Podcasts about economists

What if physics is just the universe learning? Most Theories of Everything episodes are mind‑bending for their math, physics, philosophy, or consciousness implications. This one hits all four simultaneously. Professor Vitaly Vanchurin joins me to argue the cosmos isn't just modeled by neural networks—it literally is one. Learning dynamics aren't a metaphor for physics; they are the physics. Vanchurin shows why we need a three‑way unification: quantum mechanics, general relativity, and observers. 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 TIMESTAMPS: - 00:00:00 - The Neural Network Universe - 00:05:48 - Learning Dynamics as Physics - 00:11:52 - Optimization and Variational Principles - 00:21:17 - Deriving Fundamental Field Equations - 00:28:47 - Fermions and Particle Emergence - 00:37:17 - Geometry of Learning Algorithms - 00:44:53 - Emergent Quantum Mechanics - 00:50:01 - Renormalization and Interpretability - 00:57:00 - Second Law of Learning - 01:05:10 - Subatomic Natural Selection - 01:15:40 - Consciousness and Learning Efficiency - 01:24:09 - Unifying Physics and Observers - 01:31:01 - Qualia and Hidden Variables - 01:40:24 - Free Energy Principle Integration - 01:46:04 - Epistemological Doubt and Advice LINKS MENTIONED: - Vitaly's Papers: https://inspirebeta.net/literature?sort=mostrecent&size=25&page=1&q=find%20author%20vanchurin - Vitaly's Lecture: https://youtu.be/TagDLiLb2VQ - Vitaly's Website: https://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~vitaly/ - Towards A Theory Of Machine Learning [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.09280 - Autonomous Particles [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2301.10077 - Emergent Field Theories From Neural Networks [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2411.08138 - Covariant Gradient Descent [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2504.05279 - A Quantum-Classical Duality And Emergent Spacetime [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1903.06083 - Emergent Quantumness In Neural Networks [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05082 - Predictability Crisis In Inflationary Cosmology And Its Resolution [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9905097 - Stationary Measure In The Multiverse [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/abs/0812.0005 - The World As A Neural Network [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2008.01540 - Self-Organized Criticality In Neural Networks [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2107.03402v1 - One Hundred Authors Against Einstein [Book]: https://amazon.com/dp/B09PHH7KC8?tag=toe08-20 - Geocentric Cosmology: A New Look At The Measure Problem [Paper]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1006.4148 - Jacob Barandes [TOE]: https://youtu.be/gEK4-XtMwro - Yang-Hui He [TOE]: https://youtu.be/spIquD_mBFk - Eva Miranda [TOE]: https://youtu.be/6XyMepn-AZo - Felix Finster [TOE]: https://youtu.be/fXzO_KAqrh0 - Stephen Wolfram [TOE]: https://youtu.be/FkYer0xP37E - Stephen Wolfram 2 [TOE]: https://youtu.be/0YRlQQw0d-4 - Avshalom Elitzur [TOE]: https://youtu.be/pWRAaimQT1E - Ted Jacobson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/3mhctWlXyV8 - Geoffrey Hinton [TOE]: https://youtu.be/b_DUft-BdIE - Wayne Myrvold [TOE]: https://youtu.be/HIoviZe14pY - Cumrun Vafa [TOE]: https://youtu.be/kUHOoMX4Bqw - Claudia De Rham [TOE]: https://youtu.be/Ve_Mpd6dGv8 - Lee Smolin [TOE]: https://youtu.be/uOKOodQXjhc - Consciousness Iceberg [TOE]: https://youtu.be/65yjqIDghEk - Matthew Segall [TOE]: https://youtu.be/DeTm4fSXpbM - Andres Emilsson [TOE]: https://youtu.be/BBP8WZpYp0Y - Will Hahn [TOE]: https://youtu.be/3fkg0uTA3qU - David Wallace [TOE]: https://youtu.be/4MjNuJK5RzM - Karl Friston [TOE]: https://youtu.be/uk4NZorRjCo Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bob Goodson was the first employee at Yelp, founder of social media analytics company Quid, co-inventor of the Like button, and co-author of the new book Like: The Button That Changed the World. On Oct 1, 2025, Bob spent a day with our MBA students at the University of Kansas, and he shared so much great content that I asked him if we could put together some of the highlights as a podcast, which I've now put together in three chapters: First is Careers, second is Building Companies, and third is AI and Social Media. As a reminder, any views and perspectives expressed on the podcast are solely those of the individual, and not those of the organizations they represent. Hope you enjoy the episode. - [Transcript] Nate:  My name is Nate Meikle. You're listening to Meikles and Dimes, where every episode is dedicated to the simple, practical, and under-appreciated. Bob Goodson was the first employee at Yelp, founder of social media analytics company Quid, co-inventor of the like button, and co-author of the new book Like: The Button That Changed the World. On Oct 1, 2025, Bob spent a day with our MBA students at the University of Kansas, and he shared so much great content that I asked him if we could put together some of the highlights as a podcast, which I've now put together in three chapters: First is Careers, second is Building Companies, and third is AI and Social Media. As a reminder, any views and perspectives expressed on the podcast are solely those of the individual and not those of the organizations they represent. Hope you enjoy the episode. Let's jump into Chapter 1 on Careers. For the first question, a student asked Bob who he has become and how his experiences have shaped him as a person and leader.   Bob:  Oh, thanks, Darrell. That's a thoughtful question. It's thoughtful because it's often not asked, and it's generally not discussed. But I will say, and hopefully you'll feel like this about your work if you don't already, that you will over time, which is I'm 45 now, so I have some sort of vantage point to look back over. Like, I mean, I started working when I was about 9 or 10 years old, so I have been working for money for about 35 years. So I'm like a bit further into my career than perhaps I look. I've been starting companies and things since I was about 10. So, in terms of like my professional career, which I guess started, you know, just over 20 years ago, 20 years into that kind of work, the thing I'm most grateful for is what it's allowed me to learn and how it's evolved me as a person. And I'm also most grateful on the business front for how the businesses that I've helped create and the projects and client deployments and whatever have helped evolve the people that have worked on them. Like I genuinely feel that is the most lasting thing that anything in business does is evolve people. It's so gratifying when you have a team member that joins and three years later you see them, just their confidence has developed or their personality has developed in some way. And it's the test of the work that has evolved them as people. I mean, I actually just on Monday night, I caught up for the first time in 10 years with an intern we had 10 years ago called Max Hofer. You can look him up. He was an intern at Quid. He was from Europe, was studying in London, came to do an internship with us in San Francisco for the summer. And, he was probably like 18, 19 years old. And a few weeks ago, he launched his AI company, Parsewise, with funding from Y Combinator. And, he cites his experience at Quid as being fundamental in choosing his career path, in choosing what field he worked in and so on. So that was, yeah, that was, when you see these things happening, right, 10 years on, we caught up at an event we did in London on Monday. And it's just it's really rewarding. So I suppose, yeah, like I suppose it's it's brought me a lot of perspective, brought me a lot of inner peace, actually, you know, the and and when you're when I was in the thick of it at times, I had no sense of that whatsoever. Right. Like in tough years. And there were some - there have been some very tough years in my working career that you don't feel like it's developing you in any way. It just feels brutal. I liken starting a company, sometimes it's like someone's put you in a room with a massive monster and the monster pins you down and just bats you across the face, right, for like a while. And you're like just trying to get away from the monster and you're like, finally you get the monster off your back and then like the monster's just on you again. And it just, it's just like you get a little bit of space and freedom and then the monster's back and it's just like pummeling you. And it's just honestly some years, like for those of you, some of you are running companies now, right? And starting your own companies as well. And I suppose it's not just starting companies. There are just phases in your career and work where it's like you look back and you're like, man, that year was just like, that was brutal. You just get up and fight every day, and you just get knocked down every day. So I think, I don't wish that on anybody, but it does build resilience that then transfers into other aspects of your life.    Nate:  Next, a student made a reference to the first podcast episode I recorded with Bob and asked him if he felt like he was still working on the most important problem in his field.    Bob:  Yeah, thank you. Thanks for listening to the podcast, as this gives us… thanks for the chance to plug the podcast. So the way I met Nate is that he interviewed me for his podcast. And for those of you who haven't listened to it, it's a 30 minute interview. And he asked this question about what advice would you share with others? And we honed in on this question of like, what is the most important problem in your field? And are you working on it? Which I love as a guide to like choosing what to work on. And so we had a great conversation. I enjoyed it so much and really enjoyed meeting Nate. So we sort of said, hey, let's do more fun stuff together in the future. So that's what brought us to this conversation. And thanks to Nate for, you know, bringing us all together today. I'm always working on what I think is the most important problem in front of me. And I always will be. I can't help it. I don't have to think about it. I just can't think about anything else. So yes, I do feel like right now I'm working on the most important problem in my field. And I feel like I've been doing that for about 20 years. And it's not for everybody, I suppose. But I just think, like, let's talk about that idea a little bit. And then I'll say what I think is the most important problem in my field that I'm working on. Like, just to translate it for each of you. Systems are always evolving. The systems we live in are evolving. We all know that. People talk about the pace of change and like life's changing, technology's changing and so on. Well, it is, right? Like humans developed agriculture 5,000 years ago. That wasn't very long ago. Agriculture, right? Just the idea that you could grow crops in one area and live in that area without walking around, without moving around settlements and different living in different places. And that concept is only 5,000 years old, right? I mean, people debate exactly how old, like 7, 8,000. But anyway, it's not that long ago, considering Homo sapiens have been walking around for in one form or another for several hundred thousand years and humans in general for a couple million years. So 5,000 years is not long. Look at what's happened in 5,000 years, right? Like houses, the first settlements where you would actually just live at sleep in the same place every night is only 5,000 years old. And now we've got on a - you can access all the world's knowledge - on your phone for free through ChatGPT and ask it sophisticated questions and all right answers. Or you can get on a plane and fly all over the world. You have, you know, sophisticated digital currency systems. We have sophisticated laws. And like, we've got to be aware, I think, that we are living in a time of great change. And that has been true for 5,000 years, right? That's not new. So I think about this concept of the forefront. I imagine, human development is, you can just simply imagine it like a sphere or balloon that someone's like blowing up, right? And so every time they breathe into it, like something shifts and it just gets bigger. And so there's stuff happening on the forefront where it's occupying more space, different space, right? There's stuff in the middle that's like a bit more stable and a bit more, less prone to rapid change, right? The education system, some parts of the healthcare system, like certain professions, certain things that are like a bit more stable, but there's stuff happening all the time on the periphery, right? Like on the boundary. And that stuff is affecting every field in one way or another. And I just think if you get a chance to work on that stuff, that's a really interesting place to live and a really interesting place to work. And I feel like you can make a contribution to that, right, if you put yourself on the edge. And it's true for every field. So whatever field you're in, we had people here today, you know, in everything from, yeah, like the military to fitness to, you know, your product, product design and management and, you know, lots of different, you know, people, different backgrounds. But if you ask yourself, what is the most important thing happening in my area of work today, and then try to find some way to work on it, then I think that sort of is a nice sort of North Star and keeps things interesting. Because the sort of breakthroughs and discoveries and important contributions are actually not complicated once you put yourself in that position. They're obvious once you put yourself in that position, right? It's just that there aren't many people there hanging out in that place. If you're one of them, if you put yourself there, not everyone's there, suddenly you're kind of in a room where like lots of cool stuff can happen, but there aren't many people around to compete with you. So you're more likely to find those breakthroughs, whether it's for your company or for, you know, the people you work with or, you know, maybe it's inventions and, but it just, anyway, so I really like doing that. And in my space right now, I call it the concept of being the bridge. And this could apply to all of you too. It's a simple idea that the world's value, right, is locked up in companies, essentially. Companies create value. We can debate all the other vehicles that do it, but basically most of the world's value is tied up in companies and their processes. And that's been true for a long time. There's a new ball of power in the world, which is been created by large language models. And I think of that just like a new ball of power. So you've got a ball of value and a ball of power. And the funny thing about this new ball of power is this actually has no value. That's a funny thing to say, right? The large language models have no value. They don't. They don't have any value and they don't create value. Think about it. It's just a massive bag of words. That has no value, right? I can send you a poem now in the chat. Does that have any value? You might like it, you might not, but it's just a set of words, right? So you've got this massive bag of words that with like a trillion connections, no value whatsoever. That is different from previous tech trends like e-commerce, for example, which had inherent value because it was a new way to reach consumers. So some tech trends do have inherent value because they're new processes, but large language models don't. They're just a new technology. They're very powerful. So I call it a ball of power. but they don't have any value. So why is there a multi-trillion dollar opportunity in front of all of us right now in terms of value creation? It's being the bridge. It's how to make use of this ball of power to improve businesses. And businesses only have two ways you improve them. You save money or you grow revenue. That's it. So being the bridge, like taking this new ball of power and finding ways to save money, be more efficient, taking this new ball of power and finding ways to access new consumers, create new offerings and so on, right? Solve new problems. That is where all the value is. So while you may think that the new value, this multi-trillion dollar opportunity with AI is really for the people that work on the AI companies, sure, there's a lot of, you know, there's some money to be made there. And if you can go work for OpenAI, you probably should. Everyone should be knocking the door down. Everyone should be applying for positions because it's the most important company, you know, in our generation. But if you're not in OpenAI or Meta or Microsoft or whoever, you know, three or four companies in the US that are doing this, for everybody else, it's about being the bridge, finding ways that in your organizations, you can unlock the power of AI by bringing it into the organizations and finding ways to either save money or grow the business. And that's fascinating to me because anybody can be the bridge. You don't have to be good with large language models. You have to understand business processes and you have to be creative and willing to even think like this. And suddenly you can be on the forefront of like creating massive value at your companies because you were the, you know, you're the one that brings brings in the new tools. And I think that skill set, there are certain skills involved in being the bridge, but that skill set of being the bridge is going to be so valuable in the next 5 to 10 years. So I encourage people, and that's what I'm doing. Like, I see my role - I serve clients at Quid. I love working with clients. You know, I'm not someone that really like thrives for management and like day-to-day operations and administration of a business. I learned that about myself. And so I just spend my time serving clients. I have done for several years now. And I love just meeting clients and figuring out how they can use Quid's AI, Quid's data, and any other form of AI that we want to bring to the table to improve their businesses. And that's just what I do with my time full-time. And I'll probably be doing that for at least the next 5 or 10 years. I think the outlook for that area of work is really huge.    Nate:  Building on the podcast episode where Bob talked about working on the most important problem in his field, I asked if he could give us some more details on how he took that advice and ended up at Yelp.    