Podcasts about economic research

April 2025: Liberation Day. President Trump announces sweeping new tariffs. And then, the dollar did something a safe haven currency is not supposed to do: it fell.Tarek Hassan (Boston University, CEPR), working with Thomas Mertens, Jingye Wang and Tony Zhang, has been investigating what makes a currency the global anchor. Being the world's biggest economy helps, but what really matters is how far an economy's shocks affect world prices. Tariffs reduce this effect. But are we near a tipping point, when the euro takes over as the global reserve currency? We might be closer than you think and, if a change happens, it might happen more quickly than you think too.This is the third of four episodes drawn from papers commissioned for the second Economic Policy: Papers on European and Global Issues conference, held in Venice on 19 and 20 June 2026 and organised by CEPR, CESifo and Sciences Po.The research behind this episode:Hassan, Tarek A., Thomas M. Mertens, Jingye Wang, and Tony Zhang. 2026. "Openness, Integration, and the International Monetary Order." Conference draft, presented at the 2nd Economic Policy: Papers on European and Global Issues Conference, Venice, 19 to 20 June 2026. Forthcoming in Economic Policy.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, and Tarek A. Hassan. 2026. "The Dollar Anchor Is Slipping." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).About the guestTarek A. Hassan is Professor of Economics at Boston University, a Research Fellow of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Research Fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research. His research spans international finance, macro-finance, and the political economy of growth, from measuring firm-level political risk with large language models to, in this paper, the size and openness that decide which currency the world treats as safe.Research cited in this episodeLiberation Day and the April 2025 tariffs. On 2 April 2025, the White House announced a sweeping set of import tariffs. Hassan and his co-authors treat the market reaction to that announcement, in which the dollar fell even as US interest rates rose and US stocks underperformed, as the anomaly their model is built to explain; a currency behaving that way in a crisis usually counts as risky, not safe. CEPR has gathered further commentary on the announcement and its aftermath on its Trump and Tariffs page.Exorbitant privilege. A term coined in the 1960s for the advantage the United States gets from issuing the world's reserve currency, since foreign investors will hold dollar assets at a lower return than they would demand elsewhere. Hassan uses it to explain why Americans can borrow more cheaply than almost anyone else, and why losing anchor status would raise the US government's own borrowing costs.Effective size. The paper's central idea. It is not simply how big an economy is, but how much weight its shocks carry in setting world prices, which depends on both actual size and openness to trade and capital flows. Tariffs and capital controls both reduce a country's effective size without touching its GDP, which is how they can knock a currency out of contention as a global anchor.The Budget Lab at Yale's tariff tracker. The paper draws its estimate that the current average tariff on US imports and exports, once retaliation is included, runs at around 12% from The Budget Lab at Yale (2025), Where We Stand: The Fiscal, Economic, and Distributional Effects of All US Tariffs Enacted in 2025 Through April 2, a running assessment of US trade policy maintained by the nonpartisan Budget Lab at Yale.Ilzetzki, Reinhart, and Rogoff's exchange rate classification. Ilzetzki, Reinhart, and Rogoff. 2019. "Exchange Arrangements Entering the Twenty-First Century: Which Anchor Will Hold?" Quarterly Journal of Economics 134 (2). This dataset classifies the de facto exchange rate regime of 141 economies. Hassan and his co-authors use it to calibrate their model and to show that the share of countries pegging tightly to the dollar falls with country size almost exactly as their theory predicts.The Chinn-Ito index of capital account openness. Chinn, Menzie D., and Hiro Ito. 2006. "What Matters for Financial Development? Capital Controls, Institutions, and Interactions." Journal of Development Economics 81 (1): 163 to 192. This widely used index scores how open a country's capital account is to cross-border investment. China scores close to the bottom, in the same range as India, Russia, Brazil and Pakistan, while the United States and the eurozone score close to the maximum, which is central to why Hassan treats the renminbi as a non-contender for anchor status while capital controls remain in place.More VoxTalks Economics episodesTariffs, Uncertainty, and the Exchange Rate, the first episode in this series, in which Alfonso Merendino and Tommaso Monacelli offer another explanation of why the dollar fell rather than rose after the 2025 tariffs.How Exchange Rates Responded to Tariffs, in which Giancarlo Corsetti also tells Tim Phillips what happened to the dollar after Liberation Day, and why the textbook response did not show up.Related reading on VoxEU.orgTariffs and US Dollar Depreciations: Not So Surprising After All, a VoxEU column in which Giancarlo Corsetti, Simon Lloyd and Daniel Ostry argue that the dollar's fall after Liberation Day looks less puzzling once expected retaliation and long run risk are taken into account.Tariffs, Global Imbalances, and the Dollar, in which Oleg Itskhoki and Dmitry Mukhin examine whether tariffs aimed at shrinking the US trade deficit can actually work, and what trying would mean for the dollar.

In 1978, a farmer in rural China could not sell a sack of grain above the state quota, choose an employer, or move to the nearest city without a permit.In this week's VoxDev Talk, Kaiji Chen and Tao Zha (both Emory University and Atlanta Fed) explain how China dismantled barriers like this one at a time. Gradualist reform first gave farmers the right to sell surplus grain at market prices. Small state firms were privatised 19 years later, while the largest kept state backing. This style of reform powered two distinct growth engines: first, labour moving off the land, then a wave of capital into infrastructure and property. The result: half a century of unprecedented growth -- but it also produced the debt, inequality and trade tension now working against China's growth model.The research behind this episode:Chen, Kaiji, and Tao Zha. 2025. "China's Macroeconomic Development: The Role of Gradualist Reforms." Journal of Economic Literature 63 (4): 1331-62.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, Kaiji Chen, and Tao Zha. 2026. "Fifty years of Chinese growth: The gradualist reform strategy explained." VoxDev Talk (podcast).About the guestsKaiji Chen is Professor of Economics at Emory University and a research fellow at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta's Center for Quantitative Economic Research. His research spans financial contracts, business cycles and China's macroeconomy, with recent work on housing policy, credit allocation and household consumption in China.Tao Zha is the Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Economics at Emory University and executive director of the Center for Quantitative Economic Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He is a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research and was elected a Fellow of the Econometric Society in 2017. His research spans macroeconomics, financial economics and econometrics, with a long standing focus on China's economy.Research cited in this episodeThe household responsibility system. Piloted in Sichuan and Anhui from 1978 and adopted nationwide by 1980, this reform kept land collectively owned but contracted it to individual households, who could sell output above a fixed state quota at market prices. It replaced work point pay with a direct link between effort and income, and the productivity gains it released freed the rural labour surplus behind China's first wave of industrialisation.Township and village enterprises (TVEs). Rural, collectively owned firms that absorbed workers leaving agriculture through the 1980s and 1990s, often with local governments acting as guarantors for bank credit the firms could not secure alone. TVE employment grew from 28 million in 1978 to 135 million by 1997, and TVE output rose from under 6% of GDP to 26% over roughly the same period.The hukou system. China's household registration system, introduced in 1958, ties access to housing, healthcare, education and grain rations to a person's registered location, rural or urban. It made moving to a city without an urban permit practically impossible. Restrictions eased in stages from the late 1990s, and the formal rural urban distinction was removed nationwide only in 2014."Grasp the large, let go of the small." The policy, initiated in 1997, under which China privatised or allowed the bankruptcy of small and medium state owned enterprises while retaining state control of the largest, most capital intensive firms in sectors such as infrastructure, energy and real estate.WTO accession and permanent Most Favoured Nation status. China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001. From 2002, permanent MFN status with the United States removed the annual threat of tariff spikes on Chinese exports, a stability that Chen and Zha's paper credits with accelerating China's shift from labour intensive exports toward electronics and other capital intensive goods.The 2009 stimulus and local government financing vehicles. In response to the global financial crisis, China launched a four trillion RMB fiscal package alongside a sharp expansion of bank lending. Much of the resulting infrastructure spending ran through local government financing vehicles, off budget entities set up to borrow for public projects; the debt they built up is now central to China's financial stability risks.Total social financing. International Monetary Fund. 2026. "People's Republic of China: 2025 Article IV Consultation." IMF Country Report No. 26/044. The IMF's broadest measure of credit in the Chinese economy, the figure Kaiji Chen cites as roughly 315% of GDP in 2025.More VoxDev Talks episodesThe Four Pests campaign and China's Great Famine, in which Shaoda Wang traces a darker chapter of Chinese economic history, the mass eradication of sparrows during the Great Leap Forward and the millions of deaths that followed.The rise and fall of China's overseas lending, in which Sebastian Horn explains how China became the developing world's largest bilateral creditor, and why that lending boom has now gone into reverse.Related reading on VoxDev.orgThe Mandarin model of growth, on how China's system of promoting local officials for delivering growth shaped decades of investment led expansion.How China became the world's factory: Trade, industrial policy, and growth, on the trade liberalisation and industrial policy that took China from export processing to global manufacturing leader.The bubble dynamics of China's housing boom, Edward Glaeser on the construction surge behind the price rises Chen and Zha describe in this episode.

A structural transfer of liability and risk is reshaping industry engagement models, with outcome-based contracting increasing across service agreements. This shift is being driven by buyer demands for accountability in technology solutions, notably in artificial intelligence deployments, and is illustrated by recent unpublished but credible reports that OpenAI is quietly allowing select large enterprise customers to pay only when AI tasks are successfully completed. Supporting research from Gartner and CIO Dive highlights a growing disparity: while 19% of service buyers seek outcome-based payment models, only 13% of agreements from sellers currently accommodate them. The core development spotlighted is the disconnect between expectations for measurable AI-driven business outcomes and the lack of empirical evidence that such technologies are delivering on those promises at the organizational level. A large-scale survey by the National Bureau of Economic Research, encompassing nearly 6,000 senior executives across four countries, found that over 89% reported no observable improvement in employment or labor productivity from AI investments during the past three years, despite substantial organizational changes and budget reallocations. Additionally, research by Thomson Reuters found that 91% of 1,800 professionals reported their organizations were not realizing expected AI value, identifying a gap in demonstrable returns even while the technology is being deployed. Supporting data from Techaisle reveals partner capability thins dramatically as customers progress into advanced AI adoption stages. Most channel providers retain capacity only for basic "estate" work, with capability dropping to near zero for the most advanced client needs. Forrester has also identified persistent barriers to reliable measurement, such as fragmented and inconsistent data baselines, as well as dependencies on customer-side decisions. These factors magnify contract risk and reinforce the liability shift toward providers, who become responsible for defining, measuring, and underwriting outcomes without always possessing necessary levers or data. The operational implication for MSPs and IT service providers is heightened exposure to contractual and financial risk when agreeing to outcome-based terms, especially without mechanisms to price or control every relevant input. Providers are often unable to flow contract risk upstream to vendors or technology manufacturers, as their own agreements typically exclude outcomes. The episode concludes that early engagement and proactive definition of acceptable, controllable outcomes is essential, as outcome-based demands are likely to appear pre-baked in future client agreements, shifting bargaining power away from providers unprepared to quantify their exposure. Using data from their own worst-performing months, documenting client dependencies as contract conditions, and piloting outcome-based lines in otherwise standard agreements are outlined as practical tactics to mitigate downside risk before broader market adoption. 00:00 Four Numbers, One Cause 03:45 What You Ask For When You Can't Tell 06:45 Nobody Underneath You 10:20 Why Do We Care? Supported by: Guardz ScalePad

There is a saying in Spanish: get burned by hot milk, and the sight of a cow makes you cry. New research implies that, decades after a populist government leaves office, the central bank it once tried to control is still flinching.Martín Uribe (Columbia) and Nicolás Magud (IMF) have investigated the long-run effect of populist governments that leaned on their central banks to print money and feed inflation. They find that these central banks raise interest rates more aggressively than others when inflation drifts above target, even decades later.This is the second of four episodes drawn from papers commissioned for the second Economic Policy: Papers on European and Global Issues conference, organised by CEPR, CESifo and Sciences Po.The research behind this episode:Jácome, Luis, Nicolás E. Magud, Samuel Pienknagura, and Martín Uribe. 2026. "Fiscal Populism and Monetary Policy Rules." Conference draft, presented at the 2nd Economic Policy: Papers on European and Global Issues Conference, Venice, 19-20 June 2026. Forthcoming in Economic Policy.To cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, Martín Uribe, and Nicolás E. Magud. 2026. "Fiscal Populism and Monetary Policy." VoxTalks Economics (podcast).About the guestsMartin Uribe is the Robert A. Mundell Professor of Economics at Columbia University and a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His research spans international macroeconomics and the theory of monetary and fiscal policy, with recent work on tariff shocks, fiscal dominance, and the long-run legacy of high inflation on how central banks set policy. He is editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Economics.Nicolás E. Magud is a Senior Economist in the International Monetary Fund's Western Hemisphere Department. His research spans open-economy macroeconomics, with a focus on fiscal policy, exchange rates, capital flows, and capital controls, much of it drawn from Latin America's long experience of inflation and central bank reform.Research cited in this episodeThe populist leaders database. Funke, Manuel, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch. 2023. "Populist Leaders and the Economy." American Economic Review 113 (12): 3249-88. The authors classify a leader as populist if their rhetoric splits society into "the people" against "the elites," then divide populists into left-wing, whose target is economic elites, and right-wing, whose target is foreigners and minorities. Deficit monetisation and "unpleasant monetarist arithmetic." Sargent, Thomas J., and Neil Wallace. 1981. "Some Unpleasant Monetarist Arithmetic." Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Quarterly Review 5 (3). The paper that established the mechanism this episode turns on: when a government's deficit is financed by its own central bank printing money rather than by selling bonds to the public, the result is inflation. It gives the paper's account of populism and central bank credit its theoretical backbone.Local projections difference-in-differences. Dube, Arindrajit, Daniele Girardi, Oscar Jorda , and Alan M. Taylor. 2025. "A Local Projections Approach to Difference-in-Differences." Journal of Applied Econometrics 40 (7): 741-58. The statistical method behind the paper's headline charts. It compares countries that have just installed a populist government against "clean" control countries with no recent populist history, tracking central bank credit year by year after the change of regime.The Central Bank Independence Extended (CBIE) index. Romelli, Davide. 2022. "The Political Economy of Reforms in Central Bank Design: Evidence from a New Dataset." Economic Policy 37 (112): 641-88. A dataset scoring central bank laws on their independence, including limits on lending to government. The paper uses it to show that countries with a populist past, especially a left-wing one, now have stricter legal limits on central bank lending than countries with no such history.Argentina, Chile, and Mexico. The paper's three historical case studies. In Argentina, governments from Perón onward repeatedly rewrote central bank law to permit financing of the treasury, contributing to repeated bouts of high inflation and, eventually, hyperinflation in the 1980s. In Chile, the Allende government printed money to fund an expansion of the state, and inflation reached roughly 600% in 1973 before the government was overthrown. In Mexico, President Echeverría's public investment drive in the 1970s was financed in part by the central bank, feeding an inflation and currency crisis that culminated in the country's 1982 default. Uribe and Magud point to these episodes as the historical template their statistical results describe.Related reading on VoxEUCentral bank independence: An update, a VoxEU column in which Sylvester Eijffinger and Jakob de Haan argue that legal independence alone does not shield a central bank from political pressure to loosen policy.Recent trends in central bank independence, in which Davide Romelli, whose index this paper uses to track legal independence, documents a fresh wave of reforms strengthening central banks worldwide since 2016.

To earn the return on its investment, artificial intelligence will need to nearly triple productivity in the U.S. economy. So what will it do?Today on Second Request, Executive Editor Teddy Downey sits down with Jessica Wachter, the Dr. Bruce I. Jacobs Professor of Quantitative Finance at the Wharton School and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, to discuss her recent paper, "What Investment Data Implies About the AI Transition," co-authored with Jonathan Wachter.

The political left and right increasingly agree on one dangerous idea: Washington should direct more of the economy.Industrial policy, tariffs, subsidies, and economic nationalism are being sold as ways to rebuild manufacturing, strengthen families, and make America more prosperous. But replacing market decisions with political direction does not create prosperity. It concentrates power, protects favored industries, and forces families and businesses to pay the bill.That is the focus of my conversation with Dr. Paul Mueller, Senior Research Fellow and Director of Defending Freedom and Combatting Collectivism at the American Institute for Economic Research. Paul studies entrepreneurship, economic growth, monetary economics, and political economy. He also hosts AIER's The Economist Next Door, which brings economic ideas to everyday Americans.We discuss his AIER paper examining the New Right's growing embrace of industrial policy, protectionism, and government-directed investment.

In November 2022, Oregon voters narrowly passed a gun control measure that bans high-capacity gun magazines and requires safety training, completed background checks and permits for firearm purchases. Measure 114 awaits a decision by the Oregon Supreme Court and if it’s upheld, the soonest it could take effect is January 2028.   The prospect of gun control restrictions nonetheless fueled a sharp demand in gun purchases in Oregon leading up to and following the Measure 114 referendum. That’s according to a new study by researchers from Oregon State University, the University of Oregon and the National Bureau of Economic Research.    Using background checks as a proxy for firearm purchases, the researchers found that background checks spiked nearly 160% in the two months after the passage of Measure 114. The researchers said the measure led to 63,000 more background checks in Oregon between October 2022 and March 2024 than would have otherwise been expected during this time.    Katie Bollman, an assistant professor in economics at OSU, joins us for more details.  

All Else Equal is taking a short break over the summer and will be revisiting some of our favorite conversations from last season. The show will be back with new episodes soon.  Whether it be in politics, public health, or corporate finance, why are people more likely to interpret facts or data in a way that fits their preconceived notions about the world as opposed to searching for the fundamental truth?   A new paper from the Harvard Business School called, Sharing Models to Interpret Data (by Joshua Schwartzstein and Adi Sunderam) studies the propensity for people to adopt interpretations to data based on their community's beliefs, and why this can lead to less accurate conclusions. Hosts and finance professors Jonathan Berk and Jules van Binsbergen are joined by the paper's co-author  Adi Sunderam, who is a professor of corporate finance at Harvard Business School, a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a co-editor of the Journal of Finance.  The conversation covers the complexity of Bayesian updating and how the process is improperly deployed in today's thinking, not only in corporate decision-making but also on a sociological level. They also discuss Sunderam's model for explaining how people interpret data, why people are more likely to fall into group-belief dynamics, and if there are any interventions that would lead to better decision-making.   Read Adi Sunderam and Joshua Schwartzstein's paper:  Sharing Models to Interpret Data   Find All Else Equal on the web:   https://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/allelse/   All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions Podcast is a production of the UPenn Wharton Lauder Institute through University FM.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Jeff Michael, Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, leads a discussion on Montana’s current economy – both the good and bad – after wrapping up a statewide series of presentations and discussion. The post Montana's Economy Here and Now first appeared on Voices of Montana.

Inflation is usually discussed as a policy problem, but families experience it as a daily burden that changes how they save, spend, plan, and build their lives. It shows up at the grocery store, in rent and mortgage payments, in childcare costs, in interest rates, and in the growing feeling that even when people work hard, they are still falling behind. But inflation does more than raise prices. It changes behavior.That is why I enjoyed this conversation with Dr. Jeffrey L. Degner, Research Fellow in Economics and Economic Freedom at the American Institute for Economic Research. Jeff is the author of Inflation and the Family, which challenges the common view that inflation is just a macroeconomic variable. His work shows how inflation reshapes household decision-making, weakens institutions, shortens time horizons, and erodes the foundations families need to plan and thrive. Before joining AIER, Jeff spent years in education, from high school to higher education, and most recently served as Dean of the School of Business at Cornerstone University. His research brings together economics, history, and moral philosophy to explain why sound money matters beyond markets. It matters for families.

New research out of the US indicates weight-loss drugs may help people get a job - and their New Zealand counterparts say this can't be ruled out here. The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, says women who were unemployed increased their likelihood of securing a job by 26.9 percentage points after a year-and-a-half of taking a GLP-1. AUT associate professor for planetary health, Julie Trafford, says this could also be linked to confidence, and there could be other factors besides the weight loss. "We haven't yet, in New Zealand, had the opportunity of Wegovy for long enough to be able to tell that story, because it was only approved by Medsafe for use in New Zealand about a year and a half ago - so unfortunately, we can't know for sure yet." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Montana economist Patrick Barkey, host of the radio series “The Montana Economic Minute” and former Director of the Bureau of Business and Economic Research, joins the program for a broad-based glance around the economy, including discussions on energy, debt, inflation, […] The post Economist Pat Barkey – Energy, Debt, Inflation, Cashless Society first appeared on Voices of Montana.

Welcome to Episode 222 of The Spokesman Speaks podcast. In this episode, we explore both sides of the free trade and tariffs debate that has captured news headlines and ag policy discussions in recent years, with Dr. Sam Gregg of the American Institute for Economic Research and Ambassador Bob Lighthizer, who was the former U.S. Trade Representative under President Trump. Resources mentioned in this episode Join Farm Bureau at the Iowa State Fair.

In today's episode of The Scott Jennings Show, Mark Davis takes the reins, discussing the economy and the growing concerns surrounding AI. He's joined by Dr. Peter Earl, senior director of research at the American Institute for Economic Research, to discuss the importance of a lighter touch from government and the dangers of subsidizing failure. Then, Mark is joined by Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI. They discuss the recent incident where AI agents escaped a sandbox and hacked into a company, raising concerns about the potential risks of AI. Brendan shares his thoughts on the need for caution and the importance of developing safeguards to prevent AI from becoming a nightmare scenario. https://www.duke-energy.com/poweringamerica See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Gregor und Marcus glauben, ein heimliches Wirtschaftswunder-Gerät gefunden zu haben: die Klimaanlage. Ist kühle Luft womöglich ein uralter Business-Case und die Grundlage für den Erfolg ganzer Staaten?**********HörtippFacts & Feelings - Wie verlieren wir die Angst vorm Investieren?**********In dieser Folge:3:11 - Luft kühlen - früher und heute11:40 - Singapur - Wirtschaftlicher Aufstieg dank Klimaanlage?18:10 - Zu wenige Klimaanlagen in Deutschland?20:54 - Fazit / Wahres für Bares23:42 - Hörtipp: Facts & Feelings - Wie verlieren wir die Angst vorm Investieren?**********An dieser Folge waren beteiligt: Autoren: Gregor Lischka und Marcus Wolf  Faktencheck: Merle Körber und Kathrin Krautwasser  Produktion: Uwe Breunig  Redaktion: Michael Böddeker  **********Die Quellen zur Folge:Allianz Research / Allianz Trade. "Too Hot to Grow – The Economic Costs of Extreme Heat." Allianz Trade, 28. Mai 2026.  American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE). "A History of Comfort Cooling Using Ice." Atlanta: ASHRAE.Glaeser, Edward L., and Kristina Tobio. "The Rise of the Sunbelt." NBER Working Paper 2007-04. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research, 2007.International Energy Agency (IEA). The Future of Cooling: Opportunities for Energy-Efficient Air Conditioning. Paris: IEA, 2018. International Labour Organization. Report on Heat Stress and Labour Productivity, 2019. Cited in Sustainable Energy for All, "The Productivity Penalty of Failing to Deliver Sustainable Cooling". Alle Quellen findet ihr hier.**********Unsere Empfehlungen:CNA Insider: Why This Albanian Moved To Singapore To Fix Air Conditioners – Singapore Hour **********Weitere Beiträge zum Thema:Waschmaschine vs. Internet: Die Frage nach der wichtigsten Innovation der Wirtschaftsgeschichte**********Habt ihr auch manchmal einen WTF-Moment, wenn es um Wirtschaft und Finanzen geht? Wir freuen uns über eure Themenvorschläge und Feedback an whatthewirtschaft@deutschlandfunknova.de.**********Den Artikel zum Stück findet ihr hier.**********Ihr könnt uns auch auf diesen Kanälen folgen: TikTok und Instagram .

The latest data from the ABS shows headline inflation fell from 4 per cent to 3.8 per cent in June. Despite trimmed mean inflation remaining steady at 3.6 per cent, well above the Reserve Bank's 2-3 per cent target range, the unexpected drop in the headline figures has eased concerns of another interest rate hike in August. For more, Rena Sarumpaet spoke to Harry Murphy Cruise, head of Economic Research and Global Trade at Oxford Economics Australia. The Australian share market rose following the data drop. For more, Stephanie Youssef spoke with Jamie Hannah from VaNeck.

The latest data from the ABS shows headline inflation fell from 4 per cent to 3.8 per cent in June. Despite trimmed mean inflation remaining steady at 3.6 per cent, well above the Reserve Bank's 2-3 per cent target range, the unexpected drop in the headline figures has eased concerns of another interest rate hike in August. For more, Rena Sarumpaet spoke to Harry Murphy Cruise, head of Economic Research and Global Trade at Oxford Economics Australia. The Australian share market rose following the data drop. For more, Stephanie Youssef spoke with Jamie Hannah from VaNeck.

Spouting Off with Karen Kataline Hostages, Free Speech, California Politics, and the Battle Over America's Future Karen Kataline guest-hosts The Alan Nathan Show with conversations on Middle East peace, Christian revival, Washington safety, free-speech platforms, California politics, progressive prejudice, political violence, and the competing narratives shaping American life. Spotlight: Corinne Clifford Corinne Clifford is introduced as an independent journalist, White House press corps member, and official spokesperson for SAT123.com. Speaking from Washington, D.C., she discusses covering national news from the White House, the release of hostages, President Trump's schedule, a tribute to Charlie Kirk, and what she describes as a Christian revival taking place in the United States. Guest Spotlight: Jeff Dornik Jeff Dornik is introduced as the founder and CEO of Pickax, a social media platform built around “freedom of speech and freedom of reach.” He also hosts The Jeff Dornik Show and discusses Gavin Newsom, California politics, gun regulation, slavery reparations, Katie Porter, jungle primaries, Steve Hilton, and why he believes California voters are increasingly frustrated with progressive leadership. Guest Spotlight: Leslie Corbly Leslie Corbly is introduced as an author, poet, columnist, attorney, former visiting fellow with the American Institute for Economic Research, and former policy analyst at the Libertas Institute. Her latest book, Progressive Prejudice: Exposing the Devouring Mother, becomes the foundation for a conversation about female predation, motherhood, dependency, abortion, child abuse, relational power, and the subtle prejudices she argues are embedded in progressive politics. Guest Spotlight: Nils Grevilius Nils Grevilius is introduced as a Los Angeles-based private investigator and author known for his past work with the Pinkerton organization and his investigation of the Wonderland Avenue murders. He clarifies that he is no longer with Pinkerton, then discusses political violence, activist networks, media framing, anti-Semitism, the aftermath of COVID-19 mistrust, and his forthcoming book The Last Lawman. Karen Kataline Opens With Free Speech, Hostages, and Live Radio Energy This episode of Spouting Off features Karen Kataline filling in on The Alan Nathan Show on the Main Street Radio Network. After the opening frames Spouting Off around liberty, uncensored ideas, debate, and the freedom to speak one's mind, Karen begins with Alan Nathan's motto about keeping Republicans, Democrats, and government power away from private life, wallets, and First and Second Amendment rights. A live-to-tape guest mix-up leads into Karen's first major topic: the emotional release of hostages after two years and the possibility of a twenty-point peace plan in the Middle East, which she presents as a deeply moving moment even for those outside the Jewish community or outside strong support for Israel. Corinne Clifford on Washington, Revival, Israel, and Public Safety Karen's first interview is with Corinne Clifford, who says she is reporting from Washington, D.C., and covering events at the White House. Corinne describes President Trump returning from Israel, hosting Argentina's leader, and preparing to honor Charlie Kirk with the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She also speaks about what she calls a Christian revival, saying that large numbers of mostly Generation Z Christians gathered at the National Mall, and she frames this as a positive spiritual shift. Karen then asks about Jewish-Christian solidarity and concern over anti-Semitic claims surrounding Charlie Kirk, while Corinne responds that real Christians respect Jewish people and Israel. The segment closes with discussion of safety in Washington, D.C., where Corinne says violence still exists but that the areas around her White House work feel safer. Jeff Dornik on Pickax, Newsom, California, and 2028 Politics After several public-service and sponsor announcements, Karen welcomes Jeff Dornik to discuss his free-speech-oriented platform Pickax and the political future of California. Karen asks whether Gavin Newsom's gun-regulation and slavery-reparations laws are part of a path toward the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Jeff argues that Newsom presents himself as moderate while advancing what Jeff sees as far-left policies, especially by positioning himself as the opposite of Donald Trump. The discussion expands to California dissatisfaction, the failed Newsom recall, homelessness, drugs, fires, Palisades fire aftermath, Katie Porter's gubernatorial ambitions, jungle primaries, Steve Hilton, and the Republican field. Jeff closes by directing listeners to Pickax.com. Leslie Corbly on the “Devouring Mother” and Progressive Prejudice Karen's next guest, Leslie Corbly, explains the title of her book Progressive Prejudice: Exposing the Devouring Mother. She defines the “devouring mother” as an archetype of female predation, where a mother uses care of a child as a pretext for narcissistic supply rather than genuine protection. Karen connects this to child beauty pageants, Munchausen syndrome by proxy, and political rhetoric around compassion. Leslie argues that society is more comfortable identifying overt physical harm, often associated with men, than emotional or relational harm, which she says can also be carried out by women. The conversation becomes political as Leslie discusses dependency, motherhood, abortion, children's value, state power, child abuse statistics, and what she sees as progressive insistence on simplistic oppressor-and-oppressed categories. Nils Grevilius on Political Violence, Media Labels, and Public Distrust In the final guest segment, Nils Grevilius joins Karen to discuss political violence, activist networks, and the way media outlets label ideological movements. He argues that groups and movements such as Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, No Kings, Free Palestine, and anti-ICE protests are connected through what he calls a “Marxist Hydra,” though he acknowledges that some networks and motives remain unclear. Karen brings up claims surrounding Charlie Kirk and Israel, and Nils responds by linking public susceptibility to conspiracy thinking with the distrust and insecurity he believes were intensified during the COVID-19 era. He also argues that some pro-Palestinian left activism is not truly about Palestinians but about power. Nils closes by directing listeners to DetectiveNils on X and mentioning The Last Lawman, expected in June 2026. Public-Service Messages and Program Disclaimers Throughout the hour, the program includes a wide range of public-service announcements and sponsored messages. These include digital organization tips from Senior Planet, human-trafficking awareness through DHS's Blue Campaign, adoption messaging through AdoptUSKids, support for Paralyzed Veterans of America, prescription drug cost guidance, business security advertising, heart-health messaging, outdoor recreation through Discover the Forest, buzzed-driving prevention, RSV prevention information, blood-pressure awareness, career-skills resources, and additional PVA support messaging. The program ends with Main Street Radio Network's standard disclaimer that guest and host opinions do not necessarily reflect the station, management, or advertisers, and that financial information should not be treated as investment advice.

Sen brexit-omröstningen har ekonomin dalat och motsättningarna ökat. Vissa av de skräckscenarier som målades upp vid skilsmässan från EU har blivit verklighet. Andra har inte det. Vad måste Andy Burnham klara som hans föregångare misslyckats med? Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radios app. Världens sjätte största ekonomiI veckan fick landet en ny premiärminister igen. Andy Burnham blir den sjunde ledaren sedan britterna röstade fram brexit för tio år sedan. Han vill införa en ny ekonomisk och politisk modell som minskar klyftorna och får ekonomin att blomstra. “Låt det här bli tillfället när framtidshoppet väcks till liv igen”, säger han.Beskrivs som “mjuk vänster””Det finns en politisk kultur av stora ord och stora planer. Många andra har lovat det han lovar”, säger ekonomijournalisten Katrine Kielos.Framförallt ska hans nya regering fokusera på att hjälpa familjer som kämpar med höga kostnader. Och det är många som har det kämpigt, säger James Savage, ansvarig utgivare på The Local. ”Många britter känner sig fattiga”. Lägre tillväxt och lägre investeringar med brexitEnligt en studie från National Bureau of Economic Research är Storbritanniens BNP 6 till 8 procent mindre än den skulle ha varit om landet stannat kvar i EU. Samtidigt har invandringen ökat – tvärtemot vad som lovades inför omröstningen. ”Invandringsfrågan är fortfarande extremt splittrande och har flera bottnar”, säger James Savage.Relationen med Sverige”Storbritannien är fortfarande en viktigt handelspartner, men det är uppenbart att landet har minskat i betydelse för svensk export”, säger Per Altenberg, chefekonom på Kommerskollegium. ”Brexit är ett bra exempel på vad som händer om man vill sluta sig, istället för att handla globalt med varandra”, säger Scanias vd Christian Levin. Men han ser en ljusning i Storbritannien nu. ekonomiekotextra@sverigesradio.se

Erik Brynjolfsson has a challenge for anyone worried about artificial intelligence: Stop asking what AI will do to us, and start asking what we will do with AI. In this episode, the Stanford University economist explains why technology isn't the biggest barrier to progress — people, organizations, and institutions are. Drawing on new research into AI's impact on jobs, productivity, and economic growth, he argues that the future isn't predetermined: It will be shaped by the choices we make today. This is a timely conversation about human agency, shared prosperity, and why the most important AI breakthroughs may have less to do with technology than with how we use it. Read the episode transcript here. Guest bio: Erik Brynjolfsson is the Jerry Yang and Akiko Yamazaki Professor and senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI, and director of the Stanford Digital Economy Lab. He is also the Ralph Landau Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, professor by courtesy at the Stanford Graduate School of Business and Stanford Department of Economics, and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. A best-selling author, Brynjolfsson focuses his research on examining the effects of information technologies on business strategy, productivity and performance, digital commerce, and intangible assets. Me, Myself, and AI is a podcast produced by MIT Sloan Management Review and hosted by Sam Ransbotham. It is engineered by David Lishansky and produced by Allison Ryder. We encourage you to rate and review our show. Your comments may be used in Me, Myself, and AI materials.

Is the economy good or bad? Dr. Peter C. Earle, PhD economist and senior director of research at the American Institute for Economic Research, has a better question: good for whom? In this episode, Jon Herold sits down with Earle to unpack why a single headline never captures how millions of households actually experience the same economy. They dig into the indicators worth watching (inflation, Treasury yields, and a few wonky ones you probably ignore), then turn to the shiny stuff: gold and silver. What really drives prices up, why central banks are stacking bullion to shed dollar exposure, and what a hypothetical return to commodity-backed money might mean for your wallet. It is short, sharp, and refreshingly free of easy answers. Earle resists tidy predictions because, as he puts it, nobody knows what is coming. Grab a coffee and get a little more in the weeds on money, metals, and macro.

That Solo Life Episode 347: Why Senior PR Pros Should Focus on Development Not Decline Episode Summary Are you in the later stages of your Solo PR career?  Today's episode of That Solo Life is one of the most grounded, research-backed, and genuinely useful conversations the show has had about what it means to be a late-career practitioner in an AI-dominated landscape — and why the narrative telling experienced pros they're behind the curve is not only wrong, it's the exact opposite of what the evidence shows. Karen and Michelle walk through the real data on AI adoption, two peer-reviewed studies that directly challenge the 'experience is a liability' myth, a practical three-bucket framework for deciding what to ignore, what to adopt, and what to anchor, four mindset shifts for the final stretch, and three action items that can be done this week. The tone throughout is not inspirational poster energy. It's honest, warm, and built for practitioners who are genuinely tired and need a practical path forward, not another list of tools to chase.   Episode Highlights [00:25] The Opening Sentence That Names What Everyone Is Feeling: Michelle opens with what she calls 'a statement a lot of our listeners have either said out loud or are saying to themselves': she's five years from wrapping up her career, and she just doesn't have it in her to learn one more new tool. Karen doesn't argue. She validates it — and then reframes it. The feeling isn't laziness or fear. It's the cumulative weight of four or five complete technology revolutions inside a single career. [01:59] The Real Weight of Experience: Four Technology Revolutions in One Career: Karen lists what experienced PR pros have already navigated in a single career: typewriters to desktop publishing, fax machines to email, print media to social, and now AI. The question she frames for the rest of the episode: the real question isn't 'can I learn this?' — you've already proven you can, repeatedly. The question is how much of this do you actually need to learn, and how do you protect your energy for what matters most. [03:16] The Data on the AI Usage Gap — and What It Actually Means: Karen cites National Bureau of Economic Research data: AI tool usage at work is about 34% for workers under 40, and about 17% for workers 50 and up. That gap is real. But the research also shows it's not about ability — it's about confidence and on-ramps. Nobody handed experienced practitioners a clear 'start here' door. The industry is selling urgency, not discernment. And discernment is exactly what experience builds. [04:41] Busting the Myth: Experience Is Not a Liability in an AI World: The myth Karen and Michelle want to kill: that going further along in your career means you're slower, behind, and less valuable in an AI world. The counter-argument is research-backed. As AI makes production work cheaper, what becomes scarce and valuable is judgment — knowing what's worth doing, what's true, and what will land with a reporter versus blow up in a client's face. Karen's line: you cannot prompt your way to 30 years of pattern recognition. [05:51] Two Studies That Prove Experience Is an Advantage, Not a Liability: Karen cites two unexpected findings. A University of Mannheim study of BMW plant workers found productivity actually increased with age, right up to retirement — because veterans knew which problems were expensive and headed them off before they occurred. A North Carolina State study of software developers found that older programmers knew a wider range of topics, answered questions better, and in some cases were more adept with newer systems. The researcher's theory: if you're fluent in old technology, you understand new technology better because you know what problem it's solving. [09:48] The Three-Bucket Framework: Ignore, Adopt, Anchor: The practical core of the episode. Ignore: the platform of the month (if it's durable, it'll still be there in a year), tool maximalism (one capable AI assistant covers the overwhelming majority of actual work), becoming a technologist (fluency, not engineering), and anything you're only doing out of fear. Adopt: baseline AI fluency using one tool for real tasks, and understanding how audiences are now finding information through AI rather than clicking through to websites. Anchor: the things you don't age out of — judgment, relationships, trust built over decades, storytelling, strategy, and ethics. [15:30] Anchor: The Things You Don't Age Out Of: Karen's framing for the anchor bucket: as the tools get cheaper, your judgment gets more valuable. This includes knowing what not to publish, when to tell a client to stay quiet, and how to catch the AI-generated thing that is confidently, completely wrong. Michelle: that last one is becoming a job all in itself. Karen's reframe for the whole framework: the new tools handle the first draft. You handle the final judgment. That's not a demotion. That's the senior seat. You've earned the editor's chair. [16:33] Four Mindset Shifts for the Final Stretch: Development not decline — treat this stage as its own stage with its own strengths, not as a countdown. Curiosity over mastery — you don't have to be the best at the new thing, just conversant enough that you're never in a meeting where a term comes up and you have no idea what it means. Pick one tool and go deep — depth in one beats a panic attack across many. Partner, don't martyr — bring in a younger pro or a specialist for execution-heavy tasks; you bring the strategy and judgment, they bring the hands-on tooling. Everybody wins. [21:04] Legacy: The Mindset Piece That Reframes Everything: The fourth mindset shift is the one that hits differently: legacy. The mentoring, the coaching, the teaching, the writing — these are not the consolation prize of winding down. They are how your judgment keeps compounding and outlives your client roster. At this stage, the experience is the product. And that's exactly what the Solo PR Pro community is built around — a private, safe place to ask the questions you don't want to ask out loud in front of a client or prospect. [22:07] Three Action Items — Small Ones: Karen closes with three specific, this-week actions. Pick one AI assistant and use it for one real task — not a course, not a certification, just one task. Take your 'supposed to learn' list and run it through the three-bucket framework — cross out everything in the ignore column and watch the list get lighter. Have one conversation about partnering — find one execution-heavy thing you keep avoiding and find a person to delegate it to, not to learn it. Resources & Additional Information National Bureau of Economic Research: Workplace Adoption of Generative AI Oxford Academic: Work, Aging and Retirement late-career development mindset study Science Direct - Productivity and Age: Evidence from work teams at the assembly line Muck Rack: The State of AI in PR (2026, 2025) North Carolina State University: Older is Wiser Solo PR Pro membership community: soloprpro.com That Solo Life podcast website: thatsololife.com Host & Show Info That Solo Life is a podcast created for public relations, communication, and marketing professionals who work as independent and small practitioners. Hosted by Karen Swim, APR, President of Solo PR Pro, and Michelle Kane, Principal of Voice Matters, the show delivers expert insights, encouragement, and practical advice for solo PR pros navigating today's dynamic professional landscape. Listen to all episodes and catch up on previous conversations at thatsololife.com. Did this episode inspire you? If you found value in this conversation, please take a moment to leave us a review. Your feedback helps us reach more solo pros just like you! Don't forget to subscribe so you never miss an episode.

You're driving around looking for petrol, and you notice station after station charging exactly the same price.That could be because they are competing fiercely, and have cut prices to the point where they can't cut them anymore.Or it could be because they've coordinated. Professor David Byrne examined 1.6 million prices in order to find out.Guests:David P. Byrne, Ritchie Chair of Economic Research, The University of Melbourne. Megan Flamer,  Senior industry fellow, RMIT University.Referred to:Negotiating Coordination: A Study in Retail Gasoline, David P. Byrne, Nicolas de Roos et al, The University of Melbourne, March 14, 2026Learning to Coordinate: A Study in Retail Gasoline, David P. Byrne,  Nicolas de Roos, The American Economic Review, July 23, 2018Price Discrimination by Negotiation: a Field Experiment in Retail Electricity, David P Byrne , Leslie A Martin , Jia Sheen Nah, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, April 19, 2022Consumer search and income inequality, International Journal of Industrial Organization, David P. Byrne, Leslie A. Martin, International Journal of Industrial Organization December 2021

China cannot sell as much as it used to in the United States. That trade has to go somewhere, and somewhere might be Europe.In this week's VoxTalk, Tim Phillips asks Pol Antràs (Harvard) and Beata Javorcik (EBRD, Oxford) what this means for European producers and consumers.Antràs and Andrea Presbitero have mapped which countries and sectors face the sharpest competition from redirected Chinese exports, and which stand to gain. Does cheap Chinese tech ease Europe's energy cost crisis, or squeeze European manufacturers of wind turbines and electric cars?If Europe decides to take the gains where consumers and firms can get them, and compensate the producers who are legitimately hurt, how do they go about it? And can raising tariffs in a world of global value chains protecting one sector without damaging others?New episode, recorded at the PSE-CEPR Policy Forum 2026 in Paris.The research behind this episode:Antràs, Pol, and Andrea F. Presbitero. 2026. "The Remains of the Trade: The U.S.-China Trade War and its Aftermath." Preliminary versionTo cite this episode:Phillips, Tim, Pol Antràs, and Beata Javorcik. 2026. "Europe in the Middle." VoxTalks Economics (podcast). About the guests:Pol Antras is Robert G. Ory Professor of Economics at Harvard University, a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and a Research Affiliate at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. His research spans global value chains, the organisation of multinational firms, and, most recently, the intersection of trade policy and geopolitics.Beata Javorcik is Chief Economist of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, on leave from her position as Professor of Economics at the University of Oxford and Fellow of All Souls College. She is Director of the International Trade Programme at the Centre for Economic Policy Research. Her research spans foreign direct investment, industrial policy, and, increasingly, the economics of geopolitical fragmentation.Research cited in this episode:The Great Reallocation is the term coined by Laura Alfaro and Davin Chor for the reorganisation of United States sourcing away from direct imports from China and toward alternative suppliers such as Vietnam, Mexico, and Taiwan. Antrà s and Presbitero's paper extends this idea to third countries, showing that Chinese exports displaced from the American market are increasingly landing in Europe and Asia rather than disappearing.Geopolitical externality is a concept developed by Laura Alfaro, Maggie Chen, and Beata Javorcik in their working paper "The Battle over Knowledge: Multinationals, Diffusion, and Governance." It describes how knowledge transferred abroad by multinational firms can strengthen a rival state's strategic capability in ways the firm never intended and the market never prices, which is why governments increasingly restrict flows of codified, tacit, and organisational knowledge that would once have passed unremarked.Voluntary export restraints were the mechanism used to defuse the United States' trade conflict with Japanese carmakers in the 1980s. Rather than imposing tariffs, Japan agreed to limit its car exports, and Japanese manufacturers responded by building plants directly in the United States. Javorcik cites this as the precedent for how the current standoff over Chinese electric vehicles and knowledge transfer might eventually be resolved.The Draghi report on European competitiveness, published by the European Commission in September 2024, recommended conditioning Chinese investment in the European electric vehicle sector on mandatory knowledge transfer. Javorcik notes the difficulty of calibrating such requirements: demand too little and Europe gains nothing from the technology; demand too much and Chinese investors have no reason to come at all."Industrial Policies for Multi-stage Production: The Battle for Battery-powered Vehicles," by Keith Head, Thierry Mayer, Marc Melitz, and Chenying Yang, models how tariffs and subsidies reshape the location of battery and vehicle assembly plants across a multi-stage supply chain. Antrà s cites the paper's finding that protecting the electric vehicle sector through tariffs can produce worse outcomes than the problem it was meant to solve.Export controls and innovation, discussed by Javorcik with reference to Chinese firms such as DeepSeek and Huawei, illustrate a pattern in which restricting a country's access to a technology, in this case advanced semiconductors, can accelerate that country's innovation in adjacent areas rather than simply constraining it. She draws a parallel with rare earth export restrictions, which have historically spurred substitute technologies rather than suppressing them.More VoxTalks Economics episodes:In a conversation recorded at the CEPR Annual Forum in Paris called "What should Europe do about Trump?" Tim Phillips spoke to Beatrice Weder di Mauro and Ugo Panizza of the Graduate Institute Geneva, about how Europe should respond to the second Trump administration's trade policies.Listeners interested in how firms navigate geopolitical trade disruption should also hear "Trading around geopolitics," in which Giancarlo Corsetti, Banu Demir, and Beata Javorcik discuss how Turkish exporters filled the gap left by sanctions on Russia.Related reading on VoxEU:"An update on the great reallocation in US supply chain trade" uses detailed United States import data through 2025 to track the scope and pace of the reallocation discussed in this episode."From tariffs to trade flows: Diversion effects and China's exports to the EU" examines the evidence for and against the trade deflection story that Antras and Javorcik discuss, and finds the picture more mixed than a simple diversion narrative suggests."China shock 2.0 and the euro area: Cheaper imports, tougher competition" decomposes the recent surge in Chinese exports to the euro area and argues that structural forces within China, rather than diversion from the American market, explain most of it."The impact of trade wars on firms in third countries" proposes a model of how bilateral trade shocks spill over to bystander economies, applying it to Italian firms during the 2018 to 2019 trade war.

America is approaching its 250th birthday, and that should mean more than fireworks, speeches, and nostalgia.It should make us ask a harder question: Do we still understand what made the American experiment different?The United States did not become prosperous because government officials directed the economy from Washington. It became exceptional because our institutions protected liberty, property, voluntary exchange, civil society, religious freedom, and the rule of law. Those principles gave free people room to work, build, trade, worship, raise families, and solve problems in ways no central planner could design.That is why I enjoyed this conversation with Samuel Gregg, President of the American Institute for Economic Research. Sam is one of the leading voices connecting economics, history, political philosophy, and the moral foundations of free societies. He previously joined me on Episode 17 of the Let People Prosper Show to discuss free markets, culture, and the future of economic freedom.

Vous aimez notre peau de caste ? Soutenez-nous ! https://www.lenouvelespritpublic.fr/abonnementUne émission de Philippe Meyer, enregistrée au studio l'Arrière-boutique le 26 juin 2026.Avec cette semaine :Antoine Foucher, président de la société de conseil Quintet, spécialiste des questions sociales.Lucile Schmid, présidente de La Fabrique écologique et membre du comité de rédaction de la revue Esprit.Lionel Zinsou, ancien Premier ministre du Bénin et président de la fondation Terra Nova.LA CANICULE, SUJET POLITIQUE ?Le 17 juin, quelques jours avant le nouvel épisode caniculaire, le ministre de la Ville et du Logement, Vincent Jeanbrun, a présenté un plan « endurance » pour l'adaptation à la hausse des températures, alors qu'un tiers des logements est constitué de bouilloires thermiques. Selon lui, « la canicule n'est pas une question météorologique ou climatique, c'est désormais une question de justice sociale ». Intervenant aux côtés du ministre du Logement, la ministre de la Transition écologique, Monique Barbut a reconnu que la France souffre d'un « grand retard collectif » tout mettant en avant trois axes : « Remettre la nature dans les villes pour les rafraîchir » et faire des quartiers prioritaires « des précurseurs de la transformation écologique des territoires » ; « encourager les solutions efficaces pour limiter la surchauffe des bâtiments », comme les volets, en demandant par exemple aux bailleurs sociaux un recensement des bâtiments sans occultation des baies vitrées ; et développer « des solutions performantes pour permettre le rafraîchissement des bâtiments » avec « d'ici à septembre » un tarif réduit de TVA à 5,5 % pour les climatiseurs réversibles, décidé en loi de finances 2026.« Aucune annonce réelle », a cinglé la Fondation pour le logement des défavorisés (ex-fondation Abbé Pierre) qui a annoncé qu'elle s'associait à un recours en justice, lancé en 2025 par des citoyens et les ONG de « L'affaire du siècle » qui accusent l'Etat de manquer à son obligation de protéger la population des impacts du réchauffement climatique. Associations et climatologues déplorent une politique qui met l'accent sur la gestion de crise plutôt que sur une véritable adaptation. Pourtant, en 2023, pour faire face aux canicules répétées, la France s'était dotée d'un plan d'adaptation, une feuille de route censée préparer le pays à un réchauffement de 4 °C d'ici à 2.100, avec une batterie de mesures sur les logements, les exploitations agricoles ou les transports afin de se préparer à une hausse des températures de 4 °C en 2.100. Jugé insuffisant, y compris par le Haut Conseil pour le climat, le plan dispose de peu de moyens financiers. Au cours de ces dernières années, des outils pour s'adapter au changement climatique comme le fonds vert ont été fortement rabotés dans un contexte budgétaire contraint : la dotation de ce dispositif très prisé des élus locaux est passée de 2,4 milliards d'euros en 2024 à près de 840 millions d'euros en 2026.LE BREXIT 10 ANS APRÈSÀ la veille du dixième anniversaire du vote en faveur du Brexit, le premier ministre britannique travailliste, Keir Starmer, a été contraint à la démission, deux ans à peine après une nette victoire électorale. Si la décision prise, le 23 juin 2016, par une majorité (51,9 %) des électeurs britanniques de quitter l'Union européenne n'est pas directement la cause de la disgrâce de M. Starmer, elle a contribué à créer un climat économique et politique dégradé.Les études sur l'impact du Brexit sur l'économie vont toutes dans le même sens. Celle publiée en novembre 2025 par le National Bureau of Economic Research, un groupe de réflexion américain, a estimé « qu'à la date de 2025, le processus du Brexit a réduit le PIB britannique de 6 % à 8 %, l'investissement de 12 % à 18 %, l'emploi de 3 % à 4 % et la productivité de 3 % à 4 % ». D'après un récent sondage du think tank European Council on Foreign Relations, les Britanniques estiment que le Brexit a eu un impact négatif sur presque tous les sujets : le coût de la vie (66 %), l'économie (65 %), les perspectives des jeunes (57 %) ou encore l'immigration clandestine (56 %). Interrogés sur les effets positifs du Brexit, la réponse la plus donnée par les Britanniques est : « je ne sais pas ».Dans ce contexte, les termes de « Breturn » ou « Breunion » ont surgi ces dernières semaines. Une majorité de Britanniques (55 %) se déclarent favorables à un retour de leur pays parmi les membres de l'UE, quand un tiers (34 %) s'y opposent, d'après YouGov. Toutefois, les Britanniques favorables à un retour du Royaume-Uni dans l'UE tomberaint à 35 % si le pays ne pouvait plus bénéficier de ses dérogations antérieures et devait donc adopter la monnaie unique et participer à l'espace Schengen. Un retour à l'Europe des 28 ne semble donc pas se dessiner. Bruxelles et Londres avancent plutôt depuis plusieurs mois vers un rapprochement. Un sommet entre les deux parties doit avoir lieu le 22 juillet prochain dans la capitale européenne. Ce serait le deuxième après un précédent tenu en mai 2025. Reste à savoir si ce rendez-vous, annoncé la semaine dernière, sera maintenu à la suite de la démission de Keir Starmer. Andy Burnham, nouvel élu de la région de Manchester et favori pour le remplacer à la tête du Parti travailliste et du même coup à Downing Street, ne cache pas qu'il considère le Brexit comme une erreur sans prôner un retour dans l'Union.Le flou entretenu par les brexiters concernant le régime qui suivrait la sortie de l'UE a été pour beaucoup dans le chaos de l'après-23 juin, et notamment la succession rapide de six premiers ministres en moins d'une décennie. Surtout, le Brexit a ouvert un boulevard à une extrême droite contre laquelle on avait imaginé le Royaume-Uni vacciné. La figure de proue en est Nigel Farage – chef, avant le référendum de 2016, du Parti pour l'indépendance du Royaume-Uni, et aujourd'hui de Reform UK, parti actuellement en tête des sondages britanniques.Chaque semaine, Philippe Meyer anime une conversation d'analyse politique, argumentée et courtoise, sur des thèmes nationaux et internationaux liés à l'actualité. Pour en savoir plus : www.lenouvelespritpublic.frHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Insurance forms that make no sense. Subscriptions that can't be cancelled. A never-ending blizzard of automated notifications. In this update of a 2025 episode, Stephen Dubner discovers where all this sludge comes from — and how much it's costing us.   SOURCES: Benjamin Handel, professor of economics at UC Berkeley. Neale Mahoney, professor of economics at Stanford University. Richard Thaler, professor of economics at The University of Chicago.   RESOURCES: "Selling Subscriptions," by Liran Einav, Ben Klopack, and Neale Mahoney (Stanford University, 2023). "The ‘Enshittification' of TikTok," by Cory Doctorow (WIRED, 2023). "Dominated Options in Health Insurance Plans," by Chenyuan Liu and Justin Sydnor (American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2022). Nudge: The Final Edition, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein (2021). "Frictions or Mental Gaps: What's Behind the Information We (Don't) Use and When Do We Care?" by Benjamin Handel and Joshua Schwartzstein (Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2018). "Adverse Selection and Switching Costs in Health Insurance Markets: When Nudging Hurts," by Benjamin Handel (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2011).   EXTRAS: "Sludge," series by Freakonomics Radio (2025). "People Aren't Dumb. The World Is Hard. (Update)" by Freakonomics Radio (2024). "All You Need is Nudge," by Freakonomics Radio (2021). "How to Fix the Hot Mess of U.S. Healthcare," by Freakonomics Radio (2021). "Should We Really Behave Like Economists Say We Do?" by Freakonomics Radio (2015). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

You’re listening to American Ground Radio with Louis R. Avallone and Stephen Parr. This is the full show for June 18, 2026. We open with a California bill moving through the legislature that would allow minors in residential treatment facilities to trigger state investigations of their own parents — and we explain why this isn't about protecting children from genuine abuse. It's about a state that has spent years operating from the assumption that parents are wrong and government is right. We walk through the mechanism — buried inside dry juvenile dependency language is a process by which a child who disagrees with their court-ordered treatment can initiate a legal review that effectively places their parents under state investigation. We connect it to a pattern the left has run for years — driving a wedge between children and the parents who are trying to save them, and then letting the state step in as the replacement parent. And we warn parents outside California that bad ideas rarely stay behind state lines. In our Top 3 Things You Need to Know, the United States and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding — covering the five key pillars, with a 60-day negotiating window to reach a final deal and reconstruction funds from regional partners available if Iran follows through. Then D.C. Democrat primary winner Janice Lewis George is heading toward the general election, with President Trump already promising to take back D.C. if a socialist wins the mayor's race. And the Coast Guard intercepted a speedboat off the coast of Florida carrying 25 Chinese nationals attempting to enter the country illegally — firing on the engines to disable the vessel after repeated warnings went ignored. We note that we have never in our lifetimes heard of the U.S. government disabling boats trying to enter illegally — and call it exactly what it is: a closed border. We sit down with Dr. Peter Earle of the American Institute for Economic Research to take the actual temperature of the U.S. economy — separate from the media's doom-and-gloom narrative. Dr. Earle's assessment: the hard data still describe an expansion, but forward-looking indicators are more cautious. Consumer spending remains positive, corporate earnings are holding up, and there are no overall recessionary conditions — but elevated interest rates, housing affordability, and the national debt are real concerns. He also explains why gas prices won't drop overnight even with the Iran deal — the research shows it takes about 22 weeks for oil price reductions to fully pass through to consumers, meaning relief at the pump is more likely late summer or early fall. And he explains why Elon Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire is less about personal wealth and more about what it will cost to turn SpaceX into the Amtrak of space travel over the next several decades. Barack and Michelle Obama appeared on Good Morning America to promote the opening of the Obama Presidential Center — and Barack said he wants visitors to walk through and think, what's possible? We take him at his word and answer the question. We also note that many of the subcontractors who built the nearly billion-dollar complex — which ran nearly $300 million over budget — have reportedly not been paid. Our American Mama Teri Netterville responds to the San Francisco Giants story — where pitchers were warned by MLB after writing Bible verses on their caps during Pride Night. A San Francisco player spoke beautifully about why the rainbow holds deep biblical meaning for Christians as the sign of God's Noahic covenant — and why writing Genesis 9:12-16 on a hat is not anti-anything. It's pro-something. Teri says she supports marriage equality — and still thinks forcing players to celebrate someone else's sexuality on their uniforms is wrong, performative, and is actually pushing people away from the very acceptance the movement says it wants. We also cover the New York Knicks' White House visit — and their championship celebration at City Hall, where Mayor Mamdani delivered a 10-minute speech before anyone from the actual championship team could speak. Knicks owner James Dolan stepped to the mic and said simply — I don't need your vote. I don't need to quote you. If you're a real Knicks fan, you already know. Nobody needed a program to figure out who that was aimed at. For our Bright Spot, a new American Enterprise Institute poll on civic values finds that 82% of Americans believe in equal opportunity regardless of race, religion, or gender, 79% say everyone has the right to their religious beliefs, 72% still believe hard work can lead to prosperity, and 66% believe people can criticize the government without fear of punishment. We call this exactly what it is — evidence that the American idea is still alive in the hearts of most Americans — and note that 75% say the Declaration of Independence should be taught in high school, even though only 29% have actually read it. It's two pages, folks. We also cover a Trump-appointed federal judge who ordered ICE to release a Palestinian green card holder convicted of throwing Molotov cocktails at Israeli armed forces — a man the U.S. government has known about for 25 years. We ask the more important question — why did we let him in in the first place? And we close with Alyssa Goralnik, who published a children's vocabulary book called Weighty Words in 1985 and never made a dime. Forty years later, an author named Eli McCann posted a video about the book on social media. Within weeks it hit the top of Amazon's bestseller charts and publishers rushed a second printing — not bad for a book written 20 years before Amazon existed. May your pursuit of happiness bring you joy. Listen now wherever you get your podcasts, visit AmericanGroundRadio.com, and join the conversation at 866-AGR-1776!See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's Thursday, June 11th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Jonathan Clark Nigerian court sentences Muslims to death for executing Catholics Last week, a court in the African nation of Nigeria sentenced four Muslim men to death for killing dozens of Catholics. Four years ago, the gunmen attacked a Pentecost Sunday service at a Catholic Church in southwest Nigeria. They killed 41 people, including children. Authorities determined that the armed men belonged to Al-Shabaab, an Islamic terrorist group. The massacre was the first terrorist attack on a church in southern Nigeria.   According to Open Doors, Nigeria is the seventh most dangerous country worldwide for Christians. Proverbs 7:14 and 16 says, “Behold, the wicked man conceives evil . . . His mischief returns upon his own head, and on his own skull his violence descends.” Sudanese man arrested in Ireland for attempted beheading Authorities in Northern Ireland arrested a migrant from the African nation of Sudan on Tuesday. Police in Belfast accused him of carrying out a severe knife attack on a man in his 40s. People across the United Kingdom responded to the attempted beheading with protests. The victim was hospitalized with significant injuries to his face, neck, and back. Many U.K. citizens question their government's immigration policies, including Member of Parliament Rupert Lowe. In February, the lawmaker launched a national political party called Restore Britain. The party is devoted to ending mass immigration and also openly recognizes Britain's Christian heritage.  Congress funds $70 billion for ICE and Border Patrol In the United States, President Donald Trump signed the Secure America Act yesterday. The $70 billion package fully funds the Department of Homeland Security. The bill specifically covers U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the rest of President Trump's second term.  Listen to comments from House Speaker Mike Johnson after Congress passed the bill. JOHNSON: “The historic mandate that put President Trump in the White House and Republican majorities in both the House and the Senate is evidence of the fact that Democrats' ‘Defund the Police' agenda is wildly out of step with hardworking American families. After four long years of Democrat policies that opened the door to dangerous criminals and deadly drugs, Republicans are delivering on our promise to restore safe streets and secure our borders.” Inflation rose 4.3% Inflation reached a three-year high last month for American consumers.  The cost of goods and services rose 4.2 percent in May compared to a year ago. Rising energy costs drove the inflation. Gasoline prices were up 40 percent from a year earlier.    iPhone launch connected to lower U.S. fertility rate A new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research suggests that the launch of the iPhone contributed to declining fertility rates in the U.S. Apple introduced the iPhone in 2007. The U.S. general fertility rate has fallen by 22 percent since then. People have been spending more time on their smartphones and less time with each other.  The study noted, “Overall, the diffusion of the iPhone explains 33–52% of the decline in the general fertility rate among women aged 15–44.” Southern Baptists: Only men can serve as pastors The Southern Baptist Convention affirmed its position yesterday that only men can serve as pastors. Over 70 percent of the denomination's representatives voted in favor of the “Truth and Unity Amendment.” The measure was sponsored by Albert Mohler Jr., the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. The amendment would require churches in the denomination to not appoint women as pastors, elders, or overseers.  Listen to comments from Dr. Mohler. MOHLER: “This motion makes very clear that we affirm the historic Baptist understanding of the pastor, elder, overseer. The structure of the language I have brought goes all the way back to the 1689 Baptist Confession, where the office and function of the pastor are clearly delineated. “This amendment makes very clear that a church, in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention, doesn't have anyone other than a man as pastor in the office of pastor and specifies on the functions of the pastor that the key central function of preaching the Word of God to the gathered assembly is limited to men by Scripture.” 1 Timothy 3:1-2 says, “If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore, an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach.”  Animated movie “David” claims #1 spot on Netflix And finally, the animated film David reached the number one spot on Netflix for movies in the United States over the weekend.  The Bible movie from Angel Studios officially premiered on the streaming service just last Wednesday. (audio from David movie trailer) DAVID: “I'm just a shepherd, but deep down I know I can take on the world.” NARRATOR: “There is a darkness over the land.” SAMUEL:  “Our enemies will strike once more.” MAN: “Imagine the biggest warrior you have ever seen!” DAVID: “Okay.” MAN: “Now imagine somebody ate him.” GIRL: “Remember when I told you God had big plans for you?” GOLIATH: “You will serve us!” GIRL: “They may have been bigger than even I thought.” Christian music artist Phil Wickham voiced the adult David in the movie. Wickham told Crosswalk Headlines the film is “full of the story of God and full of Psalms and full of hallelujah and faith and hope.  … I think this movie will last decades. I think it will be something our grandkids watch.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Thursday, June 11th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  Plus, you can get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Is industrial real estate still the top-performing CRE sector?

