Podcasts about economists

Nate Miles joins Jeremy Keil to discuss how the Allspring retirement research reveals trends of concern among retirees and the options they have to address them. Mike and Susan did what many couples do. They saved diligently. They crossed the $1 million mark before retirement. They felt prepared. But when it came time to make actual retirement decisions—when to claim Social Security, how to withdraw from their accounts, how to manage taxes—they realized something uncomfortable: They had spent decades saving… but very little time learning how to retire. This example speaks directly to what this year's Allspring Retirement Study uncovered. As Nate Miles shared on the “Retire Today” podcast, this wasn't a small or struggling population. Participants were 50+ with at least $200,000 in investable assets. A third of retirees surveyed had $1 million or more. Yet only six out of ten retirees said they feel financially secure. That gap between assets and confidence tells us something important: retirement success isn't just about how much you've accumulated. It's about how well you transition into distribution. The Social Security Mistake One of the most striking findings involved Social Security. Nate explained: “One third of our respondents claimed Social Security at 62 years old… because they believed the value or the benefit of waiting was not worth it. Yet they underestimated the value of waiting by 50%.” Many respondents assumed the benefit grew at 4% per year when delayed. In reality, for most people, it grows closer to 8% annually between full retirement age and 70. That misunderstanding alone can permanently reduce lifetime income. In the MAKE step of the 5 Step Retirement Master Plan, Social Security is foundational. For many retirees, it represents 30–40% of their guaranteed income. Optimizing that decision isn't optional—it's essential. And yet, education around it is surprisingly thin. As Nate pointed out, there are “560-something permutations” of Social Security claiming strategies. It's ubiquitous, but complicated. And too often, people default to the earliest date simply because it feels tangible. The Tax Blind Spot The second major theme of the study? Taxes. Only about 20% of retirees reported using a tax-efficient withdrawal strategy. Think about that. After decades of saving in multiple account types—traditional IRAs, Roth IRAs, brokerage accounts—most retirees are simply withdrawing from wherever feels convenient. Nate put it plainly: “Taxes matter for everyone, not just the high net worth crowd.” In the KEEP step of retirement planning, how you withdraw can meaningfully impact how long your money lasts. Choosing between Roth and traditional dollars. Managing capital gains. Coordinating withdrawals with Social Security timing. These aren't abstract academic exercises. They are practical levers that affect real income. Yet as Nate observed, most people spent 40 years having taxes withheld automatically from paychecks. They paid taxes—but they never actively managed them. Retirement flips that script completely. Now you must choose. The Psychological Shift No One Talks About Nate shared that many retirees are comfortable spending above their retirement number—until their account dips below it. The moment it falls beneath that original balance, panic sets in. Even if the plan accounts for drawdown. Even if it's sustainable. Even if it's expected. That's what I call the “accumulation paradox.” Economists assume you'll build your assets and gradually spend them down toward zero. Real people assume the number should stay intact forever. But retirement isn't about preserving a scoreboard. It's about funding a life. This is where the SPEND step meets the INVEST step. You saved to use the money. And yes, at some point, your balance may begin to decline. That's not failure. That's function. Advice Still Matters One of Nate's most memorable lines was this: “Monte Carlo gets 10,000 cracks at retirement. You and I get one.” We don't get multiple trial runs. We get one real-life retirement. That's why quality advice matters. The study suggests people with pensions are more likely to use annuities. People with advice are more likely to use tax strategies. And people who understand their income sources are more confident. Retirement is no longer just accumulation. It's design. And design requires intention. If you're within five years of retirement—or already there—ask yourself: Have I optimized my Social Security? Am I intentionally managing taxes? Do I have a clear income floor? Am I emotionally prepared to draw down assets? Because as this year's research shows, even million-dollar portfolios can feel uncertain without a plan. Retirement isn't about guessing well. It's about designing well. Don't forget to leave a rating for the “Retire Today” podcast if you've been enjoying these episodes! Subscribe to Retire Today to get new episodes every Wednesday. Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/retire-today/id1488769337  Spotify Podcasts: https://bit.ly/RetireTodaySpotify About the Author: Jeremy Keil, CFP®, CFA is a retirement financial advisor with Keil Financial Partners, author of Retire Today: Create Your Retirement Income Plan in 5 Simple Steps, and host of the Retirement Today blog and podcast, as well as the Mr. Retirement YouTube channel. Jeremy is a contributor to Kiplinger and is frequently cited in publications like the Wall Street Journal and New York Times. Additional Links: Buy Jeremy's book – Retire Today: Create Your Retirement Master Plan in 5 Simple Steps Allspring 2026 Retirement Study: By Default or By Design? Nate Miles, Allspring Global Investments Connect With Jeremy Keil: Keil Financial Partners LinkedIn: Jeremy Keil Facebook: Jeremy Keil LinkedIn: Keil Financial Partners YouTube: Mr. Retirement Book an Intro Call with Jeremy's Team Media Disclosures: Disclosures This media is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not consider the investment objectives, financial situation, or particular needs of any consumer. Nothing in this program should be construed as investment, legal, or tax advice, nor as a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security or to adopt any investment strategy. The views and opinions expressed are those of the host and any guest, current as of the date of recording, and may change without notice as market, political or economic conditions evolve. All investments involve risk, including the possible loss of principal. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Legal & Tax Disclosure Consumers should consult their own qualified attorney, CPA, or other professional advisor regarding their specific legal and tax situations. Advisor Disclosures Alongside, LLC, doing business as Keil Financial Partners, is an SEC-registered investment adviser. Registration does not imply a certain level of skill or expertise. Advisory services are delivered through the Alongside, LLC platform. Keil Financial Partners is independent, not owned or operated by Alongside, LLC. Additional information about Alongside, LLC – including its services, fees and any material conflicts of interest – can be found at https://adviserinfo.sec.gov/firm/summary/333587 or by requesting Form ADV Part 2A. The content of this media should not be reproduced or redistributed without the firm’s written consent. Any trademarks or service marks mentioned belong to their respective owners and are used for identification purposes only. Additional Important Disclosures

The Russian army invading Ukraine today is very different to the one which started the conflict. How are things going for Putin's military – and how can Ukraine and Europe push back against them? Shashank Joshi, defence editor at The Economist, joins Gavin Esler to discuss.  www.patreon.com/bunkercast  Follow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/bunkerpod.bsky.social  • Advertisers! Want to reach smart, engaged, influential people with money to spend? (Yes, they do exist). Some 3.5 MILLION people download and watch our podcasts every month – and they love our shows. Why not get YOUR brand in front of our influential listeners with podcast advertising? Contact ads@podmasters.co.uk to find out more Written and presented by Gavin Esler. Audio editor: Simon Williams. Managing editor: Jacob Jarvis. Design by James Parrett. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. THE BUNKER is a Podmasters Production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Guest host Robin Gill talks to David Williams, Economist with the B.C. Business Council Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The USDA's World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates report shows the 2025-26 U.S. corn outlook is for greater exports and lower ending stocks, and the USDA is facing doubts about the reliability of its data from farmers, grain traders, and economists.

Our data journalists trawled through the vast email archive of Jeffrey Epstein, a dead sex offender. It is a revealing look at how and with whom he communicated. As interest grows in banning young people's use of social media, we argue there are better ways to mitigate harms. And a blindfolded introduction to “blouge”, a new, more climate-resilient wine variety.Guests and host:Rosie Blau, host of “The Intelligence”Dan Rosenheck, data editorTom Wainwright, media editorTom Standage, deputy editor of The EconomistTopics covered: The Epstein filesSocial-media bans“Blouge” wineGet a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Our data journalists trawled through the vast email archive of Jeffrey Epstein, a dead sex offender. It is a revealing look at how and with whom he communicated. As interest grows in banning young people's use of social media, we argue there are better ways to mitigate harms. And a blindfolded introduction to “blouge”, a new, more climate-resilient wine variety.Guests and host:Rosie Blau, host of “The Intelligence”Dan Rosenheck, data editorTom Wainwright, media editorTom Standage, deputy editor of The EconomistTopics covered: The Epstein filesSocial-media bans“Blouge” wineGet a world of insights by subscribing to Economist Podcasts+. For more information about how to access Economist Podcasts+, please visit our FAQs page or watch our video explaining how to link your account. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

China's antitrust regime has evolved rapidly over the past decade. What role does economic analysis play in the actual enforcement? Anora Wang and Kathleen Hu speak with Dr. Vanessa Zhang of Compass Lexecon about the growing role of economic analysis in Chinese competition law, drawing on her experience advising China's antitrust authority and serving as a testifying expert in high-stakes cases. The conversation explores how economic evidence is developed, evaluated, and increasingly relied upon in China's evolving antitrust regime. With special guest: Vanessa Zhang, Executive Vice President, Compass Lexecon Related Links: The Complex Geopolitics of Digital Regulation: The Three Body Problem Hosted by: Anora Wang, Arnold & Porter and Kathleen Hu, Cornerstone Research

Our guest this week is writer, journalist, cultural historian and broadcaster Matthew Sweet. Alongside Mark Gatiss, Matthew co-writes the detective series Bookish for U&Alibi, and is the author of works including Inventing the Victorians, Shepperton Babylon: The Lost Worlds of British Cinema, as well as the novel The New Forest Murders. A familiar voice on radio, he has presented The Sound of Cinema on BBC Radio 3 and programmes for BBC Radio 4, while also writing for major publications such as The Economist, The Daily Telegraph and The Financial Times.  To join Scarred Club and get fortnightly bonus episodes, monthly newsletters, ad-free listening and access to the members forum - sign-up here - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://scarredforlife.supportingcast.fm/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Based on the hugely successful Scarred for Life books, this is a weekly exploration of the things that scared people growing up and what those things say about us today. Join Andy Bush and Dave Lawrence as each week they talk to a special guest who brings with them three terrors from their childhoods. Email us - contact@scarredforlifebooks.com Follow us on socials: Scarred For Life - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Andy Bush - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ / ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Producer - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Dane Smith⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Production Company - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Lock It In Studio Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

New data from U.S. court filings indicate farm bankruptcy has risen again.

According to an annual report by University of Idaho economists, the financial condition of Idaho agriculture is mixed, but mostly not good.

The jury is still out for many analysts on the outlook for economic growth, inflation and the labor market this year.Some see lots of reasons for concern for the road ahead.Others are much more convinced 2026 is going to be a blockbuster year.Which is more likely?To find out, we have the good fortune to talk today with Dr Anna Wong, Chief U.S. Economist for Bloomberg Economics. Prior to her current role, Anna also worked at the Federal Reserve Board, the White House Council of Economics Advisers, and the U.S. Treasury.Anna and her team started the year quite bullish, seeing many of last year's headwinds turning into tailwinds in 2026.But, in light of recent developments, she's starting to turn more cautious.To find out why, watch this video.Follow Anna on Bloomberg by typing BECO + "Go"Or on X at @AnnaEconomistREGISTER FOR THOUGHTFUL MONEY'S SPRING ONLINE CONFERENCE AT THE EARLY BIRD DISCOUNT PRICE at https://www.thoughtfulmoney.com/conference#gdp #inflation #unemploymentrate _____________________________________________ Thoughtful Money LLC is a Registered Investment Advisor Promoter.We produce educational content geared for the individual investor. It's important to note that this content is NOT investment advice, individual or otherwise, nor should be construed as such.We recommend that most investors, especially if inexperienced, should consider benefiting from the direction and guidance of a qualified financial advisor registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or state securities regulators who can develop & implement a personalized financial plan based on a customer's unique goals, needs & risk tolerance.IMPORTANT NOTE: There are risks associated with investing in securities.Investing in stocks, bonds, exchange traded funds, mutual funds, money market funds, and other types of securities involve risk of loss. Loss of principal is possible. Some high risk investments may use leverage, which will accentuate gains & losses. Foreign investing involves special risks, including a greater volatility and political, economic and currency risks and differences in accounting methods.A security's or a firm's past investment performance is not a guarantee or predictor of future investment performance.Thoughtful Money and the Thoughtful Money logo are trademarks of Thoughtful Money LLC.Copyright © 2026 Thoughtful Money LLC. All rights reserved.

Political Analyst Professor, Ntsikelelo Breakfast says he hopes the interventions announced by President Ramaphosa in his SONA speech to fix the water crisis and the state of local government will bear fruit. In dealing with the current water crisis faced by a number of municipalities across the country, Ramaphosa announced action plans. The establishment of a national water crisis committee and the litigation against municipalities for contravening the provisions of the National Water Act, primarily the unlawful discharges of pollution were amongst some of the top priorities. For more on this, Bongiwe Zwane spoke to Political Analyst, Sanusha Naidu and Economist, Duma Gqubule

Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was featured as "the world's most powerful woman" in an article that ran in the latest issue of the British magazine The Economist, after she led her ruling Liberal Democratic Party to a landslide victory in a snap election.

Send a text"En 1950, casarse no era solo amor, era una estrategia de supervivencia económica. Hoy, tenemos más libertad que nunca, pero estamos más solos que en cualquier otro momento de la historia.En este episodio, desglosamos la 'Gran Recesión de las Relaciones'. Analizamos los datos de The Economist que revelan un excedente de 100 millones de solteros y una brecha educativa donde las mujeres han subido la vara ('the moving bar') mientras muchos hombres se quedan atrás.Pero la economía es solo la punta del iceberg. Exploramos cómo las expectativas irreales de las redes sociales (como el trend de 'cosas que mi novio hace') y los filtros de las apps de citas han creado un mercado donde el 85% de los candidatos son descartados.Ante este rechazo y la fatiga de las citas, investigamos una tendencia alarmante expuesta por 60 Minutes: el auge de los Compañeros de Inteligencia Artificial. Desde mujeres casadas con chatbots hasta la trágica historia de Saul, un adolescente que perdió la vida por su amor a una IA, nos preguntamos: ¿Por qué elegimos una simulación sobre la realidad?Finalmente, recurrimos a la neurociencia (Neuroscience for Clinicians) para entender la verdadera raíz del problema. Descubrimos cómo el Trauma de Negligencia Emocional Infantil apaga biológicamente nuestra capacidad de conectar (Red DMN) cuando sentimos miedo, revelando que nuestra soledad no es una elección libre, sino un mecanismo de defensa.Este video no es solo sobre por qué estamos solteros; es sobre cómo biológicamente necesitamos volver a volar 'ala con ala' para sanar."Support the show

Binyamin Appelbaum, lead writer on economics and business for The New York Times editorial board and the author of The Economists' Hour (Little, Brown and Company, 2019) , talks about the use of robots and automation in farming jobs typically held by immigrants and why cutting immigration doesn't necessarily lead to more job openings.Photo caption: A worker drives in cattle to be milked at T-Bar Dairy in Porterville, California, on December 17, 2024. (Photo by David Swanson / AFP via Getty Images)  

DHS funding runs out at midnight - setting up what would be the third shutdown of President Donald Trump's second term. Economists say inflation is moving in the right direction. Newly released Epstein files trigger a shakeup at Goldman Sachs. We'll tell you what led to the El Paso International Airport shutdown - it may surprise you. Plus, why the International Olympic Committee is catching heat over its merch. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Alex Preston is an award-winning author of five novels including This Bleeding City, The Revelations, In Love and War and Winchelsea, as well as a book of non-fiction As Kingfishers Catch Fire. He writes regularly for the New York Times, the Economist and Harper's Bazaar. He reviews books for the Observer's New Review, Financial Times and Spectator. Alex is co-founder of the Corfu Literary Festival and Patron of Oxford Literary Festival. On this episode of Little Atoms he talks to Neil Denny about his latest novel A Stranger in Corfu. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

No 3 em 1 desta sexta-feira (13), o destaque foi que o ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, André Mendonça, reuniu-se com a Polícia Federal para obter um panorama das investigações sobre o caso Banco Master. Como novo relator do processo, Mendonça passa a avaliar os desdobramentos do inquérito e definir os próximos passos no STF, em meio à repercussão política e jurídica envolvendo a apuração. A troca de relatoria do caso Banco Master no Supremo Tribunal Federal gerou reações distintas entre parlamentares. Com a saída de Dias Toffoli, o ministro André Mendonça passa a conduzir o processo, enquanto a oposição cobra mais transparência na divulgação das provas e acompanha os desdobramentos das investigações que também envolvem a fraude no INSS e contratos de crédito consignado. O senador Carlos Viana (Podemos-MG), presidente da CPMI do INSS, solicitou ao ministro André Mendonça, do STF, o acesso a dados sigilosos de Daniel Vorcaro, dono do Banco Master. A medida busca avançar as investigações na comissão, enquanto cresce a expectativa por um encontro entre Viana e Mendonça após o Carnaval para tratar do compartilhamento das informações. O presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, participou de um encontro com forças especiais responsáveis pela captura de Nicolás Maduro em uma operação recente. A reunião ocorreu em Fort Bragg, na Carolina do Norte, e também contou com familiares dos militares, em meio às repercussões políticas, econômicas e geopolíticas do episódio envolvendo a Venezuela. A revista britânica The Economist apontou a situação econômica do Brasil como um importante sinal de alerta para grandes economias mundiais. A publicação criticou aspectos do modelo fiscal e previdenciário brasileiro, destacando riscos e impactos que podem servir de referência negativa no cenário internacional. A Câmara dos Deputados da Argentina aprovou a proposta que reduz a maioridade penal de 16 para 14 anos, em meio ao avanço de pautas do governo de Javier Milei. O tema ganhou força após o assassinato de um adolescente na província de Santa Fé, gerando comoção nacional e reacendendo o debate sobre o regime penal juvenil. O texto segue agora para análise do Senado argentino. Ministros do governo Lula foram orientados a não participar do desfile da escola de samba que fará homenagem ao presidente no Rio de Janeiro. A decisão ocorre em meio a questionamentos no TSE sobre possível propaganda eleitoral antecipada, enquanto Lula mantém agenda de carnaval pelo Nordeste e acompanha a repercussão política do evento. O ministro Dias Toffoli negou ter gravado a reunião reservada entre integrantes do Supremo Tribunal Federal que antecedeu sua saída da relatoria do caso Banco Master. O encontro, realizado a portas fechadas, gerou repercussão nos bastidores da Corte após a divulgação de detalhes do diálogo entre ministros e aumentou a tensão institucional em torno da investigação. Tudo isso e muito mais você acompanha no 3 em 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

An extra piece for you this week. I had planned to follow up on Dr John's timely piece on oil and gas today, but it will have to wait.We need to talk about bitcoin.Since peaking at $126,000 in early October, the bitcoin price has been in freefall, and the declines have accelerated this year. Earlier in the week, it touched $60,000 - declines of over 50% from peak to trough. Today it sits at $67,000.Call it what it is. It's a bear market.Here's a 2-year chart so you can see the price action. All the gains of 2025 have been given back and we are back at 2024 levels.Bitcoin has become a software proxyMy first observation is that bitcoin's decline since October has coincided exactly with a brutal selloff in software stocks, even as hard assets - gold, silver, and other metals - have caught one heck of a bid.Just a few years ago, hard assets had no value, it seemed. Forget land, mining, the real economy. It was all about digital, software, IP, trademarks. How things have changed.This chart appeared in a WhatsApp group and I don't know who made it to give credit, but the story is clear: Bitcoin has become a software proxy and vice versa.The correlation is striking. As concerns around AI have hammered software more generally, bitcoin has followed. Hardware plays within tech have held up Maybe they're next to be hit. That remains to be seen.When the mainstream media calls the bottom - the next wave of bitcoin obituariesThe Financial Times, wrong about bitcoin since 2009, came out with its latest stupidity this week claiming that bitcoin is $69,000 overvalued. Yesterday the Daily Mail joined the Retard Gang in telling us bitcoin will go to zero.Remember: just as media frenzy often indicates the peak of a market, so does a media scrum at the bottom. All we need is a high-profile article from the Economist and the lows will be in.I get that some people don't like bitcoin, and bitcoiners can be obnoxiously vocal when the price is rising, but nocoiners can be just as bad. The amount of people trolling me about bitcoin - cc-ing me into tweets telling me how badly it's doing, slagging off Michael Saylor, sharing “going to zero” articles - has risen sharply.The more evolved and widespread these narratives, the more people repeating them, the closer we are to an end.On which note, here is a longer-term weekly chart of bitcoin. That weekly RSI is close to all-time lows. Doesn't mean this is the end. But you get these kinds of sentiment extremes at the end of cycles, not at the beginning. Join this elite readership.Where we go from hereThis is a bear market. Crypto winter is upon us once again. The trend is down.But the trend will end. It always does.Looking at the above charts, there's a lot of price memory in the $50-70,000 range. Bitcoin spent much of 2021 and 2024 here. I expect $50,000 - or just below - to hold. I give that a more than 50% probability.But it's bitcoin. So anything is possible. A typical bitcoin monster correction would see us go all the way back to the 2022 lows at ~$15,000. I don't see that as likely - especially as the preceding bull market wasn't that mammoth - maybe 10% probability.It's also possible the lows are already in, but my gut tells me this bear market has a bit longer to play out. It's not a short sharp correction like we saw in the spring of last year around the Tariff Tantrum ™, but more of a grinder. Corrections happen in price and time, and I feel this one has a few more twists to it, especially as markets generally are not quite as easy as they were a couple of months ago.My outlook at the beginning of this year was that the S&P 500 would follow the typical trajectory of the second year of a US presidency - and that points to a rocky second and third quarter with a strong final quarter. That has implications for liquidity and sentiment more generally. Bitcoin is the same technological genius creation it always was. It hasn't changed. Only perception has changed, as it always does.It has been repeatedly demonstrated that bitcoin is a volatile asset that goes to the extremities of both pessimism and optimism, that it is cyclical and that it crucifies hubris. Those cheering the bear market clearly haven't learned.Instead of celebrating, I urge the skeptical to take advantage of this bear market and use it to learn.On which note, if you're new to bitcoin, my 2014 book Bitcoin: the Future of Money? is a good place to start.Bitcoin isn't dead. It's just going through a bear market. They happen.What's the story that takes bitcoin higher, then?Remember: narrative follows price.When the price starts rising, all sorts of reasons will get attached and the story will form. Just as now with the price falling, all sorts of bearish narratives have emerged. Quantum Computing is going to end it. Jeffrey Epstein hijacked it. The core devs have fallen out. Strategy (NASDAQ.MSTR) is going bust. Whatever.It doesn't matter what the story is. That will come. Price leads.Quantum BSWhen you go to a bitcoin conference, one thing that's notable is just how intelligent, educated, informed and ambitious the participants are. There is not the proliferation of midwits that you might find on, for example, the FT payroll. The bitcoin community is super bright.Do you think those involved haven't thought about and prepared for Quantum computing and the threats it may or may not present? Of course they have.Is bitcoin more likely to be ready to deal with the quantum computing threat than say SWIFT, the BBC, the NHS, or some bank? And which is likely to cope with it better - a sector crammed full of genius computer scientists with their own capital at stake, or some institution run by a government?If you actually had a computer capable of taking down bitcoin, there are much easier, more satisfying things to take out, such as the House of Commons email server.Way more important than the actual threat of quantum computing is the perception of what that threat is, even if that perception is bogus. But, as I say, perceptions change, just as bull and bear market cycles do, and so will this narrative die except among the most ardent nocoiners.Of course I would rather bitcoin was at $150,000. But I am not worried. I won't like it if bitcoin goes to $50,000. I'll like it even less if it goes to $15,000. But we have been here before, and we'll likely be here again.We know how this story ends.A prediction for the recordHere it is: It may have to go lower first, but bitcoin will outperform precious metals over the next 18 months, and probably over the next 12.Let's mark the price: gold is $5,000. Silver is $78. Bitcoin is $67,000.By the way, I advocate owning both: gold and bitcoin. So at this point I should really plug Charlie Morris's BOLD, an ETF you can buy through your broker which owns both gold and bitcoin. Until next time,DominicBitcoin: the Future of Money? by Dominic Frisby is available at all good bookstores. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.comJust around the same time as the axe fell on Washington Post's global staff, accompanied by much wailing and gnashing of teeth, I got a message from my Rediff.com editor, Nikhil Lakshman, mentioning it was the 30th anniversary of its founding. An interesting contrast indeed: the old Western flagbearer waning, while the Indian pioneer holds on, despite a plethora of competitors and copycats, including many pushing specific agendas.That also made me think of why there was a bloodbath at the Washington Post, where they gutted the foreign desks, sports, books, and some leading podcasts, and laid off a third of its staff. I suspect there are two reasons: one is the increasing insularity of the US, a retreat into Fortress America, and paradoxically a turning away from the rest of the world at the very moment the rest of the world should be looming more prominently in the rear-view mirror.And two, the economics and the technology of the narrative business have turned. On the one hand, print media have been retreating and losing ad revenue for years, and on the other hand, the rise of generativeAI has made it possible to eliminate entire layers of (at least) entry-level journalists, just as it is decimating paralegals, code-jockeys, and apprentice accountants. Only junior doctors seem immune so far, but we shall see how that goes. I must confess that there was a time when I consumed the Western narrative with gusto: reading Time, Newsweek, and so on, and listening to the BBC. In fact, I actually subscribed to the New York Times for years (ok, in my defense I was living in the New York area), and later The Economist for at least a dozen years. I still listen to some podcasts from the latter, but with considerable caution, as I am far more aware of their biases and proclivities.That's where my concern about big-name Western media comes from. They are all somehow associated with the Deep State, that amorphous entity, the hidden puppet-master behind pretty much everything that goes on in foreign and domestic policy. For instance, an outlet that I considered the voice of NATO, turns out to be the voice of Whitehall, Britain's bureaucracy.There has long been a truism that the Washington Post is the mouthpiece of Foggy Bottom, i.e. the US State Department, and the New York Times that of Langley, i.e. the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Noam Chomsky long ago made the insightful observation that they are both in the business of “manufacturing consent”, i.e. narrative-peddling to suit vested interests, specifically the Military-Industrial Complex, which likes, or needs, constant wars.The eclipse of the WaPo is not only a statement about the decreasing influence of the State Department on foreign affairs (in the wake of the decline of the “liberal, rules-based international order”). But it is also because the print media business is no longer lucrative, as the bulk of advertising revenue has now moved online, to the likes of Alphabet, Meta, Amazon et al. Large numbers of smaller US newspapers have closed down over the past few decades.