Bob:  So I was in grad school in the UK studying, well, I was actually on a program for medieval literature and philosophy, but looking into like language theory. So it was not the most commercial course that one could be doing. But I was a hobbyist programmer, played around with the web when it first came up and was making, you know, various new types of websites for students. while in my free time. I didn't think of that as commercial at all. I didn't see any commercial potential in that. But I did meet the founders of PayPal that way, who would come to give a talk. And I guess they saw the potential in me as a product manager. You know, there's lots of new apps they wanted to build. This is in 2003. And so they invited me to the US to work for them. And I joined the incubator when there were just five people in it. Max Levchin was one of them, the PayPal co-founder. Yelp, Jeremy Stoppelman and Russel Simmons were in those first five people. They turned out to be the Yelp co-founders. And Yelp came out of the incubator. So we were actually prototyping 4 companies each in a different industry. There was a chat application that we called Chatango that was five years before Twitter or something, but it was a way of helping people to chat online more easily. There were, which is still around today, but didn't make it as a hit. There was an ad network called AdRoll, which ended up getting renamed and is still around today. That wasn't a huge hit, but it's still around. Then there was Slide, which is photo sharing application, photo and video sharing, which was Max's company. That was acquired by Google. And that did reasonably well. I think it was acquired for about $150 million. And then there was Yelp, which you'll probably know if you're in the US and went public on the New York Stock Exchange and now has a billion dollars in revenue. So those are the four things that we were trying to prototype, each very different, as you can see. But I suppose that's the like tactical story, right? Like the steps that took me there. But there was an idea that took me there that started this journey of working on the most, the most important problems that are happening in the time. So if I rewind, when I was studying medieval literature, I got to the point where I was studying the invention of the print press. And I'd been studying manuscript culture and seeing what happened when the print press was invented and how it changed education, politics, society. You know, when you took this technology that made it cheaper to print, to make books, books were so expensive in the Middle Ages. They were the domain of only the wealthiest people. And only 5% of people could read before the print process was invented, right? So 95% of people couldn't read anything or write anything. And that was because the books themselves were just so expensive, they had to be handwritten, right? And so when the print press made the cost of a book drop dramatically, the literacy rates in Europe shot up and it completely transformed society. So I was studying that period and at the same time, like dabbling with websites in the early internet and sort of going, oh, like there was this moment where I was like, the web is our equivalent of the print press. And it's happening right now. I'm talking like maybe 2002, or so when I had this realization. It's happening right now. It's going to change everything during our lifetimes. And I just had a fork in my life where it's like I could be a professor in medieval history, which was the path I was on professionally. I had a scholarship. There were only 5 scholarships in my year, in the whole UK. I was on a scholarship track to be a professor and study things like the emergence of the print press, or I could contribute to the print press of our era, which is the internet, and find some way to contribute, some way, right? It didn't matter to me if it was big or small, it was irrelevant. It was just be in the mix with people that are pushing the boundaries. Whatever I did, I'd take the most junior role available, no problem, but like just be in the mix with the people that are doing that. So yeah, that was the decision, right? Like, and that's what led me down to sort of leave my course, leave my scholarship. And, my salary was $40,000 when I moved to the US. All right. And that's pretty much all I earned for a while. I'd spent everything I had starting a group called Oxford Entrepreneurs. So I had absolutely no money. The last few months actually living in Oxford, I had one meal a day because I didn't have enough money to buy three meals a day. And then I packed up my stuff in a suitcase - one bag - wasn't even a suitcase, it was a rucksack and moved to the US and, you know, and landed there basically on a student visa and friends and family was just thought I was, you know, not making a good decision, right? Like, I'm not earning much money. It's with a bunch of people in a like a dorm room style incubator, right? Where the tables and chairs we pulled off the street because we didn't want to spend money on tables and chairs. And where I get to work seven days a week, 12 hours a day. And I've just walked away from a scholarship and a PhD track at Oxford to go into that. And it didn't look like a good decision. But to me, the chance to work on the forefront of what's happening in our era is just too important and too interesting to not make those decisions. So I've done that a number of times, even when it's gone against commercial interest or career interest. I haven't made the best career decisions, you know, not from a commercial standpoint, but from a like getting to work on the new stuff. Like that's what I've prioritized.    Nate:  Next, I asked Bob about his first meeting with the PayPal founders and how he made an impression on them.    Bob:  Good question, because I think... So I have a high level thought on that, like a rubric to use. And then I have the details. I'll start with the details. So I had started the entrepreneurship club at Oxford. And believe it or not, in 800 years of the University's history, there was no entrepreneurship club. And they know that because when you want to start a new society, you go to university and they go through the archive, which is kept underground in the library, and someone goes down to the library archives and they go through all these pages for 800 years and look for the society that's called that. And if there is one, they pull it out and then they have the charter and you have to continue the charter. Even if it was started 300 years ago, they pull out the charter and they're like, no, you have to modify that one. You can't start with a new charter. So anyway, it's because it's technically a part of the university, right? So they have a way of administrating it. So they went through the records and were like, there's never been a club for entrepreneurs at the university. So we started the first, I was one of the co-founders of this club. And, again, there's absolutely no pay. It was just a charity as part of the university. But I love the idea of getting students who were scientists together with students that were business minded, and kind of bringing technical and creative people together. That was the theme of the club. So we'd host drinks, events and talks and all sorts. And I love building communities, at least at that stage of my life. I loved building communities. I'd been doing it. I started several charities and clubs, you know, throughout my life. So it came quite naturally to me. But what I didn't, I mean, I kind of thought this could happen, but it really changed my life as it put me at the center of this super interesting community that we've built. And I think that when you're in a university environment, like starting clubs, running clubs, even if they're small, like, we, I ran another club that we called BEAR. It was an acronym. And it was just a weekly meetup in a pub where we talked about politics and society and stuff. And like, it didn't go anywhere. It fizzled out after a year or two, but it was really like an interesting thing to work on. So I think when you're in a university environment, even if you guys are virtual, finding ways to get together, it's so powerful. It's like, it's who you're meeting in courses like this that is so powerful. So I put myself in the middle of this community, and I was running it, I was president of it. So when these people came to speak at the business school, I was asked to bring the students along, and I was given 200 slots in the lecture theatre. So I filled them, I got 200 students along. We had 3,000 members, by the way, after like 2 years running this club. It became the biggest club at the university, and the biggest entrepreneurship student community in Europe. It got written up in The Economist actually as like, because it was so popular. But yeah, it meant that I was in the middle of it. And when the business school said, you can come to the dinner with the speakers afterwards, that was my ticket to sit down next to the founder of PayPal, you know. And so, then I sat down at dinner with him, and I had my portfolio with me, which back then I used to carry around in a little folder, like a black paper folder. And every project I'd worked on, every, because I used to do graphic design for money as a student. So I had my graphic design projects. I had my yoga publishing business and projects in there. I had printouts about the websites I'd created. So when I sat down next to him, and he's like, what do you work on? I just put this thing on the table over dinner and was like, he picked it up and he started going through it. And he was like, what's this? What's this? And I think just having my projects readily available allowed him to sort of get interested in what I was working on. Nowadays, you can have a website, right? Like I didn't have a website for a long time. Now I have one. It's at bobgoodson.com where I put my projects on there. You can check it out if you like. But I think I've always had a portfolio in one way or another. And I think carrying around the stuff that you've done in an interactive way is a really good way to connect with people. But one more thing I'll say on this concept, because it connects more broadly to like life in general, is that I think that I have this theory that in your lifetime, you get around five opportunities put in front of you that you didn't yet fully deserve, right? Someone believes in you, someone opens a door, someone's like, hey, Nate, how about you do this? Or like, we think you might be capable of this. And it doesn't happen very often, but those moments do happen. And when they happen, a massive differentiator for your life is do you notice that it's happening and do you grab it with both hands? And in that moment, do everything you can to make it work, right? Like they don't come along very often. And to me, those moments have been so precious. I knew I wouldn't get many of them. And so every time they happened, I've just been all in. I don't care what's going on in my life at that time. When the door opens, I drop everything, and I do everything I can to make it work. And you're stretched in those situations. So it's not easy, right? Like someone's given you an opportunity to do something you're not ready for, essentially. So you're literally not ready for it. Like you're not good enough, you don't know enough, you don't have the knowledge, you don't have the skills. So you only have to do the job, but you have to cultivate your own skills and develop your skills. And that's a lot of work. You know, when I landed in, I mean, working for Max was one of those opportunities where I did not, I'd not done enough to earn that opportunity when I got that opportunity. I landed with five people who had all done PayPal. They were all like incredible experts in their fields, right? Like Russ Simmons, the Yelp co-founder, had been the chief architect of PayPal. He architected PayPal, right? Like I was with very skilled technical people. I was the only Brit. They were all Americans. So I stood out culturally. Most of them couldn't understand what I was saying when I arrived. I've since changed how I speak. So you can understand me, the Americans in the room. But I just mumbled. I wasn't very articulate. So it was really hard to get my ideas across. And I had programmed as a hobbyist, but I didn't know enough to be able to program production code alongside people that had worked at PayPal. I mean, their security levels and their accuracy and everything was just off the, I was in another league, right? So there I was, I felt totally out of my depth, and I had to fight to stay in that job for a year. Like I fought every day for a year to like not get kicked out of that job and essentially out of the country. Because without their sponsorship, I couldn't have stayed in the country. I was on a student visa with them, right? And I worked seven days a week for 365 days in a row. I basically almost lived in the office. I got an apartment a few blocks from the office and I had to. No one else was working those kind of hours, but I had to do the job, and I had to learn 3 new programming languages and all this technical stuff, how to write specs, how to write product specs like I had to research the history of various websites in parts of the internet. So I'm just, I guess I'm just giving some color to like when these doors open in your career and in your life, sometimes they're relationship doors that open, right? You meet somebody who's going to change your life, and it's like, are you going to fight to make that work? And, you know, like, so not all, it's not always career events, but when they happen, I think like trusting your instinct that this is one of those moments and knowing this is one of the, you can't do this throughout your whole life. You burn out and you die young. Like you're just not sustainable. But when they happen, are you going to put the burners on and be like, I'm in. And sometimes it only takes a few weeks. Like the most it's ever taken for me is a year to walk through a door. But like, anyway, like just saying that in case anyone here has one of these moments and like maybe this will resonate with one of you, and you'll be like, that's one of the moments I need to walk through the door.    Nate:  That concludes chapter one. In chapter 2, Bob talks about building companies. First, I asked Bob if he gained much leadership experience at Yelp.    Bob:  I gained some. I suppose my first year or two in the US was in a technical role. So I didn't have anyone reporting to me. I was just working on the user interface and front end stuff. So really no leadership there. But then, there was a day when we still had five people. Jeremy started to go pitch investors for our second round because we had really good traffic growth, right? In San Francisco, we had really nice charts showing traffic growth. We'd started to get traction in New York and started to get traction in LA. So we've had the start of a nice story, right? Like this works in other cities. We've got a model we can get traffic. And Jeremy went to his first VC pitch for the second round. And the VC said, you need to show that you can monetize the traffic before you raise this round. The growth story is fine, but you also need to say, we've signed 3 customers and they're paying this much, right, monthly. So Jeremy came back from that pitch, and I remember very clearly, he sat down, kind of slumped in his chair and he's like, oh man, we're going to have to do some sales before we can raise this next round. Like we need someone on the team to go close a few new clients. And it's so funny because it's like, me and four people and everyone went like this and faced me at the same time. And I was like, why are you looking at me? Like, I'm not, I didn't know how to start selling to local businesses. And they're like, they all looked at each other and went, no, we think you're probably the best for this, Bob. And they were all engineers, like all four of them were like, background in engineering. Even the CEO was VP engineering at PayPal before he did Yelp. So basically, we were all geeks. And for some reason, they thought I would be the best choice to sell to businesses. And I didn't really have a choice in it, honestly. I didn't want to do it. They were just like, you're like, that's what needs to happen next. And you're the most suitable candidate for it. So I I just started picking up the phone and calling dentists, chiropractors, restaurants. We didn't know if Yelp would resonate with bars or restaurants or healthcare. We thought healthcare was going to be big, which is reasonably big for Yelp now, but it's not the focus. But anyway, I just started calling these random businesses with great reviews. I just started with the best reviewed businesses. And the funny thing is some of those people, my first ever calls are still friends today, right? Like my chiropractor that I called is the second person I ever called and he signed up, ended up being my chiropractor for like 15 years living in San Francisco. And now we're still in touch, and we're great friends. So it's funny, like I dreaded those first calls, but they actually turned out to be really interesting people that I met. But yeah, we didn't have a model. We didn't know what to charge for. So we started out charging for calls. We changed the business's phone number. So if you're, you had a 415 number and you're a chiropractor on Yelp, we would change your number to like a number that Yelp owned, but it went straight through to their phone. So it was a transfer, but it meant our system could track that they got the call through Yelp, right? Yeah. And then we tracked the duration of the call. We couldn't hear the call, but we tracked the duration of the call. And then we could report back to them at the end of the month. You got 10 calls from Yelp this month and we're going to charge you $50 a call or whatever. So I sold that to 5 or 10 customers and people hated it. They hated that model because they're like, they'd get a call, it'd be like a wrong number or they just wanted to ask, they're already a current customer and they're asking about parking or something, right? So then we'd get back to and be like, you got a call and we charged you 50 bucks. So like, no, I can't pay you for that. Like, that was one of my current customers. So now the reality is they were getting loads of advertising and that was really driving the growth for their business, but they didn't want to pay for the call. So then I was like, that's not working. We have to do something else. Then we paid pay for click, which was we put ads on your page and when someone clicks it, they see you. And then people hated that too, because they're like, my mum just told me she's been like clicking on the link, right? Because she's like looking at my business. And my mum probably just cost me 5 bucks because she said she clicked it 10 times. And like, can you take that off my bill? So people hated the clicks. And then one day we just brought in a head of operations, Geoff Donaker. And by this point, by the way, I had like 2 salespeople working for me that I'd hired. And so it was me and two other people. We were calling these companies, signing these contracts. And one day I just had this epiphany. I was like, we should just pay for the ads that are viewed, not the ads that are clicked. In other words, pay for impressions to the ads. So if I tell you, I've put your ad in front of 500 people when they were looking for sushi this month, right? That you don't mind paying for because there's no action involved, but you're like, whoa, it's a big number. You put me in front of 500 people. I'll pay you 200 bucks for that. No problem. Essentially impression-based advertising. And I went to our COO and I was like, I think we should try this. He was like, if you want to give it a go. And I wrote up a contract and started selling it that day. And that is that format, that model now has a billion dollars revenue running through Yelp. So basically they took that model, like I switched it to impression-based advertising. And that was what was right for local. And our metrics were amazing. We're actually able to charge a lot more than we could in the previous two models. And I built out the sales team to about 20 people. Through that process, I got hooked, basically. Like I realized I love selling during that role. I would never have walked into sales, I think, unless everyone had gone, you have to do it. And I dreaded it, but I got really hooked on it. I love the adrenaline of it. I love hunting down these deals and I love like what you can learn from customers when you're selling. You can learn what they need and you can evolve your business model. So I love that flywheel and that's kind of what I've been doing ever since. But I built out a team of 20 people, so I got to learn management, essentially by just doing it at Yelp and building out that team.    Nate:  Next, I asked Bob how he developed his theory of leadership.    Bob:  I actually developed it really early on. You know, I mentioned earlier I'd been starting things since I was about 10 years old. And what's fascinated me between the age of like 10 and maybe, you know, my early 20s, I love the idea of creating stuff with people where no one gets paid. And here's why. These are charities and nonprofits and stuff, right? But I realized really early, if I can lead and motivate in a way where people want to contribute, even though they're not getting paid, and we can create stuff together, if I can learn that aspect, like management in that sense, then if I'm one day paying people, I'm going to get like, I'm going to, we're all going to be so much more effective, essentially, right? Like the organization is going to be so much more effective. And that is a concept I still work with today. Yes, we pay everyone quite well at Quid who works at Quid, right? Like we pay at or above market rate. But I never think about that. I never, ever ask for anything or work with people in a way that I feel they need to do it because that's their job ever. I just erased that from my mindset. I've never had that in my mindset. I always work with people with like, with gratitude and and in a way where I'm like, well, I'll try and make it fun and like help them see the meaning in the work, right? Like help them understand why it's an exciting thing to work on or a, why it's right for them, how it connects to their goals and their interests and why it's, you know, fun to contribute, whether it's to a client or to an area of technology or whatever we're working on. It's like, so yeah, I haven't really, I haven't, I mean, you guys might have read books on this, but I haven't really seen that idea articulated in quite the way that I think about it. And because I didn't read it in a book, I just kind of like stumbled across it as a kid. But that's, but I learned because I practiced it for 10 years before I even ended up in the US, when I started managing teams at Yelp, I found that I was very effective as a manager and a leader because I didn't take for granted that, you know, people had to do it because it was their job. I thought of ways to make the environment fun and make the connections between the different team members fun and teach them things and have there be like a culture of success and winning and sharing in the results of the wins together. And I suppose this did play out a little bit financially in my career because, although we pay people well at Yelp, we're kind of a somewhat mature business now. But in the early days of Yelp and in the early days of Quid, I never competed on pay. You know, when you're starting a company, it's a really bad idea to try and compete on pay. You have to, I went into every hiring conversation all the way through my early days at Yelp, as well as through the early days at Quid, like probably the first nearly 10 years at Quid. And every time I interviewed people, I would say early on, this isn't going to be where you earn the most money. I'm not going to be able to pay you market rate. You're going to earn less here than you could elsewhere. However, this is what I can offer you, right? Like whether then I make a culture that's about like helping learning. Like we always had a book like quota at Quid. If you want to buy books to read in your free time, I don't care what the title is, we'll give you money to buy books. And the reality is a book's like 10 bucks or 20 bucks, right? No one spends much on books, but that was one of the perks. I put together these perks so that we were paying often like half of what you could get in the market for the same role, but you're printing like reasons to be there that aren't about the money. Now, it doesn't work for everybody, you know, that's as in every company doesn't, but that's just what played out. And that's really important in the early days. You've got to be so efficient. And then once you start bringing in the money, then you can start moving up your rates and obviously pay people market rate. But early on, you've got to find ways to be really, really, really efficient and really lean. And you can't pay people market rate in the early days. I mean, people kind of expect that going into early stage companies, but I was particularly aggressive on that front. But that was just because I suppose it was in my DNA that like, I will try and give you other reasons to work here, but it's not going to be, it's not going to be for the money.    Nate:  Next, I asked Bob how he got from Yelp to Quid and how he knew it was time to launch his own company.    Bob:  Yeah, like looking back, if I'd made sort of the smart decision from a financial standpoint and from a, you know, career standpoint, I suppose you'd say, I would have just stayed put. if you're in a rocket ship and it's growing and you've got a senior role and you get to, you've got, you've earned the license to work on whatever you want. Like Yelp wanted me to move to Phoenix and create their first remote sales team. They wanted, I was running customer success at the time and I'd set up all those systems. Like there was so much to do. Yelp was only like three or four years old at the time, and it was clearly a rocket ship. And you know, I could have learned a lot more like from Yelp in that, like I could have seen it all the way through to IPO and, setting up remote teams and hiring hundreds of people, thousands of people eventually. So I, but I made the choice to leave relatively early and start my own thing. Just coming back to this idea we talked about in the session earlier today, I I always want to work on the forefront of whatever's going on, like the most important thing happening in our time. And I felt I knew what was next. I could kind of see what was next, which was applying AI to analyze the world's text, which was clear to me by about 2008, like that was going to be as big as the internet. That's kind of how I felt about it. And I told people that, and I put that in articles, and I put it in talks that are online that you can go watch. You know, there's one on my website from 10 years ago where I'd already been in the space for five or six years. You can go watch it and see what I was saying in 2015. So fortunately, I documented this because it sounds a bit, you know, unbelievable given what's just happened with large language models and open AI. But it was clear to me where things were going around 2008. And I just wanted to work on what was next, basically. I wanted to apply neural networks and natural language processing to massive text sets like all the world's media, all the world's social media. And yeah, I suppose whenever I've seen what's going to happen next, like with social network, going to Yelp, like seeing what was going to happen with social networking, going to building Yelp, and then seeing this observation about AI and going and doing Quid, it's not, it doesn't feel like a choice to me. It's felt like, well, just what I have to do. And regardless of whether that's going to be more work, harder work, less money, et cetera, it's just how I'm wired, I guess. And I'm kind of, I see it now. Like I see what's next now. And I'll probably just keep doing this. But I was really too early or very, very early, as you can probably see, to be trying to do that at like 2008, 2009, seven or eight years before OpenAI was founded, I was just banging my head against the wall for nearly a decade with no one that would listen. So even the best companies in the world and the biggest investors in the world, again, I won't name them, But it was so hard to raise money. It was so hard to get anyone to watch it that, after a time, I actually started to think I was wrong. Like after doing it for like 10 years and it hadn't taken off, I just started to think like, I was so wrong. I spent a year or two before ChatGPT took off. I'd got to a point where I'd spent like a year or two just thinking, how could my instinct be so wrong about what was going to play out here? How could we not have unlocked the world's written information at this point? And I started to think maybe it'll never happen, you know, and like I was simply wrong, which of course you could be wrong on these things. And then, you know, ChatGPT and OpenAI like totally blew up, and it's been bigger than even I imagined. And I couldn't have told you exactly which technical breakthrough was going to result in it. Like no one knew that large language models were going to be the unlock. But I played with everything available to try and unlock that value. And as soon as large language models became promising in 2016, we were on it, like literally the month that the Google BERT paper came out, because we were like knocking on that door for many years beforehand. And we were one of the teams that were like, trying to unlock that value. That's why many of the early Quid people are very senior at OpenAI and went on to take what they learned from Quid and then apply it in an OpenAI environment, which I'm very proud of. I'm very proud of those people, and it's amazing to see what they've done.    Nate:  That concludes Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, we discuss AI and social media. The first question was about anxiety and AI.    Bob:  Maybe I'll just focus on the anxiety and the issues first of all. A lot's been said on it. I suppose what would be my headlines? I think that one big area of concern is how it changes the job market. And I think the practical thing on that is if you can learn to be the bridge, then you're putting yourself in a really valuable position, right? Because if you can bridge this technology into businesses in a way that makes change and improvements, then you are moving yourself to a skill set that's going to continue to be really valuable. So that's just a practical matter. One of the executives I work with in a major US company likes to say will doctors become redundant because of AI? And he says, no, doctors won't be redundant, but doctors that don't use AI will be redundant. And that's kind of where we are, right? It's like, we're still going to need a person, but if you refuse, if you're not using it, you're going to fall behind and like that is going to put you at risk. So I think there is some truth to that little kind of illustrative story. There will be massive numbers of jobs that are no longer necessary. And the history of technology is full of these examples. Coming back to like 5,000 years ago, think of all the times that people invented stuff that made the prior roles redundant, right? In London, before electricity was discovered and harnessed, one of the biggest areas of employment was for the people that walked the streets at night, lighting the candles and gas lights that lit London. That was a huge breakthrough, right? You could put fire in the street, you put gas in the street and you lit London. Without that, you couldn't go out at night in London and like it would have been an absolute nightmare. The city wouldn't be what it is. But that meant there were like thousands of people whose job it was to light those candles and then go round in the morning when the sun came up and blow them out. So when the light bulb was invented, can you imagine the uproar in London where all these jobs were going to be lost, thousands of jobs were going to be lost. by people that no longer are needed to put out these lights. There were riots, right? There was massive social upheaval. The light bulb threatened and wiped out those jobs. How many people in London now work lighting gas lamps and lighting candles to light the streets, right? Nobody. That was unthinkable. How could you possibly take away those jobs? You know, people actually smashed these light bulbs when the first electric light bulbs were put into streets. People just went and smashed them because they're like, we are not going to let this technology take our jobs. And I can give you 20 more examples like that throughout history, right? Like you could probably think of loads yourselves. Even the motor car, you know, so many people were employed to look after horses, right? Think of all the people that were employed in major cities around the world, looking after horses and caring for them and building the carts and everything. And suddenly you don't need horses anymore. Like that wiped out an entire industry. But what did it do? It created the automobile industry, which has been employing massive numbers of people ever since. And the same is true for, you know, like what have light bulbs done for the quality of our lives? You know, we don't look at them now and think that's an evil technology that wiped out loads of jobs. We go, thank goodness we've got light bulbs. So the nature of technology is that it wipes out roles, and it creates roles. And I just don't see AI being any different. Humans have no limit to like, seem to have no limit to the comfort they want to live with and the things that we want in our lives. And those things are still really expensive and we don't, we're nowhere near satisfied. So like, we're going to keep driving forward. We're going to go, oh, now we can do that. Great. I can use AI, I can make movies and I can, you know, I don't know, like there's just loads of stuff that people are going to want to do with AI. Like, I mean, using the internet, how much time do we spend on these damn web forms, just clicking links and buttons and stuff? Is that fun? Do we even want to do that? No. Like we're just wasting hours of our lives every week, like clicking buttons. Like if we have agents, they can do that for us. So we have, I think we're a long way from like an optimal state where work is optional and we can just do the things that humans want to do with their time. And so, but that's the journey that I see us all along, you know. So anyway, that's just my take on AI and employment, both practically, what can you do about it? Be the bridge, embrace it, learn it, jump in. And also just like in a long arc, I'm not saying in the short term, there won't be riots and there won't be lots of people out of work. And I mean, there will be. But when we look back again, like I often think about what time period are we talking about? Right? People often like, well, what will it do to jobs? Next year, like there'll certain categories that will become redundant. But are we thinking about this in a one year period or 100 year period? Like it's worth asking yourself, what timeframe am I talking about? Right? And I always try and come back to the 100 year view at a minimum when talking about technology change. If it's better for humanity in 100 years, then we should probably work on it and make it happen, right? If we didn't do that, we wouldn't have any light bulbs in our house. Still be lighting candles?    Nate:  Next was a question about social media, fragmented attention, and how it drives isolation.    Bob:  Well, it's obviously been very problematic, particularly in the last five or six years. So TikTok gained success in the United States and around the world around five or six years ago with a completely new model for how to put content in front of people. And what powered it? AI. So TikTok is really an AI company. And the first touch point that most of us had with AI was actually through TikTok. It got so good at knowing the network of all possible content and knowing if you watch this, is the next thing we should show you to keep you engaged. And they didn't care if you were friends with someone or not. Your network didn't matter. Think about Facebook. Like for those of you that were using Facebook, maybe say 2010, right? Like 15 years ago. What did social media look like? You had a profile page, you uploaded photos of yourself and photos of your friends, you linked between them. And when you logged into Facebook, you basically just browsing people's profiles and seeing what they got up to at the weekend. That was social media 15 years ago. Now imagine, now think what you do when you're on Instagram and you're swiping, right? Or you go to TikTok and you're swiping. First of all, let's move to videos, which is a lot more compelling, short videos. And most of the content has nothing to do with your friends. So there was a massive evolution in social media that happened five or six years ago, driven by TikTok. And all the other companies had to basically adopt the same approach or they would have fallen too far behind. So it forced Meta to evolve Instagram and Facebook to be more about attention. Like there's always about attention, that's the nature of media. But these like AI powered ways to keep you there, regardless of what they're showing you. And that turned out to be a bit of a nightmare because it unleashed loads of content without any sense of like what's good for the people who are watching it, right? That's not the game they're playing. They're playing attention and then they're not making decisions about what might be good for you or not. So we went through like a real dip, I think, in social media, went through a real dip and we're still kind of in it, right, trying to find ways out of it. So regulation will ultimately be the savior, which it is in any new field of tech. Regulation is necessary to keep tech to have positive impact for the people that it's meant to be serving. And that's taken a long time to successfully put in place for social media, but we are getting there. I mean, Australia just banned social media for everyone under 16. You may have seen that. Happened, I think, earlier this year. France is putting controls around it. The UK is starting to put more controls around it. So, you know, gradually countries are voters are making it a requirement to put regulation around social media use. In terms of just practical things for you all, as you think about your own social media use, I think it's very healthy to think about how long you spend on it and find ways to just make it a little harder to access, right? Like none of us feel good when we spend a lot of time on our screens. None of us feel good when we spend a lot of time on social media. It feels good at the time because it's given us those quick dopamine hits. But then afterwards, we're like, man, I spent an hour, and I just like, I lost an hour down like the Instagram wormhole. And then we don't feel good afterwards. It affects us sleep negatively. And yeah, come to the question that was, posted, can create a sense of isolation or negative feelings of self due to comparison to centrally like models and actors and all these people that are like putting out content, right? Kind of super humans. So I think just finding ways to limit it and asking yourself what's right for you and then just sticking to that. And if that means coming off it for a month or coming off it for a couple of months, then, give that a try. Personally, I don't use it much at all. I'll use it mostly because friends will share like a funny meme or something and you just still want to watch it because it's like it's sent to you by a friend. It's a way of interacting. Like my dad sends me funny stuff from the internet, and I want to watch it because it's a way of connecting with him. But then I set a timer. I like to use this timer. It's like just a little physical device. I know we've all got one on our phones, but I like to have one on my desk. And so if I'm going into something, whether it's like I'm going to do an hour on my inbox, my e-mail inbox, or I'm going to, you know, open up Instagram and just swipe for a bit, I'll just set a timer, you know, and just keep me honest, like, okay, I'm going to give myself 8 minutes. I'm not going to give myself any more time on there. So there's limited it. And then I put all these apps in a folder on the second screen of my phone. So I can't easily access them. I don't even see them because they're on the second screen of my phone in a folder called social. So to access any of the apps, I have to swipe, open the folder, and then open the app. And just moving them to a place where I can't see them has been really helpful. I only put the healthy apps on my front page of my phone.    Nate:  Next was a question about where Bob expects AI to be in 20 years and whether there are new levels to be unlocked.    Bob:  No one knows. Right? Like what happens when you take a large language model from a trillion nodes to like 5 trillion nodes? No one knows. It's, this is where the question comes in around like consciousness, for example. Will it be, will it get to a point where we have to consider this entity conscious? Fiercely debated, not obvious at all. Will it become, it's already smarter than, well, it already knows more than any human on the planet. So in terms of its knowledge access, it knows more. In terms of most capabilities, most, you know, cognitive capabilities, it's already more capable than any single human on the planet. But there are certain aspects of consciousness, well, certain cognitive functions that humans currently are capable of that AI is not currently capable of, but we might expect some of those to be eaten into as these large language models get better. And it might be that these large language models have cognitive capabilities that humans don't have and never could have, right? Like levels of strategic thinking, for example, that we just can't possibly mirror. And that's one of the things that's kind of, you know, a concern to nations and to people is that, you know, we could end up with something on the planet that is a lot smarter than any one of us or even all of us combined. So in general, when something becomes more intelligent, it seeks to dominate everything else. That is a pattern. You can see that throughout all life. Nothing's ever got smarter and not sought to dominate. And so that's concerning, especially because it's trained on everything we've ever said and done. So I don't know why that pattern would be different. So that, you know, that's interesting. And and I think in terms of, so the part of that question, which is whole new areas of capability to be unlocked, really fascinating area to look at is not so much the text now, because everything I've written is already in these models, right? So the only way they can get more information is by the fact that like, loads of social networks are creating more information and so on. It's probably pretty duplicitous at this point. That's why Elon bought Twitter, for example, because he wanted the data in Twitter, and he wants that constant access to that data. But how much smarter can they get when they've already got everything ever written? However, large language models, of course, don't just apply to text. They apply to any information, genetics, photography, film, every form of information can be harnessed by these large language models and are being harnessed. And one area that's super interesting is robotics. So the robot is going to be as nimble and as capable as the training data that goes into it. And there isn't much robotic training data yet. But companies are now collecting robotic training data. So in the coming years, robots are going to get way more capable, thanks to large language models, but only as this data gets collected. So in other words, like language is kind of reaching its limits in terms of new capabilities, but think of all the other sensor types that could feed into large language models and you can start to see all kinds of future capabilities, which is why everyone suddenly got so interested in personal transportation vehicles and personal robotics, which is why like Tesla share price is up for example, right? Because Elon's committed now to kind of moving more into robotics with Tesla as a company. And there are going to be loads of amazing robotics companies that come out over the next like 10 or 20 years.    Nate:  And that brings us to the end of this episode with Bob Goodson. Like I mentioned in the intro, there were so many great nuggets from Bob. Such great insight on managing our careers, building companies, and the evolving impact of AI and social media. In summary, try to be at the intersection of new power and real problems. Seek to inspire rather than just transact, and be thoughtful about how to use social media and AI. All simple ideas, please, take them seriously.   

Erin Moser serves as Chief Advancement Officer at Musana Community Development Organization, where her calling grew from a simple act of generosity into a lifelong commitment to dignifying, sustainable impact. After encountering Musana's founder through a local church, Erin and her family began supporting the work quietly. However, it was travelling to Uganda and witnessing firsthand how God was using local leadership, not Western charity, to restore communities that reshaped her understanding of generosity, stewardship, and what lasting faith-driven impact can look like on the ground. Today, Erin helps advance Musana's enterprise-driven model, where schools, hospitals, women's training centers, and businesses work together to address poverty at its roots. Rather than creating dependence, Musana invests in infrastructure that becomes locally owned, locally led, and financially sustainable. Erin shares hard lessons learned along the way, the importance of humility in giving, and why stewardship means deploying resources wisely so communities can flourish long after outside support steps back. Listen to this episode to reconsider how faith, generosity, and wise stewardship can multiply impact through local ownership and trust in God's design. Major Topics Include: Moving from charity to dignifying partnership Local ownership as the path to lasting impact Addressing poverty through job creation Infrastructure over programs for sustainability Humility in learning across cultures Letting communities lead their own solutions Measuring success beyond short-term outcomes QUOTES TO REMEMBER “Orphanages create orphans.” “Generosity should be catalytic. It should restore dignity, not take it away.” “How dignifying is it to a parent to say, you can't provide for your own child, so let someone from the West do it for you?” “We have to stop imposing our Western ideals and learn together with what actually works in their landscape.” “Faithful stewardship isn't about how much we give, but how we intentionally deploy what God has entrusted to us.” “We don't run programs. We build infrastructure.” “Economists say no developing country will ever lift itself out of poverty by charity alone.” “Once we got on the ground, we realized how insignificant we were to the solution.” “They didn't need us as much as we needed them.” “The locals are the heroes of their own story.” “God just kept putting one simple step in front of the other.” “It started with saying yes, and the understanding came later.” “God doesn't call us to preserve our resources. He calls us to put them to work.” LINKS FROM THE SHOW Musana Community Development Organization BIBLE REFERENCES FROM THE SHOW Zechariah 4:10 | Faithful Small Beginnings “For whoever has despised the day of small things shall rejoice, and shall see the plumb line in the hand of Zerubbabel.” Matthew 25:14–30 | Stewardship of Entrusted Resources Matthew 6:1–4 | Heart Posture in Giving Mark 12:41–44 | The Widow's Offering TAKE A STEP DEEPER On the Finish Line podcast, we are all about stories, seeing how God draws us into generosity over a lifetime.  But sometimes these stories can leave us thinking, “What's that next step look like for me?” That's exactly why we've launched a whole new podcast called Applied Generosity which explores the full landscape of the generous life across 7 different dimensions of generosity.  Applied Generosity helps make sense of the hundreds of stories we've shared on the Finish Line Podcast to help you find that best next step. If you've been inspired by these stories and want to take things to the next level, check out Applied Generosity anywhere you listen to podcasts or at appliedgenerosity.com.

Akil Vicks is a freelance writer who's written for Jacobin Magazine and In These Times. He runs a successful Substack called OnOne where he covers matters of identity and political economy from a leftist perspective. He can be reached on Substack & Facebook @Akil Vicks & IG @Kizzyrocknrolla.Please rate us on Apple and/or Spotify and subscribe to our YouTube channel This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit mikeyopp.substack.com/subscribe

Think Like an Economist’s Justin Wolfers joins us to talk about the increasingly worrying state of the U.S. economy. The Miami Herald’s Julie K. Brown stops by to discuss the Epstein files—and the critical pieces that have yet to be put together.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Widespread financial meltdown continued again today, slamming crypto, silver, and private credit particularly hard. After what appeared to be an early morning rally, it didn't last as a range of more-than-disappointing labor data came flooding to the tape. The narrative of a 2026 pick up is not being picked up anywhere other than mainstream Economists.Eurodollar University Money and Macro Analysis

We are excited to welcome Joe Davis for this episode, currently Vanguard's Global Chief Economist and Global Head of the Investment Strategy Group. Many of you likely know various iterations of the Vanguard story, but most of the professionals I know do not know how big a research team they have.  Joe has a big influence on the company because he is also chairs the firm's Strategic Asset Allocation Committee. Ok, that was exhausting listing all of his titles, he is a busy person. Before that, he was still busy; he earned his M.A. and Ph.D at Duke University and is a graduate of the Advanced Management Program at the Wharton School of U Penn. Joe is a frequent keynote speaker and currently serves on the editorial boards of the Journal of Portfolio Management and the Journal of Fixed Income. In this episode, we are all over the place (which is normal), ranging from Vanguard's 50+ year history as a disruptor, to how many CFA charter holders are at Vanguard now (hint: a lot), their vast and under the radar research group, new CEO Salim Ramji, patents that Vanguard created in ETF space, the breakdown of active vs. passive funds in their lineup (which surprises many) and Joe's new book on AI. This was a great segue into the markets, with the impact of AI, Fed independence being potentially disrupted, a new multi-polar world, expected returns, potential market scenarios, and more. Today's hosts are Steve Curley, CFA (Co-Managing Principal, 55 North Private Wealth) & co-host Chris Cannon, CFA (CIO/Principal, FirsTrust). Please enjoy the episode. You can follow us on Twitter & LinkedIn or at investorsfirstpodcast.com

Americans have been deeply dissatisfied with the economy for many years, even as standard metrics continue to show strength and prosperity. This gap between popular and elite thinking has helped populism surge and sparked intense debates about whether old economic assumptions—and policies—need wholesale revision.Find the episode transcript and streaming audio, and get the show direct to your inbox, hereFollow Jon on X: https://x.com/JonKBateman   

Our Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach and Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen discuss the path for U.S. interest rates after the nomination of Kevin Warsh for next Fed chair.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy. Michael Gapen: And I'm Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley's Chief U.S. Economist. Matthew Hornbach: Today we'll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.It's Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in? Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn't all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause. The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time. So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we've stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway. Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference? Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he's been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May. But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that's what happens. But he could also stay and he's never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that's fine. And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It's a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.' But maybe he hasn't come to that conclusion yet. And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in? So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it's not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like. Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh… Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that's where you were going. Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question. I'm curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term? Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed's reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed's reaction function. His previous public remarks don't suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that's already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them. Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There's an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there's 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair's primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public. So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won't change. It'll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don't look for material change. Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed's balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He's called the Fed's balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet. But what I would just say on that is it'll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it'll take study, it'll take patience. I wouldn't look for big material changes right out of the box. So Matt, what I'd like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we're thinking it'd be one candidate. The next day it'd be thinking at the next it was somebody else. How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting. Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world. But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how? If the Fed's balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it's other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public. And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there's some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets. And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward. So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we'll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting. Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today.

Steve discusses whether Republicans are being transparent about the state of the economy, especially as consumers continue to feel the impact of rising prices. Trump's new Fed pick, Kevin Warsh, may also face pressure to lower interest rates to 2%.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Steve discusses whether Republicans are being transparent about the state of the economy, especially as consumers continue to feel the impact of rising prices. Trump's new Fed pick, Kevin Warsh, may also face pressure to lower interest rates to 2%.

The first year of the new Trump administration has been a chance to test a slew of economists' conventional wisdom — on tariffs, on markets, on trade alliances. Kent Gardner has been an economist for decades, and we wanted to know: has anything in the past year surprised you? Has anything caused you to reconsider a long-held belief? Vice President Vance says economists are out-of-touch eggheads. We examine that claim, too. In studio:Kent Gardner, former chief economist at the Center for Governmental Research---Connections is supported by listeners like you. Head to our donation page to become a WXXI member today, support the show, and help us close the gap created by the rescission of federal funding.---Connections airs every weekday from noon-2 p.m. Join the conversation with questions or comments by phone at 1-844-295-TALK (8255) or 585-263-9994, email, Facebook or Twitter. Connections is also livestreamed on the WXXI News YouTube channel each day. You can watch live or access previous episodes here.---Do you have a story that needs to be shared? Pitch your story to Connections.

Ryan's site: RyanVeli.comShort guest bioRyan Veli is a returning researcher and deep-dive analyst known for connecting dots across AI, surveillance systems, and the bigger geopolitical chessboard. He's often described as a highly intuitive teacher with experience in analysis, risk assessment, and systems thinking—focused on practical strategy, sovereignty, and how communities can adapt in a rapidly shifting world.Episode description (YouTube / Rumble / Spreaker-ready)Today at 11:15 AM Eastern I'm joined by returning guest Ryan Veli for a deep dive into the AI threat, the economist/technocrat takeover, and the way geopolitics + “managed” current events may be steering the public into a new control architecture.We're getting into:What “AI governance” really means (and who benefits)Economics as a control system: incentives, scarcity narratives, and engineered dependencyGeopolitics as theater vs. geopolitics as strategySurveillance, censorship, and the normalization of complianceWhat people can do right now to stay grounded, sovereign, and informedGuest links:Ryan: RyanVeli.comHashtags (copy/paste)#TypicalSkepticPodcast #RyanVeli #AI #ArtificialIntelligence #Technocracy #Geopolitics #CurrentEvents #ConspiracyResearch #DeepState #Surveillance #Censorship #DigitalID #SocialCredit #EconomicReset #CentralBanking #CBDC #InformationWar #PsychologicalWarfare #Propaganda #Sovereignty #SystemsThinking #RiskAssessment #FutureOfHumanity #TruthSeeker5197Tags (YouTube tags field)Ryan Veli, Typical Skeptic Podcast, AI threat, technocracy, geopolitics, economist takeover, current events analysis, deep state, surveillance state, censorship, digital ID, social credit system, CBDC, central banking, fourth industrial revolution, information war, psyop, propaganda, sovereignty, alternative mediaTypical Skeptic Podcast Links and Affiliates:Support the Mission:

In this segment, Michael Austin, a Kansas economist, joins the show to discuss the proposed contribution of local dollars to the Chiefs stadium and practice facility projects. He shares his concerns about the long-term risks of pledging future sales tax revenue to pay off the Starbonds. Michael questions how the municipalities will manage the potential loss of revenue for public services and infrastructure costs. He also highlights the lack of fiscal flexibility and the potential tax implications of zoning the land as agricultural. This conversation delves into the economic aspects of the proposal and its potential impact on the local community.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the debut episode of The Economist Next Door, host Paul Mueller (Senior Research Fellow at AIER) sits down with Samuel Gregg, President of the American Institute for Economic Research, to peel back the layers of modern economic debate. Moving beyond the dry jargon of spreadsheets and data points, Mueller and Gregg explore why the battle for free markets has shifted from a technical argument to a deeply moral one. They discuss the rising tide of "collectivism" appearing on both ends of the political spectrum and why the "everyman" should care about the philosophical foundations of trade, sound money, and individual liberty.

From Ancient Egypt to Leibniz... Brand‑new interview out with Robert Spekkens of the Perimeter Institute, one of the sharpest minds working on quantum foundations. In 2004, he constructed a classical toy theory where your maximum knowledge is always incomplete—and out popped the no-cloning theorem, teleportation, and interference effects Feynman deemed impossible to reproduce classically. Spekkens compares our situation to Egyptian hieroglyphs before Champollion: a category mistake where we treat quantum states as descriptions of reality when they actually describe knowledge of reality. If you're interested in the topics above, you'll love this podcast. 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 SUPPORT: - Support me on Substack: https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/subscribe - 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 JOIN MY SUBSTACK (Personal Writings): https://curtjaimungal.substack.com LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/4gL14b92xAErofYQA7bU4e TIMESTAMPS: - 00:00:00 - Defining Quantum Innovation - 00:06:40 - Realism vs. Empiricism - 00:12:12 - Leibnizian Methodological Principle - 00:23:40 - Causal Explanations of Correlations - 00:30:24 - Epistemic Quantum States - 00:41:00 - Foil Theory Methodology - 00:54:00 - Causal Influence vs. Signaling - 01:07:27 - Thermodynamics and Ignorance - 01:15:00 - Conceptual Understanding in Physics - 01:21:00 - Philosophy of Physics Utility - 01:30:00 - Speckins' Toy Theory Origins - 01:40:13 - Perimeter Institute's Ambitious DNA - 01:52:00 - PBR Theorem Implications - 02:05:40 - Ontic Separability Assumptions - 02:17:40 - Hieroglyphs and Category Mistakes - 02:29:00 - Revolutionizing Modern Physics - 02:37:20 - Unscrambling Causation and Inference LINKS MENTIONED: Journals, papers, books: - https://www.rwspekkens.com - https://pirsa.org/speaker/Robert-Spekkens - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.01122 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0401052 - https://arxiv.org/abs/0706.2661 - https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0406166 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2207.11779 - https://amazon.com/dp/1108066488?tag=toe08-20 - https://www.jstor.org/stable/687269 - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/ - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/identity-indiscernible/ - https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf - https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spacetime-holearg/ - https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/mathematics/hidden-variable-theory - https://www.nature.com/articles/299802a0 - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2011.01286 - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02058098 - https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.07161 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/engineering/maxwells-equation - https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/equivalence_principle/ - https://perimeterinstitute.ca/ - https://amazon.com/dp/9810241054?tag=toe08-20 - https://journals.aps.org/pr/pdf/10.1103/PhysRev.47.777 - https://arxiv.org/abs/1111.3328 - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/rosetta-stone-hieroglyphs-champollion-decipherment-egypt-180980834/ - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160932707000282 Videos: - https://youtu.be/gEK4-XtMwro - https://youtu.be/YWbjI-QsH2E - https://youtu.be/fU1bs5o3nss - https://youtu.be/NKOd8imBa2s - https://youtu.be/6I2OhmVWLMs - https://youtu.be/Tghl6aS5A3M - https://youtu.be/HIoviZe14pY - https://youtu.be/bprxrGaf0Os - https://youtu.be/4MjNuJK5RzM - https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s - https://youtu.be/9AoRxtYZrZo - https://youtu.be/uOKOodQXjhc - https://youtu.be/3mhctWlXyV8 - https://youtu.be/gsSJPLX-BTA - https://youtu.be/FFW14zSYiFY - https://youtu.be/HhWWlJFwTqs Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

We're going to talk about the Epstein Files, and what may be the new sex trafficking elite club of rapists... So stay tuned for Monday's Gaslit Nation Salon at 4pm ET. Oh, and Andrea ran into another fascist in New York City. That's two in one week! In this clip from last week's salon, she shares the story of living Dorothy Thompson's 1941 essay, "Who Goes Nazi?" The full recording is available on Patreon.com/Gaslit along with the link to join us this Monday. Agonize then organize and socialize. The news cycle is designed to exhaust you, but you don't have to face the autocracy alone. We built a resilience community for truth-tellers, and we want you in it.  Join us today at 4pm ET for our Gaslit Nation Salon, a space to strategize, vent, and connect with a community of listeners just as horrified as you. Find the link to join us by Zoom, wherever you are, at Patreon.com/Gaslit. Thank you to everyone who supports the show -- we could not make Gaslit Nation without you!  Photo image from The Economist. It features fascist art used by the Trump administration to promote recruitment for their tax-payer funded ethnic cleansing through the Department of Homeland Security: https://www.economist.com/insider/the-insider/the-ice-test-how-the-killing-of-two-citizens-in-minneapolis-will-shape-american-democracy

oday on the show, federal immigration raids and the killing of two civilians in Minneapolis have many around the world wondering what exactly is happening in the United States. Fareed speaks with Zanny Minton Beddoes, The Economist's editor-in-chief, and Christopher Caldwell, conservative author and New York Times contributing opinion writer, about the global reaction to Trump 2.0. GUESTS: Zanny Minton Beddoes (@zannymb); Christopher Caldwell; Christopher Johnson; Meredith Whittaker (@mer__edith); Daniel Skovronsky Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Can AI do my job? How should employees and bosses be using the technology right now? And how should all of us prepare for the future?Andrew Palmer returns for a third season of Boss Class. This time it's all about AI. In the first episode, he starts introducing AI into his daily work routines, and receives a nasty shock.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.In this episode, Andrew asks Claude, a generative AI programme, to write his management column for him. You can find Andrew's column here and Claude's version here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Can AI do my job? How should employees and bosses be using the technology right now? And how should all of us prepare for the future?Andrew Palmer returns for a third season of Boss Class. This time it's all about AI. In the first episode, he starts introducing AI into his daily work routines, and receives a nasty shock.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.In this episode, Andrew asks Claude, a generative AI programme, to write his management column for him. You can find Andrew's column here and Claude's version here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Guest: Padraic Scanlan. Scanlan explains the Victorian view of the famine through the lens of economist Thomas Malthus, who believed the "generous" potato encouraged overpopulation. He notes that British policymakers viewed the famine as a natural, inevitable correction and feared that providing aid would discourage the Irish poor from developing a "civilized" work ethic.

Reporter, Joe Caulfield speaks to an Iranian woman living in Dublin about finally making contact with her brother there. Gregg Carlstrom, Middle East Correspondent with The Economist, discusses rising tensions in the Middle East between the US and Iran.

How should employees and bosses be using the technology right now? And how should all of us prepare for the future?Andrew Palmer returns for a third season of Boss Class. This time it's all about AI. In the first episode, he starts introducing AI into his daily work routines, and receives a nasty shock.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.If you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.In this episode, Andrew asks Claude, a generative AI programme, to write his management column for him. You can find Andrew's column here and Claude's version here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

A conversation about the potential and limits of AI agents with the co-founder of Sierra, an agentic customer-service company. Bret Taylor, who is also the chairman of OpenAI, tells Andrew Palmer about the imperfections of the technology, the competition between model-makers and vendors, and how he uses AI to manage.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. If you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account.This episode is also available to watch on The Economist's YouTube channel. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Willy was joined once again by Dr. Peter Linneman for The Most Insightful Hour in CRE, from the stage at IREI's VIP Americas Conference.   Together, they unpacked the forces shaping today's market, including employment trends, inflation, rent growth, housing affordability and supply, AI's impact on jobs, and Peter's predictions for rate cuts, oil prices, tariffs, and more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Something New!  For HR teams who discuss this podcast in their team meetings, we've created a discussion starter PDF to help guide your conversation. Download it here https://goodmorninghr.com/EP237  In episode 237, Coffey and DeDe Church discuss recent news items about how shifting economic conditions, technology, and leadership gaps are reshaping the employment landscape.  They discuss the realities of a “low-hire, low-fire” labor market; dehumanizing hiring processes and AI-driven recruiting tools; challenges facing early-career workers and liberal arts graduates; emerging roles created by artificial intelligence; the growing importance of soft skills like problem solving and communication; workforce restructuring, layoffs, and job hugging; employee disengagement and the great detachment; why strong frontline workers often struggle as supervisors; the risks of promoting without leadership training; transparency, feedback, and promotion decisions; and how kindness, accountability, and continuous feedback drive engagement.  Good Morning, HR is brought to you by Imperative—Bulletproof Background Checks. For more information about our commitment to quality and excellent customer service, visit us at https://imperativeinfo.com.   If you are an HRCI or SHRM-certified professional, this episode of Good Morning, HR has been pre-approved for three quarters of a recertification credit. To obtain the recertification information for this episode, visit https://goodmorninghr.com.   Media mentioned in this podcast:  From AI bubble fears to the job market's ‘Great Freeze': Economists answer your biggest questions about 2026  Private-Sector Hiring Turned Positive in December After November Losses   Private Hiring Sank in November, ADP Says  US Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook: Fastest Growing Occupations  The 2026 Job Market Outlook: Where the Jobs Are  Economists Are Studying the Slowing Job Market—and Feeling It Themselves  When Good Frontline Workers Make Bad Supervisors  Is Your Leadership Style Too Nice? The Friendship Recession: The Lost Art of Connecting Use Situation-Behavior-Impact (SBI)™ to Understand Intent  About our Guest:  DeDe Church is an attorney, employee relations counselor, workplace and University investigator, and nationally recognized trainer with more than 30 years of experience. She has trained thousands of employees and managers on how to create a productive, respectful culture for clients ranging from Fortune 50 companies to her favorite local pizza shop. Known for her humor and practicality, DeDe is often invited and then re-invited to deliver her high-energy workshops at distinguished conferences and to create videos for employee onboarding and annual training.  As an expert investigator, DeDe relies upon a depth of knowledge to find the facts without causing unnecessary disturbances. Witnesses often say they feel at ease when talking with her because of her approachable nature. In addition, DeDe is often retained to review investigation procedures and to train in-house HR and University professionals on investigation best practices. In recognition of her skills, DeDe has been retained to testify as an expert witness in employment cases more than 20 times by organizations including Uber, BP, and MD Anderson Cancer Center.  DeDe is a former Senior Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas in the Civil Rights/General Litigation Division. During almost seven years there, she advised dozens of state agencies on the proper response to employee complaints, represented the State in over 30 trials involving discrimination in the workplace, and successfully argued before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Texas Supreme Court. DeDe received the prestigious Presidential Citation from the President of the Texas State Bar in recognition of outstanding service to the citizens of Texas. Her Bachelor of Arts degree is from Louisiana State University, magna cum laude, and she received a Doctorate of Jurisprudence with Honors from the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill, North Carolina.  DeDe Church can be reached at www.dedechurch.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/dede-wilburn-church-a71b748/  About Mike Coffey:  Mike Coffey is an entrepreneur, licensed private investigator, business strategist, HR consultant, and registered yoga teacher. In 1999, he founded Imperative, a background investigations and due diligence firm helping risk-averse clients make well-informed decisions about the people they involve in their business. Imperative delivers in-depth employment background investigations, know-your-customer and anti-money laundering compliance, and due diligence investigations to more than 300 risk-averse corporate clients across the US, and, through its PFC Caregiver & Household Screening brand, many more private estates, family offices, and personal service agencies. Imperative has been named a Best Places to Work, the Texas Association of Business' small business of the year, and is accredited by the Professional Background Screening Association.  Mike shares his insight from 25+ years of HR-entrepreneurship on the Good Morning, HR podcast, where each week he talks to business leaders about bringing people together to create value for customers, shareholders, and community. Mike has been rec...

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

Bob Murphy is a Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute and Chief Economist at Infineon. In this conversation, we discuss Federal Reserve policy, tariffs, and what's really happening in the U.S. economy. We break down the housing market, inflation, and what it all means for your wallet—plus Bob's Austrian economics perspective on gold, bitcoin, and the road ahead.=======================BitcoinIRA: Buy, sell, and swap 80+ cryptocurrencies in your retirement account. Take 3 minutes to open your account & get connected to a team of IRA specialists that will guide you through every step of the process. Go to https://bitcoinira.com/pomp/ to earn up to $1,000 in rewards.=======================As markets shift, headlines break, and interest rates swing, one thing stays true — opportunity is everywhere. At Arch Public, we help you do more than just buy and hold. Yes, our dynamic accumulation algorithms are built for long-term investors… but where we really shine? Our arbitrage algos — designed to farm volatility and turbocharge your core positions. The best part of Arch Public's products is they are free! Yes, you heard that right, try Arch Public for free! Take advantage of wild moves in assets like $SOL, $SUI, and $DOGE, and use them to stack more Bitcoin — completely hands-free. Arch Public is already a preferred partner with Coinbase, Kraken, Gemini, and Robinhood, and our team is here to help you build smarter in any market. Visit Arch Public today, at https://www.archpublic.com, your portfolio will thank you.=======================0:00 – Intro1:52 – Why gold has outperformed bitcoin5:06 – Fed vs White House: power, politics, & “independence”17:03 – Tariffs, trade deficits, & inflation outlook22:06 – Stablecoins: why they matter & key risks28:34 – Economic data: what to trust?

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

To make good creative work, you'll inevitably do a lot of bad work along the way. So building a thriving creative practice relies on showing up and doing the work consistently, whether you feel inspired or not. And we can get trapped into thinking that if only we had the perfect space, or the best pen, or right notebook, it would all be easier. This is a preview of a premium episode. To listen to the full interview, visit: https://designbetterpodcast.com/p/austin-kleon But our guest today, Austin Kleon, has built a remarkable creative practice around a deceptively simple toolkit: index cards, newspapers, scissors, and glue. He's the bestselling author of Steal Like an Artist, Show Your Work, Keep Going, and Don't Call it Art. What makes Austin's approach so valuable is how he's translated these ideas into a sustainable daily practice that's lasted over a decade. In our conversation, Austin shares why he starts every day writing in his diary before he picks up the phone, how constraints (time, space and materials) actually unlock creativity rather than limiting it, and why the path to doing your best digital work might start with picking up a pen. If you've ever struggled to maintain a creative practice, felt overwhelmed by tools and options, or wondered how to keep going when the work feels hard, this episode is for you. Bio Austin Kleon is the New York Times bestselling author of a trilogy of illustrated books about creativity in the digital age: Steal Like An Artist, Show Your Work!, and Keep Going. He's also the author of Newspaper Blackout, a collection of poems made by redacting the newspaper with a permanent marker. His books have sold over two million copies and have been translated into over 30 languages. He's been featured on NPR's Morning Edition, PBS Newshour, and in The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. New York Magazine called his work “brilliant,” The Atlantic called him “positively one of the most interesting people on the Internet,” and The New Yorker said his poems “resurrect the newspaper when everybody else is declaring it dead.” He speaks for organizations such as Pixar, Google, Netflix, SXSW, TEDx, Dropbox, Adobe, and The Economist. In previous lives, he worked as a librarian, a web designer, and an advertising copywriter. He lives in Austin, Texas, with his wife and sons. Visit him online at www.austinkleon.com

Freestyle skiers Marielle Thompson and Mikaël Kingsbury are Team Canada's flag bearers for the 2026 Milano-Cortina Olympic Games. Economists expect latest Bank of Canada interest rate to hold at 2.25%. Minnesota Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar attacked during town hall, as tensions over ICE operations remain high. Ecuador's Foreign Ministry says ICE agents tried to enter the country's consulate in Minneapolis. A lot of talk about Canadian Unity but some divided meetings with Prime Minister Mark Carney as the country's Premiers gather in Ottawa. Police say it will be harder to solve cold cases after Ancestry.com bans law enforcement from using its services without a court order. 55th Annual JUNO Awards add new category: Latin Music Recording of the Year.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

It's Tuesday, January 27th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Iran Int'l News reports 36,500 protestors killed by Islamic regime As The Worldview reported yesterday, the latest report of the death count for the recent Iranian protests is now at 36,500, according to Iran International News.   (audio of Iranian officials shooting unarmed protestors) This information reportedly comes from Interior Ministry documents. The government carried out 4,000 clashes at various locations around the country over a two-day period earlier in the month. Iran's Health Ministry also revealed that the hospitals in the country performed 13,000 surgeries following the protests. Iran's internet blackout is going into its 19th day today.  Iran International also reports that government officials are still carrying out “extrajudicial killings, deaths under torture, and the systematic mistreatment of detainees and their families.” Several of our sources have reported multiple Christians killed in the conflict.  Communist Chinese president purged military generals China's President and Communist Party General Secretary Xi Jinping has completed his purge of military generals, beginning with top brass Zhang Youxia and at least 17 other generals, reports NTDTV.com. The Economist called this “the largest political purge of the military's top ranks since Mao Zedong's death in 1976.” Assaults on ICE officers increased by 1,300% in 2025 over 2024 Public protests are increasing in the United States. Last year, the Crowd Counting Consortium counted 10,700 protests in the U.S. That's a 133% increase over 2024. So far this month, there have been 628 protests, the largest of which have centered in Minnesota, Illinois, and California. Disturbingly, the protests have increased in violence. The Department of Homeland Security recently reported a 1,300% increase in assaults against I.C.E. officers in 2025 (over the previous year), and a 3,200% increase in vehicular attacks. Rest assured, where human justice may fail, Ecclesiastes 12:14 assures us that “God shall bring every work into judgment, including every secret thing, whether it be good or whether it be evil.” Shooting death of Minneapolis man sparks gun control debate The January 24th fatal shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by law enforcement has sparked a debate on gun control. Apparently, the protester was armed at the time of his encounter with the I.C.E. agent. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli took to X, commenting that, "If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you."  However, the pro-gun group, the National Rifle Association, said, "Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.” Plus, Gun Owners for America noted, "The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting ‒ a right the federal government must not infringe upon." GOP Rep. Thomas Massie and Barack Obama weigh in on ICE killing GOP U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky also jumped into the fray. He said, ”Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence;  it's a Constitutionally-protected, God-given right. And, if you don't understand this, you have no business in law enforcement or government." No comment from the liberal media on Mr. Pretti's choice to carry a gun to the protest. Then, former President Barack Obama took to X on Sunday to encourage the American public to “support and draw inspiration from” what he calls “the peaceful protests in Minneapolis.” Satan worshippers thank Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz Speaking of Minnesota, Republican State Representative Pam Altendorf revealed on video a disturbing display recognizing Satan in the state Capitol. ALTENDORF: “As I was leaving my committee meeting today here earlier, I noticed that there is a new display here at the State Capitol, and it's for Governor [Tim] Walz.” The inscription says, “The Democratic Coalition of Satan Worshippers thanks Gov. Tim Walz for not standing in the way of spreading Satanism in the state Capitol building.” Rep. Altendorf concluded with this. ALTENDORF: “Yes, everyone, this is true. I am live, not making this up. You can't make this up. (laughs) I don't know why a governor of a state would want this plaque, but there it is. “The Satan worshipers have thanked Governor Tim Walz, and let me repeat this.  The last line says, ‘Satan has a special place for you.' I'm speechless.” In Exodus 20:3, God revealed to Moses atop Mt. Sinai, “You shall have no other gods before Me.” Charismatic leader accused of “fabricated” prophecies and sexual sin The charismatic church is taking more hits from reports concerning alleged scandalous activities of a homosexual nature. Shawn Bolz was platformed by Bethel over a period of ten years.  Bethel leadership now admits to have continued platforming Bolz despite their knowing of his “fabricated” prophecies and alleged sexual sin, reports CBN News. Multiple Christian news organizations have headlined this new revelation in an ongoing series of scandals in the evangelical/charismatic church involving Bill Hybels, Carl Lentz, Mike Bickel, Brian Houston, T.D. Jakes, Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, and Jimmy Swaggart.  The deluge of scandals has taken its toll on the nation. Public trust in pastors here is now the lowest in recorded history. According to Lifeway Research, only 27% of Americans say they have a high trust in pastors, down from an average of 56% between 2000 and 2009. Here's a reminder from 1 Corinthians 11:31 and 32. “If we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged.  But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.” Gold and silver prices soar Gold and silver prices continue to soar. Now, $5,100 per ounce for gold, up from $2,600 just a year ago, reports Reuters. And silver today is $110 per pounce, up from $30 a year ago. 36 states consider anti-transgender bills And finally, at last count, 36 state governments are floating 366 bills which would put the brakes on the advance of “transgender rights,” limit the public display of drag queens, and allow religious exemptions for churches, schools, and businesses that are morally opposed to homosexuality and transgenderism. Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, January 27th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

En la emisión de este lunes de “Me lo dijo Adela”, Kim Armengol analiza los temas más importantes de la agenda nacional e internacional, con entrevistas y mesas de discusión que incluyen al doctor Carlos Heredia sobre el artículo “Power on Paper” de The Economist, el especialista en seguridad Carlos Matienzo sobre la masacre en Salamanca, Guanajuato, y la participación de Damián Zepeda, Arturo Ávila y Juan Zavala comentando violencia, política y encuestas de seguridad. Además, el actor Edgar Ramírez presenta la película “Aún es de noche en Caracas”, que retrata la crisis en Venezuela, mientras la emisión ofrece información deportiva y reportajes de investigación desde Sinaloa y Guanajuato sobre crimen organizado y violencia. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one. The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI. Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one. The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI. Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen to the full series, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+. https://subscribenow.economist.com/podcasts-plusIf you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.If you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

In the second of their two-part roundtable, Seth Carpenter and Morgan Stanley's top economists break down the forces influencing growth across different regions.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And yesterday I sat down with my colleagues, Michael Gapen, our Chief U.S. Economist, Chetan Ahya, our Chief Asia Economist, and Jen Eisenschmidt, our Chief Europe Economist. And we spent a lot of time talking about monetary policy around the world. Today, let's go back to them, talk about the real side of the economy. It's Friday, January 23rd at 10am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: Michael, let me start with you, back on the U.S. And when I think about the U.S. economy, we have to start by talking about the U.S. consumer. Walk us through what investors need to understand about consumer spending in the U.S. What's driving it, what's going to hold it up, and where are the risks? Michael Gapen: I think the primary thing to remember here is that the upper income consumer drives about 40 percent or more of total spending. So, there can be higher inflation that eats into real labor market income growth. There can be inflation dispersion, which hits lower income households more than upper income households. We can have tariffs that get applied to goods and lower- and middle-income households buy goods more than upper income households. But when asset markets continue to appreciate, when home prices hold on to their prior gains, sometimes that doesn't matter in the aggregate statistics because that upper income household keeps spending.I do think that's a lot of what happened in 2025. So, there is a K-shaped economy. I think one of the main risks about the U.S. is that its expansion is narrowly driven. We think that will broaden out in 2026. If we're right, that inflation comes down and we're past, kind of, the peak effect of tariffs, then we think that lower- and middle-income household can have a little more residual spending power. And you might get the consumer operating on two fronts, rather than one. Seth Carpenter: Another part of domestic spending that gets a lot of attention is business investment spending, CapEx spending. First would you agree with that statement that CapEx spending last year was characterized by AI CapEx spending? Second, should we feel confident that that underlying sort of momentum in CapEx spending should continue for this year? And then third, what's it going to take for there to be a broadening out, maybe like what you said about consumers, but a broadening out of investment spending so that it's not just the AI story that's driving CapEx. Michael Gapen: I do agree that the primary, almost exclusive story in 2025 for business spending was AI. So, when you look at residential and non-residential spending, unrelated to AI, that I think did feel the effects of policy uncertainty in a changing environment. what keeps kind of sustainability around business spending? Obviously, it's a multi-year investment story around AI. There's a level versus growth rate argument here where you can have a heck of a lot of CapEx spending. May not always show up in GDP because some of it is intermediate goods, some of it is imported. But that doesn't diminish, I think, the quality of the overall story. What gets business spending to broaden out, I do think is related to whether consumer spending broadens out. Most business spending kind of follows demand with a lag. So, AI is a different story, but there's a cyclical component to business spending. There could be a housing related component, if mortgage rates come down and stimulate at least a little more turnover in the housing market. So, if the recovery does broaden out, we see greater real income growth in low- and middle-income households. The labor market stabilizes. Maybe mortgage rates come down a little bit, then I think you could get carry through momentum to non-AI related business spending. That would look more like a cyclical upswing for the economy. May be a heavy lift, but that's what I think it would take to get there. Seth Carpenter: So, Jens, let me come to you. We talked yesterday about the ECB possibly easing more on disinflation. But when I think of disinflation, I think of a weak economy. And that's maybe not really the case. So, I guess the first question to you would you characterize euro area economic growth as strong, or a little bit more complicated? Jens Eisenschmidt: A little bit more complicated. And that's always the right answer for an economist – I think it depends. Well, it is strong in some quarters. And these quarters will change from where it has been in the past.So concretely, we think the German economy has most potential to catch up and actually accelerate, and that's due to fiscal stimulus mainly. While we have other quarters, the French and the Italian one, which will be below potential and so weak – each of them for their own reason. And then we have the Spanish economy, which performs exceptionally and is really strong, but it's only a small part of the euro area economy. If we had everything together, I think the outlook is an economy that's accelerating mildly and only towards the end of our projection horizon, which is [20]27. So, in say two years, hits growth rates that are above potential. Here we are really talking about quarterly increments above 0.3. So, we are currently between 0.1 and 0.2. So, you sort of get the picture of a mildly accelerating economy that goes from 0.15 to 0.035 say in the span of two years. Seth Carpenter: One of the key narratives in markets is about fiscal policy in Germany, potentially driving growth. I know in equity markets it's been a key investing theme. So how excited should people be about the possibility of fiscal policy in Germany driving a resilient European economy? Jens Eisenschmidt: Pretty excited, I would say, in a sense that the positioning of the German government for its economy is actually exceptional in terms of the amount of fiscal space that exists and that has been made available. It's just that, of course, the connection of that sort of abstract excitement that we economists have to what actually happens in markets is sometimes a little bit loose; in the sense that equity [markets would like to see everything coming online tomorrow, and that's going to be a more drawn-out process. So, to my point before, it will take some time. We do have implementation lags. We do have lags in say, for instance, on defense procurement. There is maybe not as much capacity in the economy to deliver into everything. But the direction of travel is clear and up. So, from that perspective, I have no doubts that the future is better for the German economy over the medium term for all the reasons mentioned, but it won't be immediate. And we have just seen in recent headlines, Germany is the most trade exposed European economy. If we get more friction in global trade, that's not great. So, you could even have short term, more negative news on GDP than positive ones. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to turn to you. Yesterday when we talked about Asia, we focused on Japan. But, of course, when it comes to the real side of the economy, the big mover in Asia is China.So, let's talk a little bit about how you see China evolving. What the key themes are for China. Last year in particular, we talked a lot about the deflationary cycle in China and how it was protracted. It wasn't going away. That policy was not sufficient to drive a huge surge in demand to push things away. Are we in the same place for China in 2026? What kind of growth should we expect and what sort of policy reactions should we be expecting from China? Chetan Ahya: Well, I think the macro backdrop for China we think will still be challenging in 2026. But at the same time, we expect the micro positives to continue. Now on the macro backdrop, when I say it's going to remain challenging because the number one issue that we are focused on from a macro perspective in China is deflation. Now we do expect some easing of deflationary pressures, but [the] economy will still stay in deflation in 2026. And on the micro front what we've seen is that China is emerging from a situation where it is making inroads into advanced manufacturing, and that's enabling it to increase market share in global goods exports. And it's also one of the reasons why when you see the numbers coming out from China on exports, they seem to be outperforming. Even just the latest month number as we saw, China's exports were surprising on the upside relative to market expectations. And that's the micro story – that you'll see China continuing to gain market share in global goods export. And that supports the corporate micro positive story. Seth Carpenter: We know collectively that export is a key part of China's economy. The productive capacity, as you point out, important for China. When you think about exports from China, the currency has to come in. And recently the renminbi has been appreciating. Lots of questions from clients here or there. How important is the renminbi in reflating or rebalancing the China economy? Can you walk us through a little bit some of these considerations about the role that the currency is playing now and over the next few quarters for China and its economic outlook. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, that's right, Seth. Actually, I've been getting a number of clients calling me and asking whether PBOC is going to allow a significant appreciation in RNB. We've seen it appreciate quite a lot in the last few days. And then whether this will mean China's economy will rebalance faster towards consumption. Look, on the first point, we don't think PBOC will allow a significant currency appreciation because, as I just mentioned earlier, the deflation problem is still there. It's not gone. While we see reduced deflationary pressures, as long as the economy is in deflation, it'll be very difficult for PBOC to allow significant currency appreciation. And what we are also watching on RMB is to see what is happening to the trade weighted RMB. The RMB basket, if you were to call it. That interestingly has been in a stable range since 2016, and we don't think that changes. We've learned from Japan's experience in the nineties that if you have deflation problem, you shouldn't be taking up currency appreciation. And we think PBOC pretty much follows that rule book. On the rebalancing part, look, I think when you have deflation and if currency appreciation is going to add to deflation pressures, that will mean corporate sector revenue suffers. They will actually be cutting wage growth and therefore that has a negative impact on consumption. And so, in our view, instead of helping rebalancing currency appreciation with China's current macro backdrop, we'll actually be making rebalancing more difficult. Seth Carpenter: And of course, we're used to China being a key driver of the economy, not just in Asia, but around the world. But if we think about then broadening out from China, what should we be expecting in terms of growth for the other economies in Asia? Chetan Ahya: For the other economies in the region, I think the most important driver will be what happens to exports more broadly. In 2025, Asia did benefit from better tech exports, but because of tariffs and also what was happening in the U.S. in terms of its own domestic demand, we'd seen that there was significant weakness in non-tech exports. So, from an outlook perspective in 2026, we think that that non-tech export story turns around and that will help the recovery in the region to broaden out from it just being tech exports to non-tech exports, to improvement in CapEx, job growth and consumption. So, I think that the whole region is going to see the benefit from this turnaround. But particularly the non-China part of the region will be seeing a meaningful improvement in their export growth, real GDP growth and normal GDP growth in 2026. Seth Carpenter: I'm getting ready to wrap things up. But before I do, I'm going to ask each of the three of you, one last rapid-fire question. Michael, I'm going to start with you. AI is on everyone's lips. If we were to see a rapid adoption of AI technology across all the economies. What would it mean for the Fed? Michael Gapen: Well, I think that would mean a substantial uptick in productivity growth. Maybe closer to 3 percent like we saw in the tech boom in the nineties. So faster real growth. But probably still disinflation. You can argue the Fed could even lower rates in that environment. It may take them a while to figure it out [be]cause they'd be balancing incoming data that shows a lot of strong growth. But probably further evidence that inflation's coming down. So, if it's supply side driven, then I think you could still probably get some rate cuts out of the Fed to normalize policy as inflation comes down. But I'd be thinking those cuts could even come much later. Seth Carpenter: Okay, Jens to you, a lot of discussion in the news about possible additional tariffs from the U.S. on Europe in some of the negotiations. Suppose some of the announcements, 10 percent tariffs rising to 25 percent tariffs later. Suppose those were actually put in place. What does that mean for European growth? Jens Eisenschmidt: So, I would say 10 percent additional tariffs, we have a framework for that. Pointing to drag on GDP growth somewhere between 30 and 60 basis points. So roughly half of what we think 2026 will bring in growth. Now, for sure the answer is additional tariffs are not great for growth. Big question mark here is though whether we get any retaliation from the European side, which we think this time around if we get additional tariffs from the U.S. side is more likely. And that would just increase the downside risk for Europe here from that additional round of trade or tariff uncertainty. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, I'm going to end up with you. When we think about China, when we think about policy, what do you think it would take for there to be a fundamental shift in policy out of Beijing to get a real full blown, demand driven fiscal stimulus? Or is that just not in the cards whatsoever? Chetan Ahya: Well, in our base case, we don't think that's likely to happen in our forecast horizon. But if we do get a big social stability challenge emerging in China, then we could get that big pivot from [a] policy response perspective, where policy makers move towards consumption. And our recommendation there is to boost social welfare spending, particularly targeted towards migrant workers, which could be taken up if you get that social stability risk event materializing. Seth Carpenter: Mike, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And for the listener, thank you for joining us. If you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

AI is changing how we work. It's turning us all into managers. Be a good one.The Economist's management columnist, Andrew Palmer, takes on the bots in the third season of Boss Class. From cloning to coding, agents to entry-level jobs, he tackles the threat head on and figures out how to turn anxiety into opportunity. Along the way he meets bulls and bears and the people who can help you to master management in the age of AI.Full Season 3 out 29th January 2026.To listen, subscribe to Economist Podcasts+.If you're already a subscriber to The Economist, you have full access to all our shows as part of your subscription. 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.

Our Global Chief Economist Seth Carpenter joins our chief regional economists to discuss the outlook for interest rates in the U.S., Japan and Europe.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Seth Carpenter: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Seth Carpenter, Morgan Stanley's Global Chief Economist and Head of Macro Research. And today we're kicking off our quarterly economic roundtable for the year. We're going to try to think about everything that matters in economics around the world. And today we're going to focus a little bit more on central banking. And when we get to tomorrow, we'll focus on the nuts and bolts of the real side of the economy. I'm joined by our chief regional economists. Michael Gapen: Hi, Seth. I'm Mike Gapen, Chief U.S. Economist at Morgan Stanley. Chetan Ahya: I'm Chetan Ahya, Chief Asia economist. Jens Eisenschmidt: And I'm Jens Eisenschmidt, Chief Europe economist. Seth Carpenter: It's Thursday, January 22nd at 10 am in New York. Jens Eisenschmidt: And 4 pm in Frankfurt. Chetan Ahya: And 9 pm in Hong Kong. Seth Carpenter: So, Mike Gapen, let me start with you as we head into 2026, what are we thinking about? Are we going into a more stable expansion? Is this just a different phase with the same amount of volatility? What do you think is going to be happening in the U.S. as a baseline outlook? And then if we're going to be wrong, which direction would we be wrong? Michael Gapen: Yeah, Seth, we took the view that we would have more policy certainty. Recent weeks have maybe suggested we're incorrect on that front. But I still believe that when it comes to deregulation, immigration policy and fiscal policy, we have much more clarity there than we did a year ago. So, I think it's another year of modest growth, above trend growth. We're forecasting something around 2.4 percent for 2026. That's about where we finished 2025. I think what's key for markets and the outlook overall will be whether inflation comes down. Firms are still passing through tariffs to the consumer. We think that'll happen at least through the end of the first quarter. It's our view that after that, inflation pressures will start to diminish. If that's the case, then we think the Fed can execute one or two more rate cuts. But we have those coming [in] the second half of the year. So, it looks like growth is strong enough. The labor market has stabilized enough for the Fed to wait and see, to look around, see the effects of their prior rate cuts, and then push policy closer to neutral if inflation comes down. Seth Carpenter: And if we go back to last year to 2025, I will give you the credit first. Morgan Stanley did not shift its forecast for recession in the U.S. the way some of our main competitors did. On the other hand, and this is where I maybe tweak you just a little bit. We underestimated how much growth there would be in the United States. CapEx spending from AI firms was strong. Consumer spending, especially from the top half of the income distribution in the U.S. was strong. Growth overall for the year was over 2 percent, close to 2.5 percent. So, if that's what we just came off of, why isn't it the case that we'd see even stronger growth? Maybe even a re-acceleration of growth in 2026? Michael Gapen: Well, some of that, say, improvement vis-à-vis our forecast, the outperformance. Some of that I think comes mechanically from trade and inventory variability. So, . I'm not sure that that says a lot about an improving trend rate of growth. Where there was other outperformance was, as you noted, from the consumer. Now our models, and I don't mean to get too technical here, but our model suggests that consumption is overshooting its fundamentals. Which I think makes it harder for the economy to accelerate further. And then AI; it's harder for AI spending to say get incrementally stronger than where it is. So, we're getting a little extra boost from fiscal. We've got that coming through. And I just think what it is, is more of the same rather than further acceleration from here. Seth Carpenter: Do you think there's a chance that the Fed in fact does not cut rates like you have in your forecast? Michael Gapen: Yes, I do think... Where we could be wrong is we've made assumptions around the One Big Beautiful Bill and what it will contribute to the economy. But as you know, there's a lot of variability around those estimates. If the bill is more catalytic to animal spirits and business spending than we've assumed, you could get, say, a demand driven animal spirits upside to the economy, which may mean inflation doesn't decelerate all that much. But I do think that that's, say, the main upside risk that we're considering. Markets have been gradually taking out probabilities of Fed cuts as growth has come in stronger. So far, the inflation data has been positive in terms of signaling about disinflation, but I would say the jury's still out on how much that continues. Seth Carpenter: Chetan, When I think about Japan, we know that it's been the developed market central bank that's been going in the opposite direction. They've been hiking when other central banks have been cutting. We got some news recently that probably put some risk into our baseline outlook that we published in our year ahead view about both growth and inflation in Japan. And with it what the Bank of Japan is going to do in terms of its normalization. Can you just walk us through a little bit about our outlook for Japan? Because right now I think that the yen, Japanese rates, they're all part of the ongoing market narrative around the world. Chetan Ahya: Yeah, Seth. So, look, I mean, on a big picture basis, we are constructive on the Japan macro-outlook. We think normal GDP growth remains strong. We are expecting to see the transition for the consumers from them seeing, you know, supply side inflation. Keeping their real wage growth low to a dynamic where we transition to real wage growth accelerating. That supports real consumption growth, and we move away from that supply side driven inflation to demand side driven inflation. So broadly we are constructive, but I think in the backdrop, what we are seeing on currency depreciation is making things a bit more challenging for the BOJ. While we are expecting that demand side pressure to build up and drive inflation, in the trailing data, it is still pretty much currency depreciation and supply side factors like food inflation driving inflation. And so, BOJ has been hesitant. So, while we had the expectation that BOJ will hike in January of 2027, we do see the risk that they may have to take up rate hike earlier to manage the currency not getting out of hand and adding on to the inflation pressures. Seth Carpenter Would I be right in saying that up until now, the yen has swung pretty widely in both directions. But the weakening of the yen until now hasn't been really the key driver of the Bank of Japan's policy reaction. It's been growth picking up, inflation picking up, wanting to get out of negative interest rates first, wanting to get away from the zero lower bounds. Second, the weaker yen in some sense could have actually been seen as a positive up until now because Japan did go through 25 years of essentially stagnant nominal growth. Is this actually that much of a fundamental change in the Bank of Japan's thinking – needing to react to the weakness of the yen? Chetan Ahya: Broadly what you're saying is right, Seth, but there is also a threshold of where the currency can be. And beyond a point, it begins to hurt the households in form of imported inflation pressures. And remember that inflation has been somewhat high, even if it is driven by currency depreciation and supply side factors for some time. And so, BOJ has to be watchful of potential lift in inflation expectations for the households. And at the same time, they are also watching the underlying inflation impact of this currency depreciation – because what we have seen is that over period workers have been demanding for higher wages. And that is also influenced by what happens to headline inflation, which is driven by currency depreciation. So, I would say that, yes, it's been true up until now. But, when currency reaches these very high levels of range, you are going to see BOJ having to act. Seth Carpenter: Jens, let's shift then to Europe. The ECB had been on a cutting cycle. They came to the end of that. President Lagarde said that she thought the disinflationary process had ended. In your year ahead forecast and a bunch of your writing recently, you've said maybe not so fast. There could still be some more disinflationary, at least risk, in the pipeline for Europe. Can you talk a little bit about what's going on in terms of European inflation and what it could mean for the European Central Bank? Because clearly that's going to be first order important for markets.Jens Eisenschmidt: I think that is right. I think we have a crucial inflation print ahead of us that comes out on the 4th of February. So, early February we get some signal, whether our anticipated fall of headline inflation here below the ECB's target is actually materializing. We think the chances for this are pretty good. There's a mix why this is happening. One is energy. Energy disinflation and base effects. But the other thing is services inflation resets always at the beginning of the year. January and February are the crucial month here. We had significant services upward pressure on prices the last years. And so just from base effects, we think we will see less of that. Another picture or another element of that picture is that wage disinflation is proceeding nicely. We have notably a significant weakness in the export-oriented manufacturing sector in Germany, which is a key sector of setting wages for the country. The country is around 30 percent of the euro area GDP. And here we had seen significant wage gains over the last year. So, the disinflationary trend coming from lower wage gains from this country, that will be very important. And an important signal to watch. Again, that's something we don't know. I think soon we have to watch simply monthly prints here. But a significant print for the first quarter comes out in May, and all of that together makes us believe that the ECB will be in a position to see enough data or have seen enough data that confirms the thesis of inflation staying below target for some time to come. So that they can cut in June and September to a terminal rate of 1.5 percent. Seth Carpenter: That is, I would say, out of consensus relative where the market is. When you talk to investors, whether they're in Europe or around the world, what's the big pushback that you get from them when you are explaining your view on how the ECB is going to act? Jens Eisenschmidt: There are two essential pushbacks. So, one is on substance. So, 'No, actually wages will not come down, and the economy will actually start overheating soon because of the big fiscal stimulus.' That, in a nutshell is the pushback on substance. I would say here, as you would say before, not so fast. Because the fiscal stimulus is only in one country. It's 30 percent. But only 30 percent of the euro area.Plus, there is another pushback, which is on the reaction function of the ECB. Here we tend to agree. So far, we have heard from policy makers that they feel rather comfortable with the 2 percent rate level that they're at. But we think that discussion will change. The moment you are below target in an actual inflation print; the burden of proof is the opposite. Now you have to prove: Is the economy really on a track that inflation will get back up to target without further monetary stimulus? We believe that will be the key debate. And again, happy to, sort of, concede that there is for now not a lot of signaling out of the ECB that further rate cuts are coming. But we believe the first inflation print of the year will change that debate significantly. Seth Carpenter: Alright, so that makes a lot of sense. However, looking at the clock, we are probably out of time for today. So, for now, Michael, Chetan, Jens, thank you so much for joining today. And to the listener, thanks for listening. And be sure to tune in tomorrow for part two of our conversation. And I have to say, if you enjoy this show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or a colleague today.

Today, President Trump has wrapped up his second and final day at the World Economic Forum in Davos. The President held an inauguration for his new “Board of Peace” and met with Ukraine's President Zelensky - which Zelensky said included agreeing post-war security guarantees for his country. BBC chief North America correspondent Gary O'Donoghue and the Economist's Shashank Joshi break it all down. And the former Labour Minister Andrew Gwynne confirmed his plans to retire on medical grounds triggering a by-election that could pave the way for Andy Burnham to run and ultimately launch a leadership challenge against Keir Starmer. Political correspondent Joe Pike joins Adam to explain why polticos have been speculating. You can now listen to Newscast on a smart speaker. If you want to listen, just say "Ask BBC Sounds to play Newscast”. It works on most smart speakers. You can join our Newscast online community here: https://bbc.in/newscastdiscordGet in touch with Newscast by emailing newscast@bbc.co.uk or send us a WhatsApp on +44 0330 123 9480.New episodes released every day. If you're in the UK, for more News and Current Affairs podcasts from the BBC, listen on BBC Sounds: https://bbc.in/4guXgXd Newscast brings you daily analysis of the latest political news stories from the BBC. The presenter was Adam Fleming. It was made by Anna Harris with Shiler Mahmoudi and Chloe Scannapieco. The social producer was Beth Pritchard. The technical producers were James Piper and Mike Regaard. The assistant editor is Chris Gray. The senior news editor is Sam Bonham.

Steve highlights the strength of Trump's economy and analyzes the latest inflation data. The conversation also covers Mayor Mamdani's proposal to eliminate hotel fees for customers in NYC, exploring the potential impact on the hotel industry.

Steve highlights the strength of Trump's economy and analyzes the latest inflation data. The conversation also covers Mayor Mamdani's proposal to eliminate hotel fees for customers in NYC, exploring the potential impact on the hotel industry.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Matt Steinglass, Europe editor at The Economist, explains the recent news in President Donald Trump's remarks on acquiring Greenland, including that the U.S. will impose tariffs on eight European countries until the U.S. acquires the country, and Europe's response.