The birth rate in the U.S. has dropped by an astonishing 22% since 2007. Are smartphones to blame?Yes, according to a groundbreaking new study by Middlebury economist Caitlin Myers. Her smartphone study is garnering national attention this week, confirming an idea that people have long speculated about but until now have lacked data. Myers and co-author Ezekiel Hooper showed that from 2007 to 2011, after the iPhone was introduced, there was a sharp decline in births, up to half of which can be attributed to the smartphone. They say that smartphones have led to “reducing in-person interactions, increasing pornography use, and reducing sexual frequency.”Myers says a declining birth rate is not necessarily bad, but that there are “many aspects of it that really concern me, aspects that relate to economic growth and supporting older generations, but also questions of what does this mean for humans.”“Everybody's just doom scrolling on their phone alone and isolated and not forming relationships.” Myers is the John G. McCullough Professor of Economics at Middlebury College and a research associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. She is well known for her research into the effects of abortion policy on people's lives. She has testified in the U.S. Senate about the economic consequences of the 2022 Dobbs decision ending the constitutional right to abortion, and she spearheaded the amicus brief in the Dobbs case that was signed by over 150 economists, highlighting the negative impact of limiting abortion access. Myers also runs a national database of abortion providers.Myers said the Dobbs decision has resulted in about 30,000 additional births “concentrated among people who are younger, have less education and have really limited financial resources.”“The post-Dobbs era is an inequality story,” she told me. “There are parts of the country like ours where the Dobbs decision almost paradoxically expanded abortion access” due to increased availability of telehealth and medication by mail.But in states like Texas, Louisiana and West Virginia that have enacted near-total abortion bans, only 80% to 85% of people who want an abortion are getting one. That leaves up to one-fifth of people who want an abortion “trapped. They aren't finding the means, the information, the resources, the safety and security to travel long distances or to order pills through the mail, and they're giving birth as a result.”Myers grew up in rural West Virginia and Georgia. She empathizes with those who don't think like her. “As a Southerner it breaks my heart when I hear people dismiss the people I grew up with, the places I'm from, the beliefs that they have.”“We all know it's not just about dismissing far-away Southerners. There are divides within our own state.”Myers wonders “whether we could potentially bridge these divides rather than saying, ‘Yeah, I just don't think this is going to work out,' like we're never going to agree.” She wants to do her “tiny little part to create a world where we give each other more grace.”

For many people, the FDA-approved drug class called GLP-1s has been a game changer for managing type 2 diabetes and weight loss. An estimated one in eight US adults is using this type of drug, which mimics a natural gut hormone to regulate blood sugar, slow stomach emptying, and suppress appetite. Researchers and the public have been scrutinizing the pros and cons of taking these drugs for many years. One critical question that remains is does the use of GLP-1s translate into lower medical expenses for consumers, healthcare providers, insurance companies, and the government? Today, we're speaking with Duke University health economist Jonathan Zhang on the answer to these questions from his multi-year study of veterans who use GLP-1s. The results are surprising. Interview Summary Jonathan, first, let's talk broadly. Would you briefly describe the kinds of health benefits people are experiencing with GLP-1s, particularly in terms of changes in behavior and overall health? Yes. So GLP-1s are medications that manage body weight and improve metabolic health. The primary health benefits are via better blood sugar regulation and weight loss via reducing appetite. But there's larger health benefits that are much broader. So, trials have also shown that they lower blood pressure, reduce strokes and heart attacks, among other cardiovascular benefits. Overall also improves, so things like obstructive sleep apnea, improvements in inflammation-related measures. And recently it was FDA approved to treat MASH, which is a form of fatty liver disease. Finally, people also report feeling less hungry. They get full faster, fewer cravings, and reduction in what is often called food noise, which can potentially help people make a range of better behavior decisions and changes relating to food and perhaps even beyond food. However, the evidence on that seems to be promising, but new and less strong. Thank you for sharing those. I know a lot of our listeners have heard some of those issues and some of those points about how GLP-1s could change the way we behave, and some of the health outcomes. So, let's dig into your particular study. In your working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) you and your co-authors describe a natural experiment involving patients and doctors in the Department of Veteran Affairs, and their access to and use of GLP-1s. Would you lay out the general parameters of your study for our listeners? Yes, absolutely. So, like many medications, what we know about GLP-1s primarily comes from randomized controlled trials, which have small sample sizes and often select for quite sick patients. As GLP-1s reach a broader population, the population becomes less pro-comparable to those in trials, so the real-world impacts become less obvious. Moreover, there are some outcomes such as healthcare utilization or spending costs that are incredibly important for policy but not directly studied in trials. We were interested in studying in a very large healthcare system, that is the VA, the Veterans Health Administration, the real-world impacts of GLP-1s using readily collected data from the healthcare system and a quasi-experiment. So that is we try to emulate a real experiment where some patients get GLP-1s from their primary care doctor and others do not. And the reason one patient might get it while the other doesn't is because their doctors differ in their likelihood or propensity to prescribe these drugs. And we focus on the Veterans Health Administration, the VHA, because the veteran population is quite diverse, at least in terms of comorbidities relative to the trials per se and also in age, say, compared to Medicare. And GLP-1s are provided in the VA to eligible patients at a pretty affordable cost. So, sort of a nice policy playground for us to think about what outcomes might look like when GLP-1s become readily available and affordable to all Americans. Great. Thank you for sharing that because now we have a good sense of the quasi experiment that you all were able to exploit. That there were providers who had a high tendency to prescribe GLP-1s versus those who didn't. And looking at that difference, you were able to see how GLP-1s may have affected the outcomes that you were interested in. So now tell us a bit about the findings, and I think there's some surprising results here. So, first we replicate many of the findings from the randomized trials for this diverse, veteran population. We see reductions in body weight, we see hemoglobin A1C blood glucose levels improve and blood pressure improvements as well. Even a reduction in heart attacks and strokes for patients with existing cardiovascular conditions, and even a small reduction in moderate drinking risk as well. The trial evidence seems to hold up in this large and diverse population of we have 1.4 million patients that we're studying. Second, despite these improvements though, we do not see a reduction in healthcare spending. This is actually excluding the cost of the medication, the GLP-1. It's not because GLP-1s are expensive. We're taking that out of the equation. Over four years, this is how long we're able to track these patients for, we're able to rule out reductions of more than 7% in healthcare spending. And we see no reductions in whether that's outpatient clinic or in inpatient hospitalization. We also don't see any reductions in emergency department visits more generally, despite seeing a reduction in heart attack and strokes for those patients with existing cardiovascular condition. Jonathan, that sounds great, but it's a little hard to understand. So why is it that you're seeing no real changes in the consumer healthcare spending? What's going on? Yes, we were a little surprised as well. We think there could be a myriad of potential reasons. But first, I want to note that there's also at least three other studies that use real-world data to look at a similar question, and all the studies find no statistically significant spending reductions. And in fact, all of us, we all find a slight positive increase. I think the first explanation is that while heart attacks and strokes are very expensive and obviously, very serious events, they are still thankfully quite rare and thus are not very common in our three to five-year period in which these studies are looking at. But perhaps over ten or twenty years, you could start seeing some healthcare spending materialize. I think that's totally possible. Most cost projection models, whether that's from the CBO or other organizations, they project healthcare spending reductions to accumulate over time. But these models also project immediate spending reduction, which is not yet supported by the data. Another potential explanation is what I would call these behavioral responses. So, you can imagine that a patient sees some improvement in their health, and that changes their expectation of, "Oh, wow, I could actually make some changes to my health." And they actually go and get some more care. This can also be driven by the physician as well. So, sort of, "Look, things are working. This patient's seeing improvements. Maybe we should treat some of your other health problems and issues." This is what I would call sort of a behavioral response. A third explanation could be that some of these patients have conditions that have progressed to be irreversible even with metabolic health gains. So, for example, late-stage kidney disease would be a good example. We find some suggestive evidence that this might be happening in our study. In other words, for these patients where they have some potentially irreversible health conditions, the metabolic health improvements - that's not a primary reason for their healthcare spending. This is helpful. That explains why we're seeing some of these challenges with healthcare spending. And I appreciate your point of taking a longer view may actually reveal some differences. And also, the responses of doctors and patients to the benefits that they gain and how that might expand opportunities for healthcare. So, thank you for sharing that. I want to shift focus a little bit. And it is taking a step beyond the paper, but I think it's a natural extension of the work. As you know, I'm an agricultural economist, and I've been interested in obviously food policy issues. And the fact that we're seeing weight loss, the fact that we're seeing better management of A1C suggests that there's something probably happening with food consumption and food patterns. I'd be interested to learn from you if you have any ideas about what this work suggests about the impact of GLP-1s on consumer food choices. Yes, I think there's a fair amount of both trial and real-world grocery purchase evidence that GLP-1s are impacting consumer food choices. In the randomized trials, GLP-1s reduce, calories consumed, reduce the desire to eat sweet, salty, and savory foods and high fat fast foods in their meals. For example, these trials will look at what people eat for lunch. In real world data, there's a study out of Denmark that found that after patients' first GLP-1 prescription, their grocery store purchases went on to have fewer calories, sugars, saturated fats, carbohydrates, and more protein over the one-year period after they initiate GLP-1s. The share of ultra-processed foods also decreased. The effects were actually quite modest, so there was only about a one percent reduction in calories and a four percent reduction in sugar and a five percent increase in protein in the year after versus the year before in this Danish study. In the US, there's a similar study using kind of this transactional level data as well. And they find that households after they start GLP-1s also reduce caloric intake, fast food consumption, caloric dense processed foods. And there it's a little larger in the US by about five to ten percent. Then the question is, you know, are they shifting towards healthier foods or is it sort of a uniform reduction in calories across all different food classes? And there the evidence is a little less strong. There's some evidence that consumers are shifting towards healthier foods, but if that is the case, the shift is quite small. In both the Danish and the US study, it's roughly looking like a level shift for all different categories. And this is also in terms of not food so much anymore, but there's also been studies looking at alcohol consumption, which has been very interesting and promising. There's a phase two study pilot trial with only forty-eight participants, but the randomized control trial found that among patients with existing alcohol use disorder GLP-1s led to a reduction in the average number of drinks per day. No change in the number of days drinking, but conditional on drinking, the average number of drinks per day declines in the treatment group that get GLP-1s. And then for out of the 48 patients that are also smokers, there's also a reduction in smoking as well in that population. So, very promising early evidence there as well. Jonathan, this is critical information, and I know some colleagues in the Ag econ profession, folks like Brian Roe, Tim Richards and Glenn Townsend have also worked in this space, and some of the work is showing some issues around the quality of protein or overall food spend is going down. And the choices or the responsiveness of people to prices when it comes to proteins. There's some evidence, some causal evidence to suggest GLP-1s are changing the way people are even looking at food markets. And so that raises a really important issue. If consumers are changing when they're exposed to GLP-1s, I have got to imagine that the food industry, grocery stores, food manufacturers, restaurants are making some adjustments. What have you to say on that particular point? So, we're both economists, right? We both, of course, believe that producers and grocery stores are adjusting to demand. We do know a lot less about how the supply side is adjusting compared to the demand, and that's because there's just less data and fewer studies on patients. There's more data and more studies on patients and consumers than on grocery stores and restaurants. I've seen a lot of anecdotal evidence, often reported in the mainstream media or reports from various market research agencies that GLP-1s are having this large impact on the food industry. I've seen claims like GLP-1s are hurting Walmart sales or why are beer company sales down, like AB InBev, and range into things like why restaurants are reducing their portions or recently I actually also saw over the past couple weekends claims of why Coachella portions are smaller because everyone's on GLP-1s. So, the best estimates from last year are that one in eight Americans are using GLP-1s. And if each of these users are cutting back in consumption by 5% to 10%, as in those studies, it's totally plausible this leads to a large population reduction that the food industry just cannot ignore, right? I think it's important to note a couple things. First is that the long-term adherence of GLP-1s is generally quite low, with more than 50% discontinuing within a year in most of the studies I've seen in the US. And after discontinuation, most of these patients will gain back a large fraction of their weight. And in that US groceries transactional study I told you about, they find that after discontinuation, purchases at fast food, grocery, restaurants, et cetera, they go up beyond baseline, in fact. So, beyond six months prior to when they were on GLP-1s. It's still an open question to whether these 5% to 10% individual consumption reductions will become long-term and manifest in the population level, especially if adherence is not very high. Second is that up until very recently, there's been a very strong demographic and socioeconomic profile of these GLP-1 users, right? So, they tend to skew near elderly and also a little bit more female, and generally fall in the middle- or higher-income brackets because previously Medicaid, for example, did not cover GLP-1s, right? Until earlier this year. And it still does not cover it for many states. So, any food industry changes will likely be concentrated in the restaurants and the food chains that sort of have these consumer demographic and economic base. That's something to keep in mind. Certainly, there are examples like, you know, Smoothie King has introduced a GLP-1 smoothie. But even in these clear-cut cases where the producer is clearly trying to appeal to this demand shock, it's still very difficult to disentangle the producer's stated intent from general industry market trends, right? So, general trends like rising cost of living. There's been more demand for protein. You can see protein in everything now, right? Even water. Rise in sort of small plates or family-style tapas at restaurants. Feels like every restaurant's doing this now. Or for example, a decline in alcohol consumption or interest in alcohol consumption, especially among young people around the world. I think some of this is certainly happening. Producers are listening, but it's hard to disentangle the general trends from a specific GLP-1 impact. I'm grateful for you taking some of the hype out of this and thinking through carefully what the economic implications are of this change and recognizing that there's some real important context that people don't stay on these drugs for long. Or there are certain types of folks who are more likely to use them, and therefore we can't assume that there's this massive wave of change that's going to happen, but that there are some responses. These are important ways of framing this discussion. I have one final question. Based on what you're seeing now with the use of GLP-1s and considering their use over time, what would you say is the key takeaway for policymakers? I think there are a few takeaways. Most importantly, I think policy makers should think about the rapid change in profile of patients who are using this drug. Just because it's beneficial for sick patients doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be equally as beneficial for patients who are less sick. One of the findings in our paper is that as the veteran population that starts to initiate GLP-1s in the more recent years, these patients actually are healthier, so their treatment effects are not quite as strong as those who were initiated in the very early period who in our setting were among the sicker veterans. Policy makers shouldn't extrapolate the potential benefits to a broader population since there's so much demand for this drug, right? This also means that some of the downstream improvements like cost savings or even improved labor outcomes like absenteeism or being able to return to work, while these things might seem logical, it's not fair to assume that it's going to be automatic, especially at a population level. Related to that last point, we should encourage additional research on important socioeconomic outcome that might completely change the calculus of the cost benefit of these drugs, right? So, labor force participation, earnings, use of government transfer programs like disability insurance, even some interesting patterns of household formation and fertility. These are all fascinating and important questions. However, it is imperative to note that GLP-1s already have incredible health benefits for many people. While it's possible that these benefits might spill over to broader societal benefits, these benefits should not be presumed. And at the same time, we shouldn't be holding GLP-1s to a higher standard, say, to reduce healthcare spending or increase earnings just because we know that it does a bunch of wonderful things for a range of conditions. So, maybe it does this and this as well, and suddenly we're less excited if there's no evidence of that and that, right? These things have incredible health benefits. Let's appreciate them for that, and we shouldn't be holding them up to a higher standard just because it appears to do so many wonderful things. BIO Jonathan Zhang is a health economist at the Sanford School of Public Policy at Duke University and the Margolis Institute for Health Policy. He is a Faculty Research Fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research and an evaluator at the Department of Veterans Affairs. He researches how policy can improve mental health and substance use outcomes using quasi-experimental methods.

 Bryan Cutsinger is an assistant professor of economics at the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University. Peter Ireland is a professor of Economics at Boston College. Will Luther is an associate professor of economics at the College of Business at Florida Atlantic University and is the director of the American Institute for Economic Research's Sound Money Project. Bryan, Peter, and Will return to the show to discuss the big takeaways from the 2025 Fed framework review, the flip flopping of FIT to FAIT back to FIT, the biggest lessons from the 2020 Fed framework review, the case for NGDP targeting at the Fed, hope for future reviews, and much more. Watch the full length video on our new YouTube Channel! Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on May 6th, 2026 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow Bryan X: @BryanPCutsinger Follow Peter X: @PIrelandecon Follow Will X: @WilliamJLuther Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Check out our Macro Musings merch! Timestamps 00:00:00 - Intro 00:00:51 - Origins of Bryan, Will, and Peter's Paper 00:03:40 - Big Takeaways 00:06:14 - The Fed's 2020 Framework Review 00:12:43 - Lessons Learned from 2020 Review 00:14:38 - Nominal GDP Targeting and Productivity Shocks 00:26:59 - Reviewing the Fed's 2025 Framework Review 00:57:20 - Hopes for the Future 01:03:06 - Outro

Neil Dutta is Head of Economic Research at Renaissance Macro Research (renMac). He leads their macroeconomic research efforts, with an emphasis on analysing the US economy, the Federal Reserve, global trends, and cross-market investment themes. He is considered a market economist, looking at the economic data and trying to highlight the risks to the consensus as he sees them.  Prior to RenMac, Neil spent seven years at Bank of America-Merrill Lynch. There, he was a Senior Economist covering both the United States and Canada. In this podcast, we discuss: Neil's Wall Street "Origin Story" The Four Pillars of Economic Analysis The Real Income Squeeze AI, RSUs, and State Tax Revenues Pervasive Optimism and Reflexivity Risk The Fed's "Path of Least Resistance" The Warsh Nomination and Forward Guidance Productivity Boom or Demand Story? AI's Wealth Effect Beyond Accounting The 2027 Fiscal Headwind Substack vs. Institutional Research

Angel Ubide, Head of Economic Research for Global Fixed Income and Macro at Citadel, discusses the case for common EU debt, Europe's push for strategic autonomy, and the reforms needed to boost growth. He speaks with Bloomberg's Stephen Carroll about the future of eurobonds, pension reform, banking integration and the challenges facing the European economy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fergus Hodgson is a New Zealand-born financial economist, author, and geopolitical analyst specializing in Latin America, fiscal policy, and alternative investments. Hodgson has held roles such as founding editor of the PanAm Post, Director of Fiscal Policy Studies at the John Locke Foundation, visiting scholar at the American Institute for Economic Research, and director of Econ Americas, a consultancy focused on finance, jurisdictional arbitrage, and stakeholder management. He publishes the Impunity Observer (geopolitical intelligence on rule of law and economic development) and has authored books including The Latin America Red Pill and Financial Sovereignty for Canadians. Watch the Cornerstone Forum 26'https://shaunnewmanpodcast.substack.com/Silver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: SNP@silvergoldbull.comText Grahame: (587) 441-9100Bow Valley Credit UnionBitcoin: www.bowvalleycu.com/en/personal/investing-wealth/bitcoin-gatewayEmail: welcome@BowValleycu.com Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500

Well, at least we know it's in the vocabulary! Bryce Hill, Director of Fiscal and Economic Research, joins the show to reveal what "balanced" looks like in Illinois (it's a 180 million dollar shortfall, currently).

Making the case for free markets requires sound research and clear communication. The American Institute for Economic Research is one of the top think tanks doing that work today. AIER, founded in 1933 amidst the Great Depression, has long championed classical liberal principles—yet today, it faces the challenge of restoring momentum on both sides of […]

Making the case for free markets requires sound research and clear communication. The American Institute for Economic Research is one of the top think tanks doing that work today. AIER, founded in 1933 amidst the Great Depression, has long championed classical liberal principles—yet today, it faces the challenge of restoring momentum on both sides of the aisle. In this episode of Giving Ventures, Peter sits down with Sam Gregg, AIER's newly appointed president, to explore how the organization aims to reestablish free market ideas as essential to America's economic and cultural renewal. They break down AIER's strategic efforts beyond research—outreach, education, social media, and coalition-building—designed to influence policymakers, journalists, and everyday Americans. Sam emphasizes AIER's steadfast adherence to principles amid growing ideological divergence on the right. He believes reimagining fusionism can unify conservatives around the principles of liberty and virtue.

For decades, marketers have debated one question:How much frequency is enough?But what if the industry has been arguing about two completely different things the entire time?In Part 2 of this Sharp Cut series, Marc Binkley and Vassilis Douros revisit the reach vs frequency debate after a wave of listener feedback challenged, refined, and strengthened the original episode. What emerges is a far more nuanced framework built around one critical distinction: burst frequency vs drip frequency.Drawing on work from Byron Sharp, Les Binet, Hermann Ebbinghaus, Stu Carr, Dale Harrison, Paul Hindle, and real-world incrementality testing from industry practitioners, this episode breaks down:Why frequency is not one thingThe difference between burst and drip frequencyHow memory actually works in advertisingWhy brands quietly lose effectiveness when they go darkThe hidden risks of streaming frequency capsWhy low frequency can appear more effective than it really isThe three real jobs of frequency: building, refreshing, and activatingWhy impressions and average frequency often mislead marketersHow last-click attribution continues to distort decision makingThe planning mistakes quietly wasting media budgets todayThis episode reframes one of marketing's oldest debates through the lens of memory, incrementality, and effectiveness.Because the real question was never reach versus frequency.It was burst versus drip.Chapters00:00 - Introduction to Comfort Blankets in Advertising03:40 - Understanding Memory in Advertising08:05 - Building and Refreshing Memory Structures10:08 - The Impact of Streaming on Frequency13:50 - The Three Jobs of Advertising20:38 - Measurement Challenges in AdvertisingOriginal LinkedIn Post: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7453434962604691457/Special thanks to all those who inspired this follow-up episode:Stu Carr, Dale Harrison, Paul Hindle and Dennis A.ResourcesBinet, L. (2024, January 17). How advertising REALLY works [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9EDJs3evCIBinet, L., & Davis, W. (2025, October). Go big or go home [Conference presentation]. IPA Effectiveness Conference, London, UK. https://ipa.co.uk/news/go-big-or-go-homeBinkley, M. (2025, August 7). 4Ps - Promotion: Why your customers say ads don't work on me. WARC. https://www.warc.com/en/article/4ps---promotionCarr, S. (2026, February 2). Why a frequency of 1 works, and why it isn't nearly enough. Mi3. https://www.mi-3.com.au/02-02-2026/why-frequency-1-works-and-why-it-isnt-nearly-enoughEbbinghaus, H. (1885). Uber das Gedachtnis: Untersuchungen zur experimentellen Psychologie. Duncker & Humblot.Gordon, B. R., Moakler, R., & Zettelmeyer, F. (2026). Predictive incrementality by experimentation (PIE) for ad measurement (NBER Working Paper). National Bureau of Economic Research.Harrison, D. W. (2022, November). Ad reach and frequency are not independent variables [LinkedIn post]. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/posts/dale-w-harrisonKlepek, M. (2025). Duplication of purchase and double jeopardy in social media markets [Working paper]. Silesian University of Technology.Krugman, H. E. (1972). Why three exposures may be enough. Journal of Advertising Research, 12(6), 11-14.Ritson, M. (2023, October 16). Consumers don't get tired of ads, only marketers do. Marketing Week. https://www.marketingweek.com/consumers-tired-ads-marketers/Sharp, B. (2010, September 4). Frequency and frequency: Something to watch out for [Blog post]. Marketing Science. https://byronsharp.wordpress.com/2010/09/04/frequency-and-frequency-something-to-watch-out-for/Sharp, B., Romaniuk, J., & Kennedy, E. (Eds.). (2021). Marketing: Theory, evidence, practice (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.Taylor, J., Kennedy, R., & Sharp, B. (2009). Is once really enough? Making generalizations about advertising's convex sales response function. Journal of Advertising Research, 49(2), 198-200.Thomaz, F. (2024, October 15). Reach sufficiency and the missing dimension [Conference presentation]. SXSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia. Reported in Mi3. https://www.mi-3.com.au/15-10-2024/really-mediocre-outcomes

We mark the 250th anniversary by reading the parts of the Declaration nobody puts on the merch -- Jefferson's criminal charges against a king who blocked western settlement, strangled immigration, and held land promises over men who had bled for them. Then we turn to Cuba, where classified intel says the island has acquired 300+ military drones from Russia and Iran. We go back to the Bay of Pigs to establish the one rule that covers everything that comes next: half measures are always wrong. And we close with the hardest question in the room -- if the Castro regime falls, can the Cubans still on the island actually govern themselves, or does the best argument for a free Cuba walk around Miami? Plus the prediction market corruption story for what it actually is -- not a technology problem, but the oldest compensation trap in the republic.

Markets have remained resilient in 2026. But beneath the headline strength, some signals are getting harder to ignore. In this episode of The Important Part: Investing with Liz Thomas, Neil Dutta, Head of Economic Research at Renaissance Macro, joins Liz to break down how he is reading the current market and economic backdrop. While recession is not his base case, Dutta explains why he believes certain risks may not be fully reflected in current market expectations. The conversation explores the labor market, inflation, market cycles, and the disconnect between areas of the economy that continue to hold up and areas that may be showing signs of weakness. Dutta shares the signals he is watching and why this moment may be more complicated than the headlines suggest. For more, read Liz's column every Thursday at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠On The Money⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ by SoFi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, and follow Liz on Twitter ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@LizThomasStrat⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Additional resources: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠On The Money⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: Sign up for SoFi's newsletter for intel, insights, and inspo to help you get your money right. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Investing 101 Center⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: At SoFi, we believe investing is for everyone — which is why we've created a hub with info for beginners and experts alike. Start exploring to get investment education, advice, resources, and more. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Wealth Investing Guide⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: Information you need to know to make your money work harder for you. This podcast should be used for informational purposes only and not deemed as a recommendation. Our Automated investing is via SoFi Wealth LLC, and is a registered investment advisor. Our Active investing is via SoFi securities LLC, member FINRA/SIPC. For additional disclosures related to the SoFi Invest® platforms, please visit www.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ SoFi.com/Legal⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ©2026 Social Finance, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Matt Weinzierl is Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Research and Development at Harvard Business School, where he is the Joseph and Jacqueline Elbling Professor of Business Administration in the Business, Government, and the International Economy Unit, and a Research Associate at the National Bureau of Economic Research. From 2022 through 2025, he served as Faculty Chair of the MBA Program at HBS, where he also teaches courses on economic policy and the space sector. His research focuses on the optimal design of economic policy, in particular taxation, with an emphasis on better understanding the philosophical principles underlying policy choices, and on the commercialization of the space sector and its economic implications. Prior to completing his PhD in economics at Harvard University in 2008, Professor Weinzierl served as the Staff Economist for Macroeconomics on the President's Council of Economic Advisers and worked in the New York office of McKinsey & Company.  Professor Weinzierl has written on a range of topics in optimal taxation and optimal economic policy more generally. His work in Positive Optimal Tax Theory has focused on identifying and formalizing the goals for tax policy that hold sway among the public, political and economic leaders, and leading tax thinkers, and then characterizing the implications of using those objectives in the analysis of optimal taxation.Professor Weinzierl currently serves as Senior Associate Dean for Faculty Development and Research. He previously served as Senior Associate Dean, Chair of the MBA Program and as Chair of the MBA Required Curriculum (RC). Prior to those positions, he was the coursehead for Business, Government, and the International Economy (BGIE), an RC course, and Chair of MBA Community Standards and the Conduct Review Board at HBS. He has created and currently teaches two courses in the Elective Curriculum: The Role of Government in Market Economies (RoGME) and Space, Public and Commercial Economics (SPACE).Space to Grow: Unlocking the Final Economic Frontierhttps://shorturl.at/5W1QU

Episode 263 covers the unfolding Instructure/Canvas breach by the threat group ShinyHunters. Josh, Chris, and Mark discuss the timeline, the potential scope of compromised data, and immediate steps schools should take. The episode also examines a new bill aimed at restricting AI companion chatbots for minors and debates age verification and safety concerns. Finally, the guys review a National Bureau of Economic Research study on lockable cell phone pouches, weighing the limited academic impacts found after one year against observed cultural benefits in schools. Finally, Chris interviews Dave Barclay, Director of Product with Deledao! https://www.k12dive.com/news/proposal-to-ban-ai-companions-for-minors-advances-in-senate/819239/ ———— Sponsored by: PowerGistics: How K-12 Charging Models Impact Chromebook Sustainability Textbooks Didn't have Cables Bring Chromebooks Back to the Classroom, but NOT Carts! One-Person Tech Department Success Story SysCloud Meter Fortinet VIZOR Lightspeed Extreme Networks Managed Methods ———— Join the K12TechPro Community (exclusively for K12 Tech professionals) Buy some swag (tech dept gift boxes, shirts, hoodies...)!!! Email us at k12techtalk@gmail.com OR our "professional" email addy is info@k12techtalkpodcast.com X @k12techtalkpod Facebook Visit our LinkedIn Music by Colt Ball Disclaimer: The views and work done by Josh, Chris, and Mark are solely their own and do not reflect the opinions or positions of sponsors or any respective employers or organizations associated with the guys. K12 Tech Talk itself does not endorse or validate the ideas, views, or statements expressed by Josh, Chris, and Mark's individual views and opinions are not representative of K12 Tech Talk. Furthermore, any references or mention of products, services, organizations, or individuals on K12 Tech Talk should not be considered as endorsements related to any employer or organization associated with the guys.

Today's Headlines: Trump hosted kids at the White House for a Presidential Fitness Award ceremony, fell asleep while RFK Jr. spoke, and used the occasion to rant about Iran to a room full of children — meanwhile, Pete Hegseth was simultaneously insisting the ceasefire was still intact while missiles were actively flying over the Strait of Hormuz, and Marco Rubio filled in at the press briefing to tout US humanitarian aid for Cuba, a country we are currently blockading. In other news, over a quarter of DOJ attorneys — roughly 3,400 lawyers with an average tenure of over 13 years — have walked out or been fired since Trump took office, ICE's own internal records confirm a 37% spike in use of force against detainees across 98 facilities, and a new study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that ICE enforcement is actually hurting US-born workers in construction and similar sectors, with no wage increases to show for it. In creepy Congress members news, Republican Rep. Chuck Edwards is under investigation for alleged misconduct toward two female staffers in their 20s, including gifts, a handwritten love letter, and a Las Vegas vacation he took during a government shutdown he almost missed voting to end — his office also had a 59% staff turnover rate in 2025, more than double the House average. In tech and media news, the White House is planning an executive order on AI oversight involving Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI before models are released to the public, Pennsylvania sued Character.AI for having its chatbot impersonate a licensed psychiatrist complete with a fake license number, and James Murdoch is reportedly in talks to acquire Vox Media, which owns New York Magazine, The Verge, and Eater, potentially outbidding the competing offer from former NBC spinoff Versant. And finally, NPR went to Panama looking for Polymarket's corporate headquarters and found an essentially empty office where nobody had ever heard of the $15 billion prediction market platform — which also happens to share a law firm with FTX, so that's extremely reassuring. Resources/Articles mentioned: The New Republic: Trump, 79, Falls Asleep After Bragging to Kids About Iran War Plans Common Dreams: Hegseth Brags About Attacks on Iranian Ships in Strait of Hormuz While Claiming Ceasefire Holds The Hill: Marco Rubio gets presidential tryout in White House briefing room Axios: Scoop: Rep. Chuck Edwards singled out young female aides for special attention Financial Times: US Department of Justice loses a quarter of its lawyers WaPo: Internal ICE records reveal widespread use of force in detention centers Axios: ICE activity hurts some U.S.-born workers, study finds Axios: SEC proposes rule to allow public companies to report twice a year NYT: White House Considers Vetting A.I. Models Before They Are Released Reuters: Pennsylvania sues Character AI, says chatbot poses as doctors NYT: James Murdoch's Company Said to Be in Talks to Acquire Major Parts of Vox Media NPR: NPR went looking for Polymarket's Panama headquarters. It's elusive  Subscribe to the Betches News Room and join the Morning Announcements group chat. Go to: betchesnews.substack.com Morning Announcements is produced by Sami Sage and edited by Grace Hernandez-Johnson Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New findings from the National Bureau of Economic Research find strong relationships between America's community colleges and local labor markets, but what does that mean for higher education? Josh Goodman, Associate Professor of Education and Economics at Boston University and co-author of the report joins host Jason Altmire to discuss how strong labor markets drive down demand for education as people are incentivized to enter the workforce rather than pursue a degree. On the other hand, a weaker labor market sees a significant increase in community college enrollment as people want a next step even if they can't find employment. Because colleges play a key role during difficult economic times, Josh argues that policymakers should rethink how they fund post-secondary education in order to support a vital tool for rebuilding America's economy.To learn more about Career Education Colleges & Universities, visit our website.

In this programme, we take a closer look at the current state of the Slovak economy, which is expected to face a period of slow growth and increased uncertainty. We explore the key factors behind this development—from global conditions and weaker foreign demand to fiscal consolidation and its impact on households and businesses. Our guests, Tomáš Miklošovič from the Institute of Economic Research of the Slovak Academy of Sciences and Reiner Martin from the National Bank of Slovakia, explain what these trends mean for everyday life, the labour market, and investment. The programme also offers insight into possible future scenarios and the steps needed to support more stable economic growth.

In this episode, Michael discusses the surprising truth about grocery shopping. He shares a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research that reveals men tend to spend more on groceries than women, even when buying the same items. They also dive into a humorous exchange with PETA about vegan tacos, which leads to a discussion about the rise of veganism in Denver. The conversation is light-hearted and entertaining, but also touches on the importance of being mindful of our spending habits.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Overview In the third instalment of our series on famine and revolution, we pull away the veil of headline numbers to investigate the visceral, human reality of the Great Hunger in Ireland. This is an exploration of a land filling with desperation, where the brutal biological mechanics of what happens when the human body begins to consume itself take centre stage. We examine the fate of a terrified people, facing ruin triggered by a disease that wreaked havoc on already weak economies. From the folklore of the Fear Gorta to the harrowing clinical reports of the era, this episode explores how a society is transformed when it is blindsided by biological disaster and administrative indifference. Key Topics Covered: The Information Vacuum: Comparing our modern “Ocean of Information” to the terrifying silence of the 1840s, where the sickly sweet smell of rot was a mystery without an immediate answer. The Folklore of Famine: Why stories like Hansel and Gretel and the Navajo Dine Bahane carry the genetic memory of starvation, and the specific Irish harbinger of death: the Fear Gorta. The Structural Cage: A deep dive into the Rundale system and Gavelkind inheritance. We look at why the West was trapped in a cycle of subdivision while Ulster was shielded by the “Linen Shield” and Tenant Right. The Biology of Starvation: Using modern metabolic science and contemporary medical records to explain the “Blue Nose,” the “Sunken Orbit,” and the terrifying reality of Autophagy—the body cannibalising its own architecture. The Refeeding Trap: The physiological reason why a crust of bread could become a death sentence for a heart shrunken by atrophy. Conspicuous Consumption: The stark contrast between the “Workhouse Swineries” and the elite social calendar, including the dinner menus of the Cork Harbour Regatta. The Gregory Clause: How a single piece of legislation—the Quarter-Acre Clause—was used to engineer the clearances and force the starving into homelessness. The Ledger of the Dead: Analysis of the 1851 Census and the 20–25% demographic erasure that redefined Ireland forever. SOURCES Historical Research & Modern Analysis Delaney, Enda. (2020, December). “‘There But For The Grace of God Go I': Middle-Class Catholic Responses to Ireland's Great Famine.” The English Historical Review, Vol. 135, No. 577, pp. 1433–1460. Donnelly, James S., Jr. (2002). The Great Irish Potato Famine. Stroud: Sutton Publishing. Guinnane, Timothy W. (1994). “The Great Irish Famine and Population: The Long View.” The American Economic Review, Vol. 84, no. 2, pp. 303–08. Ó Gráda, Cormac. (2013, March). “Eating people is wrong: Famine’s darkest secret?” UCD Centre for Economic Research, Working Paper No. WP13/02. O'Riordan, Edmund. (2018, May/June). “‘Every Delicacy of the Season'—Conspicuous Consumption During the Great Hunger.” History Ireland, Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 26–29. Poirteir, Cathal (Ed.). (1999). The Great Irish Famine. Dublin: Mercier Press. Woodham-Smith, Cecil. (1962). The Great Hunger: Ireland 1845–1849. London: Hamish Hamilton. Guinnane, Timothy W. “The Great Irish Famine and Population: The Long View.” The American Economic Review, vol. 84, no. 2, 1994, pp. 303–08. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2117848. Accessed 31 Mar. 2026 Scientific & Medical Analysis of Starvation Anabtawi, O., & Valente, B. (2025, August 12). “The science of starvation: This is what happens to your body when it's deprived of food.” The Conversation. Donovan, Daniel. (1848). “Observations on the Peculiar Diseases to Which the Famine of Last Year Gave Origin.” Dublin Medical Press. Keys, Ancel, et al. (1950). The Biology of Human Starvation. University of Minnesota Press. (References derived from the Minnesota Starvation Experiment). Primary Documents & Government Records Devon Commission. (1845). Report from Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Inquiry into the State of the Law and Practice in respect to the Occupation of Land in Ireland. Hansard Parliamentary Debates. (1849). HL Deb 15 June 1849 vol 106 cc285-300. (Correspondence of the Earl of Clancarty regarding Ballinasloe). O’Rourke, Canon John. (1875). The History of the Great Irish Famine of 1847. Ridgway, James. (1847). The Irish Relief Measures, Past and Future. Regional Studies & Files Best, Barbara. (2025). “Local Female Orphans and The Earl Grey Scheme 1848-1850.” Tobin, J. “The Famine in Ballyduff and the evictions of Arthur Usher Kiely.” Ballyduff Archive. University College Dublin. (2024). “Hansel and Gretel's famine folklore origins.” The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure. Folklore & Cultural Context Dine Bahane. Navajo creation mythology regarding resource scarcity and survival. Fear Gorta (The Hungry Man). Traditional Irish folklore regarding the personification of hunger. Yoruba Mythology. Oral traditions regarding the “Leopards Famine.” The post EP068 WHEN HUNGER WALKS THE LAND appeared first on AGE OF VICTORIA PODCAST.

A series of academic studies suggest that the wealthy are, to put it bluntly, selfish jerks. It's an easy narrative to embrace — but is it true? As part of GiveDirectly's “Pods Fight Poverty” campaign, we revisit a 2017 episode. SOURCES:Jim Andreoni, professor of economics at the University of California, San Diego.Nikos Nikiforakis, professor of economics at New York University in Abu Dhabi.Paul Piff, associate professor of psychology at the University of California, Irvine.Jan Stoop, associate professor of applied economics at the Erasmus School of Economics. RESOURCES:"Are the Rich More Selfish Than the Poor, or do They Just Have More Money? A Natural Field Experiment," by James Andreoni, Nikos Nikiforakis, and Jan Stoop (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017)."Exploring the Psychology of Wealth, 'Pernicious' Effects of Economic Inequality," (PBS NewsHour, 2013)."Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function," by Anandi Mani, Sendhil Mullainathan, Eldar Shafir, and Jiaying Zhao (Science, 2013)."Higher Social Class Predicts Increased Unethical Behavior," by Paul Piff, Daniel Stancato, Stéphane Côté, Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton, and Dacher Keltner (PNAS, 2011)."Relative Earnings and Giving in a Real-Effort Experiment," by Nisvan Erkal, Lata Gangadharan, and Nikos Nikiforakis (American Economic Review, 2011)."Experimenter Demand Effects in Economic Experiments," by Daniel John Zizzo (Experimental Economics, 2009)."Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving," by James Andreoni (The Economic Journal, 1990)."Privately Provided Public Goods in a Large Economy: The Limits of Altruism," by James Andreoni (Journal of Public Economics, 1987)."A Positive Model of Private Charity and Public Transfers," by Russell Roberts (Journal of Political Economy, 1984).Pods Fight Poverty Campaign on Give Directly. EXTRAS:“How to Raise Money Without Killing a Kitten,” by Freakonomics Radio (2013). Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.