英誌エコノミスト最新号の高市早苗首相を紹介した記事、１３日、ロンドン【ロンドン時事】英誌エコノミスト最新号は、高市早苗首相を「世界で最も強力な女性」と紹介する特集記事を掲載した。 Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi was featured as "the world's most powerful woman" in an article that ran in the latest issue of the British magazine The Economist, after she led her ruling Liberal Democratic Party to a landslide victory in a snap election.

He explains that the government sector shrinking is actually positive for the overall economy. Ford's CEO released a statement noting that EV sales have significantly underperformed expectations. NFL players are reportedly losing thousands of dollars because of California's Jock Tax. What changes does the Big Beautiful Bill bring when it comes to filing your taxes this year?

He explains that the government sector shrinking is actually positive for the overall economy. Ford's CEO released a statement noting that EV sales have significantly underperformed expectations. NFL players are reportedly losing thousands of dollars because of California's Jock Tax. What changes does the Big Beautiful Bill bring when it comes to filing your taxes this year?See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasing role in all our daily lives – and handing over power to AI comes with many risks. From misinformation and disruption to autonomous war technology, can we handle the dangers? Gavin Esler talks to Alex Hern, AI writer at The Economist. Advertisers! Want to reach smart, engaged, influential people with money to spend? (Yes, they do exist). Some 3.5 MILLION people download and watch our podcasts every month – and they love our shows. Why not get YOUR brand in front of our influential listeners with podcast advertising? Contact ads@podmasters.co.uk to find out more. • Support us on Patreon to keep This Is Not A Drill producing thought-provoking podcasts like this. Written and presented by Gavin Esler. Produced by Robin Leeburn. Original theme music by Paul Hartnoll – https://www.orbitalofficial.com. Executive Producer Martin Bojtos. Managing Editor Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor Andrew Harrison. This Is Not A Drill is a Podmasters production. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

President Donald Trump praised January's jobs report after employers added 130,000 positions, calling the number “greater than expected.” But revised government data shows weaker annual job growth in 2025, and Black unemployment among men rose to 7.3%, well above the 4.3% national rate. Economists warn that limited job growth could leave workers in slower-growing sectors facing longer job searches. Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed with the latest news from a leading Black-owned & controlled media company: https://aurn.com/newsletter Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Artificial general intelligence (AGI) is that point in the future when the machines can do pretty much everything better than humans. When will it happen, what will it look like, and what will be the impact on humanity? Two of the brightest minds working in AI today, Demis Hassabis, Co-Founder and CEO of Google DeepMind, and Dario Amodei, Co-Founder and CEO of Anthropic, speak to Zanny Minton Beddoes, Editor-in-Chief of The Economist. Benjamin Larsen, an expert in AI at the World Economic Forum, introduces the conversation and gives us a primer on AGI. You can watch the conversation from the Annual Meeting 2026 in Davos here: https://www.weforum.org/meetings/world-economic-forum-annual-meeting-2026/sessions/the-day-after-agi/ Links: Centre for AI Excellence: https://centres.weforum.org/centre-for-ai-excellence/home AI Global Alliance: https://initiatives.weforum.org/ai-global-alliance/home Global Future Council on Artificial General Intelligence:  https://initiatives.weforum.org/global-future-council-on-artificial-general-intelligence/home Related podcasts: Check out all our podcasts on wef.ch/podcasts:  YouTube: - https://www.youtube.com/@wef/podcasts Radio Davos - subscribe: https://pod.link/1504682164 Meet the Leader - subscribe: https://pod.link/1534915560 Agenda Dialogues - subscribe: https://pod.link/1574956552

Artificial intelligence is moving fast, with new tools changing how people work, create and compete. Whether you're an AI doomer or AI boomer, it's hard to ignore what's coming. Economist and professor Tyler Cowen has spent years analyzing how these developments could reshape the economy and everyday life. He joins host Megan McArdle to talk through how AI could transform talent, human capital and competition — and how to make sure you don't get left behind.Subscribe to The Washington Post here.

AI isn't just coming from Silicon Valley anymore. A growing number of startups — and companies like Airbnb — are turning to Chinese open-source AI models instead of US-based APIs. Not because it's trendy. Because it's cheaper, more flexible, and often good enough. In this episode, Sophia Matveeva speaks with Alex Hern, AI correspondent at The Economist, about what's driving this shift. They break down how DeepSeek disrupted the market, why constraints fueled smarter engineering, and what founders can realistically try today if they want more AI options without more spend. Alex Hern is The Economist's AI Writer, focusing on the science and technology of artificial intelligence. Before joining the paper, he covered technology for 11 years at The Guardian, where he was the UK technology editor. In this episode, you will hear: Why relying on US AI APIs may be quietly limiting your product and your margins How Chinese open-source models let founders experiment, customize, and ship faster without runaway costs The real reason DeepSeek shocked Silicon Valley — and what it reveals about building under constraints What you can realistically try today if you want AI leverage without an AI-sized budget Free AI Mini-Workshop for Non-Technical Founders Learn how to go from idea to a tested product using AI — in under 30 minutes. Get free access here: techfornontechies.co/aiclass Follow and Review: We'd love for you to follow us if you haven't yet. Click that purple '+' in the top right corner of your Apple Podcasts app. We'd love it even more if you could drop a review or 5-star rating over on Apple Podcasts. Simply select "Ratings and Reviews" and "Write a Review" then a quick line with your favorite part of the episode. It only takes a second and it helps spread the word about the podcast. Episode Credits If you like this podcast and are thinking of creating your own, consider talking to my producer, Emerald City Productions. They helped me grow and produce the podcast you are listening to right now. Find out more at https://emeraldcitypro.com Let them know we sent you. For the full transcript, go to https://www.techfornontechies.co/blog/290-why-airbnb-switched-from-openai-to-chinese-ai-and-what-it-means-for-your-budget  

Die britische Politjournalistin Anne McElvoy recherchiert seit Jahren zum Epstein-Skandal. Sie kennt die Komplizin Ghislaine Maxwell persönlich, sie waren zusammen an der Uni. Wie wurde Maxwell die Zuhälterin eines Sexualstraftäters und wie funktionierte das Netzwerk aus Politik und Wirtschaft? Die Politikjournalistin Anne McElvoy, die unter anderem für Politico, The Economist und die BBC tätig war und Ghislaine Maxwell persönlich kennt, bewertet und analysiert die Affäre. Sie recherchiert seit Jahren zum Fall und hat den Dokumentarfilm «The Making of a Monster» gedreht. Die jüngst vom US-Justizministerium veröffentlichten Dokumente aus den Epstein-Files ziehen rund um den Globus Konsequenzen nach sich. Belastende Daten setzen viele Persönlichkeiten aus Politik und Wirtschaft unter Druck. Jeffrey Epstein war 2019 wegen Prostitution, Menschenhandels und der mehrfacher Vergewaltigung Minderjähriger angeklagt worden. Anne McElvoy ist zu Gast bei David Karasek.

NWABJ Report for 2.8.26 with UA Walton College of Business eonomist Mervin Jebaraj.

Headlines on today's episode include:-Rollins, Hegseth sign MOU advancing National Farm Security Action Plan-NPPC eyeing several issues-Tariff rollbacks on sorghum in India good for US-Record-low cattle supplies create opportunity for cow-calf profits-Economist says dairy replacement heifer pipeline is shrinking Kubota. Your compact equipment provider.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Trump has stripped US foreign policy down from a mix of carrot and stick into an ideological cudgel to beat friends and foes alike – and a lurid horrorshow for domestic consumption in Red America. But who's actually running the show? Is America's realignment with the world purely dependent on Trump's whims or is there something coherent going on in there? Is it all just 1980s real estate thuggery writ large? And where is it all heading? The Economist's Geopolitics Editor David Rennie explains the new American brutalism to Seth Thévoz.  www.patreon.com/bunkercast Presented by Seth Thévoz. Audio production by Robin Leeburn. Art direction: James Parrett. Music by Kenny Dickinson. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison. Special thanks to Chris Wimpress and Hannah Marinho. The Bunker is a Podmasters production. www.podmasters.co.uk  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Last episode, we talked about the brewing conflict between what currently passes for mainstream conservatism and the schizophrenic reactionary Groyper politics of Nick Fuentes. Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired We wrapped things up with the idea that conservatism has never really bothered to conserve anything. Aside from a few exceptions, most of the time they keep themselves busy fighting culture wars about immigration, civil rights, women's rights, Christianity, and demonizing organized labor. What they keep trying to “conserve” is whatever the status quo power dynamic was when their grandad was a kid.  After the Civil War, they wanted slavery back. Women's suffrage, desegregation—they wanted to get rid of all those things. This isn't the first fight inside conservatism. As part of its periodic reinvention of itself, conservatives have gone back to the political well and dredged up the same slogans more than once. We tied this malleable idea of conservatism in with the evolution of the field of unashamed ideological political economists into what we now think of as the pseudoscience of Economics. At least the political economists were up front about whatever ideological bent they had. If you were a socialist, you'd start with your convictions about socialism being the absolute best way of running society on offer, and they work to come up with an economic theory or plan that made it seem possible. It was honest. By the time the 1800s were wrapping up, that wasn't good enough. Economists wanted to be taken more seriously, so they started dressing the whole thing up like they were doing physics or pure math. They could talk about whatever economic system as if they were describing the laws of nature. That didn't get rid of the ideology, though. It just buried it under metric tons of academic jargon and complicated formulas. After all, what's the difference between modeling a tsunami and a stock market crash? The answer is that the tsunami wasn't caused by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. That all brings us around to FDR's New Deal and the era of John Maynard Keynes and what Matt Christman has called his "Keynesian machine for dispensing treats". As many contradictions as Keynes gathered into his economic model, it remains the only proven way to maintain capitalism. To set the tone, David Talbot has a quote in his book The Devil's Chessboard about Bertie Pell, a friend of FDR's who Talbot described as a “full-on traitor to his class”. “I am almost the last capitalist who is willing to be saved by you,” Pell wrote Roosevelt in 1936 in a letter beseeching the president to draft him for the New Deal cause. The following year, Pell wrote again, praising FDR's accomplishments: “Your administration has made possible the continuance of American institutions for at least fifty years. You have done for the government what St. Francis did for the Catholic Church. You have brought it back to the people.” It turns out Pell was eerily correct. Those institutions managed to last just a little longer than 50 years. They are about gone now, though. Our long promised merch is here!! Fly your crypto-leftist flag with our personal love letter to Juan José Arévalo, philosopher and socialist president of Guatemala, and the airline he nationalized. wetwired.printful.me/ Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired Music:Airglow - Spliff and Wesson (CC-BY)

Is the United States a nation state? Does it have a national identity? On this episode of the Transatlantic, scholar Colin Woodard discusses his early career experiences as a journalist in Eastern Europe and the Balkans at the end of the Cold War and how that work informs his work on national identity in the United States. He then talks about his current research uncovering what he describes as eleven distinct nations that make up the United States and how their clashing cultures and traditions have defined the country's struggle to form a national story and identity.    Colin Woodard – a New York Times bestselling historian and Polk Award-winning journalist – is one of the most respected authorities on North American regionalism, the sociology of United States nationhood, and how our colonial past shapes and explains the present. Compelling, dynamic and thought provoking, he offers a fascinating look at where America has come from, how we ended up as we are, and how we might shape our future. Author of the award winning Wall Street Journal bestseller American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America, Woodard has written six books including The Republic of Pirates — a New York Times bestselling history of Blackbeard's pirate gang that was made into a primetime NBC series with John Malkovich and Claire Foye – and Union: The Struggle to Forge the Story of United States Nationhood, which tells the harrowing story of the creation of the American myth in the 19th century, a story that reverberates in the news cycle today. His latest book is Nations Apart: How Clashing Regional Cultures Shattered America, released by Viking/Penguin in November 2025. He is the founder and director of Nationhood Lab at the Pell Center for International Relations and Public Policy at Salve Regina University, an interdisciplinary research, writing, testing and dissemination project focused on counteracting the authoritarian threat to American democracy and the centrifugal forces threatening the federation's stability. He is also a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, a visiting scholar at the Minneapolis-based HealthPartners Institute and a POLITICO contributing writer. As State and National Affairs Writer at the Portland Press Herald and Maine Sunday Telegram he received a 2012 George Polk Award, was named Maine Journalist of the Year in 2014, and was a finalist for the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting. A longtime foreign correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, The San Francisco Chronicle, and The Chronicle of Higher Education, he has reported from more than fifty foreign countries and seven continents from postings in Budapest, Zagreb, Washington, D.C. and the US-Mexico border and covered the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and its bloody aftermath. His work has appeared in dozens of publications including The Economist, The New York Times, Smithsonian, The Washington Post, The Guardian, Newsweek and Washington Monthly and has been featured on CNN, the Rachel Maddow Show, Chuck Todd's The Daily Rundown, The PBS News Hour, and NPR's Weekend Edition. A graduate of Tufts University and the University of Chicago, he's received the 2004 Jane Bagley Lehman Award for Public Advocacy, a Pew Fellowship in International Journalism at the Johns Hopkins University School for Advanced International Study and was named one of the Best State Capitol Reporters in America by the Washington Post. He lives in Maine.   This podcast is hosted by Bakhti Nishanov and produced by Alanna Novetsky, in conjunction with the Senate Recording Studio.

In this episode, Alex Rawlings is joined by Alex Sabel, Vice President at THL Partners, to explore how the firm is embracing AI across its operations and portfolio. Alex leads THL's research function and AI strategy, bringing a data-driven, quant mindset to private equity.He shares how THL uses AI internally to improve investment workflows, how portfolio companies are deploying AI to drive product innovation and efficiency, and what he's learned from both successes and failures. Whether you're exploring AI adoption or refining your strategy, this episode offers clear, practical insights from the front lines.⏱ Timestamps00:00 – Intro to Alex Sabel & THL's AI FocusAI at the firm, portfolio, and personal level.00:55 – Alex's BackgroundFrom public markets to PE, building THL's research and AI function.03:12 – Common Mistakes in AI AdoptionWhy firms must focus on data foundations first.04:35 – Real-Time Insight vs. Info OverloadThe value of surfacing insights at the right time.06:02 – Investing in the Global Compute EcosystemTHL's thesis: look beyond GPUs to second-order AI winners.09:19 – THL's Three-Pronged AI StrategyInvest in AI, use it internally, and support portfolio adoption.11:42 – How THL Supports Portfolio InnovationRoundtables, tech summits, and a vendor ecosystem to foster AI experimentation.13:36 – Case Studies: Binder, FourKites & SentriaExamples of AI-driven product innovation and operational efficiency.17:57 – When AI FailsWhy THL embraces “fail fast” and knows when to build vs. buy.22:12 – Deciding When to Use AIBreak problems into first principles—GenAI isn't always the answer.25:26 – What's Blown Alex's MindAI organizing and standardizing messy, fragmented enterprise data.27:45 – Daily Tools & TipsCoding assistants and using multiple LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Groq) for varied insights.31:06 – What to ReadShort term: WSJ, FT, Economist.Deep dives: SemiAnalysis and top Substacks.32:31 – Connect with Alex SabelOpen to collaborating on AI, compute infrastructure, and emerging vendors.Raw Selection partners with Private Equity firms and their portfolio companies to secure exceptional executive talent. We focus on de-risking executive recruitment through meticulous search and selection processes, ensuring top-tier performance and long-term success.

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.

Eyal Frank is an Assistant Professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy. Working at the intersection of ecology and economics, his research addresses three broad questions – how animals contribute to specific production functions, how market dynamics reduce natural habitats and biodiversity, and what the indirect costs of conservation policies are. On this episode of Nature Revisited, Frank explains how these areas of research present causal inference challenges, as manipulating ecosystems and species at large scales is often infeasible. Citing real world examples such as the collapse of vulture populations in India due to a livestock medication, or the imbalance in insect populations due to declining bat colonies caused by white-nose syndrome, Frank describes how unintended side effects from disrupting the delicate balance of animal behaviors can lead to catastrophic economic results. By drawing natural experiments from ecology and policy, it is possible to employ econometric techniques to estimate different pieces of the puzzle regarding the social cost of biodiversity losses. https://www.eyalfrank.com/ Listen to Nature Revisited on your favorite podcast apps, on YouTube, or at https://noordenproductions.com Subscribe on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/bdz4s9d7 Subscribe on Apple Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/5n7yx28t Subscribe on Youtube Podcasts: https://tinyurl.com/bddd55v9 Podlink: https://pod.link/1456657951 Support Nature Revisited https://noordenproductions.com/support Nature Revisited is produced by Stefan van Norden and Charles Geoghegan. We welcome your comments, questions and suggestions - contact us at https://noordenproductions.com/contact

Bryce and Ren bring in someone who lives in the data every day: David Bassanese, Chief Economist at Betashares, to help cut through what matters (and what doesn't) for investors heading into 2026.They unpack five big macro themes dominating markets including inflation, AI, commodities, Trump/tariffs, and China.In this episode:00:34 Making sense of macro noise with David Bassanese01:39 Why the outlook is still constructive heading into 202603:26 Inflation update: trimmed mean, housing pressure & RBA risk07:26 AI boom vs bubble: where are we in the cycle?10:18 Commodities: gold, copper, uranium and what's really driving prices12:54 Trump, tariffs & the US economy: what's priced in now18:58 China, Japan & the “Great Rotation” beyond the US32:45 Sleep-at-night investing: portfolio positioning for the long termWin a $500 Visa Digital eGift Card by completing the 2026 Equity Mates Media Community Survey! The Community Survey helps us understand how we can continue to improve our content to help you on your money and investing journey. You can either complete the five compulsory questions, or take 10 minutes to give us a bit more feedback: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/WRWDVTV Stocks & ETFs mentioned: BHP Group (ASX:BHP), Fortescue (ASX:FMG), REA Group (ASX:REA), Nvidia (NASDAQ:NVDA), Alibaba (NYSE:BABA), Tencent (HKEX:0700), Betashares Japan Currency Hedged ETF (ASX:HJPN), BetaShares NASDAQ 100 ETF (ASX:NDQ).———Want to get involved in the podcast? Record a voice note or send us a message And come and join the conversation in the Equity Mates Facebook Discussion Group.———Want more Equity Mates? Across books, podcasts, video and email, however you want to learn about investing – we've got you covered.Keep up with the news moving markets with our daily newsletter and podcast (Apple | Spotify)———Looking for some of our favourite research tools?Download our free Basics of ETF handbook Or our free 4-step stock checklist Find company information on TIKR Screen the market with GuruFocus Track your portfolio with Sharesight———In the spirit of reconciliation, Equity Mates Media and the hosts of Equity Mates Investing acknowledge the Traditional Custodians of country throughout Australia and their connections to land, sea and community. We pay our respects to their elders past and present and extend that respect to all Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today. ———Equity Mates Investing is a product of Equity Mates Media. This podcast is intended for education and entertainment purposes. Any advice is general advice only, and has not taken into account your personal financial circumstances, needs or objectives. Before acting on general advice, you should consider if it is relevant to your needs and read the relevant Product Disclosure Statement. And if you are unsure, please speak to a financial professional. Equity Mates Media operates under Australian Financial Services Licence 540697. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

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

Host Piya Chattopadhyay speaks with The Toronto Star's Susan Delacourt and The Economist's Rob Russo about calls for Canadian unity from former prime ministers Stephen Harper and Jean ChrétienPussy Riot's Nadya Tolokonniokva reflects on power, protest and Russia's parallels with the U.S.Writer Chuck Klosterman nerds out about American football and its many contradictions ahead of Super Bowl LXCanadian curling legend Jennifer Jones looks back on her journey both on and off the ice

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

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%.

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.