Podcast appearances and mentions of deirdre mccloskey

Deirdre McCloskey, premiada por el Juan de Mariana, sostiene que el despegue de Europa se explica por el triunfo de las ideas de libertad. ¿Por qué Europa? Es la gran pregunta de la historia económica. En el año 1000, China y el mundo árabe aventajaban ampliamente a un continente fragmentado y relativamente atrasado. Sin embargo, fue Europa la que en los siglos siguientes protagonizó el mayor salto en prosperidad que ha conocido la humanidad. Esta semana, en Economía para Quedarte sin Amigos, nos adentramos en la obra de Deirdre McCloskey, ganadora del Premio Juan de Mariana, para explorar su respuesta a esa pregunta junto con el subdirector del Juan de Mariana, Juan Navarrete, y el profesor de la Universidad Francisco Marroquín, Eduardo Fernández Luiña. La respuesta que da McCloskey no es la geografía, ni los recursos naturales, ni siquiera las instituciones: fueron las ideas.Música Esta semana, la protagonista de nuestra selección musical es el grupo español Nosoträsh. Y estos son los temas que hemos escuchado: "Dando Vueltas" "Voy a Aterrizar" "Completamente Sola" "Arte"

Welcome to our new series, The Hayekian Triangle. This series will feature a range of conversations between our hosts: Virgil Storr, Chris Coyne, and Peter Boettke. On this episode, the three sit down to mark the 250th anniversary of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations — and to ask a deceptively simple question: why are we still reading a book written a quarter-millennium ago?From the invisible hand to the division of labor, Smith's ideas have become so embedded in how we think about markets and society that it's easy to forget just how radical they originally were. Virgil, Chris, and Pete dig into what Smith actually said, why the standard takes on laissez-faire and self-interest so often miss the mark, and what a Scottish moral philosopher writing in 1776 still has to teach us about wealth, poverty, and the institutions that make human flourishing possible.Whether you're coming to Smith for the first time or returning to him with fresh eyes, this conversation is a reminder that the greatest works in political economy aren't monuments to be admired from a distance — they remain living inputs into the science of today.**This episode was recorded on April 3, 2026**Show Notes:Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (Liberty Fund, 1982)Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments (Liberty Fund, 1982)Kenneth Boulding, "After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?" (History of Political Economy, 1971)Kenneth Boulding, "Economics as a Moral Science" (The American Economic Review, 1969)Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies, and the Fate of Liberty (Penguin Press, 2019)Raghuram Rajan, The Third Pillar: How Markets and the State Leave the Community Behind (Penguin Press, 2019)Deirdre McCloskey, The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of Commerce; Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World; Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World (University of Chicago Press, 2006, 2010, 2016)Martha Nussbaum, The Cosmopolitan Tradition: A Noble but Flawed Ideal (Belknap Press/Harvard University Press, 2019)Ludwig von Mises, “Why Read Adam Smith Today?” (FEE, 2015)Richard Ebeling, "Celebrating Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations at 250 Years" (Future of Freedom, 2026)If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Check out our other podcast from the Hayek Program! Virtual Sentiments is a podcast in which political theorist Kristen Collins interviews scholars and practitioners grappling with pressing problems in political economy with an eye to the past. Subscribe today!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

durée : 00:58:58 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - La loi de programmation militaire 2024-2030 doit doter le budget de la Défense de 36 milliards d'euros supplémentaires. Pourquoi ? La défense peut-elle réindustrialiser la France ? Après avoir répondu à ces questions, place au portrait d'une économiste iconoclaste, Deirdre McCloskey. - réalisation : Tina Iung, Sorj Leroy, Louise Morfouace - invités : Élie Tenenbaum Directeur du Centre des Études de Sécurité de l'IFRI, Fanny Coulomb Maîtresse de conférences HDR en économie à Sciences Po Grenoble., François Facchini Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

durée : 00:27:51 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Aliette Hovine - Voix singulière de la pensée libertarienne contemporaine, Deirdre McCloskey a développé une réflexion sur le langage de la science économique. En la définissant comme rhétorique, elle en interroge la scientificité. - réalisation : Tina Iung, Sorj Leroy - invités : François Facchini Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

La economía estudia la asignación de unos recursos escasos y en la resolución de este problema ético, la filosofía es de mayor utilidad que las matemáticas. María Blanco quiere saber cómo se ha estudiado la economía a lo largo de los siglos. Esta ciencia se matematizó en la segunda mitad del siglo XX por culpa de Paul Samuelson, quien representaría mediante complejas ecuaciones las funciones de la oferta y la demanda. No siempre fue este el método de estudio, los primeros economistas se asemejaban más a los filósofos. Antes de escribir La riqueza de las naciones, Adam Smith había publicado La teoría de los sentimientos morales, un tratado sobre la moral. Por suerte, todo río regresa a su cauce. La economía del siglo XXI será filosófica, no matemática.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:⁠Thenomba⁠. La escuela que te hará encontrar tu propósito.Thenomba es la escuela que te prepara para encontrar un propósito, no un trabajo.Me han hecho embajador del máster y puedo ofrecerte un descuento especial en el precio. Si quieres matricularte, utiliza el código KAPITAL20 para llevarte una rebaja del 20%. 42 oyentes de este podcast ya utilizaron el código en la exitosa edición de diciembre. Si te preguntas si esto encaja contigo, te recomiendo simplemente escuchar los episodios de hace unas semanas con Higinio Marín y Ricardo Piñero. Higinio y Ricardo son dos de los profesores del máster y esas dos entrevistas reflejan la vocación humanista de su programa. Si resuenan en tu cabeza algunas de las ideas de esas conversaciones, entonces Thenomba es para ti.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:0:32 Un empresario paga costes antes de conocer beneficios.8:18 Valor contraintuitivo de Mercadona.14:23 Compañía de las Indias Orientales.21:04 Todos somos empresarios.32:24 Economistas con vidas de película.39:55 Batalla de gallos entre Keynes y Hayek.46:46 Innecesaria matematización de la economía.49:50 Las movidas de Veblen.54:02 Académicos multidisciplinares.1:06:20 ¿Es un historiador optimista sobre el futuro?1:15:54 Escuela de Salamanca.1:24:04 Solo los judíos podían prestar con interés.1:29:43 Tigres, leones, todos quieren ser los campeones.1:38:26 Es más fácil contar pobres que contar ricos.Apuntes:La riqueza de las naciones. Adam Smith.La teoría de los sentimientos morales. Adam Smith.Risk, uncertainty and profit. Frank Knight.The capitalist and the entrepreneur. Peter Klein.Start-up nation. Dan Senor & Saul Singer.Tratado de economia politica. Jean Baptiste Say.La acción humana. Ludwig von Mises.Teoría general de la ocupación, el interés y el dinero. John Maynard Keynes.Principios de economía política y tributación. David Ricardo.Hacia la estación de Finlandia. Edmund Wilson.Teoría de la clase ociosa. Thorstein Veblen.Economical writing. Deirdre McCloskey.Armonías económicas. Frédéric Bastiat.Bastiat as an economist. María Blanco & Carlos Rodríguez Braun.

In the name of material progress, the West has sought to develop and frequently exploit the less-developed “rest.” William Easterly will draw from 400 years of history—ranging from the conquest of the Americas and the Atlantic slave trade to colonization in Asia and Africa and the invention of the Third World—to show how the West has justified different forms of intervention in the societies it has purportedly intended to improve. Easterly will explain why development based on consent, choice, and human agency is superior to an approach that neglects dignity, focuses narrowly on material improvements, and too often justifies various degrees of coercion. Deirdre McCloskey will comment on the fundamental role of freedom in development. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Deirdre McCloskey argues the world's jump from $2 to $50 per day in average income came from a radical 18th-century shift: equality of permission, or letting ordinary people have a go at bettering themselves. She traces how liberating human creativity through what she calls the "bourgeois deal" sparked innovation from Holland to Scotland to America, while state control stifled it elsewhere. McCloskey critiques modern economics for reducing humans to "vending machines" and argues we need "humanomics" that recognizes love, ethics, and human complexity alongside mathematical models. She challenges the field's statist turn, defends Adam Smith's complete vision beyond self-interest, and explains why India may become the next great creative economy while Europe's trillion-dollar spending plans repeat the old mistake of top-down investment instead of unleashing individual creativity.

Economia Underground, um podcast institucionalista.Neste episódio discutimos a recente coluna de Deirdre McCloskey no Jornal Folha de São Paulo intitulada "um conto histórico de esquerda". O texto argumenta que a Revolução Industrial e a riqueza moderna não vieram primariamente do acúmulo de capital ou da expulsão violenta de camponeses pelos cercamentos após 1700, mas sim de uma mudança ética que elevou a dignidade do burguês e da inovação.Nos siga no Instagram: @economiaunderground

In this conversation from 2023, Alex speaks with Professor Jacob Levy about the concept of neutrality within the history of liberalism and how many historical thinkers have approached the subject within that tradition.  Episode Notes: Michael Oakeshott on “adverbial rules” https://lawliberty.org/forum/michael-oakeshott-on-the-rule-of-law-and-the-liberal-order/  John Locke's religious beliefs https://rb.gy/1yg43  Heresy of Americanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)  Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Virtues Thesis https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/bv_selection.pdf  Ronald Dworkin “Liberalism” https://www.scribd.com/document/313373358/Ronald-Dworkin-Liberalism#  Stephanie Slade, "Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State?" https://reason.com/2022/03/19/two-libertarianisms/  Alexis De Toqueville's concerns about the rising liberal democratic order https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2018/08/09/de-tocqueville-and-the-french-exception  John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty 

You remember your fourth grade history textbook: The British Empire unfairly taxed the American colonies. Tea was dumped in the Boston Harbor. Colonists refused taxation without representation. Therefore, the American Revolution was driven by economics, right? Well, maybe not.Today on Political Economy, I'm talking with Deirdre McCloskey about the core ideas that drove the Revolution. We explore American capitalism and the idea of equal opportunity as America grows closer to its 250th birthday.Deirdre is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. She is also a distinguished professor emerita of economics and history at the University of Illinois at Chicago, as well as a professor emerita of English and communication. She is the author of some two dozen books, including the Bourgeois trilogy, and has a wonderful article, “Economic Causes and Consequences of the American Revolution,” published in AEI's recent book, Capitalism and the American Revolution, part of our America at 250 series.

Caleb O. Brown has hosted the Cato Daily Podcast since 2007, CatoAudio since 2008, and all told has created several thousand interviews, videos, and other pieces for the Cato Institute. On his final episode, he is interviewed by Cato's Deirdre McCloskey about the art of the interview and his pending move to head Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Quale è stato l'ingrediente segreto per lo straordinario aumento della ricchezza mondiale degli ultimi secoli?Nell'intervista LeoniFiles di questa settimana, Carlo Stagnaro indaga con Deirdre McCloskey, professoressa emerita presso l'Università di Chicago e distinguished scholar presso il Cato Institute, le cause profonde e meno apparenti del progresso economico e culturale del genere umano, con un occhio di riguardo anche alla situazione attuale.Preferisci seguire su YouTube?

On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, Deirdre McCloskey delivers a keynote lecture at the 2022 Markets & Society conference. She argues that the "great enrichment"—a 30-fold rise in global income per capita since 1776—was driven by liberal economic ideas that champion individual freedom and equality of permission. McCloskey also critiques government intervention, emphasizing the transformative power of removing barriers to foster innovation, prosperity, and human flourishing, and more.Deirdre McCloskey is a Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and of History and Professor of English and of Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. McCloskey is also a Distinguished Affiliated Fellow with the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. She has published numerous books including Why Liberalism Works: How True Liberal Values Produce a Freer, More Equal, Prosperous World for All(2019) and her trilogy “The Bourgeois Era”: The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for a Commercial Society (2006), Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern World (2010), and Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the World (2016).This lecture has been published in the Markets & Society Journal, Volume 1 Issue 1, as "Humanomics." Learn more about the Markets & Society conference and journal here.If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming! Subscribe today and listen to seasons one and two.Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

Send us a textAnti-cheat economics, web3 property rights, Deirdre McCloskey, institutional incentives, Halo UGC, and the if single player games have a natural advantage outside the West. Oh my.Dr.Jason Arentz finally guest stars, and he's bringing the econ juice, finally striking a 50/50 web3 split on the case. Zynga Car Price Experiment: https://www.gamesindustry.biz/zynga-apologizes-for-random-dlc-pricing-experiment

An old and common law on many cities' books was meant to crack down on houses of prostitution. Today those same laws are used to effectively ban boarding houses or college student housing. Deirdre McCloskey and Art Carden tell the tale. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Send us a textGrowth is essential to human life. Always has been, always will be. From the moment we are born, we grow, and we continue to throughout our lives, whether that is physically, mentally, or otherwise. Societies grow too.But what is growth? Real growth is replicable, durable, and sustainable (and not in the sense that immediately comes to mind). Your seven-year-old doesn't shrink back down after she grows an inch. It might happen when she's ninety, but that's gravity (and don't you think she's had a good run at this point? We should accept that it's ok to have a growth recession every now and again). So how have intellectuals conceptualized the growth of societies, environments, and economies over time? And how should we think about growth? The wonderful Henry C. Clark joins us on the podcast today to answer these questions and more. He is the program director of the Political Economy Project at Dartmouth College and the author of several books including the newly released The Moral Economy We Have Lost: Life Before Mass Abundance. Go check it out!Want to explore more?Henry Clark on the Enlightenments, a Great Antidote podcast.Pierre Desrochers, From Prometheus to Arcadia: Liberals, Conservatives, the Environment, and Cultural Cognition, at Econlib.Robert Pindyck on Averting and Adapting to Climate Change, an EconTalk podcast.Sandra Peart and David Levy, Happiness and the Vanity of the Philosopher: Part1, at Econlib.Deirdre McCloskey and Economists' Ideas About Ideas, a Liberty Matters forum at the Online Library of Liberty.Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

La Fundación Rafael del Pino organizó, el 22 de mayo de 2024, el diálogo «Dinámicas económicas y demográficas en perspectiva. ¿El crecimiento de la población genera una mayor o menor abundancia de recursos?» en el que participaron Marian L. Tupy, Deirdre McCloskey, Ian Vasquez y Gabriel Calzada (moderador) con motivo de la presentación del libro titulado Superabundancia de los autores Marian L. Tupy y Gale L. Pooley, editado por Deusto.

La Fundación Rafael del Pino organizó, el 22 de mayo de 2024, el diálogo «Dinámicas económicas y demográficas en perspectiva. ¿El crecimiento de la población genera una mayor o menor abundancia de recursos?» en el que participaron Marian L. Tupy, Deirdre McCloskey, Ian Vasquez y Gabriel Calzada (moderador) con motivo de la presentación del libro titulado Superabundancia de los autores Marian L. Tupy y Gale L. Pooley, editado por Deusto.

In May 2022, Alex spoke with Deirdre McCloskey in a wide-ranging conversation that addresses the economic, philosophical, and political reasons why liberalism just works. We're reposting that important conversation today on The Curious Task. 

What explains the wealth of the modern age? Was it capital? Institutions? Slave-holding? Why do some countries seem to have an economic advantage over others? Are the fears of progressives about wealth inequality worth paying attention to? Economist, historian, and prolific author Deirdre McCloskey joins us to talk about the key factor that precipitated the wild success of the modern world.(Re-Mastered for Re-Issue.)Show Notes:Deirdre's WebsiteBourgeois VirtuesThe Bourgeois DealAudio Production by Podsworth Media - https://podsworth.com

Introduction: Caleb O. BrownScott Lincicome and Deirdre McCloskey on Cato's Defending Globalization projectWilliam Ruger and Jason Sorens on the seventh edition of Freedom in the 50 StatesAmy Caiazza and Daniel Gorfine on the SEC's proposed rules on predictive data analyticsAlexandra Hudson on The Soul of CivilityExclusive: Ian Vasquez on the Human Freedom Index 2023 report Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Are the teachings of Christianity compatible with libertarianism? Economist Deirdre McCloskey thinks so. At the Mont Pelerin Society conference in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire, she sits down with Matt Kibbe to lay out her vision of a Christian libertarianism that values the individual over the collective, embraces markets, and demands that we treat each other with kindness, humility, and love. These lessons are more important than ever in a time when politics is dominated by division and hatred.

El capitalismo está bajo ataque y necesita quien lo defienda. Bajo esa premisa, el sociólogo e historiador Rainer Zitelmann ha adoptado una tarea que quizá no es muy popular: defender un sistema que hoy en día es asociado con los problemas que enfrenta la humanidad. Zitelmann, alineado con la también historiadora Deirdre McCloskey, ha venido haciendo una fuerte defensa del capitalismo, asegurando que es el principal causante del progreso de los países. El autor está en Colombia promocionando su libro “En defensa del libre mercado”, con el que busca desmontar las 10 críticas comunes del llamado anticapitalismo.

Johan Norberg's work revolves primarily around economic and intellictual history and attempting to learn lessons from past financial systems. In this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, Johan takes us through his version of capitalism, giving an especially interesting perspective on the economic system of his home country. Johan is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and the author of several books. His latest is The Capitalist Manifesto: In Defense of Global Capitalism, available now. In This Episode* “Capitalism” and its meanings (0:55)* The state of contemporary capitalism (2:34)* Coordination in capitalism (7:59)* The cyclical nature of economic systems (13:54)* Swedish capitalism  (16:56)* The case for capitalism (21:48)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversationJames Pethokoukis: Let's begin with a little definitional work here. Capitalist Manifesto: “Capitalist” is a word people assign a variety of meanings to. What is the capitalism that you're talking about here?Johan Norberg: Yeah, it's not a great word. Quite often it's misunderstood; people think it's all about capital. It's not. We can have capital in many different economic systems. To me, free-market capitalism is about a decentralized economic system with private property where decisions are made locally, decentralized, not command and control, and the prices and wages and things are set in voluntary negotiations rather than top-down.The economist Deirdre McCloskey hates the word "capitalism." She prefers "innovism" or "trade-tested progress." Should we insist on using a different word to describe the world's dominant socio-economic system?Deirdre McCloskey is right. Capitalism is a bad word. I would much prefer “innovism” or something like that. But I've realized that in order to communicate with people, I'd better use some of the words that they are using. And I've realized that we're stuck with the word “capitalism” and the whole concept of capitalism, and if we don't fill it with meaning, those of us who like free markets and free trade, I've realized that somebody else is going to fill it with meaning, and in that case, we are losing the debate. Go to where the sinners are. That's my take.Twenty years ago, it seemed like markets had won. Capitalism was changing the world and bringing people out of poverty. President Clinton declared "the era of big government is over." China was opening its economy. What happened? Why did you feel the need to write this book in this moment?That's exactly why I wrote this book, because nowadays it seems like nobody likes free markets and free trade anymore. I've realized that, in the US, and that should be a place where people appreciate some of this, fewer people believe in capitalism than believe in ghosts nowadays. And there's this lack among politicians and governments everywhere in belief in global capitalism. There's this whole, repatriate stuff, subsidize specific businesses and sectors back home, rather than having global supply chains. So that's why I wrote this.I think this is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what has happened in the world in the past 20 years. It's not that markets have failed. On the contrary, despite the fact that we've had 20 rough years with financial crises and wars and the Great Pandemic and stuff like that, and yet we've seen, when you look at objective indicators of human living standards, more progress than ever before over these 20 years. When it comes to the reduction in poverty, more than 130,000 people lifted out of extreme poverty every day over the past 20 years. We've seen an increase in global GDP per capita of roughly a third. We've reduced child mortality by almost half, which means that four million fewer children died last year than in 2002. And this is because entrepreneurs and innovators, they keep innovating ourselves out of problems all the time — if we give them some freedom to do that. And that's what I'm worried about: that they'll have less freedom in the future if we do not keep on pounding and keep on explaining this.Those are some pretty impressive statistics. But people don't seem to notice. We keep hearing the same narrative of "late-stage, failed capitalism.” Why is that?I think the financial crisis is a very important part of this. If some capitalists do bad stuff, people lose faith in capitalism and I think we saw this in the US but also around the world. There's this sense that perhaps we shouldn't imitate what America is doing if these are the consequences. And I don't think that the financial crisis was a result of unleashed market forces. And I even wrote a book on this a couple of years back, Financial Fiasco. I think there were massive regulatory failures and central banks and ministers of finance trying to make capitalism very safe by implementing a very homogenous structure on everybody, telling everybody to go into the same way, searching for the same AAA-rated securities and stuff like that. And if everybody behaves in the same way, if that fails, there's massive disaster. We need decentralization partly to minimize risks like that. But — doesn't matter, we don't have to go into history. I think this partly explains why we're in this lack of trust in capitalism right now.But also other things. People, when they're afraid of the world, they tend to retreat. They don't want to explore. They don't want to innovate. It triggers their fight-or-flight mechanism and sometimes the societal fight-or-flight mechanism. You want to hide behind walls and tariff barriers and strong, big governments that protect you, and that is a misunderstanding of how we get out of crises. And this is what I think we've learned from these past 20 years. Yes, lots of bad stuff happened. It makes us afraid. It triggers some sort of evolutionary tendency to get away from openness and learning and discovery processes and instead we want just one instant solution to all the problems.But what we're learning is, how did we get out of the pandemic? We did it by having thousands of entrepreneurs constantly finding new ways to rebuild supply chains and find replacements for the resources they couldn't get. And innovators who were looking for new treatments and coming up with a vaccine in a record period of time. It didn't take a thousand years as it usually does, coming up with a vaccine against polio, but more like three months. But try to tell that to our reptilian brains. When we're fearful, we want one simple solution. And as H.L. Mencken once put it, there is always a solution to every problem: it is “neat, plausible, and wrong.” And it's so dangerous because it involves replacing all that discovery, all that learning and wisdom of millions with just the preferences of a few people at the top.Let me read a brief tweet by the right-wing populist writer, Sohrab Ahmari: “We are entering a new age of industrial war. The ‘California ideology,' neoliberalism, Reagan-Clintonism — whatever you want to call it, it's kaput. We're going to see close coordination between state, enterprise, labor. It took security threats to bring us here. I'll take it.” Why won't you take it?That's a scary prospect to me. There is a reason why he's talking about this Silicon Valley thing, because that worked splendidly, and one of the reasons it succeeded was that the outcomes weren't decided in advance by any kind of command-and-control thing. It was, as some criticized it in the ‘70s, it looks more like the Wild West, allowing entrepreneurs and innovators to experiment with crazy ideas, even in garages. And that's the way to … if you want to explore all possible avenues and ideas, we have to let everybody go out and look for it. I think the reason why Sohrab Ahmari is wrong is that he thinks that there is one solution to all the problems we face. Perhaps there is, but I don't know one and he doesn't know it. We have to allow more eyeballs to look at the problems and more brains to go out thinking hard about these things, and that involves not starting geopolitical divisions and nationalist temptations, but it involves having lots of people in other places helping us to find the solutions in a division of labor where we learn from what they're doing.Why has America been so successful so far? When people say that it's failing, this American, this Washington consensus thing, please keep in mind that just 15 years ago, the American economy was slightly smaller than the European one. Now it's almost a third bigger. It's not entirely broken, but some of the fixes might break it, I'm afraid, if we continue doing things like this. Why is it successful? Well, look at different areas. Look at AI. Why is America so successful? We thought that China would come up with it. Well, one reason is that the Chinese have to teach machines not just what to say, but also what not to say, but also the fact that America is learning from others. More than half of America's top AI experts have education or background in other countries and almost a third come from China. So if we want to win against China and everybody else, we also have to allow lots of Chinese to do the work for us.This notion of close coordination between state and business and labor, where does that work well? Is there a model? Is there an example of that kind of formula working elsewhere?A leading European economist just published a book called, I think it's some 50 of them, called Questioning the Entrepreneurial State, where they evaluate this whole idea that we would have this close coordination between governments and businesses, and what they say is that the history of it, at least in Europe but they look around the world as well, is that it's usually a full employment program for lobbyists and for attorneys who just reformulate everything that businesses would usually do as something that fits with this new industrial policy thing. If it was successful, you would look up stuff on the internet by using Quaero, because that's the close coordination stuff in Europe with the European and German and French governments heavily funded a “European Google.” The whole idea was that we will own the digital future by heavily subsidizing this one project. It doesn't work, because you lose some of the trial and error, you lose some of the mechanisms whereby we understand what's a success and what's not.It's okay to fail. Industrial policies fail all the time, but so does big tech. Entrepreneurial capitalism as well. But the great thing with free markets and not having the governments investing heavily in one particular model is that you replace this trial-and-error, constant experimentation and feedback and adaptation that comes when you work on markets and you're risking your own resources. Once you do that by having the government picking a winner, then, when you lose out, you spend more money on these projects instead. And you lose this learning process whereby we're constantly channeling capital and labor to more successful ones. What people would tell you is that China is the most successful place where we've had this…Yes, there seems to be a cyclical component to this belief. I mean, I'm old enough to have seen the version where Japan had figured it out. That didn't turn out so well. And then I think you have people who looked at China. If you have a natural inclination to like the idea of central planning and you eschew the kind of natural chaos of capitalism, you could point to China So that's why I wonder if this is a passing phase, because China doesn't seem like they're able to pull it off either.Yeah, but that'll keep on moving, then, and find another example where it seems to be working. Because it's always easy to find out in retrospect that something seemed to be working. And if the government is involved somewhere, they try to give it credit. But until recently, I think 49 American states tried to spend heavily to create a biotech cluster in their own state to attract businesses from other states. And if one of them succeeded, people would've said, “Look, this is because of this top-down government intervention,” but probably not, right?And it's the same thing with China. Yes, China has been tremendously successful for 30 years, but in which sectors? In the sectors that the government didn't plan for it, in places where we saw grassroots capitalism, farmers secretly privatizing their land, starting village enterprises. And then, and only then, did the Communist Party see that, “This seems to be more successful than what we've been doing recently, so allow them to continue to experiment,” experiment in export processing and stuff like that. But they wanted to keep it elsewhere so that it wouldn't spread throughout the rest of the economy. But it was so successful that it did. That's what succeeded: when people experimented. Entrepreneurs were allowed to innovate. What was it that failed? The large, state-owned enterprises. They were less productive. They were wasting cheap credit and ruining, destroying resources over the years. And once the government gets involved, there's plenty of research into this, they find less productive businesses and they become even less productive if they get access to this cheap credit and cheap land. And I think people are coming around to that now as they're seeing that China has many problems, some of them related to demography, as well. But they would need innovation, strange new business ideas, crazy people in garages coming up with new ideas. That's exactly the thing that top-down governments don't really like, and what they've been doing over the past few years is just destroying tech businesses, [education] businesses, and the gaming industry in China because authoritarians aren't good at spotting where the true potential lies.I wonder if you could clear up a question that confuses many Americans. Do you come from, and are you currently living in, a capitalist country?Yes, I am.We don't know. We're not sure. We're very confused about Sweden.Yes, I know, and that's because lots of perceptions, just like the ideas, are stuck in the 1970s. Sweden had a brief period of some 20 years when we really experimented with socialist ideas, but this was also the moment — the only moment in modern economic history — when Sweden lagged behind other countries. So up until the early 1970s, we had a very limited government, low taxes, free markets, and free trade — that made us rich. It made us so rich in Sweden that we thought that we could experiment with these ideas. Just stop thinking about how to create wealth, just spend it, redistribute it. And that resulted in an awful 20, 25 years when companies like Ikea and Tetra Pak and the greatest entrepreneurs, they just left Sweden because it wasn't possible to do business in Sweden.This is what people still remember: the 1970s. We did all these things: doubled the size of the government, jacking up taxes and so on. At the same time, it looked like a fairly successful place, it's a rich place. But it's like that old joke: How do you end up with a small fortune? Well, you start with a large fortune and then you waste most of it. And that's what we did. This is actually why, since that terrible economic financial crisis that we had in the early 1990s, Sweden has once again liberalized markets quite drastically compared to other places, and we're now back to a system which many Americans would actually think of as more free market in many ways than the US system.As you know, people think of Sweden and Scandinavia more generally as big government with a giant welfare [system], cradle-to-grave welfare, all the welfare you would ever want. So in what ways is Sweden maybe more market friendly than the United States, and perhaps some ways which would greatly surprise many Americans as well as Bernie Sanders?Yeah, I'm trying to tell the Bernie Sanders of the world that if they want to be like Sweden, they would have to do plenty of things. They would have to become more free trade-oriented in many ways. They would have to reform social security, partially privatize it with individual accounts, they would have to introduce a national school voucher system so private schools get the same funding as the public ones. They would actually have to lower taxes in many ways on the rich, and they would have to abolish taxes on property wealth inheritance and lower the corporate tax, and instead put most of the tax burdens on low- and middle-income households, because that's the dirty little secret of the Swedish welfare state. We learned in the 1970s that if you want to have a big universal welfare state that's very generous, in that case, everybody is going to have to pay for it.You have to redistribute over people's life cycle, rather than trying to get the rich to pay for it all, because we realized that the rich are too few and the economy is too dependent on them. So if we are trying to get them to pay for it all, they will flee Sweden, they will move to other places, leave their resources elsewhere, and we won't get the new businesses, the new successful ones that we all depend upon. So for 30 years, we didn't create a single net job in the private sector, the ‘70s, ‘80s, and the ‘90s. So instead, you have to move towards more taxing consumption, 25 percent value-added tax, and making sure that the poor and middle income households pay the bulk of income taxes. So, counterintuitively — and this is something that people really don't get—Sweden has a much less-progressive tax system than the United States does, less-progressive tax system than almost any other rich country because we've learned that the poor are loyal taxpayers. They don't move, they don't dodge taxes, and they don't have tax attorneys.What is the quick pitch for capitalism? If you're on an airplane next to someone who's heard a lot about inequality and wage stagnation and losing to the Chinese, how do you make the case for market capitalism?It's much, much better than you think, but it could be even better. It is much better because we can see, look at the long-term indicators and the data, and perhaps this is where I lose my fellow passenger. But wage stagnation was a phenomenon in the ‘70s and ‘80s, partly because we had to rebuild the economy because it was at risk of becoming much less competitive and we were about to lose jobs everywhere. Once we did that, from the ‘90s and onwards, we've had a tremendous increase in wages, and we can measure this in wages and total compensation and increase in 60 percent. I'd say if you look at the best indicators, but even more interesting is what can you do with those resources? And then you see that all those amenities and goods and technologies that we all considered luxuries in the ‘70 and ‘80s, we're getting close to 100 percent possession in American households.The poor people who fall below the poverty line in the US now own more amenities like that — washing machines, television sets, dryers, clothes washers, and of course cell phones and computers — than the rich did in 1970. That tells you something. If you look around the world, we've actually had the best era ever when it comes to poverty reduction, and we've even, since the turn of the millennium, reduced global inequality for the first time since the Industrial Revolution. So it's much better than the headlines. If you look at the trend lines, they're much better. Yeah, tell me about that. Give me a little of that “could be even better.” Give me a little flavor of that.Yeah. I think that we've lost — you know this and you just wrote a book on this — we've entered a period where we've thought that things cannot be better. We've tried to protect old business models and old ways of doing things, and often in a low interest rate environment, I think protected many businesses that should have been put out of their misery so that capital and labor could go to the new sectors, to the frontiers of the economy. We are seeing some of that happening now with everything from mRNA technology to the new space race to AI, but we're in a mindset and a regulatory situation where we don't want to experiment with the new weird stuff. But we have to do that because that's the only way where we'll get the new goods and services and jobs in the future. So here's to the crazy ones, as Steve Jobs would put it. And in that case, we can't be too protective of our old, safe ways of doing things. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Deirdre McCloskey is Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics and of History and Professor Emerita of English and of Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. She is also Isaiah Berlin Chair in Liberal Thought at the Cato Institute. Over the span of her career, Deirdre has written on economic theory, history, rhetoric, feminism, ethics, law, and more. In this episode, she and Robinson discuss her political philosophy—classical liberalism. They begin by discussing her training before delving into liberalism's roots in the eighteen and nineteenth centuries as a celebration of freedom of speech and innovation, as well as its doctrine of equality under the law. They then compare it to competing views, such as conservatism, and address common criticisms of classical liberalism, such as its alleged inability to respond to crises like global warming or that the free market will concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. Why Liberalism Works: https://a.co/d/hvUAtnk Deirdre's Website: https://www.deirdremccloskey.com OUTLINE 00:00 In This Episode… 00:59 Introduction 04:09 Deirdre's Background in Economics 17:36 What is Classical Liberalism? 33:28 The Beginning of Liberalism 51:50 The Great Enrichment 01:05:43 Free Speech 01:17:31 Conservatism and Libertarianism 01:28:36 Criticisms of Liberalism 01:43:00 Climate Change and the Free Market 01:49:57 Liberalism and Queers Robinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.com Robinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University. Join him in conversations with philosophers, scientists, weightlifters, artists, and everyone in-between.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/robinson-erhardt/support

What makes for good rules? Good rules are often "discovered," according to Cato's Deirdre McCloskey. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Deirdre McCloskey explains how freedom and bourgeoise dignity enriched the world.Follow @IdeasHavingSexx on TwitterThe Bourgeoise Era Trilogy Vol. 1 - The Bourgeois Virtues: Ethics for an Age of CommerceVol. 2 - Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics Can't Explain the Modern WorldVol. 3 - Bourgeois Equality: How Ideas, Not Capital or Institutions, Enriched the WorldShorter summary volume: Leave Me Alone and I'll Make You Rich: How the Bourgeois Deal Enriched the World, by Deirdre McCloskey & Art CardenDiscussed and Recommended: Four Essays on Liberty by Isaiah Berlin; The Conservative Sensibility by George Will; Kathleen Stock & Deirdre McCloskey Debate Issues of Sex, Gender, & IdentityProfessor McCloskey's email, website, Twitter, & author page

Pedro Bial conversa com a economista Deirdre McCloskey, professora emérita de Economia, História e Comunicação.

One of the biggest misconceptions that drives mischief in the economy is the widespread belief that entrepreneurship is easy, and if it's not easy, it's at least formulaic. Deirdre McCloskey explains why that attitude can be so destructive. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Alex speaks with Professor Jacob Levy about the concept of neutrality within the history of liberalism and how many historical thinkers have approached the subject within that tradition.  Episode Notes: Michael Oakeshott on “adverbial rules” https://lawliberty.org/forum/michael-oakeshott-on-the-rule-of-law-and-the-liberal-order/  John Locke's religious beliefs https://rb.gy/1yg43  Heresy of Americanism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americanism_(heresy)  Deirdre McCloskey's Bourgeois Virtues Thesis https://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/bv_selection.pdf  Ronald Dworkin “Liberalism” https://www.scribd.com/document/313373358/Ronald-Dworkin-Liberalism#  Stephanie Slade, "Must Libertarians Care About More Than the State?" https://reason.com/2022/03/19/two-libertarianisms/  Alexis De Toqueville's concerns about the rising liberal democratic order https://www.economist.com/schools-brief/2018/08/09/de-tocqueville-and-the-french-exception  John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Liberty 

There are many competing theories that purport to explain the dramatic and sustained increase in wealth and well-being for humans these last two centuries. Cato's Deirdre McCloskey discusses why she believes liberty is the secret sauce of growing prosperity. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Read a transcript of this episode.Deirdre McCloskey is probably my favorite contemporary liberal scholar. Her work ranges widely across disciplines, is always fascinating, and builds its defense of free markets and the open society in a deeply humane and compassionate fashion.I've talked with her on podcasts before, but today's a little different. Our topic isn't economics, but religion. Deirdre is a committed Anglican, and her next book sets out the case that religious faith is an important component of a thriving liberal society—and that those who think Christianity points in a more reactionary, illiberal direction get Christianity wrong.ReImagining Liberty is a project of The UnPopulist, and is produced by Landry Ayres. Podcast art by Sergio R. M. Duarte. Music by Kevin MacLeod. Get full access to Aaron Ross Powell at www.aaronrosspowell.com/subscribe Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The economic historian and Magatte Wade, Alex Gladstein, Mohamad Machine-Chian, Tony Woodlief, and Tom Palmer are challenging authoritarians everywhere.

En este episodio hablamos con Deirdre McCloskey, una destacada economista y autora de varios libros sobre la economía mundial. Además de su impresionante carrera, McCloskey es también una mujer transgénero que ha tenido que enfrentar una serie de desafíos y obstáculos en su vida personal y profesional. En esta entrevista, McCloskey comparte su perspectiva única como mujer trans en el mundo de la economía y cómo ha influido en su forma de ver y analizar los fenómenos económicos globales. Compra tus boletos para el evento de El Billetazohttps://morisdieck.com/elbilletazoSígueme en todas mis redes sociales:

When policymakers pursue “equality,” which equality should they pursue? Deirdre McCloskey believes neither "equality of outcome" nor "equality of opportunity" is a great option. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In the fifth panel of the 2nd Ibero-American Congress of Cultural Liberalism - organized by Fundación Libertad and the Fundación Internacional para la Libertad - Yaron Brook, economist and writer, David Boaz, senior fellow of the Cato Institute, and Deirdre McCloskey, economist and writer, discuss the state of authoritarianism in the world and what liberals can do to counter it. Moderator: Marcos Falcone.This virtual panel was recorded on December 15, 2022 as part of the 2nd Ibero-American Congress of Cultural Liberalism - organized by Fundación Libertad and the Fundación Internacional para la Libertad 00:00 Intro01:30 David Boaz Intro10:55 Deirdre McCloskey Intro23:05 Yaron Brook Intro36:20 Are far right and left equaly threatening to liberalism?53:10 Has the US become less of an example on freedom?1:08:00 China1:16:53 Should we leave autocrats alone?1:20:40 Where should we focus our efforts? Join this channel to get access to perks:https://www.youtube.com/@YaronBrook/joinLike what you hear? Like, share, and subscribe to stay updated on new videos and help promote the Yaron Brook Show: https://bit.ly/3ztPxTxBecome a sponsor to get exclusive access and help create more videos like this: https://yaronbrookshow.com/support-members/support-the-show/Or make a one-time donation: https://bit.ly/2RZOyJJContinue the discussion by following Yaron on Twitter (https://bit.ly/3iMGl6z) and Facebook (https://bit.ly/3vvWDDC )Want to learn more about Ayn Rand and Objectivism? Visit the Ayn Rand Institute: https://bit.ly/35qoEC3

Editors' Pick:Rich: Luther Abel's piece “What Happens When a Regular Guy Mishandles Classified Information”Charlie: Douglas Murray's magazine piece “Right and Wrong on Ukraine”Jim: NR's editorial, “Biden's Transparency Claims Have Lost Credibility”Phil: Dan McLaughlin's piece “The 2022 Turnout Puzzle”Light Items:Rich: The Weirdest People on the World by Joseph Henrich, Bourgeois Dignity by Deirdre McCloskey, and Escape from Rome by Walter ScheidelCharlie: His Kansas City tripJim: A good physicalPhil: Accidental shopliftingSponsors:Dividend CafeThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

Dr. Matson's lecture explored how in the British tradition, political economy, which partly emerged out of discourses in natural theology, ethics and jurisprudence, casts some light on the content of our moral obligations. Drawing on Hutcheson, Hume, and Smith, he desicussed how commerce in the eighteenth century came to be depicted as a mode of cooperation—either literally with God or metaphorically with our fellow human beings—through which we serve the common good. That depiction energized the emerging authorization of commercial enterprise, helping to illustrate the virtue of what Deirdre McCloskey calls the “bourgeois virtues,” an understanding which contributed to the Great Enrichment. The depiction continues to edify business as a calling and elaborate how freedom serves the good of humankind.Erik W. Matson is a Senior Research Fellow at the Mercatus Center and the Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Program in George Mason University's Department of Economics. He serves as an Online Course Lecturer at The King's College, New York. Previously he was a Postdoctoral Fellow at New York University. He earned a Ph.D. in Economics from George Mason University in 2017.Subscribe to our podcastsRegister Now for Business Matters 2023Apply Now for Acton University 2023 (Early Bird Pricing) Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Daniel Klein is professor of economics and JIN Chair at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he co-leads a program in Adam Smith. There's been renewed interest in the role Christianity has played in liberalism since Larry Siedentop's 2014 book, Inventing the Individual: The Origins of Western Liberalism. Today, Dan Churchwell, Acton's Director of Programs and Education, sits down with Klein to discuss Adam Smith and his enlightenment vision. Building on Siedentop, Klein says universal benevolent monotheism, and Christianity in particular, has led to the articulation of a specific social grammar and corresponding rights—in short Adam Smith's “liberal plan.” Subscribe to our podcastsDr. Klein's faculty pageFull discussion of Larry Siedentop's book:Full set of notes on SiedentopKlein published interview on Siedentop:Klein replies to Deirdre McCloskey on Siedentop: Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

What is the proper way for Christians to engage with the world around them? Many theologians believe Christians are called upon to be socialists. Deirdre McCloskey disagrees. Her forthcoming book is God in Commerce. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

“It's tough to be alive now,” the actor Timothée Chalamet recently said. “I think societal collapse is in the air — it smells like it.”It's one of those lines that got picked up by dozens of media outlets. Because those outlets know it's one of those headlines people can't resist clicking on. As the economist Deirdre McCloskey once put it, “For reasons I have never understood, people like to hear that the world is going to hell.”✉️ Want Stoic wisdom delivered to your inbox daily? Sign up for the FREE Daily Stoic email at https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

Deirdre McCloskey is an economist, the author of more than 20 books, and is one of America's most prominent trans academics. During our conversation, Deirdre talks about growing up in the 1940's and 1950's, knowing from an early age that she wanted to be a woman, her marriage of more than 30 years to the "love of her life" and fathering two children, and her epiphany in the 1990's, at more than 50 years of age, that she wanted to transition from a man to a woman.Deirdre also details the reaction of her family to her desire to transition, how she was twice institutionalized, progress in trans rights in America, and her disagreements with positions taken by individuals like Kathleen Stock and Helen Joyce, who have publicly voiced concerns about allowing children to go through hormone therapy and insist that the majority of kids who transition later regret their decision.As I note during the conversation, I think most people are trying to form their views on this sensitive issue, to best determine what is true and what is decent. A free society should allow adults to do what they want, provided they aren't harming others. I try to understand the concerns of people on both sides of this debate around children, and no matter how one might come down on it, I admire Deirdre's courage in authentically living her life, in being true to herself, and in her commitment to free speech, to allow open and important moral conversations to happen.------------Support via Venmo------------Show notesSocial media and all episodes------------(00:00) Introduction(02:50) “Crossing: A Memoir” quote: boyhood(09:49) Early life and sexuality(14:29) Gender conversations with her ex-wife(16:53) Concealments from her ex-wife(17:44) Being sexually different in the 50s and 60s(20:23) Cross-dressing(21:31) Gender transition after decades of marriage(23:09) 50 years as a male(25:45) Her resistance towards gender change(28:10) Praying to be a woman(29:19) Lived experience as a man identifying as a woman(31:19) The moment of epiphany to transition(35:26) Clarity on the epiphany(36:33) Loved ones' reactions to the gender transition(38:54) Being institutionalized against her will(41:25) Classical liberalism and freedom(43:13) The experience of being institutionalized(45:59) Changing cultural views on gender transitions(50:09) Life post gender transition(53:50) Self-actualization and gender transition(58:25) The best part about being a female(01:01:16) Living doubt-free post gender transition(01:05:00) Freedom of speech being paramount(01:06:26) Is gender change irreversible?(01:11:41) Do children often regret gender transition?(01:16:29) Are claims of children regretting their gender change fabricated?(01:19:19) The state's involvement in personal decisions(01:23:00) Removing the state from personal decisions(01:27:47) Courage, and being a public example

This episode explores Prof McCloskey's criticism of the way the discipline of economics has unfortunately been separated from matters of ethics, the importance of liberal values for human progress, and her calls for a human-centered approach to economics called ‘humanomics'.

The role of literature in economics, Chinese totalitarianism, levelling-up and trans rights. In this fascinating IEA In Conversation, Matthew Lesh, IEA Head of Public Policy, sits down with Deirdre McCloskey to discuss all of this and much more! Deirdre N. McCloskey has been since 2000 UIC Distinguished Professor of Economics, History, English, and Communication at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Trained at Harvard as an economist, she has written twenty books and edited seven more, and has published some four hundred articles on economic theory, economic history, philosophy, rhetoric, feminism, ethics, and law. She taught for twelve years in Economics at the University of Chicago, and describes herself now as a “postmodern free-market quantitative Episcopalian feminist Aristotelian.”   FOLLOW US: TWITTER - https://twitter.com/iealondon​​  INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/ieauk/​​  FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/ieauk​​  WEBSITE - https://iea.org.uk/ 

En este nuevo episodio hablamos con Axel Kaiser, (www.instagram.com/axelkaiserb) autor de "La Neoinquisición", "La tiranía de la igualdad", y "El economista callejero" entro otros. Axel es analista político, columnista para "El Mercurio", colaborador para el "Washington Post", director de la Fundación para El Progreso de Chile (https://fppchile.org/es/), y es uno de los referentes para la libertad de expresión, y la razón en latinoamerica.De los distintos temas que tratamos, hablamos sobre su admiración por la economista Deirdre McCloskey a quien destaca por encima de muchas personalidades eruditas a las que ha tenido la oportunidad de conocer, así mismo como nos explica qué hace tan especial a esta mujer. Adicionalmente, Axel nos explica qué implica realmente "pensar", y por qué algunos aunque creamos que lo hacemos, no necesariamente es así, y nos desmenuza lo que para él implica este acto.Adicionalmente, Axel nos explica la demagogia detrás del eslogan de un candidato a la presidencia colombiana, que propone a "Colombia potencia mundial de la vida"; y detalladamente nos evidencia cómo a través de la manipulación del lenguaje, nos manipulan para vendernos una realidad de la que después seremos prisioneros.En una respuesta imperdible, Axel nos articula un argumento para explicar por qué pensar se ha convertido en una acción incómoda para los movimientos identitarios de izquierda, los cuales utilizan con gran eficacia el "lenguaje inclusivo" (que está tan de moda), y al cual Axel considera además de una abominación, una arma de destrucción masiva cultural cuando se mezcla con las redes sociales; una capaz de poner fin a la civilización occidental, ya que es utilizada para ganar la superioridad moral y manipular a las masas.Si quieres aprender más de Axel te recomiendo ver esta charla haciendo click acá.Si quieres oír otras entrevistas interesantes te recomiendo:Ep.45 ¿Cómo Apoderarme De Mi Vida? / David JannaEp. 44. Cambio Climático y Tecnología / Alejandro Agag (Presidente de la Formula E)Ep. 40 ¿Cómo conseguir empleo? / Alex Torrenegra (Inversionista de Shark Tank Colombia)Ep. 38 ¿Cómo crear el hábito de lectura? / Verónica CendalesEp. 34 ¿Tengo que ser un Crack? / Oso Trava (Anfitrión de Cracks podcast)Sígueme en Instagram: www.instagram.com/andrekanayetSi te gusta el podcast deja una reseña acá, y sigue el programa para enterarte apenas salga un nuevo episodio ¡te lo agradecería enormemente! ¡Ya nos vemos!

Alex speaks with Deirdre McCloskey in a wide-ranging conversation that addresses the economic, philosophical, and political reasons why liberalism just works. 

Matt Kibbe is joined by Deirdre McCloskey, distinguished professor emeritus of economics and of history at the University of Illinois in Chicago, to talk about the language we use as advocates of free market economics. McCloskey points out that economics is essentially a series of metaphors, and that we can best explain its concepts through stories rather than the dry language of academia. Meanwhile, certain jargon or stigmatized terms like “capitalism” are doing more harm than good when it comes to helping people understand why the freedom to innovate makes life better for everyone.

Why did gross domestic product suddenly start to skyrocket just a few hundred years ago after centuries of only gradual, marginal improvements? Dr. Deirdre McCloskey, Distinguished Professor Emerita of Economics, History, English, and Communication atUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, has written extensively on why it was not the accumulation of capital that caused what she has dubbed "The Great Enrichment"—and eventually enabled the Industrial Revolution—but rather the spread of the great ideas of liberty. On today's episode of Borderless, she joins Vale Sloane to discuss how ideas changed the world and allowed the standard of living to advance so dramatically for millions and billions of people.Dr. McCloskey prefers the term "innovism" to describe the source of this enrichment, rather than the more familiar "capitalism." Innovation, enabled by institutions such as the free market and free speech, was far more important to the economic transformation of the last few centuries than capital alone. Take a deep dive into what this means for our understanding of liberalism, history, and even the future on this episode of Borderless.Stay in the know by following us on social media:https://twitter.com/AtlasNetworkhttps://www.instagram.com/atlasnetwork/https://www.facebook.com/atlasnetwork/Support the Atlas Network Mission Today: https://www.atlasnetwork.org/donate

Kevin Williamson, the Remnant's cheeriest regular, is back for another voyage through the strange realm of contemporary America. A free society is messy, and life is all about contradictions, inconsistencies, and trade-offs. But this can be an uncomfortable truth for many to face. In a conversation that will send you scrambling for your bingo cards, Kevin and Jonah explore the problem with social homogeneity. They also touch on the weaknesses of autocratic regimes, realistic climate change solutions, and Kevin's hatred of Ohio. Plus, tune in to hear Kevin give a rousing reading of “The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock.” Show Notes:- Kevin's page at National Review- Kevin: “Autocracy's Fatal Flaws”- Kevin: “Make Putin Pay”- Hayek: “Why the Worst Get on Top”- Christopher Caldwell's The Age of Entitlement- Yuval Levin's The Great Debate- Kevin's The Smallest Minority- The Remnant with Brian Rield- Jonah and Deirdre McCloskey at the Cato Institute- The Books of Jacob, by Olga Tokarczuk- The Remnant with Shadi Hamid- Jonah: “Rise of the Underminers”- Unintentional confession

Prof. Deirdre McCloskey has written prolifically on a wide range of topics. In this episode, she discusses her trilogy of books which attempt to explain what she coined 'The Great Enrichment' since the nineteenth century. We discuss the use of language in economics, the potentially overstated role of physical capital, how liberalism spawned innovation and fostered ideas, as well as comparing some historical living standard examples throughout.