Podcasts about economists

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe In this episode, I speak with Matthieu Pageau, author of The Language of Creation. This is a rare (and almost unbelievable) interview. With a high degree of likelihood, I can say that this interview, if watched all the way until the end, will change your life. Pageau argues that Satan is first a function—the tester and accuser—before a villain. Think Job's auditor or a hired penetration tester. When will-to-power takes over, the function falls. He lays out a symbolic grammar: heaven as plan, earth as materials. Water renews. The feminine crowns and renovates forms. Abraham and Moses act as faithful adversaries. Adam and Eve show what secrecy breaks. Borderline stories like Tamar and Ruth trace exile and redemption. Pageau speaks from his own exile, leaning Orthodox/Catholic, critiquing without grasping for power, and letting reality correct him. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: - 00:00 - Who Are You? (Identity as Relational vs. Self-Defined) - 04:54 - How Matthieu's Project Differs From His Brother's (Jonathan Pageau) - 10:25 - The God-Created Function of Satan vs. The Fallen Entity - 18:34 - Are Internal Critics “Functional Satanists”? - 23:02 - Satan in the Book of Job: The Divine Hacker - 27:50 - The Axioms of Reality: A Computer Scientist's Worldview - 32:08 - Heaven as “The Plan,” Earth as “The Materials” - 36:50 - The Dual Nature of Chaos (Symbolism of Water) - 44:08 - Why Are Women Central to the Resurrection Story? - 49:14 - The Simple Act That Could Have Prevented “The Fall” - 52:18 - Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem as the ‘Feminine' Crown - 59:31 - Redeeming the Exiled: The Pattern of Ruth - 1:05:00 - A Christian in Exile: Matthieu's Spiritual Homelessness - 1:16:15 - How to Escape Metaphysical Exile - 1:21:44 - The Will to Power: When Criticism Becomes Corrupt - 1:26:53 - The Paradox: Why You MUST Believe Yours is ‘The Real Church' - 1:34:25 - What ‘Nature' Truly Means - 1:47:44 - Why Renewal, Updating, and Competition Are ‘Feminine' - 1:55:10 - The Story of Tamar: Deception as Righteous Renewal - 2:01:00 - How to Read the Bible Symbolically - 2:09:51 - Why Symbolism Applies to Stories, Not Raw Data - 2:21:34 - The ‘Dangerous' Vision That Birthed The Book - 2:31:31 - Mind vs. Spirit vs. Outlook (And The Final Paradox) Links Mentioned: - The Language Of Creation [Book]: https://www.amazon.com/Language-Creation-Symbolism-Genesis-Commentary/dp/1981549331/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0 - Jonathan Pageau [TOE]: https://youtu.be/X3co_AA6yec - Wolfgang Smith [TOE]: https://youtu.be/vp18_L_y_30 - Claudia de Rham [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Ve_Mpd6dGv8 - Leo Gura [TOE]: https://youtu.be/YspFR9JAq3w - The Story Of The Fall: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203&version=NIV - The Most Abused Theorem In Math [TOE]: https://youtu.be/OH-ybecvuEo SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From Christian Finnegan: The Fun Part https://www.comedydynamics.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

The dominance of the US dollar as the global reserve currency has been gradually declining for years, but Donald Trump's policies could rapidly accelerate de-dollarization and the transition to a more multipolar international financial order, warn even mainstream American economists like Barry Eichengreen and Kenneth Rogoff. Political economist Ben Norton reviews the evidence. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utvD1JiIgCM Our related article - "Trump advisor reveals tariff strategy: Force countries to pay tribute to maintain US empire": https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/04/10/trump-advisor-miran-tariff-pay-us-empire/ Topics 0:00 Dedollarization 0:43 Trump's policies accelerate dedollarization 3:50 Economist Barry Eichengreen 5:25 (CLIP) Barry Eichengreen on dedollarization 6:54 Gradually, and then suddenly 7:49 Erosion of dollar dominance 9:18 Decline of US economy 11:36 Rise of China 12:50 Gold: why central banks keep buying it 15:42 Western sanctions 17:57 List of reasons driving dedollarization 18:42 Trump's tariffs & US trade deficit 20:10 Trump pressures Federal Reserve 22:58 Why Trump wants low interest rates 24:56 US Treasury market volatility 26:03 Fewer foreigners want US government debt 29:32 US economy: a financial house of cards 30:34 High corporate bond yields 32:26 Reasons driving dedollarization 32:56 Inflation 36:31 Trump fires BLS chief 37:40 Mar-a-Lago Accord plans 38:54 (CLIP) Trump economic advisor Stephen Miran 38:59 Plaza Accord redux 40:30 Century bonds: de facto US debt default 44:46 Private investors de-dollarize too 45:25 Post-US dollar world 47:14 Economist Kenneth Rogoff 48:09 Trump's own Nixon shock 48:51 Multipolar financial world 50:46 Outro

Major forces shaping the U.S. economy are already causing ripple effects across the globe. To say it's a time of economic uncertainty and transformation may be an understatement. America could see the biggest tariff shock in nearly a century and immigration policy is affecting the labor market. In addition, the Tax Act, or One Big Beautiful Bill, could add trillions to the deficit. Prominent business leaders unpack the situation in a well-rounded discussion on the state of the economy. Zanny Minton Beddoes, editor in chief of The Economist, moderates the conversation that includes Blackrock CEO Laurence Fink, Georgia Governor Brian Kemp, New York Stock Exchange Group President Lynn Martin, and Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf.

The unemployment rate for Canadians between 15 and 24 is at 15 percent, the highest it's been since 2010, not including the pandemic.Why can't young people find a job? And how do these numbers fit into the wider health of our economy at the moment?Economist and Atkinson Fellow on the Future of Workers Armine Yalnizyan is on the show to talk about these numbers, why they stand out and what could be done to prepare and protect the economy from a world of near-constant uncertainty.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

This is the latest in a series of sessions from The Publisher Summits, which were held in June. The Summits covered four product areas across 2 days in London, from newsletters and print to apps and podcasts, featuring speakers from The Economist and the FT to Reach, National World, Grazia and more. Thanks to the sponsors of the Publisher App Summit - Pugpig, and Syno. Find out more about them and how they help publishers take their apps to the next level at publishersummits.com. This episode features a fantastic panel from the Publisher App Summit where Hearst UK's Emma Peagam and Stylist's Felicity Thistlethwaite joined Esther Thorpe on stage to talk about how games and added extras help enhance relationships with their subscribers, and boost those all-important retention rates.

Welcome to the land podcast, a platform for people looking to educate themselves in the world of land ownership, land investing, staying up to date with current land trends in the Midwest, and hearing from industry experts and professionals. On today's episode, we are back in the studio with Connor Lokar, an Economist and keynote speaker from ITR Economics. We discuss: Don't rely on news; it often spins data to fit narratives Focus on leading indicators like the Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) Builder sentiment impacts housing market trends; check the NAHB index Current market shows signs of a buyer's market due to rising inventory Interest rates will likely remain high, affecting buyer affordability Land prices typically rise; waiting for a dip may not be wise Historical data shows land values are resilient during economic downturns Prepare for potential economic downturns in the early 2030s Wealth transfer from boomers may face increased taxation Investing in land can be a hedge against inflation and a way to create memories And so much more! ⁠⁠Get Pre-Approved to Purchase a farm with Buck Land Funding ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.whitetailmasteracademy.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Use code '⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HOFER' to save 10% off at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theprairiefarm.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Massive potential tax savings: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ASMLABS.Net⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Moultrie: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/moultrie_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Hawke Optics: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/hawkeoptics_⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -OnX: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/onX_Hunt⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ -Painted Arrow: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/PaintedArrow

Airstrikes and tanks continued pounding the outskirts of Gaza City over the weekend, as Israel's plans to seize the strip's largest urban centre continued. A much bigger operation, widely condemned by the international community, could begin within days or weeks.This is all happening as the world's leading authority on food crises is saying that Gaza City and surrounding areas — currently home to half of the territory's population — is now gripped by famine, and that it's likely to spread across the rest of the strip unless a ceasefire is negotiated.Meanwhile, Israel recently approved a major settlement plan which would functionally divide the West Bank in two, blunting hopes for a future Palestinian state.Given all this — what's the latest on ceasefire negotiations, and is there any sense that Western states have plans to step up pressure on Israel over either Gaza or the West Bank?Today, Gregg Carlstrom, the Economist's longtime Middle East correspondent, is back on the show to discuss all of this. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Jerome Grimaud, Emergency Coordinator for Medecins Sans Frontières in Gaza, and Gregg Carlstrom, Middle East Correspondent with the Economist, discuss the latest strikes on the Nasser hospital in Southern Gaza.

For over thirty years, I was in the investment industry with most of that time spent in portfolio management with the Ivy Funds at Mackenzie Investments. I have now established my own investment consulting firm: Paddington Capital Management Incorporated. I spend a lot of my time writing for my blog, Paulitical Economy™, which I started in June of 2022 with the goal of giving my family and friends a brief summary in layperson's terms of what's going on in the world from an economic, corporate and monetary perspective. I have also written a book to help people understand how our monetary system extracts capital from them and how a select few benefit tremendously from it. The world has veered onto a dangerous and divisive path resulting from what I believe to be a fallacious economic doctrine that promises something from nothing. But I have great faith in people and believe that through our collective efforts we'll be able to turn things around and steer the world in a more productive and fair direction. Website: https://paddingtoncapitalmgmt.com/about/ Social Media: Instagram https://www.instagram.com/paddingtoncap?igsh=MTA3ZjAybnF0dDhydg== LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulbmusson?utm_source=share&utm_campaign=share_via&utm_content=profile&utm_medium=android_app Facebook https://www.facebook.com/share/19BSYQdhc6/

#636: Behavioral economist Etinosa Agbonlahor joins us to discuss "money scripts" — the unconscious beliefs we inherit or develop about finances.  Agbonlahor, CEO of Decision Alpha and former Director of Behavioral Science Research at Fidelity Investments, is the author of "How to Talk to Your Parents About Money."  She studied financial management at Cornell University and explains how these hidden biases create problems when we try to discuss finances with family members. You might assume everyone thinks saving money makes sense, while your parents operate under completely different beliefs. These conflicting scripts can derail conversations before they start.  Agbonlahor shares the story of a single mother who became so anxious about money after her divorce that she refused to buy her teenager expensive shoes. Years later, she realized she was trying to teach extreme frugality to protect her daughters from the financial insecurity she experienced. The key to productive money conversations lies in three principles: care, curiosity and cooperation. You approach with empathy rather than judgment, ask open-ended questions to understand their situation, and work together toward solutions instead of trying to be the financial savior. The conversation covers specific topics you should address with aging parents: debt, retirement planning, long-term care preferences, and estate planning. Agbonlahor emphasizes starting these discussions early, before a crisis hits.  You want to understand their vision for retirement — whether they prioritize security, adventure or leaving a legacy — and then assess the gap between their goals and current reality. When parents refuse to discuss finances, you might need to involve trusted friends, spiritual leaders or professional advisors who can have these conversations instead.  Resources Mentioned: Book: How to Talk to Your Parents About Money, by Etinosa Agbonlahor The Humble Dollar Forum Timestamps: Note: Timestamps will vary on individual listening devices based on dynamic advertising run times. The provided timestamps are approximate and may be several minutes off due to changing ad lengths. (00:00) Introduction to money scripts (00:56) What behavioral economics studies (03:03) Hidden money beliefs (04:34) Money script examples (06:16) Adult trauma responses (09:32) Personality and money (11:57) Trauma changes personality (12:55) Protecting future habits (15:17) Debt conversation approach (22:03) When to start conversations (27:53) Using "I" statements (29:51) Sample conversation scripts (33:36) Handling resistance (43:35) Parents' money frameworks (56:46) Long-term care planning (58:02) Stepparent conversations For more information, visit the show notes at https://affordanything.com/episode636 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Economist and daily commenter on all things financial Peter St.Onge returns to the podcast for a back and forth about Powell, Trump, the tariffs and why, in the end, defending your home is what our top priority should be.Show Notes:Peter on XMike Rowe's Classic TED Talk.Tom on XSupport Gold Goats 'n Guns on Patreon

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Global population growth is slowing, and it's not showing any signs of recovery. To the environmentalists of the 1970s, this may have seemed like a movement in the right direction. The drawbacks to population decline, however, are severe and numerous, and they're not all obvious.Today on Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with economist and demographer Dean Spears about the depopulation trend that is transcending cultural barriers and ushering in a new global reality. We discuss the costs to the economy and human progress, and the inherent value of more people.Spears is an associate professor of economics at Princeton University where he studies demography and development. He is also the founding executive director of r.i.c.e., a nonprofit research organization seeking to uplift children in rural northern India. He is a co-author with Michael Geruso of After the Spike: Population, Progress, and the Case for People.In This Episode* Where we're headed (1:32)* Pumping the breaks (5:41)* A pro-parenting culture (12:40)* A place for AI (19:13)* Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)* Quantity and quality of life (28:48)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Where we're headed (1:32). . . two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.Pethokoukis: Who are you and your co-author trying to persuade and what are you trying to persuade them of? Are you trying to persuade them that global depopulation is a real thing, that it's a problem? Are you trying to persuade them to have more kids? Are you trying to persuade them to support a certain set of pro-child or pro-natalist policies?Spears: We are trying to persuade quite a lot of people of two important things: One is that global depopulation is the most likely future — and what global depopulation means is that every decade, every generation, the world's population will shrink. That's the path that we're on. We're on that path because birth rates are low and falling almost everywhere. It's one thing we're trying to persuade people of, that fact, and we're trying to persuade people to engage with a question of whether global depopulation is a future to welcome or whether we should want something else to happen. Should we let depopulation happen by default or could it be better to stabilize the global population at some appropriate level instead?We fundamentally think that this is a question that a much broader section of society, of policy discourse, of academia should be talking about. We shouldn't just be leaving this discussion to the population scientists, demographic experts, not only to the people who already are worried about, or talking about low birth rates, but this is important enough and unprecedented enough that everybody should be engaging in this question. Whatever your ongoing values or commitments, there's a place for you in this conversation.Is it your impression that the general public is aware of this phenomenon? Or are they still stuck in the '70s thinking that population is running amok and we'll have 30 billion people on this planet like was the scenario in the famous film, Soylent Green? I feel like the people I know are sort of aware that this is happening. I don't know what your experience is.I think it's changing fast. I think more and more people are aware that birth rates are falling. I don't think that people are broadly aware — because when you hear it in the news, you might hear that birth rates in the United States have fallen low or birth rates in South Korea have fallen low. I think what not everybody knows is that two thirds of people now live in a country where the birth rate is below the two children per two adults level that would stabilize the population.I think people don't know that the world's birth rate has fallen from an average around five in 1950 to about 2.3 today, and that it's still falling and that people just haven't engaged with the thought that there's no special reason to expect it to stop and hold it to. But the same processes that have been bringing birth rates down will continue to bring them down, and people don't know that there's no real automatic stabilizer to expect it to come back up. Of the 26 countries that have had the lifetime birth rate fall below 1.9, none of them have had it go back up to two.That's a lot of facts that are not as widely known as they should be, but then the implication of it, that if the world's birth rate goes below two and stays there, we're going to have depopulation generation after generation. I think for a lot of people, they're still in the mindset that depopulation is almost conceptually impossible, that either we're going to have population growth or something else like zero population growth like people might've talked about in the '70s. But the idea that a growth rate of zero is just a number and then that it's not going to stop there, it's going to go negative, I think that's something that a lot of people just haven't thought about.Pumping the breaks (5:41)We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically.You said there's no automatic stabilizers — at first take, that sounds like we're going to zero. Is there a point where the global population does hit a stability point?No, that's just the thing.So we're going to zero?Well, “there's no automatic stabilizer” isn't the same thing as “we're definitely going to zero.” It could be that society comes together and decides to support parenting, invest more in the next generation, invest more in parents and families, and do more to help people choose to be parents. We wrote this book because we hope that there will be an alternative to depopulation society will choose, but there's no reason to expect or believe that it's going happen automatically. In no country where the birth rate has gone to two has it just magically stopped and held there forever.I think a biologist might say that the desire to reproduce, that's an evolved drive, and even if right now we're choosing to have smaller families, that biological urge doesn't vanish. We've had population, fertility rates, rise and fall throughout history — don't you think that there is some sort of natural stabilizer?We've had fluctuations throughout history, but those fluctuations have been around a pretty long and pretty widely-shared downward trend. Americans might be mostly only now hearing about falling birth rates because the US was sort of anomalous amongst richer countries and having a relatively flat period from the 1970s to around 2010 or so, whereas birth rates were falling in other countries, they weren't falling in the US in the same way, but they were falling in the US before then, they're falling in the US since then, and when you plot it over the long history with other countries, it's clear that, for the world as a whole, as long as we've had records, not just for decades, but for centuries, we've seen birth rates be falling. It's not just a new thing, it's a very long-term trend.It's a very widely-shared trend because humans are unlike other animals in the important way that we make decisions. We have culture, we have rationality, we have irrationality, we have all of these. The reason the population grew is because we've learned how to keep ourselves and our children alive. We learned how to implement sanitation, implement antibiotics, implement vaccines, and so more of the children who were born survived even as the birth rate was falling all along. Other animals don't do that. Other animals don't invent sanitation systems and antibiotics and so I think that we can't just reason immediately from other animal populations to what's going to happen to humans.I think one can make a plausible case that, even if you think that this is a problem — and again, it's a global problem, or a global phenomenon, advanced countries, less-advanced countries — that it is a phenomenon of such sweep that if you're going to say we need to stabilize or slow down, that it would take a set of policies of equal sweep to counter it. Do those actually exist?No. Nobody has a turnkey solution. There's nothing shovel-ready here. In fact, it's too early to be talking about policy solutions or “here's my piece of legislation, here's what the government should do” because we're just not there yet, both in terms of the democratic process of people understanding the situation and there even being a consensus that stabilization, at some level, would be better than depopulation, nor are we there yet on having any sort of answer that we can honestly recommend as being tested and known to be something that will reliably stabilize the population.I think the place to start is by having conversations like this one where we get people to engage with the evidence, and engage with the question, and just sort of move beyond a reflexive welcoming of depopulation by default and start thinking about, well, what are the costs of people and what are the benefits of people? Would we be better off in a future that isn't depopulating over the long run?The only concrete step I can think of us taking right now is adapting the social safety net to a new demographic reality. Beyond that, it seems like there might have to be a cultural shift of some kind, like a large-scale religious revival. Or maybe we all become so rich that we have more time on our hands and decide to have more kids. But do you think at some point someone will have a concrete solution to bring global fertility back up to 2.1 or 2.2?Look at it like this: The UN projects that the peak will be about six decades from now in 2084. Of course, I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know that it's going to be 2084, but let's take that six-decades timeline seriously because we're not talking about something that's going to happen next year or even next decade.But six decades ago, people were aware that — or at least leading scientists and even some policymakers were aware that climate change was a challenge. The original computations by Arrhenius of the radiative forcing were long before that. You have the Johnson speech to Congress, you have Nixon and the EPA. People were talking about climate change as a challenge six decades ago, but if somebody had gotten on their equivalent of a podcast and said, “What we need to do is immediately get rid of the internal combustion engine,” they would've been rightly laughed out of the room because that would've been the wrong policy solution at that time. That would've been jumping to the wrong solution. Instead, what we needed to do was what we've done, which is the science, the research, the social change that we're now at a place where emissions per person in the US have been falling for 20 years and we have technologies — wind, and solar, and batteries — that didn't exist before because there have been decades of working on it.So similarly, over the next six decades, let's build the research, build the science, build the social movement, discover things we don't know, more social science, more awareness, and future people will know more than you and I do about what might be constructive responses to this challenge, but only if we start talking about it now. It's not a crisis to panic about and do the first thing that comes to mind. This is a call to be more thoughtful about the future.A pro-parenting culture (12:40)The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward.But to be clear, you would like people to have more kids.I would like for us to get on a path where more people who want to be parents have the sort of support, and environment, and communities they need to be able to choose that. I would like people to be thinking about all of this when they make their family decisions. I'd like the rest of us to be thinking about this when we pitch in and do more to help us. I don't think that anybody's necessarily making the wrong decision for themselves if they look around and think that parenting is not for them or having more children is not for them, but I think we might all be making a mistake if we're not doing more to support parents or to recognize the stake we have in the next generation.But all those sorts of individual decisions that seem right for an individual or for a couple, combined, might turn into a societal decision.Absolutely. I'm an economics professor. We call this “externalities,” where there are social benefits of something that are different from the private costs and benefits. If I decide that I want to drive and I contribute to traffic congestion, then that's an externality. At least in principle, we understand what to do about that: You share the cost, you share the benefits, you help the people internalize the social decision.It's tied up in the fact that we have a society where some people we think of as doing care work and some people we think of as doing important work. So we've loaded all of these costs of making the next generation on people during the years of their parenting and especially on women and mothers. It's understandable that, from a strictly economic point of view, somebody looks at that and thinks, “The private costs are greater than the private benefits. I'm not going to do that.” It's not my position to tell somebody that they're wrong about that. What you do in a situation like that is share and lighten that burden. If there's a social reason to solve traffic congestion, then you solve it with public policy over the long run. If the social benefits of there being a flourishing next generation are greater than people are finding in their own decision making, then we need to find the ways to invest in families, invest in parenting, lift and share those burdens so that people feel like they can choose to be parents.I would think there's a cultural component here. I am reminded of a book by Jonathan Last about this very issue in which he talks about Old Town Alexandria here in Virginia, how, if you go to Old Town, you can find lots of stores selling stuff for dogs, but if you want to buy a baby carriage, you can't find anything.Of course, that's an equilibrium outcome, but go on.If we see a young couple pushing a stroller down the street and inside they have a Chihuahua — as society, or you personally, would you see that and “Think that's wrong. That seems like a young couple living in a nice area, probably have plenty of dough, they can afford daycare, and yet they're still not going to have a kid and they're pushing a dog around a stroller?” Should we view that as something's gone wrong with our society?My own research is about India. My book's co-authored with Mike Geruso. He studies the United States more. I'm more of an expert on India.Paul Ehrlich, of course, begins his book, The Population Bomb, in India.Yes, I know. He starts with this feeling of being too crowded with too many people. I say in the book that I almost wonder if I know the exact spot where he has that experience. I think it's where one of my favorite shops are for buying scales and measuring tape for measuring the health of children in Uttar Pradesh. But I digress about Paul Ehrlich.India now, where Paul Ehrlich was worried about overpopulation, is now a society with an average birth rate below two kids per two adults. Even Uttar Pradesh, the big, disadvantaged, poor state where I do my work in research, the average young woman there says that they want an average of 1.9 children. This is a place where society and culture is pretty different from the United States. In the US, we're very accustomed to this story of work and family conflict, and career conflicts, especially for women, and that's probably very important in a lot of people's lives. But that's not what's going on in India where female labor force participation is pretty low. Or you hear questions about whether this is about the decline of religiosity, but India is a place where religion is still very important to a lot of people's lives. Marriage is almost universal. Marriage happens early. People start their childbearing careers in their early twenties, and you still see people having an average below two kids. They start childbearing young and they end childbearing young.Similarly, in Latin America, where religiosity, at least as reported in surveys, remains pretty high, but Latin America is at an average of 1.8, and it's not because people are delaying fertility until they're too old to get pregnant. You see a lot of people having permanent contraception surgery, tubal obligations.And so this cultural story where people aren't getting married, they're starting too late, they're putting careers first, it doesn't match the worldwide diversity. These diverse societies we're seeing are all converging towards low birth rates. The world's becoming more similar in this important way that the difference across countries and difference across societies is getting smaller as birth rates converge downward. So I don't think we can easily point towards any one cultural for this long-term and widely shared trend.A place for AI (19:13)If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce . . . if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.At least from an economic perspective, I think you can make the case: fewer people, less strain on resources, you're worried about workers, AI-powered robots are going to be doing a lot of work, and if you're worried about fewer scientists, the scientists we do have are going to have AI-powered research assistants.Which makes the scientists more important. Many technologies over history have been compliments to what humans do, not substitutes. If AI in the future is a compliment to what humans produce — scientific research or just the learning by doing that people do whenever they're engaging in an enterprise or trying to create something — if AI is making us more productive, then it's all the bigger loss to have fewer people.To me, the best of both worlds would be to have even more scientists plus AI. But isn't the fear of too few people causing a labor shortage sort of offset by AI and robotics? Maybe we'll have plenty of technology and capital to supply the workers we do have. If that's not the worry, maybe the worry is that the human experience is simply worse when there are fewer children around.You used the term “plenty of,” and I think that sort of assumes that there's a “good enough,” and I want to push back on that because I think what matters is to continue to make progress towards higher living standards, towards poverty alleviation, towards longer, better, healthier, safer, richer lives. What matters is whether we're making as much progress as we could towards an abundant, rich, safe, healthy future. I think we shouldn't let ourselves sloppily accept a concept of “good enough.” If we're not making the sort of progress that we could towards better lives, then that's a loss, and that matters for people all around the world.We're better off for living in a world with other people. Other people are win-win: Their lives are good for them and their lives are good for you. Part of that, as you say, is people on the supply side of the economy, people having the ideas and the realizations that then can get shared over and over again. The fact that ideas are this non-depletable resource that don't get used up but might never be discovered if there aren't people to discover them. That's one reason people are important on the supply side of the economy, but other people are also good for you on the demand side of the economy.This is very surprising because people think that other people are eating your slice of the pie, and if there are more other people, there's less for me. But you have to ask yourself, why does the pie exist in the first place? Why is it worth some baker's while to bake a pie that I could get a slice of? And that's because there were enough people wanting slices of pie to make it worth paying the fixed costs of having a bakery and baking a whole pie.In other words, you're made better off when other people want and need the same things that you want and need because that makes it more likely for it to exist. If you have some sort of specialized medical need and need specialized care, you're going to be more likely to find it in a city where there are more other people than in a less-populated rural place, and you're going to be more likely to find it in a course of history where there have been more other people who have had the same medical need that you do so that it's been worthwhile for some sort of cure to exist. The goodness of other people for you isn't just when they're creating things, it's also when they're just needing the same things that you do.And, of course, if you think that getting to live a good life is a good thing, that there's something valuable about being around to have good experiences, that a world of more people having good experiences has more goodness in it than a world of fewer people having good experiences in it. That's one thing that counts, and it's one important consideration for why a stabilized future might be better than a depopulating future. Now, I don't expect everyone to immediately agree with that, but I do think that the likelihood of depopulation should prompt us to ask that question.Preaching to the pro-natalist choir (23:40)If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody.Now, listening to what you just said, which I thought was fantastic, you're a great explainer, that is wonderful stuff — but I couldn't help but think, as you explained that, that you end up spending a lot of time with people who, because they read the New York Times, they may understand that the '70s population fears aren't going to happen, that we're not going to have a population of 30 billion that we're going to hit, I don't know, 10 billion in the 2060s and then go down. And they think, “Well, that's great.”You have to spend a lot of time explaining to them about the potential downsides and why people are good, when like half the population in this country already gets it: “You say ‘depopulation,' you had us at the word, ‘depopulation.'” You have all these people who are on the right who already think that — a lot of people I know, they're there.Is your book an effective tool to build on that foundation who already think it's an issue, are open to policy ideas, does your book build on that or offer anything to those people?I think that, even if this is something that people have thought about before, a lot of how people have thought about it is in terms of pension plans, the government's budget, the age structure, the nearer-term balance of workers to retirees.There's plenty of people on the right who maybe they're aware of those things, but also think that it really is kind of a The Children of Men argument. They just think a world with more children is better. A world where the playgrounds are alive is better — and yes, that also may help us with social security, but there's a lot of people for whom you don't have to even make that economic argument. That seems to me that that would be a powerful team of evangelists — and I mean it in a nonreligious way — evangelists for your idea that population is declining and there are going to be some serious side effects.If you are already persuaded listening to this, then go strike up a conversation with somebody. That's what we want to have happen. I think minds are going to be changed in small batches on this one. So if you're somebody who already thinks this way, then I encourage you to go out there and start a conversation. I think not everybody, even people who think about population for a living — for example, one of the things that we engage with in the book is the philosophy of population ethics, or population in social welfare as economists might talk about it.There have been big debates there over should we care about average wellbeing? Should we care about total wellbeing? Part of what we're trying to say in the book is, one, we think that some of those debates have been misplaced or are asking what we don't think are the right questions, but also to draw people to what we can learn from thinking of where questions like this agree. Because this whole question of should we make the future better in total or make the better on average is sort of presuming this Ehrlich-style mindset that if the future is more populous, then it must be worse for each. But once you see that a future that's more populous is also more prosperous, it'd be better in total and better on average, then a lot of these debates might still have academic interest, but both ways of thinking about what would be a better future agree.So there are these pockets of people out there who have thought about this before, and part of what we're trying to do is bring them together in a unified conversation where we're talking about the climate modeling, we're talking about the economics, we're talking about the philosophy, we're talking about the importance of gender equity and reproductive freedom, and showing that you can think and care about all of these things and still think that a stabilized future might be better than depopulation.In the think tank world, the dream is to have an idea and then some presidential candidate adopts the idea and pushes it forward. There's a decent chance that the 2028 Republican nominee is already really worried about this issue, maybe someone like JD Vance. Wouldn't that be helpful for you?I've never spoken with JD Vance, but from my point of view, I would also be excited for India's population to stabilize and not depopulate. I don't see this as an “America First” issue because it isn't an America First issue. It's a worldwide, broadly-shared phenomenon. I think that no one country is going to be able to solve this all on its own because, if nothing else, people move, people immigrate, societies influence one another. I think it's really a broadly-shared issue.Quantity and quality of life (28:48)What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default.Can you imagine an earth of 10 to 12 billion people at a sustained level being a great place to live, where everybody is doing far better than they are today, the poorest countries are doing better — can you imagine that scenario? Can you also imagine a scenario where we have a world of three to four billion, which is a way nicer place to live for everybody than it is today? Can both those scenarios happen?I don't see any reason to think that either of those couldn't be an equilibrium, depending on all the various policy choices and all the various . . .This is a very broad question.Exactly. I think it's way beyond the social science, economics, climate science we have right now to say “three billion is the optimal size, 10 billion is the optimal size, eight billion is the optimal size.” What I do feel confident about is that some stabilized size would be better than depopulation generation after generation, after generation, after generation, without any sort of leveling out, and I think that's the plan that we're on by default. That doesn't mean it's what's going to happen, I hope it's not what happens, and that's sort of the point of the conversation here to get more people to consider that.But let's say we were able to stabilize the population at 11 billion. That would be fine.It could be depending on what the people do.But I'm talking about a world of 11 billion, and I'm talking about a world where the average person in India is as wealthy as, let's say this is in the year 2080, 2090, and at minimum, the average person in India is as wealthy as the average American is today. So that's a big huge jump in wealth and, of course, environmentalism.And we make responsible environmental choices, whether that's wind, or solar, or nuclear, or whatever, I'm not going to be prescriptive on that, but I don't see any reason why not. My hope is that future people will know more about that question than I do. Ehrlich would've said that our present world of eight billion would be impossible, that we would've starved long before this, that England would've ceased to exist, I think is a prediction in his book somewhere.And there's more food per person on every continent. Even in the couple decades that I've been going to India, children are taller than they used to be, on average. You can measure it, and maybe I'm fooling myself, but I feel like I can see it. Even as the world's been growing more populous, people have been getting better off, poverty has been going down, the absolute number of people in extreme poverty has been going down, even as the world's been getting more populous. As I say, emissions per person have been going down in a lot of places.I don't see any in principle, reason, if people make the right decisions, that we couldn't have a sustainable, healthy, and good, large sustained population. I've got two kids and they didn't add to the hole in the ozone layer, which I would've heard about in school as a big problem in the '80s. They didn't add to acid rain. Why not? Because the hole in the ozone layer was confronted with the Montreal Protocol. The acid rain was confronted with the Clean Air Act. They don't drive around in cars with leaded gasoline because in the '70s, the gasoline was unleaded. Adding more people doesn't have to make things worse. It depends on what happens. Again, I hope future people will know more about this than I do, but I don't see any, in principle reason why we couldn't stabilize at a size larger than today and have it be a healthy, and sustainable, and flourishing society.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were PromisedMicro Reads▶ Economics* Generative AI's Impact on Student Achievement and Implications for Worker Productivity - SSRN* The Real China Model: Beijing's Enduring Formula for Wealth and Power - FA* What Matters More to the Stock Market? The Fed or Nvidia? - NYT* AI Isn't Really Stealing Jobs Yet. That Doesn't Mean We're Ready for It. - Barron's* Trump's Attacks on the Fed and BLS Threaten Key Source of Economic Strength - NYT* A Stock Market Crash Foretold - PS* The Macro Impact of AI on GDP - The Overshoot* Powell Sends Strongest Signal Yet That Interest Rate Cuts Are Coming - NYT* Big Announcements, Small Results: FDI Falls Yet Again - ITIF▶ Business* An MIT report that 95% of AI pilots fail spooked investors. But the reason why those pilots failed is what should make the C-suite anxious - Fortune* Alexandr Wang is now leading Meta's AI dream team. Will Mark Zuckerberg's big bet pay off? - Fortune* Amazon is betting on agents to win the AI race - The Verge* Intuit Earnings Beat Estimates as Company Focuses on Artificial Intelligence Growth Drivers - Barron's* Will Tesla Robotaxis Kill Auto Insurers? Hardly. - Barron's* Wall Street Is Too Complex to Be Left to Humans - Bberg Opinion* Meta Freezes AI Hiring After Blockbuster Spending Spree - WSJ* Trump Is Betting Big on Intel. Will the Chips Fall His Way? - Wired* Trump Says Intel Has Agreed to Give the US 10% Equity Stake - Bberg▶ Policy/Politics* Poll shows California policy influencers want harsher social media laws than voters - Politico* How Trump Will Decide Which Chips Act Companies Must Give Up Equity - WSJ* This Democrat Thinks Voters Seeking Order Will Make or Break Elections - WSJ* California Republicans trust tech companies as much as Trump on AI - Politico* The Japanese city betting on immigrants to breathe life into its economy - FT▶ AI/Digital* AI Is Designing Bizarre New Physics Experiments That Actually Work - Wired* Generative AI in Higher Education: Evidence from an Elite College - SSRN* AI Unveils a Major Discovery in Ancient Microbes That Could Hold the Key to Next Generation Antibiotics - The Debrief* A.I. May Be Just Kind of Ordinary - NYT Opinion* Is the AI bubble about to pop? Sam Altman is prepared either way. - Ars* China's DeepSeek quietly releases an open-source rival to GPT-5—optimized for Chinese chips and priced to undercut OpenAI - Fortune* The world should prepare for the looming quantum era - FT* Brace for a crash before the golden age of AI - FT* How AI will change the browser wars - FT* Can We Tell if ChatGPT is a Parasite? Studying Human-AI Symbiosis with Game Theory - Arxiv* Apple Explores Using Google Gemini AI to Power Revamped Siri - Bberg* The AI Doomers Are Getting Doomier - The Atlantic* State of AI in Business 2025 - MIT NANDA* Silicon Valley Is Drifting Out of Touch With the Rest of America - NYT Opinion* What Workers Really Want from Artificial Intelligence - Stanford HAI▶ Biotech/Health* A 1990 Measles Outbreak Shows How the Disease Can Roar Back - NYT* Corporate egg freezing won't break the glass ceiling - FT* How to Vaccinate the World - Asterisk* COVID Revisionism Has Gone Too Far - MSN* Securing America's Pharmaceutical Innovation Edge - JAMA Forum▶ Clean Energy/Climate* Trump's Global War on Decarbonization - PS* Aalo Atomics secures funding to build its first reactor - WNN* Trump's nuclear policy favors startups, widening industry rifts - E&E* How Electricity Got So Expensive - Heatmap* Nuclear fusion gets a boost from a controversial debunked experiment - NS* Google Wants You to Know the Environmental Cost of Quizzing Its AI - WSJ* Trump Blamed Rising Electricity Prices on Renewables. It's Not True. - Heatmap* Trump's Cuts May Spell the End for America's Only Antarctic Research Ship - NYT* How Bill McKibben Lost the Plot - The New Atlantis* Does it make sense for America to keep subsidising a sinking city? - Economist▶ Robotics/Drones/AVs* I'm a cyclist. Will the arrival of robotaxis make my journeys safer? - NS* Si chiplet–controlled 3D modular microrobots with smart communication in natural aqueous environments - Science▶ Space/Transportation* On the ground in Ukraine's largest Starlink repair shop - MIT* Trump can't stop America from building cheap EVs - Vox* SpaceX has built the machine to build the machine. But what about the machine? - Ars* 'Invasion' Season 3 showrunner Simon Kinberg on creating ''War of the Worlds' meets 'Babel'' (exclusive) - Space▶ Up Wing/Down Wing* The era of the public apology is ending - Axios* Warren Brodey, 101, Dies; a Visionary at the Dawn of the Information Age - NYT* Reality is evil - Aeon* The Case for Crazy Philanthropy - Palladium▶ Substacks/Newsletters* Claude Code is growing crazy fast, and it's not just for writing code - AI Supremacy* No, ‘the Economists' Didn't Botch Trump's Tariffs - The Dispatch* How Does the US Use Water? - Construction Physics* A Climate-Related Financial Risk Boondoggle - The Ecomodernist* What's up with the States? - Hyperdimensional▶ Social Media* On why AI won't take all the jobs - @Dan_Jeffries1* On four nuclear reactors to be built in Amarillo, TX - @NuclearHazelnut* On AI welfare and consciousness - @sebkrier Faster, Please! is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

We discuss Fed Chair Powell's long-awaited speech at the annual central bank gathering in Jackson Hole. In Europe, our focus is on the ECB and European inflation trends, and we touch on the Russia-Ukraine war and economic implications. Then across Asia, we examine key coming data in China and Japan, and central bank meetings in Korea and the Philippines. Featuring a special segment, we welcome Jonathan Cohn, Head of US Rates Desk Strategy, to discuss key trends in Global Markets. Chapters: (US: 01:46, Global Markets Special: 08:10, EMEA: 15:30, Asia: 18:46).

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve and Mark talk about a new deal Intel has with the U.S. government. How will the semiconductor chips sector turn out for the USA and other countries in the world? Data centers are in demand in our country.

Steve and Mark talk about a new deal Intel has with the U.S. government. How will the semiconductor chips sector turn out for the USA and other countries in the world? Data centers are in demand in our country.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe In this episode, I speak with Frederic Schuller, an award-winning theoretical physicist and professor, who insists the undergrad tale of energy sloshing between kinetic and potential is just talk unless the math says so. Borrowing Port-Hamiltonian thinking, he's building probability ports to pull measurement talk into actual quantum formalism—no change to QM, just sharper math. He also flips gravity: start from the matter action and construct the compatible gravitational dynamics—Maxwell in, Einstein–Hilbert out. And if nature ever breaks our current causal picture, the scheme points to richer structures (and the gravity to match)—a modest idea, pushed hard. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: - 00:00 - Deriving Einstein from Maxwell Alone - 05:55 - Why Energy Doesn't Flow in Quantum Systems - 11:45 - How Modest Ideas Lead to Spacetime Revolution - 19:00 - Matter Dynamics Dictate Spacetime Geometry - 24:03 - Maxwell to Einstein-Hilbert Action - 31:00 - If Light Rays Split in Vacuum Then Einstein is Wrong - 38:04 - When Your Theory is Wrong - 46:10 - From Propositional Logic to Differential Geometry - 54:00 - Never Use Motivating Examples - 1:02:00 - Why Only Active Researchers Should Teach - 1:09:40 - High Demands as Greatest Motivator - 1:16:00 - Is Gravity a Force? - 1:27:00 - Academic Freedom vs Bureaucratic Science - 1:38:00 - Why String Theory Didn't Feel Right - 1:46:05 - Formal vs Conceptual Understanding - 1:54:10 - Master Any Subject: Check Every Equal Sign - 2:04:00 - The Drama of Blackboard Teaching - 2:13:15 - Why Physical Presence Matters in Universities Links Mentioned: - Frederic's Papers: https://scholar.google.com/citations - Frederic's Lectures: https://www.youtube.com/@FredericSchuller - Frederic's Bio: https://people.utwente.nl/f.p.schuller - General Relativity Lecture Series: https://www.youtube.com/playlist - Quantum Harmonic Oscillator [Lecture]: https://youtu.be/s3I_MGfGm-w - Constructive Gravity [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.09726 - Geometry Of Manifolds [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0508170 - Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/7oWip00iXbo - Roger Penrose [TOE]: https://youtu.be/sGm505TFMbU - All Possible Paths [TOE]: https://youtu.be/XcY3ZtgYis0 - Neil Turok [TOE]: https://youtu.be/ZUp9x44N3uE - Space-Time Structure [Book]: https://www.amazon.com/Space-Time-Structure-Cambridge-Science-Classics/dp/0521315204 - Greg Chaitin [TOE]: https://youtu.be/PoEuav8G6sY - Ivette Fuentes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/cUj2TcZSlZc - Ted Jacobson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/3mhctWlXyV8 - Eva Miranda [TOE]: https://youtu.be/6XyMepn-AZo - Jonathan Oppenheim [TOE]: https://youtu.be/6Z_p3viqW1g - String Theory Iceberg [TOE]: https://youtu.be/X4PdPnQuwjY - Sabine Hossenfelder [TOE]: https://youtu.be/E3y-Z0pgupg - Leonard Susskind [TOE]: https://youtu.be/2p_Hlm6aCok - What Is Energy? [TOE]: https://youtu.be/hQk9GLZ0Fms - Claudia De Rham [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Ve_Mpd6dGv8 SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Why have so many hand car wash services replaced automatic machines?It has to do with immigration policies and there are implications for Australia's productivity which is among the worst in the developed world. Economists insist boosting productivity is the only way to improve our living standards, but could delivering higher wages first actually help to fix the problem?Today, chief business correspondent Ian Verrender on the key factors left off the agenda at this week's economic round table in Canberra - population and property. Featured: Ian Verrender, ABC Chief Business Correspondent

The Economist magazine recently published its annual country rich list. Ireland was nowhere to be found on the list in spite of the fact that we are constantly being told that Ireland is one of the world's richest countries. Host Ciarán Hancock is joined in studio by Cliff Taylor of The Irish Times to talk about how rich we all are, or not as the case may be, and the measures that ruled Ireland out of consideration. Also on Inside Business this week, Conor Pope of The Irish Times discusses the companies that consumers complain about the most to the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission. Who are they? What are the most common complaints? And how much out of pocket are consumers as a result of their bad experiences? Produced by John Casey with JJ Vernon on sound. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We face a disciplinary crisis as the twin pillars of Game Theory and Gurometry are called into question.The full episode is available to Patreon subscribers (1 hour, 35 minutes).Join us at: https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurusSupplementary Material 3500:05 Introduction 01:52 Matt's Apology06:55 Just Life...12:34 Matt's Foodie Corner 14:01 Dedunking Dan Richards finds Sabine16:37 Sabine cultivates parasocial defenders18:16 Ana Kasparian gets deeper into ZOG conspiracies24:44 Gary vs Game Theory40:26 Support the Channel to Save the World47:10 Bryan Johnson and Methylene blue51:52 Scientific Cosplay Online53:51 Keith Rainiere and Sensemaking Parallels54:57 High IQ YoungHoon Kim tweets about proof of God56:19 Guru and Cult Leader Parallels01:01:13 The Validity of the Gurometer in Question?!?01:03:03 Hacking Social Heuristics01:07:38 Cult Leaders vs Secular Gurus01:12:33 Anti-Democratic moves by Trump01:15:03 Dan Carlin on Trump01:18:30 Streamers Talking Nonsense: Hasan on ISIS01:21:24 Ideological Fixation and Motivated Conspiracism01:27:22 OutroSourcesThe Cushendun Sea Caves from Game of ThronesKingdom Come: Deliverance 2 is Boosting TourismDeDunking: Eric Weinstein's Theory — Real Physicist vs Pseudo PoserAna Kasparian tweeting about the “Zionist Occupied Government”Gary's Economics: Game Theory is BrokenCritical Reddit thread on Gary's Game Theory videoHenrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., ... & Ziker, J. (2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312(5781), 1767–1770.The Selfish Gene, Chapter 12: Nice Guys Finish First (Richard Dawkins)High IQ YoungHoon Kim tweets about proof of GodI was Jordan Peterson's strongest supporter. Now I think he's dangerousDan Carlin's tweet about TrumpBBC: National Guard troops appear in Washington DC as mayor rejects Trump's 'authoritarian push'Nathan Baker: Keith Raniere, Ringleader of NXIVM Sex Slave Cult, Interviewed by Allison Mack, Top Cult...

In this episode of The Distribution, host Brandon Sedloff sits down with rental housing economist Jay Parsons for a wide-ranging discussion on the state of the rental housing market. Jay shares his path into the industry during the aftermath of the financial crisis, explains why he chose to specialize deeply in rental housing, and outlines the unique dynamics shaping apartments, single-family rentals, and build-to-rent communities today. Together, they explore current market challenges, long-term tailwinds, and the opportunities that lie ahead for investors and operators alike. They discuss:  * The origins of Jay's career and his focus on rental housing economics * Key differences between ownership-driven housing commentary and true rental housing analysis * Glass half full versus half empty perspectives on today's market, from high supply and rates to affordability and demographics * The convergence of multifamily, single-family rentals, and build-to-rent under one rental housing umbrella * Migration and demographic trends driving demand across the Sunbelt, mountain metros, and emerging tertiary markets * Investor strategies shifting from short-term flips to long-term value creation and operational excellence * How technology and AI are reshaping leasing, resident experience, and customer service in rental housing * The most important data points to track over the next cycle: supply and demand This episode offers clear insights for investors, operators, and anyone looking to understand the forces shaping the future of rental housing. Links: Jay on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/jay-parsons-a7a6656/ Jay's website - https://jayparsons.com/ Brandon on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/bsedloff/ Juniper Square - https://www.junipersquare.com/ Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:02:02) - Jay's background and career (00:12:50) - What are the good things happening in rental housing right now? (00:15:20) - Categories of rental housing that Jay covers (00:18:46) - What should investors be focused on if they want to increase their allocations in apartments over the next 3-10 years? (00:26:12) - Formats of new builds (00:29:16) - Migration trends (00:37:06) - Rental housing pipelines (00:40:20) - Capitalization trends (00:42:42) - Multifamily fundamentals over a cycle (00:45:04) - Drivers of the BTF and SFR market (00:48:06) - Creating alpha in a multifamily portfolio (00:51:41) - What to look for in a great operator (00:53:06) - Technology and AI application trends (00:56:19) - What is one data point everyone should be paying attention to?

It's decision day again at the Reserve Bank with the latest Official Cash Rate announcement due Wednesday afternoon. Westpac chief economist Kelly Eckhold spoke to Corin Dann.

Edition No226 | 18-08-2025 - Oil and Omissions: the Alaska Summit and the Business of War. The curtain has dropped on the Alaska summit, but the analysis goes on – especially as there's a sequel, in the meeting of Zelenskyy and European leaders with Trump in Washington today. But is it oil that greased the wheels of the Alaska summit, and not peace. But like it's oil that is greasing the gears of war, but perpetuating the Kremlin's war machine? We dive into oil deals, Kremlin ploys, and why this summit's headline theme of peace may have in fact been a smokescreen for the real agenda – cut deals with Putin, agreed to lift sanctions, and push Ukraine into a disadvantageous and dangerous peace as quickly as possible. Could it be that both Trump and Putin need to rehabilitate the Russian regime as quickly as possible to get the black gold flowing as quickly as possible, as well as the dollars? War Rages in Kharkiv While the Alaska Summit Glitters with a false promise of fool's gold. The noise of the summit had barely cooled, and already Kharkiv was aflame. On August 18, Russia unleashed drone and missile attacks that killed civilians—including children—just as America's president boarded Air Force One. “Russia escalated… launching a major missile and drone attack that killed at least 10 civilians—including children…” (The Washington Post)Meanwhile, Zelensky warned: “Moscow is deliberately escalating attacks to undermine diplomatic efforts.” (The Guardian)----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------SOURCES: Washington Post, Reuters, AP coverage of post‑summit attacks on Kharkiv and summit context The Guardian on Putin's Donbas demandsTIME on unchanged Russian objectives (The Washington Post)Summit outcome analysis: Alaska shift, vague peace focus (AP News)Reuters on oil price stabilization post-summit (Reuters)FT and Economist experts on Russian economy strain (Financial Times)Business Insider & Reuters on oil revenue drop and India tariffsOECD/Economics Observatory analysis on sanctions efficacy (Economics Observatory)Reuters on Exxon option for Sakhalin‑1 (Wikipedia)Byline Times/Forbes on Antarctic oil speculation ----------DESCRIPTION:The Alaska Summit: Oil, War, and Double StandardsIn this episode of Silicon Bites, we delve into the underlying motives and outcomes of the Alaska Summit. Was it really about peace, or was oil the driving force? The video examines the purported business deals, Kremlin strategies, and the political maneuvers surrounding the summit. We also cover recent escalation in Ukraine and how the war is being sustained by oil revenues. Trump and Putin's roles, the economic implications, and the moral double standards in the international community are highlighted. We discuss the critical importance of enforcing sanctions to cut off Russia's financial lifeline and end the war.----------CHAPTERS:00:00 Introduction and Gratitude00:40 The Real Agenda of the Alaska Summit01:55 Russia's Escalation and Ukraine's Struggle03:23 The Double Standards of the Summit05:43 Oil and Economic Warfare13:06 Ukraine's Counteroffensive on Oil14:30 Trump's Blame Game and Its Consequences----------

It's hard not to feel overwhelmed watching wealth pile up for a few while entire communities struggle just to get by. The current system rewards efficiency, but often at the cost of fairness, leaving billions stuck in cycles of poverty with no real path out. Big ideas like universal basic income or massive job creation sound impossible—until you realize how much money already exists, just locked in the wrong places. Rethinking where and how capital moves might not fix everything overnight, but it could finally start shifting the balance. Dr. Dominion V. Judah is an economist and author focused on local economic growth and poverty eradication. He's written multiple books on shared prosperity and sustainable development. Today, he introduces EGCR, a platform using AI and blockchain to fund economic renewal and fight poverty. He also shares his Global Peace Agreement initiative, aiming to unite 4 billion people behind peace and conflict resolution. His work blends innovation with a global mission for stability and growth. Stay tuned! Quotes: “We don't have to kill ourselves to prove someone is right or wrong. We don't have to shed blood to prove someone is right or wrong.” “Every bankruptcy that is filed means people losing jobs. Every bankruptcy that is filed means families left without income.” “We shouldn't lose because I won, and I shouldn't lose because you won. We all can win.” Resources: dominionv.judah@wsandn.org JVD EGCR Economic Framework | The foundational framework of the Juvidoe Multiverse World Subnationals and Nations

Opinions of Hamas are shifting—among its international backers, in Gaza, even within its affiliates' ranks. If it opts to disarm, what would happen next? A new analysis suggests using a sense of risk to explain markets' movements might be focusing on the wrong emotion. And our final “Archive 1945” instalment relives VJ day through The Economist's coverage at the time.Get a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Opinions of Hamas are shifting—among its international backers, in Gaza, even within its affiliates' ranks. If it opts to disarm, what would happen next? A new analysis suggests using a sense of risk to explain markets' movements might be focusing on the wrong emotion. And our final “Archive 1945” instalment relives VJ day through The Economist's coverage at the time.Get a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Subscribe for $5.99 a month to get bonus content most Mondays, bonus episodes every month, ad-free listening, access to the entire 800-episode archive, Discord access, and more: https://axismundi.supercast.com/ In this episode of Straight White American Jesus, Brad and Dan reunite to break down a tumultuous week in American politics, focusing on the federal takeover of Washington DC, the appointment of a controversial Heritage Foundation economist to oversee jobs data, and Gavin Newsom's bold trolling of Trump. Brad & Dan explore the deeper cultural and theological roots of authoritarianism, the weaponization of fear and emotion in right-wing politics, and the chilling implications of ICE and military presence at political events. With sharp analysis, personal anecdotes, and a dash of humor, they offer listeners both a sobering look at the current state of democracy and reasons for hope and resistance. Linktree: https://linktr.ee/StraightWhiteJC Order Brad's book: https://bookshop.org/a/95982/9781506482163 Check out BetterHelp and use my code SWA for a great deal: www.betterhelp.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of the Payne Points of Wealth, Bob, Ryan, Chris, & Courtney dive into President Donald Trump's controversial new executive order that opens the door for private equity, venture capital, and hedge funds to be included in your retirement account. Is this a golden opportunity to supercharge your portfolio—or just another Wall Street scheme to rake in higher fees with less transparency? We break it all down and give you our take.

How do criminals choose the weapons they carry, the number of accomplices, the types of business they target? Economists have long argued that decisions to commit economic crimes are strategic, based on a calculation of risk and reward.  The Italian justice system changes the punishment for a crime depending on how it is committed, and so a new analysis of thieves and their crimes, based on data from Milan, tests whether this is really the case. Giovanni Mastrobuoni of the University of Turin, Collegio Carlo Alberto and CEPR is one of the authors of this research. He talks to Tim Phillips about the economics of crime, the problems of collecting data about illegal acts, and Turin's most famous gold heist. 

CA Governor announces mid-decade redistricting plan. Economists worry inflation is rising due to Trump's tariffs and Social Security workers fight back against cuts on the agency's 90th anniversary.

The economy continues to hum along. How will the next jobs report come out since Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, got fired? So far, tariffs haven't affected consumers on a deep level. 

The economy continues to hum along. How will the next jobs report come out since Erika McEntarfer, the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, got fired? So far, tariffs haven't affected consumers on a deep level. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Just for drill I ran a probability for the same economists to miss as they did in 2021, at the level that they did, and in 2025 at the level and direction that they have and what came back was that the odds are effectively zero.

In economics, a market is a place (even virtual) where buyers and sellers meet to exchange goods or services. Economists love markets. It's like all of our supply and demand graphs have come to life. Almost everything you buy goes through some sort of marketplace—your cup of coffee came from trading in the bean markets. Your spouse might have come from the dating marketplace on the apps. Even kids will tell you one Snickers is worth at least two Twix.But sometimes, as we'll see today, markets can go terribly wrong; greed can run out of control; lives can be at risk. That's when the government often steps in and gives the market a little nudge to work better. Today's episode: Market Design.The series is hosted by Robert Smith and produced by Eric Mennel. Our project manager is Devin Mellor. This episode was edited by Planet Money Executive Producer Alex Goldmark and fact-checked by Emily Crawford. Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.Always free at these links: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Although tariff negotiations continue, deals are being made, shifting investor focus on assessing the fallout. Our Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy Michael Zezas and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen consider the ripple effects on inflation and the bond market. Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Michael Zezas: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Michael Zezas, Global Head of Fixed Income Research and Public Policy Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist. Michael Zezas: Today, how are tariffs impacting the economy and what it means for bond markets? It's Wednesday, August 13th at 10:30am in New York. Michael, we've been talking about how the near-term uncertainty around tariff levels has come down. Tariff deals are, of course, still pending with some major U.S. trading partners like China; but agreements are starting to come together. And though there's lots of ways they could break over time, in the near-term, deals like the one with Europe signal that the U.S. might be happy for several months with what's been arranged. And so, the range of outcomes has shrunk. The U.S.' current effective tariff rate of 16 percent is about where we thought we'd be at year end. But that's substantially higher than the roughly 3 percent we started the year with. So, not as bad as it looked like it could have been after tariffs were announced on April 2nd, but still substantially higher. Now's the time when investors should stay away from chasing tariff headlines and guessing what the President might do next; and instead focus on assessing the impact of what's been done. With that as the backdrop, we got some relevant data yesterday, the Consumer Price Index for July. You were expecting that this would show some clear signs of tariffs pushing prices higher. Why was that? Michael Gapen: Well, we did analysis on the 2018-2019 tariff episode. So, in looking at the input-output tables, which give you an idea of how prices move through certain sectors of the economy, and applying that to the 2018 episode of tariffs – we got the result that you should see some tariff inflation in June, and then sequentially more as we move into the late summer and the early fall. So, the short answer, Mike, is a model based plus history-based exercise – that said yes, we should start seeing the effects of tariffs on those categories, where the direct effect is high. So that'd be most of your goods categories. Over time, as we move into later this year or early next year, it'll be more important to think about indirect effects, if any. Michael Zezas: Got it. So, the July CPI data that came out yesterday, then did it corroborate this view? Michael Gapen: Yes and no. So, I'm an economist, so I have to do a two-handed view on this. So yes… Michael Zezas: Always fair. Michael Gapen: Always, yes. So, yes, core goods prices rose by two-tenths on the month, in June they also rose by two-tenths. Prior to this goods' prices were largely flat with some of the big durables, items like autos being negative, right? So, we had all the give back following COVID. So, the prior trend was flat to negative. The last two months, they've shown two-tenths increases. And we've seen upward pressure on things like household furnishings, apparel. We saw a strong used car print this month, motor vehicle and repairs. So, all of that suggests that tariffs are starting to flow through. Now, we didn't – on the other hand – is we didn't get as much as we thought. New car prices were flat and maybe those price increases will be delayed until models – the 2026 models start hitting the lot. That would be September or later. And we didn't actually; I said apparel. Apparel was up stronger last month. It really wasn't up all that much this month. So, the CPI data for July corroborated the view that the inflation pass through is happening. Where I think it didn't answer the question is how much of it are we going to get and should we expect a lot of it to be front loaded? Or is this going to be a longer process? Michael Zezas: Got it. And then, does that mean that tariffs aren't having the sort of aggregate impact on the economy that many thought they would? Or is maybe the composition of that impact different? So, maybe prices aren't going up so much, but companies are managing those costs in other ways. How would you break that down? Michael Gapen: We would say, and our view is that, yes, you know, we have written down a forecast. And we used our modeling in the 2018-20 19 episode to tell us what's a reasonable forecast for how quickly and to what degree these tariffs should show up in inflation. But obviously, this has been a substantial move in tariffs. They didn't start all at once. They've come in different phases and there's a lot of lags here. So, I just think there's a wide range of potential outcomes here. So, I wouldn't conclude that tariffs are not having the effect we thought they would. I think it's way too early and would be incorrect to conclude, just [be]cause we've had relatively modest tariff pressures in June and July, inflation that we can be sanguine and say it's not a big deal and we should just move on.Michael Zezas: And even so, is it fair to say that there's still plenty of evidence that this is weighing on growth in the way you anticipated? Michael Gapen: I think so. I mean, it's clear the economy has moderated. If we kind of strip out the volatility and trade and inventories, final sales to domestic purchasers 1.5 in the first quarter. It was 1.1 in the second quarter, and a lot of that slowdown was related to spending by the consumer. And a slowdown in business spending. So that that could be a little more, maybe about policy uncertainty and not knowing exactly what to do and how to plan. But it also we think is reflected in a slowdown, in the pace of hiring. So, I would say, you got the policy uncertainty shock first. That also came through the effect of the April 2nd Liberation Day tariffs, which probably caused a freeze in hiring and spending activity for a bit. And now I would say we're moving into the part of the world where the actual increase in tariffs are going to happen. So, we'll know whether or not firms can pass these prices along or not. If they can't, we'll probably get a weaker labor market. If they can, we'll continue to see it in inflation.But Mike, let me ask you a question now. You've had all the fun. Let me turn the table. Michael Zezas: Fair enough. Michael Gapen: How much does it matter for you or your team, whether or not these tariffs are pushing prices higher? And/or delaying cuts from the Fed. How do you think about that on your side? Michael Zezas: Yeah, so this question of composition and lags is really interesting. I think though that if the end state here is as you forecast – that we'll end up with weaker growth, and as a consequence, the Fed will embark on a substantial rate cutting program. Then the direction of travel for bond yields from here is still lower. So, if that's the case, then obviously this would be a favorable backdrop for owners of U.S. treasury bonds. It's probably also good news for owners of corporate credit, but the story's a bit trickier here. If yields move lower on weaker growth, but we ultimately avoid a recession, this might be the sweet spot for corporate credit. You've got fundamental strength holding that limits credit risk, and so you get performance from all in yields declining – both the yield expressed by the risk-free rate, as well as the credit spread. But if we tipped into recession, then naturally we'd expect there to be a repricing of all risk in the market. You'd expect there to be some expression of fundamental weakness and credit spreads would widen. So, government bonds would've been a better product to own in that environment.But, of course, Michael, we have to consider alternative outcomes where yields go higher, and this would turn into a bad environment for bond returns that would appear to be most likely in the scenario where U.S. growth actually ticks higher, resetting expectations for monetary policy in a more hawkish direction.So, what do you think investors should watch for that would lead to that outcome? Is it something like an AI productivity boom or maybe something else that's not on our radar? Michael Gapen: Yeah, so I think that is something investors do have to think about; and let me frame one way to think about that – where ex-post any easing by the Fed as early as September might be retroactively viewed as a policy mistake, right? So, we can say, yes, tariffs should slow down growth and maybe that happens in the second half of this year. The Fed maybe eases rates as a pre-emptive measure or risk management approach to avoid too much weakness in the labor market. So even though the Fed is seeing firming inflation now, which it is. It could ease in September, maybe again in December [be]cause it's worried about the labor market. So maybe that's what dominates 2025. And, and like you said, perhaps in the very near term, continues to pull bond prices lower. But what if we get into 2026 and the tariff effect or the tariff drag on growth fades, and the consumer begins to accelerate. So, we don't have a recession, we just get a bit of a divot in growth and then the economy recovers. Then fiscal policy kicks in, right? We don't think the One Big, Beautiful Bill act will provide a lot of stimulus, but we could be wrong. It could kickstart animal spirits and bring forward a lot of business spending. And then maybe AI, as you said; that could be a combining factor and financial conditions would be very easy in that world, in part – given that the Fed has eased, right? So that that could be a world where, you know, growth is modest, but it's firming. Inflation that's moved up to about 3 percent or maybe a little bit higher later this year kind of stays there. And then retroactively, the problem is the Fed eased financial conditions into that and inflation's kind of stuck around 3 percent. Bond yields – at least the long end – would probably react negatively in that world. Michael Zezas: Yeah, that makes perfect sense to us. Well, Michael, thanks for taking the time to talk with me. Michael Gapen: Thanks for having me on, Mike. Michael Zezas: And to our audience, thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review and tell your friends about the podcast. We want everyone to listen.

Recently, President Donald Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after revisions depicted a weaker job market than initially thought. This week, Trump called on the CEO of Goldman Sachs to get rid of his chief economist, after the economist predicted that tariffs would force consumers to pay extra. What should consumers and investors make of this? We'll discuss. And later, we'll hear how French factories are benefiting from increased defense spending.

On Tuesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released last month's Consumer Price Index, showing that prices barely rose in July. Economists had been forecasting the CPI rising by 0.2%; however, thanks to an overall drop in energy prices, the report suggests inflation appears to have plateaued. This will only bolster President Trump's calls on the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. Former Trump advisor and co-founder of Unleash Prosperity, Stephen Moore, joins to break down the positive inflation news and the future of economic data in the U.S. President Trump is reportedly weighing the decision to reschedule marijuana under federal law, possibly reclassifying it as a less dangerous drug. The methods the Trump administration may take to enact this change are varied, with some wondering whether the President will act directly or leave it to his federal agencies to handle. Former Arkansas Governor and Drug Enforcement Administration chief Asa Hutchinson joins to discuss the merits of medical marijuana, risks of drug abuse, and what role the DEA would play in the rescheduling process. Plus, commentary from the president of Exit Stage Left Advisors, Ted Jenkin. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Recently, President Donald Trump fired the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after revisions depicted a weaker job market than initially thought. This week, Trump called on the CEO of Goldman Sachs to get rid of his chief economist, after the economist predicted that tariffs would force consumers to pay extra. What should consumers and investors make of this? We'll discuss. And later, we'll hear how French factories are benefiting from increased defense spending.

Economists are warning that inflation may surge late in the year as tariffs bite harder—core inflation could climb into the 3–3.8% range by year-end, fueled by rising import costs and shifting policies, squeezing consumers further. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Stocks hitting more record highs: Sara Eisen, David Faber, and Carl Quintanilla discussed the latest on the markets front with Goldman's Chief U.S. Economist… Along with his response to the President's recent post railing against the company and his team's report on tariff costs. Plus: some surprising new names being floated as potential replacements for Fed Chair Powell – hear who they are this hour - along with a deep-dive on the legal landscape for big tech with a former commissioner at the FTC (as AI start-up Perplexity makes a big for Google's Chrome Browser, and Elon Musk threatens to sue Apple over antitrust concerns).  Also in focus: a series of key names on the move… The team discussed Cava and Coreweave's double-digit declines, Paramount-Skydance shares surging on little news, and what to expect from a new entrant at the New York Stock Exchange – Crypto exchange ‘Bullish', set to trade under the ticker BLSH. Plus, hear from the CEO of quantum computing darling ‘Rigetti Computing' – whose shares are up nearly *1,700%* over the last year. Squawk on the Street Disclaimer

Zoom out from continuing tariff turmoil and Trump's recent attacks on the Fed and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and you'll see a broader new economic order is forming. Political economist and Brown University professor Mark Blyth joins Rapid Response to reveal why outdated models still underpin much of our economic understanding, and what we still misunderstand – and underestimate – about China. Blyth also shares why the Democrats struggle to craft an engaging story about the economy, why it's so hard to predict a recession, and what Brown's recent settlement with the Trump Administration tells us about higher education's need to pivot from its reliance on federal funding.Visit the Rapid Response website here: https://www.rapidresponseshow.com/See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: 6:05pm- In a post to Truth Social, President Donald Trump announced that he would be nominating Dr. EJ Antoni to run the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Rich jokes that Trump is selecting all of our regular guests to serve in positions within the federal government—Dr. Marty Makary, Tulsi Gabbard, and now EJ! 6:15pm- In a video that has gone viral on TikTok, a woman who graduated with a bachelor's degree in “women and gender studies” conceded that her college major was a mistake. 6:20pm- The National Democratic Socialists of America held a panel discussion where members advocated for the abolition of families—idiotically arguing “the only real difference between marriage and prostitution is the price and the duration of the contract.” 6:30pm- While speaking with reporters, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro was asked if she would investigate the “root causes of crime in D.C.” Pirro made clear that her job is to hold criminals accountable for their actions and attain justice for victims. 6:40pm- Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) regularly consults a Long Island couple named Joe and Eileen Bailey—however, they're not real! He made them up! 6:50pm- Is A.I. really blackmailing people out of self-preservation? Anthropic's study might be a bit misleading.

We've all heard the story: In a fair market, workers are paid exactly what they're worth. Economists even have a name for it—marginal productivity theory. It's neat, simple…and completely wrong. In this Back-to-Basics episode, economist Marshall Steinbaum and labor leader Saru Jayaraman dismantle the myth that the market fairly rewards labor. Steinbaum reveals how this theory has been weaponized to excuse wage stagnation, justify corporate power, and erode worker bargaining rights. Jayaraman shows what that looks like in the real world, from restaurant workers stuck at subminimum wages to entire industries built on underpaying the people who keep them running. They make the case that your paycheck isn't determined by some neutral law of economics—it's the result of choices, policies, and power dynamics that can be rewritten to ensure everyone is truly paid what they're worth. Marshall Steinbaum is an Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Utah and a Senior Fellow in Higher Education Finance at the Jain Family Institute. Saru Jayaraman is an attorney, President of One Fair Wage and the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), and author of One Fair Wage: Ending Subminimum Pay in America.  Social Media:  @Econ_Marshall ‪@econmarshall.bsky.social‬ @SaruJayaraman Further reading:  One Fair Wage: Ending Subminimum Pay in America Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Threads: pitchforkeconomics Bluesky: @pitchforkeconomics.bsky.social TikTok: @pitchfork_econ Twitter: @PitchforkEcon, @NickHanauer, @civicaction YouTube: @pitchforkeconomics LinkedIn: Pitchfork Economics Substack: ⁠The Pitch⁠

As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe In this episode, I speak with Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft, a theoretical physicist known for his work on the electroweak interaction and his radical ideas about quantum mechanics. To him, the universe is a cosmic pinball machine. Every ball follows a fixed path. No randomness. No mystery. We only invented quantum mechanics to cope with our ignorance. In his picture, there are no real numbers. No wave functions. No superposition. Just discrete states clicking forward, one after another, beneath everything we see. Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e Timestamps: - 00:00 - Why Quantum Mechanics is Fundamentally Wrong - 05:00 - The Frustrating Blind Spots of Modern Physicists - 11:27 - The "Hidden Variables" That Truly Explain Reality - 17:00 - The "True" Equations of the Universe Will Have No Superposition - 23:00 - Our Universe as a Cellular Automaton - 30:02 - Why Real Numbers Don't Exist in Physics - 39:14 - Can This Radical Theory Even Be Falsified? - 46:29 - How Superdeterminism Defeats Bell's Theorem - 58:19 - 't Hooft's Radical View on Quantum Gravity - 1:08:24 - Solving the Black Hole Information Paradox with "Clones" - 1:14:00 - What YOU Would Experience Falling Into a Black Hole - 1:20:17 - How 't Hooft Almost Beat a Nobel Prize Discovery Links Mentioned: - Gerard's site: https://webspace.science.uu.nl/~hooft101/ - Gerard's papers: https://inspirehep.net/authors/1019113 - Cellular Automaton Interpretation Of Quantum Mechanics [Book]: https://www.amazon.com/Cellular-Automaton-Interpretation-Mechanics-Fundamental/dp/3319823140 - David Wallace [TOE]: https://youtu.be/4MjNuJK5RzM - Emily Adlam & Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/rw1ewLJUgOg - Roger Penrose [TOE]: https://youtu.be/sGm505TFMbU - Conway's Game Of Life: https://playgameoflife.com/ - Julian Barbour [TOE]: https://youtu.be/bprxrGaf0Os - Emily Adlam [TOE]: https://youtu.be/6I2OhmVWLMs - Sabine's video on Gerard: https://youtu.be/2kxoq5UzAEQ - Sabine Hossenfelder [TOE]: https://youtu.be/E3y-Z0pgupg - Tim Palmer [TOE]: https://youtu.be/vlklA6jsS8A - Carlo Rovelli [TOE]: https://youtu.be/hF4SAketEHY - Stephen Wolfram [TOE]: https://youtu.be/0YRlQQw0d-4 - Bernardo Kastrup & Sabine Hossenfelder [TOE]: https://youtu.be/kJmBmopxc1k - Tim Maudlin [TOE]: https://youtu.be/fU1bs5o3nss - Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/wrUvtqr4wOs - Ted Jacobson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/3mhctWlXyV8 - Claudia De Rham [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Ve_Mpd6dGv8 - Neil Turok [TOE]: https://youtu.be/ZUp9x44N3uE - Latham Boyle [TOE]: https://youtu.be/nyLeeEFKk04 - David Kaiser [TOE]: https://youtu.be/_yebLXsIdwo - String Theory Iceberg [TOE]: https://youtu.be/X4PdPnQuwjY - Birth of Asymptotic Freedom [Paper]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0550321385902068 - How To Become A Good Theoretical Physicist [Article]: https://www.goodtheorist.science/index.html SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Curt discusses how philosophy has directly contributed to physics through Bell's theorem, decoherence theory, the hole argument, and more. Meanwhile, via John Norton, we uncover the hidden philosophical assumptions in physics that most scientists don't even realize they're making. As a listener of TOE you can get a special 20% off discount to The Economist and all it has to offer! Visit https://www.economist.com/toe Join My New Substack (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com Listen on Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e SUPPORT: - Become a YouTube Member (Early Access Videos): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCdWIQh9DGG6uhJk8eyIFl1w/join - Support me on Patreon: https://patreon.com/curtjaimungal - Support me on Crypto: https://commerce.coinbase.com/checkout/de803625-87d3-4300-ab6d-85d4258834a9 - Support me on PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=XUBHNMFXUX5S4 SOCIALS: - Twitter: https://twitter.com/TOEwithCurt - Discord Invite: https://discord.com/invite/kBcnfNVwqs Guests do not pay to appear. Theories of Everything receives revenue solely from viewer donations, platform ads, and clearly labelled sponsors; no guest or associated entity has ever given compensation, directly or through intermediaries. LINKS MENTIONED: - Curt's Substack article: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/p/philosophers-vs-physicists - John Norton [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Tghl6aS5A3M - Neil deGrasse Tyson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/ye9OkJih3-U - How Not to Do Philosophy of Science [article]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/How_not/How_not.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/gEK4-XtMwro - The Hole Argument: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ - General covariance and general relativity [paper]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/decades.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com - Emily Adlam Λ Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/rw1ewLJUgOg - Eaters of the lotus [paper]: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/papers/Eaters_final.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com - John Norton's profile: https://sites.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/jdnorton.html For further reading on these critiques of instrumentalism: - Hempel (1988) - Oltre il positivismo logico - Popper (1963) - Conjectures and Refutations, Ch. 3 - Deutsch (1997) - The Fabric of Reality #science Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Economist and researcher Bill von Hippel joins AJ and Johnny to unpack a surprising question: if modern life is safer, richer, and more comfortable than ever, why do studies suggest hunter-gatherers were happier than we are? Bill shares insights from a decade of studying the “social paradox” — the gap between our material progress and our emotional satisfaction. They explore what ancient communities had that we've lost, how modern conveniences can backfire on our wellbeing, and why relationships, purpose, and shared struggle might matter more than comfort and entertainment. Bill also explains how rethinking connection, gratitude, and challenge can help us reclaim the fulfillment our ancestors enjoyed. What to Listen For [00:00:16] Bill defines the “social paradox” and why it fascinated him [00:00:45] Why hunter-gatherers may have been happier despite hardship [00:02:14] The hidden downsides of modern convenience and abundance [00:04:38] How community bonds shaped happiness in ancient societies [00:07:52] The role of shared struggle in creating meaning [00:10:05] Practical ways to bring ancient principles into modern life [00:12:47] Why more comfort doesn't always mean more joy A Word From Our Sponsors Tired of awkward handshakes and collecting business cards without building real connections? Dive into our Free Social Capital Networking Masterclass. Learn practical strategies to make your interactions meaningful and boost your confidence in any social situation. Sign up for free at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠theartofcharm.com/sc⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and elevate your networking from awkward to awesome. Don't miss out on a network of opportunities! Unleash the power of covert networking to infiltrate high-value circles and build a 7-figure network in just 90 days. Ready to start? Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠CIA-proven guide⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to networking like a spy! Indulge in affordable luxury with Quince—where high-end essentials meet unbeatable prices. Upgrade your wardrobe today at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠quince.com/charm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ for free shipping and hassle-free returns. Ready to turn your business idea into reality? Shopify makes it easy to start, scale, and succeed—whether you're launching a side hustle or building the next big brand. Sign up for your $1/month trial at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠shopify.com/charm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Need to hire top talent—fast? Skip the waiting game and get more qualified applicants with Indeed. Claim your $75 Sponsored Job Credit now at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Indeed.com/charm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. This year, skip breaking a sweat AND breaking the bank. Get your summer savings and shop premium wireless plans at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠mintmobile.com/charm⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Stop needlessly overpaying for car insurance. Before you renew your policy, do yourself a favor—download the Jerry app or head to JERRY.com/charm Connect with quality therapists and mental health experts who specialize in you at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.rula.com/charm ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Curious about your influence level?  Get your Influence Index Score today! Take this 60-second quiz to find out how your influence stacks up against top performers at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠theartofcharm.com/influence⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Episode resources: View Bill's Books on Amazon Bill's Instagram Check in with AJ and Johnny! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AJ on LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Johnny on LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠AJ on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Johnny on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Art of Charm on Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Art of Charm on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Art of Charm on TikTok Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

You might think you know what a Washington Post columnist sounds like, but Megan McArdle is not your typical liberal media voice. She's spent years inside the most established outlets in journalism: The Atlantic, Bloomberg, The Economist and yet she's managed to surprise and infuriate readers on the left with sharp critiques that don't always toe the party line. Today on Conversations we talk about why progressives often get economic policy wrong and the real mess behind America's broken healthcare system. Megan makes a solid pitch for why Americans should continue to have a private system. Megan and I get into it about insurance companies, pharmaceutical giants, and where the incentives in healthcare are completely backwards . . . and, believe it or not, where they actually work. Go to groundnews.com/Coleman to get 40% off the unlimited access Vantage plan and unlock world-wide perspectives on today's biggest news stories. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In the face of mounting international condemnation, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu defended his plan for a military occupation of Gaza City. At a news conference Sunday, he lashed out at what he called a “global campaign of lies,” while the U.N. Security Council gathered for an emergency meeting on Gaza. John Yang speaks with The Economist’s Israel correspondent Anshel Pfeffer for more. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders

Whaling was, in the words of one scholar, “early capitalism unleashed on the high seas.” How did the U.S. come to dominate the whale market? Why did whale hunting die out here — and continue to grow elsewhere? And is that whale vomit in your perfume? (Part 1 of “Everything You Never Knew About Whaling.”) SOURCES:Eric Hilt, professor of economics at Wellesley College.Nathaniel Philbrick, writer and historian.Paul Watson, environmental activist and founder of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. RESOURCES:“Calls From the Deep: Do We Need to Save the Whales All Over Again?” by Sophy Grimshaw (The Guardian, 2020).“The Very Small World of V.C.,” by Avi Asher-Schapiro (The New Republic, 2019).“How Nantucket Came to Be the Whaling Capital of the World,” by Nathaniel Philbrick (Smithsonian Magazine, 2015).“Fin-tech,” (The Economist, 2015).“The Spectacular Rise and Fall of U.S. Whaling: An Innovation Story,” by Derek Thompson (The Atlantic, 2012).Leviathan: The History of Whaling in America, by Eric Jay Dolin (2007).“Incentives in Corporations: Evidence from the American Whaling Industry,” by Eric Hilt (NBER Working Papers, 2004).In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex, by Nathaniel Philbrick (2000).“Productivity in American Whaling: The new Bedford Fleet in the Nineteenth Century,” by Lance Davis, Robert Galiman, and Teresa Hutchins (NBER Working Paper, 1987). EXTRAS:“Is Venture Capital the Secret Sauce of the American Economy?” by Freakonomics Radio (2021).“Is the Future of Farming in the Ocean?” by Freakonomics Radio (2021).