Podcasts about Hayek

Der Titel der heutigen Episode ist: Populismus und Ordoliberalismus. Das ist wieder eine sehr spannende Episode, denn die Frage, was Populismus eigentlich ausmacht, wie man ihn sinnvollerweise definiert und verortet, scheint in Zeiten, wo solche Begriffe doch verstärkt aktivistisch eingesetzt werden, höchst relevant. Ich führe dieses Gespräch mit Nils Hesse, der als freier Ordnungsökonomen arbeitet, derzeit zwar in den USA lebt, sich aber mit Artikeln, Beiträgen oder als Host des R21-Klimapodcasts »Der Preis ist heiß« in die deutsche wirtschafts- und klimapolitische Debatte einbringt. Wissenschaftlich setzt er sich ideengeschichtlich und institutionenökonomisch mit dem Verhältnis von Ordoliberalismus und Populismus auseinander und schreibe dazu am Walter-Eucken-Institut an einer Habilitationsschrift. Diese Arbeit ist das Thema unseres Gesprächs.  Wir beginnen das Gespräch mit der Frage, was eigentlich unter Populismus zu verstehen ist? Populistische Bewegungen unterscheiden zwischen Volk und Elite. Welche Ausprägungen des Populismus gibt es in Folge? Was ist der Zusammenhang zwischen Populismus und repräsentativer Demokratie? Welche politischen Folgen können von populistischen Gruppierungen abgeleitet werden? Wie ist Populismus zu bewerten? Ist »Populismus« als abwertende Marke, als politischer Kampfbegriff sinnvoll verwendet? Ist die Verwendung global einheitlich, oder unterscheidet sie sich im europäischen und US-amerikanischen Kontext? Wann und unter welchen Rahmenbedingungen wird der Populismus zum Problem? Welche Typen des Populismus gibt es? Was sind Trägergruppen des Populismus? Wie formen sich aus dem Populismus politisch (wirksame) Strömungen? Was bedeutet der Begriff der Elite? Wie ist diese definiert? Was bedeutet der Begriff »Nobilitas Naturalis« nach Röpke? Wie können die folgenden Gegenreaktionen auf Populismus beschrieben werden:  Isolationsstrategie   Strategie der Annäherung   Beschäftigung mit den strukturellen Mängeln und Problemen, die zum Populismus geführt haben Warum werden intellektuelle und »abstraktere« Berufe von Populisten häufig abschätzig betrachtet? Was sind die Folgen davon? »Wenn man die Leute als radikal bezeichnet, dann gehen Leute, die mit diesen Zuschreibungen Probleme haben, eher weg, und die Leute, die drinnen sind, erkennen sich dann eher als bestätigt [von den Eliten ausgegrenzt]. Das führt dann eher dazu, dass sie sich weiter radikalisieren.« Werden wir zum Nanny-State, weil politische Entscheidungsträger glauben, immer mehr Aspekte der Gesellschaft durch Zentralisierung vermeintlich verbessern zu können? Wie ist das Rousseausche Rätsel aufzulösen? »Wie können wir frei sein, obwohl wir unter Regeln leben müssen, denen wir selbst nicht zugestimmt haben?« Welche Rolle spielt Dezentralisierung, und mit welchen praktischen Problemen ist man konfrontiert? Warum sind Repräsentationslücken ein Problem? Gibt es einen Volkswillen, den die Politik »erkennen« kann? Oder gibt es in einer freiheitlichen Gesellschaft prinzipiell sehr unterschiedliche Ziele, die zu respektieren sind? Wie ist das in der Praxis umzusetzen? Was hat Elinor Ostrom zum Problem der Tragedy of the Commons beigetragen? Auf welcher Ebene kann man sinnvollerweise welchen Mehrwert schaffen? Warum können Regelwettbewerbe sehr nützlich sein? Kommen wir zum Ordoliberalismus. Um welche politisch-ökonomische Strömung handelt es sich dabei? Wer hat ihn begründet, und warum ist es heute relevant, sich damit auseinanderzusetzen? Geschichtlich greifen wir hier auf die Zeit vor dem Ersten Weltkrieg zurück und dann auf die Verwerfungen, die sich durch die Weltkriege ergeben haben und das Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit substantiell definiert haben. Welche emanzipatorische Wirkung kann von der Marktwirtschaft ausgehen? Warum ist Machtkonzentration und die Vermischung von politischer und wirtschaftlicher Macht ein Problem, und wie kann dies vermieden werden? Welche Art der Wettbewerbsordnung entspringt diesen Überlegungen und Herausforderungen? Was ist die Basis einer freien und menschenwürdigen Gesellschaft? Führt all das zur sozialen Marktwirtschaft, einem nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg sehr erfolgsbewährten Konzept? Was hat all das für Deutschland der Nachkriegszeit bedeutet, was waren die Gründe für das Wirtschaftswunder? Woher kam der Konflikt mit den angelsächsischen Libertären, und was ist in den letzten Jahrzehnten geschehen? Sind diese Ideen auf die Probleme der heutigen Zeit anwendbar? Was sind die Prinzipien dieser Wirtschafts- und Gesellschaftsordnung, und warum war sie so erfolgreich? Können Märkte als anti-elitäre Maßnahmen verstanden werden? Was ist das Verhältnis zwischen Populismus und Marktwirtschaft? Wie ist die politische Orientierung der AfD, und wie ist deren Veränderung über die Zeit zu verstehen? Warum konnte sich der Ordoliberalismus international nicht durchsetzen? Erleben wir in den letzten Jahrzehnten, speziell in Mitteleuropa und Großbritannien, die Situation, dass die Probleme ständig zunehmen und die Regierungen glauben, diese mit immer stärkeren staatlichen Eingriffen zu lösen – wie es scheint, mit immer weniger Erfolg? Welche Rolle spielt die Europäische Union in dieser Gemengelage? Wie ist Javier Milei und dessen Politik – insbesondere vor dem Hintergrund der Geschichte Argentiniens – zu begreifen? Kann es uns in Deutschland, Frankreich, Großbritannien, Österreich gelingen, aus den schweren Verwerfungen und politisch herbeigeführten Krisen evolutionär herauszukommen, oder ist ein totaler Abstieg wie in Argentinien notwendig, bis wir die notwendigen Lehren ziehen? Anders ausgedrückt: Brauchen wir die Motorsäge, oder reicht der ordoliberale Unkrautstecher? Sind wir auf dem dauerhaften Weg in die Misere, oder werden manche/viele Dinge tatsächlich besser? Alles schlechtzureden ist ebenfalls kein funktionierendes Rezept für die Zukunft. Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 129: Rules, A Conversation with Prof. Lorraine Daston Episode 126: Schwarz gekleidet im dunklen Kohlekeller. Ein Gespräch mit Axel Bojanowski Episode 125: Ist Fortschritt möglich? Ideen als Widergänger über Generationen Episode 117: Der humpelnde Staat, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Kletzer Episode 108: Freie Privatstädte Teil 2, ein Gespräch mit Titus Gebel Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 89: The Myth of Left and Right, a Conversation with Prof. Hyrum Lewis Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 58: Verwaltung und staatliche Strukturen — ein Gespräch mit Veronika Lévesque Nils Hesse Publikationen von Nils Hesse Wettbewerb, Cronyismus und Populismus, Ordo (2025) Dickere Bretter bohren! Wie reagieren auf erfolgreiche Populisten?, Denkfabrik R21 (2023) Der Preis ist heiß — Podcast Fachliche Referenzen Reckwitz, Andreas (2020): Das Ende der Illusionen. Politik, Ökonomie und Kultur in der Spätmoderne. Berlin: Suhrkamp. Röpke, Wilhelm (1942/1979): Die Gesellschaftskrisis der Gegenwart. 6. Aufl., Bern, Stuttgart: Paul Haupt. Röpke, Wilhelm (1958/1979): Jenseits von Angebot und Nachfrage. 5. Aufl., Bern: Paul Haupt. Ostrom, Elinor (1990): Governing the Commons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Eucken, Walter (1952/2004): Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. 7. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck. Böhm, Franz, Walter Eucken und Hans Großmann-Doerth (1936/2008): Unsere Aufgabe. In: Goldschmidt, Wohlgemuth (Hrsg.): Grundtexte zur Freiburger Tradition der Ordnungsökonomik, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, S. 27-37. Erhard, Ludwig (1957/2009): Wohlstand für Alle. Köln: Anaconda. Müller-Armack, Alfred (1946/1990): Wirtschaftslenkung und Marktwirtschaft. München: Kastell. Hayek, Friedrich A. von (1971/1983): Die Verfassung der Freiheit. 2. Aufl., Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. Rothbard, Murray (1992): A Strategy for the Right. Mises Institute vom 03. September 2010. Abgerufen am 28. November 2022. Friedrich Hayek, Der Weg zur Knechtschaft (1945) Mervyn King, John Kay, Radical Uncertainty, Bridge Street Press (2021) The Pretence of Knowledge, Friedrich August von Hayek; Nobel Prize Lecture (1974)

On this episode, Peter Boettke chats with Mark Pennington on Mark's latest book, Foucault and Liberal Political Economy: Power, Knowledge, and Freedom (Oxford University Press, 2025). Pennington argues that Foucault's ideas on self-creation, disciplinary power, and biopolitics align with key liberal concerns about social control and individual agency. He critiques how both liberals and Foucauldian critics have misunderstood or ignored these connections, and drawing on thinkers like Hayek, Buchanan, and Ostrom, he calls for a liberalism that emphasizes pluralism, resists technocratic overreach, and engages more deeply with the insights of the humanities.Dr. Mark Pennington is Professor of Political Economy and Public Policy in the Department of Political Economy at King's College London. He holds a PhD from the London School of Economics and Political Science. Pennington is currently director of the Centre for the Study of Governance and Society.If you like the show, please subscribe, leave a 5-star review, and tell others about the show! We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, and wherever you get your podcasts.Virtual Sentiments, a podcast series from the Hayek Program, is streaming. Subscribe today and listen to season three, releasing now!Follow the Hayek Program on Twitter: @HayekProgramLearn more about Academic & Student ProgramsFollow the Mercatus Center on Twitter: @mercatusCC Music: Twisterium

Mon, 21 Jul 2025 17:03:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/2431-kapitalmarkt-stimme-at-daily-voice-202-365-osterreichische-schule-in-die-osterreichischen-schulen-javier-milei-und-borse bc354986ea3dc0a72944fcbc86eb48c2 Episode 202/365 der kapitalmarkt-stimme.at daily voice auf audio-cd.at. Ich bin Österreicher und die Österreichische Schule kennt in Österreich leider so gut wie niemand. In den Österreichischen Schulen selbst wohl die wenigsten Lehrer und damit die Schüler schon gar nicht. Wohl auch bewusst nicht, denn Freiheit und Staat, das verträgt sich nicht immer. Es ist dem irritierenden, aber auch faszinierenden, Argentinier Javier Milei zu verdanken, dass Hayek und von Mises gerade ein Comeback in der Wahrnehmung erhalten. Wir kennen das deutsche Wirtschaftswunder nach dem Krieg und erleben jetzt eine Phase, die in D und A nicht unwahrscheinlich als negatives Wirtschaftswunder in die Geschichte eingehen wird. Der Staat hat es übertrieben und sehr viel zerstört. Und deswegen ist es wichtig, Hayek, Mises und deren Promoter Milei zumindest zu kennen und im Hinterkopf zu haben. Um mitreden zu können und vielleicht ein sanftes Umdenken einzuleiten. Es muss ja nicht mit soviel Carajo wie in Argentinien erfolgen. Es wäre Zeit für ein Wirtschaftswunder, da ist die Österreichische Schule eine Zutat. Und die Börse würde sich freuen. https://austrian-institute.org/de/oesterreichische-schule/ Die Ära Milei: https://www.audible.de/pd/Die-Aera-Milei-Hoerbuch/B0DTZ2VNLW https://www.youtube.com/@MILEIPRESIDENTE Unser Ziel: Kapitalmarkt is coming home. Täglich zwischen 19 und 20 Uhr. kapitalmarkt-stimme.at daily voice Playlist auf spotify: http://www.kapitalmarkt-stimme.at/spotify http://www.kapitalmarkt-stimme.at Musik: Steve Kalen: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6uemLvflstP1ZerGCdJ7YU Playlist 30x30 (min.) Finanzwissen pur: http://www.audio-cd.at/30x30 Bewertungen bei Apple (oder auch Spotify) machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/apple http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify 2431 full no Christian Drastil Comm.

In this conversation from 2020, Alex Aragona chats with Pete Boettke as he dives into what the curious task of economics is and relates it back to the work of Friedrich Hayek. References from Episode 40 with Pete Boettke You can purchase Pete Boettke's book on F.A. Hayek on Amazon Canada here Check out Pete Boettke's economics blog here

A government that rules by imposing politically-oriented statutes upon its citizens cannot lay claim to governing by “rule of law.” Hayek understood that claiming “legality” to anything the state does is a sure road to tyranny.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-hayek-rejected-mere-legality

Modern progressive governance claims it has science on its side. Hayek‘s Nobel speech punctured that viewpoint.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/hayek-difference-between-science-and-scientism

A government that rules by imposing politically-oriented statutes upon its citizens cannot lay claim to governing by “rule of law.” Hayek understood that claiming “legality” to anything the state does is a sure road to tyranny.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/why-hayek-rejected-mere-legality

Modern progressive governance claims it has science on its side. Hayek‘s Nobel speech punctured that viewpoint.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/hayek-difference-between-science-and-scientism

Tenha acesso a +15 modelos de IA, cursos, ferramentas exclusivas e 30 dias grátis pra testar: https://go.adapta.org/campaign/adapta-mm-youtube Aprenda a rastrear ações promissoras antes do consenso do mercado no Bússola do Valor, encontro online e gratuito com Thiago Salomão e Matheus Soares: https://lp.mmakers.com.br/bussola-do-valor-encontro-online?xpromo=MI-M3CBUSSOLA-YT-DESCRICAO-X-20250710-DESCRICAOSOBRECONVITEPARABUSSOLA-MM-X12º Fórum Caminhos da Liberdade (11 de Setembro): https://forumsp.org Neste episódio 234 do Market Makers, a conversa transcende o mercado financeiro. Renato Moicano, um dos maiores nomes do UFC, e Alexandre Ostrowiecki, presidente do conselho do Grupo Multi (antiga Multilaser), sentam à mesa para um debate sobre liberdade, política e o futuro do Brasil.Moicano, vindo de Brasília e filho de funcionário público, narra como sua mudança para os EUA e o estudo da Escola Austríaca de Economia (Mises, Hayek) transformaram sua visão de mundo, fazendo-o enxergar o Estado como o verdadeiro inimigo da prosperidade. Ele defende que a solução é individual, focada na autopropriedade, na responsabilidade e em ferramentas como o Bitcoin para se livrar do controle estatal.Do outro lado, Alexandre Ostrowiecki, que liderou a transformação da Multilaser em um império tecnológico, revela como a burocracia e a mentalidade estatista brasileira são as maiores barreiras para quem quer produzir e gerar riqueza. Ele apresenta sua iniciativa, o Ranking dos Políticos, como uma ferramenta essencial para que o cidadão possa cobrar e eleger melhor, argumentando que, embora o Estado seja o problema, a participação política consciente é o único caminho para evitar que os piores tomem o poder e o Brasil siga o caminho da Venezuela.Eles discutem se a mudança real vem pelo voto e pela pressão popular ou pela rebeldia individual e pela busca por soberania financeira.Na sua opinião, qual caminho é mais eficiente para mudar o Brasil: a luta política proposta pelo Alexandre ou a soberania individual defendida pelo Moicano? 

In the latest episode of Minor Issues, Mark Thornton unpacks a deceptively simple question and follows its answer deep into the heart of economic history and theory. Drawing on insights from Hayek, Cantillon, Menger, and even WWII prisoner-of-war camps, Mark explores how money actually emerged—not from the decrees of kings or bureaucrats, but from the spontaneous actions of everyday people solving real problems in a barter economy. Mark challenges the fable of state-created money and confronts the dangerous logic of Modern Monetary Theory. This is not just a history lesson—it's a blueprint for understanding inflation, fiat failure, and the path to sound money.Additional Resources"Who Really Invented Bitcoin?" (Minor Issues, episode 128): https://mises.org/MI_128An Essay on Economic Theory by Richard Cantillon (see Part 1, Chapter 17, "Metals and Money, and especially of Gold and Silver"): https://mises.org/MI_128_ARegister for the 2025 Mises Institute Supporters Summit in Delray Beach, Florida, October 16–18: https://mises.org/ss25Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

The Biden administration spent $42 billion of taxpayer funds to bring broadband access to rural America, and people are shocked, shocked, that nothing has been done. As people on both sides of the aisle scream for government to “do more,” perhaps there is a lesson in this failure to create connectivity, and perhaps that lesson ought to be that incentives and knowledge matter.Show notes:https://x.com/geiger_capital/status/1905591976876990670?s=61https://www.ntia.gov/45-year-anniversary

Mixed martial arts is a brutal, imperfect, occasionally ugly sport. But it's also one of the most honest epistemic systems we have when dealing with self-defense, and each individual has the right to defend himself against aggressors.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/rights-fights-and-economy-self-defense-why-mma-facilitates-right-self-defense

Mixed martial arts is a brutal, imperfect, occasionally ugly sport. But it's also one of the most honest epistemic systems we have when dealing with self-defense, and each individual has the right to defend himself against aggressors.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/rights-fights-and-economy-self-defense-why-mma-facilitates-right-self-defense

Joseph Stiglitz is a world-renowned economist and thinker who was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in 2001. I met him in Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia, in June 2025 during the inspiring Zeg Festival in which we both participated. In this podcast episode, we spoke about his latest book, "The Road to Freedom", published last year, and about how flawed ideas of freedom can ultimately undermine freedom itself. I also asked him what the world can do to stop Russia's brutal invasion of Ukraine. *** Host: Volodymyr Yermolenko, a Ukrainian philosopher, the chief editor of UkraineWorld, and the president of PEN Ukraine. UkraineWorld is an English-language media outlet focusing on Ukraine and its connections with the wider world. This media outlet is run by Internews Ukraine. This episode is also made in partnership with "Politeia", a Ukrainian NGO focusing on preparing a new generation of change-makers in Ukraine. *** You can support UkraineWorld on Patreon (https://www.patreon.com/c/ukraineworld). Your support is vital, as we rely heavily on crowdfunding. You can also contribute to our volunteer missions to frontline areas in Ukraine, where we provide aid to both soldiers and civilians. Donations are welcome via PayPal at: ukraine.resisting@gmail.com. *** Contents: 0:00:00 - Intro 0:02:24 - How does "The Road to Freedom" compare to Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" and Snyder's "The Road to Unfreedom"? 0:02:45 - What are Stiglitz's main criticisms of neoliberalism? 0:08:09 - What's the core flaw in the concept of "limitless freedom"? 0:17:33 - How is Russia undermining democracy? 0:19:00 - What steps can Europe take with frozen Russian assets for Ukraine? 0:20:46 - Why won't seizing Russian assets cause a capital crisis or violate rule of law? 0:27:22 - How can good regulation foster beneficial innovation, not just exploitation?

¡Sigue el verano en La Terracita de Team Barça Podcast! En este cuarto episodio veraniego, seguimos con la planificación del Barça 25/26, esta vez centrados en el centro del campo: nombres, encajes y posibles movimientos. Además: Charlamos con Juan Andrés Martínez Hayek, técnico ecuatoriano del FC Copenhague, para conocer mejor a Roony Bardghji, joven talento al que se ha vinculado con el Barça. Estrenamos un experimento: voces IA explican de forma clara la sanción de la UEFA al Barça. ¿Qué implica? ¿Cómo afecta al mercado? Y, por supuesto, nueva edición del Trivial TBP entre mecenas del podcast. ⏰ BLOQUES DEL EPISODIO: (00:00) Sintonía y editorial de Juanma (04:28) Reflexión sobre el caso Nico Williams (10:27) ¿Cómo debe ser el mediocampo del Barça 25/26? (13:02) Charlamos con Àlex Delmàs sobre la confección del centro del campo del Barça para la próxima temporada (19:55) Seguimos con las claves del mediocampo Barça 25/26 (24:15) Entrevista a Juan Andrés Martínez Hayek sobre Roony Bardghji (48:45) Reflexiones finales del mediocampo Barça 25/26 (1:01:52) Trivial TBP: nueva ronda entre mecenas (1:21:57) Explicación en formato IA sobre la sanción UEFA al Barça (1:27:35) Despedida y cierre ⸻ Contenido exclusivo y apoyo: •⁠ ⁠Hazte socio en Patreon: Club TBP teambarca.com/patreon •⁠ ⁠Fan en iVoox: Podcast sin publicidad por solo 1,49 €/mes •⁠ ⁠Invítanos un café en Ko-fi ☕️: ko-fi.com/teambarcapod Participa con nosotros: •⁠ ⁠Kickbase Challenge: go.kickbase.com/teambarcaprod_podcast •⁠ ⁠Fantasy Biwenger: bit.ly/LigaFantasyTBP •⁠ ⁠Encuesta TBP: bit.ly/EncuestaTBP Tienda oficial: Compra tu merch en teambarca.com/tienda Conecta con la comunidad: X: @TeamBarcaPod Twitch: teambarcapod Telegram: bit.ly/ChatTBP Discord: bit.ly/DiscordTBP Contacto: oyentes@teambarca.com Música: Base musical cortesía de jamendo.com

Dass das Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht zahlreiche Standpunkte mit der AfD teilt, ist weder neu noch rätselhaft. Ein Kommentar von Paul Clemente. Parteigründerin Sahra Wagenknecht ist eine traditionelle Linke. Ihre Politik wendet sich vor allem an die Unterschicht. Deren Lebensniveau möchte sie anheben, deren Freiheitsoptionen vergrößern. Damit steht sie konträr zur postmodernen Linken: Die will den akademischen Townhouse-Hipster als Wähler, verspricht ihm Gendersternchen und Windrad-Strom. Vor allem soll der Einzelne sich ideologischen Vorgaben unterwerfen. Ironie: Die entsorgte Freiheit fand ausgerechnet im rechten Diskurs eine neue Bleibe. Das belegten die Lockdown-Jahre überdeutlich: Während die links-grüne Ampel Freiheitsrechte aushebelte und Zwangsimpfungen propagierte, verteidigten Wagenknecht und die AfD die Freiheit des Einzelnen.Dieser gemeinsame Widerstand gegen Mainstream-Politik fand im Russland-Ukraine-Konflikt seine Fortsetzung. Wieder waren es Wagenknecht und die AfD, die für Frieden und Energiehandel mit Russland votierten. Manch AfD-Anhänger erhob Wagenknecht gar zur Hoffnungsträgerin: Für eine Querfront-Politik. Gemeinsam gegen den Block der Altparteien. Als Vorbild diente Griechenland: Dort koalierte 2014 die linke Syriza-Partei mit der rechten Morgenröte. Beider Ziel: Widerstand gegen die Sparpolitik der Troika.Natürlich blieben diese Parallelen auch den Mainstream-Medien nicht verborgen. Seitdem versuchen sie, die „rote Sahra“ als verkappte „Rechte“ zu entlarven. Jeder Satz von ihr wurde (und wird) nach brauner Schmuggelware abgeklopft: Ob sie sich für bezahlbare Energie oder regulierte Zuwanderung einsetzte, ob sie den Euro oder Freihandelsverträge wie CETA oder TTIP ablehnte - stets kommentierte der Medien-Chor: All das will auch die AfD.2017 präsentierte das Boulevardblatt B.Z. eine Auflistung dieser Gemeinsamkeiten. Überschrift: „Die Populinke. So häufig übernimmt Sahra Wagenknecht Positionen der AfD“. Dennoch schloss Wagenknecht eine Koalition ihres BSW mit der AfD regelmäßig aus. Der Grund ist leicht zu erraten: Die AfD ist nämlich eine Upper Class-Partei. Nicht zufällig zählen Klassiker des Wirtschaftsliberalismus wie Ayn Rand oder August von Hayek zu Alice Weidels favorisierten Lektüren. Mögen vereinzelte Sozialromantiker sich zur AfD verirren, Wahlprogramm und Leitlinie fordern das Gegenteil. Deren Neoliberalismus ist mit Wagenknechts Revival der sozialen Marktwirtschaft unvereinbar. Bereits 2015 kritisierte Wagenknecht: Die AfD verfüge über kein Konzept für gerechte Löhne, zur Besteuerung von Superreichen, zur Entlastung des Mittelstandes, zur Behebung von Altersarmut und zur Bekämpfung von Fluchtursachen. Auf Wahlveranstaltungen warnte sie: Die AfD ist keine Partei der Unterschichten....https://apolut.net/bsw-und-afd-war-da-was-von-paul-clemente/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Middle East analyst, Abdullah Hayek, joins Josh to breakdown the current Middle East crisis.  They discuss how we arrived at our current state, the main players driving the crisis and how we can move forward to a more peaceful and prosperous Middle East region.   Follow Abdullah on X and at Young Voices:   https://x.com/ahayek99   Abdullah Hayek   Links:   https://gml.bio.link/   YOUTUBE:   https://bit.ly/3UwsRiv   RUMBLE:   https://rumble.com/c/GML   Check out Martens Minute!   https://martensminute.podbean.com/   Follow Josh Martens on X:   https://twitter.com/joshmartens13   CB Distillery 25% off with promo code GML   cbdistillery.com   Join the Fed Haters Club!   joingml.com   secure.thomasmassie.com/donate

Could a move like Kevin Smith's Dogma (1999) be made today? With its religious themes and discussion, add to the extensive cast, it would be a challenge to re-create the ideas that Smith had over 25 years ago. Much research and thought went into creating a movie that would tests existing thoughts while trying to have a conversation on taboo topics. Let us know your opinions in the comments.Also Play:Cinema Chain Game--------------------------------------------Subscribe, rate, and review:Apple Podcasts: Our Film FathersSpotify: Our Film FathersYouTube: Our Film Fathers---------------------------------------------Follow Us:Instagram: @ourfilmfathersTwitter / X: @ourfilmfathersEmail: ourfilmfathers@gmail.com

In this episode of Minor Issues, Mark Thornton revisits a prophetic 1970s address by Nobel laureate F.A. Hayek that laid the intellectual groundwork for Bitcoin. Delivered during the depths of stagflation, Hayek's “International Money” lecture critiques central bank monopoly, exposes the failure of Keynesian inflationism, and calls for the denationalization of money. Mark unpacks how Hayek's radical proposal for competing private currencies was decades ahead of its time, and why it matters more than ever in today's age of government-managed inflation and crypto crackdowns.Additional ResourcesChoice in Currency by F. A. Hayek (based on his address, "International Money"): https://mises.org/MI_127_AThe Denationalisation of Money by F. A. Hayek: https://mises.org/MI_127_B"Hayek Predicting Bitcoin" (excerpted from the May 1, 1984, interview with James Blanchard at the University of Freiburg): https://mises.org/MI_127_C"The Last Days of Satoshi: What Happened When Bitcoin's Creator Disappeared" by Pete Rizzo (Bitcoin Magazine): https://mises.org/MI_127_D"Bitcoin" (1440): https://mises.org/MI_127_ERegister for the 2025 Mises Institute Supporters Summit in Delray Beach, Florida, October 16–18: https://mises.org/ss25Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

Today on Welcome to Cloudlandia, Our discussion unravels the surprises of Ontario's geography, the nuances of tariff wars, and the timeless drive for ambition, ensuring you're well-equipped with insights into how technology continues to redefine the global landscape. Discover how NuCom's innovative app is revolutionizing sleep and relaxation. We dive into the specifics of how its unique audio tracks, like "Summer Night," are enhancing REM and deep sleep, all while adding a humorous twist with a comparison to Italian driving laws. With separate audio for each ear and playful suggestions for use, you'll learn how this app is setting new standards for flexibility and effectiveness in achieving tranquility. Finally, we ponder the evolving nature of trust in a world increasingly dominated by AI and digital interactions. Drawing inspiration from thinkers like Jacques Ellul and Thomas Sowell, we discuss the societal shifts driven by technological advances and the potential need for encryption to verify digital identities. SHOW HIGHLIGHTS We discuss the intriguing journey from Ontario's cottages to the realm of international trade, focusing on how AI is reshaping trade agreements and challenging the predictability of global politics. Dean explores NuCom's innovative app designed to improve sleep and relaxation through unique audio tracks, highlighting its effectiveness in enhancing REM and deep sleep. We ponder the evolving nature of trust in a digital world increasingly dominated by AI, exploring how we can maintain authentic human interactions amid rapidly advancing generative tools. Dan shares a humorous story of two furniture companies' escalating marketing claims, setting the stage for a discussion on capitalism and the importance of direct referrals in business. We delve into the impact of technology on society, drawing insights from Jacques Ellul and Thomas Sowell, and compare AI's transformative potential to historical technological advancements like the printing press. Dean highlights the importance of personalized market strategies, exploring how personal solutions can evolve into valuable products for a wider audience. We explore the concept of ambition and agency, discussing how adaptability and a forward-looking mindset can help navigate new realities and unpredictable changes in the world. Links: WelcomeToCloudlandia.com StrategicCoach.com DeanJackson.com ListingAgentLifestyle.com TRANSCRIPT (AI transcript provided as supporting material and may contain errors) Dean: Mr Sullivan. Dan: Ah, Mr Jackson. General Jackson. General Jackson. Dictator Jackson Dean: Now there's two thoughts that are hard to contain in the brain at the same time. Are you in Toronto or at the cottage today? At the cottage, look at you, okay. Dan: Yeah, all is well, very nice day, yeah, except our water went out and so we can't get it fixed until tomorrow morning because it's cottage country. Till tomorrow morning because it's cottage country. And you know, this is not one of those 24-7 everybody's available places on the planet. Dean: Where do people in cottage country go to get away from the hustle and bustle of cottage country on the weekends? Dan: Yeah, it's a good question. It's a good question. It's a good question they go about two hours north. Dean: It feels like that's the appropriate amount of distance to make it feel like you're getting away. Dan: In the wild. Dean: Yeah. Dan: So we're having to use lake water for priming the vital plumbing. Dean: The plumbing you have to do. Dan: You have to have pails of water to do that and we'll do. Even though it feels like a third world situation, that's actually a first world problem. Dean: You're right, you're exactly right. Dan: Yeah, yeah, beautiful day, though. Nice and bright, and the water is surprisingly warm because we had a cold winter and the spring was really cold and we have a very deep lake. It's about um the depth meters on the boats go down to 300 feet, so that's a pretty deep lake that's a deep lake. Yeah, yeah, so here we are here's a factoid that blew my mind. The province of Ontario, which is huge it's 1,000 miles north to south and it's 1,200 miles east to west has 250,000 freshwater lakes, and that's half the freshwater lakes on the planet. Isn't that amazing? Dean: Yeah, I heard a little. There's some interesting Ontario facts. I remember being awed when I found out that you could drive the entire distance from Toronto to Florida north and still be in Ontario. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah, yeah. Dan: Yeah, If you go from the furthest east, which is Cornwall a little town called Cornwall to the furthest west, which is a town called Kenora Right, kenora to the furthest west, which is a town called canora right, uh, canora. It's the same distance from that as from washington dc to kansas city. Oh, that's amazing yeah I had a good. Dean: I had a friend who was from canora. He was an olympic decathlete, michael sm. He was on the Olympic decathlon team and that's where he was from Kenora, kenora. Dan: Mm-hmm. Yeah, yeah, it's a lot of big. I mean most of it's bugs, you know most of it's bugs. It's not, you know, the 90% of the Ontario population lives within an hour 100 miles of the? U, lives within an hour a hundred miles of the US. Yeah, yeah, you know, I mean that's it's if you go from the east coast to the west coast of Canada. It's just a 3,200 mile ribbon, about a hundred miles high that's really can't. From a human standpoint, that's really Canada. Everything else is just bugs yeah. Dean: So it's very. I guess you've been following the latest in the tariff wars. You know again Canada with the oh yeah, well, we're going to tax all your digital things, okay. Dan: Okay, yeah, okay we're done. Yeah, we're done. That's it Good luck Stay tuned. Dean: We'll let you know how much we're going to charge you to do business. I mean, where does this posturing end, you know? Where do you see this heading? Dan: Well, when you say posturing, you're Well. Dean: I don't think I mean it's. Dan: There's a no. It's the reworking of every single trade agreement with every single country on the planet, which they can do now because they have AI. Yeah, I mean, you could never do this stuff before. That's why using past precedents of tariffs and everything else is meaningless. Dean: Well, here's an example. Dan: If the bombing of Iran, which happened in recent history, iran which happened in recent history, if that had happened 30 years ago, you would have had a real oil and gas crunch in the world. Everything would crunch, but because people have instant communications and they have the ability to adjust things immediately. Now, all those things which in the past they said well, if you do that, then this is going to happen. Now I don't think anything's going to happen, Everybody's just going to adjust. First of all, they've already built in what they're going to do before it happens. You know, if this happens, then this is what we're going to do. And everybody's interconnected, so messages go out, you know they drop the bomb, the news comes through and in that let's say hour's time for everybody involved. Probably you know 10 billion decisions have been made and agreed on and everybody's off and running again. Yes, yeah. Dean: Yeah, it's amazing how this everything can absorb. Dan: I think the AI changes politics. I think it changes, I think it changes everything. Mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Dean: Agreed, yeah, but, but, but not necessarily in any predictable way, mm-hmm. Right, exactly. Dan: Yeah. Dean: But meanwhile we are a timeless technology. Dan: We are. Dean: I was rereading you Are a Timeless Technology. Yeah, these books, Dan, are so good oh thank you. Yeah, I mean, they really are, and it's just more and more impressive when you see them all you know lined up 40 of them, or 44 of them, or whatever. I'm on 43. Dan: I'm on 43. 43 of them yeah, I'm on 43. I'm on 43. 43 of them, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. This one's called Always More Ambitious, and we talked about this in the recent In the free zone yeah. In the free zone that I'm seeing ambition as just the capability platform for all other capabilities. Dean: Yes, you know, you have ambition and you know or you don't. Dan: And then agency goes along with that concept that, depending on your ambition, you have the ability to adjust very, very quickly to new things. For example, getting here and, uh, it was very interesting. We got here yesterday and, um, we had an early dinner. We had an early steak dinner because we were going to a party and we didn't think that they would have the kind of steak at the party that we were right, they didn't have any steak at all. Oh, boy, and they had everything that I'm eating steak. The reason I'm eating steak is not to eat the stuff that's at the party. Right, exactly, yes, I mean, I'm just following in the paths of the mentor here, of the mentor here, anyway, anyway, um, so you know, all the water was working and everything, and when we went to the party we came home and the water didn't work and it's some electrical connection you know, that in the related to the pump and um and anyway, and I just adjusted. you know, it was still light out, so I got a bucket and I went down to the lake and I got a bucket full of water and I brought it up and you know, and I was really pleased with OK. Ok, scene change. Dean: Yeah right, Exactly yeah. Scene change. Dan: Ok, you, you gotta adjust to the new one, and I'm new reality, right yeah, new reality. Okay, what you thought was going to happen isn't going to happen. Something is going to happen and that's agency. That's really what agency is in the world. It's your ability to switch channels that there's a new situation and you have the ability not to say, oh, I'm, oh, why, jane? You know, and you know that long line of things where, maybe 10 years ago, I was really ticked off and you know and, uh, you know, you know, I checked if I had any irish whiskey, just to to dead dead in the pain. Dean: All right. Dan: Yeah, and I just adjusted. You know? Yeah, this morning I took a Pyrex you know, the bowls you use to mix things, the mixing bowls you know, yes and I just filled it up with water, put it in the microwave. It still works, the microwave. Went and I shaved, you know, and. Dean: I shaved Right. There you go. Dan: Yeah, you can do a washcloth bath if you need to. Warm water, yeah, but the interesting thing about it is that I think that you don't have agency unless you have ambition. In other words, you have to have a fix on the future, that you're going to achieve this, you're going to achieve this, you're going to achieve this, and it's out of that ambition that you constantly develop new capabilities. And then the other thing is you utilize all the capabilities you have if something goes you know goes unpredictable. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And my. Dan: Thing is that this is the world. Now, I mean, you know and so, and anyway it's, it's an interesting thing, you know but I'm really enjoying. I'm really enjoying my relationship with perplexity. I'm sort of a one master, I'm a one master dog. Dean: Right, exactly. Dan: Like I listened to Mike Koenigs and he's investigated 10 new AIs in the four weeks since I talked to him last. Dean: He's doing that there. Dan: I'm just going developing this working relationship with one. Dean: I don't even know. Dan: If it's, is it a good one? I don't even know if perplexity is one of the top ones, you know, but it's good for my purposes. Dean: Well, for certain things it is yeah, for just gathering and contextualizing internet search stuff. But you know I look at Mike, as you often talk about Joe Polish, that you know. You don't need to know everybody, you need to know Joe Polish. I just need to know Joe, anybody you want to meet, you just mention it to Joe and he can make it happen. And I'd look at Mike Koenigs like that with AI tools. We don't need to know all the AI tools. Dan: We just need to stay in touch with Mike. Dean: Mike and Lior and Evan, you know we're surrounded by people who are on the. Dan: Yeah. And Tom Labatt do you know Tom, yeah, well, tom has created this AI mindset course that he's doing. And and he he comes to every one of our 10 times. Our connector calls, you know the two hour Zoom calls. So we've got every month I have two for 10x and I have two for FreeZone and and he's in breakout groups and every time he's in a breakout group. He acquires another customer. Dean: Right. Dan: And then I'll have Mike talk about what he's discovered recently. His number goes into chat and you know know, 10 people phone him up and say what's this all about? And it's amazing the, the uh, what I would say the um, um progress in our strategic coach clients just acquiring ai knowledge and mindsets and capabilities just by having one person who I just get him to talk to on a Zoom call. Dean: Yeah, it's pretty amazing yeah. Dan: I think this is kind of how electricity got foothold. Did you get electricity in your house? Yeah, yeah, yeah and you have electric lights. Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, and you have electric lights. Yeah, yeah, I do, yeah, yeah, you know, it's, you know. And then all sorts of new electrical devices are being created. Dean: Yes, that's what I'm curious, charlotte about the, the, uh. What were the first sort of wave of electrified uh conveniences? You know that. Where did we? Where did we start? I know it started with lights, but then. Dan: Yeah, I think lights obviously were the first. Yeah, yeah. It would have taken some doing, I think actually. I mean, once you have a light bulb and they're being manufactured, it's a pretty easy. You can understand how quickly it could be adapted. But all the other things like electric heaters, that would take a lot of thinking. Dean: Before what we're used to as the kind of two or three prong, you know thing that we stick into the wall. Before that was invented, the the attachment was that you would plug it into the light socket. Dan: Oh yeah, that was how you would access the electricity. That's right, you had a little screw in. Right, you had a little screw in that you could put in. Yeah, I remember having those yeah. Dean: Very interesting, that's right. Dan: Right, yeah, yeah. And then you created lawn wires that you could, you know you could you know, it's like a pug, but you needed something to screw into the light socket. Dean: Yeah, yeah, yeah, very, I mean it's, it's so. Yeah, what a. What a time. We had a great um. I don't know if we recorded um. We uh, chad and I did a vcr formula workshop the day in toronto, in toronto, yeah, and that was a really the first time we'd done anything like a sort of formalized full-day exploration. It's amazing to see just how many you know shining a light for people on their VCR assets and thinking of it as currency and thinking of it as currency and it's amazing how, you know, seeing it apply to others kind of opens their eyes to the opportunities that they have. You know, yeah, it was really I'm very excited about the, just the adaptability of it. It's a really great framework. Dan: Have you gotten? Your NuCom yet? Dean: I have absolutely. Dan: I really love it what's your favorite? I have different. First of all, I use the one at night that sounds like crickets. Okay, yeah, you know, it's 10 hours, you can put it on for 10. It's called Summer Night and it's got some. There's a sort of faint music track to it. But my aura, I noticed my aura that my REM scores went up, my deep sleep scores went up and the numbers you know. Usually I'm in the high 70s. You know 79, 80, and they jumped to 86, 87. And that's just for sleep, which is great. So I've had about two weeks like that where I would say I'm probably my sleep scores I'll just pick a number there but it's probably up around 50, 15, 15, better in all the categories and that and. But the one thing is the readiness. The readiness because I play the trackster in the day. But the one thing is the readiness, the readiness because I play the trackster in the day. But the one that I really like to have on when I'm working is ignite okay yeah, it's a. It's a really terrific. It's really terrific, that's right I haven't used any of the daytime. Uh, yeah, the daytime yeah, yeah, and then the rescue is really great. Okay, yeah, and you know For people listening. Dean: We're talking about an app on iPhone called NuCom N-U N-U-Com, yeah, and it's basically, you know, waves, background music. I mean, it's masked by music, but it's essentially waves. Dan: Apparently. We were in Nashville last week and David Hasse is experimenting with it. He says what they have is that they have two separate tracks. I use earphones and one track comes in through your right ear, one comes and your brain has to put the two tracks together, and that's what uh, so it elevates the brain waves or kind of takes the brain waves down. And there's music. Dean: You know the music yeah over and uh, but I noticed mentioned to me that the music is incidental, that the music has nothing to do with it. Dan: No, that's exactly right, it just gives your brain something to hold on to Attached to yeah. And then Rescue is really great. I mean that one. Just you know if you have any upset or anything, or you're just really busy, or you're enjoying anything. You just put it on, it just calms you right down. Dean: Did you notice that the recommendation on Ignite is to not use more than 60 minutes a day? Dan: Yeah, I doubt if I do. I think it's about a 14-minute track. Oh, okay, yeah, interesting, yeah, but that's a suggestion. Dean: Yeah, it is a suggestion. That's right, that's funny. Dan: Now what you're talking about. There is a suggestion. That's right, Now what you're talking about. There is a suggestion. Dean: That's all suggested. That's right. Dan: That reminds me of I was in Italy, I was on the Amalfi Coast and Italians have a very interesting approach to laws and regulations, you know. So we were going down the street and I was sitting right next to the bus driver, we were on a bus and a whole group of people on the bus, and so we come down to a perpendicular stop. You know you can't go across, you have to turn, and the sign is clearly says to the, and the driver turns to the left, and I said I think that was a right-hand turn. He said merely a suggestion. I love it. Dean: That's great. Dan: Merely a suggestion. Yeah, that's funny, yeah, yeah, yeah, that's funny. Have lawsuits, you know, like something like this. I mean, it's a litigious country, the. Dean: United States. Dan: Yeah, and so you know they may be mentally unbalanced, you know they may be having all sorts of problems. And they said why don't we just put in recommended not to use it more than an hour? So I think that's really what it is. That's funny. Yeah, Like the Ten Commandments, you know, I mean the suggestions yeah, there are ten suggestions, you know, yeah, yeah, but break two of them at the same time and you're going to find out. It's more than a suggestion. Yeah, fool around and find out, yeah I think in terms of book titles, that's a good bit. Pull around and find out. That's right, exactly. So what would you say is uh, just going on the theme of pulling around and find out that you've discovered is that there's things with AI that probably shouldn't go down that road. Dean: Anything. Just philosophically, I'm more and more resolute in my idea of not spending any time learning the particular skill or learning the particular tool, because I really, if I look at it that fundamentally, if you think about it as a generative tool or as a collaboration, creating either images or words or picture or uh, you know, sound or video, that's the big four. Right, those are the underlying things. There's any number of rapidly evolving and more nuanced ways to do all of those things and you're starting to see some specialists in them now, like, I think, things like you know, eleven Labs has really focused on the voice emulation now and they're really like it is flawless. I mean, it's really super what you can do with generated, uh, voice. Now even they can get emotion and I think it's almost like the equivalent of musical notations, like you can say, you know, uh, you know pianissimo or or forte. You know you can give the intention of how you're supposed to play this piece. Uh, so you get a sense that they can say you know whispers, or quietly, or or excited, or giggles, or you know you can add the sentiment to the voice, and so you just think, just to know that, whatever you can imagine, you can get an audio that is flawless of your own voice or any voice that you want to create. You can create a. There is a tool or a set of tools that will allow you to prompt video, you know flawlessly, and that's going to constantly evolve. I mean, there are many tools that do like. It's kind of like this race that we're all in the first leg of the relay race here, and so it started out with Sora was able to create the video, and then the next you know, the VO three, you know less than a month ago, came out and is the far winner by now. So any time that you spend like learning that technical skill is I don't think that's going to be time well well spent, because there's any number of people who could do those things. So I think I'm more, you know, I'm more guessing and betting that imagination is going to be more valuable than industriousness in that. Dan: One thing, and I'd just like to get your take on this, that the crucial quality that makes human things work, human activities, human teamwork and everything is trust you know, and that you're actually dealing with something that you can trust. Ok, and I'm just wondering if the constant evolution of artificial intelligence is going to encourage people to make sure that they're actually dealing with the person in person, that you're actually dealing with another human being in person. Well, I see that in contact with this person or you've got some sort of encryption type mechanism that can guarantee you that the person that you're dealing with digitally is actually the person? And I'm just wondering, because humans, the need for trust overrides any kind of technology. Dean: I agree with you. I mean that's. I think we're going to see, I think we're going to see a more. We're going to react to that that we're going to value human, like I look at now that we are at a point that anything you see on video is immediately questioned that might be especially, yeah, especially if you, if it's introducing a new thought or it's counter to what you might think, or if it's trying to persuade you of something is. My immediate thought is is that real? You know, you know, I just wonder. You know what I was? I was thinking about Dan. You used to talk about the evolution of the signs. You know where it said the best Italian food on the street? Yeah, the evolution was in the town. Two furniture companies, yeah two furniture companies Best furniture. What was it? Dan: Yeah, best furniture companies, best furniture, what was it? Yeah, best furniture store on the street. So the other one comes back and says best, you know best furniture store in the town. And the other one says the other one comes back, state the other one comes back country. The other one comes back Western Hemisphere, the other one comes back planet, the other one comes back solar system and finally it's so far out, it's in the Milky Way. And the other one comes back and says best store on the street. Dean: Right, exactly, and I think that's where we're. I think that's where we're. Dan: Yeah. Anything to differentiate anything to differentiate, I mean the other thing is differentiation. You know, yeah, yeah, yeah and yeah, so no. I go back to Hayek. He's an economist, fa Hayek, and he said that he was talking about capitalism. And he said the big problem with capitalism is that it was named by its enemies. It was named by the whole group of people. You know, marx was the foremost person you know and he, you know, wrote a book, das Capital, you know, and everything else, and they thought it was all about capital. And he says actually, capital is actually a byproduct of the system. He said what capitalism is is an ever expanding system of increasing cooperation among strangers. He says it's just constant going out from ourselves where we can trust that we can cooperate with strangers. And he says most places in history and most places still on the planet, the only people you can trust are our friends and family our friends and family. That limits enormously cooperation, eliminates collaboration, eliminates innovation, eliminates everything if you can only trust the people that you know. He said that basically what capitalism is. It's got this amazing number of structures and processes and agreements and laws and everything that allow you to deal with someone you don't know halfway around the planet and money is exchanged and you feel okay about that and you know, there was a great book and I've recommended it again and again called the One-to-One Future. I've read it. Dean: I've read it. Yeah, yeah, this was written back in the 90s, yeah, and that was one of the things that they talked about was this privacy, that, and I don't see it happening as much, but we're certainly ready for it and and going to appreciate having a, an intermediary, having a trusted advocate for all of the things you know. That that's that we share everything with that one trusted person and trust them to vet and represent us out into the world. Dan: It's really interesting. It would have been at a Free Zone workshop, because those are the only workshops that I actually do, and somebody asked. Babs was in the room and they said that you know how many of your signups for the program you know, the last 12 months and you know we had just short of a thousand a thousand signups and you know, and we know what the influence was because we have the contact we have the, you know, we have the conversations between the salesperson and the person who signs up, and somebody asked how many of them come directly from direct referrals. It's 85%. It's not the only thing They'll read books. They'll see podcasts. Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah and everything like that, but it's still that direct referral of someone whose judgment they totally trust is the deciding factor. Dean: Yes, yeah, amazing, right, and that's. Dan: I mean, here we are. We're 36 years down. We're using all kinds of marketing tools. We're using podcasts, we're using books. We're using books, we're using social media. And it struck me one day. I said how do people know me on social media? I said I never use social media. I've never. I've never. Actually, I don't even know how to. I don't even know how to use social media. Dean: I wouldn't know how to get on and everything else. Dan: So I went to our social media director and I said um, how am I on social media? He says dan, you're out there, there you're doing every day you're doing 100 things a day you know you know. and he went down the list of all the different uh platforms that I'm in and I said uh. I said oh, I didn't know that. I said, do I look good? He said oh, yeah. He says yeah, nothing but the best, but I'm just using it as a broadcast medium. You know, I'm not using it as an interactive medium. Right Well, I'm not. We're using it as an interactive medium, but I'm not. Dean: Right. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah, that's all that matters, right, I mean, and it's actually you, yeah, it's your words, but you're using, you know, keeping, like you say, somebody between you and the technology. Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah, always keep a smart person. Right A smart person between yourself and the technology. Dean: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dan: Yeah. So yeah, I was at the party. I had this party that was sort of a beach, had this party that was sort of a beach. You know, we have an island, but there are about 15 couples of one kind or another at the party last night, most of whom I didn't know, but I got talking and they were talking about the technology and everything like that. it was about a three person and myself and we were talking and they said, geez, you know, I mean it's driving me crazy and everything like that. And one of them said, dan, how are you approaching this? And I said, well, I'm taking a sort of different approach. And I just went through and I described my relationship to television, my relationship to social media, my relationship to the you know, my iPhone and everything else. And they said, boy, that's a really different approach. And I said, yeah, and I said you know we're growing, you know the company's growing, and you know everybody who needs to find out. what they need to find out is finding that out and everything else. So yeah, but I don't have to be involved in any of it. Dean: Right, yeah, you know, you're proof that it's. You can be in it, but not of it. Dan: Yeah, I think that's part of the thing. Yeah, but there's kind of a well, we're probably on this podcast, we're developing sort of an AI wisdom, because I think wisdom what matters is that you can adapt a particular strategy and just think of it, you know, and just stick with it. There's just something that you can stick with and it doesn't cause you any harm. Yeah, the one thing that I have learned is that the input between me and perplexity has to be 50-50. And the way I do it, dean, is I trigger everything with a fast filter, so I'll do the best result. You have just one box. I put the best result. You have just one box, I put the best result. That becomes the anchor of the particular project that I'm working on with Perpuxy. I'll just take it and stick it in there. Then I'll write one of the success criteria, okay, and then I'll take the success criteria and I said okay, now I want to create two paragraphs. Okay, so I've got the anchor paragraph and I've got this new paragraph. I want to take the central message of this success criteria and I want to modify whatever I wrote down in the lead and bring it back as a 100-word introduction where the success criteria has 50 words. Okay. And then what I'll do is I go to a mindset scorecard and I'll start creating mindsets and I'll take a mindset and I said, okay, I want to take this mindset and I want to change the meaning of the two paragraphs and it comes down and then after a certain point I said okay, let's introduce another. So I'm going back and forth where it's delivering a product but then I'm creating something new and inserting it into the product, and it's kind of like this back and forth conversation. Dean: You're using perplexity for this Perplexity yeah. Yeah. Dan: Yeah, and it has a really nice feeling to it that it's doing some magic. You know it's doing magic tricks. It's carrying out instructions instantaneously. You know three or four seconds. And then I read what I wrote and then it gives me a new idea. Then I write down the idea in the pass filter or the mindset scorecard and then I insert that new idea and say, okay, modify everything above with this new thought, and it's really terrific, it really works really great, yeah, okay, and you know it's, and what's really interesting about? I'll go do this. And then, down at the bottom, it creates a unique summary of everything that we're talking about, and I didn't ask it for a summary, but it creates a summary. Dean: That's amazing, isn't it? Dan: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Dean: Yeah, this is. You know. I really enjoyed the new tool that we did in the FreeZone workshop. This time I forget what the tool is called. Dan: I had three. I had the six-year your best six years ever. Was it that one we also? Dean: had. Always More Ambitious, always well, always more ambitious was great too, but yeah, that uh. But that six year your best six years ever is. That's such a good thing that if you just imagine that that's the, the lens that you're looking at the present through that, you're always. It's a durable thing. I try and explain to people I've had this framework of thinking in terms of the next hundred weeks is kind of a the long-term like actionable thing that you can have a big impact in a hundred weeks on something. But it's gonna happen kind of a hundred days at a time, kind of like quarters I guess, if you think about two years. But I've really found that everything comes down to the real actionable things are the next 100 hours and the next 100 minutes. And those I can find that I can allocate those 50 minute focus finders that. I do those sessions, it's like that's really the only. It's the only thing is to the extent that we're able to get our turn our ambitions into actions that correlate with those right that align, aligning our actions with our ambitions because a lot of people are ambitious on theoretically ambitious, uh, as opposed to applied ambition. Dan: They're not actionably ambitious. Dean: Actionably ambitious. I think that there's something to that, Dan. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And it's frustrating yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: Yeah. Dan: I think that's a really good, theoretically ambitious, but not actionably ambitious, yeah, and I think that's a really good theoretically ambitious but not actually ambitious, yeah, and I think that theoretically ambitious just puts you totally in the gap really fast. Absolutely Okay, because you have no proof, you're never actually You're full of propositions. Yeah, I'm reading a book. Have you ever read any of Thomas Sowell? I? Dean: have not. Dan: Yeah, he's a 93, 94-year-old economist at Stanford University and he's got 60 years of work that he's done and he's got a great book. It's a book I'm going to read continually. I have about three or four books that I just read continually. One of them is called the Technological System by Jacques Hulot, a French sociologist, jacques Lull, french sociologist, and it does the best job of describing what technology does to people, what it does to organizations, when they're totally reactive to it. Dean: You know in other words. Dan: They have no sense of agency regarding technology. They're just being impacted, and it's really good. He wrote it probably in the 60s or 70s and it's just got a lot of great observations in it. Dean: And. Dan: I've read it. I've probably read it. I started reading it in 1980, and I've probably read it three or four times. One book fell apart because there was so much notes and online Really Wow. Yeah, the binding fell apart. Dean: What's it called again? It's called the. Dan: Technological System. Dean: The. Dan: Technological System. Jacques, you know Elal and there's quite a good YouTube interview with him If you want to look it up. It's about 25, 30 minutes and very, very, very engaging mind. He really gets you to think when he talks about it. But the book that I'm talking about right now, this is Thomas Sowell. It's called Intellectuals and Society and he said if you take all the intellectuals in the world and you put all their sense of how the world works, at best it could represent 1% of the knowledge that's needed for the world to run every day the other 99%, and he calls it the difference between specialized knowledge and mundane knowledge. Okay, so specialized knowledge is where somebody really goes deep, really goes deep into something and then develops. You know, if the whole world would just operate according to what I'm seeing here, it would be a better world. And he says, and he said that's the intellectual approach. You know, I've I've really thought this deeply, and therefore what I want now is for someone to impose this on the planet. So, I feel good. But, he says what actually makes the world work is just everybody going about their business and working out rules of, you know, teamwork, rules of action, transaction work. And he says and intellectuals have no access to this knowledge whatsoever because they're not involved in everyday life, they're off. You know they're looking down from a height and saying you know, I'd like to reorganize this whole thing, have the mundane knowledge are now being able to really get multiply the value that they're just getting out of their daily interactions at an exponentially high speed and that the intellectuals are probably. The intellectuals are just if they're using AI. They're just doing that to multiply their theories. But they're not actionable ambition, they're theoretical. Theoretically ambitious right, yeah, yeah. Dean: Yeah, that's really interesting looking at the uh, you know, I think that there's, you know, kind of a giant leap from proposition to proof. Oh yeah, in the in the vision column is like that's it's worth so much. Uh, because intellectually that that's the. It's a different skill set to turn a proof into a protocol and a protocol into a protected package. You know, those don't require creative solution and I'm finding the real like the hotspot leverage points, like in the capability column. It's ability is the multiplier of capability. Dan: Yeah. Dean: You know, because that then can affect capacity and cash, you know. Dan: Yeah, yeah, I mean, if you take it. I mean never have human beings had so many capabilities available to them but do they have any ability to go along with the capabilities? Dean: Yeah. Dan: Yeah. Dean: And I think that that part of that ability is to recognize it. You know, vision ability to recognize the excess capacity that they have, you know. Dan: And. Dean: I think that that trusted you know. Dan: The leverageable point in the reach column is the you know a heart level, like an endorsed uh being access to somebody else's um, to somebody else's trust level yeah, relationships yeah it's so it's amazing like I just like that I've seen so much opportunity AI introduced chat, gpt, that we're at a major this is a major jump, like language itself almost. I often go back and say I wonder who the first tribe? That was probably a tribe that developed a language so that they could communicate. You know where they could keep adding vocabulary. You know they could keep adding vocabulary and that they must have just taken over everything immediately. They just totally took over just because of their speed of teamwork, their speed of getting things done. And then the next one was writing when they could write. And then you have another jump, because with writing came reading and then the next one came printing. You know, and I thought that when the microchip came in and you had digital language, I said this is the next gem. But digital language is just a really, really fast form of printing actually. It's just fast, but artificial intelligence is a fundamental breakthrough. So, we're right at the beginning. Gutenberg is like 1455, and it must have been amazing to him and the people who knew about him that he could produce what it would take, you know, a hand writer would take months and months that he could produce one in a matter of you know hours. He could produce in hours, but as many as you wanted. Dean: I wonder what the trickle down, like you know the transition, how long it took to eliminate the scribe industry. Dan: Well, I will tell you this that they have statistics that within 40 years after Gutenberg there were 30,000 presses across northern Europe. So it took off like a rocket. You know it took off. And I mean, and you know, and it I mean in the next 150 years, we're just pure turmoil politically, economically, culturally in. Europe after that came and I think we're in that. We're in that period right now. We're feeling it, yeah, I think so too. Everybody's going to have to have a newcomer. Dean: Yeah, that's right. Dan: Probably on rescue all day 60 minutes at a time, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, anyway. What have we gotten today? What have we? What's the garden produced today? Dean: Well, I think that this, I think we had this thought of, I think you and I always come the two types of abilities. Well, the capability and the ability. No, theoretically ambitious and actionability Actionability- Theoretically ambitious and actionably ambitious. Dan: The vast majority of people are theoretically ambitious. Dean: They're not actionable. Yes. Dan: I think that's a good distinction. Dean: I do too. That was what I was going to say that level and I think that the you know, when you see more that the I think, being an idea person, like a visionary, it's very difficult to see that there's a lot of people that don't have that ability. But you don't, because we take it for granted that we have that ability to see things and and have that uh, access to that. It doesn't feel like you know almost like you can't uh, you've got the curse of knowledge. We know what it's like to constantly have vision and see things, that the way things could be, um, and not really realize that most people don't have that, and I think it's we discount it, um, or you can't discount it by thinking, well, that that can't be do you know what I? mean that there's got to be more to. It mean there's got to be, more to it. Well, that's the easy part or whatever, but it's not and that's yeah. I think that the more I saw Kevin Smith, the filmmaker, the director. He was on there's a series online called the Big Think and they have, you know, different notable people talking about just their life philosophies or the things, and he said something that on his, the moment he decided to move into being kevin smith professionally, that that, the more he just decided to double down on just being more kevin smith for a living it's like he's really without using the words of unique ability or those things that that was the big shift for him is just to realize that the unique view, vision, perspective that he has is the more he doubles down on that, the more successful things have been for him. Yep, yep. So there's nothing you know, you've been Dan Sullivan professionally or professional. Dan Sullivan for years. Dan: Yeah Well, 51, 51. Yeah, yeah, uh, it's created all sorts of tools. I mean uh you know, I remember the psychiatrist I went to the amen clinic to receive my um add diagnosis, you know because he's got. He's got about seven different types of ADD. Dean: Yes, which one do you? Dan: have. Yeah well, mine's not hyperactive at all. Dean: No me neither yeah. Dan: I mean it takes a lot to get me to move, Anyway, but mine is the constant being barbaric. It's sort of I'm thinking of this and then all of a sudden I think of something else. Dean: And then. Dan: now I've got two things to think about, and then the third one wants to join the party and everything else, and meanwhile I had something to do this morning and I just blew right past it. Dean: Anyway. Dan: Right, yeah, so anyway, but I had filled in. There's like 100 questions that you have to fill in online before they'll even accept you, and you know what's your day look like. You know mine pretty relaxed, good structure, everything like that. But the test, they do all sorts of brain scans. They test out concentration, they test out how long you can maintain attention on something. They do it at rest, they do it after exercise and everything like that. It's about three days. There's about nine hours of it that they do. And so we got together and she said you know, if you look at how you answered our questionnaire, online and you look at our test. These are in separate universes. They don't have any relationship to each other. To each other. She said I've never seen such a wide span between the two. So well, I'm sorry, you know we just pretty soon we got to what I do for a living and I said well, I create thinking tools for entrepreneurs. And so I told her, I gave her a couple of examples and she said well, I don't know who else you created these for, but you sure created them for yourself. And that's really what we do. Is that what we are best at in the marketplace is what we're trying to figure out for ourselves? Dean: Yes, I think that's absolutely true. Dan: We sell our therapies to others, that's right. We want to see if our self-therapies go beyond ourselves. Dean: Yeah, exactly. Dan: Yeah, yeah, all righty. Dean: Okay Dan. That was a good one, yeah, are we on next week? Dan: Yeah, oh, yeah, yeah, Perfect, perfect, okay, I'll be back. Dean: I'll meet you here. Dan: Okay, thanks Bye, thanks Bye. Thanks for watching.

Send us a textThe price system solves a profound coordination problem by communicating dispersed knowledge that no central planner could ever fully access or comprehend. We explore Hayek's insight about how prices serve as both information and incentives, allowing self-interested actions to inadvertently benefit society.• The "knowledge problem" – why information needed for economic decisions is dispersed among millions of individuals• Tale of two farmers – how profit-seeking Mo unknowingly serves society better than altruistic Al• Markets generate information through commercial processes that otherwise wouldn't exist• Goodhart's Law – when measures become targets, they cease to be good measures• Soviet planning failures – absurd outcomes like factories producing single giant nails to meet weight quotas• Recycling pennies – potential approaches as the US phases out penny productionMentioned in the podcast:FA Hayek, "Use of Knowledge in Society" (AER, 1945) Michael Munger, Socialist Generation Debate"Goodhart's Law""What Do Prices Know That You Don't?"Ross Kaminsky, of KOA:iHeart RadioSegments with RossRoss on X (@rossputin)My Duke colleague Bruce Caldwell, on the intellectual history of Hayek's 1945 AER paperBook'o'da'week! Three suggestions (but mostly Red Plenty!)Paul Craig Roberts' "Alienation and the Soviet Economy" Alec Nove's "The Economics of Feasible Socialism"Francis Spufford's "Red Plenty"If you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

Quinn Slobodian is a Canadian historian. His new book, Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right is a deep dive into the set of far-right ideologues currently dominating US politics. Slobodian tracks how neoliberal thought has changed since Friedrich Hayek's vision of unfettered capitalism went mainstream 50 years ago. In this conversation with […]

Was the populist far right a reaction to neoliberal free market fundamentalism? Or, as historian Quinn Slobodian argues, did such rightwing currents come out of the ideas of neoliberalism itself? Slobodian reflects on neoliberal thinkers' preoccupation with racist and misogynistic ideas of human nature and intelligence, borders and gold — all in service to their war on the left. Quinn Slobodian, Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right Zone Books, 2025 The post The Neoliberal Roots of Rightwing Populism appeared first on KPFA.

In our 8:30 half hour, America First Works President Ashley Hayek joins us to talk about the ongoing riots in Los Angeles.

Andrés Caramés, Filósofo de la Libertad, Divulgador del Pensamiento Crítico En este episodio conversamos con Andrés Caramés, divulgador filosófico que ha ganado notoriedad por su capacidad para explicar con claridad, profundidad y valentía ideas que muchos prefieren evitar. Especializado en pensamiento político, economía de mercado y filosofía de la libertad, Andrés se ha convertido en una de las voces más lúcidas del panorama hispano cuando se trata de cuestionar los dogmas del sistema. Con una mirada crítica, pero siempre argumentada, Caramés defiende el individualismo metodológico, la soberanía del individuo y una revisión radical del papel del Estado en la vida cotidiana. Su labor en redes, conferencias y espacios de divulgación ha sido clave para acercar al gran público autores como Mises, Hayek o Rothbard, pero también para abrir debates incómodos sobre democracia, poder y coerción. Esta conversación no es para complacientes. Es para quienes tienen el coraje de pensar por sí mismos, incluso cuando eso los aleja de lo políticamente correcto. Encuéntrale en @andrescarames

„Die Bienenfabel“ ist einer der einflussreichsten Texte in der Geschichte der Wirtschaftstheorien. Der nach London übergesiedelte Niederländer Bernard Mandeville veröffentlichte die Schrift 1705 und verblüffte nicht nur seine Zeitgenossen, sondern auch Karl Marx und Friedrich August von Hayek mit seiner Ehrlichkeit. Nichts Geringeres als die Rechtfertigung für Ungleichheit, Hierarchie und Laster liefert die „Bienenfabel“ – jedoch dies alles zum Wohle des Staates und der Gesellschaft. Wobei mit Gesellschaft keineswegs all ihre Mitglieder gemeint sind. Anders als Jordan B. Peterson, der gern Vergleiche mit der Natur bemüht, um menschliches Verhalten davon abzuleiten, will Mandeville mit seiner Fabel nur verdeutlichen, wie der Mensch sich organisieren sollte. Er soll sich dabei nicht an den Bienen orientieren, sondern die Bienen stehen für den Menschen und die perfekte Ordnung, die selbstredend eine kapitalistische ist. In der neuen Folge von „Wohlstand für Alle“ sprechen Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt über den bis heute relevanten Text! Literatur: Friedrich August von Hayek: „Dr. Bernard Mandeville“, in: Friedrich August von Hayek/Mark Perlman/Frederick B. Kaye: Bernard de Mandevilles Leben und Werk,Verlag Wirtschaft und Finanzen, S. 31-62. Bernard Mandeville: Die Bienenfabel oder Private Laster, öffentliche Vorteile. Mit einer Einleitung von Walter Euchner, Suhrkamp. Karl Marx: "Abschweifung (über produktive Arbeit)", in: Marx-Engels-Werke, Band 26.1, S. 363 f. Termine: Wolfgang ist am 6. Juni in Zürich: https://arthouse.ch/movies/bekenntnisse-des-hochstaplers-thomas-mann-210879 Wolfgang ist am 7. Juni in Kilchberg: https://www.maison-du-futur.ch/jubilaeum-thomas-mann Ole ist am 11. Juni in Berlin: https://www.instagram.com/p/DJ1q0GisyBk/?hl=de Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank! Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723 Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgang Steady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about Unser Kinderbuch namens "Die kleinen Holzdiebe" ist nun erschienen! Alle Informationen findet ihr unter: https://www.suhrkamp.de/buch/die-kleinen-holzdiebe-und-das-raetsel-des-juggernaut-t-9783458644774 Ihr könnt uns unterstützen - herzlichen Dank! Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/oleundwolfgang Konto: Wolfgang M. Schmitt, Ole Nymoen Betreff: Wohlstand fuer Alle IBAN: DE67 5745 0120 0130 7996 12 BIC: MALADE51NWD Social Media: Instagram: Unser gemeinsamer Kanal: https://www.instagram.com/oleundwolfgang/ Ole: https://www.instagram.com/ole.nymoen/ Wolfgang: https://www.instagram.com/wolfgangmschmitt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@oleundwolfgang Twitter: Unser gemeinsamer Kanal: https://twitter.com/OleUndWolfgang Ole: twitter.com/nymoen_ole Wolfgang: twitter.com/SchmittJunior Die gesamte WfA-Literaturliste: https://wohlstand-fuer-alle.netlify.app

Air Date 5/27/2025 Slippery slope arguments persist because good ideas taken to extremes become bad ones. Eugenics exemplifies this—often starting with good intentions. Be part of the show! Leave us a message or text at 202-999-3991 or email Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Full Show Notes BestOfTheLeft.com/Support (Members Get Bonus Shows + No Ads!) Join our Discord community! KEY POINTS KP 1: The movement that inspired the Holocaust - Alexandra Minna Stern and Natalie Lira - TED-Ed - Air Date 3-10-22 KP 2: MAHA's Soft Eugenics - Conspirituality - Air Date 3-8-25 KP 3: It Must Be Eugenics - I Must Be BUG'N - Air Date 4-24-25 KP 4: Hayek's bastards w/ Quinn Slobodian - Politics Theory Other - Air Date 3-30-25 KP 5: Even More News: Grok's Meltdown, Donald Trump's Rampant Corruption, and Ms. Rachel w/ Mehdi Hasan - Some More News - Air Date 5-16-25 KP 6: Undercover inside a ‘scientific racism' network - Today in Focus - Air Date 10-25-24 (00:49:40) NOTE FROM THE EDITOR On the likely future of gene editing ethics DEEPER DIVES (01:02:09) SECTION A: HISTORICAL CONTEXT (01:44:19) SECTION B: RFK JR. ON AUTISM (01:59:39) SECTION C: TECH BROS (02:46:44) SECTION D: PRONATALISM (03:05:05) SECTION E: MAGA SHOW IMAGE CREDITS Description: Composite image depicting HHS Secretary RFK Jr. at a microphone in the center of an overlay of repeating, identical “people” icons. A handful of icons are different, bright neon colors and have a red X in a box over them. Credits: Composite design by A. Hoffman. Elements from Pixabay. Photo credit: “Robert F. Kennedy Jr.” by Gage Skidmore, Flickr | CC BY-SA 2.0 | Changes: Cropped, background color change, and added overlay   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Listen Anywhere! BestOfTheLeft.com/Listen Listen Anywhere! Follow BotL: Bluesky | Mastodon | Threads | X Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com

Send us a textWhat happens when we stop seeing politics and markets as separate spheres and start recognizing their deep entanglement? Mikayla Novak, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, challenges conventional economic thinking in favor of Dick Wager's "entangled political economy."Drawing from her fascinating career path through Australia's Treasury, free market think tanks, and her pursuit of multiple courses of study, Novak offers unique insights into institutional economics and political networks. Her background bridges disciplines in ways that embody Hayek's wisdom that "you can't be a good economist by just being an economist."We consider Boettke's distinction between "mainstream" economics—with its equilibrium models and market failure diagnoses—and the "mainline" tradition that views economies as dynamic processes shaped by institutions. This conversation reveals how Richard Wagner's entangled political economy theory helps understand policy failures. When government and markets form complex networks rather than separate spheres, simplistic reform attempts like "just cut spending" are disastrously unsuccessful.The discussion vividly illustrates why transaction costs matter deeply for institutional analysis. We examine how political networks form with elites enjoying low-cost access while ordinary citizens remain at the periphery. This structural understanding helps explain why some inefficient policies persist despite their obvious flaws—they benefit the well-connected core of our political-economic system.Mikayla Novak's page linkRichard Wagner: Entangled Political Economy Research NetworkBuchanan's Liberal TheoryPolitics as a Peculiar BusinessPrevious TAITC Episodes of Relevance:Randall Holcombe and Political CapitalismDonald Boudreaux on Law and LegislationLate Bloomers book, by Rich KarlgaardMunger on tariffs and costsIf you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com ! You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz

China's Ministry of State Security has infiltrated and is conducting espionage at all levels of Stanford University. By law, all Chinese nationals are required to report back to the Chinese Communist Party on their research and daily activities when asked. Sometimes this spying is voluntary and conducted by those who wish to see America fall behind in the global tech race. Other times, Chinese nationals are coerced into spying on their school, friends, and teachers through transnational repression. How can universities and Congress work together to prevent Chinese espionage? And how is the Chinese government buying influence in American universities and American society writ large? Elsa Johnson is the managing editor of the Stanford Review and a sophomore studying international relations and East Asian studies.Garret Molloy is a staff writer and the business manager of the Stanford Review. He is a sophomore studying Hayek, economic history, and libertarian thought.Read the transcript here. Subscribe to our Substack here. Read Elsa and Garret's reporting here.

Yesterday, the self-styled San Francisco “progressive” Joan Williams was on the show arguing that Democrats need to relearn the language of the American working class. But, as some of you have noted, Williams seems oblivious to the fact that politics is about more than simply aping other people's language. What you say matters, and the language of American working class, like all industrial working classes, is rooted in a critique of capitalism. She should probably read the New Yorker staff writer John Cassidy's excellent new book, Capitalism and its Critics, which traces capitalism's evolution and criticism from the East India Company through modern times. He defines capitalism as production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets, encompassing various forms from Chinese state capitalism to hyper-globalization. The book examines capitalism's most articulate critics including the Luddites, Marx, Engels, Thomas Carlisle, Adam Smith, Rosa Luxemburg, Keynes & Hayek, and contemporary figures like Sylvia Federici and Thomas Piketty. Cassidy explores how major economists were often critics of their era's dominant capitalist model, and untangles capitalism's complicated relationship with colonialism, slavery and AI which he regards as a potentially unprecedented economic disruption. This should be essential listening for all Democrats seeking to reinvent a post Biden-Harris party and message. 5 key takeaways* Capitalism has many forms - From Chinese state capitalism to Keynesian managed capitalism to hyper-globalization, all fitting the basic definition of production for profit by privately-owned companies in markets.* Great economists are typically critics - Smith criticized mercantile capitalism, Keynes critiqued laissez-faire capitalism, and Hayek/Friedman opposed managed capitalism. Each generation's leading economists challenge their era's dominant model.* Modern corporate structure has deep roots - The East India Company was essentially a modern multinational corporation with headquarters, board of directors, stockholders, and even a private army - showing capitalism's organizational continuity across centuries.* Capitalism is intertwined with colonialism and slavery - Industrial capitalism was built on pre-existing colonial and slave systems, particularly through the cotton industry and plantation economies.* AI represents a potentially unprecedented disruption - Unlike previous technological waves, AI may substitute rather than complement human labor on a massive scale, potentially creating political backlash exceeding even the "China shock" that contributed to Trump's rise.Keen On America is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello, everybody. A couple of days ago, we did a show with Joan Williams. She has a new book out, "Outclassed: How the Left Lost the Working Class and How to Win Them Back." A book about language, about how to talk to the American working class. She also had a piece in Jacobin Magazine, an anti-capitalist magazine, about how the left needs to speak to what she calls average American values. We talked, of course, about Bernie Sanders and AOC and their language of fighting oligarchy, and the New York Times followed that up with "The Enduring Power of Anti-Capitalism in American Politics."But of course, that brings the question: what exactly is capitalism? I did a little bit of research. We can find definitions of capitalism from AI, from Wikipedia, even from online dictionaries, but I thought we might do a little better than relying on Wikipedia and come to a man who's given capitalism and its critics a great deal of thought. John Cassidy is well known as a staff writer at The New Yorker. He's the author of a wonderful book, the best book, actually, on the dot-com insanity. And his new book, "Capitalism and its Critics," is out this week. John, congratulations on the book.So I've got to be a bit of a schoolmaster with you, John, and get some definitions first. What exactly is capitalism before we get to criticism of it?John Cassidy: Yeah, I mean, it's a very good question, Andrew. Obviously, through the decades, even the centuries, there have been many different definitions of the term capitalism and there are different types of capitalism. To not be sort of too ideological about it, the working definition I use is basically production for profit—that could be production of goods or mostly in the new and, you know, in today's economy, production of services—for profit by companies which are privately owned in markets. That's a very sort of all-encompassing definition.Within that, you can have all sorts of different types of capitalism. You can have Chinese state capitalism, you can have the old mercantilism, which industrial capitalism came after, which Trump seems to be trying to resurrect. You can have Keynesian managed capitalism that we had for 30 or 40 years after the Second World War, which I grew up in in the UK. Or you can have sort of hyper-globalization, hyper-capitalism that we've tried for the last 30 years. There are all those different varieties of capitalism consistent with a basic definition, I think.Andrew Keen: That keeps you busy, John. I know you started this project, which is a big book and it's a wonderful book. I read it. I don't always read all the books I have on the show, but I read from cover to cover full of remarkable stories of the critics of capitalism. You note in the beginning that you began this in 2016 with the beginnings of Trump. What was it about the 2016 election that triggered a book about capitalism and its critics?John Cassidy: Well, I was reporting on it at the time for The New Yorker and it struck me—I covered, I basically covered the economy in various forms for various publications since the late 80s, early 90s. In fact, one of my first big stories was the stock market crash of '87. So yes, I am that old. But it seemed to me in 2016 when you had Bernie Sanders running from the left and Trump running from the right, but both in some way offering very sort of similar critiques of capitalism. People forget that Trump in 2016 actually was running from the left of the Republican Party. He was attacking big business. He was attacking Wall Street. He doesn't do that these days very much, but at the time he was very much posing as the sort of outsider here to protect the interests of the average working man.And it seemed to me that when you had this sort of pincer movement against the then ruling model, this wasn't just a one-off. It seemed to me it was a sort of an emerging crisis of legitimacy for the system. And I thought there could be a good book written about how we got to here. And originally I thought it would be a relatively short book just based on the last sort of 20 or 30 years since the collapse of the Cold War and the sort of triumphalism of the early 90s.But as I got into it more and more, I realized that so many of the issues which had been raised, things like globalization, rising inequality, monopoly power, exploitation, even pollution and climate change, these issues go back to the very start of the capitalist system or the industrial capitalist system back in sort of late 18th century, early 19th century Britain. So I thought, in the end, I thought, you know what, let's just do the whole thing soup to nuts through the eyes of the critics.There have obviously been many, many histories of capitalism written. I thought that an original way to do it, or hopefully original, would be to do a sort of a narrative through the lives and the critiques of the critics of various stages. So that's, I hope, what sets it apart from other books on the subject, and also provides a sort of narrative frame because, you know, I am a New Yorker writer, I realize if you want people to read things, you've got to make it readable. Easiest way to make things readable is to center them around people. People love reading about other people. So that's sort of the narrative frame. I start off with a whistleblower from the East India Company back in the—Andrew Keen: Yeah, I want to come to that. But before, John, my sense is that to simplify what you're saying, this is a labor of love. You're originally from Leeds, the heart of Yorkshire, the center of the very industrial revolution, the first industrial revolution where, in your historical analysis, capitalism was born. Is it a labor of love? What's your family relationship with capitalism? How long was the family in Leeds?John Cassidy: Right, I mean that's a very good question. It is a labor of love in a way, but it's not—our family doesn't go—I'm from an Irish family, family of Irish immigrants who moved to England in the 1940s and 1950s. So my father actually did start working in a big mill, the Kirkstall Forge in Leeds, which is a big steel mill, and he left after seeing one of his co-workers have his arms chopped off in one of the machinery, so he decided it wasn't for him and he spent his life working in the construction industry, which was dominated by immigrants as it is here now.So I don't have a—it's not like I go back to sort of the start of the industrial revolution, but I did grow up in the middle of Leeds, very working class, very industrial neighborhood. And what a sort of irony is, I'll point out, I used to, when I was a kid, I used to play golf on a municipal golf course called Gotts Park in Leeds, which—you know, most golf courses in America are sort of in the affluent suburbs, country clubs. This was right in the middle of Armley in Leeds, which is where the Victorian jail is and a very rough neighborhood. There's a small bit of land which they built a golf course on. It turns out it was named after one of the very first industrialists, Benjamin Gott, who was a wool and textile industrialist, and who played a part in the Luddite movement, which I mention.So it turns out, I was there when I was 11 or 12, just learning how to play golf on this scrappy golf course. And here I am, 50 years later, writing about Benjamin Gott at the start of the Industrial Revolution. So yeah, no, sure. I think it speaks to me in a way that perhaps it wouldn't to somebody else from a different background.Andrew Keen: We did a show with William Dalrymple, actually, a couple of years ago. He's been on actually since, the Anglo or Scottish Indian historian. His book on the East India Company, "The Anarchy," is a classic. You begin in some ways your history of capitalism with the East India Company. What was it about the East India Company, John, that makes it different from other for-profit organizations in economic, Western economic history?John Cassidy: I mean, I read that. It's a great book, by the way. That was actually quoted in my chapter on these. Yeah, I remember. I mean, the reason I focused on it was for two reasons. Number one, I was looking for a start, a narrative start to the book. And it seemed to me, you know, the obvious place to start is with the start of the industrial revolution. If you look at economics history textbooks, that's where they always start with Arkwright and all the inventors, you know, who were the sort of techno-entrepreneurs of their time, the sort of British Silicon Valley, if you could think of it as, in Lancashire and Derbyshire in the late 18th century.So I knew I had to sort of start there in some way, but I thought that's a bit pat. Is there another way into it? And it turns out that in 1772 in England, there was a huge bailout of the East India Company, very much like the sort of 2008, 2009 bailout of Wall Street. The company got into trouble. So I thought, you know, maybe there's something there. And I eventually found this guy, William Bolts, who worked for the East India Company, turned into a whistleblower after he was fired for finagling in India like lots of the people who worked for the company did.So that gave me two things. Number one, it gave me—you know, I'm a writer, so it gave me something to focus on a narrative. His personal history is very interesting. But number two, it gave me a sort of foundation because industrial capitalism didn't come from nowhere. You know, it was built on top of a pre-existing form of capitalism, which we now call mercantile capitalism, which was very protectionist, which speaks to us now. But also it had these big monopolistic multinational companies.The East India Company, in some ways, was a very modern corporation. It had a headquarters in Leadenhall Street in the city of London. It had a board of directors, it had stockholders, the company sent out very detailed instructions to the people in the field in India and Indonesia and Malaysia who were traders who bought things from the locals there, brought them back to England on their company ships. They had a company army even to enforce—to protect their operations there. It was an incredible multinational corporation.So that was also, I think, fascinating because it showed that even in the pre-existing system, you know, big corporations existed, there were monopolies, they had royal monopolies given—first the East India Company got one from Queen Elizabeth. But in some ways, they were very similar to modern monopolistic corporations. And they had some of the problems we've seen with modern monopolistic corporations, the way they acted. And Bolts was the sort of first corporate whistleblower, I thought. Yeah, that was a way of sort of getting into the story, I think. Hopefully, you know, it's just a good read, I think.William Bolts's story because he was—he came from nowhere, he was Dutch, he wasn't even English and he joined the company as a sort of impoverished young man, went to India like a lot of English minor aristocrats did to sort of make your fortune. The way the company worked, you had to sort of work on company time and make as much money as you could for the company, but then in your spare time you're allowed to trade for yourself. So a lot of the—without getting into too much detail, but you know, English aristocracy was based on—you know, the eldest child inherits everything, so if you were the younger brother of the Duke of Norfolk, you actually didn't inherit anything. So all of these minor aristocrats, so major aristocrats, but who weren't first born, joined the East India Company, went out to India and made a fortune, and then came back and built huge houses. Lots of the great manor houses in southern England were built by people from the East India Company and they were known as Nabobs, which is an Indian term. So they were the sort of, you know, billionaires of their time, and it was based on—as I say, it wasn't based on industrial capitalism, it was based on mercantile capitalism.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the beginning of the book, which focuses on Bolts and the East India Company, brings to mind for me two things. Firstly, the intimacy of modern capitalism, modern industrial capitalism with colonialism and of course slavery—lots of books have been written on that. Touch on this and also the relationship between the birth of capitalism and the birth of liberalism or democracy. John Stuart Mill, of course, the father in many ways of Western democracy. His day job, ironically enough, or perhaps not ironically, was at the East India Company. So how do those two things connect, or is it just coincidental?John Cassidy: Well, I don't think it is entirely coincidental, I mean, J.S. Mill—his father, James Mill, was also a well-known philosopher in the sort of, obviously, in the earlier generation, earlier than him. And he actually wrote the official history of the East India Company. And I think they gave his son, the sort of brilliant protégé, J.S. Mill, a job as largely as a sort of sinecure, I think. But he did go in and work there in the offices three or four days a week.But I think it does show how sort of integral—the sort of—as you say, the inheritor and the servant in Britain, particularly, of colonial capitalism was. So the East India Company was, you know, it was in decline by that stage in the middle of the 19th century, but it didn't actually give up its monopoly. It wasn't forced to give up its monopoly on the Indian trade until 1857, after, you know, some notorious massacres and there was a sort of public outcry.So yeah, no, that's—it's very interesting that the British—it's sort of unique to Britain in a way, but it's interesting that industrial capitalism arose alongside this pre-existing capitalist structure and somebody like Mill is a sort of paradoxical figure because actually he was quite critical of aspects of industrial capitalism and supported sort of taxes on the rich, even though he's known as the great, you know, one of the great apostles of the free market and free market liberalism. And his day job, as you say, he was working for the East India Company.Andrew Keen: What about the relationship between the birth of industrial capitalism, colonialism and slavery? Those are big questions and I know you deal with them in some—John Cassidy: I think you can't just write an economic history of capitalism now just starting with the cotton industry and say, you know, it was all about—it was all about just technical progress and gadgets, etc. It was built on a sort of pre-existing system which was colonial and, you know, the slave trade was a central element of that. Now, as you say, there have been lots and lots of books written about it, the whole 1619 project got an incredible amount of attention a few years ago. So I didn't really want to rehash all that, but I did want to acknowledge the sort of role of slavery, especially in the rise of the cotton industry because of course, a lot of the raw cotton was grown in the plantations in the American South.So the way I actually ended up doing that was by writing a chapter about Eric Williams, a Trinidadian writer who ended up as the Prime Minister of Trinidad when it became independent in the 1960s. But when he was younger, he wrote a book which is now regarded as a classic. He went to Oxford to do a PhD, won a scholarship. He was very smart. I won a sort of Oxford scholarship myself but 50 years before that, he came across the Atlantic and did an undergraduate degree in history and then did a PhD there and his PhD thesis was on slavery and capitalism.And at the time, in the 1930s, the link really wasn't acknowledged. You could read any sort of standard economic history written by British historians, and they completely ignored that. He made the argument that, you know, slavery was integral to the rise of capitalism and he basically started an argument which has been raging ever since the 1930s and, you know, if you want to study economic history now you have to sort of—you know, have to have to address that. And the way I thought, even though the—it's called the Williams thesis is very famous. I don't think many people knew much about where it came from. So I thought I'd do a chapter on—Andrew Keen: Yeah, that chapter is excellent. You mentioned earlier the Luddites, you're from Yorkshire where Luddism in some ways was born. One of the early chapters is on the Luddites. We did a show with Brian Merchant, his book, "Blood in the Machine," has done very well, I'm sure you're familiar with it. I always understood the Luddites as being against industrialization, against the machine, as opposed to being against capitalism. But did those two things get muddled together in the history of the Luddites?John Cassidy: I think they did. I mean, you know, Luddites, when we grew up, I mean you're English too, you know to be called a Luddite was a term of abuse, right? You know, you were sort of antediluvian, anti-technology, you're stupid. It was only, I think, with the sort of computer revolution, the tech revolution of the last 30, 40 years and the sort of disruptions it's caused, that people have started to look back at the Luddites and say, perhaps they had a point.For them, they were basically pre-industrial capitalism artisans. They worked for profit-making concerns, small workshops. Some of them worked for themselves, so they were sort of sole proprietor capitalists. Or they worked in small venues, but the rise of industrial capitalism, factory capitalism or whatever, basically took away their livelihoods progressively. So they associated capitalism with new technology. In their minds it was the same. But their argument wasn't really a technological one or even an economic one, it was more a moral one. They basically made the moral argument that capitalists shouldn't have the right to just take away their livelihoods with no sort of recompense for them.At the time they didn't have any parliamentary representation. You know, they weren't revolutionaries. The first thing they did was create petitions to try and get parliament to step in, sort of introduce some regulation here. They got turned down repeatedly by the sort of—even though it was a very aristocratic parliament, places like Manchester and Leeds didn't have any representation at all. So it was only after that that they sort of turned violent and started, you know, smashing machines and machines, I think, were sort of symbols of the system, which they saw as morally unjust.And I think that's sort of what—obviously, there's, you know, a lot of technological disruption now, so we can, especially as it starts to come for the educated cognitive class, we can sort of sympathize with them more. But I think the sort of moral critique that there's this, you know, underneath the sort of great creativity and economic growth that capitalism produces, there is also a lot of destruction and a lot of victims. And I think that message, you know, is becoming a lot more—that's why I think why they've been rediscovered in the last five or ten years and I'm one of the people I guess contributing to that rediscovery.Andrew Keen: There's obviously many critiques of capitalism politically. I want to come to Marx in a second, but your chapter, I thought, on Thomas Carlyle and this nostalgic conservatism was very important and there are other conservatives as well. John, do you think that—and you mentioned Trump earlier, who is essentially a nostalgist for a—I don't know, some sort of bizarre pre-capitalist age in America. Is there something particularly powerful about the anti-capitalism of romantics like Carlyle, 19th century Englishman, there were many others of course.John Cassidy: Well, I think so. I mean, I think what is—conservatism, when we were young anyway, was associated with Thatcherism and Reaganism, which, you know, lionized the free market and free market capitalism and was a reaction against the pre-existing form of capitalism, Keynesian capitalism of the sort of 40s to the 80s. But I think what got lost in that era was the fact that there have always been—you've got Hayek up there, obviously—Andrew Keen: And then Keynes and Hayek, the two—John Cassidy: Right, it goes to the end of that. They had a great debate in the 1930s about these issues. But Hayek really wasn't a conservative person, and neither was Milton Friedman. They were sort of free market revolutionaries, really, that you'd let the market rip and it does good things. And I think that that sort of a view, you know, it just became very powerful. But we sort of lost sight of the fact that there was also a much older tradition of sort of suspicion of radical changes of any type. And that was what conservatism was about to some extent. If you think about Baldwin in Britain, for example.And there was a sort of—during the Industrial Revolution, some of the strongest supporters of factory acts to reduce hours and hourly wages for women and kids were actually conservatives, Tories, as they were called at the time, like Ashley. That tradition, Carlyle was a sort of extreme representative of that. I mean, Carlyle was a sort of proto-fascist, let's not romanticize him, he lionized strongmen, Frederick the Great, and he didn't really believe in democracy. But he also had—he was appalled by the sort of, you know, the—like, what's the phrase I'm looking for? The sort of destructive aspects of industrial capitalism, both on the workers, you know, he said it was a dehumanizing system, sounded like Marx in some ways. That it dehumanized the workers, but also it destroyed the environment.He was an early environmentalist. He venerated the environment, was actually very strongly linked to the transcendentalists in America, people like Thoreau, who went to visit him when he visited Britain and he saw the sort of destructive impact that capitalism was having locally in places like Manchester, which were filthy with filthy rivers, etc. So he just saw the whole system as sort of morally bankrupt and he was a great writer, Carlyle, whatever you think of him. Great user of language, so he has these great ringing phrases like, you know, the cash nexus or calling it the Gospel of Mammonism, the shabbiest gospel ever preached under the sun was industrial capitalism.So, again, you know, that's a sort of paradoxical thing, because I think for so long conservatism was associated with, you know, with support for the free market and still is in most of the Republican Party, but then along comes Trump and sort of conquers the party with a, you know, more skeptical, as you say, romantic, not really based on any reality, but a sort of romantic view that America can stand by itself in the world. I mean, I see Trump actually as a sort of an effort to sort of throw back to mercantile capitalism in a way. You know, which was not just pre-industrial, but was also pre-democracy, run by monarchs, which I'm sure appeals to him, and it was based on, you know, large—there were large tariffs. You couldn't import things in the UK. If you want to import anything to the UK, you have to send it on a British ship because of the navigation laws. It was a very protectionist system and it's actually, you know, as I said, had a lot of parallels with what Trump's trying to do or tries to do until he backs off.Andrew Keen: You cheat a little bit in the book in the sense that you—everyone has their own chapter. We'll talk a little bit about Hayek and Smith and Lenin and Friedman. You do have one chapter on Marx, but you also have a chapter on Engels. So you kind of cheat. You combine the two. Is it possible, though, to do—and you've just written this book, so you know this as well as anyone. How do you write a book about capitalism and its critics and only really give one chapter to Marx, who is so dominant? I mean, you've got lots of Marxists in the book, including Lenin and Luxemburg. How fundamental is Marx to a criticism of capitalism? Is most criticism, especially from the left, from progressives, is it really just all a footnote to Marx?John Cassidy: I wouldn't go that far, but I think obviously on the left he is the central figure. But there's an element of sort of trying to rebuild Engels a bit in this. I mean, I think of Engels and Marx—I mean obviously Marx wrote the great classic "Capital," etc. But in the 1840s, when they both started writing about capitalism, Engels was sort of ahead of Marx in some ways. I mean, the sort of materialist concept, the idea that economics rules everything, Engels actually was the first one to come up with that in an essay in the 1840s which Marx then published in one of his—in the German newspaper he worked for at the time, radical newspaper, and he acknowledged openly that that was really what got him thinking seriously about economics, and even in the late—in 20, 25 years later when he wrote "Capital," all three volumes of it and the Grundrisse, just these enormous outpourings of analysis on capitalism.He acknowledged Engels's role in that and obviously Engels wrote the first draft of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 too, which Marx then topped and tailed and—he was a better writer obviously, Marx, and he gave it the dramatic language that we all know it for. So I think Engels and Marx together obviously are the central sort of figures in the sort of left-wing critique. But they didn't start out like that. I mean, they were very obscure, you've got to remember.You know, they were—when they were writing, Marx was writing "Capital" in London, it never even got published in English for another 20 years. It was just published in German. He was basically an expat. He had been thrown out of Germany, he had been thrown out of France, so England was last resort and the British didn't consider him a threat so they were happy to let him and the rest of the German sort of left in there. I think it became—it became the sort of epochal figure after his death really, I think, when he was picked up by the left-wing parties, which are especially the SPD in Germany, which was the first sort of socialist mass party and was officially Marxist until the First World War and there were great internal debates.And then of course, because Lenin and the Russians came out of that tradition too, Marxism then became the official doctrine of the Soviet Union when they adopted a version of it. And again there were massive internal arguments about what Marx really meant, and in fact, you know, one interpretation of the last 150 years of left-wing sort of intellectual development is as a sort of argument about what did Marx really mean and what are the important bits of it, what are the less essential bits of it. It's a bit like the "what did Keynes really mean" that you get in liberal circles.So yeah, Marx, obviously, this is basically an intellectual history of critiques of capitalism. In that frame, he is absolutely a central figure. Why didn't I give him more space than a chapter and a chapter and a half with Engels? There have been a million books written about Marx. I mean, it's not that—it's not that he's an unknown figure. You know, there's a best-selling book written in Britain about 20 years ago about him and then I was quoting, in my biographical research, I relied on some more recent, more scholarly biographies. So he's an endlessly fascinating figure but I didn't want him to dominate the book so I gave him basically the same space as everybody else.Andrew Keen: You've got, as I said, you've got a chapter on Adam Smith who's often considered the father of economics. You've got a chapter on Keynes. You've got a chapter on Friedman. And you've got a chapter on Hayek, all the great modern economists. Is it possible, John, to be a distinguished economist one way or the other and not be a critic of capitalism?John Cassidy: Well, I don't—I mean, I think history would suggest that the greatest economists have been critics of capitalism in their own time. People would say to me, what the hell have you got Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in a book about critics of capitalism? They were great exponents, defenders of capitalism. They loved the system. That is perfectly true. But in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s, middle of the 20th century, they were actually arch-critics of the ruling form of capitalism at the time, which was what I call managed capitalism. What some people call Keynesianism, what other people call European social democracy, whatever you call it, it was a model of a mixed economy in which the government played a large role both in propping up demand and in providing an extensive social safety net in the UK and providing public healthcare and public education. It was a sort of hybrid model.Most of the economy in terms of the businesses remained in private hands. So most production was capitalistic. It was a capitalist system. They didn't go to the Soviet model of nationalizing everything and Britain did nationalize some businesses, but most places didn't. The US of course didn't but it was a form of managed capitalism. And Hayek and Friedman were both great critics of that and wanted to sort of move back to 19th century laissez-faire model.Keynes was a—was actually a great, I view him anyway, as really a sort of late Victorian liberal and was trying to protect as much of the sort of J.S. Mill view of the world as he could, but he thought capitalism had one fatal flaw: that it tended to fall into recessions and then they can snowball and the whole system can collapse which is what had basically happened in the early 1930s until Keynesian policies were adopted. Keynes sort of differed from a lot of his followers—I have a chapter on Joan Robinson in there, who were pretty left-wing and wanted to sort of use Keynesianism as a way to shift the economy quite far to the left. Keynes didn't really believe in that. He has a famous quote that, you know, once you get to full employment, you can then rely on the free market to sort of take care of things. He was still a liberal at heart.Going back to Adam Smith, why is he in a book on criticism of capitalism? And again, it goes back to what I said at the beginning. He actually wrote "The Wealth of Nations"—he explains in the introduction—as a critique of mercantile capitalism. His argument was that he was a pro-free trader, pro-small business, free enterprise. His argument was if you get the government out of the way, we don't need these government-sponsored monopolies like the East India Company. If you just rely on the market, the sort of market forces and competition will produce a good outcome. So then he was seen as a great—you know, he is then seen as the apostle of free market capitalism. I mean when I started as a young reporter, when I used to report in Washington, all the conservatives used to wear Adam Smith badges. You don't see Donald Trump wearing an Adam Smith badge, but that was the case.He was also—the other aspect of Smith, which I highlight, which is not often remarked on—he's also a critic of big business. He has a famous section where he discusses the sort of tendency of any group of more than three businessmen when they get together to try and raise prices and conspire against consumers. And he was very suspicious of, as I say, large companies, monopolies. I think if Adam Smith existed today, I mean, I think he would be a big supporter of Lina Khan and the sort of antitrust movement, he would say capitalism is great as long as you have competition, but if you don't have competition it becomes, you know, exploitative.Andrew Keen: Yeah, if Smith came back to live today, you have a chapter on Thomas Piketty, maybe he may not be French, but he may be taking that position about how the rich benefit from the structure of investment. Piketty's core—I've never had Piketty on the show, but I've had some of his followers like Emmanuel Saez from Berkeley. Yeah. How powerful is Piketty's critique of capitalism within the context of the classical economic analysis from Hayek and Friedman? Yeah, it's a very good question.John Cassidy: It's a very good question. I mean, he's a very paradoxical figure, Piketty, in that he obviously shot to world fame and stardom with his book on capital in the 21st century, which in some ways he obviously used the capital as a way of linking himself to Marx, even though he said he never read Marx. But he was basically making the same argument that if you leave capitalism unrestrained and don't do anything about monopolies etc. or wealth, you're going to get massive inequality and he—I think his great contribution, Piketty and the school of people, one of them you mentioned, around him was we sort of had a vague idea that inequality was going up and that, you know, wages were stagnating, etc.What he and his colleagues did is they produced these sort of scientific empirical studies showing in very simple to understand terms how the sort of share of income and wealth of the top 10 percent, the top 5 percent, the top 1 percent and the top 0.1 percent basically skyrocketed from the 1970s to about 2010. And it was, you know, he was an MIT PhD. Saez, who you mentioned, is a Berkeley professor. They were schooled in neoclassical economics at Harvard and MIT and places like that. So the right couldn't dismiss them as sort of, you know, lefties or Trots or whatever who're just sort of making this stuff up. They had to acknowledge that this was actually an empirical reality.I think it did change the whole basis of the debate and it was sort of part of this reaction against capitalism in the 2010s. You know it was obviously linked to the sort of Sanders and the Occupy Wall Street movement at the time. It came out of the—you know, the financial crisis as well when Wall Street disgraced itself. I mean, I wrote a previous book on all that, but people have sort of, I think, forgotten the great reaction against that a decade ago, which I think even Trump sort of exploited, as I say, by using anti-banker rhetoric at the time.So, Piketty was a great figure, I think, from, you know, I was thinking, who are the most influential critics of capitalism in the 21st century? And I think you'd have to put him up there on the list. I'm not saying he's the only one or the most eminent one. But I think he is a central figure. Now, of course, you'd think, well, this is a really powerful critic of capitalism, and nobody's going to pick up, and Bernie's going to take off and everything. But here we are a decade later now. It seems to be what the backlash has produced is a swing to the right, not a swing to the left. So that's, again, a sort of paradox.Andrew Keen: One person I didn't expect to come up in the book, John, and I was fascinated with this chapter, is Silvia Federici. I've tried to get her on the show. We've had some books about her writing and her kind of—I don't know, you treat her critique as a feminist one. The role of women. Why did you choose to write a chapter about Federici and that feminist critique of capitalism?John Cassidy: Right, right. Well, I don't think it was just feminist. I'll explain what I think it was. Two reasons. Number one, I wanted to get more women into the book. I mean, it's in some sense, it is a history of economics and economic critiques. And they are overwhelmingly written by men and women were sort of written out of the narrative of capitalism for a very long time. So I tried to include as many sort of women as actual thinkers as I could and I have a couple of early socialist feminist thinkers, Anna Wheeler and Flora Tristan and then I cover some of the—I cover Rosa Luxemburg as the great sort of tribune of the left revolutionary socialist, communist whatever you want to call it. Anti-capitalist I think is probably also important to note about. Yeah, and then I also have Joan Robinson, but I wanted somebody to do something in the modern era, and I thought Federici, in the world of the Wages for Housework movement, is very interesting from two perspectives.Number one, Federici herself is a Marxist, and I think she probably would still consider herself a revolutionary. She's based in New York, as you know now. She lived in New York for 50 years, but she came from—she's originally Italian and came out of the Italian left in the 1960s, which was very radical. Do you know her? Did you talk to her? I didn't talk to her on this. No, she—I basically relied on, there has been a lot of, as you say, there's been a lot of stuff written about her over the years. She's written, you know, she's given various long interviews and she's written a book herself, a version, a history of housework, so I figured it was all there and it was just a matter of pulling it together.But I think the critique, why the critique is interesting, most of the book is a sort of critique of how capitalism works, you know, in the production or you know, in factories or in offices or you know, wherever capitalist operations are working, but her critique is sort of domestic reproduction, as she calls it, the role of unpaid labor in supporting capitalism. I mean it goes back a long way actually. There was this moment, I sort of trace it back to the 1940s and 1950s when there were feminists in America who were demonstrating outside factories and making the point that you know, the factory workers and the operations of the factory, it couldn't—there's one of the famous sort of tire factory in California demonstrations where the women made the argument, look this factory can't continue to operate unless we feed and clothe the workers and provide the next generation of workers. You know, that's domestic reproduction. So their argument was that housework should be paid and Federici took that idea and a couple of her colleagues, she founded the—it's a global movement, but she founded the most famous branch in New York City in the 1970s. In Park Slope near where I live actually.And they were—you call it feminists, they were feminists in a way, but they were rejected by the sort of mainstream feminist movement, the sort of Gloria Steinems of the world, who Federici was very critical of because she said they ignored, they really just wanted to get women ahead in the sort of capitalist economy and they ignored the sort of underlying from her perspective, the underlying sort of illegitimacy and exploitation of that system. So they were never accepted as part of the feminist movement. They're to the left of the Feminist Movement.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Keynes, of course, so central in all this, particularly his analysis of the role of automation in capitalism. We did a show recently with Robert Skidelsky and I'm sure you're familiar—John Cassidy: Yeah, yeah, great, great biography of Keynes.Andrew Keen: Yeah, the great biographer of Keynes, whose latest book is "Mindless: The Human Condition in the Age of AI." You yourself wrote a brilliant book on the last tech mania and dot-com capitalism. I used it in a lot of my writing and books. What's your analysis of AI in this latest mania and the role generally of manias in the history of capitalism and indeed in critiquing capitalism? Is AI just the next chapter of the dot-com boom?John Cassidy: I think it's a very deep question. I think I'd give two answers to it. In one sense it is just the latest mania the way—I mean, the way capitalism works is we have these, I go back to Kondratiev, one of my Russian economists who ended up being killed by Stalin. He was the sort of inventor of the long wave theory of capitalism. We have these short waves where you have sort of booms and busts driven by finance and debt etc. But we also have long waves driven by technology.And obviously, in the last 40, 50 years, the two big ones are the original deployment of the internet and microchip technology in the sort of 80s and 90s culminating in the dot-com boom of the late 90s, which as you say, I wrote about. Thanks very much for your kind comments on the book. If you just sort of compare it from a financial basis I think they are very similar just in terms of the sort of role of hype from Wall Street in hyping up these companies. The sort of FOMO aspect of it among investors that they you know, you can't miss out. So just buy the companies blindly. And the sort of lionization in the press and the media of, you know, of AI as the sort of great wave of the future.So if you take a sort of skeptical market based approach, I would say, yeah, this is just another sort of another mania which will eventually burst and it looked like it had burst for a few weeks when Trump put the tariffs up, now the market seemed to be recovering. But I think there is, there may be something new about it. I am not, I don't pretend to be a technical expert. I try to rely on the evidence of or the testimony of people who know the systems well and also economists who have studied it. It seems to me the closer you get to it the more alarming it is in terms of the potential shock value that there is there.I mean Trump and the sort of reaction to a larger extent can be traced back to the China shock where we had this global shock to American manufacturing and sort of hollowed out a lot of the industrial areas much of it, like industrial Britain was hollowed out in the 80s. If you, you know, even people like Altman and Elon Musk, they seem to think that this is going to be on a much larger scale than that and will basically, you know, get rid of the professions as they exist. Which would be a huge, huge shock. And I think a lot of the economists who studied this, who four or five years ago were relatively optimistic, people like Daron Acemoglu, David Autor—Andrew Keen: Simon Johnson, of course, who just won the Nobel Prize, and he's from England.John Cassidy: Simon, I did an event with Simon earlier this week. You know they've studied this a lot more closely than I have but I do interview them and I think five, six years ago they were sort of optimistic that you know this could just be a new steam engine or could be a microchip which would lead to sort of a lot more growth, rising productivity, rising productivity is usually associated with rising wages so sure there'd be short-term costs but ultimately it would be a good thing. Now, I think if you speak to them, they see since the, you know, obviously, the OpenAI—the original launch and now there's just this huge arms race with no government involvement at all I think they're coming to the conclusion that rather than being developed to sort of complement human labor, all these systems are just being rushed out to substitute for human labor. And it's just going, if current trends persist, it's going to be a China shock on an even bigger scale.You know what is going to, if that, if they're right, that is going to produce some huge political backlash at some point, that's inevitable. So I know—the thing when the dot-com bubble burst, it didn't really have that much long-term impact on the economy. People lost the sort of fake money they thought they'd made. And then the companies, obviously some of the companies like Amazon and you know Google were real genuine profit-making companies and if you bought them early you made a fortune. But AI does seem a sort of bigger, scarier phenomenon to me. I don't know. I mean, you're close to it. What do you think?Andrew Keen: Well, I'm waiting for a book, John, from you. I think you can combine dot-com and capitalism and its critics. We need you probably to cover it—you know more about it than me. Final question, I mean, it's a wonderful book and we haven't even scratched the surface everyone needs to get it. I enjoyed the chapter, for example, on Karl Polanyi and so much more. I mean, it's a big book. But my final question, John, is do you have any regrets about anyone you left out? The one person I would have liked to have been included was Rawls because of his sort of treatment of capitalism and luck as a kind of casino. I'm not sure whether you gave any thought to Rawls, but is there someone in retrospect you should have had a chapter on that you left out?John Cassidy: There are lots of people I left out. I mean, that's the problem. I mean there have been hundreds and hundreds of critics of capitalism. Rawls, of course, incredibly influential and his idea of the sort of, you know, the veil of ignorance that you should judge things not knowing where you are in the income distribution and then—Andrew Keen: And it's luck. I mean the idea of some people get lucky and some people don't.John Cassidy: It is the luck of the draw, obviously, what card you pull. I think that is a very powerful critique, but I just—because I am more of an expert on economics, I tended to leave out philosophers and sociologists. I mean, you know, you could say, where's Max Weber? Where are the anarchists? You know, where's Emma Goldman? Where's John Kenneth Galbraith, the sort of great mid-century critic of American industrial capitalism? There's so many people that you could include. I mean, I could have written 10 volumes. In fact, I refer in the book to, you know, there's always been a problem. G.D.H. Cole, a famous English historian, wrote a history of socialism back in the 1960s and 70s. You know, just getting to 1850 took him six volumes. So, you've got to pick and choose, and I don't claim this is the history of capitalism and its critics. That would be a ridiculous claim to make. I just claim it's a history written by me, and hopefully the people are interested in it, and they're sufficiently diverse that you can address all the big questions.Andrew Keen: Well it's certainly incredibly timely. Capitalism and its critics—more and more of them. Sometimes they don't even describe themselves as critics of capitalism when they're talking about oligarchs or billionaires, they're really criticizing capitalism. A must read from one of America's leading journalists. And would you call yourself a critic of capitalism, John?John Cassidy: Yeah, I guess I am, to some extent, sure. I mean, I'm not a—you know, I'm not on the far left, but I'd say I'm a center-left critic of capitalism. Yes, definitely, that would be fair.Andrew Keen: And does the left need to learn? Does everyone on the left need to read the book and learn the language of anti-capitalism in a more coherent and honest way?John Cassidy: I hope so. I mean, obviously, I'd be talking my own book there, as they say, but I hope that people on the left, but not just people on the left. I really did try to sort of be fair to the sort of right-wing critiques as well. I included the Carlyle chapter particularly, obviously, but in the later chapters, I also sort of refer to this emerging critique on the right, the sort of economic nationalist critique. So hopefully, I think people on the right could read it to understand the critiques from the left, and people on the left could read it to understand some of the critiques on the right as well.Andrew Keen: Well, it's a lovely book. It's enormously erudite and simultaneously readable. Anyone who likes John Cassidy's work from The New Yorker will love it. Congratulations, John, on the new book, and I'd love to get you back on the show as anti-capitalism in America picks up steam and perhaps manifests itself in the 2028 election. Thank you so much.John Cassidy: Thanks very much for inviting me on, it was fun.Keen On America 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 keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Featuring Quinn Slobodian on his book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. MAGA and its far-right populist siblings around the world aren't just a backlash to neoliberalism. The far-right has also long been animated by extremist mutant neoliberal, anarcho-capitalist, and paleo-libertarian strains that in the 1980s and '90s built a new New Fusionist politics of capitalist extremism — a politics that promoted IQ as the measure of individual and racial value; hard borders for humans with free trade for capital; and gold as the only true currency. Support The Dig at patreon.com/TheDig Register for the Socialism Conference at socialismconference.org Register for “Our Collective Is the Prize” at comrades.education before May 31 The Dig goes deep into politics everywhere, from labor struggles and political economy to imperialism and immigration. Hosted by Daniel Denvir.

First Emma and Sam check in on the latest on Israel and it's ongoing siege on Gaza. Netanyahu says that he's going to allow in some food aid, but it seems to be mostly a fig leaf to shield Israel from widening criticism over the starving children and looming famine in Gaza as the IDF begins it's new, horrifying phase of their genocidal campaign. Senator Chris Van Hollen is one of a very short list of U.S. lawmakers willing to call it out. After that, Sam and Emma talk to historian Quinn Slobodian about his new book "Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ and the Capitalism of the Far Right." Check it out here: https://www.zonebooks.org/books/160-hayek-s-bastards-race-gold-iq-and-the-capitalism-of-the-far-right And check out Quinn's previous books as well: Crackup Capitalism: https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250753892/crackupcapitalism/ Market Civilizations: Neoliberals East and South: https://www.zonebooks.org/books/144-market-civilizations-neoliberals-east-and-south In the Fun Half, Jim Clyburn (D-SC) thinks that he STILL thinks that Biden could have served out a second term as president, which he said just hours before Biden's cancer diagnosis was made public. A remarkable position, though perhaps a defensive one for an 84 year old who's still serving in Congress. After that, Sam breaks the news that a court has effectively ended the pause on the Trump administration's move to end temporary protected status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan immigrants. George Washington University's student graduation speaker Cecilia Culver is brave enough to say she's ashamed that her tuition money is going to funding the genocide in Gaza, despite what similar graduation speakers have faced after making similar statements during graduation speeches. Actor Zach Woods shares a satirical take on NYU withholding the diploma of their graduation speaker after he denounced his university's complicity in Israel's war crimes. Tim Pool doesn't think non-citizens should have free speech while they're in the United States, and he goes to great logical lengths to justify that position. And finally, Sam, Emma and Matt are joined by Majority Report Chief Middle School Correspondent for the latest on what 12-year-olds are up to these days. Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! https://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: https://majority.fm/app Go to https://JustCoffee.coop and use coupon code majority to get 10% off your purchase! Check out today's sponsors: Cozy Earth: Get up to 40% off at CozyEarth.com with code MAJORITYREPORT at checkout Fast Growing Trees: Get 15% off your first purchase.  FastGrowingTrees.com/majority Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @RussFinkelstein Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder – https://majorityreportradio.com/

Featuring Quinn Slobodian on his book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. MAGA and its far-right populist siblings around the world aren't just a backlash to neoliberalism. The far-right has also long been animated by extremist mutant neoliberal anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian strains that in the 1980s and 90s built a new New Fusionist politics of capitalist extremism—a politics that promoted IQ as the measure of individual and racial value; hard borders for humans with free trade for capital; and gold as the only true currency. Support The Dig at Patreon.com/TheDig Register for the Socialism Conference at Socialismconference.org Register for "Our Collective Is the Prize" at Comrades.education before May 31

Quinn Slobodian's excellent new book Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right is now out.Support us as we expand our challenge to our broken media here: https://www.patreon.com/owenjones84 or here: https://ko-fi.com/owenjonesSupport this show http://supporter.acast.com/the-owen-jones-podcast. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Subscribe to Bad Faith on Patreon to instantly unlock our full premium episode library: http://patreon.com/badfaithpodcast Professor of International History at Boston University & author of Globalists: The End of Empire & the Birth of Neoliberalism Quinn Slobodian joins Bad Faith to discuss his latest book Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, & the Capitalism of the Far Right. Slobodian explains the way that neoliberalism hijacks democracy to prioritize capital interests over the substantive rights of the public, the dissonance between the tech community's anarcho-capitalism and the populist wing of the Republican party, and how race science plays a role in uniting these disparate factions.  Subscribe to Bad Faith on YouTube for video of this episode. Find Bad Faith on Twitter (@badfaithpod) and Instagram (@badfaithpod). Produced by Armand Aviram. Theme by Nick Thorburn (@nickfromislands).

In this episode, we examine Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom, a chilling warning about how societies drift into tyranny—not through force, but through the seductive promise of central planning. Written in the shadow of fascism and communism, Hayek's argument is more relevant than ever: when the state takes control of the economy, it inevitably takes control of our lives. What begins as progress can end in oppression. This is the road to serfdom.

Ed sits down with historian Quinn Slobodian on the release of his new book Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right.In this conversation, we get into the history of the populist right, its origins in the dismantling of the state, and the contradictions at the heart of its modern rise. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As Labour panic and freak out over Runcorn and the Locals, is Starmer drawing the wrong conclusions from the votes? Is “Reform are right, don't vote for them” the best they can do? Or should they pick more fights with the Right? Plus, what if this newfangled populism isn't so new after all? We talk to Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right, about why the shape-shifting Right are so hard to lay a glove on. And in the Extra Bit: Does VE Day hit differently now Europe is full of fascists, enthusiastically supported by the US President? ESCAPE ROUTES • Ros recommends Les Années (The Years) by Annie Earnaux.  • Matt recommends With Nails by Richard E. Grant. • Dorian recommends Thunderbolts, in cinemas now. • Back us on Patreon for ad-free listening, bonus materials and more.  Written and presented by Dorian Lynskey with Ros Taylor and Matt Green. Audio production by Robin Leeburn. Theme music by Cornershop. Produced by Chris Jones. Managing Editor: Jacob Jarvis. Group Editor: Andrew Harrison OH GOD, WHAT NOW? is a Podmasters production. www.podmasters.co.uk   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Listen on:Apple Podcasts:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/watchdog-on-wall-street-with-chris-markowski/id570687608 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/2PtgPvJvqc2gkpGIkNMR5i Watch on: https://www.youtube.com/@WatchdogOnWallstreet/featuredChris takes aim at Donald Trump's recent analogy comparing America to a “super luxury department store” — and unpacks why it's not only economically absurd, but rooted in a dangerous, quasi-socialist mindset. From tariffs to nationalism, Markowski dismantles the myth that government can—or should—set “fair prices” in a capitalist system. With references to Lenin, Mussolini, and Hayek, this episode is a no-holds-barred indictment of central planning disguised as conservative policy. www.watchdogonwallstreet.com

As tensions rise between the two nuclear powers and US remains noticeably missing from the world stage, who will be the guarantor of peace between India and Pakistan? What does the new US-UK trade deal tell us about the new world order? Elon Musk is stepping away from Doge, was his time in government a success or costly failure? Jess Winch is joined by author Quinn Slobodian and The Observer's Rebecca Moore and Jasper Corbett, as they battle to pitch the top story of the day.**Join us at the next edition of the News Meeting Live on Tuesday 13th May HEREPurchase Quinn's book ‘Hayek's Bastards: The Neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right' HERERead more about the team's guilty pleasure news stories HEREHe injected himself with snake venom hundreds of times. His blood could ‘revolutionize' snakebite treatmentFollow us on Social Media: @ObserverUK on X @theobserveruk on Instagram and TikTok@theobserveruk.bsky.social‬ on bluesky Host: Rebecca Moore, executive producer at Tortoise Producer: Casey MagloireExecutive Producers: Rebecca Moore and Matt RussellTo find out more about The Observer:Subscribe to TheObserver+ on Apple Podcasts for early access and ad-free contentHead to our website observer.co.uk Download the Tortoise app – for a listening experience curated by our journalistsIf you want to get in touch with us directly about a story, or tell us more about the stories you want to hear about contact hello@tortoisemedia.com Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Hayek sýndi okkur fram á að upplýsingar í samfélaginu eru alltaf dreifðar – enginn einstaklingur eða stofnun býr yfir allri þeirri þekkingu sem þarf til að taka réttar ákvarðanir í efnahagsmálum. Þekkingin sem einstaklingar búa yfir er oft takmörkuð, brotakennd og jafnvel mótsagnakennd, en samanlagt er þessi dreifða þekking undirstaða skynsamlegra ákvarðana í gegnum frjálst samspil markaðarins. Markaðurinn virkar sem upplýsingakerfi - tryggir flæði upplýsinga. Verð á vöru og þjónustu er uppspretta upplýsinga um skort, eftirspurn og framboð án þess að nokkur hafi heildaryfirsýn. Smásagan Ég blýanturinn eða "I, Pencil", eftir Leonard E. Read, er einföld en áhrifamikil lýsing á undirstöðum frjáls markaðar og mátt dreifðrar þekkingar. Smásagan kom út árið 1958 og af blýanti og útskýrt hið flókna samspil margra án þess að hver og einn hafi heildarskilning eða yfirsýn yfir það sem þarf til að framleiða jafn einfaldan hlut eins og blýant. Ferlið er þó svo flókið að enginn býr yfir nægjanlegri þekkingu, hæfileikum eða aðföngum til að búa til jafn einfaldan og hversdagslegan hlut. Saga blýantsins kennir okkur að virða ósýnilegan en nauðsynlegan vef samstarfs sem hefur gert samfélögum að sækja fra. Ég hvet ykkur til að horfa á nokkurra mínútna myndband sem byggir á smásögunni. Slóðin er hér: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYO3tOqDISE

Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards, talks about the IQ- and race-obsessed goldbugs of second generation neoliberalism. Behind the News, hosted by Doug Henwood, covers the worlds of economics and politics and their complex interactions, from the local to the global. Find the archive online: https://www.leftbusinessobserver.com/radio.html

Quinn Slobodian, author of Hayek's Bastards, talks about the IQ- and race-obsessed goldbugs of second generation neoliberalism The post Hayek's bastards: the second, cruder generation of neoliberals appeared first on KPFA.

Author Quinn Slobodian returns to “This Is Hell!” to talk about his new book, “Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ and the Capitalism of the Far Right”, published by Zone Books. Check out Quinn's book here: https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781890951917?srsltid=AfmBOopa361sL5mow9Y4zSXDsHQXyvTQBZ0YZASHJvW-UyhbliOMShxt Keep TiH! free and completely listener supported by subscribing to our weekly bonus Patreon podcast or visiting thisishell.com/pages/support

We are joined by yet another TMK favorite, Quinn Slobodian, who is author of Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right. We discuss Quinn's analysis of “new fusionism” or a mutant strain of neoliberalism that crystallized in the 1990s, which sought to ground and defend neoliberal policies through their own bastardization of biological sciences — cognitive, behavioral, evolutionary, genetic, and so on. They then used scientism to justify and propagate political ideas and economic models based on hardwired human nature and hierarchical differences between races, cultures, and intelligence. The fringes of the 1990s have now become the mainstream of the 2020s. ••• Hayek's Bastards: Race, Gold, IQ, and the Capitalism of the Far Right | Quinn Slobodian https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9781890951917/hayeks-bastards Standing Plugs: ••• Order Jathan's new book: https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520398078/the-mechanic-and-the-luddite ••• Subscribe to Ed's substack: https://substack.com/@thetechbubble ••• Subscribe to TMK on patreon for premium episodes: https://www.patreon.com/thismachinekills Hosted by Jathan Sadowski (bsky.app/profile/jathansadowski.com) and Edward Ongweso Jr. (www.x.com/bigblackjacobin). Production / Music by Jereme Brown (bsky.app/profile/jebr.bsky.social)

Quinn Slobodian returns to answer questions sent in by listeners in response to our recent episode on Quinn's new book, Hayek's Bastards: The neoliberal Roots of the Populist Right. If you'd like to get access to this and all other episode of PTO Extra! please consider becoming a £5 supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/c/poltheoryother

For more than a century, some economists have insisted that central planning can outperform markets. Economists like Mises, Hayek, and Friedman disagreed. Who won this debate? Is it over? Does AI change how we should think about the power of planning? Listen as economist Peter Boettke of George Mason University discusses what is known as the "socialist calculation debate" with EconTalk's Russ Roberts.