Podcast appearances and mentions of david vines

Check out our latest AARC Perspectives episode where we discuss APRT and the milestone achievement made by the VA Maryland Healthcare System. 

Oxford University's David Vines discusses how economists might go about improving core modelling approaches.

Why is contemporary Australia seen globally as a successful economic nation? University of Oxford Professor David Vines explores the radical shift in thinking by the HC 'Nugget' Combs' generation of macroeconomists, which took place during World War II, and formed the necessary underpinning of the later Hawke-Keating reforms. Professor Vines is the 2018 National Library Fellow supported by the Minerals Council of Australia.

Behind the scenes at NIESR's Conference in honour of Martin Weale Paola Buonadonna talks to a veritable 'assumption of economists', including Jagjit Chadha, David Vines, Andrew Harvey, Mary O'Mahoney and Martin Weale. Between them, they tackle the challenges facing economic modelling, understanding financial markets and the influence of extreme events, the productivity puzzle and the problems facing the UK economy in 2017.

An interview with Sam Reich, a writer/director who runs video for CollegeHumor. youtube.com/collegehumor www.samreich.com My neighbor sneezing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getting_Things_Done www.trello.com ** Musicians featured in this show ** Vocals: Hawk Colman, Matt Geiler, Angeline Gragasin, Blaise Morrell, Maurice Smith, David Vines, Will Wheaton, Kyle Harris, Lindsey Liberatore Bassoon: Brittany Seits Cello: Heather McIntosh Bass Clarinet: Eleanor Weigert Guitar: Max Crowe Harp: Charissa Barger Saxophones: Anthony Bruno Trombone: Greg Nicolett, Andrew Zelm Trumpet: Nick Sednew, Gerald Bailey Violin, Viola: Ben Weber

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

Ashoka Mody, Princeton University gives a seminar for the PEFM programme. The discussant was David Vines, Balliol College, Oxford and the chair was Kalypso Nicolaïdis, St. Antony's College, Oxford.

Ashoka Mody, Princeton University gives a seminar for the PEFM programme. The discussant was David Vines, Balliol College, Oxford and the chair was Kalypso Nicolaïdis, St. Antony's College, Oxford.