: The Making of an American Capitalist by Roger Lowenstein. (Founders #182) Rockefeller on Standard Oil stock: Sell everything you've got, even the shirt on your back, but hold on to the stock.All business proceeds on belief: Trying to run a company without a set of beliefs is like trying to steer a ship without a rudder. — Four Seasons: The Story of a Business Philosophy by Isadore Sharp (Founders #184)  Rockefeller on his “unintelligent competition”: We had the type of man who really never knew all the facts about his own affairs. Many kept their books in such a way that they did not actually know when they were making money or when they were losing money.A few weeks later, the newspapers announce his new partnership—revealing who had backed his bid—and the news that Rockefeller is, at twenty-five, an owner of one of the largest refineries in the world. On that day his partners “woke up and saw for the first time that my mind had not been idle while they were talking so big and loud,” he would say later. They were shocked. They'd seen their empire dismantled and taken from them by the young man they had dismissed. Rockefeller had wanted it more.  — Conspiracy by Ryan Holiday At best it was a speculative trade, and I wonder that we managed to pull through so often; but we were gradually learning how to conduct a most difficult business.A blueprint for success in any endeavor: Low prices to the customer. Root out any inefficiency. Pay for talent. Control expenses. Invest in technology.We devoted ourselves exclusively to the oil business and its products. The company never went into outside ventures, but kept to the enormous task of perfecting its own organizationThe fastest way to move a dial is narrow the focus. People naturally resist focus because they can't decide what is important. Therein lies a problem: people can typically tell you after some deliberation what their top three priorities are, but they struggle to decide on just one. What is too much and what is too little focus? Do you ever even discuss this? Most teams are not focused enough. I rarely encountered a team that employed too narrow an aperture. It goes against our human grain. People like to boil oceans. Just knowing that can be to your advantage. When you narrow focus, you are increasing the resourcing on the remaining priority. —  Amp It Up by Frank Slootman Two people can run the same business and have vastly different results: Perhaps it is worth while to emphasize again the fact that it is not merely capital and "plants" and the strictly material things which make up a business, but the character of the men behind these things, their personalities, and their abilities; these are the essentials to be reckoned with. When it comes to competition, being one of the best is not good enough. Do you really want to plan for a future in which you might have to fight with somebody who is just as good as you are? I wouldn't. — Jeff Bezos in Invent and Wander: The Collected Writings of Jeff BezosDon't even think of temporary or sharp advantages. Don't waste your effort on a thing which ends in a petty triumph unless you are satisfied with a life of petty success.Study diligently your capital requirements, and fortify yourself fully to cover possible set-backs, because you can absolutely count on meeting setbacks.Do not to lose your head over a little success, or grow impatient or discouraged by a little failure.Know your numbers. You need to know your business down to the ground.Money comes naturally as a result of service (Henry Ford)Don't do anything that someone else can do (Edwin Land)The man will be most successful who confers the greatest service on the world.Commercial enterprises that are needed by the public will pay. Commercial enterprises that are not needed fail, and ought to fail.Dedicate your life to building something that contributes to the progress and happiness of mankind.----“I have listened to every episode released and look forward to every episode that comes out. The only criticism I would have is that after each podcast I usually want to buy the book because I am interested so my poor wallet suffers. ” — GarethBe like Gareth. Buy a book: All the books featured on Founders Podcast

The U.S. is the largest exporter of natural gas in the world. And Louisiana's Gulf Coast is where much of America's natural gas is piped in to be liquified for export.Over the last twenty years, liquified natural gas (LNG) has been heralded as a clean and efficient "bridge fuel" for nations transitioning away from coal and oil, towards a future of renewable energy. But the promise of LNG has not reflected reality. In today's episode of The Sunday Story, WWNO reporters Halle Parker and Carlyle Calhoun talk about the impact of the LNG export industry on Louisiana's Gulf Coast. And they follow the supply chain of LNG all the way to Germany and Japan.To hear more of Halle and Carlyle's reporting on LNG, listen to their three-part series, "All Gassed Up," on the podcast Sea Change from member stations WWNO and WRKF.Part One: The Carbon CoastPart Two: The German ConnectionPart Three: The Sugar Daddy of LNGLearn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy