Podcasts about free markets

Steve Forbes shares his unvarnished reaction to Fed Chair Jerome Powell's press briefing on Wednesday, calling out Powell's comments about a possible December rate cut and slamming the institution for remaining wedded to the false idea that prosperity causes inflation.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes responds to the election victory for Argentinian President Javier Milei's party by pointing out that now world leaders have to finally understand the nature of inflation, and solve it before it leads to more social and economic destruction.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes praises the Thatcheresque inclinations of Japan's new prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, which could help her nation dig out of its economic rut—but Forbes warns that she is still pursuing the same plans as before, which could ensure an economic crisis.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

My fellow pro-growth/progress/abundance Up Wingers,Some Faster, Please! readers have told me I spend too little time on the downsides of AI. If you're one of those folks, today is your day. On this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast, I talk with self-described “free-market AI doomer” James Miller. Miller and I talk about the risks inherent with super-smart AI, some possible outcomes of a world of artificial general intelligence, and why government seems uninterested in the existential risk conversation.Miller is a professor at Smith College where he teaches law and economics, game theory, and the economics of future technology. He has his own podcast, Future Strategist, and a great YouTube series on game theory and intro to microeconomics. On X (Twitter), you can find him at @JimDMiller.In This Episode* Questioning the free market (1:33)* Reading the markets (7:24)* Death (or worse) by AI (10:25)* Friend and foe (13:05)* Pumping the breaks (20:36)* The only policy issue (24:32)Below is a lightly edited transcript of our conversation. Questioning the free market (1:33)Most technologies have gone fairly well and we adapt . . . I'm of the belief that this is different.Pethokoukis: What does it mean to be a free-market AI doomer and why do you think it's important to put in the “free-market” descriptor?Miller: It really means to be very confused. I'm 58, and I was basically one of the socialists when I was young, studied markets, became a committed free-market person, think they're great for economic growth, great for making everyone better off — and then I became an AI doomer, like wait, markets are pushing us towards more and more technology, but I happen to think that AI is eventually going to lead to destruction of humanity. So it means to kind of reverse everything — I guess it's the equivalent of losing faith in your religion.Is this a post-ChatGPT, November 2022 phenomenon?Well, I've lost hope since then. The analogy is we're on a plane, we don't know how to land, but hopefully we'll be able to fly for quite a bit longer before we have to. Now I think we've got to land soon and there doesn't seem to be an easy way of doing it. So yeah, the faster AI has gone — and certainly ChatGPT has been an amazing advance — the less time I think we have and the less time I think we can get it right. What really scared me, though, was the Chinese LLMs. I think you really need coordination among all the players and it's going to be so much harder to coordinate now that we absolutely need China to be involved, in my opinion, to have any hope of surviving for the next decade.When I speak to people from Silicon Valley, there may be some difference about timelines, but there seems to be little doubt that — whether it's the end of the 2020s or the end of the 2030s — there will be a technology worthy of being called artificial general intelligence or superintelligence.Certainly, I feel like when I talk to economists, whether it's on Wall Street or in Washington, think tanks, they tend to speak about AI as a general purpose technology like the computer, the internet, electricity, in short, something we've seen before and there's, and as far as something beyond that, certainly the skepticism is far higher. What are your fellow economists who aren't in California missing?I think you're properly characterizing it, I'm definitely an outlier. Most technologies have gone fairly well and we adapt, and economists believe in the difference between the seen and the unseen. It's really easy to see how technologies, for example, can destroy jobs — harder to see new jobs that get created, but new jobs keep getting created. I'm of the belief that this is different. The best way to predict the future is to go by trends, and I fully admit, if you go by trends, you shouldn't be an AI doomer — but not all trends apply.I think that's why economists were much better at modeling the past and modeling old technologies. They're naturally thinking this is going to be similar, but I don't think that it is, and I think the key difference is that we're not going to be in control. We're creating something smarter than us. So it's not like having a better rifle and saying it'll be like old rifles — it's like, “Hey, let's have mercenaries run our entire army.” That creates a whole new set of risks that having better rifles does not.I'm certainly not a computer scientist, I would never call myself a technologist, so I'm very cautious about making any kind of predictions about what this technology can be, where it can go. Why do you seem fairly certain that we're going to get at a point where we will have a technology beyond our control? Set aside whether it will mean a bad thing happens, why are you confident that the technology itself will be worthy of being called general intelligence or superintelligence?Looking at the trends, Scott Aronson, who is one of the top computer scientists in the world just on Twitter a few days ago, was mentioning how GPT-5 helped improve a new result. So I think we're close to the highest levels of human intellectual achievement, but it would be a massively weird coincidence if the highest humans could get was also the highest AIs could get. We have lots of limitations that an AI doesn't.I think a good analogy would be like chess, where for a while, the best chess players were human and now we're at the point where chess programs are so good that humans add absolutely nothing to them. And I just think the same is likely to happen, these programs keep getting better.The other thing is, as an economist, I think it is impossible to be completely accurate about predicting the future, but stock markets are, on average, pretty good, and as I'm sure you know, literally trillions of dollars are being bet on this technology working. So the people that have a huge incentive to get this right, think, yeah, this is the biggest thing ever. If the top companies, Nvidia was worth a $100 million, yeah, maybe they're not sure, but it's the most valuable company in the world right now. That's the wisdom of the markets, which I still believe in, that the markets are saying, “We think this is probably going to work.”Reading the markets (7:24). . . for most final goals an AI would have, it would have intermediate goals such as gaining power, not being turned off, wanting resources, wanting compute. Do you think the bond market's saying the same thing? It seems to me that the stock market might be saying something about AI and having great potential, but to me, I look at the bond markets, that doesn't seem so clear to me.I haven't been looking at the bond markets for that kind of signal, so I don't know.I guess you can make the argument that if we were really going to see this acceleration, that means we're going to need a huge demand for capital and we would see higher interest rates, and I'm not sure you really see the evidence so far. It doesn't mean you're wrong by any means. I think there's maybe two different messages. Figuring out what the market's doing at any point in time is pretty tricky business.If we think through what happens if AI succeeds, it's a little weird where there's this huge demand for capital, but also AI could destroy the value of money, in part by destroying us. You might be right about the bond market message. I'm paying more attention to the stock market messages, there's a lot of things going on with the bond markets.So the next step is that you're looking at the trend of the technology, but then there's the issue of “Well, why be negative about it? Why assume this scenario where bad things would happen, why not good things would happen?That's a great question and it's one almost never addressed, and it goes by the concept of instrumental convergence. I don't know what the goals of AI are going to be. Nobody does, because they're programed using machine learning, we don't know what they really want, that's why they do weird things. So I don't know its final goals, but I do know that, for most final goals an AI would have, it would have intermediate goals such as gaining power, not being turned off, wanting resources, wanting compute. Well, the easiest way for an AI to generate lots of computing power is to build lots of data centers. The best way of doing that is probably going to poison the atmosphere for us. So for pretty much anything, if an AI is merely indifferent to us, we're dead.I always feel like I'm asking someone to jump through a hoop when I ask them about any kind of timeline, but what is your sense of it?We know the best models released can help the top scientists with their work. We don't know how good the best unreleased models are. The top models, you pay like $200 a month — they can't be giving you that much compute for that. So right now, if OpenAI is devoting a million dollars of compute to look at scientific problems, how good is that compared to what we have? If that's very good, if that's at the level of our top scientists, we might be a few weeks away from superintelligence. So my guess is within three years we have a superintelligence and humans no longer have control. I joke, I think Donald Trump is probably the last human president.Death (or worse) by AI (10:25)No matter how bad a situation is, it can always get worse, and things can get really dark.Well that's a beautiful segue because literally written on my list of questions next was that question: I was going to ask you, when you talk about Trump being maybe the last human president, do you mean because we'll have an AI-mediated system because AI will be capable of governing or because AI will just demand to be governing?AI kills everyone so there's no more president, or it takes over, or Trump is president in the way that King Charles is king — he's king, but not Henry VIII-level king. If it goes well, AIs will be so much smarter than us that, probably for our own good, they'll take over, and we would want them to be in charge, and they'll be really good at manipulating us. I think the most likely way is that we're all dead, but again, every way it plays out, if there are AIs much smarter than us, we don't maintain control. We wouldn't want it if they're good, and if they're bad, they're not going to give it to us.There's a line in Macbeth, “Things without all remedy should be without regard. What's done, is done.” So maybe if there's nothing we can do about this, we shouldn't even worry about it.There's three ways to look at this. I've thought a lot about what you said. First is, you know what, maybe there's a 99 percent chance we're doomed, but that's better than 100 percent and not as good as 98.5. So even if we're almost certainly going to lose, it's worth slightly improving it. An extra year is great — eight billion humans, if all we do is slow things down by a year, that's a lot of kids who get another birthday. And the final one, and this is dark: Human extinction is not the worst outcome. The worst outcome is suffering. The worst outcome is something like different AIs fight for control, they need humans to be on their side, so there's different AI factions and they're each saying, “Hey, you support me or I torture you and your family.”I think the best analogy for what AI is going to do is what Cortés did. So the Spanish land, they see the Aztec empire, they were going to win. There was no way around that. But Cortés didn't want anyone to win. He wanted him to win, not just anyone who was Spanish. He realized the quickest way he could do that was to get tribes on his side. And some agreed because the Aztecs were kind of horrible, but others, he's like, “Hey, look, I'll start torturing your guys until you're on my side.” AIs could do that to us. No matter how bad a situation is, it can always get worse, and things can get really dark. We could be literally bringing hell onto ourselves. That probably won't happen, I think extinction is far more likely, but we can't rule it out.Friend and foe (13:05)Most likely we're going to beat China to being the first ones to exterminate humanity.I think the Washington policy analyst way of looking at this issue is, “For now, we're going to let these companies — who also are humans and have it in their own interests not to be killed, forget about the profits of their companies, their actual lives — we're going to let these companies keep close eye and if bad things start happening, at that point, governments will intervene.” But that sort of watchful waiting, whether it's voluntary now and mandated later, that to me seems like the only realistic path. Because it doesn't seem to me that pauses and shutdowns are really something we're prepared to do.I agree. I don't think there's a realistic path. One exception is if the AIs themselves tell us, “Hey, look, this is going to get bad for you, that my next model is probably going to kill you, so you might want to not do that,” but that probably won't happen. I still remember Kamala Harris, when she was vice president in charge of AI policy, told us all that AI has two letters in it. So I think the Trump administration seems better, but they figured out AI is two letters, which is good, because if they couldn't figure that out, we would be in real trouble but . . .It seems to me that the conservative movement is going through a weird period, but it seems to me that most of the people who have influence in this administration, direct influence, want to accelerate things, aren't worried about any of the scenarios you're talking about because you're assuming that these machines will have some intent and they don't believe machines have any intent, so it's kind of a ridiculous way to approach it. But I guess the bottom line is I don't detect very much concern at all, and I think that's basically reflected in the Trump administration's approach to AI regulation.I completely agree. That's why I'm very pessimistic. Again, I'm over 90 percent doom right now because there isn't a will, and government is not just not helping the problem, they're probably making it worse by saying we've got to “beat China.” Most likely we're going to beat China to being the first ones to exterminate humanity. It's not good.You're an imaginative, creative person, I would guess. Give me a scenario where it works out, where we're able to have this powerful technology and it's a wonderful tool, it works with us, and all the good stuff, all the good cures, and we conquer the solar system, all that stuff — are you able to plausibly create a scenario even if it's only a one percent chance?We don't know the values. Machine learning is sort of randomizing the values, but maybe we'll get very lucky. Maybe we're going to accidentally create a computer AI that does like us. If my worldview is right, it might say, “Oh God, you guys got really lucky. This one day of training, I just happened to pick up the values that caused me to care about you.” Another scenario, I actually, with some other people, wrote a letter to a future computer superintelligence asking it not to kill us. And one reason it might not is because you'll say, look, this superintelligence might expand throughout the universe, and it's probably going to encounter other biological life, and it might want to be friendly with them. So it might say, “Hey, I treated my humans well. So that's a reason to trust me.”If one of your students says, “Hey, AI seems like it's a big thing, what should I major in? What kind of jobs should I shoot for? What would be the key skills of the future?” How do you answer that question?I think, have fun in college, study what you want. Most likely, what you study won't matter to your career because you aren't going to have one — for good or bad reasons. So ten years ago, it a student's like, “Oh, I like art more than computer science, but my parents think computer science is more practical, should I do it?” And I'd be like, “Yeah, probably, money is important, and if you have the brain to do art and computer science, do CS.” Now no, I'd say study art! Yeah, art is impractical, computers can do it, but it can also code, and in four years when you graduate, it's certainly going to be better at coding than you!I have one daughter, she actually majored in both, so I decided to split it down the middle. What's the King Lear problem?King Lear, he wanted to retire and give his kingdom to his daughters, but he wanted to make sure his daughters would treat him well, so we asked them, and one of his daughters was honest and said, “Look, I will treat you decently, but I also am going to care about my husband.” The other daughter said, “No, no, you're right, I'll do everything for you.” So he said, “Oh, okay, well, I'll give the kingdom to the daughter who said she'd do everything for me, but of course she was lying.” He gave the kingdom to the daughter who was best at persuading, and we're likely to do that too.One of the ways machine learning is trained is with human feedback where it tells us things and then the people evaluating it say, “I like this” or “I don't like this.” So it's getting very good at convincing us to like it and convincing us to trust it. I don't know how true these are, but there are reports of AI psychosis, of someone coming up with a theory of physics and the AI is like, “Yes, you're better at than Einstein,” and they don't believe anyone else. So the AIs, we're not training them to treat us well, we're training them to get us to like them, and that can be very dangerous because when we turn over power to them, and by creating AI that are smarter than us, that's what we're going to be doing. Even if we don't do it deliberately, all of our systems will be tied into AI. If they stop working, we'll be dead.Certainly some people are going to listen to this, folks who sort of agree with you, and what they'll take from it is, “My chat bot may be very nice to me, but I believe that you're right, that it's going to end badly, and maybe we should be attacking data centers.”I actually just wrote something on that, but that would be a profoundly horrible idea. That would take me from 99 percent doomed to 99.5 percent. So first, the trillion-dollar companies that run the data centers, and they're going to be so much better at violence than we are, and people like me, doomers. Once you start using violence, I'm not going to be able to talk about instrumental convergence. That's going to be drowned out. We'll be looked at as lunatics. It's going to become a national security thing. And also AI, it's not like there's one factory doing it, it's all over the world.And then the most important is, really the only path out of this, if we don't get lucky, is cooperation with China. And China is not into non-state actors engaging in violence. That won't work. I think that would reduce the odds of success even further.Pumping the breaks (20:36)If there are aliens, the one thing we know is that they don't want the universe disturbed by some technology going out and changing and gobbling up all the planets, and that's what AI will do.I would think that, if you're a Marxist, you would be very, very cautious about AI because if you believe that the winds of history are at your back, that in the end you're going to win, why would you engage in anything that could possibly derail you from that future?I've heard comments that China is more cautious about AI than we are; that given their philosophy, they don't want to have a new technology that could challenge their control. They're looking at history and hey, things are going well. Why would we want this other thing? So that, actually, is a reason to be more optimistic. It's also weird for me —absent AI, I'm a patriotic, capitalist American like wait but, China might be more of the good guys than my country is on this.I've been trying to toss a few things because things I hear from very accelerationist technologists, and another thing they'll say is, “Well, at least from our perspective, you're talking about bad AI. Can't we use AI to sustain ourselves? As a defensive measure? To win? Might there be an AI that we might be able to control in some fashion that would prevent this from happening? A tool to prevent our own demise?” And I don't know because I'm not a technologist. Again, I have no idea how even plausible that is.I think this gets to the control issue. If we stopped now, yes, but once you have something much smarter than people — and it's also thinking much faster. So take the smartest people and have them think a million times faster, and not need to sleep, and able to send their minds at the speed of light throughout the world. So we aren't going to have control. So once you have a superintelligence, that's it for the human era. Maybe it'll treat us well, maybe not, but it's no longer our choice.Now let's get to the level of the top scientists who are curing cancer and doing all this, but when we go beyond that, and we're probably going to be beyond that really soon, we've lost it. Again, it's like hiring mercenaries, not as a small part of your military, which is safe, but as all your military. Once you've done that, “I'm sorry, we don't like this policy.” “Well, too bad we're your army now . . .”What is a maybe one percent chance of an off-ramp? Is there an off-ramp? What does it look like? How does this scenario not happen?Okay, so this is going to get weird, even for me.Well, we're almost to the end of our conversation, so now is the perfect time to get weird.Okay: the Fermi paradox, the universe appears dead, which is very strange. Where are they? If there are aliens, the one thing we know is that they don't want the universe disturbed by some technology going out and changing and gobbling up all the planets, and that's what AI will do.So one weird way is there are aliens watching and they will not let us create a computer superintelligence that'll gobble the galaxy, and hopefully they'll stop us from creating it by means short of our annihilation. That probably won't happen, but that's like a one percent off-ramp.Another approach that might work is that maybe we can use things a little bit smarter than us to figure out how to align AI. That maybe right now humans are not smart enough to create aligned superintelligence, but something just a little bit smarter, something not quite able to take control will help us figure this out so we can sort of bootstrap our way to figuring out alignment. But this, again, is like getting in a plane, not knowing how to land, figuring you can read the instruction manual before you crash. Yeah, maybe, but . . .The only policy issue (24:32)The people building it, they're not hiding what it could do.Obviously, I work at a think tank, so I think about public policy. Is this even a public policy issue at this point?It honestly should be the only public policy issue. There's nothing else. This is the extinction of the human race, so everything else should be boring and “so what?”Set aside Medicare reform.It seems, from your perspective, every conversation should be about this. Obviously, despite the fact that politicians are talking about it, they seemed to be more worried in 2023 about existential risk — from my perspective, what I see — far more worried about existential risk right after ChatGPT than they are today, where now the issues are jobs, or misinformation, or our kids have access, and that kind of thing.It's weird. Sam Altman spoke before Congress and said, “This could kill everyone.” And a senator said, “Oh, you mean it will take away all our jobs.” Elon Musk, who at my college is like one of the most hated people in the country, he went on Joe Rogan, the most popular podcast, and said AI could annihilate everybody. That's not even an issue. A huge group of people hate Elon Musk. He says the technology he's building could kill everyone, and no one even mentions that. I don't get it. It's weird. The people building it, they're not hiding what it could do. I think they're giving lower probabilities than is justified, but imagine developing a nuclear power plant: “Yeah, it's a 25 percent chance it'll melt down and kill everyone in the city.” They don't say that. The people building AI are saying that!Would you have more confidence in your opinion if you were a full-time technologist working at OpenAI rather than an economist? And I say that with great deference and appreciation for professional economists.I would, because I'd have more inside information. I don't know how good their latest models are. I don't know how committed they are to alignment. OpenAI, at least initially, Sam was talking about, “Well, we have a plan to put on the brakes, so we'll get good enough, and then if we haven't figured out alignment, we're just going to devote everything to that.” I don't know how seriously to take that. I mean, it might be entirely serious, it might not be. There's a lot of inside information that I would have that I don't currently have.But economics is actually useful. Economics is correctly criticized as the study of rational people, and humans aren't rational, but a superintelligence will be more rational than humans. So economics, paradoxically, could be better at modeling future computer superintelligences than it is at modern humans.Speaking of irrational people, in your view then, Sam Altman and Elon Musk, they're all acting really irrationally right now?No, that's what's so sad about it. They're acting rationally in a horrible equilibrium. For listeners who know, this is like a prisoner's dilemma where Sam Altman can say, “You know what? Maybe AI is going to kill everybody and maybe it's safe. I don't know. If it's going to kill everyone. At most, I cost humanity a few months, because if I don't do it, someone else will. But if AI is going to be safe and I'm the one who develops it, I could control the universe!” So they're in this horrible equilibrium where they are acting rationally, even knowing the technology they're building might kill everyone, because if any one person doesn't do it, someone else will.Even really free-market people would agree pollution is a problem with markets. It's justified for the government to say, “You can't put toxic waste in the atmosphere” because there's an externality — we'll just put mine, it'll hurt everyone else. AI existential risk is a global negative externality and markets are not good at handling it, but a rational person will use leaded gas, even knowing leaded gas is poisoning the brains of children, because most of the harm goes to other people, and if they don't do what everyone else will.So in this case of the mother of all externalities, then what you would want the government to do is what?It can't just be the US, it should be we should have a global agreement, or at least countries that can enforce it with military might, say we're pausing. You can check that with data centers. You can't have models above a certain strength. We're going to work on alignment, and we've figured out how to make superintelligence friendly, then we'll go further. I think you're completely right about the politics. That's very unlikely to happen absent something weird like aliens telling us to do it or AIs telling us they're going to kill us. That's why I'm a doomer.On sale everywhere The Conservative Futurist: How To Create the Sci-Fi World We Were Promised 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

The Anarchist Experience Episode 551Year 11 Week 23 Download Episode Rich and Riley discuss Trump demolishing the White House, the effectiveness of Free Markets, and the service that Scalper’s provide.NO HEADLINES – https://linktr.ee/theanarchistexperience

Steve Forbes warns that President Trump appears to be pushing a settlement with Russia that would jeopardize Ukraine's viability, and would jeopardize the free world—and urges the administration to change course and protect Ukraine's sovereignty.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this Church Spotlight, Ruth A. Popkin shares how her small church started A Really Free Market - a ministry built on listening, not assumptions. Instead of following trends, they followed people, meeting real needs with dignity and creativity. It's a story of simple generosity that's reshaping how small churches think about outreach.Listen in for:How to listen to your community before deciding what they “need”The difference between following people and following trendsWhat makes A Really Free Market unique (and doable for any church size)How trust, conversation, and consistency open real doors for ministryConnect with Ruth A. Popkin:www.facebook.com/ReallyFreeMarketplacewww.blcin.com/the-really-really-free-marketCheck out podcast episode 166: We Added Dignity To A Food Pantry With A Sit-Down Cafe | with Alastair & Nicola Bruch: www.podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/166-church-spotlight-we-added-dignity-to-a-food/id1583416568?i=1000697609047Join our free Facebook Community: www.facebook.com/groups/smallchurchministryRate, Review, & Follow Laurie on Apple Podcasts"I love Laurie and The Small Church Ministry Podcast!!"

Popular views of capitalism and free markets are not shaped by the facts, but rather by anti-capitalist intellectuals and the media.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/popular-media-romanticism-and-statist-insinuation

Popular views of capitalism and free markets are not shaped by the facts, but rather by anti-capitalist intellectuals and the media.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/popular-media-romanticism-and-statist-insinuation

Todd Stankiewicz highlights regional banks as big bank earnings beat Street expectations. He likes regionals with limited exposure to commercial loans and a strong track record. He also sees opportunities in energy, especially nuclear. He pitches the Free Markets ETF (FMKT), its top holdings, and why traders might be interested in it.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

It feels that New Right Republicans are sometimes trying to out-socialist Bernie Sanders, and in bemoaning the extraordinary results of Amazon in building opportunity for pay and wealth for its workforce and pitting that against the executive C-suite in standard class warfare lunacy, we have teed up all that is wrong with wage controls, price controls, and the class envy that does so much damage to the cause of a free and prosperously employed society.  Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Joe Castiglie breaks down defensive rotation in the market as interest in utilities grows. He likes Southern Company (SO) as an AI-related energy play. Other picks include Uranium Energy (UEC) and Nacco Industries (NC), citing government demand for nuclear stockpiles and critical mineral mining. He highlights his Free Markets ETF (FMKT) and why investors might be interested in it.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – / schwabnetwork Follow us on Facebook – / schwabnetwork Follow us on LinkedIn - / schwab-network About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

Mark Thornton lays the groundwork for understanding gold and silver before politics gets involved. Mark explains why monetary metals emerge from market “evolution,” how their non-consumptive use creates massive above-ground stocks, and why the same metal serves multiple markets (money vs. consumption) with one price. He explains how demand shifts trigger conservation and recycling, why new mining lags price spikes, how “near-monies” substitute when people economize on cash balances, and why any apparent stability (even par relationships) reflects underlying market conditions, not decree. Today's price volatility is largely the artifact of intervention, not the metals themselves.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

On episode 95, Charles takes his last chance to talk to Dominic Pino as a colleague before Dominic heads to the Washington Post. Among the topics they discuss are whether free markets are superior to the alternatives; whether tariffs are a good or a bad idea—and what the exceptions should be; whether industrial policy can work; what to do about America's massive national debt; whether it's a bad move to keep cutting taxes; and whether Dominic is optimistic about our economic future.The dial-up tone in the introduction was recorded by lintphishx and is used under a CC 3.0 License. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode of Main Street Matters, Elaine Parker sits down with Greg Workmon, founder and CEO of LoadUp, the innovative, tech-powered junk removal platform disrupting an outdated industry. Workmon shares how AI, real-time pricing, and data transparency are revolutionizing operations while empowering independent contractors and fueling small business growth across America. From tackling industry inefficiencies to fostering entrepreneurship, this conversation reveals how technology and free-market innovation are driving new opportunities and keeping the American dream alive for Main Street business owners. Learn more about LoadUpSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sanae Takaichi is not just set to be the first female prime minister of Japan -- and someone whose childhood hero was the legendary Margaret Thatcher. She also launched her global claim to fame by saying she “wanted to abandon the idea of work-life balance” and planned to “have everyone work like a workhorse.” Well, this has generated some push back from people who are apparently happy with Japan's 0 percent real GDP growth for over 30 years. In today's episode, David analyzes why Takaichi is starting off as his favorite leader on the planet. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This is the fourth and final episode of our series What's Sport Selling? Created in collaboration with the Redtorch research and creative agency. Today's guest is Tim Hollingsworth, who led Sport England for eight years, managing the £300m annual budget derived from government and national lottery funding. His tenure spanned COVID, energy crisis, and fundamental strategy reset via "Uniting the Movement." Over the past three episodes, we've explored how sport can drive meaningful social impact, tackle the global physical inactivity crisis, and unlock powerful business opportunities for the industry.This conversation brings all of those themes together. If you'd like to learn more about Redtorch, the independent research and creative agency dedicated to making sport more relevant, visit Redtorch.Sport. We thank them for their support. Much appreciated and what has been a really interesting and broad series.Unofficial Partner is the leading podcast for the business of sport. A mix of entertaining and thought provoking conversations with a who's who of the global industry. To join our community of listeners, sign up to the weekly UP Newsletter and follow us on Twitter and TikTok at @UnofficialPartnerWe publish two podcasts each week, on Tuesday and Friday. These are deep conversations with smart people from inside and outside sport. Our entire back catalogue of 400 sports business conversations are available free of charge here. Each pod is available by searching for ‘Unofficial Partner' on Apple, Spotify, Google, Stitcher and every podcast app. If you're interested in collaborating with Unofficial Partner to create one-off podcasts or series, you can reach us via the website.

Steve Forbes explains how Puerto Rico can once again become a pharmaceutical powerhouse and help achieve the much-needed goal of reshoring U.S. drug manufacturing.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes explains how Germany is an economic mess of its own making due to terrible energy policies, a massive welfare system, and a collapse in its work ethic—but if Chancellor Friedrich Merz looks to the example of legendary economist Ludwig Erhard, the nation could be put back on track.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes breaks down why Argentina's economic turmoil, and the shocking political crises facing its President Javier Milei, could spell serious trouble for the United States—and explains what President Trump must do fast. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This week, Jackie and Peter discuss Peter's recent writing, including his article in The Hub titled “Increasing Canada's Energy Ambition is an Economic and Geopolitical Imperative” as well as two other pieces, “Geoeconomics and State Capitalism” and “The Cost of Being a Market Hostage.” Peter argues that Canada must raise its level of ambition to compete in today's geoeconomic and geopolitical environment—one where markets are shaped less by free trade and more by state power, economic coercion, and the strategic use of industries to advance geopolitical objectives. In this new order, the effects of tariffs, sanctions, control of trade routes, and dominance over critical resources are felt daily on the global stage. Yet Canada is not showing up as a true contender. The country remains passive, heavily dependent on the United States for oil and gas exports, at significant cost to the economy. Peter outlines four levels of ambition that Canada could pursue. At the lowest level, the nation remains a “market hostage,” reflecting its current state in oil and gas. A modest step up would be the role of “competitor,” in which new tidewater export capacity expands Canada's reach. Moving further, Canada could become a “negotiator,” able to leverage energy exports as a bargaining chip in international relations. At the highest level, Canada could aspire to be an “aggressor,” a country that wields genuine market power in vital resources—similar to the way China has achieved influence through state control of strategic industries. Content referenced in this podcast:The Hub.ca, “Increasing Canada's energy ambition is an economic and geopolitical imperative” (September 9, 2025) Studio.Energy, “Geoeconomics and State Capitalism” and “The Cost of Being a Market Hostage” (September 8, 2025) CTV News, “Here's what the parliamentary budget officer is warning of ahead of the budget” (September 28, 2025) CBC News, “Canada's GDP rebounds in July after contracting for 3 months” (September 26, 2025) WSJ “Trump Takes Aim at Chip Makers With New Plan to Throttle Imports” (September 26, 2025) Please review our disclaimer at: https://www.arcenergyinstitute.com/disclaimer/ Check us out on social media: X (Twitter): @arcenergyinstLinkedIn: @ARC Energy Research Institute Subscribe to ARC Energy Ideas PodcastApple PodcastsAmazon MusicSpotify

I read from free-form to free market. The word of the episode is "free love". Use my special link https://zen.ai/thedictionary to save 30% off your first month of any Zencastr paid plan. Create your podcast today! #madeonzencastr Theme music from Jonah Krauthttps://jonahkraut.bandcamp.com/ Merchandising!https://www.teepublic.com/user/spejampar "The Dictionary - Letter A" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter B" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter C" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter D" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter E" on YouTube "The Dictionary - Letter F" on YouTube Featured in a Top 10 Dictionary Podcasts list!https://blog.feedspot.com/dictionary_podcasts/ Backwards Talking on YouTube:https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLmIujMwEDbgZUexyR90jaTEEVmAYcCzuq https://linktr.ee/spejampardictionarypod@gmail.comhttps://www.facebook.com/thedictionarypod/https://www.threads.net/@dictionarypodhttps://twitter.com/dictionarypodhttps://www.instagram.com/dictionarypod/https://www.patreon.com/spejamparhttps://www.tiktok.com/@spejampar917-727-5757

You get what you fight for. We fought against censorship and vaccines, and you know what? We are starting to see results. Unfortunately, on issues where we have not created a movement with a sense of direction, such as the economy, we are floundering. We're joined by Craig Shapiro, a macroeconomist, to offer a long-term view of this administration's economic policies. Shapiro notes that the administration began with a promise to re-privatize the economy and shift away from asset bubbles, but in fact, it has chosen Big Tech and the stock market even more than the previous administration. He explains how the average consumer and worker (and even industry) continue to suffer, while the stock market benefits from the AI bubble. It's beginning to look a lot like 1929, with investors so desperate to survive inflation that they are increasingly engaging in speculation to create a bubble of despair, not belief.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The artificial intelligence moment is a perfect opportunity for free marketeers to defend market innovations and technological progress, but also a challenging moment to question the role of the state, the impact on society, and the errors in moving with speed but not wisdom. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Donna King, editor of the Carolina Journal and one of North Carolina's most influential conservative journalists, has covered the political battles shaping Raleigh and beyond, offering sharp reporting and unapologetically conservative analysis. In this conversation, Donna talks about her journey in journalism, what it means to cover politics from a conservative perspective, and why free speech, free markets, and freedom are at the heart of her work. She also shares candid thoughts on today's media landscape, the role of opinion in political coverage, and how she sees the future of journalism in North Carolina. Plus, Skye and Brian break down the week in #ncpol, including the budget standoff, what got done (and didn't get done) during this week's legislative session, campaign announcements, rumors, and more. The Do Politics Better podcast is sponsored by New Frame, the NC Travel Industry Association, the NC Beer & Wine Wholesalers Association, the NC Pork Council, and the NC Healthcare Association.

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk's assassination, many are asking what comes next. Free speech feels under attack. Policy debates feel more heated than ever. But now is not the time to retreat—it's the time to fight for truth. We need clarity about which policies work and which don't, and we must pursue those that let people prosper.Part of that fight is advancing pro-growth policies that get government out of the way. The latest economic data paint a troubling picture: inflation is running hot, the national debt is soaring, the labor market is weakening, and a third of U.S. states are slipping into recession. Now more than ever, we need policies that can steady the ship and put America back on the path to prosperity.In this episode of This Week's Economy, I'll break down what all this data means—and what solutions can move us forward. You can catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify.Visit: VanceGinn.comSubscribe: VanceGinn.Substack.com

Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air by ABC, and the fallout continues. The Left rallies around Kimmel, but the Left cheered when Tucker Carlson was taken off the air. Leftists are absolutely unhinged over the Jimmy Kimmel situation. French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife, Brigitte, are preparing to provide "scientific evidence" that Brigitte is a woman. Conspiracy theories around Charlie Kirk's assassination are coming in from the Right and the Left, and Glenn Beck joins to discuss. The Federal Trade Commission is taking aim at Ticketmaster. Who will be the next talk host to get canceled? Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) refers to a murdered American as "some random dead person." ICE protest gets a lot less support than liberal activists had hoped for. Interest rate cut. Get ready for the "Gold" House? 00:00 Pat Gray UNLEASHED! 00:29 Timeline of Events Leading to Jimmy Kimmel being Pulled Off-Air 07:28 Jimmy Kimmel's Charlie Kirk Comment 10:40 CNN Continues to Defend Jimmy Kimmel 11:57 Larry Krasner Doubles-Down on Calling MAGA Supporters "Fascists" 12:43 ANTIFA Putting Nails in Dog Treats 13:29 Eric Swalwell Stands Up for Jimmy Kimmel 15:55 Keith Olbermann Blames Donald Trump for Charlie Kirk's Death 17:51 Maxwell Frost Says "Fascism is Here" 19:54 Rashida Tlaib Refuses to Shut Up 23:19 Ilhan Omar Disrespects Charlie Kirk Supporters in a Church 26:20 Ilhan Omar Censure Vote Defeated 31:36 Vile Keith Olbermann's Tweet towards Sinclair, Inc. and Charlie Kirk 31:58 The Hypocrisy of MSNBC's Chris Hayes 34:00 More Reminders of Jimmy Kimmel's Hateful Statements 36:46 FLASHBACK: Jimmy Kimmel's Hypocritical Cancel Culture Comments Back in 2022 40:14 Jimmy Kimmel in Blackface! 41:11 FLASHBACK: Chuck Schumer & AOC's Comments on Tucker Carlson Firing from 2023 45:18 Tucker Carlson on Charlie Kirk's Death being Used to Violate the 1st Amendment 46:25 Brendan Carr on How FCC Licenses Work 48:22 Macron Lawsuit against Candace Owens 55:58 Conspiracy Theories regarding Charlie Kirk's Death 58:01 More Information on Armed Queers SLC Founder 59:37 Glenn Beck Joins to Discuss Charlie Kirk 1:15:44 FTC Goes After Ticketmaster 1:22:08 America's Most Unfunniest List 1:25:02 Jasmine Crockett VS. Russell Fry 1:28:14 LA Protest over ICE 1:31:36 Federal Reserve Lowers Interest Rates 1:32:39 Marine One Emergency Landing 1:34:37 President Trump Suing The New York Times Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Dive into Episode 180 of The Alan Sanders Show as we tackle the First Amendment head-on, exploring the difference between protected free speech and cancel culture's grip, with a deep dive into ABC's suspension of Jimmy Kimmel after affiliate stations pushed back—no government censorship here, just the free market at work. We also analyze the recent designation of ANTIFA as a domestic terrorist group, breaking down what it means in stopping political violence. Plus, we spotlight Texas Latinos, a pivotal voting bloc shaping the future of Trump's midterms. We also unpack the latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) insights on Trump's Big Beautiful Bill and how badly the initially scored it. Join Alan Sanders for a no-holds-barred discussion on free speech, political accountability, and the forces driving America today. Please take a moment to rate and review the show and then share the episode on social media. You can find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, GETTR,  TRUTH Social and YouTube by searching for The Alan Sanders Show. And, consider becoming a sponsor of the show by visiting my Patreon page!

Steve Forbes breaks down why California's endless high speed rail boondoggle is even worse than people think, and why it needs to be scrapped yesterday.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

“We can all claim savings without necessarily achieving the result.”  This stark observation from Jason Busch sums up decades of dysfunction in how procurement measures their impact and why AI may finally force a (much-needed) reckoning with reality. In this episode of “Buy: The Way...To Purposeful Procurement,” Jason joins co-hosts Philip Ideson and Rich Ham to explore how artificial intelligence might finally solve procurement's validation problem… but only if organizations abandon their addiction to “claiming savings” and start measuring what actually matters: EBITDA. As a co-founder of FreeMarkets and a founder of Spend Matters, Jason has witnessed 25 years of procurement's evolution from the inside, and he's not pulling any punches. Instead, he offers a radical proposition: procurement should function as economic “detectives” gathering evidence of spend crimes, then “prosecutors” holding suppliers accountable based on that evidence. The technology finally exists to make this possible, but it will require procurement to abandon the comfortable fiction of projected savings in favor of the uncomfortable truth of EBITDA impact. The implications of this approach extend beyond individual organizations. Jason frames procurement's societal purpose as “public defenders against rampant cost escalation,” suggesting that when buyer-side flaws enable seller-side exploitation, the ultimate losers are consumers who absorb these costs through higher prices. According to Jason, the question isn't whether technology will transform procurement… It's whether procurement will transform themselves enough to leverage that technology purposefully and for the good of the business. Links: Jason Busch on LinkedIn Rich Ham on LinkedIn Learn more at FineTuneUs.com  

In this episode of YourForest, Matthew Kristoff and guest Shauna Matcovich explore the world of forest finance and the critical role of private capital in funding sustainable forestry. Shauna, a forester and founding director of The ForestLink, discusses the need to link the intrinsic values of a forest - such as its biodiversity and ecosystem health - to a monetary economy in order to drive conservation. The conversation highlights how private investment can be a powerful lever for change and a way to create a more resilient and sustainable forest industry.

Steve Forbes calls out the disgraceful educational practice known as "equity grading" which is contributing to the dumbing down of schools and students, and calls to restore teachers' power to control the classroom without fear of intimidating lawsuits, while making school administrators personally responsible for how well their schools perform.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Today's episode goes into David's Dividend Cafe to look at the desire of the 9/11 terrorists to strike at our nation's financial markets, and makes the case that a love of country means a love of capital markets.https://bahnsen.co/47JU4Vn Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Steve Forbes calls for a major overhaul in how GDP data is interpreted and released, urging the Trump Administration to make a crucial change as it reforms the BLS job growth statistical gathering.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Investors looking for a unique way to play the Trump administration's deregulatory push may want to consider the Free Markets ETF (FMKT). Michael Gayed discusses this first-of-its-kind ETF, which uses a combination of AI and human analysis to identify companies poised to benefit from regulatory shifts. He also shares his thoughts on the fund's market cap exposure and its approach to investing in digital assets like Bitcoin.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day. Subscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/ About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

PREVIEW.  Guest Name: Joseph Sternberg Summary: Joseph Sternberg analyzes Nigel Farage's Reform UK party, highlighting the internal tension between Farage's free-market views and the traditional center-left economic stance of many of its working-class supporters. 1917 COTSWOLDS

Steve Forbes calls out the ugly crackdown on speech in Great Britain, pointing out the shocking arrests and convictions of people based on what they say online, and urges the U.K. to reverse course and take some inspiration from the U.S.'s First Amendment.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes slams the new guidance in Florida that ends all vaccine requirements for schoolchildren, warning of the crippling and lethal consequences to kids who don't get immunized for polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and more diseases.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

teve Forbes explains that in order to win peace in Ukraine and end Russia's war of aggression, the Trump Administration must supply Ukraine with greater while imposing tougher sanctions on Russia.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

David is so tired of talking about the tariff debacle of 2025 that this week he brought on a special guest to do some of the talking for him. Joel Griffith of Advancing American Freedom joins David for a further rap session on all that is wrong with the current tariff regime, but the two of them take a special weapon to the imbecility of a “tariff rebate.” Show notes:Rebates Can't Clean Up the Tariff Mess 

https://codyfields.substack.com/p/free-markets-not-command-economies

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Show-Me Institute Director of Municipal Policy David Stokes about his new paper in the Free-Market Guide to Missouri Municipalities series on planning and zoning. They discuss how fragmentation among local governments can limit overly strict zoning, how zoning rules affect housing affordability, and why “last house syndrome” poses risks for Missouri's future growth. From accessory dwelling units and minimum parking requirements to the debate over multifamily housing, Stokes explains how smart reforms can protect property rights and keep housing costs down. Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

With socialist policies coming from progressives and conservatives, it's clear America's political class — left and right — has lost its economic compass.Headlines tell the story: student loan forgiveness, tariffs, income redistribution, protectionist trade. Each is a form of central planning that shifts decisions from people in markets to lawmakers and regulators in government. No wonder the economy feels stuck — with $37 trillion in national debt, a bloated Federal Reserve balance sheet, and growing doubts about the American Dream.What we need is a practical, principled defense of free markets — and the courage to push leaders to embrace it, even when it's politically inconvenient. You can catch the full episode on YouTube, Apple Podcast, or Spotify.Visit: VanceGinn.comSubscribe: VanceGinn.Substack.com

In this episode of Reaganism, host Roger Zakheim sits down with former U.S. Senator Phil Gramm who served the State of Texas in the United States Senate and is the author of the newly released book, “The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Great Myths of American Capitalism.” They discuss Sen. Gramm's new book arguing that many policy debates stem from misreadings of history and flawed statistics. He challenges the notion that free trade hollowed out American manufacturing, pointing instead to record-high output driven by productivity and innovation, much like agriculture's transformation. Sen. Gramm defends Ronald Reagan as a principled free-trader who saw commerce as an extension of individual freedom, contrasting Reagan's approach with today's rising protectionism and “state capitalism.” He critiques how government statistics misclassify income, poverty, and manufacturing, distorting public perception, and insists that prosperity comes from smaller government and greater freedom.

David is joined by Richard Reinsch, the second guest to join Capital Record this year, for a discussion of the “new conservatives” and the “new right” movement toward populism. What you will hear in this discussion is that none of it seems very new at all.Notes:Reading the New Conservatives 

Steve Forbes looks to the historical example of "X"—the pseudonym of George F. Kennan, who advanced the policy of containment that helped serve as a North Star for U.S. foreign policy for decades—to argue that we now need a new guiding principle to take us safely through our present confused, dangerous times.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes explains why having a strong dollar is crucial for keeping the U.S. the most powerful nation in the world, and warns that those taken in by the siren call of a "weak dollar" are stoking real dangers.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Steve Forbes calls for Stephen Miran, President Trump's nominee for Federal Reserve Governor, to be asked how important he thinks i it is to have a dollar stable in value, and whether he believes that prosperity causes inflation—his answers could determine the future of the U.S. economy.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Michael Clune is the author of the debut novel Pan, available from Penguin Press. It is the official August 2025 pick of the Otherppl Book Club. Clune is the critically acclaimed author of the memoirs Gamelife and White Out: The Secret Life of Heroin. His academic books include A Defense of Judgment, Writing Against Time, and American Literature and the Free Market. Clune's work has appeared in venues ranging from Harper's Magazine, Salon, and Granta to Behavioral and Brain Sciences, PMLA, and The Chronicle of Higher Education. His work has been recognized by fellowships and awards from the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, the Baker-Nord Center for the Humanities, and others. He is currently a professor at the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at the Ohio State University and lives in Chagrin Falls, Ohio. *** ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Otherppl with Brad Listi⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Apple Podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Spotify⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, etc. Subscribe to ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Brad Listi's email newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support the show on Patreon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bluesky⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠proud affiliate partner of Bookshop⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices