Podcasts about economists

Earlier in the year, the CSO reported a 30% decline in visitor numbers for February, Economists warned that Ireland's tourism industry was at a tipping point, while others said Ireland had become too expensive for holiday makers to handle. So, as the Summer of Tourism 2025 comes to a close, Newstalk reporter Sarah Madden finds out if the high season really did end on a low:

Stefanie Stantcheva's approach seemed like career suicide. In fact, it won her the John Bates Clark Medal. She talks to fellow winner Steve Levitt about why she uses methods that most of the profession dismisses — and what she's found that can't be learned any other way. SOURCES:Stefanie Stantcheva, professor of political economy at Harvard University. RESOURCES:"Understanding Economic Behavior Using Open-ended Survey Data," by Ingar Haaland, Christopher Roth, Stefanie Stantcheva, and Johannes Wohlfart (Working Paper, 2025)."Fighting Climate Change: International Attitudes toward Climate Policies," by Antoine Dechezleprêtre, Adrien Fabre, Tobias Kruse, Bluebery Planterose, Ana Sanchez Chico, and Stefanie Stantcheva (American Economic Review, 2025)."Zero-Sum Thinking and the Roots of U.S. Political Divides," by Stefanie Stantcheva (NBER Working Paper, 2024)."Why Do We Dislike Inflation?," by Stefanie Stantcheva (NBER Working Paper, 2024)."How to Run Surveys: A Guide to Creating Your Own Identifying Variation and Revealing the Invisible," by Stefanie Stantcheva (Annual Review of Economics, 2022)."Eliciting People's First-Order Concerns: Text Analysis of Open-Ended Survey Questions," by Beatrice Ferrario and Stefanie Stantcheva (NBER Working Paper, 2022)."Understanding Tax Policy: How Do People Reason?," by Stefanie Stantcheva (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2021)."Immigration and Redistribution," by Alberto Alesina, Armando Miano, and Stefanie Stantcheva (NBER Working Paper, 2018). EXTRAS:VerbAI by Generation Lab.

Join us for a special "Best of" episode of More Than Money, we talk to Phil Soper - President and CEO of Royal Le Page, on how 3 in 10 Canadians planning to retire within the next two years say they will carry a mortgage into retirement. Next, Mike Moffatt, Economist and Founding Director of University of Ottawa’s Missing Middle Initiative, talks about why should downsizing be a top consideration for seniors when planning their retirement. Then, we have Cyn Meyer, Founder of Second Wind Movement and A Retirement Life Coach discusses what the “honeymoon phase” of retirement looks like and why does it end for many people? Also, Dave Popowich talks about his own experience with aging and how it has influenced the way he thinks about retirement.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In the second of a two-part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach talk about how Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar could react to the possible Fed rate path.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. Yesterday we talked about Michael's reaction to the Jackson Hole meeting last week, and our assessment of the Fed's potential policy pivot. Today my reaction to the price action that followed Chair Powell's speech and what it means for our outlook for the interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar. It's Friday, August 29th at 10am in New York, Michael Gapen: Okay, Matt. Yesterday you were in the driver's seat asking me questions about how Chair Powell's comments at Jackson Hole influenced our views around the outlook for monetary policy. I'd like to turn it back to you, if I may. What did you make of the price action that followed the meeting? Matthew Hornbach: Well, I think it's safe to say that a lot of investors were surprised just as you were by what Chair Powell delivered in his opening remarks. We saw a fairly dramatic decline in short-term interest rates, taking the two-year Treasury yield down quite a bit. And at the same time, we also saw the yield curve steepen, which means that the two-year yield fell much more than the 10-year yield and the 30-year bond yield fell. And I think what investors were thinking with this surprise in mind is just what you mentioned earlier – that perhaps this is a Fed that does have slightly more tolerance for above target inflation. And so, you can imagine a world in which, if the Fed does in fact cut rates, as you're forecasting, or more aggressively than you're forecasting, amidst an environment where inflation continues to run above target. Then you could see that investors would gravitate towards shorter maturity treasuries because the Fed is cutting interest rates and typically shorter-term Treasury yields follow the Fed funds rate up or down. But at the same time reconsider their love of duration and taking duration risk. Because when you move out the yield curve in your investments and you're buying a 10-year bond or a 30-year bond, you are inherently taking the view that the Fed does care about inflation and keeping it low and moving it back to target. And if this Fed still cares about that, but perhaps on the margin slightly less than it did before, then perhaps investors might demand more compensation for owning that duration risk in the long end of the yield curve. Which would then make it more difficult for those long-term yields to fall. And so, I think what we saw on Friday was a pretty classic response to a Federal Reserve speech in this case from the Chair that was much more dovish than investors had anticipated going in. The final thing I'd say in this regard is the following Monday, when we looked at the market price action, there wasn't very much follow through. In other words, the Treasury market didn't continue to rally, yields didn't continue to fall. And I think what that is telling you is that investors are still relatively optimistic about the economy at this point. Investors aren't worried that the Fed knows something that they don't. And so, as a result, we didn't really see much follow through in the U.S. Treasury market on the following Monday. So, I do think that investors are going to be watching the data much like yourself, and the Fed. And if we do end up getting worse data, the Treasury market will likely continue to perform very well. If the data rebounds, as you suggested in one of your alternative scenarios, then perhaps the Treasury rally that we've seen year-to-date will take a pause. Michael Gapen: And if I can follow up and ask you about your views on the trough of any cutting cycle. We have generally been projecting an end to the easing cycle that's below where markets are pricing. So, in general, a deeper cutting cycle. Could some of that – the market viewpoint of greater tolerance for inflation be driving market prices vis-a-vis what we're thinking? Or how do you assess where the market prices, the trough of any cutting cycle, versus what we're thinking at any point in time? Matthew Hornbach: So, once you move beyond the forecastable horizon, which you tell me… Michael Gapen: About three days … Matthew Hornbach: Probably about three days. But, you know, within the next couple of months, let's say. The way that the market would price a central bank's likely policy path, or average policy path, is going to depend on how investors are thinking about the reaction function of the central bank. And so, to the extent that it becomes clear that the central bank, the Fed, is increasingly tolerant of above target inflation in order to ensure that the balance of risks don't become unbalanced, let's say. Then I think you would expect to see that show up in a lower market price for the policy rate at which the Fed eventually stops the easing cycle, which would presumably be lower than what investors might have been thinking earlier. As we kind of make our way from here, closer to that trough policy rate, of course, the data will be in the driver's seat. So, if we saw a scenario in which the economic activity data rebounded, then I would say that the way that the market is pricing the trough policy rate should also rebound. Alternatively, if we are trending towards a much weaker labor market, then of course the market would continue to price lower and lower trough policy rates. Michael Gapen: So, Matt, with our new baseline path for Fed policy with quarterly rate cuts starting in September through the end of 2026, how has your view changed on the likely direction and path for Treasury yields and the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: So, when we put together our quarterly projections for Treasury yields, of course we link them very closely with your forecast for Fed policy, activity in the U.S. economy, as well as inflation. So, we will likely have to modify slightly the exact way in which we get down to a 4 percent 10-year yield by the end of this year, which is our current forecast, and very likely to remain our forecast going forward. I don't see a need at this point to adjust our year-end forecast for 10-year Treasury yields. When we move into 2026, again here we would also likely make some tweaks to our quarterly path for 10-year Treasury yields. But at this point, I'm not inclined to change the year end target for 2026. Of course, the end of 2026 is a lifetime away it seems from the current moment, given that we're going to have so much to do and deal with in 2026. For example, we're going to have a midterm election towards the end of the year, we will have a new chair of the Federal Reserve, and there's going to be a lot for us to deal with. So, in thinking about where are 10-year yield is going to end 2026, it's not just about the path of the Fed funds rate between now and then. It's also the events that occur, that are much more difficult to forecast than let's say the 10-year Treasury yield itself is – which is also very difficult to forecast. But it's also about by the time we get to the end of 2026, what are investors going to be thinking about 2027? You know, that is really the trick to forecasting. So, at this point, we're not inclined to change the levels to which we think Treasury yields will get to. But we are inclined to tweak the exact quarterly path. Michael Gapen: And the U.S. dollar? Matthew Hornbach: , We have been U.S. Dollar bears since the beginning of the year, and the U.S. dollar has in fact lost about 10 percent of its value relative to its broad set of trading partners. We do think that the dollar will continue to lose value over the course of the next 12 to 18 months. The exact quarterly path, we may have to tweak somewhat because also the dollar is not just about the Fed path. It's also about the path for the ECB, and the path for the Bank of England, and the path for the Bank of Japan, etcetera. But in terms of the big picture? The big picture is that the dollar should de continue to depreciate in our view. And that's what we'll be telling our investors.So, Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk. Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt. Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. We look forward to bringing you another episode around the time of the September FOMC meeting where we will update our views once again. 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.

Mark, Cris, and Marisa talk about the increasingly shaky state of the economy after reviewing the week's data. They preview next week's jobs report and the likelihood of further downward revisions and negative payroll numbers. The trio then ponders some dark scenarios regarding Fed independence or lack thereof, and what that could mean for the growth and inflation outlooks. Hosts: Mark Zandi – Chief Economist, Moody's Analytics, Cris deRitis – Deputy Chief Economist, Moody's Analytics, and Marisa DiNatale – Senior Director - Head of Global Forecasting, Moody's AnalyticsFollow Mark Zandi on 'X' and BlueSky @MarkZandi, Cris deRitis on LinkedIn, and Marisa DiNatale on LinkedIn Questions or Comments, please email us at helpeconomy@moodys.com. We would love to hear from you. To stay informed and follow the insights of Moody's Analytics economists, visit Economic View.

Nesse Flow News, Igor e Carlos Tramontina recebem Jones Manuel para comentarem os assuntos do momento.

Shoot us a Text.Episode #1133: Cox Automotive Chief Economist Jonathan Smoke joins Paul to talk tariffs, pent-up demand, and why Q3 might be best experienced with a little Abba. It's a data-rich conversation with serious implications for dealers navigating policy shifts, EV adoption, and consumer behavior.ASOTU's coverage of the 45th Annual NAMAD Annual Meeting is brought to you by Connected Dealer Services.Jonathan Smoke, Chief Economist at Cox Automotive, offers a deep dive into today's economic headwinds and consumer sentiment:Tariffs Echo the 1930s: Jonathan compares today's tariffs to policies that sparked the Great Depression, but says their current impact is more of a "roller coaster" than a collapse.Stabilization Surprises: Despite the policy shakeups, consumer spending has rebounded this summer. July auto sales were stronger than expected and August showed continued momentum.7 Million Buyers Still Waiting: Pent-up demand remains real. First-party data from AutoTrader, KBB, and dealer websites shows strong shopping interest, even among buyers still hunting for affordable payments.Best Time in 4 Years to Buy (If You Have Credit): Incentives, leasing deals, and EV discounts make this a prime moment for well-qualified buyers—especially for electrified vehicles.EV Adoption Is Not Slowing Down: July marked the highest market share ever for EVs in the U.S. at 9.1%. EVs are now priced lower than ICE vehicles, and the replacement cycle is kicking in.Electrification Is Inevitable: Jonathan predicts most multi-car households will have at least one EV. He drives a PHEV himself and sees plug-ins as an optimal choice for daily commutes.China May Be the Wildcard: Smoke believes Chinese EVs entering the U.S. market is a matter of when, not if—and that it may be the key to returning to a consistent 17M SAAR.Bonus Track: For Q3, Jonathan's playlist is inspired by ABBA's Gold—think "Money, Money, Money" meets “Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!” as a soundtrack to the Big Beautiful Bill (BBBBA).Join Paul J Daly and Kyle Mountsier every morning for the Automotive State of the Union podcast as they connect the dots across car dealerships, retail trends, emerging tech like AI, and cultural shifts—bringing clarity, speed, and people-first insight to automotive leaders navigating a rapidly changing industry.Get the Daily Push Back email at https://www.asotu.com/ JOIN the conversation on LinkedIn at: https://www.linkedin.com/company/asotu/

Chuck Zodda and Mike Armstrong discuss core inflation rose to 2.9% in July, highest since February. Does this change the Fed's September rate cut decision? Rate cuts will be good for stocks. But would the Fed be stimulating an economy that doesn't need it? Economists see slow US growth and stubborn inflation well into 2026. Higher prices are coming for household staples. 

The belief that women are in some way inferior to men has been around for centuries. And throughout that time, women have suffered the consequences. Economists have lately been trying to understand more about the origins of gender biased norms, to help create better policies to challenge them. Their work can build on insights from sociology, anthropology and gender studies, but also raises important questions about the roles of men and women in society. So what should policy attempt to change?  Siwan Anderson of Vancouver School of Economics and CEPR talks to Tim Phillips about what we know on these topics – and the most promising directions for future research.

It's another big week ahead with all eyes on the US jobs report and on-going headlines regarding the firing of Fed Governor Cook. In Europe, we discuss upcoming inflation data, some central bank divergence, and the potential fallout from the vote of confidence in France. In Asia, the focus is on China's growth outlook and Beijing's likely policy strategy amid a strong rally in equity markets. Finally, in a special segment in this episode, we focus on the next leg of easing by Asian central banks and market implications, with Sonal Varma, Chief Economist for India & Asia ex Japan, and Albert Leung, Asia Rates Strategist. Chapters: (US: 01:53, EMEA: 08:08, China: 12:19, Asia Central Banks Special: 17:25).

No “Estadão Analisa” desta sexta-feira, 29, Carlos Andreazza fala sobre a polêmica capa da edição desta semana da revista britânica The Economist, com o ex-presidente Jair Bolsonaro (PL). O brasileiro é retratado com um chapéu igual ao que usava o “Viking do Capitólio”, um dos apoiadores do presidente dos Estados Unidos, Donald Trump, na invasão do Congresso americano em 6 de janeiro de 2021. O “Viking do Capitólio”, como passou a ser chamado o ativista de extrema direita Jake Chansley, tornou-se um dos símbolos do ataque à sede do Poder Legislativo do país. Assine por R$1,90/mês e tenha acesso ilimitado ao conteúdo do Estadão.Acesse: https://bit.ly/oferta-estadao O 'Estadão Analisa' é transmitido ao vivo de segunda a sexta-feira, às 7h, no Youtube e redes sociais do Estadão. Também disponível no agregador de podcasts de sua preferência. Apresentação: Carlos AndreazzaEdição/Produção: Jefferson PerlebergCoordenação: Manuella Menezes e Everton OliveiraSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Misty Heggeness, an associate professor at the University Of Kansas, joined Forbes senior editor Maggie McGrath on "Forbes Newsroom" to discuss working mothers leaving the workforce at the fastest pace since the pandemic. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The richest 10 per cent of households in the Republic hold almost half the wealth, according to new figures from the Central Bank. Given these figures, is a tax on the wealthy necessary? All to discuss with Dr Emma Howard, Economist at Technological University of Dublin.

Originally Recorded July 10th, 2025About David Friedman: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit musicallyspeaking.substack.com

The richest 10 per cent of households in the Republic hold almost half the wealth, according to new figures from the Central Bank. Given these figures, is a tax on the wealthy necessary? All to discuss with Dr Emma Howard, Economist at Technological University of Dublin.

Several recent economic reports say that, in the first six months of this year, Canada's economy did better than expected, posting around 2% growth, despite Trump's tariff threats.

O presidente Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva autorizou uma resposta formal às tarifas de 50% impostas pelos Estados Unidos a produtos brasileiros. A medida, baseada na Lei de Reciprocidade Econômica sancionada em abril, foi comunicada ao Itamaraty, que acionará a Câmara de Comércio Exterior (Camex) para definir, em até 30 dias, medidas equivalentes de retaliação, como novas tarifas ou suspensão de concessões comerciais.Enquanto isso, Jair Bolsonaro se prepara para enfrentar seu julgamento no Supremo Tribunal Federal, que começa na próxima terça-feira. A revista britânica The Economist destacou o caso em sua capa, retratando o ex-presidente como o “Viking do Capitólio” e apontando que o processo contra ele por tentativa de golpe representa uma lição de maturidade democrática do Brasil.

In the first of a two- part episode, our Chief U.S. Economist Michael Gapen and Global Head of Macro Strategy Matthew Hornbach discuss the outcome of the Jackson Hole meeting and the outlook for the U.S. economy and the Fed rate path during the rest of the year. 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: Last Friday, the Jackson Hole meeting delivered a big surprise to markets. Both stocks and bonds reacted decisively.Today, the first of a two-part episode. We'll discuss Michael's reaction to Chair Powell's Jackson Hole comments and what they mean for his view on the outlook for monetary policy. Tomorrow, the outlook for interest rate markets and the US dollar. It's Thursday, August 28th at 10am in New York. So, Mike, here we are after Jackson Hole. The mood this year felt a lot more hawkish, or at least patient than what we saw last week. And Chair Powell really caught my attention when he said, “with policy and restrictive territory, the baseline outlook for the shifting balance of risks may warrant adjusting our policy stance.” That line has been on my mind ever since. So, let's dig into it. What's your gut reaction?Michael Gapen: Yeah, Matt, it was a surprise to me, and I think I would highlight three aspects of his Jackson Hole comments that were important to me. So, I think what happened here, of course, is the Fed became much more worried about downside risk to the labor market after the July employment report, right? So, at the July FOMC meeting, which came before that report, Powell had said, ‘Well, you know, slow payroll growth is fine as long as the unemployment rate stays low.' And that's very much in line with our view. But sometimes these things are easier said than done. And I think the July employment report told them perhaps there's more weakness in the labor market now than they thought.So, I think the messaging here is about a shift towards risk management mode. Maybe we need to put in a couple policy rate cuts to shore up the labor market. And I think that was the big change and I think that's what drove the overall message in the statement. But there were two other parts of it that I think were interesting, you know. From the economist's point of view, when the chair explicitly writes in a speech that ‘the economy now may warrant adjustments in our policy stance,' right? I mean, that's a big deal. It suggests that the decision has been largely made, and I think anytime the Fed is taking a change of direction, either easing or tightening, they're not just going to do one move. So, they're signaling that they're likely prepared to do a series of moves, and we can debate about what that means. And the third thing that struck me is right before the line that you mentioned he did qualify the need to adjust rates by saying, well, whatever we do, we should, “Proceed cautiously.” So, a year ago, as you recall, the Fed opened up with a big 50 basis point rate cut, which was a surprise. And cut at three successive meetings. So, a hundred basis points of cuts over three meetings, starting with a 50 basis point cut. I think the phraseology ‘proceeds carefully' is a signal to markets that, ‘Hey, don't expect that this time around.' The world's different. This is a risk management discussion. And so, we think, two rate cuts before year end would be most likely. Maybe you get three. But I don't think we should expect a large 50 basis point cut at the September meeting. So those would be my thoughts. Downside risk to the labor market – putting this into words says something important to me. And the ‘proceed cautiously' language I think is something markets also need to take into account.Matthew Hornbach: So how do you translate that into a forecasted path for the Fed? I mean, in terms of your baseline outlook, how many rate cuts are you forecasting this year? And what about in 2026?Michael Gapen: Right. So, we previously; we thought what the Fed was doing was leaning against risks that inflation would be persistent. They moved into that camp because of how fast tariffs were going up and the overall level of the effective tariff rate. So, we thought they would stay on hold for longer and when they move, move more rapidly. What they're saying now in a risk management sense, right; they still think risk to inflation is to the upside, but the unemployment rate is also to the upside. And they're looking at both of those as about equally weighted. So, in a baseline outlook where the Fed's not assuming a recession and neither are we, you get a maybe a dip in growth and a rise in inflation. But growth recovers and inflation comes down next year. In that world, and with the idea that you're proceeding cautiously, they're kind of moving and evaluating, moving and evaluating.So, I think the translation here is: a path of quarterly rate cuts between now and the end of 2026. So, six rate cuts, but moving quarterly, like September and December this year; March, June, September, and December next year; which would take us to a terminal target range of 2.75 to 3. So rather than moving later and more rapidly, you move earlier, but more gradually. That's how we're thinking about it now.Matthew Hornbach: And that's about a 25 basis point upward adjustment to the trough policy rate that you were forecasting previously…Michael Gapen: That's right. So, the prior thought was a Fed that moves later may have to cut more, right? Because you're – by holding policy tighter for longer – you're putting more downward weight on the economy from a cyclical perspective. So, you may end up cutting more to essentially reverse that in 2026. So, by moving earlier, maybe a Fed that moves a little earlier, cuts a little less.Matthew Hornbach: In terms of the alternative outcomes. Obviously, in any given forecast, things can go not as expected. And so, if the path turns out to be something other than what you're forecasting today, what would be some of the more likely outcomes in your mind?Michael Gapen: Yeah, as we like to say in economics, we forecast so we know where we're wrong. So, you're right, the world can evolve very differently. So just a couple thoughts. You know, one, now that we're thinking the Fed does cut in September, what gets them not to cut? You'd need a – I think, a really strong August employment report; something around 225,000 jobs, which would bring the three-month moving average back to around 150, right. That would be a signal that the May-June downdraft was just a post Liberation Day pothole and not trend deterioration in the labor market. So that, you know, would be one potential alternative. Another is – although we've projected quarterly paths in this kind of nice gradual pace of cuts, we could get a repeat of last year where the Fed cuts 50 to 75 basis points by year end but realizes the labor market has not rolled over. And then we get some tariff pass through into inflation. And maybe residual seasonality and inflation in Q1. And then the Fed goes on hold again, then cuts could resume later in the year. And I also think in the backdrop here, when the Fed is saying we are easing in a risk management sense and we're easing maybe earlier than we otherwise would – that suggests the Fed has greater tolerance for inflation. So, understanding how much tolerance this Fed or the next one has for above target inflation, I think could influence how many rate cuts you eventually get in in 2026. So, we could even see a deeper trough through greater inflation tolerance. And finally, of course, we're not out of the woods with respect to recession risk. We could be wrong. Maybe the labor market is trend weakening and we're about to find that out. Growth is slowing. Growth was about 1.3 percent in the first half of the year. Final sales is softer. Of course, in a recession alternative scenario, the Fed's probably cutting much deeper, maybe down to 1 50 to 175 on the funds rate.So, I mean, Matt, you make a good point. There's still many different ways the economy can evolve and many different ways that the Fed's path for policy rates can evolve.Matthew Hornbach: Well, that's a good place to bring this Part 1 episode to an end. Tune in tomorrow, for my reaction to the market price action that followed Chair Powell's speech -- and what it means for our outlook for interest rate markets and the U.S. dollar.Mike, thanks for taking the time to talk.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.

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

Stephen Roach talks about how, as the former chairman of Morgan Stanley Asia, h ehad the hear of many Asian political leaders. But as he became more pessimistic about the Chinese economy, China's leadership became less interested in what he had to say.About Peking HotelThe Peking Hotel podcast and newsletter are digital publications in which Liu He interviews China specialists about their first-hand experiences and observations from decades past. The project grew out of Liu's research at Hoover Institution collecting oral history of China experts living in the U.S. Their stories are a reminder of what China used to be and what it is capable of becoming.Podcast musicTommy H. Brandon, The Last Road Trip. Artlist Original Music.Tomer Lavie, Silky Secrets. Artlist Original Music.Roie Shpigler, Clarity. Artlist Original Music.PBS, American Experience: Police Tactics at the Dow Demonstration. 2017. Get full access to Peking Hotel at pekinghotel.substack.com/subscribe

No 3 em 1 desta quinta-feira (28), a megaoperação contra o crime organizado, classificada pelo ministro Ricardo Lewandowski como a 'maior da história', que revelou o controle do PCC sobre R$ 30 bilhões em fundos. A bancada debate também a análise da revista 'The Economist', que chamou o julgamento de Jair Bolsonaro de "lição de democracia" para os EUA. Tudo isso e muito mais no 3 em 1. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

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

Season Six of The Food Professor Podcast, presented by Caddle, kicks off with hosts Michael LeBlanc and Dr. Sylvain Charlebois diving into a whirlwind of summer news, trade turbulence, and big-picture food industry shifts. This debut episode sets the tone for what promises to be a dynamic and thought-provoking season.Michael and Sylvain begin with personal updates from a busy summer, including travels to Quebec City, Sylvain's new role as Visiting Scholar at McGill University, and Michael's experiences covering retail in New York. They also announce that full video episodes of The Food Professor are now available on YouTube, expanding the show's reach as podcasting and video continue to converge.The discussion quickly pivots to critical economic and policy issues. The hosts unpack Ottawa's decision to end retaliatory countervailing tariffs on U.S. food imports—a move Sylvain argues was long overdue, as tariffs only raised costs for Canadian consumers while doing little to protect domestic industries. With food inflation running hot, Sylvain predicts prices will ease by early fall, pointing to statements from Loblaw CEO Per Bank as validation.From there, the pair explore the elimination of the U.S. “de minimis” exemption, a decision with far-reaching consequences for Canadian small businesses and independent food producers shipping across the border. Michael emphasizes how indie retailers relying on U.S. customers will be hit hardest, while Sylvain warns that Ottawa must address Canada's own $150 threshold to avoid worsening inequities.The conversation expands globally with a deep dive into China's escalating tariffs on Canadian canola, pork, and lobster—measures Sylvain interprets as retaliation for Canada's 100% tariff on Chinese EVs. He makes the case for a more nuanced approach: segment tariffs between luxury and affordable EVs, allowing consumers greater choice while protecting farmers from geopolitical fallout.Other highlights include an analysis of the pickle aisle—yes, really—where the Bick's withdrawal from Canada illustrates the tangled realities of cross-border food supply chains. The hosts also discuss Dr Pepper Keurig's acquisition of JDE Peet's, situating it within a larger trend of consumer packaged goods giants restructuring in response to inflation, climate change, GLP-1 weight-loss drugs, and a rewiring of global trade flows.The episode wraps on a lighter note, celebrating the Canadian arrival of Bobby Flay's Burger concept and teasing next week's guest, Globe and Mail journalist Greg Mercer, author of The Lobster Trap.With sharp analysis, lively banter, and a keen eye on the forces reshaping food and retail, Michael and Sylvain set the stage for a season that will track how consumers, farmers, and retailers navigate inflation, trade disputes, shifting supply chains, and new food trends. The Food Professor #podcast is presented by Caddle. About UsDr. Sylvain Charlebois is a Professor in food distribution and policy in the Faculties of Management and Agriculture at Dalhousie University in Halifax. He is also the Senior Director of the Agri-food Analytics Lab, also located at Dalhousie University. Before joining Dalhousie, he was affiliated with the University of Guelph's Arrell Food Institute, which he co-founded. Known as “The Food Professor”, his current research interest lies in the broad area of food distribution, security and safety. Google Scholar ranks him as one of the world's most cited scholars in food supply chain management, food value chains and traceability.He has authored five books on global food systems, his most recent one published in 2017 by Wiley-Blackwell entitled “Food Safety, Risk Intelligence and Benchmarking”. He has also published over 500 peer-reviewed journal articles in several academic publications. Furthermore, his research has been featured in several newspapers and media groups, including The Lancet, The Economist, the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, BBC, NBC, ABC, Fox News, Foreign Affairs, the Globe & Mail, the National Post and the Toronto Star.Dr. Charlebois sits on a few company boards, and supports many organizations as a special advisor, including some publicly traded companies. Charlebois is also a member of the Scientific Council of the Business Scientific Institute, based in Luxemburg. Dr. Charlebois is a member of the Global Food Traceability Centre's Advisory Board based in Washington DC, and a member of the National Scientific Committee of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) in Ottawa. Michael LeBlanc is the president and founder of M.E. LeBlanc & Company Inc, a senior retail advisor, keynote speaker and now, media entrepreneur. He has been on the front lines of retail industry change for his entire career. Michael has delivered keynotes, hosted fire-side discussions and participated worldwide in thought leadership panels, most recently on the main stage in Toronto at Retail Council of Canada's Retail Marketing conference with leaders from Walmart & Google. He brings 25+ years of brand/retail/marketing & eCommerce leadership experience with Levi's, Black & Decker, Hudson's Bay, CanWest Media, Pandora Jewellery, The Shopping Channel and Retail Council of Canada to his advisory, speaking and media practice.Michael produces and hosts a network of leading retail trade podcasts, including the award-winning No.1 independent retail industry podcast in America, Remarkable Retail with his partner, Dallas-based best-selling author Steve Dennis; Canada's top retail industry podcast The Voice of Retail and Canada's top food industry and one of the top Canadian-produced management independent podcasts in the country, The Food Professor with Dr. Sylvain Charlebois from Dalhousie University in Halifax.Rethink Retail has recognized Michael as one of the top global retail experts for the fourth year in a row, Thinkers 360 has named him on of the Top 50 global thought leaders in retail, RTIH has named him a top 100 global though leader in retail technology and Coresight Research has named Michael a Retail AI Influencer. If you are a BBQ fan, you can tune into Michael's cooking show, Last Request BBQ, on YouTube, Instagram, X and yes, TikTok.Michael is available for keynote presentations helping retailers, brands and retail industry insiders explaining the current state and future of the retail industry in North America and around the world.

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

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

August 27, 2025 ~ Stephen Moore, co-founder of Unleash Prosperity and former senior economic advisor to Donald Trump, joins Chris, Lloyd, and Jamie to discuss the warning alarms sounding about President Trump's attempt to fire Federal Reserve Gov. Lisa Cook, and the risks of undermining the central bank's independence.

A build-up of industry income changes could have driven the pay gap between men and women to a historic low. The pay gap for the June quarter is sitting at 5.2 percent, down from the 8.2 percent seen a year ago. It's the smallest margin seen since Stats NZ began collecting the data in 1998. Infometrics Principal Economist Brad Olsen says sectors like transport, IT and finance have been pushing through higher incomes for female workers. "We've also seen continued larger pay increases for a number of quite large female-dominated industries alike - of education and health." LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

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

In Pacific Waves today: Marshall Islands parliament goes up in flames; Economists assess PNG's economy over 50 years; Samoa citizens get ready to cast their votes; Bougainville election soon approaching. Go to this episode on rnz.co.nz for more details

Greetings from Cambridge! I'm still mid-move and not fully settled—classes kick off next week and I'm wrapping the last bits of admin—so I'm sharing one more rerun before we close out Season 4.Today's guest is a Cambridge neighbor just down the Charles at MIT: Dr. Amy Finkelstein, John Bates Clark Award–winning economist.If you're new to her work: Amy is a leading health economist at MIT and coauthor of We've Got You Covered (with Liran Einav), a timely book from a couple of years ago. In it, they argue for universal basic coverage that guarantees financial protection from major medical costs, while leaving room for supplemental private insurance—simple, fair, and focused on what insurance is actually for.In our conversation we cover the Oregon Medicaid Experiment and the ideas that shaped it, plus the arc of her career. I loved this one. Hope you enjoy the rerun.Scott's Mixtape Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Get full access to Scott's Mixtape Substack at causalinf.substack.com/subscribe

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

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

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

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

In this episode of SparX, Mukesh Bansal sits down with Neelkanth Mishra, Chief Economist at Axis Bank, to unpack the chaos behind Trump's tariff wars and what it means for the global order.They explore why these moves aren't just about trade, but about four bigger objectives. Covering various topics from stagnant U.S. wages and life expectancy gaps to America's renewed manufacturing drive for national security, this episode talks about the forces influencing today's shifting geopolitical landscape.They discuss whether tariffs can deliver on revenue goals, the risks of a trade war, and how a “might is right” continues to dominate global economics. Neelkanth dives into why a dollar devaluation may be inevitable, what history teaches us, and why China as a near-equal opposer changes the game.Whether you're an investor, policy enthusiast, or curious about the future of money, power, and global stability, this episode offers a lens into the economic strategies that could rewrite the world order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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