Podcasts about hayekian

Few Americans have been as explicit in their warnings about Donald Trump than the St. Louis based writer Sarah Kendzior. Her latest book, The Last American Road Trip, is a memoir chronicling Kendzior's journey down Route 66 to show her children America before it is destroyed. Borrowing from her research of post Soviet Central Asia, Kendzior argues that Trump is establishing a kleptocratic “mafia state” designed to fleece the country of its valuables. This is the third time that Kendzior has been on the show and I have to admit I've always been slightly skeptical of her apocalyptic take on Trump. But given the damage that the new administration is inflicting on America, I have to admit that many of Kendzior's warnings now appear to be uncannily prescient. As she warns, it's Springtime in America. And things are about to get much much hotter. FIVE TAKEAWAYS* Kendzior views Trump's administration as a "mafia state" or kleptocracy focused on stripping America for parts rather than traditional fascism, comparing it to post-Soviet oligarchic systems she studied as an academic.* She believes American institutions have failed to prevent authoritarianism, criticizing both the Biden administration and other institutional leaders for not taking sufficient preventative action during Trump's first term.* Despite her bleak analysis, Kendzior finds hope in ordinary Americans and their capacity for mutual care and resistance, even as she sees formal leadership failing.* Kendzior's new book The Last American Road Trip follows her journey to show her children America before potential collapse, using Route 66 as a lens to examine American decay and resilience.* As an independent voice, she describes being targeted through both publishing obstacles and personal threats, yet remains committed to staying in her community and documenting what's happening. FULL TRANSCRIPTAndrew Keen: Hello everybody, it is April the 18th, 2025, a Friday. I'm thrilled today that we have one of my favorite guests back on the show. I call her the Cassandra of St. Louis, Sarah Kendzior. Many of you know her from her first book, which was a huge success. All her books have done very well. The View from Flyover Country. She was warning us about Trump and Trumpism and MAGA. She was first on our show in 2020. Talking about media in the age of Trump. She had another book out then, Hiding in Plain Sight, The Invention of Donald Trump and the Erosion of America. Then in 2022, she came back on the show to talk about how a culture of conspiracy is keeping America simultaneously complacent and paranoid that the book was called or is called, They Knew. Another big success. And now Sarah has a new book out. It's called The Last American Road Trip. It's a beautifully written book, a kind of memoir, but a political one, of course, which one would expect from Sarah Kendzior. And I'm thrilled, as I said, that the Cassandra of St. Louis is joining us from St. Louis. Sarah, congratulations on the new book.Sarah Kendzior: Oh, thank you. And thank you for having me back on.Andrew Keen: Well, it's an honor. So these four books, how does the last American road trip in terms of the narrative of your previous three hits, how does it fit in? Why did you write it?Sarah Kendzior: Well, this book kind of pivots off the epilog of hiding in plain sight. And that was a book about political corruption in the United States and the rise of Trump. But in the epilogue, I describe how I was trying as a mom to show my kids America in the case that it ended due to both political turmoil and corruption and also climate change. I wanted them to see things themselves. So I was driving them around the country to national parks, historic sites, et cetera. And so many people responded so passionately to that little section, especially parents really struggling on how to raise children in this America that I ended up writing a book that covers 2016 to 2024 and my attempts to show my children everything I could in the time that we had. And as this happens, my children went from relatively young kids to teenagers, my daughter's almost an adult. And so it kind of captures America during this time period. It's also just a travelog, a road trip book, a memoir. It's a lot of things at once.Andrew Keen: Yeah, got great review from Ms. magazine comparing you with the great road writers, Kerouac, of course, and Steinbeck, but Kerouak and Steinback, certainly Kerouack was very much of a solitary male. Is there a female quality to this book? As you say, it's a book as much about your kids and the promise of America as it is about yourself.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I think there is in that, you know, I have a section actually about the doomed female road trip where it's, you know, Thelma and Louise or Janet Bates and Psycho or even songs about, you know, being on the road and on the run that are written by women, you know, like Merle Haggard's I'm a Lonesome Fugitive, had to be sung by men to convey that quality. And there aren't a lot of, you know, mom on the Road with her husband and kids kind of books. That said, I think of it as a family book, a parenting book. I certainly think men would like it just as much as women would, and people without kids would like just as people with kids, although it does seem to strike a special resonance with families struggling with a lot of the same issues that I do.Andrew Keen: It's all about the allure of historic Route 66. I've been on that. Anyone who's driven across the country has you. You explain that it's a compilation of four long trips across Route 66 in 1998, 2007, 2017, and 2023. That's almost 40 years, Sarah. Sorry, 30. Getting away my age there, Andrew. My math isn't very good. I mean, how has Route 66 and of course, America changed in that period? I know that's a rather leading question.Sarah Kendzior: No, I mean, I devote quite a lot of the book to Route 66 in part because I live on it, you know, goes right through St. Louis. So, I see it just every day. I'll be casually grocery shopping and then be informed I'm on historic Route 66 all of a sudden. But you know it's a road that is, you once was the great kind of romanticized road of escape and travel. It was decommissioned notably by Ronald Reagan after the creation of the interstate. And now it's just a series of rural roads, frontage roads, roads that end abruptly, roads that have gone into ruin, roads that are in some really beautiful places in terms of the landscape. So it really is this conglomeration of all of America, you know of the decay and the destruction and the abandonment in particular, but also people's, their own memories, their own artistic works, you know roadside shrines and creations that are often, you know pretty off beat. That they've put to show this is what I think of our country. These are my values. This is what, I think, is important. So it's a very interesting journey to take. It's often one I'm kind of inadvertently on just because of where I live and the direction I go. We'll mirror it. So I kept passing these sites again and again. I didn't set out to write this book. Obviously, when I first drove it when I was 19, I didn't know that this was our future. But looking back, especially at technological change, at how we travel, at how trust each other, at all of these things that have happened to this country since this time, it's really something. And that road will bring back all of those memories of what was lost and what remains to be lost. And of course it's hitting its 100th anniversary next year, so I'm guessing there'll be a lot of reminiscing about Route 66.Andrew Keen: Book about memories, you write about that, eventually even your memory will just or this experience of this trip will just be a memory. What does that suggest about contextualizing the current moment in American history? It's too easy to overdramatize it or perhaps it's hard not to over dramatize it given what's happening. I want to talk about a little bit about that your take on America on April the 18th, 2025. But how does that make sense of a memorial when you know that even your memories will become memories?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean it's hard to talk frankly about what's happening in America now without it sounding over dramatic or hyperbolic, which I think is why so many people were reluctant to believe me over my last decade of warnings that the current crises and catastrophes that we're experiencing are coming, are possible, and need to be actively stopped. I don't think they were inevitable, but they needed to be stopped by people in charge who refused to do it. And so, my reaction to this as a writer, but just as a human being is to write everything down, is to keep an ongoing record, not only of what I witness now, but of what know of our history, of what my own values are, of what place in the world is. And back in 2016, I encouraged everyone to do this because I knew that over the next decade, people would be told to accept things that they would normally never accept, to believe things that they would normally, never believe. And if you write down where you stand, you always have that point of reference to look back towards. It doesn't have to be for publication. It doesn't have to for the outside world. It can just be for yourself. And so I think that that's important. But right now, I think everyone has a role to play in battling what is an authoritarian kleptocracy and preventing it from hurting people. And I think people should lean into what they do best. And what I do best is write and research and document. So that's what I meant. Continue to do, particularly as history itself is under assault by this government.Andrew Keen: One of the things that strikes me about you, Sarah, is that you have an unusual background. You got a PhD in Soviet studies, late Soviet studies.Sarah Kendzior: Anthropology, yeah, but that was nice.Andrew Keen: But your dissertation was on the Uzbek opposition in exile. I wonder whether that experience of studying the late Soviet Union and its disintegration equipped you in some ways better than a lot of domestic American political analysts and writers for what's happening in America today. We've done a number of shows with people like Pete Weiner, who I'm sure you know his work from the Atlantic of New York Times. About learning from East European resistance writers, brave people like Milan Kundra, of course, Vaclav Havel, Solzhenitsyn. Do you think your earlier history of studying the Soviet Union helped you prepare, at least mentally, intellectually, for what's happening in the United States?Sarah Kendzior: Oh, absolutely. I think it was essential, because there are all sorts of different types of authoritarianism. And the type that Trump and his backers have always pursued was that of a mafia state, you know, of a kleptocracy. And Uzbekistan is the country that I knew the most. And actually, you what I wrote my dissertation about, this is between 2006, and 2012, was the fact that after a massacre of civilians... A lot of Uzbekistan's journalists, activists, political figures, opposition figures, et cetera, went into exile and then they immediately started writing blogs. And so for the very first time, they had freedom of speech. They had never had it in Uzbekistan. And they start revealing the whole secret history of Uzbekistan and everything going on and trying to work with each other, try to sort of have some impact on the political process in Uzbekistan. And they lost. What happened was the dictator died, Islam Karimov died, in 2016, and was replaced by another dictator who's not quite as severe. But watching the losing side and also watching people persevere and hold on to themselves and continue working despite that loss, I think, was very influential. Because you could look at Václav Havel or Lech Walesa or, you know, other sort of. People who won, you know, from Eastern Europe, from the revolutions of 1989 and so forth. And it's inspiring that sometimes I think it's really important to look at the people who did not succeed, but kept going anyway. You know, they didn't surrender themselves. They didn't their morality and they didn't abandon their fellow man. And I think that that's important. And also just to sort of get at the heart of your question, yes, you the structure of it, oligarchs who shake down countries, strip them and sell them for parts. Mine them for resources. That model, especially of what happened to Russia, actually, in particular in the 1990s of these oligarch wars, is what I see as the future of the United States right now. That is what they're trying to emulate.Andrew Keen: That we did a show with Steve Hansen and Jeff Kopstein, both political scientists, on what they see. They co-wrote a book on patrimonialism. This is the model they see there. They're both Max Weber scholars, so they borrow from that historic sociological analysis. And Kopstein was on the show with John Rausch as well, talking about this patrimonials. And so you, do you share the Kopstein-Hansen-Rausch analysis. Roush wrote a piece in the Atlantic about this too, which did very well. But this isn't conventional fascism or communism. It's a kind of 21st century version of patrimonialism.Sarah Kendzior: It's definitely not traditional fascism and one of the main reasons for that is a fascist has loyalty to the state. They seek to embody the state, they seek to expand the state recently Trump has been doing this more traditional route somewhat things like wanting to buy Greenland. But I think a lot of what he's doing is in reaction to climate change and also by the way I don't think Trump is the mastermind or originator. Of any of these geopolitical designs. You know, he has a team, we know about some of them with the Heritage Foundation Project 2025. We know he has foreign advisors. And again, you know, Trump is a corporate raider. That is how he led his business life. He's a mafia associate who wants to strip things down and sell them for parts. And that's what they wanna do with the United States. And that, yes, there are fascist tactics. There are fascists rhetoric. You know there are a lot of things that this country will, unfortunately, and has. In common, you know, with, say, Nazi Germany, although it's also notable that of course Nazi Germany borrowed from a lot of the tactics of Jim Crow, slavery, genocide of Native Americans. You know, this has always been a back and forth and America always has had some form of selective autocracy. But yeah, I think the folks who try to make this direct line and make it seem like the 20th century is just simply being revived, I've always felt like they were off because. There's no interest for these plutocrats in the United States even existing as a sovereign body. Like it truly doesn't matter to them if all of our institutions, even something as benign as the Postal Service, collapse. That's actually beneficial for them because then they can privatize, they can mine resources, they can make money for themselves. And I really worry that their goal is partition, you know, is to take this country. And to split it into smaller pieces that are easier to control. And that's one of the reasons I wrote this book, that I wrote The Last American Road Trip because I don't want people to fall for traps about generalizations or stereotypes about different regions of this country. I want them to see it as a whole and that our struggles are interconnected and we have a better chance of winning if we stand by each other.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and your book, in particular, The View from Flyover Country was so important because it wasn't written from San Francisco or Los Angeles or D.C. Or New York. It was written from St. Louis. So in a way, Sarah, you're presenting Trump as the ultimate Hayekian b*****d. There's a new book out by Quinn Slobodian called Hayek's B******s, which connects. Trumpianism and mago with Neoliberalism you don't see a break. We've done a lot of shows on the rise and fall of neoliberalism. You don't say a break between Hayek and TrumpSarah Kendzior: I think that in terms of neoliberalism, I think it's a continuation of it. And people who think that our crises began with Trump becoming the president in 2017, entering office, are deluded because the pathway to Trump even being able to run for president given that he was first investigated by the Department of Justice in 1973 and then was linked to a number of criminal enterprises for decades after. You know, that he was able to get in that position, you know that already showed that we had collapsed in certain respects. And so I think that these are tied together. You know, this has a lot to do with greed, with a, you know a disregard for sovereignty, a disregard human rights. For all of this Trump has always served much better as a demagogue, a front man, a figurehead. I do think, you he's a lot smarter. Than many of his opponents give him credit for. He is very good at doing what he needs to do and knowing what he need to know and nothing more. The rest he gives to the bureaucrats, to the lawyers, et cetera. But he fills this persona, and I do wonder what will happen when he is gone because they've tried very hard to find a successor and it's always failed, like DeSantis or Nikki Haley or whoever. And I kind of wonder if one of the reasons things are moving so, so fast now is they're trying to get a lot of things in under the wire while he's still alive, because I don't think that there's any individual who people have the loyalty to. His cult is not that big. It's a relatively small segment of the country, but it is very intense and very loyal to him. I don't think that loyalty is transferable.Andrew Keen: Is there anything, you know, I presented you as the Cassandra from St. Louis, you've seen the future probably clearer than most other people. Certainly when I first came across your work, I wasn't particularly convinced. I'm much more convinced now. You were right. I was wrong. Is there, anything about Trump too, that surprised you? I mean, any of the, the cruelty? Open corruption, the anger, the hostility, the attempt to destroy anything of any value in America, the fact that they seem to take such great pleasure in destroying this country's most valuable thing.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, it's extremely sad and no, he doesn't surprise me at all. He's been the same guy since I was a little kid. You know, he was a plot line on children's television shows in the 1980s where as a child, I was supposed to know that the name Trump was synonymous with corruption, with being a tax cheat, with being a liar, you know, these were just sort of cultural codes that I was expected to know. What surprised me more is that no one stopped him because this threat was incredibly obvious. And that so many people in power have joined in, and I'm assuming they're joining in because they would rather be on the side with all that power than be a target of that power, but that they feel apparently no sense of loss, no sense grief for things like the loss of national parks, public education, the postal service, things that most folks like, social security for your elderly parents. Most Americans... Want these things. And most Americans, regardless of political party, don't want to see our country torn apart in this fashion. And so I'm not surprised by Trump. I'm surprised at the extent of his enablers at the complicity of the press and of the FBI and other institutions. And, you know, it's also been very jarring to watch how open they are this time around, you know, things like Elon Musk and his operation taking out. Classified information. The thing is, is I'm pretty sure Trump did all that. I mean, we know Trump did this in his first term, you know, and they would emphasize things like this box of physical written documents in Mar-a-Lago illegally taken. But, you know my mind always just went to, well, what did they do digitally? Because that seems much easier and much more obvious. What did they with all of these state secrets that they had access to for four years? What kind of leverage would that give them? And I think now they're just kind of, they're not bothering to hide anything anymore. I think they set the stage and now, you know, we're in the midst of the most horrible play, the most terrible performance ever. And it's, you can be still crushing at times.Andrew Keen: And of course, the real question is whether we're in the last act. Your book, The Last American Road Trip, was written, mostly written, what, in 2024 from?Sarah Kendzior: 2023.Andrew Keen: 2023. So, I mean, here's, I don't know if you can answer this, Sarah, but you know as much about middle America and middle Americans as anyone. You're on the road, you talk to everyone, you have a huge following, both on the left and the right in some ways. Some of your books now, you told me before we went live, some of your previous books, like Hiding in Plain Sight, suddenly become a big hit amongst conservative Americans. What does Trump or the MAGA people around him, what do they have to do to lose the support of ordinary Americans? As you say, they're destroying the essential infrastructure, medical, educational, the roads, the railways, everything is being destroyed, carted off almost like Stalin carted of half of the Soviet Union back into Asia during the Second World War. What does he have to do to lose the support of Middle America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, I don't think middle America, you know, by which like a giant swath of the country that's, that's just ideological, diverse, demographically diverse supports him. I mean some do certainly. He's got some hardcore acolytes. I think most people are disillusioned with the entire political system. They are deeply frustrated by Trump. They were deeply frustrated. By Biden, they're struggling to pay bills. They're struggling. To hold on to basic human rights. And they're mad that their leverage is gone. People voted in record numbers in 2020. They protested in record number throughout Trump's first term. They've made their concerns known for a very long time and there are just very few officials really listening or responding. And I think that initially when Trump reentered the picture, it caused folks to just check out mentally because it was too overwhelming. I think it's why voter turnout was lower because the Democrats, when they won, didn't make good on their promises. It's a very simple thing. If you follow through with your campaign platform that was popular, then you're going to retain those voters. If you don't, you may lose them, especially when you're up against a very effective demagogue who has a way with rhetoric. And so we're just in such a bad place, such a painful place. I don't think people will look to politicians to solve their problems and with very good reason. I'm hoping that there are more of a sense of community support, more of sense that we're all in this together, especially as financially things begin to fall apart. Trump said openly in 2014 that he intended to crash the American economy. He said this on a Fox News clip that I found in 2016. Because it was being reprinted all over Russian-language media. They loved this clip because it also praised Putin and so forth. And I was astounded by it. I was like, why in the world isn't this all over every TV station, every radio station? He's laying out the whole plan, and now he's following that plan. And so I'm very concerned about that. And I just hope people in times like this, traditionally, this opens the door to fascism. People become extremely afraid. And in their fear they want a scapegoat, they are full of rage, they take it out on each other. That is the worst possible move right now from both a moral or a strategic view. People need to protect each other, to respect each other as fully human, to recognize almost everyone here, except for a little tiny group of corrupt billionaires, is a victim in this scenario, and so I don't see a big difference between, you know, myself and... Wherever I go. I was in Tulsa yesterday, I was in San Francisco last week. We're all in this together and I see a lot of heartache wherever I go. And so if people can lend each other support, that is the best way to get through this.Andrew Keen: Are you suggesting then that he is the Manchurian candidate? Why did he say that in 2014?Sarah Kendzior: Well, it was interesting. He was on Fox during the Sochi Olympics, and he was talking about how he speaks with Putin every day, their pals, and that Putin is going to produce a really big win for us, and we're all going to be very happy about it. And then he went on to say that the crashing of the economy and riots throughout America is what will make America great again. And this is in February 2014. Fox has deleted the clip, You know, other people have copies. So it is, it's also in my book hiding in plain sight, the transcript of that. I'm not sure, like a Manchurian candidate almost feels, you know like the person would have to be blackmailed or coerced or brainwashed somehow to participate. I think Trump is a true volunteer and his loyalty isn't to Russia per se. You know, his loyalty is to his bank accounts, like his loyalty is to power. And one thing he's been after his whole life was immunity from prosecution because he has been involved or adjacent to such an enormous number of crimes. And then when the Supreme Court granted him that, he got what he wanted and he's not afraid of breaking the law in any way. He's doing what all autocrats do, which is rewrite the law so that he is no longer breaking it. And he has a team of lawyers who help him in that agenda. So I feel like on one sense, he's very. All-American. It's kind of a sad thing that as he destroys America, he's doing it in a very American way. He plays a lot of great American music at his rallies. He has a vernacular that I can relate to that and understand it while detesting everything he's doing and all of his horrific policies. But what they want to turn us into though, I think is something that all Americans just won't. Recognized. And we've had the slipping away of a kind of unified American culture for a while, I think because we've lost our pop culture, which is really where a lot of people would bond, you know, movies, music, all of it became split into streaming services, you know. All of it became bifurcated. People stopped seeing each other as much face to face, you know, during COVID and then that became kind of a permanent thing. We're very fragmented and that hurts us badly. And all we've kind of got left is I guess sports and then politics. So people take all the effort that they used to put into devouring American pop culture or American civic life and they put it into this kind of politics that the media presents as if it's a game, like initially a horse race during the election and now like, ooh, will the evil dictator win? It's like, this is our lives. Like we have a lot on the line. So I wish they would do, they would take their job more seriously too. Of course, they're up paywalled and on streaming sites, so who's watching anyway, but still it is a problem.Andrew Keen: Yeah, it's interesting you talk about this death wish, you mentioned Thelma and Louise earlier, one of the great movies, American road movies, maybe in an odd way, the final scene of the Trump movie will be similar to the, you seem to be suggesting to, I'm not gonna give away the end of Thelmer and Louise to anyone who's watching who hasn't seen it, you do need to see it, similar ending to that movie. What about, you've talked about resistance, Sarah, a one of. The most influential, I guess, resistors to Trump and Trumpism. You put up an X earlier this month about the duty of journalism to resist, the duty to thinkers to resist. Some people are leaving, guys like Tim Snyder, his wife, Marcy Shaw, Jason Stanley, another expert on fascism. You've made it clear that you're staying. What's your take on people like Snyder who are leaving this country?Sarah Kendzior: Well, from what I know, he made a statement saying he had decided to move to Canada before Trump was put in office. Jason Stanley, on the other hand, explicitly said he's moving there because Trump is in office, and my first thought when I heard about all of them was, well, what about their students? Like, what about all these students who are being targeted by ICE, who are being deported? What about their TAs? What about everyone who's in a more vulnerable position. You know, when you have a position of power and influence, you could potentially do a lot of good in helping people. You know I respect everyone's decision to live wherever they want. Like it's not my business. But I do think that if you have that kind of chance to do something powerful for the community around you, especially the most vulnerable people in it who at this time are green card holders, people here on visas, we're watching this horrific crackdown at all these universities. My natural inclination would be to stay and take a stand and not abandon them. And I guess, you know, people, they do things in different ways or they may have their own personal concerns and, you know that's fine. I just know, you know I'm not leaving, you know, like I've got elderly parents and in-laws. I've got relatives who need me. I have a lot of people who depend on me and they depend on me in St. Louis and in Missouri. Because there aren't that many journalists in St. Louis. I think there could be, there are a lot of great writers in St Louis, you know, who have given a chance, given a platform, you could really show you what it's actually like here instead of all these stereotypes. But we're always, always marginalized. Like even I'm marginalized and I think I'm, you know, probably the most well-known in terms of being a political commentator. And so I feel like it's important to stand my ground but also You know, I love this, this state in the city and I love my community and I can't fathom, you know, leaving people in the lurch at a time like this. When I'm doing better, I'm on more solid ground despite being a target of various, you know organizations and individuals. I'm at a more solid down than somebody who's a, you know a black American or an immigrant or impoverished. Like I feel like it is my job to stand up for you know, folks here and let everyone know, you know what's going on and be somebody who they can come to and feel like that's safe.Andrew Keen: You describe yourself, Sarah, as a target. Your books have done very well. Most of them have been bestsellers. I'm sure the last American road trip will do very well, you're just off.Sarah Kendzior: It is the bestseller as of yesterday. It is your bestseller, congratulations. Yeah, our USA Today bestsellers, so yeah.Andrew Keen: Excellent. So that's good news. You've been on the road, you've had hundreds of people show up. I know you wrote about signing 600 books at Left Bank Books, which is remarkable. Most writers would cut off both hands for that. How are you being targeted? You noted that some of your books are being taken off the shelves. Are they being banned or discouraged?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, basically, what's been happening is kind of akin to what you see with universities. I just think it's not as well publicized or publicized at all, where there's not some sort of, you know, like the places will give in to what they think this administration wants before they are outright told to do it. So yes, there is an attempt to remove hiding in plain sight from circulation in 2024 to, you know, make the paperback, which at the time was ranked on Amazon. At number 2,000. It was extremely popular because this is the week that the Supreme Court gave Trump immunity. I was on vacation when I found out it was being pulled out of circulation. And I was in rural New Mexico and I had to get to a place with Wi-Fi to try to fight back for my book, which was a bestseller, a recent publication. It was very strange to me and I won that fight. They put it back, but a lot of people had tried to order it at that time and didn't get it. And a lot of people try to get my other books and they just can't get them. You know, so the publisher always has a warehouse issue or a shipping problem and you know, this kind of comes up or you know people notice, they've noticed this since 2020, you know I don't get reviewed in the normal kind of place as a person that has best selling books one after another would get reviewed. You know, that kind of thing is more of a pain. I always was able to circumvent it before through social media. But since Musk took over Twitter and because of the way algorithms work, it's more and more difficult for me to manage all of the publicity and PR and whatnot on my own. And so, you know, I'm grateful that you're having me on your show. I'm also grateful that, you Know, Flatiron did give me a book tour. That's helped tremendously. But there's that. And then there's also just the constant. Death threats and threats of you know other things you know things happening to people I love and it's been scary and I get used to it and that I expect it but you know you never could really get used to people constantly telling you that they're gonna kill you you know.Andrew Keen: When you get death threats, do you go to the authorities, have they responded?Sarah Kendzior: No, there's no point. I mean, I have before and it was completely pointless. And, you know, I'll just mostly just go to people I know who I trust to see if they can check in on things. I have to be very vague here who are not in the government or in the police or anything like that. I don't think anyone would protect me. I really just don't think anyone could help. You know, one thing is, you know, yes, I'm a prominent critic of Trump and his administration, but I was also a prominent critic of. The DOJ and Merrick Garland for not doing anything about all of these threats and also a critic of Biden and the Democrats for not impeaching quickly, for not being more proactive, for not acting with greater urgency. So I'm targeted by kind of everyone except for people who don't have any power, which is a strange situation to be in because I love my readers and I think that they're wonderful and I'm incredibly grateful for them because my books largely spread through word of mouth. It is scary for me, just as like a mom in Missouri without a lot of resources to be targeted by all of these kind of high profile, wealthy, powerful people. But all I have is my voice and my writing. And so I just do what I can. And that's just the way the cards have been dealt for me and it is what it is, so.Andrew Keen: Later historians write about this period in 50 or 100 years time. How do you think you mentioned the Biden administration, you were critical of them. We haven't talked about Kamala Harris's failed presidential term, which I wasn't particularly impressed with. How much moral responsibility do you think that Biden and Harris should be accused of for Trump too?Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, I mean, well, first of all, I'd be delighted if we have historians in the future. Well, I will be, even if I don't.Andrew Keen: Well, there will be, even if, I don't know, in America, there'll be somewhere.Sarah Kendzior: I is where it'll be some sort of AI creation that just, you know, belches out, make America great again, like, you know, like in The Shining or something, just over and over and over again. But assuming we have real historians that actually assess the situation, I think they are going to be tremendously critical of the Biden administration. I think it may in fact go down as one of the worst of all time. And he will be seen as a Neville Chamberlain-like figure who had the opportunity to stop or slow A number of autocratic practices and either chose to look the other way or to enable them. Because the thing is, in 2016, people were very doubtful that America could become an autocratic state. They hadn't seen this before. A lot of this was new to them. From 2016 through 2021, we saw all that Trump was capable of, and he committed a large multitude of crimes,RetryClaude hit the max length for a message and has paused its response. You can write Continue to keep the chat going.AKplease continueEditHere's the continuation of the transcript:Sarah Kendzior: ...and those crimes, not just him, but his cohort were never held accountable. And what they did during the Biden years was plan all of their next moves. Like you don't suddenly have a gulag for Americans in El Salvador, like just off the top of your head. You know, all of this takes planning. We knew about a lot of the plans, you know, the Democrats campaigned about combating Project 2025. And my question to them was, well, what what if you lose? How are you going to combat it then? You know what, if he gets back, what are you gonna do? They would be so offended. They're like, how dare you, you question us. How dare you question, you know, our plans? They're, like, well, I don't, you don't have a plan. Like, that's my question is what is the plan? And they didn't. And they could have spent those four years creating a bulwark against a lot of the most horrific policies that we're seeing now. Instead, they're kind of reacting on the fly if they're even reacting at all. And meanwhile, people are being targeted, deported, detained. They're suffering tremendously. And they're very, very scared. I think it's very scary to have a total dearth of leadership from where the, not just the opposition, but just people with basic respect for the constitution, our civil rights, etc., are supposed to be.Andrew Keen: You mentioned Project 2025, we've got David Graham on the show next week, who's written a book about Project 2025. Is there anything positive to report, Sarah? I mean, some people are encouraged by the behavior, at least on Friday, the 18th of April, who knows what will happen over the weekend or next week. Behavior of Harvard, some law firms are aggressively defending their rights. Should we be encouraged by the universities, law firms, even some corporate leaders are beginning to mutter under their breath about Trump and Trumpism?Sarah Kendzior: And it depends whether they actually have that power in wielded or whether they're just sort of trying to tamper down public dissent. I'm skeptical of these universities and law firms because I think they should have had a plan long ago because I was very obvious that all of this was going to happen and I feel so terribly for all of the students there that were abandoned by these administrations, especially places like Columbia. That gave in right away. What does hearten me though, you know, and I, as you said, I'd been on this tour, like I was all over the West coast. I've been all over, the Midwest and the South is, Americans, Americans do understand what's happening. There's always this like this culture in media of like, how do we break it to Americans? Like, yeah, well, we know, we know out here in Missouri that this is very bad. And I think that people have genuine concern for each other. I think they still have compassion for each other. I think there's a culture of cruelty that's promoted online and it's incentivized. You know, you can make money that way. You could get clicks that that way, whatever, but in real life, I think people feel vulnerable. They feel afraid, but I've seen so much kindness. I've been so much concern and determination from people who don't have very much, and maybe that's, you know, why people don't know about it. These are just ordinary folks. And so I have great faith in American people to combat this. And what I don't have faith in is our institutions. And I hope that these sort of in between places, places like universities who do a lot of good on one hand, but also can kind of act as like hedge funds. On the other hand, I hope they move fully to the side of good and that they purge themselves of these corrupt elements that have been within them for a long time, the more greedy. Aspects of their existence. I hope they see themselves as places that uphold civic life and history and provide intellectual resistance and shelter for students in the storm. They could be a really powerful force if they choose to be. It's never too late to change. I guess that's the message I want to bring home. Even if I'm very critical of these places, it's never to late for them to change and to do the right thing.Andrew Keen: Well, finally, Sarah, a lot of people are going to be watching this on my Substack page. Your Substack Page, your newsletter, They Knew, I think has last count, 52,000 subscribers. Is this the new model for independent writers, journalist thinkers like yourself? I'm not sure of those 52,00, how many of them are paid. You noted that your book has disappeared co-isindecially sometimes. So maybe some publishers are being intimidated. Is the future for independent thinkers, platforms like Substack, where independent authors like yourself can establish direct intellectual and commercial relations with their readers and followers?Sarah Kendzior: It's certainly the present. I mean, this is the only place or other newsletter outlets, I suppose, that I could go. And I purposefully divorced myself from all institutions except for my publisher because I knew that this kind of corruption would inhibit me from being able to say the truth. This is why I dropped out of academia, I dropped out of regular journalism. I have isolated myself to some degree on purpose. And I also just like being in control of this and having direct access to my readers. However, what does concern me is, you know, Twitter used to also be a place where I had direct access to people I could get my message out. I could circumvent a lot of the traditional modes of communication. Now I'm essentially shadow banned on there, along with a lot of people. And you know Musk has basically banned substack links because of his feud with Matt Taibbi. You know, that led to, if you drop a substack link in there, it just gets kind of submerged and people don't see it. So, you know, I think about Twitter and how positive I was about that, maybe like 12, 13 years ago, and I wonder how I feel about Substack and what will happen to it going forward, because clearly, you Know, Trump's camp realizes the utility of these platforms, like they know that a lot of people who are prominent anti authoritarian voices are using them to get the word out when they are when they lose their own platform at, like, say, the Washington Post or MSNBC or... Whatever network is corrupted or bullied. And so eventually, I think they'll come for it. And, you know, so stack has problems on its own anyway. So I am worried. I make up backups of everything. I encourage people to consume analog content and to print things out if they like them in this time. So get my book on that note, brand new analog content for you. A nice digital.Andrew Keen: Yeah, don't buy it digitally. I assume it's available on Kindle, but you're probably not too keen or even on Amazon and Bezos. Finally, Sarah, this is Friday. Fridays are supposed to be cheerful days, the days before the weekend. Is there anything to be cheerful about on April The 18th 2025 in America?Sarah Kendzior: I mean, yeah, there's things to be cheerful about, you know, pre spring, nice weather. I'm worried about this weekend. I'll just get this out real quick. You know, this is basically militia Christmas. You know, This is the anniversary of Waco, the Oklahoma City bombings, Columbine. It's Hitler's birthday. This is a time when traditionally American militia groups become in other words,Andrew Keen: Springtime in America.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, springtime for Hitler. You know, and so I'm worried about this weekend. I'm worry that if there are anti-Trump protests that they'll be infiltrated by people trying to stoke the very riots that Trump said he wanted in order to, quote, make America great again and have everything collapse. So everyone, please be very, very careful this weekend heading out and just be aware of the. Of these dates and the importance of these days far predates Trump to, you know, militia groups and other violent extremist groups.Andrew Keen: Well, on that cheerful note, I asked you for a positive note. You've ruined everyone's weekend, probably in a healthy way. You are the Cassandra from St. Louis. Appreciate your bravery and honesty in standing up to Trump and Trumpism, MAGA America. Congratulations on the new book. As you say, it's available in analog form. You can buy it. Take it home, protect it, dig a hole in your garden and protect it from the secret police. Congratulations on the new book. As I said to you before we went live, it's a beautifully written book. I mean, you're noted as a polemicist, but I thought this book is your best written book, the other books were well written, but this is particularly well written. Very personal. So congratulations on that. And Sarah will have to get you back on the show. I'm not sure how much worse things can get in America, but no doubt they will and no doubt you will write about it. So keep well, keep safe and keep doing your brave work. Thank you so much.Sarah Kendzior: Yeah, you too. Thank you so much for your kind words and for having me on again. 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

In this podcast Andrew Leigh talks about economics to someone unfamiliar with the subject, all drawn from his book, "How Economics Explains the World: A Short History of Humanity". Andrew touches upon the impact of the industrial revolution, the balance between Keynesian and Hayekian ideas, why interest rates are important, where the gender gap came from and much much more. He also covers how technology drives societal change, the role of government in managing economic stability and the importance of storytelling in making complex ideas accessible given that he has managed to do exactly that. When he isn't writing or working as a member of the Australian Parliament, Andrew is a keen ultra-marathoner and an Ironman triathlete.

Send us a textThe month of October 2024 marks the 50th anniversary of F. A. Hayek winning the Nobel Prize. Winning such a prize is obviously a big deal, but someone wins one every year, so what's the big deal about this guy? Well. Hayek's contributions to the field of economics are significant because they spoke to more than simply economics. Spontaneous order, price signals as information, and the pretense of knowledge all might come to mind, but they might not. (Maybe you're new to this! If so, helloooo there!) These concepts branch into philosophy, social structure, and the nature of the human mind. Stick with us to learn the depths and beauty of Hayekian thought, in the first of this series! Want to explore more?Profile in Liberty: Friedrich A. Hayek, at Econlib.Don Boudreaux on Reading Hayek, an EconTalk podcast.Elaine Sternberg, The Power and Pervasiveness of Spontaneous Order, at Econlib.Nicholas Wapshott on Keynes and Hayek, an EconTalk podcast.Hayek and Spontaneous Orders, at the Online Library of Liberty.Never miss another AdamSmithWorks update.Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

While F.A. Hayek was a promoter of liberty, his work nonetheless often failed to acknowledge just how predatory the state really is. Murray Rothbard understood that the real enemy is the predatory state.Original article: Hayekian liberty and the predatory state

While F.A. Hayek was a promoter of liberty, his work nonetheless often failed to acknowledge just how predatory the state really is. Murray Rothbard understood that the real enemy is the predatory state.Original article: Hayekian liberty and the predatory state

In this final episode of our short series, host Matt Prewitt speaks with Indy Johar, architect and co-founder of Dark Matter Labs. Together they discuss the topic of ownership through the lens of theories of governance. Indy advocates for decentralized protocols in property governance, emphasizing complex contributions and contextual responsiveness – moving away from control-oriented systems towards ennobling frameworks that empower individuals and foster deeper engagement.RadicalxChange has been working with Indy Johar and Dark Matter Labs, together with Margaret Levi and her team at Stanford, on exploring and reimagining the institutions of ownership.This episode is part of a short series exploring the theme of What and How We Own: Building a Politics of Change.Read more in our newsletter What & How We Own: The Politics of Change | Part III.Links & References: References:The Code of Capital | Princeton University Press by Katharina PistorDaniel Schmachtenberger: Steering Civilization Away from Self-Destruction | Lex Fridman Podcast #191Partial Common Ownership | RxC Wiki[The Bellagio Model: an evidence-informed, international framework for population-oriented primary care. First experiences]Hayekian economic policy - ScienceDirectJames Lovelock - WikipediaThe Economics of Care | Elizabeth Hill Bios:Indy Johar (he/him) is an architect, co-founder of 00 (project00.cc), and most recently Dark Matter Labs.Indy, on behalf of 00, has co-founded multiple social ventures from Impact Hub Westminster to Impact Hub Birmingham. He has also co-led research projects such as The Compendium for the Civic Economy, whilst supporting several 00 explorations/experiments including the wikihouse.cc, opendesk.cc. Indy is a non-executive director of WikiHouse Foundation & Bloxhub. Indy was a Good Growth Commissioner for the RSA, RIBA Trustee, and Advisor to Mayor of London on Good Growth, The Liverpool City Region Land Commissioner, The State of New Jersey - The Future of Work Task Force - among others.Most recently he has founded Dark Matter - a field laboratory focused on building the institutional infrastructures for radicle civic societies, cities, regions, and towns.Dark Matter works with institutions around the world, from UNDP (Global), Climate Kic, McConnell (Canada), to the Scottish Gove to Bloxhub (Copenhagen)He has taught and lectured at various institutions including the University of Bath, TU-Berlin; Architectural Association, University College London, Princeton, Harvard, MIT, and New School.He writes often on the https://provocations.darkmatterlabs.orgIndy's Social Links:Indy Johar (@indy_johar) / XIndy Johar - London, United Kingdom, Project00.cc | about.meIndy Johar – MediumMatt Prewitt (he/him) is a lawyer, technologist, and writer. He is the President of the RadicalxChange Foundation.Matt's Social Links:ᴍᴀᴛᴛ ᴘʀᴇᴡɪᴛᴛ (@m_t_prewitt) / XAdditional Credits:This episode was recorded and produced by Matt Prewitt.This is a RadicalxChange Production. Connect with RadicalxChange Foundation:RadicalxChange Website@RadxChange | TwitterRxC | YouTubeRxC | InstagramRxC | LinkedInJoin the conversation on Discord.Credits:Produced by G. Angela Corpus.Co-Produced, Edited, Narrated, and Audio Engineered by Aaron Benavides.Executive Produced by G. Angela Corpus and Matt Prewitt.Intro/Outro music by MagnusMoone, “Wind in the Willows,” is licensed under an Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 International License (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0)

We're back! This time with Lynne Kiesling, Director of the Institute for Regulatory Law & Economics (IRLE) at Northwestern University.Lynne is an Economist who has been working on power systems issues since the early 2000s, with a focus on power markets, transactive energy, and “quarantining the monopoly” as she says.Lynne was a panelist at DERVOS, as paying subscribers know from our previously released episode. We felt her Hayekian perspective (distributed, emergent, local) rounded out those from Matt Huber (big, planned, federal) and Pier LaFarge (distributed, planned, local), and she graciously agreed to jump on the pod to dig in.This is a free episode for all subscribers, but if you want access to everything we do and would like to support our work broadly, be sure to visit www.dertaskforce.com and become a paid subscriber for just $5/month. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.dertaskforce.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On Dwarkesh's 3rd Podcast With Tyler Cowen, published by Zvi on February 4, 2024 on LessWrong. This post is extensive thoughts on Tyler Cowen's excellent talk with Dwarkesh Patel. It is interesting throughout. You can read this while listening, after listening or instead of listening, and is written to be compatible with all three options. The notes are in order in terms of what they are reacting to, and are mostly written as I listened. I see this as having been a few distinct intertwined conversations. Tyler Cowen knows more about more different things than perhaps anyone else, so that makes sense. Dwarkesh chose excellent questions throughout, displaying an excellent sense of when to follow up and how, and when to pivot. The first conversation is about Tyler's book GOAT about the world's greatest economists. Fascinating stuff, this made me more likely to read and review GOAT in the future if I ever find the time. I mostly agreed with Tyler's takes here, to the extent I am in position to know, as I have not read that much in the way of what these men wrote, and at this point even though I very much loved it at the time (don't skip the digression on silver, even, I remember it being great) The Wealth of Nations is now largely a blur to me. There were also questions about the world and philosophy in general but not about AI, that I would mostly put in this first category. As usual, I have lots of thoughts. The second conversation is about expectations given what I typically call mundane AI. What would the future look like, if AI progress stalls out without advancing too much? We cannot rule such worlds out and I put substantial probability on them, so it is an important and fascinating question. If you accept the premise of AI remaining within the human capability range in some broad sense, where it brings great productivity improvements and rewards those who use it well but remains foundationally a tool and everything seems basically normal, essentially the AI-Fizzle world, then we have disagreements but Tyler is an excellent thinker about these scenarios. Broadly our expectations are not so different here. That brings us to the third conversation, about the possibility of existential risk or the development of more intelligent and capable AI that would have greater affordances. For a while now, Tyler has asserted that such greater intelligence likely does not much matter, that not so much would change, that transformational effects are highly unlikely, whether or not they constitute existential risks. That the world will continue to seem normal, and follow the rules and heuristics of economics, essentially Scott Aaronson's Futurama. Even when he says AIs will be decentralized and engage in their own Hayekian trading with their own currency, he does not think this has deep implications, nor does it imply much about what else is going on beyond being modestly (and only modestly) productive. Then at other times he affirms the importance of existential risk concerns, and indeed says we will be in need of a hegemon, but the thinking here seems oddly divorced from other statements, and thus often rather confused. Mostly it seems consistent with the view that it is much easier to solve alignment quickly, build AGI and use it to generate a hegemon, than it would be to get any kind of international coordination. And also that failure to quickly build AI risks our civilization collapsing. But also I notice this implies that the resulting AIs will be powerful enough to enable hegemony and determine the future, when in other contexts he does not think they will even enable sustained 10% GDP growth. Thus at this point, I choose to treat most of Tyler's thoughts on AI as if they are part of the second conversation, with an implicit 'assuming an AI at least semi-fizzle' attached ...

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: On Dwarkesh's 3rd Podcast With Tyler Cowen, published by Zvi on February 4, 2024 on LessWrong. This post is extensive thoughts on Tyler Cowen's excellent talk with Dwarkesh Patel. It is interesting throughout. You can read this while listening, after listening or instead of listening, and is written to be compatible with all three options. The notes are in order in terms of what they are reacting to, and are mostly written as I listened. I see this as having been a few distinct intertwined conversations. Tyler Cowen knows more about more different things than perhaps anyone else, so that makes sense. Dwarkesh chose excellent questions throughout, displaying an excellent sense of when to follow up and how, and when to pivot. The first conversation is about Tyler's book GOAT about the world's greatest economists. Fascinating stuff, this made me more likely to read and review GOAT in the future if I ever find the time. I mostly agreed with Tyler's takes here, to the extent I am in position to know, as I have not read that much in the way of what these men wrote, and at this point even though I very much loved it at the time (don't skip the digression on silver, even, I remember it being great) The Wealth of Nations is now largely a blur to me. There were also questions about the world and philosophy in general but not about AI, that I would mostly put in this first category. As usual, I have lots of thoughts. The second conversation is about expectations given what I typically call mundane AI. What would the future look like, if AI progress stalls out without advancing too much? We cannot rule such worlds out and I put substantial probability on them, so it is an important and fascinating question. If you accept the premise of AI remaining within the human capability range in some broad sense, where it brings great productivity improvements and rewards those who use it well but remains foundationally a tool and everything seems basically normal, essentially the AI-Fizzle world, then we have disagreements but Tyler is an excellent thinker about these scenarios. Broadly our expectations are not so different here. That brings us to the third conversation, about the possibility of existential risk or the development of more intelligent and capable AI that would have greater affordances. For a while now, Tyler has asserted that such greater intelligence likely does not much matter, that not so much would change, that transformational effects are highly unlikely, whether or not they constitute existential risks. That the world will continue to seem normal, and follow the rules and heuristics of economics, essentially Scott Aaronson's Futurama. Even when he says AIs will be decentralized and engage in their own Hayekian trading with their own currency, he does not think this has deep implications, nor does it imply much about what else is going on beyond being modestly (and only modestly) productive. Then at other times he affirms the importance of existential risk concerns, and indeed says we will be in need of a hegemon, but the thinking here seems oddly divorced from other statements, and thus often rather confused. Mostly it seems consistent with the view that it is much easier to solve alignment quickly, build AGI and use it to generate a hegemon, than it would be to get any kind of international coordination. And also that failure to quickly build AI risks our civilization collapsing. But also I notice this implies that the resulting AIs will be powerful enough to enable hegemony and determine the future, when in other contexts he does not think they will even enable sustained 10% GDP growth. Thus at this point, I choose to treat most of Tyler's thoughts on AI as if they are part of the second conversation, with an implicit 'assuming an AI at least semi-fizzle' attached ...

Prepare to be whisked from the playful world of innovative shower systems to the economic trials of Argentina, all within a single episode. With new President Javier Miele at the helm, we tackle the nation's inflation crisis head-on. Our discourse, laced with humor yet grounded in reality, explores the vibrant culture and fiscal challenges that define Argentina today. Beyond the whimsy of gravity-defying showers, we delve into Miele's libertarian strategies aimed at rejuvenating the economy, painting a vivid portrait of a country on the brink of transformative change.Hayekian currencies emerge as the star of this episode, promising a monetary revolution for Argentina's financial landscape. As President Miele unravels the complexities of introducing these tailored currencies, we consider the transformative potential of such economic innovation, made possible through judicious regulation and local entrepreneurial spirit. Imagine a currency that adapts to your lifestyle, defies inflation, and redefines commerce; this is the future we discuss with excitement and a touch of skepticism, probing the promise and pitfalls of these personalized economic tools.We conclude with a candid discussion on the heavyweights of economics—the central banks—and their pervasive influence on our pockets and policies. From the Cantillon Effect to the Federal Reserve's profit margins, you'll get an insider look at the mechanics of money and its far-reaching effects on both economies and individuals. As we navigate the controversial terrains of Bitcoin ETFs and the environmental footprint of cryptocurrencies, we contemplate the merits of Hayekian currencies as a possible antidote to the volatility of inflation. Join us for this thought-provoking journey through the world of currency, where humor meets economic theory, and where the future of Argentina's economy could set a global precedent.Help these new solutions spread by ... Subscribing wherever you listen to podcasts Leaving a 5-star review Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference) Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.Email: solutionsfromthemultiverse@gmail.comAdam: @ajbraus - braus@hey.comScot: @scotmaupinadambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)The Numey (inflation-free currency) Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

Today's Post - https://bahnsen.co/48OKdeA Ask David “What is the best argument for why the distributed independent decisions of individuals, families, and businesses create more beneficial outcomes for most people than the top-down, centralized decisions of government, especially the federal government?” ~ David K. My argument is one of incentives and one of knowledge. These are two different arguments, even if they do overlap at points. Fundamentally, I believe better outcomes take place when the decision-makers reap benefits from their decisions and when decision-makers feel pain from bad decisions. I do not believe “disinterested third parties” (Thomas Sowell's term) have the incentives to allocate and adjudicate risk and reward the way those with “skin in the game” do. But beyond the classical incentive argument, I am very much a believer in what Friedrich Hayek referred to as the “knowledge problem.” Knowledge is widely dispersed throughout a society and no central entity possesses the knowledge needed to properly steward the affairs of a diverse economy. I read the masterful essay, The Use of Knowledge in Society, by Friedrich Hayek while in high school. It was the beginning of a lifetime journey for me through Hayekian thought, particularly around Hayek's thesis of the “fatal conceit” of central planners. Links mentioned in this episode: TheDCToday.com DividendCafe.com TheBahnsenGroup.com

Chris beguiles us with tales of Disc Golf, while Eric describes, in detail, the "fully modeled genitalia" of Baldur's Gate 3. Phil is too busy brushing up his Redditor voice which will surely get him canceled. The crew laments the declining utility of cosmetic economies but doubles down on the mechanics of emergent gameplay.

De nordiske lande er generelt kendetegnet ved at være meget velstående og have en meget stor offentlig sektor. I mange dele af verden ses dette til dels som modsætninger. Det er svært på én og samme tid at være velstående og have en stor offentlig sektor. Men ikke desto mindre er det tilfældet i de nordiske lande. Men hvorfor? Det er emnet for dagens afsnit af Regelstaten, hvor Andreas Bergh, lektor i økonomi ved Lund Universitet, er på besøg. Han har udgivet en artikel i Journal of Institutional Economics med titlen: "Hayekian welfare states: explaining the coexistence of economic freedom and big government" eller "Hayekiske velfærdsstater: En forklaring på sameksistensen af økonomisk frihed og en stor offentlig sektor"Kontakt til podcastvært: Herby@cepos.dklink til hans studie: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-institutional-economics/article/abs/hayekian-welfare-states-explaining-the-coexistence-of-economic-freedom-and-big-government/C07DB791E78F0E9C8D9090DDB62C96D1

Alex speaks with Pete Boettke about the relevancy of Friedrich Hayek in the contemporary context, what it means to be a "Hayekian" and the curious tale of how Hayek came to be the focus of his latest book "F. A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy" Episode Notes Pete's book “F. A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy“ https://a.co/d/ah7SpwW  Hayek on The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/friedrich-hayek/  Introduction to Hayek's “Road to Serfdom” https://mises.org/library/road-serfdom-0  Murray Rothbard's “Man, Economy and State” retrospective https://fee.org/articles/rothbards-man-economy-and-state-at-50/  Milton Friedman's “Free To Choose” https://www.proglocode.unam.mx/sites/proglocode.unam.mx/files/docencia/Milton%20y%20Rose%20Friedman%20-%20Free%20to%20Choose.pdf  Hayek “Prices and Production” https://mises.org/library/prices-and-production-and-other-works  Introduction to economics of Lucas https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Lucas.html  Steve Horowitz on Hayek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5dR0zgC1ZI  Herbert Dreyfuss “What Computers Can't Do” https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262540674/what-computers-still-cant-do/  Horowitz quote on Hayek “we have to learn to live in two worlds at once” https://www.jstor.org/stable/41560288  Hayek's “The Fatal Conceit” https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/F/bo3643985.html  Kenneth Boulding “After Samuelson, Who Needs Adam Smith?” https://read.dukeupress.edu/hope/article-abstract/3/2/225/12381/After-Samuelson-Who-Needs-Adam-Smith“The Extended Present” (concept) https://medium.com/extended-present/about  The “Grapes vs. Cucumbers as pay for Monkeys” experiment (youtube video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meiU6TxysCg  The Constitution of Liberty - Hayek https://www.mises.at/static/literatur/Buch/hayek-the-constitution-of-liberty.pdf  Chandran Kukathas' Liberal Archipelago https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-liberal-archipelago-9780199219209?cc=ca&lang=en&  Kind vs. Wicked learning environments. https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/experience-studio/202007/experience-kind-vs-wicked   

On previous episodes of Faster, Please! — The Podcast and in my newsletter essays, I've argued for the importance of optimistic science fiction. But what exactly qualifies as future-optimistic fiction, and how is it different from utopian literature? To discuss one of my favorite science-fiction book and TV series, The Expanse, and to consider the importance of what fiction tells us about the future, I've brought on Peter Suderman.Peter is features editor at Reason magazine. He has written a number of fantastic pieces on science fiction including "The Fractal, Fractious Politics of The Expanse" in the December 2022 issue of Reason.In This Episode* Does The Expanse count as optimistic science fiction? (1:15)* Optimistic—not utopian—visions of the future (9:10)* The evolution of science fiction (19:30)* The importance of the future sci-fi shows us (27:09)Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Does The Expanse count as optimistic science fiction?French film director François Truffaut famously claimed it was impossible to make an anti-war film. He said, “I find that violence is very ambiguous in movies. For example, some films claim to be antiwar, but I don't think I've really seen an antiwar film. Every film about war ends up being pro-war.” And that quote, which has always stuck in my head, reemerged in my brain when I came across a somewhat similar observation from Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton, who said, “Futuristic science fiction tends to be pessimistic. If you imagine a future that's wonderful, you don't have a story.” I think some people may interpret that as meaning you cannot write optimistic science fiction.And I think of a show that you have written a long essay about, and I've written about—not as intelligently, but I've written about it from time to time: the TV show The Expanse. And I find The Expanse to be optimistic sci-fi. It takes place in the future, a couple hundred years in the future. Humanity has spread out to Mars and the asteroid belts. There's certainly conflict. As an Expanse fan, someone just wrote an essay on it, would you agree that it's optimistic science fiction?I think it is, with some caveats. The first one is that it's optimistic but it's not utopian. And I think a lot of the argument against optimistic science fiction is actually not really arguing against optimism. It's arguing against utopianism and this idea that you sometimes see—there are hints of it sometimes in Star Trek, especially in Star Trek: The Next Generation—of, in the future humanity will have all of its problems solved, we won't have money, there will be no poverty. If you think about the Earth of Star Trek: The Next Generation's future, it's actually kind of boring, right? There isn't a lot of conflict. Writers eventually found ways to drive conflict out of conflicts between the Federation and other planets and even within the Federation. Because of course, they realized the utopian surface is just a surface. And if you dig down at all beneath it, of course humans would have conflict.But I think a lot of the opposition to the idea of optimistic science fiction just comes from this idea of, “Well, wouldn't it be utopian?” And what The Expanse does is it tells a story that is, I think, inherently optimistic but really deeply not utopian, because it recognizes that progress is not an easy, straight linear line in which everybody comes together and holds hands, and there's a rainbow and My Little Ponies, and everybody just sort of sings, and it's wonderful. That's not how it works. In fact, the way that progress happens is that people have things they want in their lives, and then they seek, either on their own or in coalitions, factions, organizations—whether that's governments, whether that's the private sector, whether that's unions, whatever it is—they organize somehow or another to get the thing that they want. And sometimes they build things. Sometimes they build habitats.And so this is something you see a lot of in The Expanse. Humans have colonized the solar system, as the story begins, and there are just all of these fascinating habitats that humans have built. Some of those habitats actually have problems with them. There are air filtration issues, where you have to constantly be supplying ice from asteroid mining. That sort of thing. Some of the main characters, when we first meet them, are working as ice haulers. Because of course, you would have to have some sort of trade of important resources in space in order to make these habitats work. And you could call this, “That's not optimistic. In fact, a lot of these lives are sort of grubby and unpleasant, and people don't get everything they want.” But I think that misunderstands the idea of progress, because the idea of progress isn't that suddenly everything will be happy and My Little Pony-ish. It's not My Little Pony. It's actually conflict and it's clashing desires and it's clashing ideals about how humans should live. And then it's people kind of working that stuff out amongst themselves, day by day, hour by hour, through coalitions, through organizations, through institutions, through technology, through politics sometimes. And all of those sort of tools and all of those organizational forms have a role. Sometimes they also have drawbacks. All of them have drawbacks to some extent. And then it's just a matter of how are people going work out the problems they have at the moment in order to get to the next place, in order to build the thing they want to build, in order to start the society they want to have.It's a six-season TV show based on a nine-novel series. The six-season TV show adapts the first six books, and then there are three additional books, plus there's a bunch of short stories, novellas, interstitial material. There's this moment that happens in both the TV show and in the books that's really important. And it's about it when humanity finds a way to other solar systems. There are 1300 gates that open up and they can sort of go out and colonize the rest of space. All of these colonies are settled, and each one of them takes on an idea and a culture and often technological capability. There's one of them that's really funny that you meet called Freehold. Frankly, it's a bunch of anarchist libertarian gun nuts who decide to basically ignore all the rules that the trade union that is managing a lot of the trade between the gates has put in place. And they are managing that trade for a good reason. Because if you mess with the gates, if you go through them the wrong way, it kills people, it kills ships, it destroys them. And so you have to go through in order, and you have to go through slowly, and it's this whole sort of process. In Freehold, they‘re a bunch of difficult, crazy anarchist-like libertarian gun nuts who don't want to play by the rules. And at first they're a problem. You can see why that would be a problem for the social organizational form that has come up in these books from managing the gates and making sure that they don't kill people. But later, when basically a super powerful high-tech imperial planet that has designs on controlling all of humanity and putting all of humanity under the thumb of basically one emperor who has plans to live forever—it's sort of this, become a kind of a god who is ruling over all of humanity and then basically turn all of humans into like a hive mind but for the good of humanity so that we'll survive—when you have that all-encompassing, super powerful collectivist impulse that is threatening human civilization, it turns out that the libertarian anarchist gun nuts at Freehold are actually pretty good friends to have. This series does a bunch of interesting work of noting that, yes, of course those people can be difficult at times, and they can present problems to social cohesion. At the same time, it's not bad to have them as allies when you are threatened by an authoritarian.Optimistic—not utopian—visions of the futureYou've nailed it. Well done. I view it as optimistic but not utopian—I think that's a key point—particularly compared to how the future is often portrayed. I think it's pretty optimistic because no zombies. We're still around. And the world looks like it's doing okay. Was there climate change? Sure. But New York is surrounded by barriers. Clearly there's been disruption, but we kept moving forward. Now we're this multi-planetary civilization, so it doesn't look like we're going to get killed by an asteroid anytime soon.I think a big mistake that a lot of the pessimists about the future in politics and our culture generally, but in science fiction as well—a big mistake that they make is that they think only in terms of grand plans. They think in terms of mass systems of social control and social organization. And so when you see an apocalypse, it's “all the governments have failed and so has capitalism.” When you see an apocalypse, it's “the oceans swallowed us because we used too much energy or the wrong kind of energy.” And that's it. The grand plan didn't work. And then we're in a hellscape after that. And what you see in The Expanse, what makes it so smart, is grand plans actually do fail.Almost any time somebody has a big sweeping theory of how we're going to reorganize human social organization, of how humanity is going to be totally different from now on—almost anytime that someone has that sort of theory in The Expanse series, it doesn't work out. And often that person is revealed to be a bad guy, or at least somebody who has a bad way of thinking about the world. Instead, progress comes in fits and starts, and it's made on a much smaller scale by these ad hoc coalitions of people who are constantly changing their coalitions. Sometimes you want something that requires building something, that requires a new technology. And so you ally with people who are engineer types, and you work with them to build something. At the end of it, you've got the thing that they've built, and your life is a little bit better, or at least you've accomplished one of your goals. And then maybe after that, those people, the engineers, actually it turns out that they have a culture that is not cooperative with yours. And so you're going to ally with a different political faction and the engineers are going to be on the other side of it, but they've still built the little thing that you needed them to build. And it's just this idea that big systems and big plans that assume that everything falls in line, those plans don't work, and they do fail. And if that's your idea of how we're going to make progress, that's a bad idea. The way we make progress is…In a Hayekian sense, all our individual wants and needs cannot be incorporated in this grand system or grand plan. Our wants and needs today, much less how those will evolve over time. Our future wants and needs don't fit into the plan either.Yeah, this is right. This is one of the issues I have with a lot of zombie fiction, is that it just sort of assumes that after the zombie apocalypse—the zombie apocalypse is not all that realistic, but you can imagine a scenario in which there is something environmental that really goes very bad for humanity; that's not out of the realm of possibility—but what a lot of the zombie apocalypse fiction assumes, then, is that in the decades or years afterwards no one will really find ways to work with other people towards shared goals. Or at best, they'll do so in a really ugly and simplistic way where somebody sets up a society that's walled off but it's ruled by some evil authoritarian and you're living under this person's thumb.I grew up in Florida, and so we had hurricanes. One of the things you see when you have hurricanes is that, yes, there is a government response and they send out trucks and power company officials and all of that sort of thing. But people drive around the neighborhood with chainsaws and cut up the trees that have fallen across your driveway. And other people who may not have chainsaws go and help their friends move the stuff out of their bedroom where the tree fell into the bedroom through the ceiling and there's been some leakages. It's just sort of people working together in these informal coalitions, these little neighborhood local groups, to help each other out and to try to fix things that have broken and gone wrong. It's not fun. It's not like, “Oh man, hurricanes, they're wonderful. We shouldn't worry about them at all!” We should, and we should try to build resilience against them and that sort of thing.At the same time, when disaster strikes, often what you see—not always, but often what you see—is that people come back together and they survey the problems and they work to fix them minute by minute, hour by hour in little ways. And sometimes the first thing you do is, “Well, I got a hole in my roof. I'm going to stretch garbage bags across it so that the next time it rains…” And then you got a hole in your roof with garbage bags across it for a couple of weeks. But that's a solution for the time. It's better than a hole in your roof. On the other hand, you got a hole in your roof. It sucks. But that's progress relative to the hole that's there. That's a way that a lot of people who don't think about engineering, who don't think in a Hayekian manner, it's something that they miss. Because they only think about big systems and big plans. And big systems and big plans do have big risks, and they do often fail. But that's not how humans figure out how to move forward and how to make their life better.An interesting aspect is that, you mentioned how at some point these gates open so we're no longer stuck in the solar system. We can go to any of these other planetary systems. And what's interesting is the devastating effect this has on the planet Mars, which is its own world, its own government, it has its own military, it's independent of Earth. But it's a society that was built around one big idea, which is terraforming Mars and creating a sustainable civilization. And when that goal didn't look important anymore, that was it. It fell apart. People left. There was no resilience, there was no ability to adapt. To me, that's one of the most interesting twists I've seen in science fiction. When the grand plan fails, the whole thing falls apart because they never assumed the grand plan wouldn't work.The Mars example is great because it shows what I think is one of the biggest problems in political thinking and in kind of bad science-fiction storytelling. It's a great demonstration of steady state thinking, where people think that the current arrangement of power and resources is going to persist forever. And so Mars in The Expanse story was basically a competitor with Earth, which in The Expanse universe was the sort of political home of humanity as well as the bread basket. It's where of all the food was produced. And then the asteroid belt, which is sort of the rough and tumble outer world—the outer world were the resource extractors. They provided for the inner systems. They kind of had a blue-collar vibe to them. There was some terrorist activity that came out of this because they were resentful. There's sort of some interesting cultural and subcultural effects there. And then Mars was heavily military and high tech, and they thought that would be their competitive advantage.Almost a quasi-fascist state, in a way. It was very militaristic and authoritarian.Yes, which comes back to pay off in a big way in the final three books of the trilogy which, unfortunately, the shows don't adapt, but are in some ways, I think, the best of the books. And so much of our politics is built around that idea that this power structure, this arrangement of resources that we have right now where everybody's on Facebook, where everybody is on Twitter, where everybody uses Google search, that's going to last forever. And the only way you can dislodge it is through government and through regulation and through interventions that are designed to break that sort of thing up. I'm thinking very specifically of antitrust, and a lot of antitrust theories are predicated on this. But there are other realms in which this sort of approach to regulation and to politics is quite common as well.And in The Expanse, you see, guess what? Those power structures—even power structures that have persisted in the case of The Expanse books at least for decades and I think for a couple of hundred years that's basically been the arrangement as we sort of enter the story—even those arrangements that seem like they're immutable facts of human organization—Oh, this is how politics has always been; this is how the arrangement of national power (effectively in this story) has always been arranged—those things can change, and they can change because of environmental changes and they can change because of technological developments that people don't foresee.The evolution of science fictionIt seems to me that you had this period during the Space Race, the Atomic Age, ‘50s, ‘60s, in which there was lots of somewhat optimistic science fiction. You obviously had Star Trek and even I would say 2001: A Space Odyssey. You could go to the Jetsons, but then you started not seeing that. And to me, it seems like there's a pretty sharp dividing line there in the late ‘60s, early ‘70s, and I've written about that. Am I making too much out of that, that there was a change? Or has it always been like this and we started noticing it more because we started doing more science fiction?I don't think you're wrong to notice that. And I think there was a big change in the 1970s. I think maybe one place to start, if you're thinking about that, though, is actually something like 100 years before the 1970s.That would be the 1870s!Yeah. In the 1870s, in the 1890s, maybe even a little bit before then. This maybe tells you how naive I was as a seven- or an eight-year-old, but I started reading science fiction when I was around eight years old. My parents were big fans, and I of course watched Star Trek even starting when I was four or five. Star Wars, that sort of thing. I grew up in a real nerd household, and something that I heard when I was I believe in fourth grade that just blew my mind—but of course, it is super obvious when you hear it—is for a long time in human history, we didn't have science fiction. We didn't have it at all. And you go back to the 1700s, to the 1800s, you start to see little bits of it. Jules Verne, even maybe some of Edgar Allan Poe. But it wasn't until the Industrial Revolution and then some of the fiction that sort of came out decades into the Industrial Revolution. It wasn't until relatively recently in human history that people had the idea that the future would be different, because that's the heart of what science fiction is. It is the idea that the future will be different because humans will organize themselves differently, and/or because we will have invented new technologies that make our lives different.And you go back to 1000 AD or 1200 or 1500 even, and you just don't see that idea present in fiction and in storytelling because essentially no one imagined that the future would be different. They thought it would be the way it was in their time forever. And they assumed that it had basically been the same forever. That humanity's social and technological and resource arrangements would be steady state. And something happened in the ‘30s and ‘40s with the early science fiction that really predicated on this idea that, “Oh, wait! The future will be different and it will be better.” And then you get to the 1970s and things start to look a little bit shaky in world affairs, especially in the Western world, right? And what happens is that then is reflected in a lot of popular science fiction, where you start to see this more pessimistic view, this idea that the future will be different but it will be worse. And it will be worse because all of the things we rely on for the present will fail. I don't think that that's an illegitimate mode of storytelling in any way. I, in fact, really like a lot of…Even as I've harangued against them, those are all super enjoyable movies. I just wish there were the other kind too. And it seems to me that maybe we're starting to get more of the other kind again. I mean, we don't have a lot of examples.So about 10 or 15 years ago, there was literally a movement in science fiction led by people like Neal Stephenson, the author of most prominently Cryptonomicon, The Diamond Age, and Snow Crash in the 1990s, but also some more recent stuff as well. And he was like, “We need ideas about the future that are, if not utopian, then at least sort of optimistic. Ideas about things that we will do that will be better, not things that we will do that will make everything worse and that will sort of contribute to suffering and to collapse.” And Stevenson has been a leading proponent both of other writers doing that but then of doing it himself.Since we were talking about ad hoc coalitions and small-scale problem solving, his novel Termination Shock, I think from two years ago, is a quasi-science-fiction novel about global warming set in the near future in which global warming has both become a real problem and also one that people have started to find a lot of small-scale ways to, not solve exactly, but to address on a personal level. When the novel begins, there are a lot of houses on stilts in Texas because there are flooding issues. But what, they just picked up their houses and they put them on stilts. And people have to wear these sort of Dune-like suits that cool them. There are all these sort of crazy traveling caravans of people who live not in any particular place, but then there are these mega truck stops that have sprung up to meet their needs and sort of become these kind of travel hubs. And then, of course, people start trying to not solve global warming, exactly, but to mitigate global warming kind of locally by shooting stuff into the air that blocks reflections of the atmosphere. Of course, that causes some problems. He's not just sort of like, “Yeah, we can just fix this.” But he's like, “This sort of thing is how problems get solve solved. They don't get solved through politics and grand, multi-lateral agreements.”Of course, I would also point to another Stephenson novel, which is Seveneves, which is a novel in which things get about as dark for humanity as possible. We're down to seven people, and then we come all the way back and beyond.And it's all through distributed solutions. There's a great bit: You get down to the final seven people and then you flash forward, I think it's like 5,000 years. There's just a great like section header in this book. You're like 700 pages into a 1000-page book and suddenly it just says, “5,000 years later.” Okay, okay, I guess. Sure, Neal Stephenson, you can do that. 5,000 years later. And you see that humanity is flourishing again because somehow or another you have distributed rings, habitat systems around the Earth. You have the submarine people. We don't really know what they did, but the submarine people somehow or another figured it out. There are still some Earth-dwellers who survived in caves, like probably the Mars people who just like took off for Mars in the middle of the catastrophe. We think they survived somehow too. Part of this is, there's a kind of cheat in that book in which he doesn't tell you how all of these people survived, but there's also a kind of genius and a truth in that, in that we don't know how it's going to go. But what we know is that when put to the test, people have—not always, I don't want to say it just works 100 percent of the time, because sometimes there are true catastrophes in the world—but people, when put to the test, when your survival, the survival of you, your family, your friends, and the future of your race is on the line, people have figured out ways to survive that their predecessors would never have imagined because they never had to.The importance of the future sci-fi shows usIs it important that we have popular culture that gives us images of the future, a variety of images, to shoot for?I think it's incredibly important. I think even people who think it's important underrate how important it is. Because most people, even the smartest, most innovative people, they're… People are modelers. They kind of do things that they've seen done, even if it's that they've seen it in a story. And I just think about my own history and my own life. I grew up in a household where there wasn't, I would say, a lot of political ideology. It was in the background, but my parents like didn't actually talk about politics that much. It was just that one of them was quite liberal and the other one was quite conservative. And there were differing radio programs that I would hear in the company of one versus the other.But they were both, like I said, science fiction readers. And there was science fiction just all over our house. The first adult science-fiction novel I read was The Caves of Steel, which I was given when I was in fourth grade, eight-years-old. It's like Isaac Asimov's sort of Agatha Christie murder-mystery-in-the-future, in a futuristic New York, story. I was totally hooked after that. I just didn't ever go back. Read science fiction. And like I said, what science fiction gave me was this idea that the future would be different and that maybe—maybe—it could be better in some ways. And I think that if you just listen to interviews and talk to the people who are at the head of some of the most innovative companies in the world and in the United States right now, one through-line you see is that maybe not all of them, but a surprising number of them were science fiction readers growing up as kids.And they spent a lot of time, as a result, just sort of imagining the future. And imagining that it would be different. And I think that exercise, just being drawn into that kind of imagination of a world that is different than the one we live in now and different because people have invented things, because people have reorganized politics, because of whatever it is, but a world that is different because the future will be different—that is an exercise that we need more people to engage in. And when people do it, I think the results… I frankly think that even reading pessimistic science fiction is better than reading none at all, because again, it just constantly hammers home this idea [that] the future will be different. It's not a steady state. That progress or maybe anti-progress can be made.I think it certainly matters on that sort of doer, elite level, where you do have all these entrepreneurs, Silicon Valley folks, who obviously were really inspired by science fiction. Also, I think it's just important for everybody else. I just can't imagine, if people have gotten more of that, not only would they be a bit more resilient to the super negativity. It would just create more dreamers among people about what the future can be. Not utopia, but better. I'll take better.I'll take better as well. And I think that storytellers have a big role to play in that. And I think that anybody who creates images, who is an imaginer for the popular consciousness, has some influence here. Because like I said, people call to mind what they have seen before and people operate based on the ideas that have been handed to them. I certainly would like to see more of those stories. And I would also just like to say that if you're a person who tells stories and who makes images and who tries to sort of worm your way into the public consciousness, obviously you can do it through fear. But wouldn't it be better, wouldn't you feel a little more proud of yourself if you could do it through hope and through making people think that maybe there's something wonderful coming?Star Trek and Star Wars, which is the capitalist show, which is the communist show?Star Trek: The Next Generation's pilot episode is about how basically energy capitalism is inherently bad. The Ferengi are the super capitalists. It's really hard to make like a strong “Star Trek is a pro-capitalist show” argument. Maybe. You get a little bit into that with some of the Deep Space Nine stuff later. But even there, that's mostly just about political conflict. Does that mean that Star Wars is the pro-capitalist show? I don't know. I mean, people do seem to have jobs and buy and sell stuff and make things. I guess I'd have to go with Star Wars just because you can buy droids when you need help on your farm? That's all I got. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

In what may be one of the most brazenly nerdy Remnant episodes ever recorded (which is really saying a lot) Duke University's Bruce Caldwell joins the program to discuss the life and work of Friedrich Hayek. Dr. Caldwell, the pope of Hayekian geekdom, recently published the first installment of a two volume biography of the famed economist. Guided by Jonah's gleeful prompting, he explores how Hayek rose to international prominence, what he was like as a man, and how we should view his great works today. If you woke up feeling all Austrian this morning, it's a must listen.Show Notes:- Dr. Caldwell's page at Duke- Dr. Caldwell's new book, Hayek: A Life, 1899–1950 - Dr. Caldwell's intellectual biography of Hayek, Hayek's Challenge- Hayek: “The Intellectuals and Socialism”- Hayek: “The Use of Knowledge in Society”- Dr. Caldwell on -Political Economy with Jim Pethokoukis

Emma is back for her first Thursday show of 2023! She hosts Neil Vallelly, researcher at the University of Otago in New Zealand, to discuss his book Futilitarianism: Neoliberalism and the Production of Uselessness. First, Emma runs through updates on a second set of classified documents being found at Biden's Wilmington home, House GOP introducing two anti-abortion bills, Kevin McCarthy's quid pro quo to obtain the speakership, the NYC Nurses' strike reaching a tentative agreement after three days, and Barbara Lee's potential run for Senate in Dianne Feinstein's seat, before Emma parses through updates on Israel's apartheid expansion as Bibi Netanyahu's far-right coalition comes into power, and Rashida Tlaib's statements on the House floor. Neil Vallelly then joins as he dives right into the inspiration for his book coming out of direct exposure to budget slashes at University, and the impacts they have in driving students into specific realms of study more suited to capitalist endeavors, exploring how the humanities and social sciences are painted as indulgent and useless for occasionally challenging capitalism rather than seeking to serve it. This brings Professor Vallelly to the topic of how different things get constructed as “useless” in our world, following how the emphasis on utility in education came alongside a shift towards privatized and debt-driven universities, thus requiring students to shape their own educational path alongside the universities' economic projects. Next, Neil steps back as he traces the path from Jeremy Bentham's theories of utilitarianism to contemporary neoliberalism, first exploring how he came to view money as the objective quantifier of utility, justifying the growing capital accumulation in the world and the growing economic theories of the time, with even the anti-utilitarian theories of the 20th Century, namely Keynesian and Hayekian economics, grounding themselves in this concept of maximizing happiness (whether for the masses or individuals). After tackling how the Friedman-Hayek form of anti-utilitarian utilitarianism won out over New Deal economics, Neil and Emma explore neoliberalism's separation of the market from “democracy, the greater relationship between enfranchisement and utility, and how nihilism can help us analyze it, before wrapping up by walking through more specific examples of utilitarianism's impact on neoliberal policy. And in the Fun Half: Emma is joined by Brandon Sutton and Matt Binder as Matt discusses his time at the CES Tech Conference, and they talk with Bro Flamingo on the NFL and punitive measures against political coups. They also cover updates on Matt Schlapp's alleged sexual assault, Prince Harry on the relationship between his family and his family jewels, and the Daily Wire's flunking filmmaking endeavor and the celebs they're taking down with them. Tony from San Jose calls in to parse through the potential Saudi acquisition of the WWE, with Binder filling in many of the gaps of what led up to this, plus, your calls and IMs! Check out Neil's book here: https://mitpress.mit.edu/9781912685905/futilitarianism/ Buy tickets to the Left Reckoning/This Is Revolution live show here!: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/this-is-revolution-left-reckoning-tickets-476781264597 Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join 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! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Blinkist: Go to https://Blinkist.com/MAJORITYREPORT to start your 7-day free trial and get 25% off of a Blinkist Premium membership. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattBinder @MattLech @BF1nn @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Subscribe to Discourse Blog, a newsletter and website for progressive essays and related fun partly run by AM Quickie writer Jack Crosbie. https://discourseblog.com/ Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/  

A special announcement from Glenn ... Richard's journey from quiet Marxist to public intellectual ... Why Youngstown, Ohio was left behind ... Richard: Capitalist ownership is inherently anti-democratic ... Richard's critique of Hayekian libertarianism ... Pecuniary externalities vs. objective externalities ... Socialism's historical track record ... Employees as stakeholders ... The rise of the right in the wake of the New Deal and WWII ... The Glenn Show's new partnership with the Manhattan Institute ...

A special announcement from Glenn … Richard's journey from quiet Marxist to public intellectual … Why Youngstown, Ohio was left behind … Richard: Capitalist ownership is inherently anti-democratic … Richard's critique of Hayekian libertarianism … Pecuniary externalities vs. objective externalities … Socialism's historical track record … Employees as stakeholders … The rise of the right […]

A special announcement from Glenn ... Richard's journey from quiet Marxist to public intellectual ... Why Youngstown, Ohio was left behind ... Richard: Capitalist ownership is inherently anti-democratic ... Richard's critique of Hayekian libertarianism ... Pecuniary externalities vs. objective externalities ... Socialism's historical track record ... Employees as stakeholders ... The rise of the right in the wake of the New Deal and WWII ... The Glenn Show's new partnership with the Manhattan Institute ...

One of the most fascinating and thought-provoking books of our time is Half-Earth Socialism: A Plan to Save the Future from Extinction, Climate Change and Pandemics (Verso) by Troy Vettese and Drew Pendergrass. The book asks the question: how could we actually have a future for Earth that is both green and socialist? The authors dive into the history of attempts to plan the economy, unearthing useful insights from neglected thinkers like Otto Neurath (developer of the very cool Isotype system). They combine utopian fiction and serious scientific analysis to offer a vision of what humans might be capable of if we put our know-how to work. It's very rare these days to have serious scientific thinkers trying to imagine the path to radical futures, so Pendergrass and Vettese have given us a wonderful gift that all leftists should debate and discuss. The book has an eclectic mix of influences, as the authors write:Half-Earth Socialism draws on ecology, energy studies, epidemiology, biogeography, Chilean cybernetics, history, eighteenth-century philosophy, Soviet mathematics, the socialist calculation debate, Hayekian epistemology, cutting-edge climate modelling, feminist sci-fi, and the forgotten tradition of utopian socialism.Vettese and Pendergrass have even designed a free computer game to go along with their book, in which YOU can attempt to plan the entire global economy, reducing emissions and the destruction of life while keeping the population happy. It's like SimCity but with the whole world, and instead of your task being to build a city it's to maintain a viable eco-socialist global government. GOOD LUCK!  

For this episode I spoke to Jaya Klara Brekke (@jayapapaya), an academic researcher on crypto and Head of Strategy at NYM who recently gave the keynote speech for the Haus Der Kunst DAO Summit.During the interview we spoke about her skepticism and cautious optimism she mentioned in the keynote speech, the contradictory feelings on the market as someone who was raised in traditional leftist spaces mentioned in her article in the Agorism in the 21st Century Journal, and  how many critics tend to fall short. We also discussed her paper on a new protagonist in the economy she calls "hacker-engineers" and how they are not as ideological as critics want to believe as well as her criticisms of Hayekian thought.More publications by JayaI saw the Blockchain at the End of The World, turned around, and walked backCryptoeconomicsDigital ScarcityIf you liked the podcast be sure to give it a review on your preferred podcast platform. If you find content like this important consider donating to my Patreon starting at just $3 per month. It takes quite a lot of my time and resources so any amount helps. Follow me on Twitter (@TBSocialist) and join the r/CryptoLeftists subreddit and Discord to join the discussion.Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/theblockchainsocialist)

How does self-interested action benefit the collective?   This is a question still discussed today in the tribalism of left-right political debate. On the one side, there are those who believe the good of the collective must supersede the interest of the individual and the two cannot coexist. Slogans such as ‘for the many not the few' and ‘for the common good' exemplify this.    An interesting question therefore arises from this crucial debate. Why do we care so much about the collective?  Is it as simple as left vs right, Marxism Vs Capitalism? Or is there a deeper understanding to this issue?  In this episode of the IEA Podcast, IEA Communications and Public Affairs Officer Kieran Neild-Ali sat down with Professor Daniel B Klein to discuss his article in the latest volume of the IEA's academic journal, Economic Affairs, on Hayekian theory of collectivist policies.   Daniel Klein is a Professor of Economics at George Mason University. He leads the Smithian Political Economy program at GMU Economics. He is the chief editor of Econ Journal Watch.  Subscribe to the IEA academic journal here: https://iea.org.uk/publications/economic-affairs-42-1/  

Global Policy Watch: Ud Jayega Bezos Akela*Bringing an Indian perspective to burning global issues- RSJHomo sapiens first went to space in 1961. 60 years later, a new species, decidedly less superior than Homo sapiens, has succeeded in going to space.Billionaires. Remarkable. So, what should we make of it?A Race To NowhereThere are three arguments against the space race among billionaires. And these arguments play into the wider debate about capitalism and inequality that’s roiling the developed world. I will take a stab at rearticulating them.To start with we have the old charge against capitalism of being self-obsessed, indifferent and out of touch with the reality of the world around them. In a time when a global pandemic has destroyed lives and livelihoods and the poor still don’t have access to vaccines, the spectacle of billionaires spending hundreds of millions on their toys isn’t appetising. Our moral intuition says it is wrong. Surely, it is their wealth and they have the freedom to pursue whatever they fancy. But that wealth could have more productive uses that make the world better. And it isn’t just a prayer to the goodness within the hearts of the billionaires that we need. There’s a right that the society has over some of that wealth they have accrued through dodging taxes (or at least not paying their fair share), keeping employee wages low and using sharp elbow tactics to monopolise the markets. Taking off into space during these times is like showing a giant middle finger to the rest of humanity. The second argument offered against the space fantasies of billionaires is that it will amount to nothing. The science of sending a shuttle to orbit the earth and come back is more than 60 years old. So, no new ground in science is being broken here. Also, any talk of space travel or living on Mars underestimates the difficulty of a person being in space for any amount of time. Sim Kern has a good piece on this in the Salon: “Around half a dozen astronauts live up there (International Space Station) at any given time, bouncing around a narrow tube with roommates they didn't choose and who can't properly bathe for months on end. The wifi is slow. The food is not Michelin starred, to say the least. Their sleeping situation is akin to a floating coffin. And pooping involves a complicated procedure in a port-o-potty where the door is a plastic curtain and everything floats.Astronauts' time is micromanaged by a team of experts on the ground. Unlike future space-tourists' imagined itineraries, much of their time is spent working on actual science, but a great deal is dedicated to mere survival as well. Space-dwellers must exercise at least two hours a day to keep their bones from turning to goo. They spend a ton of time studying systems and conducting repairs on equipment that frequently breaks because space wants to kill you.”That’s just orbiting the Earth. She also dashes any pipe dreams about colonising Mars:“And what about Musk's dream of a colony on Mars, or at least the Moon? Those are astronomically less feasible. The farther away from Earth you're trying to sustain life in space, the harder it gets. And while they have the benefit of gravity, the surface of the Moon and Mars are covered with a powdery regolith that gums up mechanisms. ….So despite Musk's lofty claims of making humanity "a multi-planetary species," that's way, way beyond the realm of current technical possibility. And his claim is especially absurd, considering that in order to generate the wealth that sustains billionaires like Musk, we're rapidly destroying the one planet we can live on — Earth.”  No matter how tough things get at Earth, it will still be infinitely more livable than Mars for a long, long time. It might be better to spend money to continue keeping Earth viable than to plan a human settlement on Mars.The whole thing does sound like a billionaire pissing contest.The third argument made is about how all great scientific and technological advancement is funded by the government using public money and then exploited for private benefits by venture funds, family offices and shrewd entrepreneurs. All in the name of enterprise and capitalism. This is another case where the heavy lifting is done by the state taxing everyone while the benefits are concentrated among the very few. Anand Giridharadas in his newsletter The Ink has a sarcastic take on this:“I have an idea for a reality show. It’s called “Billionaires Solve Problems the Government Solved a Long Time Ago and Then Explain How Much More Efficient They Are Than Government.” I may ask Richard Branson to produce. In the pilot episode, Elon Musk will “invent” something he calls the Digital Method of Verification. He will pioneer a whole system whereby people can take a driving test and receive a plastic card that I’m told Musk will refer to as a “license” and thus gain permission to drive on public roads.In the second episode, Jeff Bezos will “innovate” a new kind of bookstore that buys books but then gives them out to people for free, so long as those books are returned. He will fund it with some of the money he doesn’t pay in taxes. He will call it the Lending Interesting Books to Raise Aspirations for Reading Youths, or LIBRARY, program.”.. you get the drift. Good In Theory, Bad in PracticeI have limited sympathy for these arguments, compelling and strong on rhetoric though they may be. I will add here I find nothing heroic about Branson or Bezos going to space. It may not be as inane as them buying a yacht or a mansion. But it is close. My differences are on the principles used to criticise them. Let me start with the criticism about the timing of these missions. Is there any reason to believe had these space flights happened a year down the line, we wouldn’t have seen a similar criticism? The world is an unequal place as it has been for most of human history. There’s data to show it has become less unequal in the past two centuries. There’s a problem of judging any spending by billionaires by what else it could have achieved for society. Because why should this moral matrix stop at the billionaire? Surely someone spending money on an icecream could have used that money to buy food for the hungry. I could go on. Stretched to its absurd logic this argument would mean we should stop every ‘unnecessary’ spend till we have redistributed wealth to the extent that everyone in the world has food. But it won’t stop there. Because human wants increase. Once everyone has food, there will be some who will desire a house (or, maybe an iPhone?). And the same cycle of redistribution will start till everyone has a house or a phone. You can see where this is going.Any patterned distribution programme will never stop till everyone gets exactly what the other has. And that can never be achieved naturally. It will need state coercion. This is the lesson learnt from 20th-century history. Worse, like I have written in previous editions, anytime we arrive at the final equilibrium of a patterned distribution programme, the next transaction shatters it. This is natural. Human beings are all different and unique. They will have different time preferences (current vs future), risk appetites and utility functions for every transaction. To preserve some kind of fragile, equally distributed pattern in society will require every transaction to be approved by a central authority lest the pattern fails. This is the Hayekian road to serfdom. We must stay away from it. I also have a minor issue with the argument Kern makes that this doesn’t really take science further. To many of us, science seems to work in episodes of breakthrough advances. The reality is otherwise. There’s a gradual build-up of knowledge that leads to bigger questions and more fundamental inquiries. This is what’s needed in space science. Private space exploration has been real for the past two decades. There are networks of private satellites that track weather patterns, pollution, green cover depletion, nuclear proliferation in rogue states and help in navigation. Others are trying to provide broadband access to millions whom local telecom companies cannot serve. Manned space exploration hasn’t been a huge priority for national space programmes for a long time. Governments don’t have the capital and the end of the cold war reduced any further incentive for it. The billionaires might be in a pissing contest right now but there is a frontier here. And it needs to be explored. If private capital is happy doing it, we shouldn’t complain. There might be future entrepreneurs out there who might benefit from this democratisation of space. We might not yet know in which way. But the beauty of science is things don’t change in a linear fashion. The human capacity to challenge a new frontier and go beyond what’s imaginable is the basis for our civilisation. Lastly, I come to the sarcastic piece by Anand Giridharadas about billionaires only discovering now what the government has already done many years back. This is perhaps the most illogical of the arguments. But it appears to have a strong currency among the woke left. Let me make three counterarguments. One, barring the period between the end of WW2 and the early 80s, there isn’t a great state-sponsored track record of supporting innovation anywhere, anytime in history. And let’s be clear that the period of exception wasn’t because the state loved science and technology. It was the cold war that was driving its investment. The central idea, to put it simply, was to annihilate the human race. So to look back at that period with some sense of pride about the achievements of the state is delusional. We had pursued science for wrong ends and handed enormous powers to a few who controlled these weapons of mass destruction. That we didn’t end the world in that period is providence. God knows we tried. The billionaires today can use their enormous wealth and science in many ways detrimental to our race. That they don’t isn’t providence. They are interested in other things than modelling themselves on villains from the Bond franchise. Two, there is a market failure in basic science and research. Research has positive externalities and the likelihood of any kind of commercial success is low. There is a reason why it has to be supported through state funds, grants and philanthropy as it has happened over the ages. Beyond that, there’s enterprise and risk capital that’s needed to transform basic research into commercially viable products. These aren’t mutually exclusive. There’s no disconnect here. To keep harping on how all the basic research for, say, an mRNA Covid vaccine was done using government grant misses this point. Reading Walter Isaacson’s The Code Breaker you realise how important a patent is for those in basic science. There is love for science, for sure. But claiming intellectual property for future gains is as critical. And the road from a scientific breakthrough to a commercially viable product is arduous. Entrepreneurs aren’t just picking up ideas from the lab for free and turning into billionaires.Three, if state sponsorship, and not entrepreneurial flair (or greed), was the only thing needed for scientific innovation and commercial success, we should have seen tremendous breakthroughs coming from the erstwhile USSR, India, Cuba and Venezuela. But you know the score there. One of the features of the youth today is how much of history seems to be lost on them. The way the discourse is going we might just reinvent the French and the Russian revolutions all over. And pay for all the benefits and the consequences. There’s an air of inevitability to this happening. This was what Nietzsche probably meant when he spoke of eternal recurrence in human affairs. We are doomed to it. I will end this piece with the one argument I agree with against billionaires in space. There’s one use of the money spent that’s better than trying to make Mars livable. It is to continue making Earth more livable. It is the best home we can ever have. Hannah Arendt in her 1958 classic, The Human Condition, starts her prologue with the deep desire that humans have to escape the world the way it is to a world that we can create from scratch. Arendt starts off by describing the launch of the Sputnik, the first-ever satellite launched into space by us. She writes:The immediate reaction, expressed on the spur of the moment, was relief about the first “step toward escape from men’s imprisonment to the earth”. … Should the emancipation and secularisation of the modern age, which began with a turning away, not necessarily from God, but from a god who was the Father of men in heaven, end with an even more fateful repudiation of an Earth who was the Mother of all living creatures under the sky?” And her conclusion on this is what I can get behind:The earth is the very quintessence of the human condition, and earthly nature, for all we know, maybe unique in the universe in providing human beings with a habitat in which they can move and breathe without effort and without artifice. .. For some time now, a great many scientific endeavours have been directed towards making life also “artificial”, toward cutting the last tie through which even man belongs among the children of nature. It is the same desire to escape from imprisonment to the earth that is manifest in the attempt to create life in the test tube, in the desire to mix “frozen germ plasm from people of demonstrated ability under the microscope to produce superior human beings” and to “alter their size, shape and function”; and the wish to escape human condition, I suspect, also underlies the hope to extend man’s life-span far beyond the hundred-year limit. * Kumar Gandharv singing Kabir on the futility of it allIf the content in this newsletter interests you, consider taking up the Takshashila GCPP. The certificate course is customised for working professionals. Intake for the 30th cohort ends on 22nd August.This slide from the Fundamentals of Public Policy module, co-anchored by Pranay Kotasthane and Ameya Naik gives a good idea of what the course has to offer.PolicyWTF: Clipping our WingsThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneHave you tried booking domestic flights recently? If yes, the unreasonably high prices would have made you pause. It’s likely that you would’ve shrugged it off by blaming the government for raising taxes on fuel, and shelled out the money anyway. Well, you are partly correct. Indeed a government policyWTF underlies the high ticket prices but it’s not the one you think. I realised the reason while trying to book a flight ticket myself. I noticed a strange coincidence — not only were the prices high, but all airlines were also charging the exact same high price. A representative price chart is given below.Turns out, a few restrictions that the Ministry of Civil Aviation had imposed last year during the first wave, are still in place. And that explains this weird price chart.Specifically, the government has restricted airlines in not one but three different ways.One, it put a cap on the total capacity that airlines can deploy. Note, this doesn’t mean a restriction on the number of passengers in a flight but a restriction in terms of the total number of flights that an airline can operate. Two, it also put a ceiling on the ticket price depending on the sector and travel time. And three, it put a floor on the ticket price meaning that tickets couldn’t be sold below a particular price even if the airlines wished to do so. The stated intent for each of these measures was equally baffling. The capacity restriction is apparently to discourage discretionary travel, the price cap is to protect the consumer, and the price floor is to protect the financially weaker airlines.Let’s give this bizarre policy the Anticipating the Unintended treatment (edition #48). One of the most commonly observed effects of government intervention is that rent-seekers often distort government policies to serve their own interests. And that’s what seems to be the real reason behind these three-fold restrictions. The capacity restrictions and price floors appear to be a clientelistic policy to clip the wings of the largest player in the market. The end-loser in this game is the consumer — ticket prices of most airlines have conveniently settled to just below the price ceiling regardless of how early you book your tickets. Given the other challenges that less-fortunate Indians are facing today, this issue might seem trivial. Think again. These government interventions have created precedence for the government to intervene in the interests of “financially weaker” players, even if it comes at the expense of the consumer. This is what should worry us. The fact that these restrictions are in place sixteen months after the pandemic began indicates that the rent-seekers are already in the driving seat. Today, the government wants to protect weaker airlines; tomorrow it might extend its “protection” to other sectors, further harming consumers. Finally, the government’s primary responsibility should be to ensure that aeroplanes and airports don’t cause further spread of the virus. Mandating COVID-19 detection tests or fully vaccinated certificates might directly address this risk. Price bands and capacity caps serve no such purpose. The government should back off. #TWIL: A Boston Tea Party MythThis section looks at something new and striking we learnt over the week— Pranay Kotasthane It’s my ignorance that until this week I thought the Boston Tea Party protest was caused due to high taxes. Turns out, it was actually caused due to a tax cut! This is what I read in the book Rebellion, Rascals, and Revenue by two leading authorities on taxation, Joel Slemrod and Michael Keen. The reason is a bit convoluted. It involves India, smugglers, and of course, the East India Company. Here’s the story as I understand it. Starting in 1768, there was a nominal tax on imports (including tea) landing at American colonies. This tax was a statement of British suzerainty over the colonies rather than a means of revenue collection. Given the weak enforcement, almost 60 per cent of tea was smuggled, escaping this nominal tax levy. The tea itself was procured by the East India Company from China and auctioned in Britain, from where it found its way through legal and illegal means to the colonies. Apart from the import duty applied on reaching the colonies, a similar charge was applicable when the tea first landed in Britain. So far so good. The East India Company was raking in the profits while the colonies’ smugglers had their own party going on in parallel. Then came the Bengal Famine of 1769 which devastated the company-controlled revenue areas. Despite ample intimidation and coercion, the Company’s revenue collection wouldn’t improve. Given the importance of the Company to the British Empire, other ways had to be found to revive its fortunes. Someone found a novel way out — reduce the costs of the Company’s tea trade with the colonies. The British government refused to reduce the import levy on goods entering the colonies as it could be perceived as giving up a sovereign right over the colonies. Instead, the import levy on tea reaching Britain was refunded to the Company. Regardless, the net result was that the tea reaching the colonies became cheaper, threatening the fledgling smuggling business. With their margins undercut, they sought to contest this tax cut. These smugglers went on to play a major role in the protests that dumped chests of tea from vessels carrying the ‘tax-cut’ tea at Boston. Quite fascinating. As the authors remind in the book, taxes are seldom the first reason behind independence movements. But they often end up becoming the last straw, the immediate cause that sparks world-changing protest movements.A Framework a Week: Describing a State’s Policy on a Geopolitical IssueTools for thinking public policy— Pranay KotasthaneHow do we explain India’s position on the Israel-Palestine Issue? How to evaluate China’s actions in Afghanistan? These kinds of descriptive questions are quite common in geopolitical analysis. In order to structure the thinking about such questions, here’s a simple three-point framework.To evaluate a State A's policy on X issue:Ask what are A's interests in X issue? Identify strengths, weaknesses, risks and opportunities. To avoid a superficial rational-actor model analysis, also consider the stances of a few important interest groups within A.List the actions A has taken on X issue thus far.Ask how actions listed in #2 affect the interests outlined in #1? Have some actions exposed some weaknesses even as they opened up new opportunities? Have there been fallouts, unintended consequences?HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters[Video] Intelligence Squared Debate: “Should Billionaires Be Abolished?” For the motion: Linsey McGoey, Professor of Sociology and director of the Centre for Economic Sociology and Innovation at the University of Essex. Against the motion: Ryan Bourne, R. Evan Scharf Chair for the Public Understanding of Economics at Cato Institute [Audio] Economist and Nobel Laureate James Heckman of the University of Chicago talks about inequality and economic mobility with EconTalk host Russ Roberts.[Book] The Power to Tax: Analytical Foundations of a Fiscal Constitution is a classic work in Public Finance by Geoffrey Brennan and James M Buchanan. Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

https://youtu.be/y6Lc6xJIFno The process of Hayekian conversion assumes that everyone, or at least all intellectuals, are interested solely in the truth, and that economic self-interest never gets in the way. Anyone at all acquainted with intellectuals or academics should be disabused of this notion, and fast. Any libertarian strategy must recognize that intellectuals and opinion-molders are part of the fundamental problem, not just because of error, but because their own self-interest is tied into the ruling system. Murray N. Rothbard Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 39 Monica Perez is co-host of the Propaganda Report podcast. The Propaganda Report, episode 187: https://www.thepropreport.com/podcast-brainwashing-the-masses-how-marxist-organizers-have-conned-protesters-into-destroying-america/ LBRY / Odysee: https://odysee.com/@KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone:b/Top-10-Unabomber:8 BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/pBGgazoz6AYz/ Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/episode/31UyqEVLaNtN78Aet6OkO1 Archive: https://archive.org/details/Unabomber-Summary Minds: https://www.minds.com/newsfeed/1262301208369745920?referrer=KeithKnightDontTreadOnAnyone

Key Insights: “This time, for sure!…” Are the Democrats Bullwinkle Moose or Rocket J. Squirrel “that trick never works!” in hoping that they can get a high-investment high-productivity growth full-employment high-wage growth economy, and then the political life for true equality of opportunity will be doable?…Milton Friedman is of powerful historical importance as one of the principal creators of our still-neoliberal world, but his ideas now—whether monetarism, or his assumption that all political organizations and policies everywhere and always are inescably rent-seeking grifters—are now of historical interests only…There will be many future missteps in our search for the road to utopia…The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born, so now is a time of monsters…Noah should really listen to and read Jeet Heer…It would be silly not to recognize the political peril of this moment, but also not to recognize its democratic potential: pessimism of the intellect, yes; but also optimism with the internet…We are coquetting with the modes of expression of Antonio Gramsci today, aren’t we?Hexapodia!ReferencesDavid Beckworth (2010): Case Closed: Milton Friedman Would Have Supported QE2 Zach Carter:The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, & the Life of John Maynard Keynes Zach Carter:The End of Friedmanomics Brad DeLong (1999): The Triumph? of Monetarism Brad DeLong (2001): The Monetarist Counterrevolution Brad DeLong (2015): The Monetarist Mistake Brad DeLong (2019): “Passing the Baton”: The Twitter Rant Brad DeLong & Zack Beauchamp (2019): “Passing the Baton”: The Interview Brad DeLong (2019): “Passing the Baton”: The Interview: CommentBrad DeLong (2007): Right from the Start?: What Milton Friedman Can Teach Progressives Brad DeLong (2017): Helicopter Money: When Zero Just Isn’t Low Enough Milton Friedman (2000): Canada & Flexible Exchange Rates Milton Friedman & Rose Director Friedman: Free to Choose: A Personal StatementJohn Maynard Keynes (1919): The Economic Consequences of the PeaceJohn Maynard Keynes (1926): The End of Laissez-FaireJohn Maynard Keynes (1926): A Short View of RussiaJohn Maynard Keynes (1936): The General Theory of Employment, Interest & MoneyJohn Maynard Keynes (1931): An Economic Analysis of Unemployment Jay Ward & co.: The Rocky & Bullwinkle Show &, of course:Vernor Vinge: A Fire Upon the Deep Zach Carter:The End of Friedmanomics :When he arrived in South Africa on March 20, 1976, Milton Friedman was a bona fide celebrity…. Friedman was a bestselling author and no stranger to fine living. But he was astonished by both “the extraordinary affluence of the White community” and the “extraordinary inequality of wealth” in South Africa. Friedman was not a man to scold opulence, and yet he found the tension permeating apartheid South Africa palpable in both taxicabs and hotel ballrooms. The “hardboiled attitudes” of Mobil chairman Bill Beck and his friends were difficult for him to endure….All of which makes a contemporary reading of Friedman’s Cape Town lectures… harrowing.… His first speech was an unremitting diatribe against political democracy.… Voting, Friedman declared, was inescapably corrupt, a distorted “market” in which “special interests” inevitably dictated the course of public life. Most voters were “ill-informed.” Voting was a “highly weighted” process that created the illusion of social cooperation that whitewashed a reality of “coercion and force.” True democracy, Friedman insisted, was to be found not through the franchise, but the free market, where consumers could express their preferences with their unencumbered wallets. South Africa, he warned, should avoid the example of the United States, which since 1929 had allowed political democracy to steadily encroach on the domain of the “economic market,” resulting in “a drastic restriction in economic, personal, and political freedom.”…Friedman did not subscribe to biological theories of racial inferiority.… The program Friedman prescribed for apartheid South Africa in 1976 was essentially the same agenda he called for in America over his entire career as a public intellectual—unrestrained commerce as a cure-all for inequality and unrest.That this prescription found political purchase with the American right in the 1960s is not a surprise. Friedman’s opposition to state power during an era of liberal reform offered conservatives an intellectual justification to defend the old order. What remains remarkable is the extent to which the Democratic Party—Friedman’s lifelong political adversary—came to embrace core tenets of Friedmanism. When Friedman passed away in 2006, Larry Summers, who had advised Bill Clinton and would soon do the same for Barack Obama, acknowledged the success of Friedman’s attack on the very legitimacy of public power within his own party. “Any honest Democrat will admit that we are now all Friedmanites,” he declared in The New York Times.No longer. In the early months of his presidency, Joe Biden has pursued policy ambitions unseen from American leaders since the 1960s. If implemented, the agenda he described in an April 28 address to Congress would transform the country—slashing poverty, assuaging inequality, reviving the infrastructure that supports daily economic life, and relieving the financial strains that childcare and medical care put on families everywhere. It will cost a lot of money, and so far at least, Biden isn’t letting the price tag intimidate him. “I want to change the paradigm,” he repeated three times at a press conference in March…Zach Carter:The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, & the Life of John Maynard Keynes :The school of thought that has come to be associated with the name of Keynes no longer has much to do with the moral and political ideals Keynes himself prized. Keynesianism in this broader sense was for a time synonymous with liberal internationalism—the idea that shrewd, humane economic management could protect democracies from the siren songs of authoritarian demagogues and spread peace and prosperity around the globe….The key to realizing that international vision was domestic economic policy making. International political stability would be achieved—or at least encouraged—by alleviating domestic economic inequality. State spending on public works and public health could be combined with redistributive taxation to boost consumer demand, while establishing an environment in which great art could thrive. In his maturity, Keynes offered radicals a deal: They could realize the cultural and moral aims of liberationist revolution—a more equal society and a democratically accountable political leadership—while avoiding the risks and tragedies inherent to violent conflict. He claimed that the social order established by nineteenth-century imperialism and nineteenth-century capitalism was not so rigid that it could not be reformed rather than overthrown.After nearly a century on trial, this Keynesianism has not embarrassed itself, but neither has it been vindicated. The New Deal, the Beveridge Plan, and the Great Society fundamentally reordered British and American life, making both societies more equal, more democratic, and more prosperous. In the 1930s, black poverty in the United States was so high that nobody bothered to measure it. By the 1950s, it was over 50 percent. Today it is about 20 percent. This is progress. But it is decidedly not the world promised by the Communist Party in the 1930s, when it denounced Franklin Delano Roosevelt as a tool of the business elite. It cannot compete with the dreams of liberation presented by Black Power revolutionaries of the 1960s….Keynesians can persuasively argue that today’s tragedies are the product of a failure to fully implement Keynesian ideas rather than a failure of Keynesian policies…. For the past thirty-five years, the United States and Great Britain have mixed Keynesian disaster management—bailouts and stimulus programs—with the aristocratic deregulatory agenda of Hayekian neoliberalism.It is appropriate for neoliberalism to take most of the blame for the political upheavals of the twenty-first century. The neoliberal faith in the power of financial markets bequeathed us the financial crisis of 2008, and the fallout from that disaster has fueled dozens of hateful movements around the world. While the American commitment to Keynesian stimulus after the crash was inconstant, Keynesian ideas were simply abandoned throughout most of Europe…. The economic ruin… has energized neofascist political parties, which now threaten the political establishment…. But pointing the finger at neoliberalism raises uncomfortable questions for Keynes and his defenders. Why has Keynesianism proven to be so politically weak, even among ostensibly liberal political parties and nations? The Keynesian bargain of peace, equality, and prosperity ought to be irresistible in a democracy. It has instead been fleeting and fragile. Keynes believed that democracies slipped into tyranny when they were denied economic sustenance. Why, then, have so many democracies elected to deny themselves economic sustenance?…This is a dark time for democracy—a statement that would have been unthinkable to U.S. and European leaders only a few short years ago. It took decades of mismanagement and unlearning to manufacture this global crisis, and it cannot be undone with a few new laws or elections.Mainstream economists now speak openly of moving “beyond neoliberalism”…. Keynesianism in this purest, simplest form is not so much a school of economic thought as a spirit of radical optimism, unjustified by most of human history and extremely difficult to conjure up precisely when it is most needed: during the depths of a depression or amid the fevers of war. Yet such optimism is a vital and necessary element of everyday life…. A better future was not beyond our control if the different peoples of the world worked together.… “Were the Seven Wonders of the world built by Thrift?” he asked readers of A Treatise on Money. “I deem it doubtful.”… In the long run, almost anything is possible.(Remember: You can subscribe to this… weblog-like newsletter… here: There’s a free email list. There’s a paid-subscription list with (at the moment, only a few) extras too.) Get full access to Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality at braddelong.substack.com/subscribe

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 331. This is my appearance on Phil Gibson's podcast A Boy Named Pseu. Youtube video: From Phil's shownotes: Stephan Kinsella is an attorney and libertarian writer. We discuss: Libertarianism Patents Trademarks Intellectual Property Economics [See Knowledge vs. Calculation] Bitcoin and then some…

Austrian economics offers a wide range of knowledge and applications for better business performance. One of them is the design of high-value organizations (see Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF). Austrians understand the function of entrepreneurial businesses in the economy is to pursue and generate new economic value. That value is subjective, experienced by individuals as an improvement in their feelings of well-being. We also understand that subjective value applies not only to consumers but also to producers, including employees in firms whose purpose is value facilitation. To fully realize the skills and talents of their employees in the pursuit of the organization's visions and goals, entrepreneurial businesses look for the best ways to empower employees to utilize their Hayekian individual knowledge for the innovation and adaptation that leads to marketplace success. Dr. Desmond Ng uses the term Entrepreneurial Empowerment to describe this approach to designing an organization that best unleashes the creativity of its entrepreneurial employees. Austrian economics is particularly suited to addressing the organizational challenges faced by today's entrepreneurial firms. Businesses understand that they need to be more responsive to customers and the market. Firms are moving from a top down decision-making structure and searching for ways to move to a more decentralized firm structure. They are aiming to take advantage of all the different knowledge experiences that may be inside the firm, to be more adaptive to changing market environments and to acknowledge the importance of empowering employees. Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek fully recognized the benefits of decentralization in adapting to changing market processes. Today, Austrians can apply that same understanding at the firm level, in the pursuit of unleashing the subjective experiences and individual knowledge of each employee to greatest economic effect. The organizational design tool to achieve maximum decentralized value generation is Entrepreneurial Empowerment (EE) A firm that organizes using Entrepreneurial Empowerment focuses at the leadership level on clearly defining the ends of the company (which can be packaged in the form of vision or mission or goals or objectives) and on ensuring that internal communications are strong enough and effective enough to ensure complete and fully distributed understanding and buy-in among the employee base. The means for each individual to contribute to the achievement of these ends are left open to employees; they are not dictated or bound with managerial or administrative constraints. Leadership in an entrepreneurially empowered firm is non-interventionist, free of the strictures of central planning. EE has two components: the first is structural empowerment (SE). The structural empowerment element of EE refers to the communication structure that delivers employee empowerment. Se informs them about their opportunities for taking action and making decisions, and provides support for them to utilize their own knowledge in doing so. Professor Ng used the example of design firm IDEO, which provides a fully-available repository of all the firms designs and ideas from all its engineers and teams, along with information about how past teams tackled the solutions to design problems, with what outcomes. Designers on today's teams can utilize this shared knowledge, learn from the pooled experiences, and enjoy the freedom of embarking on new design paths by combining their own knowledge and skills with the corporate knowledge repository. Structural empowerment also requires a policy to regard failure as an acceptable part of the innovation process, in order to foster greater risk-taking behavior among employees, and a greater willingness to experiment with new and unproven ideas. SE is a process that leaders and managers must actively and persistently support. The danger is that leaders may succumb to the temptations of power and control, and to seek to centralize their authority. This can be fatal to entrepreneurial empowerment and negate all its benefits. The second core component is psychological empowerment (PE). Employees perform best, innovate best and contribute the most creativity when they enjoy psychic rewards from their work. One important aspect of psychic reward is the search for and successful achievement of meaning and purpose. Research is clear that these high values are found in work when it is conducted in an environment that encourages their development. Professor Ng used Chick-Fil-A as an example where, because the company subscribes to a set of values, employees in what might appear to observers as the simplest and most repetitive service and production jobs can find meaning in their work. The result is unrivaled customer service ratings. Psychological empowerment comes from leadership conveying a set of principles. Monetary incentives, rewards and the awarding of titles can not match psychological empowerment in effectiveness for motivating employees. The Austrian perspective delivers some quite revolutionary policies and approaches for organizational design. Rethinking the concept of leadership. In recent years, business schools have commanded a lot of attention by marketing and selling leadership studies, with products ranging from executive education to books and online courses. However, Austrian economics suggests skepticism about the underlying concept of leadership in business. Firstly, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment are the antithesis of business school style leadership — they suggest non-leadership, letting go of control, and abandoning hierarchy. Secondly, as Professor Ng pointed out, the centralized authority suggested by business school style leadership tends to lead to the corruption of seizing power and control, clouding the ethical considerations that are at the heart of entrepreneurship, and undermining the trust of employees lower down the hierarchy. The results can be both a loss of legitimacy for the bosses and a loss of business performance for the firm. The Austrian perspective on organizational design and management can lead us to a higher performing firm, a more innovative firm, a firm that facilitates purpose and meaning for those individuals who work there, and trust and legitimacy for founders and executives. Additional Resources "Entrepreneurial Empowerment" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF Professor Ng's Research Paper Entrepreneurial Empowerment: "You Are Only as Good as Your Employees" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_Paper

Austrian economics offers a wide range of knowledge and applications for better business performance. One of them is the design of high-value organizations (see Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF). Austrians understand the function of entrepreneurial businesses in the economy is to pursue and generate new economic value. That value is subjective, experienced by individuals as an improvement in their feelings of well-being. We also understand that subjective value applies not only to consumers but also to producers, including employees in firms whose purpose is value facilitation. To fully realize the skills and talents of their employees in the pursuit of the organization's visions and goals, entrepreneurial businesses look for the best ways to empower employees to utilize their Hayekian individual knowledge for the innovation and adaptation that leads to marketplace success. Dr. Desmond Ng uses the term Entrepreneurial Empowerment to describe this approach to designing an organization that best unleashes the creativity of its entrepreneurial employees. Austrian economics is particularly suited to addressing the organizational challenges faced by today's entrepreneurial firms. Businesses understand that they need to be more responsive to customers and the market. Firms are moving from a top down decision-making structure and searching for ways to move to a more decentralized firm structure. They are aiming to take advantage of all the different knowledge experiences that may be inside the firm, to be more adaptive to changing market environments and to acknowledge the importance of empowering employees. Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek fully recognized the benefits of decentralization in adapting to changing market processes. Today, Austrians can apply that same understanding at the firm level, in the pursuit of unleashing the subjective experiences and individual knowledge of each employee to greatest economic effect. The organizational design tool to achieve maximum decentralized value generation is Entrepreneurial Empowerment (EE) A firm that organizes using Entrepreneurial Empowerment focuses at the leadership level on clearly defining the ends of the company (which can be packaged in the form of vision or mission or goals or objectives) and on ensuring that internal communications are strong enough and effective enough to ensure complete and fully distributed understanding and buy-in among the employee base. The means for each individual to contribute to the achievement of these ends are left open to employees; they are not dictated or bound with managerial or administrative constraints. Leadership in an entrepreneurially empowered firm is non-interventionist, free of the strictures of central planning. EE has two components: the first is structural empowerment (SE). The structural empowerment element of EE refers to the communication structure that delivers employee empowerment. Se informs them about their opportunities for taking action and making decisions, and provides support for them to utilize their own knowledge in doing so. Professor Ng used the example of design firm IDEO, which provides a fully-available repository of all the firms designs and ideas from all its engineers and teams, along with information about how past teams tackled the solutions to design problems, with what outcomes. Designers on today's teams can utilize this shared knowledge, learn from the pooled experiences, and enjoy the freedom of embarking on new design paths by combining their own knowledge and skills with the corporate knowledge repository. Structural empowerment also requires a policy to regard failure as an acceptable part of the innovation process, in order to foster greater risk-taking behavior among employees, and a greater willingness to experiment with new and unproven ideas. SE is a process that leaders and managers must actively and persistently support. The danger is that leaders may succumb to the temptations of power and control, and to seek to centralize their authority. This can be fatal to entrepreneurial empowerment and negate all its benefits. The second core component is psychological empowerment (PE). Employees perform best, innovate best and contribute the most creativity when they enjoy psychic rewards from their work. One important aspect of psychic reward is the search for and successful achievement of meaning and purpose. Research is clear that these high values are found in work when it is conducted in an environment that encourages their development. Professor Ng used Chick-Fil-A as an example where, because the company subscribes to a set of values, employees in what might appear to observers as the simplest and most repetitive service and production jobs can find meaning in their work. The result is unrivaled customer service ratings. Psychological empowerment comes from leadership conveying a set of principles. Monetary incentives, rewards and the awarding of titles can not match psychological empowerment in effectiveness for motivating employees. The Austrian perspective delivers some quite revolutionary policies and approaches for organizational design. Rethinking the concept of leadership. In recent years, business schools have commanded a lot of attention by marketing and selling leadership studies, with products ranging from executive education to books and online courses. However, Austrian economics suggests skepticism about the underlying concept of leadership in business. Firstly, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment are the antithesis of business school style leadership — they suggest non-leadership, letting go of control, and abandoning hierarchy. Secondly, as Professor Ng pointed out, the centralized authority suggested by business school style leadership tends to lead to the corruption of seizing power and control, clouding the ethical considerations that are at the heart of entrepreneurship, and undermining the trust of employees lower down the hierarchy. The results can be both a loss of legitimacy for the bosses and a loss of business performance for the firm. The Austrian perspective on organizational design and management can lead us to a higher performing firm, a more innovative firm, a firm that facilitates purpose and meaning for those individuals who work there, and trust and legitimacy for founders and executives. Additional Resources "Entrepreneurial Empowerment" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF Professor Ng's Research Paper Entrepreneurial Empowerment: "You Are Only as Good as Your Employees" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_Paper

Austrian economics offers a wide range of knowledge and applications for better business performance. One of them is the design of high-value organizations (see Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF). Austrians understand the function of entrepreneurial businesses in the economy is to pursue and generate new economic value. That value is subjective, experienced by individuals as an improvement in their feelings of well-being. We also understand that subjective value applies not only to consumers but also to producers, including employees in firms whose purpose is value facilitation. To fully realize the skills and talents of their employees in the pursuit of the organization's visions and goals, entrepreneurial businesses look for the best ways to empower employees to utilize their Hayekian individual knowledge for the innovation and adaptation that leads to marketplace success. Dr. Desmond Ng uses the term Entrepreneurial Empowerment to describe this approach to designing an organization that best unleashes the creativity of its entrepreneurial employees. Austrian economics is particularly suited to addressing the organizational challenges faced by today's entrepreneurial firms. Businesses understand that they need to be more responsive to customers and the market. Firms are moving from a top down decision-making structure and searching for ways to move to a more decentralized firm structure. They are aiming to take advantage of all the different knowledge experiences that may be inside the firm, to be more adaptive to changing market environments and to acknowledge the importance of empowering employees. Austrian economists like Friedrich Hayek fully recognized the benefits of decentralization in adapting to changing market processes. Today, Austrians can apply that same understanding at the firm level, in the pursuit of unleashing the subjective experiences and individual knowledge of each employee to greatest economic effect. The organizational design tool to achieve maximum decentralized value generation is Entrepreneurial Empowerment (EE) A firm that organizes using Entrepreneurial Empowerment focuses at the leadership level on clearly defining the ends of the company (which can be packaged in the form of vision or mission or goals or objectives) and on ensuring that internal communications are strong enough and effective enough to ensure complete and fully distributed understanding and buy-in among the employee base. The means for each individual to contribute to the achievement of these ends are left open to employees; they are not dictated or bound with managerial or administrative constraints. Leadership in an entrepreneurially empowered firm is non-interventionist, free of the strictures of central planning. EE has two components: the first is structural empowerment (SE). The structural empowerment element of EE refers to the communication structure that delivers employee empowerment. Se informs them about their opportunities for taking action and making decisions, and provides support for them to utilize their own knowledge in doing so. Professor Ng used the example of design firm IDEO, which provides a fully-available repository of all the firms designs and ideas from all its engineers and teams, along with information about how past teams tackled the solutions to design problems, with what outcomes. Designers on today's teams can utilize this shared knowledge, learn from the pooled experiences, and enjoy the freedom of embarking on new design paths by combining their own knowledge and skills with the corporate knowledge repository. Structural empowerment also requires a policy to regard failure as an acceptable part of the innovation process, in order to foster greater risk-taking behavior among employees, and a greater willingness to experiment with new and unproven ideas. SE is a process that leaders and managers must actively and persistently support. The danger is that leaders may succumb to the temptations of power and control, and to seek to centralize their authority. This can be fatal to entrepreneurial empowerment and negate all its benefits. The second core component is psychological empowerment (PE). Employees perform best, innovate best and contribute the most creativity when they enjoy psychic rewards from their work. One important aspect of psychic reward is the search for and successful achievement of meaning and purpose. Research is clear that these high values are found in work when it is conducted in an environment that encourages their development. Professor Ng used Chick-Fil-A as an example where, because the company subscribes to a set of values, employees in what might appear to observers as the simplest and most repetitive service and production jobs can find meaning in their work. The result is unrivaled customer service ratings. Psychological empowerment comes from leadership conveying a set of principles. Monetary incentives, rewards and the awarding of titles can not match psychological empowerment in effectiveness for motivating employees. The Austrian perspective delivers some quite revolutionary policies and approaches for organizational design. Rethinking the concept of leadership. In recent years, business schools have commanded a lot of attention by marketing and selling leadership studies, with products ranging from executive education to books and online courses. However, Austrian economics suggests skepticism about the underlying concept of leadership in business. Firstly, structural empowerment and psychological empowerment are the antithesis of business school style leadership — they suggest non-leadership, letting go of control, and abandoning hierarchy. Secondly, as Professor Ng pointed out, the centralized authority suggested by business school style leadership tends to lead to the corruption of seizing power and control, clouding the ethical considerations that are at the heart of entrepreneurship, and undermining the trust of employees lower down the hierarchy. The results can be both a loss of legitimacy for the bosses and a loss of business performance for the firm. The Austrian perspective on organizational design and management can lead us to a higher performing firm, a more innovative firm, a firm that facilitates purpose and meaning for those individuals who work there, and trust and legitimacy for founders and executives. Additional Resources "Entrepreneurial Empowerment" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_PDF Professor Ng's Research Paper Entrepreneurial Empowerment: "You Are Only as Good as Your Employees" (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_109_Paper

In a 2019 article, Bob quoted Mises who believed that new gold discoveries, in principle, could cause a (small) boom-bust cycle if the gold hit the loan market before other sectors. Walter Block and Bill Barnett have responded in a new article, arguing that in a free market, new commodity money can't cause such distortions. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The https://youtu.be/69o9lCN00DM (YouTube version) of this interview. Bob's https://mises.org/library/more-quibbles-problems-theory-and-history-fractional-reserve-free-banking (2019 QJAE) article, which https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347126527_Newly_Discovered_Gold_Does_Not_Distort_the_Economy_It_Is_Not_A_Market_Failure (Block & Barnett (2020)) criticizes. https://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2021/02/block-barnett-vs.-murphy-mises.html (Bob's blog post) explaining why Block & Barnett (2020) misunderstands his argument in his 2019 QJAE paper. https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/episodes/ep-67-walter-block-and-william-barnett-on-problems-with-hayekian-triangle/ (Bob Murphy Show ep. 67), in which Block and Barnett explained their problems with the Hayekian triangle. Rothbard's classic essays on https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1 (utility & welfare economics) and the https://mises.org/library/law-property-rights-and-air-pollution (legal treatment of air pollution). Block and Barnett's paper on the https://mises.org/library/optimum-quantity-money (optimal quantity of money). One entry in Block and Barnett's https://www.procesosdemercado.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/2017_02_articulo2.pdf (debate over maturity mismatching); it contains references to the earlier volleys for the interested reader. http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute (Help support) the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by http://podsworth.com/ (Podsworth Media).

Thanks to international supply chains, Scott Lincicome’s Five Timer gold jacket is in the mail today as he joins Jonah to discuss a whole panoply of economic trends. Scott and Jonah talk about some of his observations from his posts as a fellow Dispatch-er with his Capitolism newsletter, as well as through his role at Cato where he has just put out a ton of research refuting the too-clever-by-half idea that the government can seize the manufacturing industry for national security reasons. The guys also discuss how COVID has essentially reversed the consumer side of the American economy. (“The pandemic has temporarily converted us into a country that buys goods instead of services”), and they even manage to get in some Hayek (peace be upon him).   Show Notes: -“Five Timers Club” -Scott’s newsletter, Capitolism -Democrats trying to push through $15 minimum wage -Tom Sowell on the minimum wage -More from Less by Andrew McAfee -Scott’s latest for Cato -Scott’s take on the ‘deindustrialization’ myth -A rundown on the National Technology Industrial Base -U.S. ventilator overproduction -Sherrod Brown’s “Buy American” push to the Biden administration -Jonah: Thank globalism for COVID response, not nationalism -Jonah, microcosms, and macrocosms -Invisible Wealth by Nick Schulz and Arnold Kling See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Researchers into entrepreneurship have a powerful incentive to identify new insights about how businesses grow and thrive. Happily for everyone involved in business and innovation, entrepreneurial research is thriving, blossoming, and flourishing. Professor Vishal Gupta's book, Great Minds In Entrepreneurship Research, surveys thirty or more years of research papers that were awarded what is colloquially known as the Nobel Prize in Entrepreneurship Research (formally known as the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research: GAER). The research field is deep, rich, dynamic and expanding. Research identifies and examines entrepreneurship in every business size and type as a fundamental economic activity. In its earliest days, entrepreneurship research focused a lot on small business but, today, business size and stage are not the constraints. The research identifies entrepreneurship in corporations, non-profits, and many more business sectors. Much of the research focus is on entrepreneurial contribution — to growth, to job creation, to innovation, to progress. Entrepreneurship is identified as the great economic contributor to betterment and well-being, measured via GDP growth in countries large and small, the creation of new and better jobs for people worldwide, new innovations and new business directions, and individual progress in general. As Mises stated, entrepreneurship is the driving force of the market system. New entry, properly understood, is one way to characterize entrepreneurship. The search for a single characteristic of entrepreneurship risks missing critical insights. However, one that garners broad support is “new entry” — entering new markets, entering existing markets with new value propositions, entering established product fields with new innovations, or entering into existing customer mindsets with new ideas. Economic productivity is another. A rich vein of entrepreneurship research has measured the efficiency that entrepreneurs bring to the use of resources — producing more with less. For example, research has measured innovation efficiency as the number of innovations per employee, and has found that smaller, more nimble firms are far more efficient on this metric than big corporations, even if the latter launch more new products in total (and generate more PR). The research has uncovered a new type of firm and business model, and new business ratios that result. NTBF is the acronym for New Technology Based Firms, those that innovate with new business models and new ways to facilitate service experience via dematerialized delivery. One of the results of these new models is new sets of business ratios — for example, revenue per employees which, with software based companies on the internet, can now reach never-before realized levels. This evolution has forced researchers to re-think some of their models. For example, the biologically-derived product life cycle (PLC) model of business maturity — birth, life and death — has to be revised because dematerialized companies can easily be re-born, even after near-death experiences. Think Apple — the founder died and, at one time, it was thought that the company might, but it was reborn. Research opens up entirely new ways to think about business. New research fields such as complex adaptive systems (or complex creative systems as Professor Todd Chiles prefers to call them) represent a new way to think about business — focusing less on individual firms and more on the value networks and service systems of which they are a part. New ways of evaluating business potential are also emerging from research. Professor Gupta discussed characteristics of firms such as knowledge absorption and absorptive capacity. Extending the Hayekian concept of distributed specialized knowledge, researchers have identified the ability to quickly absorb and apply new knowledge as a critical capacity of successful adaptive firms, and have shed light on many of the internal constraints this absorptive capacity. Research recognizes the role of entrepreneurial imagination and subjectivity, although it doesn't always get it right. Austrian economics highlights subjectivity and views entrepreneurial opportunity as a subjective phenomenon, based in the imagination of the entrepreneur. Not all entrepreneurship researchers have been able to become comfortable with this idea, continuing to see opportunity as objectively identifiable. Austrians seem to be in the ascendancy on this controversy. Importantly, entrepreneurship research is becoming interdisciplinary. Systems thinking requires an interdisciplinary approach. Researchers in sociology, psychology, finance and even anthropology are examining entrepreneurship via their own research lenses. This development can only help the advance of entrepreneurship across a broad front of society and culture, as well as economics. Additional Resources "What Entrepreneurship Is (and Isn't)” (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_96_PDF Download our eBook, Austrian Economics in Contemporary Business Applications, featuring a chapter from Vishal (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_eBook

Researchers into entrepreneurship have a powerful incentive to identify new insights about how businesses grow and thrive. Happily for everyone involved in business and innovation, entrepreneurial research is thriving, blossoming, and flourishing. Professor Vishal Gupta's book, Great Minds In Entrepreneurship Research, surveys thirty or more years of research papers that were awarded what is colloquially known as the Nobel Prize in Entrepreneurship Research (formally known as the Global Award for Entrepreneurship Research: GAER). The research field is deep, rich, dynamic and expanding. Research identifies and examines entrepreneurship in every business size and type as a fundamental economic activity. In its earliest days, entrepreneurship research focused a lot on small business but, today, business size and stage are not the constraints. The research identifies entrepreneurship in corporations, non-profits, and many more business sectors. Much of the research focus is on entrepreneurial contribution — to growth, to job creation, to innovation, to progress. Entrepreneurship is identified as the great economic contributor to betterment and well-being, measured via GDP growth in countries large and small, the creation of new and better jobs for people worldwide, new innovations and new business directions, and individual progress in general. As Mises stated, entrepreneurship is the driving force of the market system. New entry, properly understood, is one way to characterize entrepreneurship. The search for a single characteristic of entrepreneurship risks missing critical insights. However, one that garners broad support is “new entry” — entering new markets, entering existing markets with new value propositions, entering established product fields with new innovations, or entering into existing customer mindsets with new ideas. Economic productivity is another. A rich vein of entrepreneurship research has measured the efficiency that entrepreneurs bring to the use of resources — producing more with less. For example, research has measured innovation efficiency as the number of innovations per employee, and has found that smaller, more nimble firms are far more efficient on this metric than big corporations, even if the latter launch more new products in total (and generate more PR). The research has uncovered a new type of firm and business model, and new business ratios that result. NTBF is the acronym for New Technology Based Firms, those that innovate with new business models and new ways to facilitate service experience via dematerialized delivery. One of the results of these new models is new sets of business ratios — for example, revenue per employees which, with software based companies on the internet, can now reach never-before realized levels. This evolution has forced researchers to re-think some of their models. For example, the biologically-derived product life cycle (PLC) model of business maturity — birth, life and death — has to be revised because dematerialized companies can easily be re-born, even after near-death experiences. Think Apple — the founder died and, at one time, it was thought that the company might, but it was reborn. Research opens up entirely new ways to think about business. New research fields such as complex adaptive systems (or complex creative systems as Professor Todd Chiles prefers to call them) represent a new way to think about business — focusing less on individual firms and more on the value networks and service systems of which they are a part. New ways of evaluating business potential are also emerging from research. Professor Gupta discussed characteristics of firms such as knowledge absorption and absorptive capacity. Extending the Hayekian concept of distributed specialized knowledge, researchers have identified the ability to quickly absorb and apply new knowledge as a critical capacity of successful adaptive firms, and have shed light on many of the internal constraints this absorptive capacity. Research recognizes the role of entrepreneurial imagination and subjectivity, although it doesn't always get it right. Austrian economics highlights subjectivity and views entrepreneurial opportunity as a subjective phenomenon, based in the imagination of the entrepreneur. Not all entrepreneurship researchers have been able to become comfortable with this idea, continuing to see opportunity as objectively identifiable. Austrians seem to be in the ascendancy on this controversy. Importantly, entrepreneurship research is becoming interdisciplinary. Systems thinking requires an interdisciplinary approach. Researchers in sociology, psychology, finance and even anthropology are examining entrepreneurship via their own research lenses. This development can only help the advance of entrepreneurship across a broad front of society and culture, as well as economics. Additional Resources "What Entrepreneurship Is (and Isn't)” (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_96_PDF Download our eBook, Austrian Economics in Contemporary Business Applications, featuring a chapter from Vishal (PDF): Mises.org/E4B_eBook

#16 - Radu Nechita - argumentul lui FA Hayek, anti-socialist, al cunoaşterii dispersate Conf. dr. Radu Nechita predă economia la UBB Cluj. Discutam despre rolul preturilor in interactiunile complexe din societate. Web : indodii.ro Youtube : youtube.com/c/InDodiiRo Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Podcast : Indodii Patreon : patreon.com/indodii

In many situations, the complexities in managing a diverse and layered team of people are to view individuals as ends and not means. Management and organizational frameworks often treat people as means. The business ends are external: so-called shareholder value, or stakeholder value, which is fashionable today, or simply revenue and unit sales goals, or metrics and KPIs. Managers are taught to look at people through an economic lens as resources ― human resources ― in the same way as material resources and financial resources, to be utilized as efficiently as possible. But people are not means. They are subjects, and they have subjective ends of their own. They're searching for identity, meaning, and trying to meet their own potential. If managers recognize this, their approach to people as team members and employees will be much different. Individuals need to be able to tell their own story in their own space. We work for money but we live for the story. The most important story is the one we tell about ourselves and our values. People need opportunities to tell their story. Everyone at every level in an organization and in every type of role or job needs this opportunity. To do so, they need their own space in which to create and embellish their story, a space that is unique to them and gives them a fine-grained perspective of which they are masters, and for which others will prize them. David Hurst gave the example of Costco, where the in-store personnel have space to use their own discretion to serve customers. If a customer (a guest, in Costco parlance) requires assistance in locating an item, a Costco associate will stop whatever they are doing and escort the guest all the way to the shelf location. They have their own space and their own discretion to design and deliver a unique level of service, and a story they can tell about their customer commitment. This becomes a culture that pervades the entire company. FedEx has similar spaces, and similar stories about individual employees going to extraordinary lengths to make sure packages are delivered on time. One way to create these spaces is to give everyone intelligence-gathering roles. David Hurst tells the story of delivery truck drivers in the steel fabrication business. He treated them with deference for their ability to gather real-time intelligence: which competitors had trucks in the customer's yard; what concerns were customer employees talking about; which customers were friendly and which ones adversarial? These frontline employees are able to gather and feedback market intelligence that was faster, deeper, more local, and more detailed than traditional reports. It's small data, often much more valuable than big data. And the employees can tell their stories about their intelligence gathering and their important role in company processes, from their unique space. The word in management usage now is fine-grained. The front line has a fine-grained perspective and fine-grained intelligence. This fine grain is highly valuable, especially when shared in collaborative teams and structures where everyone knows their role, which is not tied to hierarchy. Hierarchy and structure create a cascade of negative effects for the people in them. As companies grow and become larger, they require internal specializations and experts in narrow, technical fields. Specialization brings hierarchy, where general managers can supervise those in specialized roles. Hierarchy leads to careerism and status when employees are not collaborating with each other, but competing. The result is what David calls a power trap. The firm becomes trapped on the right-hand side of his "Management in a Field of Tensions: model. [[{"fid":"93076","view_mode":"image_no_caption","fields":{"format":"image_no_caption","alignment":"center","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_caption_text[und][0][value]":"","field_image_file_link[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"image_no_caption","alignment":"center","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_caption_text[und][0][value]":"","field_image_file_link[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"alt":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","class":"media-element file-image-no-caption media-wysiwyg-align-center","data-delta":"1"}}]] The tension for management lies in a continuous pull of the “hard, scientific” side of the model, away from the humanistic side. Austrians lean towards the left-hand side of David's model: humanistic, treating people as ends, respecting narrative more than data. For example, the exercise of judgment under uncertainty, so central to the Austrian paradigm of the entrepreneurially-driven economic system, lies on the left-hand side of the model. It's practical, grounded wisdom, when entrepreneurs make decisions when they don't have all the data. (And the Hayekian insight is that no-one ever has all the data.) They glean what they can from the individual observations of people involved in the situation at hand (small data), and then decide, knowing that the consequences are uncertain, and that they will need to be adaptive to change in the future. The right-hand side of the model represents the pull of so-called science: hard data, mathematical calculation, plans, and administrative bureaucracy. Smaller, private, more entrepreneurial companies can often avoid the right-hand side of the model. Smaller and privately held companies have many advantages. They tend to be more frugal in good times and bad, and act carefully with cash, thus retaining flexibility in difficult markets. They have a high bar for capital expenditures and make fewer malinvestment decisions. They often try to avoid carrying too much debt, so that bankers don't have power over them. And, importantly, they are often better at retaining talent and keeping experience inside the firm. They can avoid the careerism of competing for status in the hierarchy, and just let people become better and better at their jobs. On the left-hand side of the model, as David describes, it's all about people. Additional Resources "Lead Like a Gardener! ― Agile and Design Thinking Will Become Management Fads Unless We Expand Our Concept of Management": Mises.org/E4E_88_Article The New Ecology of Leadership: Business Mastery in a Chaotic World by David Hurst: Mises.org/E4E_88_Book.

In many situations, the complexities in managing a diverse and layered team of people are to view individuals as ends and not means. Management and organizational frameworks often treat people as means. The business ends are external: so-called shareholder value, or stakeholder value, which is fashionable today, or simply revenue and unit sales goals, or metrics and KPIs. Managers are taught to look at people through an economic lens as resources ― human resources ― in the same way as material resources and financial resources, to be utilized as efficiently as possible. But people are not means. They are subjects, and they have subjective ends of their own. They're searching for identity, meaning, and trying to meet their own potential. If managers recognize this, their approach to people as team members and employees will be much different. Individuals need to be able to tell their own story in their own space. We work for money but we live for the story. The most important story is the one we tell about ourselves and our values. People need opportunities to tell their story. Everyone at every level in an organization and in every type of role or job needs this opportunity. To do so, they need their own space in which to create and embellish their story, a space that is unique to them and gives them a fine-grained perspective of which they are masters, and for which others will prize them. David Hurst gave the example of Costco, where the in-store personnel have space to use their own discretion to serve customers. If a customer (a guest, in Costco parlance) requires assistance in locating an item, a Costco associate will stop whatever they are doing and escort the guest all the way to the shelf location. They have their own space and their own discretion to design and deliver a unique level of service, and a story they can tell about their customer commitment. This becomes a culture that pervades the entire company. FedEx has similar spaces, and similar stories about individual employees going to extraordinary lengths to make sure packages are delivered on time. One way to create these spaces is to give everyone intelligence-gathering roles. David Hurst tells the story of delivery truck drivers in the steel fabrication business. He treated them with deference for their ability to gather real-time intelligence: which competitors had trucks in the customer's yard; what concerns were customer employees talking about; which customers were friendly and which ones adversarial? These frontline employees are able to gather and feedback market intelligence that was faster, deeper, more local, and more detailed than traditional reports. It's small data, often much more valuable than big data. And the employees can tell their stories about their intelligence gathering and their important role in company processes, from their unique space. The word in management usage now is fine-grained. The front line has a fine-grained perspective and fine-grained intelligence. This fine grain is highly valuable, especially when shared in collaborative teams and structures where everyone knows their role, which is not tied to hierarchy. Hierarchy and structure create a cascade of negative effects for the people in them. As companies grow and become larger, they require internal specializations and experts in narrow, technical fields. Specialization brings hierarchy, where general managers can supervise those in specialized roles. Hierarchy leads to careerism and status when employees are not collaborating with each other, but competing. The result is what David calls a power trap. The firm becomes trapped on the right-hand side of his "Management in a Field of Tensions: model. [[{"fid":"93076","view_mode":"image_no_caption","fields":{"format":"image_no_caption","alignment":"center","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_caption_text[und][0][value]":"","field_image_file_link[und][0][value]":""},"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"image_no_caption","alignment":"center","field_file_image_alt_text[und][0][value]":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","field_file_image_title_text[und][0][value]":false,"field_caption_text[und][0][value]":"","field_image_file_link[und][0][value]":""}},"attributes":{"alt":""Management in a Field of Tensions" Model","class":"media-element file-image-no-caption media-wysiwyg-align-center","data-delta":"1"}}]] The tension for management lies in a continuous pull of the “hard, scientific” side of the model, away from the humanistic side. Austrians lean towards the left-hand side of David's model: humanistic, treating people as ends, respecting narrative more than data. For example, the exercise of judgment under uncertainty, so central to the Austrian paradigm of the entrepreneurially-driven economic system, lies on the left-hand side of the model. It's practical, grounded wisdom, when entrepreneurs make decisions when they don't have all the data. (And the Hayekian insight is that no-one ever has all the data.) They glean what they can from the individual observations of people involved in the situation at hand (small data), and then decide, knowing that the consequences are uncertain, and that they will need to be adaptive to change in the future. The right-hand side of the model represents the pull of so-called science: hard data, mathematical calculation, plans, and administrative bureaucracy. Smaller, private, more entrepreneurial companies can often avoid the right-hand side of the model. Smaller and privately held companies have many advantages. They tend to be more frugal in good times and bad, and act carefully with cash, thus retaining flexibility in difficult markets. They have a high bar for capital expenditures and make fewer malinvestment decisions. They often try to avoid carrying too much debt, so that bankers don't have power over them. And, importantly, they are often better at retaining talent and keeping experience inside the firm. They can avoid the careerism of competing for status in the hierarchy, and just let people become better and better at their jobs. On the left-hand side of the model, as David describes, it's all about people. Additional Resources "Lead Like a Gardener! ― Agile and Design Thinking Will Become Management Fads Unless We Expand Our Concept of Management": Mises.org/E4E_88_Article The New Ecology of Leadership: Business Mastery in a Chaotic World by David Hurst: Mises.org/E4E_88_Book.

Key Takeaways And Actionable Insights Dr. Keith Smith, co-founder of The Free Market Medical Association (FMMA.org), is an entrepreneur and free market warrior who is undaunted by the seeming scale of his innovation task: to bring to healthcare the kind of customer experience only entrepreneurial free markets can deliver (see "Pillars of the Free Market Medical Association" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_81_PDF). He is laser-focused on the problem to solve. The aim is to bring buyers and sellers together. As Dr. Smith explains, simply stating that there is a need to bring buyers and sellers together is an indication of dysfunction in the market for healthcare. Buyers and sellers talking directly with each other is what makes a market: willing buyer, willing seller, mutually agreed price. Buyers are patients who care what healthcare costs. Today, they have sticker shock. Buyers who care about price can be direct-buying individuals, and their proxy buyers, who can include self-funded employer health benefits systems, more and more of which are emerging. Innovations like Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible insurance policies are bringing more direct buying into the market. Willing sellers should be complete and comprehensive advocates for the patient, across the whole range of their needs, including financial aspects. The targeted customer experience is for patients to feel confident when they visit a doctor that they have an unapologetic advocate. Today, physicians are medical advocates, but to be a more complete advocate, physicians must think and act like entrepreneurs, bearing some risk in serving their patients. Many say, “I don't want anything to do with the business side or the money side of medicine.” By doing so, they are abandoning their patients to the financial wolves, many of whom are willing to step in and make a living off the patient. It's not so much willful neglect of the patient's interests, as simply caving in to a system that has become extremely difficult to navigate. A problem in healthcare is the dominant presence of intermediaries between the buyer and the seller. Dr. Smith described the wide range of intermediaries, cartels and proxies that get in the way of a direct, transparent and mutually beneficial relationship between buyer and seller. Insurance companies are “money handlers and money changers”, keeping healthcare prices high, so they can offer false discounts and skim off the difference. There are brokers and consultants to employers, whom Dr. Smith calls “self-dealing”, who add a layer of costs. There is Big Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry that largely funds the FDA, making it inevitable that the regulator will protect the pharmaceutical companies and their business model and their pricing. In the end, the “ultimate culprit” is the Federal Government. None of the financial abuse of the patient would be possible “without Uncle Sam riding shotgun for all of this thievery”. A solution lies in decentralization, disintermediation and the application of Hayekian knowledge theory. Dr. Smith alluded to F.A. Hayek's concept of dispersed tacit knowledge in describing the FMMA's decentralized approach. The Free Market Medical Association establishes local chapters, who follow a small number of “pillars” regarding price and value and mutually beneficial exchange, including equal pricing to all cash buyers of the same service. The chapters are completely free to respond to customer preferences in their own local market. These chapters create new knowledge based on their transactions and experiences in their local market, and can share it with all other chapters. Austrian principles of decentralization, free exchange without intermediaries, and the recognition of the value-creating dispersed knowledge of patients and entrepreneur-practitioners are Dr. Smith's starting point. Additional Resources "Pillars of the Free Market Medical Association" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_81_PDF The Free Market Medical Association's annual conference, "Mission Possible: Healthcare Entrepreneurship as the Antidote to the Broken Healthcare System": Mises.org/E4E_81_FMMA

Key Takeaways And Actionable Insights Dr. Keith Smith, co-founder of The Free Market Medical Association (FMMA.org), is an entrepreneur and free market warrior who is undaunted by the seeming scale of his innovation task: to bring to healthcare the kind of customer experience only entrepreneurial free markets can deliver (see "Pillars of the Free Market Medical Association" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_81_PDF). He is laser-focused on the problem to solve. The aim is to bring buyers and sellers together. As Dr. Smith explains, simply stating that there is a need to bring buyers and sellers together is an indication of dysfunction in the market for healthcare. Buyers and sellers talking directly with each other is what makes a market: willing buyer, willing seller, mutually agreed price. Buyers are patients who care what healthcare costs. Today, they have sticker shock. Buyers who care about price can be direct-buying individuals, and their proxy buyers, who can include self-funded employer health benefits systems, more and more of which are emerging. Innovations like Health Savings Accounts and high-deductible insurance policies are bringing more direct buying into the market. Willing sellers should be complete and comprehensive advocates for the patient, across the whole range of their needs, including financial aspects. The targeted customer experience is for patients to feel confident when they visit a doctor that they have an unapologetic advocate. Today, physicians are medical advocates, but to be a more complete advocate, physicians must think and act like entrepreneurs, bearing some risk in serving their patients. Many say, “I don't want anything to do with the business side or the money side of medicine.” By doing so, they are abandoning their patients to the financial wolves, many of whom are willing to step in and make a living off the patient. It's not so much willful neglect of the patient's interests, as simply caving in to a system that has become extremely difficult to navigate. A problem in healthcare is the dominant presence of intermediaries between the buyer and the seller. Dr. Smith described the wide range of intermediaries, cartels and proxies that get in the way of a direct, transparent and mutually beneficial relationship between buyer and seller. Insurance companies are “money handlers and money changers”, keeping healthcare prices high, so they can offer false discounts and skim off the difference. There are brokers and consultants to employers, whom Dr. Smith calls “self-dealing”, who add a layer of costs. There is Big Pharma, the pharmaceutical industry that largely funds the FDA, making it inevitable that the regulator will protect the pharmaceutical companies and their business model and their pricing. In the end, the “ultimate culprit” is the Federal Government. None of the financial abuse of the patient would be possible “without Uncle Sam riding shotgun for all of this thievery”. A solution lies in decentralization, disintermediation and the application of Hayekian knowledge theory. Dr. Smith alluded to F.A. Hayek's concept of dispersed tacit knowledge in describing the FMMA's decentralized approach. The Free Market Medical Association establishes local chapters, who follow a small number of “pillars” regarding price and value and mutually beneficial exchange, including equal pricing to all cash buyers of the same service. The chapters are completely free to respond to customer preferences in their own local market. These chapters create new knowledge based on their transactions and experiences in their local market, and can share it with all other chapters. Austrian principles of decentralization, free exchange without intermediaries, and the recognition of the value-creating dispersed knowledge of patients and entrepreneur-practitioners are Dr. Smith's starting point. Additional Resources "Pillars of the Free Market Medical Association" (PDF): Mises.org/E4E_81_PDF The Free Market Medical Association's annual conference, "Mission Possible: Healthcare Entrepreneurship as the Antidote to the Broken Healthcare System": Mises.org/E4E_81_FMMA

I had an excellent conversation with Samo Burja of Bismark Analysis. Samo is one of the most original thinkers I have encountered in the last two years, and it was great to have him share some of his ideas here. You can follow him on Twitter, read his writing, or watch his videos on Youtube. Here is Samo on Botswana and political stability - and how Rome handled the "succession problem". The manuscript of Samo's book is here. You can find us on most podcast platforms as "Ideas Untrapped".TRANSCRIPTTobi: Welcome to Ideas Untrapped and today I am with Samo Burja. Samo is a sociologist and he is the founder and president of Bismarck Analysis, a consulting firm. Samo is also an original thinker who has come up with his own theory of history that he called the Great Founder Theory. Welcome, Samo.Samo: Thank you, Tobi. It's a pleasure to be on the show.Tobi: Briefly please, explain the Great Founder Theory. You call it the Theory of History, can you explain it, in the most simplest form, for us.Samo: Well, everyone has a theory of history. There are some people who believe that history is driven by technology, that technology is the most important thing that changes the world. There are others who think that it is the great people - the generals and individuals and scientists and artists. And still, others think it's driven by economic forces like capitalism and so on. So, everyone has opinions on it. Many historians have arguments on it. Many economists have arguments on it, and political scientists. Great Founders Theory which is my theory proposes that history is driven by the exceptional individuals who make the institutions that we all rely on - the founders of states, the founders of exceptional companies, the founders of religions, the prophets or the statesman or the industrialists of history - and that were you to remove someone from history where there to not be that particular individual, that exceptional and unusual individual, history could have gone very very differently. And also it's not just a way to interpret history it's a way to predict the future because it means that instead of necessarily looking at just the economic fundamentals or just the technological fundamentals of a country, you might actually want to look at: well, is there anyone in the country that might be a founder of new institutions? Because I think that be it a state, a company, or an organised religion, over time as you move away from their founding, these institutions can become corrupt or dysfunctional. So even if a country seems to be doing extremely well, if it doesn't have this type of person around who might rebuild the institutions or build them anew, 50 years from now, 100 years from now, 200 years from now, it will do worse. And a country that at first might not seem promising, might suddenly, like, shift to become the centre of the world if it had enough of such people.Tobi: I found your theory on Great Founders interesting. One is that the conventional wisdom, if I can call it that, on thinking about institutions is not vested in people. There is a common saying that "oh, it's about the institutions and not the people", that's how you build enduring systems that can be fair, that can be just, that can order society. So, now, I think the fear...or in places like Africa where there is a long history of coups and bad leaders, how does [the] Great Founder Theory differ from the Great Man Theory of history?Samo: Yeah, it's an important distinction to make, because not every powerful person is a great founder in this sense. They are often people who appropriate or merely direct institutions and organisations that others created. And then at times, if they tried to create an institution, they might not be very good at it. So the big distinction that I would make is that the individuals who can be exceptional - this kind of, like, far-sighted social engineers, I think they are extremely rare. I think they are not just rare in African history, they were in European history and in Asian history but, over time the fruits of their labour accumulate. An example in SouthEast Asia I think would be Lee Kuan Yew. I think that he was an excellent founder of the city-state of Singapore, which was previously a British colony and developed it extremely well. I think in Africa there are some leaders who are definitely worthy of administration, I think that I wrote an article on Botswana for Palladium Magazine where I examined the origin of Botswanan stability and how the royal family of the country actually made extremely good decisions as to how to approach decolonialisation (sic) and so on. And then Paul... I think Paul Kagame deserves, despite his critics and his critics do have a point that he is very much authoritarian in a way, I think he's done a remarkably good job of both developing Rwanda and healing the deep social wounds that the Rwandan genocide caused in the 1990s. And I can certainly relate to that because the 1990s was also the period where - you know, I'm originally from Slovenia, it's a country in the former Yugoslavia - that country was also torn apart, right? So this kind of, like, tearing apart of societies, I think that can be done by almost anyone. The building together of societies, the re-creation of them, the healing of them, the transformation of them, that is very very rare. So I think that that would be the big distinction.Tobi: Yeah. One issue that you've written extensively about is succession, and...Samo: Uh-hmm.Tobi: This is a very important problem with institutions and leaders and founders as well. Two examples: you talked about Kagame...Samo: Hmm hmm.Tobi: I've always found Kagame interesting because Rwanda seems to be in an equilibrium where Kagame does not really trust anybody as a successor, so that's why he's been in power for so long. Some of his speeches, some of the analysis that comes from...[trails off]. It seems like he sees himself as probably the only credible custodian of that healing process, from that horrible experience; and also in Nigeria here we had a very good example when we transitioned to democracy in 1999 and we had a president who had a particularly good second term in office. There were economic reforms, and there was growth. There was some form of shared prosperity in the society and he wanted a third term because he could not trust anybody, even within a system that he built or that was built around him. So explain to us - how important is the succession problem and how do civilizations and societies that have managed that problem really well, how did they do it?Samo: It's an extremely difficult problem, and I think solving the succession problem probably distinguishes the most successful societies or the most long-lived ones from, like, the ones that struggle. In particular, I think that it has two parts: there is skill succession and there is power succession. Where skills succession means that the next person in a position has comparable skills and knowledge and ability to carry out an office. If say, hypothetically, in ancient times, a wise king is succeeded by a foolish son, right? The song can easily undo what the father had done, they can easily endanger the society. On the other hand, you might have a situation where there is a failure of power succession where, for example, there is a wise ruler but there is another wise individual who could come into power but doesn't really have the resources to reach for that position, even if the formal position still exists, it might be encumbered or disabled. There is such a thing as a powerless president. For example, today in Afghanistan, the president of Afghanistan is best understood as the mayor of Kabul. The power of this government does not extend beyond the capital city itself, with the outline regions still - 19 years after the US invasion, they're still basically governed by the Taliban or are directly governed by, like, basically US military forces. So in that case, the power just is not there to govern the space. Now, with regard to the trust between people, the trust has to be justified on a number of grounds. The very interesting thing here is if you consider [that] it's best to have a loyal competent person work with you and work for you and eventually when you have to go, as all people do, either because of old age or because of term limits or because you want to do something else with the remainder of your life, that person is the best person to hand it off to. It is, ironically, sometimes better to have someone who is loyal but incompetent than to have someone who is disloyal and incompetent, at least when it comes to politics. So, in an interesting way, as you point out, Kagame has difficulty finding someone or trusting someone. He has this fear of political opponents and I think this fear is locally rational but ideally, it would be best for society as a whole to have a higher level of trust. There are societies that have transitioned in history from lower to higher trust setups. One example I like to bring up is in the ancient Roman empire, there was a period of the so-called Five Good Emperors. One of these is Marcus Aurelius who is very famous for his stoic philosophy.Tobi: Yeah.Samo: The Roman empire was in a period of crisis then, so this is not when it was most powerful. This was when it was engaged in civil wars where generals would fight each other and direct their armies against each other to try to win in these wars and become emperor. And the solution was very interesting, perhaps a little bit a matter of happenstance, perhaps a little bit a matter of design. The Romans had this institution of adoption where you can declare someone your son and you adopt them as your son even if the person was already an adult. So there was this interesting political trick that was only possible because everyone so firmly respected [not only] family but simultaneously also this kind of strange idiosyncratic practice of adoption where you spiritually make someone your son even if they are not biologically your son. Not all societies have this, only a few societies practice this in human history. So because adoption was [a] widely spread practice, when a Roman emperor who was old would declare a general his son, the idea of killing your son will just make you so unfit to rule that whoever was adopted as the Emperor's son understood that they were most certainly safe.And on the other hand, they also understood that it's no longer in their interest to undermine the works of the previous emperor or raise themselves in rebellion because all they have to do is support the current emperor and then they get to their turn afterwards. I note for example that Botswana has a very good string of presidents where each president was the vice-president of the previous one and the vice-presidents are carefully selected for this kind of skill and partially also their friendship with the Botswana royal family, so this has helped them to avoid a lot of the troubles of other resource-rich countries. So that would be a different example than the Roman example. And a third example of a way this can be done is the Japanese practice of Moko Yoshi which is the practice of - in Japan, again there is a strong emphasis on family and there is a strong emphasis, however, also on honour and on company performance. And they well understand sometimes that your son might not always be...first of, you might not have a son, but secondly, your son might not always be the most talented at business. So the practice of Moko Yoshi is called son-in-law adoption - it means that for a wealthy industrialist or entrepreneur, they will try to find for their daughter a husband who has business sense and then the daughter marries the man with business sense but the daughter doesn't take her husband's name. Rather the husband takes this prestigious name and some of Japan's biggest companies in their past had made use of this. I think Toyota was an example and I think a few other of their household name companies. This allowed it so that the next CEO of the company, the next head of the company had reason to trust this person because this person is their son-in-law and not only their son-in-law, [but] because the Japanese put so much on to the owner of the family name, this person would be interested in supporting it and supporting the original vision of the company. So this is another way you can produce this kind of trust. These are the three interesting examples - one is through marriage, another one was through adoption, and another one was through this long period of cooperation where you have someone that is your right-hand man, that you work with for 5 or 10 years, you are the president, they are the vice-president, and you sometimes would do interesting things where I think the succession went like this ...I mean I have to possibly check my notes on this but they [Botswana] also had some aspects of this familial bond that can overcome this distrust where, you know, basically president Festus Mogae served as Quett Masire's vice-president but then...Tobi: Yeah.Samo: President Ian Khama who was the son of Seretse Khama who was the first president to try to lead this effort to leave the British empire and achieve independence. So he didn't put Ian Khama directly in charge, no, he rather put Quett Masire and this gave this opportunity that, you know... if Ian was not the best selection, you could have just gone with his vice-president but instead there was still this opportunity to rely on the family connection at the end of the day because someone who was like a close family friend, it would feel difficult for them to move against the son of someone else who was once their close friend and someone who had raised them up to the position of president. So, again, the relationship had to be developed before the country became independent in an interesting way, right? This initial friendship, because then the stakes are lower. So I would say that testing and building close ties before you are in the position of power might actually be the best way to get relationships you can rely on even after you are in power. This was a long answer and relatively involved, but I hope it laid out some of these mechanisms well enough.Tobi: Listening to that bit, I'm wondering does not democratic ideals or what we have come to define as democratic ideal not conflict with these succession strategies that you laid out. I mean I'll give you an example.Samo: Uh-hmm.Tobi: In party politics, for example, in Nigeria, politicians practice some kind of what you would call the "adoption system" but in social discourse, in political discourse, we have labelled it as "God Fatherism" and it is fundamentally perceived as unfair - that whatever comes out of that process does not represent the consensus of the people and so there's an instinctive reaction negatively...Samo: Yes.Tobi: To that. So does democracy conflict with succession in a way, the way you look at history?Samo: I think that democracy is very interesting. I will describe democracy as something that can deeply undermine trust or can deepen trust immensely. And it kind of depends [on] how well-functioning the society is in the first place. So I would say that in a well-functioning democracy, you might have people who compete and in public criticize constructively their opponents and proposed better plans for the good of the country. Yet then, when the president is elected or when the party is elected, the two parties or the two candidates who are rivals still trust the other side to adhere to [the] rule of law and believe that at this point, now that the election is over, the best course for everyone is to work together towards a better country and then you repeat this process every 4 years or 8 years or 10 years...so this is, I think, democracy at its best - where it allows you to express constructive criticism, advancement, the public good on the basis of the social fabric of already well-developed political relations, where there is a sense of shared interest among all the citizens of the country. Now, where it works the worst...I'm going to now reference back the example of the introduction of democracy in my own country Yugoslavia (I was born in Yugoslavia, I was a kid when it broke apart in the 1990s). The best way for Slobodan Milosevic who was a Serbian to win elections was to stoke the sort of resentment and anger of the Serbians that, to be honest... some real problems...there was a real conflict between Albanians and Serbians in the province, of course. But this immediately made it so that Slovenians, Croatians, Albanians, and others felt increasingly uncomfortable, they didn't want to live in a country that was completely dominated by Serbian elites in Belgrade. Before 1980, there was essentially, like, a dictatorial system where Tito was in charge. From 1980 to 1990, there was this tentative federal balance that was non-democratic, so there was this balance of power between the various wings of the Communist party, and then this balance of power was shattered by the introduction of democracy. So what I'll say here is - democracy is extremely powerful...it's a very powerful way to transform the balance of power of a society and put to the test the trust that already exist in a society or does not. So I would say that what is popularly understood as a democratic ideal which is that democracy itself will bring about higher trust, I think this is false. It is however true that high trust, high maturity, and high sense of, like, shared destiny and responsibility among a people, and among the elites of a people of a country, that this can allow democracy to express very very good government. And in fact, if you think about it, in a well-functioning democracy, the selection process should work better than, say, in a monarchy. Again, the hypothetical example of a monarchy that's hereditary, you know... the first son inherits or the kingdom is split between all the sons of the king. These were the two methods of inheritance in the ancient Middle East or Europe in medieval times.Either one of those systems is kind of a throw of the dice. It's sure that the successor will be loyal, at best, if they're good son but they might not be competent, and in a well-functioning democracy and a high trust system, you should, in theory, have this. But I think it's a very delicate machine, I think it relies on [the] rule of law, and it relies on elites that feel that there is [a] common ground. So even though it's a democracy and there is a will of the people, even in democracies some people are more powerful than others. I think this is a fact. If you look at modern... any western country you want to look at, some people are wealthier, some people are more powerful, some people are more influential, some people have more sway over the public's opinions, some people are charismatic - whether it's America or Canada or Germany or any of the Asian democracies such as South Korea or Japan, it works this way. The elites still matter. I think that in this sense, the best way to implement a democratic system is to first create this sense of shared purpose and shared destiny in a people, and to balance the interests of all the groups that live in the country. And I think here I would reference the work of Machiavelli who wrote in one of his books, I think it was on the Discourses on Livy - he said that the constitution of a country, be it a monarchy, a republic or a democracy is always the work of a single man, the single individual. I don't think that's quite true. I think it's usually a small group of people, organised around an individual, like say, America's founding fathers were... but I think it says something very real. I think democracy has difficulty producing the preconditions for its own success.The question is, do you want to be friends and do you support the entrepreneurial young man that doesn't have much money to his name? - SBTobi: That's interesting. That sort of leads me to my next question.Samo: Uh-hmm.Tobi: Are there deep roots element to having a great founder? And here is what I mean: from research in cultural evolution, I think from the works of Joe Henrich and co., societies are classified as either low trust or high trust...Samo: Hmm.Tobi: And we know that high trust societies (they) tend to handle some of these problems like (we've talked about) succession really well. So are there cultural or biologically intrinsic elements to societies that managed to invent credible institutions or produce great founders, at least, more than other rival civilizations?Samo: Well, there is an interesting question of what exactly is producing great founders, right? I don't think I really know the answer to that, I believe that an openness to exceptional skill is very worthwhile. So a society that values the great scientist or the great artist or perhaps be kinder to the great religious and spiritual leader or the wise and thoughtful political leader or the very productive and industrious economic leader, and importantly it will be open to what these people look like before they are successful. Like, everyone wants to be friends with Rockefeller when Rockefeller is already rich. The question is, do you want to be friends and do you support the entrepreneurial young man that doesn't have much money to his name?Tobi: Uh uh.Samo: I think this kindness to what the beginner's stage looks like because if you imagine someone that can go on this trajectory to shape a society - to, like, notably improve it - this person is going to be saying some very strange things when they're young. They are not going to be doing whatever everyone else is doing. His parents might be like "well, you should become a lawyer or a doctor" and instead this person has this seemingly crazy dream that just later on in life turns out not to be crazy. They might still, as part of this dream, receive a lawyer's education. But instead of, say, going to a law firm, they might create either a political party or they might start lobbying for the change of a particular law that enables a particular kind of business or city government or they might run for an office or they might spend 10 years reading books and being a scholar for some reason that's very difficult to explain to others. So there has to be in a society, I think, a desire for excellence, some tolerance for eccentricity or at least the harmless kinds of eccentricity and an encouragement or at least... it cannot be too focused on trying to stamp out creative. Now, ironically, I think some very high trust societies will actually suffer some long-term problems because they have this philosophy where, you know... you hammer the nail that stands out. I think in say modern Denmark or Scandinavia and perhaps also in modern Japan. It's actually extremely difficult to be someone that does something different. Partially because things seem to be working pretty well - there is a healthcare system, the streets are clean, the economy has been stable, everyone's been rich for as long as they can remember - so why are you being a troublemaker and saying you do everything different from everyone else? Who are you to think that you are special or that you know better?So this actually, I think, in the long run, might make Japan, again, and Denmark fragile. And I think this is an advantage to say, some other rich countries such as the US and over time more and more China [which] actually still retain this possibility of being contrarian, not in your words necessarily. It's not respect for necessarily people who are disrespectful to society at large or loud (though certainly such people that can succeed in the United States), it is more [of] a tolerance for a very different way to approach your career and intellectual and economical life. And then I'll add some more components to this - so I had this drive for excellence, this tolerance for eccentricity, the tolerance for the beginner to choose a different life path than other talented young men and women might choose. I think the availability of local traditions of knowledge is immensely important. Where, by traditions of knowledge, I mean the possibility of finding mentors who themselves are exceptionally skilled or exceptionally successful or exceptionally insightful.Historically, there were some universities that played this role and they didn't necessarily play this role through "well, you know, the students and the students are taught by the teachers", it's more as... if you went in medieval, times in England to Oxford, it was just a place where all the smartest scholars of Europe had gathered or say the Cervon in France. And whether or not you were a student of the university, if you could travel there, you could talk to them and you could write with them and you could listen to them. The availability of this knowledge immensely sped up progress and similar things can be said of Florence in the Renaissance. Florence is a city in Italy renowned for its great art. If you were a sculpture or a painter, your craft - your art - will progress much much faster if you could go to Florence and ideally apprentice yourself to someone. But even if you couldn't apprentice yourself, merely walking through the streets of Florence - they had the practice of having these workshops that were open to the street, you could actually just literally see what people are up to and what kind of stuff is produced. And it had this, again, this culture of critique where they would have high standards, so they would examine critically what artists are making and compare it to each other and they were quite direct and open about it much as Italians sometimes are even till today - they are quite disagreeable. So I think this availability of other experts, people who perhaps themselves are not great founders but have quite great mastery in things like rhetoric or law or human organisation or technology or understanding of the country and its issues. The availability of such people can greatly aid great founders. So this perhaps is just kind of the preconditions for this and I'm happy to comment on any specific countries or regions but each of those is like quite involved things... so...Tobi: Let's talk about China. Samo: Perfect. Perfect.Tobi: Interesting article, by the way, yesterday. I read it. Packed with so much insight. And of course, China, in the last decade, has been the most important economic partner to most African economies, so whatever happens in China, the extension of its global power reaches every corner of the African economy.Samo: Uh-hmm.Tobi: You talked about Deng Xiaoping and how he managed to handle the succession problem and Xi who is currently torn between keeping the fire of Marxism burning or watch it die out with modernism and all. How big a threat is the internal political contradictions that China face right now? How big a threat is it globally?Samo: Well, I think that China is facing an immense challenge, I'm very glad that you enjoyed the article. The article in Asia Times outlines my position which is that they did an immensely good job of resolving the contradiction of how to have economic growth with a Marxist ideology. But the problem is they do need the Marxist ideology to keep their political system together. So the succession problem there is driven not just by this difficulty with Marxism where it can always be interpreted in this way that actually shuts down capitalism and economic production - where if the successors of Xi don't take it seriously enough, they have no political principle with which to maintain power and perhaps this could be replaced by something like a democracy but I think that's not trivial at all. It might very easily shatter the country apart as it had numerous times in its long history. China has this long history of dividing into smaller fighting countries and then reuniting. These dynastic cycles have happened several times in the twentieth century. They had terrible civil wars at the start of the 20th century. So it's very risky to undermine the political structure of the country, it's very risky. And then on the other hand, if you take the Marxism too seriously, especially if you take the Maoism too seriously, you might end up destroying this engine of economic growth because then how can you have in a communist society billionaire's, which China obviously does, right, Jack Ma and so on. I think that civil society enables a civilization robustness. Hyper centralised systems can seem very efficient but they can be very fragile. As soon as the centre fails, everything fails. - SBThe succession problem has an even more fundamental issue where while Chinese industry allows for exceptional and strange individuals, like a lot of the billionaires are somewhat eccentric, their academic system does not. Their scientific progress is much slower and the students are very very good students but they don't pursue bold research and a lot of the members of the Chinese Communist Party go through the somewhat academic selection process. And then there is another selection process of "well, which party member advances within the Communist Party of China?" Well, it's the one that doesn't rock the boat. It's the one that's, you know, quiet and agrees with the policy and supports the policy. And in an important way, of course, you can have someone like Xi who he is very reserved in speech, very obedient, plays by the rules and when they come into power they pursue their bold plans they had all along or they acquire and grow into [the] office and become bolder. But for the most part, this is just going to be "yes men" and Xi is the last member of the generation that saw the possible failure of the Communist system. He saw the failure of it in his youth when his family and he himself were targeted by the Chinese red guards during the so-called Cultural Revolution. For a few years, he spent his childhood exiled in the countryside feeding pigs, and that probably stuck in his memory. He understands how despite, I'm sure Xi is... I’m sure he believes in Marxism but he understands this failure part of it and then later in his life he saw the collapse of the Soviet Union. We have to understand that for the Chinese, the Soviet Union in the 1980s was kind of the elder brother, just as in the 1990s Eastern Europeans might admire the wealth and development of Western Europeans. So in the 1960s and 70s, Chinese communists both admired and envied the global power and the technological development of the Soviet Union. So seeing the Soviet Union collapse was this big shock for the communist part of the world, only a few communist countries stayed communist after the fall of the Soviet Union - North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and China and that's basically about it. All of the African and European countries that had experimented with socialism basically abandoned it, it was no longer a viable system. Xi saw this again as a young man, and already on his career...so in a way, he saw both of the failures in [indistinct word].Tobi: Hmm.Samo: He is going to be in power for a while more and I don't think anyone who is of a younger generation has that sort of experiences. All they have is the experience of maneuvering in a Communist Party, ruling an already fairly developed China. So their intuitions and knowledge of what does failure look like for political system or how do unwise decisions come about? it's going to be in a way much impoverished. So I think there is a knowledge transmission problem here. I think power succession works fine because the Communist Party has such control over the country but knowledge succession is a big problem for them and they have a lot of difficulty solving it.Tobi: Somehow I wonder whether these are not (maybe they are, maybe they are not) symptoms of increasing prosperity. One very important point you made in that essay was how much order is necessary to create and maintain a market system. I think a lot of people underestimate that. We all like to believe in this Hayekian vision of an emergent market. So...Samo: Like an idealized market set of rules where people exchange goods and they, sort of, discover what's...together they discover what's the best economic outcomes through the price system and so on.Tobi: Yeah, yeah...I mean, we've been taught to believe that. So when I look at China, people like Ang Yuen Yuen have said that Deng Xiaoping reforms were based on having a decentralized approach to policy and here you have Xi, again, who is so centralised in his approach to economic management. But if you look at cosmopolitan cities like Shenzhen and every other metropolis in China that have seen incredible prosperity in the last 40 to 50 years, isn't the current tension a necessity? That is, when people make more money, when they become more successful, they demand more rights. They become less obedient, they become less conformist, what do you think of that?Samo: I think that there is a strong set of prerequisites in terms of enforcing these relatively strong rules that enable personal liberty in the first place. That you don't have to fear whether or not your store will be expropriated and that you can rely on [the] courts if someone else, say, double-crosses you in a business deal, those are absolute absolutely massive. It just means that people, once those two things become true, then the most rational course of action is to participate in the market and benefit from the market. Until those things are true it's very difficult. And again what is supporting those courts? What's supporting that political order? Well, that's not trivial at all. That took a lot of work in the first place. And I think that this development that we saw in China was that... the aftermath of the Cultural Revolution was a quiet realisation among the remaining members of the Communist Party because they had been purging each other (those internal fight), was that "you know, this got out of hand, I would like more security in my political career. I don't want to be killed on charges, I don't want to be imprisoned, I don't want to be exiled, I'm going to work together with the other people to make sure nothing like this can happen again. And as a side effect of this almost kind of self-interested political aspect, this enables a reformer like Deng Xiaoping to produce something that has not just given political safety to this party officials, but gives economic and political safety to everyone in the society, at least to a much higher degree than was previously available. I'm not ignoring at all the fact of how heavy-handed the Chinese government can be, I'm just pointing out that the mechanic of the change that enabled this broader liberty was partially driven by the people who are already powerful. You can't obviously have this be driven by everyone in [the] existing elite, but I think every reform of society has had one sub-section of the elite interested in change and bringing in new people as allies, who previously were not part of the old elite to become part of the new one. So, there is a change in the ruling coalition... that can happen. And I think often those can be very positive if designed well and can result in what's essentially this higher degree of safety. And I think once the safety is guaranteed, then there's more room for personal expression and this bottom-up order.Tobi: Interesting. Interesting, Samo. So I'm just going to toss out a few theories and framework and I want to hear your reaction to that and weather GFT affirms or refutes that. Acemoglu and Robinson talked about inclusive and extractive institutions, what do you think about that framework?Samo: I think that inclusive or extractive institutions is a good path... it's an interesting frame, right? I think that in the real world, an institution can be both inclusive and extractive. So I think there is some insight there, but I think my perspective on institutions is that they can easily combine many things that seem mutually contradictory. So I'll say it sometimes gives the correct answer but it's basically not as total as it's presented.Tobi: Hmm. In their framework, at least they've extended their theory with their new book, they talked about this narrow corridor where... I don't want to call it perfect, but this balance between the power of the state and the freedom of the civil society as this zone where prosperity sort of exists. Is that...I find that hard to believe somewhat despite all the evidence they marshalled in their book and other research papers...Samo: Uh-hmm, Uh-hmm, Uh-hmm...Tobi: So what role does civil society play in GFT?Samo: In GFT, civil society is the space where new institutions can be designed without the approval of the centre, without the approval of central power because GFT has this self component of high-medium-low...where I think civil society is the space where the middle powers can be built. In other words, to build a great successful company you ideally don't need to have that many government friends. To successfully pursue a new political ideology or new social or ethical ideology, you shouldn't necessarily have to fully wrestle with everyone in society immediately... so, again, another additional aspects of this is I think that the civil society represents this very important redundancy. Redundancy in the positive sense where if you are on an airplane and the electronics of the airplane fails while you are in the air, you really hope that there is a backup electronic system; or if you are in a hospital and you are recovering and the electricity goes out you very much hope that there is a power generator attached to the hospital allowing whatever equipment that is needed for your health to keep on running. I think that civil society enables a civilization robustness. Hyper centralised systems can seem very efficient but they can be very fragile. As soon as the centre fails, everything fails. A strong civil society on the other hand enables not only [a] healthy competition and experimentation which of course should not endanger the centre or should not endanger the coherence and common destiny and stability of the civilization or society, but it enables a backup. So if the centre fails, there is something that is not too far from being able to become the new centre.Tobi: Interesting. Let's talk about technology for a bit, Samo. One of the things that this notion of catch-up growth is built on in economic development is that if you can facilitate technology transfer between a nation that is advanced to a nation that is behind, then you can engineer some form of economic growth. But you also have this concept of social technologies that in my own interpretation do not transfer so easily. What are your thoughts on that?Samo: I think this is very much true. I think that it's very easy to transfer, say, the adoption of a physical technology. It's like not that hard to have the users...you know, everyone has then a smartphone, right? Tobi: Yeah.Samo: It's a little bit harder to have it be sold that the workers and managers exist to run a phone factory, on the other hand, that's a little bit more difficult. And social technologies play a role in this and I think the transfer of social technology is something very interesting and tricky. I feel it is important to note that naively trying to completely copy social technologies from a completely different society can have disastrous or ineffective consequences. Because, in fact, there are already social technologies in whatever society. There is no society without its own ecosystem of highly specialised social technologies. The beautiful balance happens when one is able to learn from other societies and then customise what is introduced. I'm going to use the example here of 19th century Japan. Nineteenth-century Japan, sort of, forcibly opened to trade by Admiral Perry, basically, they are behind on military technology. They understand very well in the aftermath of the Meiji restoration that it's not just the adoption of Western science nor is it the adoption whole-scale of just Western culture and views, but they are very selective. What they do is they send their most talented students to Germany and the United States with specific missions; some of are tasked by the Japanese government as representatives to learn everything they can about how the officer system work in Germany, for example, in 19th century in Germany, 19th century Prussia? How do the ranks work? What kind of discipline and training do the soldiers go through? And they return changing the Japanese army from this relatively archaic system that's feudal, that has samurai because if you arm the samurai with the machine guns and whatever, they're not actually using the artillery, the equipment well nor are they fighting coherently or employing the correct tactics. So the army would in effect be terrible. But they copied the Western system of ranks and training - everything up from the military academies to the organisation of the provisions. They go and observe it. They participate in those armies and then they return to the country, and with the full political backing produced this transformation. And then for the ones that go to the United States, they observed the organisation of railway companies and how American companies operated internally. And note this, of course, was a very different America. This was an America that was still at the frontier - the transcontinental railroad was barely built, so there were definitely people there that knew how to build a completely new railroad system, how to finance it, how to even deal with security issues - and then that transfer goes back to Japan. And then there are people who are in London just working for several years as basically shipwrights that return and then oversee the construction of the first ship. So these are not just technical skills, all them are learning some technical skills but they are also learning things like what does a relationship look like between a soldier and a commanding officer? What does the internal organisation of a shipyard look like? How do shipyards connect with funding and with resources? And how do they select skilled labour vs unskilled labour? How do they enforce workplace discipline? What do you do if the shipwrights come drunk to the shipyard, how do you respond to that? These all seem very trivial everyday problems, but for the most part, we rely on our social understanding, our cultural, our social technology to see what is acceptable and what are the expectations that should be set and should be respected and how to resolve various kinds of conflict and how to reach various kinds of decisions - these are all things that have to be patented. Yet, despite all these expeditions to do this learning, they intentionally combined this and pursue this strategy where they picked and choose which of these practices were compatible with Japanese society. So Japan stayed Japan and successfully industrialized… and it was unsuccessful during World War II obviously, but even after WWII, Japanese society remains distinct and actually in some ways functions better than Western societies. Like, if you go to their high-speed transit, it's maintained at a higher level than you see any western country. So they combine this with some of these strengths that they have... this very broad attention to aesthetics [and] this high level of politeness that they had inherited from that particular kind of feudal society. So yeah, you have to live in a new society, I think. You have to observe it happening, and then not only do you have to live there, you have to return; and not only do you have to return, you mustn't change everything. You must change just something very narrow that works on the strengths of the other social technologies available rather than trying to wholesale imitate something that ultimately has its own flaws.Tobi: Economist Gareth Jones has this concept of hive minds where he says national IQ matters more than the IQ of an individual person and these are correlated with how successful and prosperous a society is. I'm not even going to ask how true or false that is but are higher IQ societies more likely to have great founders than not?Samo: It's a very interesting question. I mean IQ is one of those things that it might not be a good measurement, it might be a good measurement in some circumstance. I think that... yeah, I think there is whatever (I won't measure it with IQ)...Tobi: Okay.Samo: But I do think societies with intelligent people or with greater respect for intelligence or with greater ability to produce intelligent people, I think they do have an advantage here, yeah. You require also other things because as I noted, you might have extremely intelligent people that are however doing exactly the same thing that everyone else is doing. If you imagine a classroom of very very diligent student that mostly to just do the same thing that all the other diligent students...like, that might result in like, say, some well-run things. It might like result in trains that go on time or on factories that can rely on a high level of skill of their workers but the problem is those same students would never have built the train system in the first place or would never have pushed for its creation nor would they have ever pushed for the creation of the factory. So there are additional factors here. I remember reading some articles about Gareth Jones's book, I will say where he's very very right is that if you have a higher culture of intelligence in a society, it becomes easy to not have to worry about things. You don't have to worry whether trivial everyday things are taken care of, you can focus on the truly difficult parts. Again, you can rely on the train that takes you to your class to be there on time, for example. That's like easier, it's not just a matter of organisations, [it's] also a matter of, like, the competence of the rail workers and so on... and these small everyday differences, if you imagine them just through the lifetime of a potential great founder, they make a massive difference.I'm not sure I think that you need to have absolutely all of society be like this, I think it's actually sufficient to have a city that's intelligent in this way. Like I give the example of medieval Europe and the city of Oxford. I think it was quite sufficient to just have Oxford where there were a bunch of smart people around. I think it didn't much matter whether the rest of England at the time was very intelligent or not.Tobi: Hmm. That's interesting. You also talked about Life Players in your book which I greatly enjoy and for the audience, I'm going to put up a link to the publicly available manuscript for the Great Founder Theory book. How can one recognise Life Players in society or in an institution?Samo: I think Life Players are going to the people that have succeeded at very very different tasks. So they are going to be these individuals that have, perhaps, either changed careers (two or three completely different careers) and have been successful at all of them; or completely changed their interpersonal style and were as successful when they were strict as when they were jovial, when they were easy-going or people who have done intellectually completely different things. So what you're looking for is not only a very high skill in an area - again, it's very possible to be extremely skilled in an area and ultimately not be that well-adapted - what you're looking for is the combination of both skill and execution, intentionally observing their environment and success at transitioning. So (a) success at transitioning to completely new strategies and this might look like an entrepreneur that has built a successful company in one industry that [they] then specialise in a different industry and very quickly build a successful company there too. Elon Musk might be a good example where he both has created this business that's a car factory that makes electric cars - Tesla - and has also succeeded in aerospace with his company SpaceX which recently brought American astronauts to space again for the first time ever on a privately built rocket rather than a rocket built by NASA.Tobi: Uh uh.Samo: A different example of a Life Player and I have to emphasise here when I say Life Player, I don't mean I agree with everything the person does. I'm just observing that they have the skill and adaptability. I think Vladimir Putin has showed over the last twenty years in Russia an extreme adaptability where Russia pursued many different strategies to try to maintain its position in the world, and Russia right now punches above its weight. For example, the annexation of Crimea was completely inspired. Nothing like that had happened in Europe before...Tobi: Uh uhSamo: And it was done with, like, killing almost no people, I think something like three or four people died. It was incredible how they orchestrated the mere surrender of the Ukrainian army because the Ukrainian army was so confused and honestly scared with the appearance of these Russian soldiers that, note, were even not officially Russian soldiers. They were wearing no official flags or patches, so they wouldn't give any answers as to who they were. They could plausibly say that they were Ukrainian because Ukrainians and Russians (they) look similar, they speak very similar language, there's a Russian minority in Ukraine and...you know, Crimea declares independence, and then immediately after declaring independence asks to join Russia and Russia says "yes". It's kind of amazing how that can happen. Not saying it was good for Ukraine, definitely, it was good for Russia, I think. And this results in this very creative process because there is no way in the world that Putin ever planned for there to be a civil war in Ukraine, but having the fact of the civil war happen, he and his team very quickly moved tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of people and carried out a military operation that had never been performed before by the Russian army. The Russian army has a long history, many centuries ago but believe me they've never engaged and subtle stuff. They usually had this very overt, very heavy-handed interventions in other countries. If you think about it like this intervention in Hungary in the 1950s, in Czechoslovakia in the '60s, they just roll in the tanks and, like, assert authority. And here? No no no. Much more flexible, very subtle. And because the conditions were so unpredictable, this is how we can know that this was not planned a decade in advance. This was a quick adaptation over the course of, possibly, as little as six months to a completely changed situation. So I think that even if you were within the same industry, if this company, if this government, if this organisation, if this institution adapts quickly to massive changes, that's a strong sign that a Life Player he is at the helms. Because no automated system continues working when the operating conditions changed. It stops working if it's the preconditions are not met.Tobi: Hmm. One of your ideas [that] I've also found very interesting is the concept of Intellectual Dark Matter. How can a society benefit maximally from its intellectual dark matter - the tacit knowledge that's around?Samo: Intellectual Dark Matter refers to this concept that makes the analogy to physical dark matter because currently when the physicists and the astronomers look at our galaxy and they count all the stars and put together all the mass, they realise that there must be much more mass there than only what's visible...Tobi: Yeah.Samo: Because, otherwise, the gravity wouldn't be strong enough to keep this spinning galaxy that we find ourselves in and other galaxies together. So they don't yet know what this missing mass is but they are investigating it. And with Intellectual Dark Matter, I think if we put together all the books, all the stuff that's on the internet, all the stuff that's recorded, I think we still find that there is missing knowledge. There is knowledge and skill that we have not explicitly, formally recorded - written down or put into words that deeply matters. And once you start thinking about that, it's very easy to come up with examples of stuff that is very difficult to put into words or put into writing. The skill of a heart surgeon that saves the patient's life. Like, that's a remarkable set of skills but how do you put into words how to perform a heart surgery? Very very difficult, right? Takes a lot of words. I have an article titled "How YouTube is Revolutionising Knowledge Transfer" and I point out that...Tobi: Yeah, I read that.Samo: I point out that for a good enough camera, recording the hand movements in these very skills, and it doesn't have to be just heart surgery, it can be as trivial as cooking or perhaps the way you treat complex machinery... recording the video and others watching this video might be much much better way to convey such knowledge. I also think that we in society, in general, like seeing the results - we like seeing the finished essay or the finished theory by a Thinker. So if I go back to the world of abstractions to either philosophy or science or whatever, we like seeing the finished theory.What we don't see is all of the crazy or stupid ideas that this very intelligent person came up with before they got the right idea. They usually do that on their own or with a close circle of friends. So, one might be tempted to think and look at an extremely successful thinker and assume that they were always very polished, that they were always very eloquent, often this is not the case. Often they are immensely long learning period. Now, I admit I might be a little biased here because I did spend most of the last decade pursuing this kind of, like, thinking, reading, investigating and for most of this time period, people were not immediately interested in my ideas.Tobi: Hmm.Samo: But about two to three years ago, the material not only clicked together but I found the words to express what I, to myself, felt I had understood for several years before, I just could not really find the way to relate it and show to others in a short period of time how in fact this is useful to them. So I think all of these things form part of Intellectual Dark Matter and there is much more. There is, for example, we might not know what the exact process is that allows you...that allows Elon's team at SpaceX, engineers at SpaceX to make that rocket, and we might not even have that available anywhere because it might be classified. There are probably rules, I actually know that there are laws in the US that prevent SpaceX from simply explaining how they're making this vehicle to a company based in a foreign country. They don't want to teach all the countries how to make rockets for obvious reasons, and more importantly, SpaceX probably doesn't want to share its rocket designs with Boeing - their competitor.Tobi: Uh uh.Samo: So there is also an element of proprietary knowledge and trade secrets for stuff that is understood explicitly, stuff that can be put into words, can be put in a document but the person who has this knowledge wants to keep a competitive advantage; sometimes for very good reasons or the organisation that possesses this knowledge doesn't want to share it. So, that also forms a type of intellectual dark matter - it's knowledge we can't directly examine.Tobi: Interesting you talked about YouTube. The global pandemic has seen an increase in virtualisation, are we going to see a reform in education away from the classroom and a reduction in direct instruction? Samo: I think that we will see an increase in autodidacts - so people who know how to learn on their own. I think, however, that most people will return to the classrooms once the pandemic has died down. I don't think there will be permanent remote instructions and I think the reason for this is that the performance seems to be much worse. It seems to actually be the case that unless you are inherently interested in the material. If you're just a kid who's going to school or taking online classes because you have to take online classes or because you have to go to school, it seems your performance is going to be worse. You're going to learn less than if you physically go there. And I think that for autodidacts, there is going to be an abundance of resources - everything from recorded lectures to tests made. So it's going to improve those chances of those who are seeking knowledge out of curiosity primarily, or out of self-development and professional development; but for the majority of people learning, I think this transition is going to be temporary. I don't think it will be a permanent shift.Tobi: So, Samo, it's kind of a tradition on the show to ask this final question. What's the one big idea that you want to see spread globally? Samo: That's a great question. I think if there is one idea that I would like to put in everyone's minds or everyone's hands, it's this realisation that...I think that the surest sign of good knowledge is the ability to act on this knowledge. So I think that there is some deep confusion as to when knowing things and when doing things - how do these two relate to each other? And I think if only we understood that there are many things that have the appearance of knowledge, such as eloquent speech or perhaps particularly good writing that don't carry the substance of it. We should always observe the practice of the individuals and organisations claiming to have knowledge. For example, the WHO...I'm sure it's made of many excellent experts - they individually know many things about the coronavirus but the organisation as a whole despite claiming to know, in its public communication seems incapable of relaying that knowledge. So I think the result should be "well we should take them less seriously on the coronavirus". And if this map between who is believed to have knowledge and who actually has knowledge, if we improve that map, as a species, I think that our ability as human beings and our societies would really rise. It will be a remarkable thing to see and I think the societies that went through golden ages, I think they basically had these happy periods where the two coincided. You know, times like the Renaissance or whatever.Tobi: That's a great idea. We're sure to help you spread it over here at least.Samo: Thank you so much for having me on the show.Tobi: Yeah. Thank you so much, Samo. This is a public episode. Get access to private episodes at www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

The "Blob" national security establishment is necessary, often wrong, and loses any argument where it concedes that it's a Blob.  Are nuclear weapons inherently undemocratic and tyrannical?  George Orwell predicted yes.  Are political scientists wrong about diversionary war?  The National Republican Senatorial Committee thinks so in their latest memo that directs candidates to not defend Trump and instead attack China.  Has "the data" really replaced "strategy" as Washington's new favorite empty term?  Why fair trade might be a better way to fight China than the Hayekian wet dream of free trade at all costs.  Also this episode: How did Van Jackson become a North Korea watcher?Matt Duss Tweet: https://twitter.com/mattduss/status/1255610412189581314?s=20Anne Marie-Brady Tweet: https://twitter.com/AaronFriedberg/status/1254861734059421700?s=20Robert Kelly Tweet: https://twitter.com/Robert_E_Kelly/status/1256033975568482304Adam Serwer Tweet: https://twitter.com/AdamSerwer/status/1255620408952393729?s=20"In Defense of the Blob" piece: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-04-29/defense-blob 

Welcome back to another episode of Liberty Revealed, the show dedicated to revealing personal liberty to all who listen. I am your host, Mike Mahony, and today I want to talk to you about universal basic income.Universal basic income is so much better than our current system of welfare. If such a program were to be implemented in the United States, the details become extremely important. The main pout is that universal basic income would replace welfare.Current federal social welfare programs in the United States are an expensive, complicated mess. According to Michael Tanner, the federal government spent more than $668 billion on over one hundred and twenty-six anti-poverty programs in 2012. When you add in the $284 billion spent by state and local governments, that amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America.Wouldn’t it be better just to write the poor a check?Each one of those anti-poverty programs comes with its own bureaucracy and its own Byzantine set of rules. If you want to shrink the size and scope of government, eliminating those departments and replacing them with a program so simple it could virtually be administered by a computer seems like a good place to start. Eliminating bloated bureaucracies means more money in the hands of the poor and lower costs to the taxpayer. That’s what’s known as a Win/Win.Universal basic income would also be considerably less paternalistic than the current welfare state, which is the bastard child of “conservative judgment and progressive condescension” toward the poor, in Andrea Castillo’s choice words. Conservatives want to help the poor, but only if they can demonstrate that they deserve it by jumping through a series of hoops meant to demonstrate their willingness to work, to stay off drugs, and preferably to settle down into a nice, stable, bourgeois family life. And while progressives generally reject this attempt to impose traditional values on the poor, they have almost always preferred in-kind grants to cash precisely as a way of making sure the poor get the help they “really” need. Shouldn’t we trust poor people to know what they need better than the federal government?Both Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek advocated for something like universal basic income as a proper function of government, though on somewhat different grounds. Friedman’s argument comes in chapter 9 of his Capitalism and Freedom, and is based on the idea that private attempts at relieving poverty involve what he called “neighborhood effects” or positive externalities. Such externalities, Friedman argues, mean that private charity will be undersupplied by voluntary action.“[W]e might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.”And so, Friedman concludes, some “governmental action to alleviate poverty” is justified. Specifically, government is justified in setting “a floor under the standard of life of every person in the community,” a floor that takes the form of his famous “Negative Income Tax” proposal.Friedrich Hayek’s argument, appearing 17 years later in volume 3 of his Law, Legislation, and Liberty, is even more powerful. Here’s the crucial passage:“The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society in which the individual no longer has specific claims on the members of the particular small group into which he was born.”To those who know of Hayek only through second-hand caricatures of his argument from The Road to Serfdom, his claim here will no doubt be surprising. Hayek was not opposed to the welfare state as such (not even in the Road to Serfdom). At the very least, he regarded certain aspects of the welfare state as permissible options that states might pursue. But the passage above suggests that he may have had an even stronger idea in mind - that a basic income is not merely a permissible option but a mandatory requirement of democratic legitimacy - a policy that must be instituted in order to justify the coercive power that even a Hayekian state would exercise over its citizens.Before I close, I want to say at least a little about the different policy options. But there are a lot of different options, and a lot of details to each. So bear in mind that what follows is only a sketch.Universal basic income involves something like an unconditional grant of income to every citizen. So, on most proposals, everybody gets a check each month. “Unconditional” here means mostly that the check is not conditional on one’s wealth or poverty or willingness to work. But some proposals, like Charles Murray’s, would go only to adult citizens. And almost all proposals are given only to citizens. Most proposals specify that income earned on top of the grant is subject to taxation at progressive rates, but the grant itself is not.A Negative Income Tax involves issuing a credit to those who fall below the threshold of tax liability, based on how far below the threshold they fall. So the amount of money one receives (the “negative income tax”) decreases as ones earnings push one up to the threshold of tax liability, until it reaches zero, and then as one earns more money one begins to pay the government money (the “positive income tax”).The Earned Income Tax Credit is the policy we actually have in place currently in the United States. It was inspired by Friedman’s Negative Income Tax proposal, but falls short in that it applies only to persons who are actually working.The US Basic Income Guarantee Network has a nice and significantly more detailed overview of some of the different policies. You can watch Milton Friedman explain his Negative Income Tax proposal with characteristic clarity to William F. Buckley here. And for an extended and carefully thought out defense of one particular Universal basic income proposal from a libertarian perspective, I highly recommend Charles Murray’s short book, In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the Welfare State.Tell me your thoughts on this by leaving a voicemail on the Yogi’s Podcast Network hotline at (657) 529-2218.That’s it for this episode of Liberty Revealed. .If you like what you’ve heard, please rate us 5 stars on Apple Podcasts and Google Play. If you’d like to learn more about personal liberty, grab your free copy of my book “Liberty Revealed” by heading over to http://yogispodcastnetwork.com/libertyrevealed. Until next time...stay free!

In the 1930s, Ronald Reagan had been a Roosevelt Democrat supporter and had believed that the role of government in alleviating the crisis of the Great Depression was vital. By the early 1950s, Reagan, a failing actor was moving to the political right and had embraced the Hayekian obsession with reducing the size of the state. As a spokesman for the company GE he toured the USA, speaking to working class Americans who shared his views and in doing so, he prepared for his later political career. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Radu Uszkai joins the show today to talk about if the case against intellectual property can be strengthened by appealing to the work of F.A. Hayek. Intellectual property is deeply rooted in our understanding of our own creativity. Intellectual property rights and copyright actually emerge as a result of creative revolutions. The copyright story of Mickey Mouse is probably the best-known. Throughout this episode they discuss the role of copyright in the movie industry, fashion industry, and more.Is intellectual property actually property? What is Hayekian skepticism? What did Hayek think of copyright? Why are incentives important? What is the difference between plagiarism and copying? Is copyright protection necessary for creativity? See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Parker Lewis, Head of Business Development at Unchained Capital joins me in this episode to talk about a range of things: How he went from global macro hedge fund to bitcoiner What the Fed gets wrong A Hayekian appreciation for bitcoin His blog series, Gradually, Then Suddenly Bitcoin becoming intuitive Unchained Capital Caravan - open source & free multi sig Links: Parker Lewis Twitter @Parkeralewis Unchained Capital Website Unchained Capital Twitter Unchained Capital Youtube Caravan Demo Other relevant episodes: SLP113 Dhruv Bansal SLP97 Michael Flaxman Sponsor links: Kraken Unchained Capital CypherWheel by CypherSafe GiveBitcoin Stephan Livera links: Show notes and website Follow me on twitter @stephanlivera Subscribe to the podcast

Welcome to Finance and Fury Today – want to explore the chances of the ASX booming next year Have been talking about complexity theory for the past few Monday episodes – Focusing on collapses – but what if positive feedback loops kick in further – in the form of potential QE from the RBA Want to cover this as a few developments have happened recently – pointing towards this possibility in 2020 Speculation from Banks – the RBA balance sheets show this   First – the process of QE – covered what it is in the past and why it doesn’t help the population – just raise prices Why? there is a concept of what is called the Cantillon effect - Cantillon effects – Under the assumption that all resources are fully utilised in equilibrium, a credit expansion implies that producers of capital goods in the ‘new’ processes of production bid away resources from ‘older’ processes. This is where the Cantillon Effect begins to work. The injection of additional money increases the purchasing power in the part of the economy it arrives first – in other words – it changes the price structure through the reallocation of resources and income This comes from Hayek – you could call him Keynes adversary in economics back in the 30s Inflation in the Hayekian sense is thus strictly defined as a rise in the quantity of money, not in the price level Inflation is not uniquely reflected movements of the price level, and the monetary cause of change the price structure will hardly be perceived as such. What Hayek was missing is the amount of money that flows through to the people – main street When Wall Street – i.e. the Bank and financial system get this – you actually won't see inflation See price increases in property and share market, and bond market with QE But won’t see it in the population – the majority of loans to consumers are non-productive –i.e. – they don’t yield economic output – like loans for businesses or growth of economy goes Housing prices rising doesn’t create real growth – thanks to the debt backing it – long term the interest and massive principal repayments take away from economic investment or spending in economy In modern Banking system – printed money flows into banks first – redistribution of resources and prices – printing money doesn’t increase inflation if it never hits main street - Money flowing into Aus share market from Australia QE – Market collapse occurs – the RBA buys up shares ETFs using QE, i.e. printed money to reduce the effects RBA one of the last to do this – seen the BoJ get in, Fed, Bank of England – we look to be next But who benefits? How does the printing of money to buy assets (shares and bonds) help? If you are invested it raises the prices – if you aren’t – it just makes costs of living higher through property purchase, rates, and rental increases Wealth effect – not observed in economy though – theory only Also Governments - It is massively valuable for the state/local governments to have higher prices on land – more ongoing rates/taxes and lump sum - stamp duty/transfer costs Also beneficial to Fed Government – GST and CGT incomes- pump the prices up and make profit off the sale With the theory out of the way – where do we stand? The RBA and banking system seems to be increasing their balance sheets – based around the released data Look at the issuance of capital by the banks – equity and debt – share purchases and subordinated notes issuances Big 4 banks been on a frenzy of both – public issuances of notes, SPPs, capital raisings, warrant issuances Where it becomes even more interesting is the RBA data releases – First some terminology - The RBA defines the monetary aggregates as: M1: currency in circulation plus bank current deposits from the private non-bank sector - $1.04 trillion M3: M1 + all other bank deposits from the private non-bank sector, plus bank certificate of deposits, less inter-bank deposits - $2.14 trillion These stagnant numbers don’t tell the whole story - M1 – has seen a massive money increase – June 19 was $360bn – July $1.014 trillion – then till sept last figures – this crept up slightly to $1.033 bn by $19bn – in one month almost doubled – 185% Note that M3 decreased from June to July - $2.157 to $2.128 trillion - $29bn drop There has been a massive increase in M1- But Back in 2009 – was $220bn – past 10 years grown by 370% - M3 – Total money has gone from $1.200 Trn to $2.128 Trn – about a 77% growth – but nothing compared to M1 What does this mean – look at the US fed and it tells a story that helps – When M1 increased in 2009 and 2011 – but M3 didn’t – what periods were those – During QE1 and QE2 In which the Federal Reserve expanded its balance sheet through large-scale purchases of Treasuries and other securities M1 growth was highly positively correlated with the growth in reserves generated by Fed asset purchases Reason - reserves held with the central bank are assets for banks When central banks expand reserves – commercial banks must either sell other assets (keeping the overall level of assets unchanged), issue more liabilities or equity (expanding the level of assets), or some combination of the two. In the USA - banks did not reduce their overall holdings of assets as reserves increased Instead - funded these new assets by issuing additional liabilities – like capital notes Banks in Aus issuing billions every month in Capital Notes, warrant products and Share purchase plans Look at announcements of banks over past 6 months – Just last month in November CBA - $1.65bn of PERLS notes NAB - $1.4bn of Sub notes WBC - $2.5bn capital raising from Equity - $2bn institutional and $500m SPP ANZ – 1bn Euros of Subordinated notes Remember that QE occurs through the purchase of these assets off the secondary market – i.e. institutional investors or super funds – who buy the assets at issuances (direct from companies or Gov) – then sell at a premium to the Central Banks If the trend in our markets is true – and RBA has printed $640bn with billions more on the way for QE - markets may go up Last week - Australian shares surged to a record closing high on Wednesday, supported by growing speculation the Reserve Bank of Australia will cut official interest rates and launch quantitative easing (QE) next year. The benchmark S&P/ASX 200 jumped 63.1 points, or 0.9%, to a record closing high of 6850.6, less than 0.4 per cent below the record intraday high set in late July Following a speech from RBA governor Philip Loweon Tuesday evening that outlined what could prompt the bank to implement unconventional monetary policy measures to support economic growth, lower unemployment and push underlying inflation higher additional support as Westpac Bank became the first of Australia’s big four banks to forecast the RBA will introduce QE next year – they expect two rate cuts next year (down to 0.25% by June 2020 QE also expected to begin in the second half of 2020 The Westpac call, joining a growing number of forecasters who expect the RBA to rollout QE next year, helped drive every sector to end the session higher Rising tide lifts all boats - gains of 1.2% for utilities, communications, information technology, consumer discretionary, REITs and materials. With QE speculation in overdrive, the All Ords Gold Index surged 2.8 per cent, helped by a lower Aussie dollar and government bond yields. Take All of this with a grain of salt – if US share market crash occurs we will be tanked – QE wont be able to save us Issue with our economy – Doesn’t matter if prices of assets go up if people can’t keep up in wages Also – if this is an effort to shore up banks and create credit to providing funding for bank bail outs – paints a different picture of where our markets are at Also – as rates go down create more free money – higher home prices and lower savings Make the current structural issues worse   Another interesting Factor - RBA off balance sheet - Interest rate contracts; OTC swaps; For series breaks see Series breaks - Interest rate swaps are the exchange of one set of cash flows for another. Because they trade over the counter (OTC), the contracts are between two or more parties according to their desired specifications and can be customized in many different ways Off the balance sheet Interest rate swaps massively increase – RBA data – Sitting at $32trn – 44% gain from Dec to June (6 months) – Up from $21.7trn – remember shares are $2bn Swaps are entered into when someone is in trouble – Example – Greece before their debt defaults – couldn’t meet their repayments – so swapped with someone who could – Germany and other EU members If your cashflow cant keep up with interest repayments – helps to swap the contractual repayments of interest with a counter party – i.e. one central bank or bank enters a contract to cover the other party’s interest repayments – fixed v floating Over-the-counter (OTC) derivatives have played a significant role in episodes of financial stress, including the global financial crisis because these derivatives are not traded on exchanges, detailed information about them has not generally been available. These products have become more easily usable - Central counterparties (CCPs) have become much more important, in large part because of G20 reforms to increase the central clearing of OTC derivatives. Australian banks still have significant exposures to other counterparties, including foreign banks. Most are Fixed to Floating – which is done when you think your rates are going down You want to fix at an income today – with other parties less likely to drop rates This could be in anticipation of struggling banks or other Central banks to help ease their cashflows to avoid defaults -this is just speculation at hard to get the counter parties to these contracts – Further Speculation of QE being done – as contracts are a hedge Summary  Anyone’s guess- there are both positive feedback loops and potential negative feedback loops coming Positive from RBA and QE – negative is USA ceasing QE and withdrawing credit   Thanks for listening, if you want to get in contact you can do so here: http://financeandfury.com.au/contact/

(https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Garrison-on-Triangle.gif) In a 2006 journal article, “On Hayekian Triangles,” Walter Block and William Barnett lists 14 separate objection to the popular device used (in various forms) by Hayek, Rothbard, and Roger Garrison to illustrate how artificially low interest rates lead to an unsustainable boom. Block concludes that the Hayekian triangle can be salvaged, while Barnett thinks it should be abandoned altogether. . . . . . Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: Barnett and Block’s (2006) paper (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1880543) critiquing Hayekian triangles. University home pages for Walter Block (http://business.loyno.edu/bio/walter-block) . Roger Garrison’s (http://webhome.auburn.edu/~garriro/tam.htm) . Bob’s (free) study guide (https://mises.org/library/study-guide-man-economy-and-state) to Murray Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State. In particular, the diagrams on page 97 give a numerical example of how a drop in time preference changes the production structure, in the Austrian tradition. Barnett later emailed Bob to clarify that during the interview he had been thinking of Mark Skousen’s book  (http://mskousen.com/economics-books/the-structure-of-production/) , and specifically figures 5.14 and 5.15. How you can contribute (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute) to the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (https://www.podsworth.com/) .

Some years ago, I shared with you that Douglas and I have a personal prayer before we eat at home, our own take on saying grace before our meals. It goes something like this: “Gracious God, we thank you for all things, for each other and for others, and we thank you for this life that gives us life. Amen.” I shared that prayer of grace with you during a sermon where I was speaking of how we need to pay attention to the way our food is produced, that the way we nurture the land and treat the animals we consume, and that such attention is a matter of justice. And when Douglas and I thank God for “this life that gives us life,” we acknowledge that an animal, or even a plant, if you assume that plants live and die, we acknowledge that something had to die for us to be able to live. There is a rhythm to life there that is obvious, though it does not come without its own ethical quandaries, even if Genesis tells us that that God has given us these animals and plants as our food (Genesis 1:29). That topic is for another sermon, but this morning I wanted to tease something else out related to the issue of food and our ethical relationship to it, and that is whether or not we have an obligation to worry about other’s people food or lack of it. Now, you might think that the answer is an obvious “yes” for us Christians, that your lack of food is something I should care about. And it’s obvious that is the case in both the Hebrew and Christian portions of the Bible – caring for our neighbors and helping them is just right there, all over the place. But, there are forces in our culture, even among Christians, who want us divest the church of this notion that we owe each other something, including food, all in an attempt to make the case for a kind of libertarian, you’re on your own, late-stage corporate capitalism. I’ll get to that in a few minutes, but I want us to get a sense of what is happening in our text and how this relates to a larger call for food justice we find in the Bible and especially in the Hebrew Bible, what we often call the Old Testament.   Let’s look at the context of this text for a few minutes. The people of Israel have spent 40 years wandering in the desert and finally have reached the edge of the Promise Land. Moses has died on a mountain overlooking the land he will never enter because of a sin he has committed, sin being the overall reason it took the people of Israel so long to get to this promise land after being freed from Egypt. A generation has died and a new generation has risen, but the men of this new generation have not been circumcised, the male foreskin of these men have remained intact, circumcision was believed to be a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham in Genesis 17 (14-19). But there is historical evidence that circumcision was practiced by the Egyptians and the Bible itself says that other surrounding nations also practiced circumcision, in Jeremiah 9:25. Joshua, the new leader of Israel, calls for this new generation of men to become circumcised and they are, leaving a painful mess for the men that had to take a take a long, long month to heal up. The whole ordeal ends with the first verse in our text today, where God says to Joshua: “Today I have rolled away from you the disgrace of Egypt.” Honestly, we don’t quite know the obvious meaning of this sentence – what disgrace, other than perhaps the older generation having circumcised their male offspring after they left Egypt, forgetting the sign of the covenant God once made with Abraham.   Whatever that disgrace was, it has been rolled away and the people celebrate a Passover meal, a meal which commemorates the moment when the angel of death passed over every household whose door was marked with lamb’s blood, during the time when God sent the plagues to try to convince the Egyptian Pharaoh to let the Hebrew slaves go free. We don’t how they got this Passover food, but the very next day, the manna from heaven that God had provided the people just stops, this feathery bread-like substance that fed the people is no more. After 40 years of having that umbilical cord to their Creator, they would now have to eat what the land produced, and – this is very important – they would now have to begin to live under the rules around that land and food that they were given by God through Moses 40 years earlier. These rules, these laws that were in THE LAW, were now to be enacted, because they had moved on from complete dependence on God’s gift of guaranteed manna to one where they had to till the land, care for their livestock, and, and use the land in a just way for their sake and the sake of others. They had just left a life in Egypt where they were forced to work on storage cities, the place where the Pharaohs stored their abundance of food, food they would use to control the people, rather than helping out others, outsider even, unlike when Joseph was in charge of these same storage places generations earlier.   And that is important to keep in mind when you hear of the laws of these newly minted invaders of the Promised Land, as they took control of the land from those who were there before them – a reality that would be a tough sermon on its own, but look, I’ve got only a few minutes here. But the whole new system of rules they were to now follow were actually based in the rules of how to use the manna God had been giving them for 40 years. In Exodus 16, in verse 18, the Scripture says this: “those who gathered much had nothing left over, and those who gathered little had no shortage.” In another words, the folks that tried to store away more of the manna then they needed for that day found this stored manna uneatable the next day. And the folks who gathered little to make sure their neighbors had enough found that the little they gathered was enough for the day. The food wasn’t meant to be a way to enrich oneself, especially at the expense of others – that is why manna was useless the next day, to stop the greedy, like the Egyptians they had just escaped from, from using something needed by all to survive as a way to enrich and manipulate others. The manna helped the people keep the Sabbath, the holy day of rest, because the gatherers of this manna were expected to rest as well, and so the manna collected right before the Sabbath would not spoil as it normally did, making sure there would be enough to keep their bellies full. All this was to prevent the Israelites from playing around with their food, so to speak, of using it as a source of wealth building for the few at the expense of the many, as the Egyptians had done.   So the people are now to follow a new set of rules that would be echoed by their experience with the manna, rules about “land possession, farming, food choices, food sharing, and the treatment, killing and eating of animals” (Connections, Year C, Vol 2 –77). First, these manna based rules would show up in the idea that the land you were given in this new Promise Land was on loan from God – and that no person would ultimately lose their land because of some misfortune. Every 50 years, in what was called the Jubilee Year, the land would revert back to the original owners if they had previously sold it, which helped to narrow the gap between rich and poor (Leviticus 5:10) You couldn’t store up the manna of the land the forever, so to speak – it was on loan from God to you, and you could loan it out to others for a price, but it would always come back to your family every 50 years. Farmers were to reap from the harvest off their lands, but they were told to leave the outer edges of their fields unreaped, so that the poor and the immigrants could gather much needed food (Leviticus 19:9-10). Underneath it all was this idea that food was meant for all of us, and even those who couldn’t farm or who didn’t have a field to plow had a right to food, since the permanent owner of all land was actually God, who simply loaned it out to us human beings. And yet there is an interesting tension that comes in passage in the Bible that is used by some, while ignoring all of the texts and rules I’ve cited today. The anonymous writer of 2 Thessalonians 3:10 says that those that don’t work don’t eat, which seems to be an interesting contradiction of what the rest of the Bible says. Jesus fed 5000 people who unwisely didn’t bring food with them as they were listening to Jesus, as we all remember, and Jesus seems far more interested in scolding those who have much and do little for others with what they have been given. An interesting tension here found in the Bible, but it is noteworthy that the second Thessalonians text is often use as a way to contradict what the bulk of the Christian and Jewish tradition actually says.   But the Thessalonians text is not surprising, not really. There has always been a strain in our scriptures and the history of the church that balked at the idea of people getting something for free, which, I think, shows up in the trouble that some of us have with Jesus’ gift of grace being free and for everyone. Surely we should do something to earn this, and so we do this and this and this, and then it’s free, which, of course, doesn’t actually make grace a free gift at all. I was doing some research on the internet on today’s topic and I stumbled on a website of a think tank called the Institute for Faith, Work and Economics. It’s a right wing Christian organization meant to make the Christian case for a Hayekian, Randian, libertarian, extreme laisses faire style of economics. The website of the organization is quite impressive, reflecting that is a probably well-funded think tank, and its full of articles meant to debunk what Jesus and the Hebrew Bible clearly says by arguing that the ideas I mentioned a few minutes ago, found in Scripture, have been misinterpreted. After all, Jesus telling us to sell everything and give it to the poor, or this whole Jubilee year thing, with land going back to the original owners, is offensive to rights of private property owners – it’s not really God’s land, especially if God’s not going to pay the taxes on it! I read through a couple of articles, and it was obvious that these scholars were doing everything possible to get the Bible to justify our late stage corporate capitalism. Ignore what the Jewish and Christian traditions have taught about this, though rarely followed by the Jewish and Christian people, because these scholars from this think tank will show you that, in fact, the Bible endorses the ideas of, ironically, the atheist Ayn Rand, who called her owns ideas a philosophy of selfishness.   Look, I do think of food as a human right, and water as well, since without them we simply can’t survive as human beings – and I think the Scriptures of both Testaments generally agree with me, and with two thousands of Christian and Jewish tradition, though, of course, a set of traditions not always followed by us over the last 3000 years. Our current government is attempting to roll back food stamps, if not outright eliminate them, though these stamps rarely cover a family’s food budget or needs, even at their most generous. We have a tribe in charge, so to speak, that doesn’t really believe anything is a gift, not really, and they certainly don’t think of anything as being on loan from God. They often believe the land or money is theirs and theirs alone, and if you can’t farm, if you can’t make enough money, you shouldn’t even really be able to glean from the outer rim of the fields – “God didn’t make the miracle of that grain, I did,” some seem to believe, “and we don’t owe our fellow human beings anything.” Certainly food banks are often supported by many of these souls, as if food banks could ever match the government resources to meet food scarcity issues in this country. Places like the Common Pantry are meant to supplement a pay check and/or the little help one receives in food stamps. Private charity should take care of it, they say, but of course, ironically enough, we know though studies that the socio-economic group that gives most to charity are the poor and the very poor – they share what little they have because they know what it means to have so little. The upper middle class or rich, by percentage, give less to charity, especially to those charities that directly affect the poor – endowing the Chicago Symphony is good thing, or the Art Institute, but it is no feeding of the poor. Underneath this call for private charity to help alleviate food scarcity and poverty, and not the government is an idea that we humans will always take care of each other, and that our particular compassion and generosity will be enough. Thousands of years have showed us that this is simply not true, because, to get theological on us, we are sinners, and there is a reason that Jesus keeps calling his earliest listeners to do better, be more compassionate, and take care of the poor. And us being, at times, selfish sinners, that truth shouldn’t cause there to be hungry stomachs when there is so much food here in this country.   Over the last couple of years, I’ve often mentioned to you and others that food has become the central focus of our outreach ministry here at Epiphany. We’ve housed the Common Pantry since the mid-1980’s, this incredible organization centered around food justice, this belief that if food is what you need, here we are and we will do our best to feed you. Their work has grown so much, through things like providing help getting connected to social services that so many rail against, including the food stamps some want to see gone. I think we should be especially proud of being their partners, because I think it led into another food ministry that became completely our own, our Welcome Meal on Wednesday nights. In the early 2000’s some of you right in this room noticed that the Common Pantry guests could use a meal after picking up their groceries, and thus the Welcome Meal was born. I think we sometimes forget that it is actually rare for a small church like ours to be able to pull off a weekly meal for anyone wishes to come – that is not normal, it really isn’t and I’m grateful we decided to do that work so long ago. The funny thing is that more people come into this building to be fed than to worship God here with us. I wish it wasn’t that way because I would love to have it the other way, that there were more people worshipping here than being fed here, but I would only love that be true if it was because food scarcity was on a steep decline and so many didn’t need our help or the Pantry’s help. Otherwise, let’s worship the God who asks us to feed one another, and do it as an act of worship of God, because every act of justice and mercy is also an act of worship of the living God. It’s clear to me that food justice matters to us, that most of us, if not all, feel that food is a God given right, that all God’s children deserve to eat, just like all of God’s children need traveling shoes, to echo he title of one of Maya Angelou’s great books – all God’s children need to eat and we are the ones to feed them. Amen.

How did F.A. Hayek influence the course of economic history? What is the fate of his liberal project in the 21st century? Are we on the road to serfdom? Tune in to the latest episode of the Governance Podcast featuring Professors Mark Pennington and Peter Boettke. Subscribe on iTunes and Spotify Subscribe to the Governance Podcast on iTunes and Spotify today and get all our latest episodes directly in your pocket. Follow Us For more information about our upcoming podcasts and events, follow us on facebook or twitter (@csgskcl). The Guest Peter Boettke is a University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University, the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism, and the Director of the F.A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. As a teacher, Boettke is dedicated to cultivating enthusiasm for the economic way of thinking and the importance of economic ideas in future generations of scholars and citizens.  He is also now the co-author, along with David Prychitko, of the classic principles of economics texts of Paul Heyne's The Economic Way of Thinking (12th Edition, Prentice Hall, 2009).  His efforts in the classroom have earned him a number of distinctions including the Golden Dozen Award for Excellence in Teaching from the College of Arts and Sciences at New York University and the George Mason University Alumni Association's 2009 Faculty Member of the Year award. In 2005, Boettke received the Charles Koch Distinguished Alumnus award from the Institute for Humane Studies and the Jack Kennedy Award for Alumni Achievement from Grove City College.  Boettke was the 2010 recipient of the Association of Private Enterprise Education's Adam Smith Award as well as George Mason University's College of Humanities and Social Sciences Distinguished Alumnus of the Year Award. In 2012, Boettke received a doctorate honoris causa in Social Sciences from Universidad Francisco Marroquin.  In 2013, Dr. Boettke received his second honorary doctorate from Alexandru Ioan Cuza University in Romania. Dr. Boettke served as President of the Southern Economics Association from 2015 - 2017 and President of the Mont Pelerin Society from 2016 - 2018. He also is the Editor of the Review of Austrian Economics and the Associate Editor of the Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. Skip Ahead 0:50: Why did you decide to write this new book about Hayek? 5:10: It's interesting that you divide Hayek's work into four phases: Phase 1 is economics as a coordination problem… Phase 2 is the abuse of reason project… Phase 3 is the liberal principles of justice… and Phase 4, where he is addressing these concerns of cultural evolution. The book focuses on the first three phases—why did you decide to break the book down this way? 13:20: I think the common core of those three phases is the idea of Hayek developing epistemic institutionalism… what do you mean by this term? 17:44: Reading Hayek over the years, the idea of ignorance has always struck me as absolutely essential to his project- the idea that agents are not fully rational, that they stumble around in the world, they are purposeful, and they have limited information processing powers. And what we have to do is think about how institutions enable them to cope and to learn in these very non-ideal circumstances. 18:55: Why do you think there are so many misconceptions about what Hayek actually said? You'll repeatedly hear people say that Hayek's case for the market assumes that agents are fully rational or fully informed—or if they're not fully informed, the price system acts as a surrogate for perfect information. 24:08: To push back on the way economics is taught, I definitely agree that if you look at the dominant textbooks, market failure is a dominant theme. I think that what some people in that movement are suggesting… is the idea that the economist's model, the 101 model, starts from the assumption of there being some kind of a market, and then you talk about there being market failures which the government might correct. But the idea that the market is the primary mechanism of resource allocation is taken as given. What Knight and Johnson say is that you shouldn't start with any presumption in favour of anything- a market or anything else… Institutions should be more about negotiating that uncertainty. The Econ 101 model doesn't really recognize that problem. Is that a fair argument? 27:18: Hayek's argument is that, in a democratic, pluralistic society, we are not going to be able to agree on ends… so the only thing we can agree on is the means by which we interact with each other. [What if we disagree on the means, too?] 31:04: Let me ask you a little about Elinor Ostrom. One of the characterizations you get of Hayek goes something like this: he made very important arguments based on the limits to human knowledge that a broadly competitive market system helps people overcome those limitations more effectively than some kind of top down or centrally planned economy. There are many people now across the political spectrum who would accept at least part of that argument… but they would then say, for example, that we've learned from people like Elinor Ostrom that there's more to economic allocation than markets and states. 42:36: The Hayekian critique of the central planner is that the planner can't have access to the information which needs to feed into prices… the Ostrom argument which is analogous is that a central rule-maker can't frame rules to overcome collective action problems given that the circumstances of time and place which affect those collective action problems on the ground are radically dispersed across many different sorts of agents… so you need to have something like a discovery mechanism. 48:15: In the same way that Hayek sees competition between firms as a kind of discovery procedure where firms can copy the successful models and avoid the failing ones-- likewise in a polycentric order where we've got multiple decision centres which are public entrepreneurs, if you like, who are trying to cope with collective action problems in different ways, the different localities can observe what other localities are doing to try to learn themselves how to adapt to their own particular condition. 52:38: You mentioned that reconstructing the liberal project is a key part of… Hayek's work. If we're thinking about today's world, many people would argue that that project, in so far as it has been implemented (or attempted), is actually collapsing. We've got declining faith in free trade, protectionism is on the rise, we have a much greater scepticism of markets of any time in the last 30-40 years. Is there anything in Hayek's attempt in that 1960-80 period… that can help us address these problems? 1h:02: One mechanism to deal with our human divisions is democracy. The problem there is that people like myself think that cosmopolitanism is wonderful and we embrace creative destruction… but there are others who see creative destruction as the destruction of their identity.  

Guest: Peter BoettkeHosted and produced by Erwin Dekker and Reinhard Schumacher In this episode Erwin and Reinhard talk with Peter Boettke about his new book on Hayek, F.A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy, published with Palgrave Macmillan. We discuss the various stages in Hayek’s work, Hayek’s relation to neoliberalism, Pete’s contra-Whig methodology for the history of economics (with a hat tip to Kenneth Boulding), Hayek’s relation to the Scottish Enlightenment, what it means to be an epistemic institutionalist, and the extent to which there was continuity between the early neoclassicals and the Austrian School. As well as many other subjects related to Hayek, and what a Hayekian research program looks like. Peter Boettke is Director of the F. A. Hayek Program for Advanced Study in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, as well as the BB&T Professor for the Study of Capitalism at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, and a University Professor of Economics and Philosophy at George Mason University. He blogs at coordinationproblem.org.

Widely considered as one the most influential economists of the 20th century, F. A. Hayek continues to command the attention of scholars with his life and work. On this episode, Peter Boettke and Rosolino Candela sit down to discuss Boettke's new book F. A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy (Palgrave, 2018). Boettke presents this new book as focusing less on Hayek as an individual and more on Hayekian ideas. Throughout the discussion Boettke and Candela examine Hayek's uniting theme of epistemic institutionalism, the competitive market process, and how Hayek's contemporaries picked up on his work. They also discuss the limitations of 'Big Data' to answer the important questions of social science. These Hayekian ideas, Boettke and Candela contend, are still as pressing and worthy of research today. CC Music: Twisterium

Peter Boettke of George Mason University joins me once again on the podcast. He discusses the Hayekian principles laid out in his new book "F. A. Hayek: Economics, Political Economy and Social Philosophy". Check out the links at www.economicrockstar.com/hayekeconomics Support the show on Patreon at www.patreon.com/economicrockstar  

This episode features neuroscientist Ed Boyden discussing two inventions of his that have revolutionized neuroscience: optogenetics and expansion microscopy. Ed and Julia talk about Ed's approach to coming up with good ideas, why he prefers reading old science to new science, his big-picture plan for what he wants to solve in his career, and his take on the rationalist versus Hayekian debate over how to make important progress.

Mitch Toland, once an Obama supporter, made his way into Austrian economics and libertarianism in a most unusual way: his economics professor had him write a paper on Hayekian triangles (a graphical depiction of Austrian capital theory), and this wound up leading him to Ron Paul. He shares his story, plus his venture into politics, in today's episode.

F.H. Buckley, Foundation Professor at George Mason University's Scalia School of Law, and Senior Editor at The American Spectator, sits down with Ben Weingarten, Senior Fellow at the London Center for Policy Research and Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media, to discuss Buckley's new book “The Republic of Virtue: How We Tried to Ban Corruption, Failed, and What We Can Do About It.” Buckley and Weingarten discuss a series of topics including the state of American politics, Constitution as anti-corruption document, myths about the Constitutional Convention, problems of corruption stemming from the separation of powers and the dominance of the executive, how federalism has contributed to corruption, crony capitalism, the failure of campaign finance reform and much more. Learn more about 'The Republic of Virtue': https://www.encounterbooks.com/books/the-republic-of-virtue/.

On this episode of the Hayek Program Podcast, Hayek Program scholar Lawrence H. White discusses the history of the field of macroeconomics, Austrian business cycle theory, and illustrates how Austrian economics can be inserted into modern macroeconomic theory. CC Music: Twisterium

Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne, the keynote speaker at our upcoming event in San Diego, is a brilliant innovator and freedom advocate. He holds a PhD in philosophy from Stanford, but understands e-commerce and blockchain technology like an engineer. He also understands Austrian economics, and courageously uses his public profile to make the Hayekian case for a decentralized political, economic, and social order. This presentation is excerpted from his talk given on our Auburn campus discussing the relationship between Austrian theory and the blockchain, and what it means for the eventual demise of government gatekeepers and middlemen.]]>

Overstock.com founder Patrick Byrne, the keynote speaker at our upcoming event in San Diego, is a brilliant innovator and freedom advocate. He holds a PhD in philosophy from Stanford, but understands e-commerce and blockchain technology like an engineer. He also understands Austrian economics, and courageously uses his public profile to make the Hayekian case for a decentralized political, economic, and social order. This presentation is excerpted from his talk given on our Auburn campus discussing the relationship between Austrian theory and the blockchain, and what it means for the eventual demise of government gatekeepers and middlemen.

As we near the end of 2016, I want to take stock of the field of globalization and education. What were the big ideas this year? And where are we going in 2017? For the final show of the year, I’ve invited Susan Robertson and Roger Dale, co-editors of the journal Globalisation, Societies, and Education, to reflect on the year in research and point to future directions. In our conversation, we discuss a range of issues facing education, including: the limitations of mobility studies, the increase of migration worldwide, the rise of populism and anti-globalization movements, the role of trade deals in education, and the Hayekian world in which we find ourselves where individuals — not societies or governments — are at the center of social imaginaries and how this relates to educational privatization, private debt, and the discourse of choice. Susan Robertson is a Professor of Sociology of Education at the University of Cambridge, and Roger Dale, is a Professor of Education in the Centre for Globalisation, Education and Society, at the University of Bristol. Check out www.freshedpodcast.com.

Matt Needham is the host of the Social Change Podcast and Senior Director of Leadership Development at Students For Liberty. Matt's passion is advancing individual liberty. His search for ways to make the world a freer place led him to his work at Students For Liberty and also led to his interest in deeply understanding social change. The Social Change Podcast was born the desire to learn more about how people are changing the world. Matt digs deep into theories of social change with actual practitioners; the people taking action to reshape the world. The episode cover a wide range of topics: - Why did Matt start his podcast? - How to use a podcast as a learning tool - Why non-profits need a clear theory of social change - What are the best ways for non-profits to balance the activities that are good for fundraising and the activities that are good for achieving the desired outcomes - Discovering libertarian ideas - Building a career advancing liberty - Why Matt chose to not go to law school - Lessons learned from starting a podcast - Hayekian theory of social change - Entrepreneurial opportunities from social issues - Practical tips for starting a podcast —————————— This episode is brought to you by one of the most innovative accounting startups in the country, Ceterus. Ceterus is looking for accountants or finance-minded professionals who want more something more than a standard job. If you have accountants in your network that are interested in empowering entrepreneurs in a growing startup, visit isaac.ceterus.com. ___________ Show notes and links to all books, articles, and resources mentioned are available at isaacmorehouse.com If you are a fan of the show, make sure to leave a review on iTunes. All episodes of the Isaac Morehouse Podcast are available on SoundCloud, iTunes, Google Play, and Stitcher.

Steven Horwitz is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY and is currently Visiting Scholar at Ball State University, Indiana. Professor Horwitz is also an Affiliated Senior Scholar at the Mercatus Center Virgina, a Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute in Canada, and a Distinguished Fellow at the Foundation for Economic Education. Steve is the author of three books, Monetary Evolution, Free Banking, and Economic Order, Microfoundations and Macroeconomics: An Austrian Perspective, and Hayek's Modern Family:  Classical Liberalism and the Evolution of Social Institutions. He has written extensively on Austrian economics, Hayekian political economy, monetary theory and history, and American economic history. Steve has a series of popular YouTube videos for the Learn Liberty series from the Institute for Humane Studies and blogs at "Bleeding Heart Libertarians" and writes regularly for FEE.org. A member of the Mont Pelerin Society, he has a PhD in Economics from George Mason University and an AB in Economics and Philosophy from the University of Michigan. Check out the show notes page for all the links, books and resources mentioned by Professor Horwitz at www.economicrockstar.com/stevehorwitz

It's Jane Jacobs Week at Strong Towns. Nolan Gray is a writer for Market Urbanism. He analyzes Jane Jacobs' work in light of Hayekian philosophy and discusses the need to move away from central planning. Read his piece, Who Plans? Jane Jacobs' Hayekian Critique of Urban Planning.

It's Jane Jacobs Week at Strong Towns. Nolan Gray is a writer for Market Urbanism. He analyzes Jane Jacobs' work in light of Hayekian philosophy and discusses the need to move away from central planning. Read his piece, Who Plans? Jane Jacobs' Hayekian Critique of Urban Planning.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. In this podcast, recorded during my morning constitutional (stroll/walk), I discuss my take on how best to view the libertarian idea: its origins and basic concepts, from homesteading to body-ownership, inalienability, intellectual property, "coercion" vs. aggression, state vs. government, tactics and strategy and terminology and semantics vs. substance, etc., drawing mostly on the ideas of Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) The Problem with “Coercion” “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. (From an earlier note of mine about this: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni's work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law article, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener's comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 077. In this podcast, recorded during my morning constitutional (stroll/walk), I discuss my take on how best to view the libertarian idea: its origins and basic concepts, from homesteading to body-ownership, inalienability, intellectual property, "coercion" vs. aggression, state vs. government, tactics and strategy and terminology and semantics vs. substance, etc., drawing mostly on the ideas of Locke, Rothbard, and Hoppe. Relevant links: How We Come To Own Ourselves, Mises Daily (Sep. 7, 2006) (Mises.org blog discussion; audio version) The Problem with “Coercion” “What Libertarianism Is,” Mises Daily (August 21, 2009) Punishment and Proportionality: The Estoppel Approach, 12:1 Journal of Libertarian Studies 51 (Spring 1996). A Libertarian Theory of Contract: Title Transfer, Binding Promises, and Inalienability, Journal of Libertarian Studies 17, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 11-37 On the Danger of Metaphors in Scientific Discourse “Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes,” Mises Economics Blog (June 23, 2011) (C4SIF) Hoppe, chs. 1-2 of A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. (From an earlier note of mine about this: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni’s work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law article, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener’s comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)

Yanis Varoufakis of the University of Athens, the University of Texas, and former economist-in-residence at Valve Software talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the unusual structure of the workplace at Valve. Valve, a software company that creates online video games, has no hierarchy or bosses. Teams of software designers join spontaneously to create and ship video games without any top-down supervision. Varoufakis discusses the economics of this Hayekian workplace and how it actually functions alongside Steam--an open gaming platform created by Valve. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the economic crisis in Europe.

Yanis Varoufakis of the University of Athens, the University of Texas, and former economist-in-residence at Valve Software talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the unusual structure of the workplace at Valve. Valve, a software company that creates online video games, has no hierarchy or bosses. Teams of software designers join spontaneously to create and ship video games without any top-down supervision. Varoufakis discusses the economics of this Hayekian workplace and how it actually functions alongside Steam--an open gaming platform created by Valve. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the economic crisis in Europe.

Yanis Varoufakis of the University of Athens, the University of Texas, and former economist-in-residence at Valve Software talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the unusual structure of the workplace at Valve. Valve, a software company that creates online video games, has no hierarchy or bosses. Teams of software designers join spontaneously to create and ship video games without any top-down supervision. Varoufakis discusses the economics of this Hayekian workplace and how it actually functions alongside Steam--an open gaming platform created by Valve. The conversation concludes with a discussion of the economic crisis in Europe.

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast, Episode 001. I delivered this speech in September 2012 for the 2012 Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society in Bodrum, Turkey. The audio of my speech was corrupted due to a technical error, so I re-recorded a version of the speech; audio and streaming below. For others, see the links in the Program, or the PFS Vimeo channel. Other speeches will be uploaded presently. (This is the inaugural entry to my new podcast, Kinsella on Liberty.) The talk was largely based on two previous papers: “Legislation and the Discovery of Law in a Free Society,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11 (Summer 1995), p. 132. ((Note: I have since changed my mind on the some of the issues regarding the Hayekian “knowledge problem” and Leoni’s work in this regard, as I have noted in subsequent articles, such as the Knowledge, Calculation, Conflict, and Law review above, footnote 5. Oh, that I had heeded Jeff Herbener’s comments on an earlier manuscript, but I either got these comments too late, or did not fully appreciate them at the time. More information on the calculation debate.)) Condensed version: Legislation and Law in a Free Society,” Mises Daily (Feb. 25, 2010) Update: see also Is English Common Law Libertarian? (Powerpoint; PDF) [PFS; TLS]

A tribute from the 100th anniversary of his birth by Investors Business Daily. This audio Mises Daily is narrated by Steven Ng.

Seeing a Hayekian angle in William Gibson's science fiction novel, Pattern Recognition, may lead more thinkers to Hayek's The Use of Knowledge in Society and his other work.When Hayek came into Mises's employ, he favored the democratic-socialist politics of Wieser, his mentor at the university.

Eric Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the ideas in the book--why open source software development has been so successful, the culture of open source, under what conditions open source is likely to thrive and not to thrive, and the Hayekian nature of the open source process. The conversation closes with a discussion of net neutrality.

Eric Raymond, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the ideas in the book--why open source software development has been so successful, the culture of open source, under what conditions open source is likely to thrive and not to thrive, and the Hayekian nature of the open source process. The conversation closes with a discussion of net neutrality.

Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about a number of key issues in telecommunications and telecommunication policy including net neutrality, FCC policy, and the state of antitrust. Hazlett argues for an emergent, Hayekian approach to policy toward the internet rather than trying to design it from the top down and for an increased use of exchangeable property rights in allocating spectrum.

Thomas Hazlett of George Mason University talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about a number of key issues in telecommunications and telecommunication policy including net neutrality, FCC policy, and the state of antitrust. Hazlett argues for an emergent, Hayekian approach to policy toward the internet rather than trying to design it from the top down and for an increased use of exchangeable property rights in allocating spectrum.

See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Discuss this episode in the Muse community Follow @MuseAppHQ on Twitter Show notes 00:00:00 - Speaker 1: So we think a lot about how do you give agency back to people, but we think about if this is your web browser, this is your operating system, this is your home on the internet, how do you feel agency over Hello and welcome to Meta Muse. 00:00:16 - Speaker 2: Muse is a tool for thought on the iPad. This isn’t about Muse the product, it’s about Muse the company and the small team behind it. My name is Adam Wiggins, and I’m here today with my colleague Mark McGranaghan. Hey, Adam, and a guest, Josh Miller. Hello. Thanks for being with us here today, Josh. You’re an accomplished entrepreneur and also have a background in both the startup world with Branch, which I think later became part of Facebook, but also you’ve done a stint in government with the White House, if I’m not mistaken, and nowadays you’re working Obama White House just want to clarify that. 00:00:51 - Speaker 2: Fair enough. And now you’re working on the browser company, which is super interesting. Why don’t you tell us what you’re doing there? 00:00:59 - Speaker 1: Sher, thank you so much for having me. Honestly, I feel like I’m at Whole Foods right now doing my grocery shopping routine, listening to this podcast. So, uh, really awesome to hear that intro live and grateful to be talking to you both. My name is Josh, uh, working on the browser company. As the name might imply, we’re oddly fascinated by web browsers. We feel like we spend a ton of time in web browsers in 2020, too much time, maybe, and as we were looking at the kind of arc of web browser technology, it felt like the interface of the web browser and the jobs it did for you. It was fairly stagnant and honestly was just curious about why and what else it may look like. So there’s a group of about 10 of us, uh, in a room together, well, I guess a metaphorical room together experimenting pretty widely about what a web browser reimagined for 2020 might look like. So figuring it out as we go along and really happy to be here. So thank you for having me. 00:01:54 - Speaker 2: We’ve had a lot of informal chats through Twitter and other kind of conversations, but where maybe I really felt like I got my head around what you were doing was when your colleague Nate Parrott came and did a little workshop for the ink and Switch crew to show us the experiments you’re working on, and that was very. Interesting partially, you know, just to see inside the machine and what you’re doing, but also because it seems to me like you’re really taking what I would call a research approach. I think you are a startup or a venture funded startup. Is that the correct characterization? 00:02:23 - Speaker 1: Yes, that’s a correct characterization. I agree with that statement. 00:02:28 - Speaker 2: But even so, it seems like this approach you’re taking these very throwaway experiments while you figure out what your initial product is going to be as opposed to the maybe the more classic mode that I’m used to, which is you start with an idea that you love, you build that until it’s clear that it’s totally unviable and then you pivot to something else when you’re forced to. That’s a different approach. So when Nate demoed to the switch crew and it was really interesting to see those experiments, but he said something. In particular, that gave me an idea for a topic here, which is, he said, OK, we’re not innovating on the browser engine. Things like JavaScript run times and how the HTML is rendered and all that sort of thing. There’s been incredible technology developed on that in recent years. You’re innovating on the interface, all the stuff that goes around that core engine. Can you expand on that for us a little bit? 00:03:17 - Speaker 1: Sure, of course. First, worth noting. I am one of many people on the team, so I appreciate being the representative, but you know, everything I say, I’m trying my best to speak for everyone else doing the real work back in the office. In terms of innovating on the interface, I think the thing I want to touch on first was your comment about the R&D and experimental approach, because in some ways, that’s the core of our product philosophy. Whether or not it’s correct or not for us or others. I think with our first company, Branch, we’re 20 years old. Didn’t know what we were doing. We still don’t quite know what we’re doing, but we know a little bit more. And in our first company much more focused on let’s whiteboard everything, and then let’s mock up three directions, and let’s narrow it down to the best answer, and that will be the best answer and let’s go build that. And I think from our experience and maybe just our dispositions as creative folks, very much believe in that no one has any idea of what they’re doing. And in many ways, some of the most interesting innovations may sound like a dramatic word, but the most interesting progressions of interfaces and software products we’ve loved and we’ve built have sort of been accidental or if not accidental, we never intended them to be that big of a deal or that part of the product or that part of an idea to be that interesting. So from a philosophical perspective, our view on product iteration is bias towards experiments, quick experiments, hacking. Experiments, be intentional about what you’re trying and why, but be open-minded and succumbed to the fact that you don’t really have any idea what’s going to be meaningful and what’s not. So I think that’s generally our orientation, which I should note, we think is great for our specific prompt and our specific team. I don’t think is the only way to do things. And so for I just want to represent that as one viewpoint and one lens which we take to the product problem. 00:05:02 - Speaker 2: I was just gonna support your sort of we don’t know what we’re doing and that’s fundamental to innovation. I like the Einstein quote, which is, if we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it research. So I think of it as a discovery process that doing something new that no one has done before fundamentally means no one can know what they’re doing and you kind of have to embrace that a little bit, have this beginner’s mind, this humility, and just realize that it’s, it’s more of a treasure hunt than a Engineering project. 00:05:32 - Speaker 1: Yeah, I have one story on that note from a mentor of mine when I was 20 maybe. I really looked up to Evan Williams. He was the co-creator of Blogger, you know, really the publishing platform that in many ways popularized what we know is the concept of blogging. Then he went on to co-create Twitter. Obviously we know the impact that Twitter had on publishing in the world, and then went on to work on Medium, and I idolized him in a way when I was 19 or 20 because what passion for a single problem and what from afar looks like he had it all figured out. It was just over the arc of time, he was gonna come up with all the good ideas and just came out of him effortlessly and when we were 19 or 20, I had the lucky fortune of Getting a meeting with him and convinced him to kind of mentor us and invest in our first company branch and invited us to come work out of his office in San Francisco after he left Twitter and was sort of in R&D mode. And we viewed this as this aha moment. We were working on this new publishing platform. It was gonna be a different thing, and we had the Godfather, the genius, the expert that was just gonna tell us how to make it the next big thing, cause here’s the person that knew everything about publishing. And in our first meeting together after we moved to San Francisco, I laid out this 6 month plan with a bunch of questions for him of is it the right plan. And he stopped me, he said, Josh, I hope I didn’t get your hopes up. I have no idea what the right answer to these questions are. And actually, quite frankly, let me give you some advice. I’d be aware of anyone in Silicon Valley that purports to have the answers to questions like these, we’re all just making it up as we go along. We’re all just trying our best. So, let’s keep talking about this. I’m really excited. But I don’t have the answers and no one does. It’s obviously one worldview, but it was a very humbling, informative experience to hear the co-creator of blogger Twitter and Medium say, I’m just trying my best to making it up as I go along. And I’ve continued to subscribe to that worldview and philosophy as I’ve had a little more experience building software. It’s not the only one, but it’s definitely the one that I believe in. 00:07:31 - Speaker 2: Yeah, I can see why that would be really powerful, and there is clearly a skill, a talent, a whole world of capabilities for effectively searching for something new or a better way of doing things, improved technology and improved design, what we’re kind of broadly calling innovation here. So it can be tricky when I do describe this kind of process to others or you hear someone really successful like Kevin. Williams talk like in the story you just told that it seems like, well, we’re just making it up as we’re going along. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t a skill there and a structured way to go about this and discipline that’s needed and that there’s, you know, certain teams that can be really great at doing that and others that struggle more, but it’s a different mindset than this visionary top down. I just woke up one morning with the future in my mind and now I’ll spend the next 10 years building it according to that plan. It’s a very different mindset. 00:08:25 - Speaker 1: I think that’s totally right, and I think I describe it as a spectrum, and either end of the spectrum, in my opinion, is too far, and so one end of the spectrum, as you described, top down, we know the answer, we just have to build it. Other side is, we’re just aloof floating through the world, hoping to stumble across the next thing. I think every team that I’ve known that is extremely effective at interface innovation and Development has their own part of the spectrum, but I think in my experience, I’m curious to hear from you, Mark and Adam, is our teams that are very principled in what they are building for and why they’re building it and opinionated at that highest level motivating factor. So as an example of the browser company, I’ll share two hypotheses that end up becoming thematic buckets for experiment. One is our view is that if you look at the browser in 2020, it’s actually more like an operating system, not in the technical sense of the word operating system, but it’s no longer one of many applications on your computer that you go to momentarily to surf the World Wide Web and track down information. You’re doing all of your work in the browser, all of your apps, all of your documents. And so that’s a hypothesis and a principle, which suggests a certain type of opinionated experimentation and exploration, even if the exact implementation is something that we believe we don’t know and we’re gonna have to find out. I think another one is we think a lot about digital spaces as being analogous to physical spaces, and you think about a living room or a bedroom or an office, and those rooms are supposed to make you feel a certain way, and they may look different, even if they, from a utility or features perspective, all have chairs, you sit in them, you can exist in them. Generally speaking, they make you feel a certain way. That’s not as low level as we have a feature idea that we know is gonna work, but it’s not so vague that we could just build anything and count it as progress. How do you think about this Muse? I’m curious what your principles are. So I mean, first off, it’s worth stating, I know you invited me on this podcast. I’m on this podcast right now cause I am obsessed. With everything that you’re building at Muse, and ink and Switch as well. And I’m inspired by the way you do product development and interface innovation. It sounds like directionally, we’re pretty aligned in the way that we build things, but how do you think about somehow narrowing down the scope of what you experiment on while also leaving open the possibility that you actually have no idea what’s gonna work? 00:10:54 - Speaker 3: Yeah, well, first of all, thanks, Josh. I do think what you’ve described reflects the attitude that we have at Muse and ink and Switch. This kind of goes back to the previous episode where we talked about principled products where I do think you can’t expect to get there with pure brownian motion, you know, just randomly bouncing around. You need some sort of principle, vision, direction, valence, something that kind of tends to pull you and the team together in a unified way in some direction. I think that can take different forms. It could be principles, it could be this kind of postulates, it could be hypotheses, it can be an end goal that’s important to everyone. You just need something that’s kind of pulling people together. Another comment I would make is this idea of balance between theory and practice is also reflected in the literature on technological development in general. If you look at how things have improved in our material world, this is a point that’s made on the Roots of Progress blog by Jason. I’m sorry, I forget his last name, but Jason Crawford. Jason Crawford, there you go. Thanks, Adam. He makes this point that if you look at an empirical matter, innovations that have happened, they tend to be from groups that have been kind of bouncing between the realm of theory and practice, and both of those inform each other. And so I think that is reflected in how we work on software at Mu and Inc and Switch where we have some theories that are developing over time, and we have some experiments, some tests, some engineering, you know, field work, and Those kind of go back and forth, and you can’t expect to get very far just on one of those two legs. 00:12:14 - Speaker 1: One thing I’m curious about that we’ve thought a lot about, and I’m not sure we have the right answer, is I’ve seen some teams where the principal or guiding light is a hypothesis about what’s possible with software, or what’s possible from a product. Some people call it jobs to be done. I think other teams articulated in terms of a target demographic. Uh, elementary school teacher, a back end developer in Silicon Valley. I’m curious as you think about Muse, what I find so inspiring about the product is the tool for thought aspect that can be melded to my own instantiation of tools for thought and what I want to think about. I can imagine that direction is also difficult at times to know who you’re building for. How do you think about that balance between what and why, who, and I’m, there are other vectors I’m not covering. How do you think about that? 00:13:07 - Speaker 3: So there are some direct answers I can get to that. Maybe I’ll actually give Adam the chance to kind of articulate the specific things that we think about there. But I would also point out that I don’t think we can actually always expect to be able to articulate what’s drawing us in a particular direction. This is a kind of Hayekian idea where you Yeah, the hunch thing is a big part of it. 00:13:26 - Speaker 3: Yeah, just because something can’t be written out in words or articulate doesn’t mean it’s not there in people’s implicit knowledge. And so that points to another. The thing we very often use to draw us in directions, which is the energy that an individual person has for some idea. And that often just ends up being a quite good predictor of promising areas. 00:13:43 - Speaker 1: I’m so happy to hear that because I wasn’t sure if I was going to share that part of our process, because it’s true to us, but I don’t know how quote unquote good it is, is we are so motivated by the energy and emotion of the team, maybe to a fault, but I think, you know, I previously worked at Facebook and I think that a lot of large organizations, they’ve codified their approach to product development. This often may look like a design document that has a goal, problem statements, set of assumptions, input data, and you almost have to justify what you work on in a relatively formulaic way, which I think is extremely effective. Again, I think there are many ways to build products. We find ourselves a lot, oftentimes all of us are the plurality of us coalescing around a single idea or direction. And oftentimes, as you point out, it’s hard to justify it empirically, and it’s just something feels right, or we’re energized by it. In the early days of the browser company, we’ve definitely been driven a lot by that. It’s felt great so far, but it’s definitely a different posture that I’m sure has pros and cons, but I’m excited to hear that Muse works that way as well, because we found it to be really fun and fulfilling. 00:14:48 - Speaker 3: Yeah, and to be clear, you often have this raw data that’s influencing these opinions. So we have some use cases that we have in mind. We have some archetypal people that we’re working for, we have some technology theories, and those end up influencing the directions that we’re personally excited about pursuing. It’s just that you can’t always expect to be able to formulaically in close form, describe, given these inputs, here’s the function that determines where you should go next. Totally. 00:15:13 - Speaker 2: Mark and I might have talked about this before, but I think of the active entrepreneurship and product creation, which to me the building the company that builds the thing and building the thing is one unified whole, but there to me it’s about half and half or for me to be satisfied with the result. I think it has to be this balance of practical business needs to have customers and solve a problem they have in a way that’s useful and fits into their life for. Price that they find fair and that you have a reasonable distribution channel and all those business fundamentals, you have to have that, but then it’s also an act of expression, artistic expression. There’s something inside me that I want to express, something meaningful that I have to say, or me and my colleagues, part of the reason we’ve banded together is we think we have a thing to say together, we share some values or some sense, this hunch, this drive to make something that doesn’t exist in the. and I think that part of it, it really is like an art project, like painting a painting or writing a book or or something like that. You just have a thing you want to express, but part of the fun, intellectual challenge, satisfaction, but also hard part is actually balancing those two things together. And so it does mean on one hand, for example, following that energy that you’re both describing that feeling of like this seems right, there’s something here, let’s pursue this. That that building what’s in your heart is the way that my colleague Ryan sometimes put it. I think you have to do that, but you can’t do that at the expense of building a business that has those fundamentals, or you can, but you know, that works until the VC money is gone and then you won’t get more of it. So I think it’s that balance between the two that’s what makes this act such an interesting act of creation. 00:16:53 - Speaker 1: I think the discipline that balances this very well at their best are architects. So for example, we’re working on collaborating with the architect David Adjay. He designed the Museum of African American History in Washington DC and if you look at the building, it is very much an artistic expression. There’s a story behind it. You feel Adjay’s personality in the building, you feel his heritage and the heritage of. People he’s commemorating in the building. And you better believe in Washington DC at a publicly funded museum, there are some budget constraints, and there are some ADA rules to comply with, and there are bathrooms to build, and so I don’t yet know, and I don’t know if I’ll ever know how they do it, but I think architecture, not only for the analogies between digital spaces and physical spaces, but I also think for the mixture of practical realities. Jobs to be done, combined with artistic expression and emotion and personality. I’ve always admired how the greatest architects seem to tread those very, very well. 00:17:55 - Speaker 2: I see a lot of parallel there as well. I’ve read a number of architecture books less because I want to ever design or build a building and more that I see these really strong parallels and on one hand, yeah, you’re trying to express something beautiful that is art or can be, but at the same time, your building has to stand up. It can’t go down when the earthquake hits. People need to move through it. People have physical dimensions that need to be accommodated. Air needs to flow through, light needs to come in. Right? 00:18:19 - Speaker 1: You need HVAC. HVAC’s not pretty. 00:18:22 - Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly. That brings to mind. I’m looking at some images here of the museum you mentioned of course I’ll link that in the show notes. It also brings to mind. I saw this fellow, Danish fellow Jark Ingalls, I think. The name speaks some years ago and the Netflix show Abstract had featured him in an episode, and he’s a really good example of almost avant-garde, very kind of forward thinking to the point of being quite weird sometimes with his designs, but also really Sort of challenging the status quo and again, same thing listening to him talk about each building and sort of what he was trying to express through that and how that fit into the time and the cultural moments and whatever else felt very close to some of my motivations when I start companies and build software. 00:19:05 - Speaker 3: Yeah, and also to connect this architecture topic a bit to interfaces, it reminds me of the book A Pattern Language by Christopher Alexander. So this is a book that basically catalogs patterns and architecture from the very small to the very large that Alexander had observed as being successful over decades and hundreds of years of people interacting with buildings. So the very small scale it might be that people really like to have shelving at waist heights. That’s kind of where you conveniently put stuff. At the very large scale, it’s like your city should have greenery accessible to people within, I don’t know 10 minute drive or something. And the patterns in the book are very interesting, but also the way that he arrived at these understandings, which are basically about interfaces between people and buildings, is observing, it’s kind of this like archaeology of what has actually worked over the many years that people have interacted with buildings. And I think it’s interesting that with software, we’re now getting enough data where we can do that, and instead of having to invent things from first principles, we can say whenever people use software. They really want to like cut out stuff and like put it somewhere temporarily and hold it. And that’s something that it’s really important that software does. And you don’t need to invent that idea from first principles. You can just observe that people want to do that all the time. I think there’s a lot of opportunity in there that can draw on this kind of pattern language type thinking. 00:20:15 - Speaker 1: I think that’s a great connection and making the connection back to interfaces again, a thing we and I have struggled with is When do you reinvent the wheel? When is it worth questioning the interface, given that there are these patterns in the physical and digital world that over some number of years, decades, we have proved work extremely well and evoke a certain type of feeling or action. When do you question them and when do you accept them? So in our first company Branch, you know, being 20 reinvent all the things. You have a follow button, we have a watch button. You have vertical comments, our comments branch to the side. And it felt like, because it can be so exciting and tempting to question and reimagine interfaces because they are spaces and touch points that we encounter so much in our day to day life. There is an excitement to the novel, and there’s an excitement to the new. But as I learned, and you’ve probably learned, I think the more advanced or accomplished product designers are the ones that know what to focus on, and they know what are the highest points of leverage in the interface, or what are the parts of the interface that are. broken and deserve reinventing. And so one thing common conversation we have at the browser company is, should we be reinventing the wheel here? Is this the right place to focus on pushing the boundaries? Again, I cannot purport that we have a good answer to those questions yet, or that we’re experts on this topic. But I do think it’s a temptation and a talent to know when do you rely on Christopher Alexander’s-esque observations about patterns that are wonderfully human, and when do you question whether or not we’re doing things the right way. 00:21:58 - Speaker 2: To even ask the question, when do we reinvent and when do we go with the known pattern is the right place to be. I think there’s a natural tendency certainly goes with youth. I was there as well at age 20 which is you just want to blow up the status quo because that’s like in your spirit at the time. That’s what young people want to do. And definitely entrepreneurs, I think, are by their nature, people that like change, novelty, new things, shake it up, try something new, blow it all up, and then you have others who Maybe you’re more stasis oriented, like to conserve, protect, go with what’s working, tradition, that sort of thing. And I think the art is to learn to step back from either of those tendencies wherever you may naturally fall and instead try to analyze where is there opportunity, where is there something that society can really benefit or individuals could benefit from a reinvention and a rethinking versus we have a known pattern that works and, you know, stick with that. 00:22:55 - Speaker 1: On that note, earlier in my career personally, I think I fancied myself more of an artist. I’m giving myself a little hard time and being a little self-deprecating, but I think I viewed things like revenue strategy and business model and market structure as being things that corrupted the creative process and the innovation on interfaces process. And I spent two years working at an investment fund. Observing the sort of startup technology landscape from a venture capital perspective. And one of the things that struck me is that some of my favorite products from uh innovation on interface’s perspective actually fundamentally took advantage of business model innovation and misplaced incentives in generating the product experiences that I, from an emotional perspective, fell in love with and changed my experience. We’re actually driven from looking at where companies Incumbents were making money saying, wait, that seems a little flawed or perverse, and extrapolating from there. And so I think even that’s interesting to say, even if you care about feelings and emotion and the way buildings hit the street, sometimes to know where to focus can come from something that could be as boring to some as, well, how’s the incumbent making its money? What incentives does that cause? One example from Facebook, Snapchat, one of its core innovations, was opening to the camera. And, you know, it’s hard to imagine that. That was a huge deal. Talk about interface innovation. It broke every rule in the playbook of social networks. 00:24:27 - Speaker 2: I was actually going to cite that exact one, which is in the Snap S one, they actually articulate this pretty well, which is they consider the camera in the phone to be the most important interface, and they lead with that on absolutely everything from their little snap codes to the fact that the apps open straight into that. And it’s more obvious now we live in a world where smartphone cameras really are this cruel. crucial input device alongside touch screens and keyboards and whatever else, but probably at the time you’re talking about, that was quite a shocking idea. 00:24:58 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and I don’t purport to suggest that Evan Spiegel was motivated to put the camera first from a business perspective, but if you have an incumbent like Facebook who monetizes through showing ad units in a news feed right when you open the screen, structurally, they are not incentivized and it will be difficult for them to compete on that vector. We think about this at the browser company. As you mentioned earlier in the podcast, Chrome and the Chromium team specifically is responsible for insane technological progress on the browser front, and we’re building on the backs of that and grateful for that. From a business perspective, Chrome is useful to Google because it’s lead generation for search ads. The more you use their web browser, the more you use the internet, the more you’re gonna do searches on Google. The more searches you do on Google, the more ads they can show you. And if you talk to their the Chrome team members, they’ll even explain the genesis of the Chrome team was not that they wanted to go into the browser market. They just thought Internet Explorer was so shitty with all of its IE toolbars, that it was making the internet experience poor. And if the internet experience was poor, you’re gonna do far less Google searches. And so that’s interesting and at the time that was novel. Flash forward to today, Google and Chrome are not incentivized to make a more feature rich. Powerful web browser that stretches the definition of what a web browser is, not because they’re not capable, not because they’re not creative, but their incentive structure from a business model perspective is one in which they just want you to type little searches in that URL bar as much as possible. So if you open 40 tabs, that’s 40 potential Google searches, and so it’s not that clean as anyone that’s listening to this podcast that has worked at a large organization like Google. I’m dramatizing a bit, but again coming back to interface innovation. And where do you know where to focus? I agree that often that comes from energy, often that comes from principle and product hypotheses, and oftentimes it might come from looking at the market structure you’re competing and say, where is everyone else weak, where are they incentivized, and what sort of perverse side effects does that lead to? 00:27:04 - Speaker 3: Yeah, this is actually a big part of the ink and switch and muse origin story where we had observed the economics of the industry were very heavily rotated towards a social slash advertising and be enterprise sass, and those were the most obvious things to make. economical and so the lion’s share of work in the industry was being put behind those to the exclusion to our mind of classic creative computing for individuals. And so we saw an opportunity product wise that was like you said, kind of created by the economic dynamics. 00:27:34 - Speaker 2: I think it’d be interesting to return to the item you brought up earlier there, Josh, about the kind of operating system, the web or the web browser is kind of a set of operating system primitives that sort of exists separately from the host computing operating system. I strongly agree with your characterization there that the web is kind of its own OS and in fact OS. It has a really specific meaning in terms of kernels and. Vice drivers and things like that, but I think of it more as the operating environment or the way in which the mental models and the set of primitives that you interact with. So on classic desktop computers, that’s things like copy paste, files, mouse cursor, maybe on Mac OS you have the menu bar at the top or on Windows, you have the start menu in the lower left, and then the web and the web browser has its own set of those core primitives that includes URL. includes something like the back and forward button, maybe something like tabs was a major interface innovation that came from the sort of Mozilla Firefox early days, and I see a similar thing for Muse as well, which is for Muse I see something similar, which is I in many ways envision Muse as kind of being a reinvention of the file browser, something like the Mac OSinder or even. stretching back to the DAS days, something like Norton Commander, the files, I think are this cornerstone primitive in how we interact with computers, particularly how professionals interact with computers, but in many ways they’ve kind of aged to the point and become very static in a way that they haven’t really made this jump to, for example, the mobile world very well. And a lot of the way we think about Muse, or at least I do, is as taking this set. Of things that typically are part of the operating system, essentially how you manage your digital stuff which is expressed as files on a file system, but bring that into a mobile touch, you know, more visual interface. What can we bring forward that works really well about files and then what are things that maybe we want to leave behind and embrace more modern elements that have been brought to us from, for example, the touch environment. So I’d love to hear what you see as being the areas your team is either currently working on or just most excited to innovate on in terms of the browser as a set of operating system primitives. 00:29:51 - Speaker 1: Sure. So we think about the answer to that question really is a series of observations, and really the observations that guided us wanting to start this company. Some of those observations include, if we looked at our Mac OS docs and we looked at the quote unquote local applications we use the most, obviously they were all internet-based, but they were also all built on Electron, which meant they were secretly just Chrome, which means we were running 7 versions of Chrome on our computer instead of just a single browser. So that was interesting. 00:30:20 - Speaker 2: And just for listeners that might not know it, Electron is kind of a container that lets you run a web application as if it was something native to Mac OS or Windows. 00:30:31 - Speaker 1: And it’s an incredible technology in the sense that as a budding group of developers, you get a ship a cross-platform application that feels native to the operating system without writing native code. And so grateful for Electron, we’ve prototyped an Electron. It’s a great technology. But as you’re pointing out, we actually ran this early experiment where we launched the Notion app. We use Notion. I love Notion. The company runs on Notion, so this isn’t a criticism, but we launched the Notion Electron app, the local quote unquote Mac app, and then we built a prototype of our browser which was just the pure internet. There was zero browser Chrome, and we loaded Notion in that, and you put it side by side, and it’s almost indistinguishable which one is the Mac app and which one is the local app. That doesn’t suggest what we’re building, that doesn’t suggest how to make a better browser, but it just struck us as an observation as, huh, hmm, that doesn’t seem like it makes a ton of sense. Another one is, if you think about Mac OS, you talk about the file system. A large reason operating systems exist is to help us manage our files, and that files mean more and more things, but all of our stuff. I observed again. Just for me, I feel like I live in a post upload world. My files are all permalinks, random strings of characters that I enter in my web browser. I have Figma URLs, I’ve notion URLs, and so on and so forth. And so even from a file and folder perspective, I’m looking at my desktop right now. I got nothing but a conglomeration of screenshots that I wish would go away and I didn’t intend to be there. All of my files are in the browser. And so on and so forth. So I think, you know, I was a sociology major in college. I’m inspired to work on technology and software and interfaces, not because of the technology, but because of the people. And so I think as we just observed how people are already using their desktop computers and how they’re already using web browsers, it just invoked a series of questions and observations that, again, we’re trying to answer, we don’t have answers to yet. We may never answers to, but just struck us as almost cultural shifts in how we use technology that may just maybe may warrant a new browser interface that could look more like an operating system. But at the end of the day, my wife, my mom, my niece, I don’t think they care at all about the word operating system. And so we also think a lot about what are the metaphors or what’s the right way to talk about the scope of our work that is not just geared towards people on this podcast. 00:32:58 - Speaker 2: Could you give us a hint of some of the stuff you’re working on? I noted here on your recent tweet of comparing kind of a browser to a figma canvas. Obviously things of spatial zooming interfaces are of particular interest to me. I think again your colleague Nate there tweeted some short videos that he used at that. You want to speak to that or give us another example of what sort of things your team is doing to try to push the boundaries or to try to improve what a browser experiences for a power. 00:33:27 - Speaker 1: Sure, I think first and foremost, I’ll plug Nate Parrott, a designer on our team who, one of the things he does, which I love, is we share, I don’t want to call them failed experiments, but past experiments that we learned a lot from, but weren’t quite right. 00:33:42 - Speaker 2: The primary output was learning. Yes, exactly. 00:33:45 - Speaker 1: That’s what we talk about those. Exactly. So if you’re curious, I think better than my terrible radio voice, I check out Nate’s Twitter account and he shared a series of these, and we’ll continue to share more. I think that just building off of the canvas prototype that you reference, what Adam’s talking about is we prototyped a view of a web browser, which is, imagine all of your web pages or tabs, lay down, if you spread out a big white sheet of paper on the table or desk in front of you, and each 8.5 and 11 piece of paper that you plop down on it was a web page, what if that was your interface for navigating and interacting with the internet and your web browser? Because it was tweeted, it did not quite work, but I think, you know, one of the themes that that touches upon is an observation we made about the way we use web browsers is when the concept of a web browser was originally popularized 25 years ago. The internet was a document network. It primarily revolved around retrieving and finding and reading information. 00:34:45 - Speaker 2: Sure, well, I mean, it was invented by a physicist working at CERN that wanted a way to share his research with other researchers, right? 00:34:52 - Speaker 1: And it was wonderful. And however, in 2020, I’m doing everything in my personal life in the web browser. I’m doing everything in my professional life in the web browser. In my professional life, for example, that can mean focusing on a specific task and writing a long document and not wanting to be interrupted. It could be going on a rabbit hole late at night. Probably some of the topics we’re talking about today. I’m gonna go Google them later, and 8 hours later, I’m gonna end up in some random Wikipedia link. And given the breadth of parts of our Life we turned to the web browser for. And given even within those parts, the different modes or moments that we rely on the browser, it just seems silly that every incumbent browser was a one size fits all. The window never changes, the tab bar never changes. It’s all the same all the time, completely consistent and unchanging. Which could be correct, you know, the counterargument to this perspective is that there’s some solace or comfort in the fact that you know what it’s gonna look like. Our view is, if you take the analogy to the real world, sometimes you want to read in your bedroom, sometimes you want to read in the living room, sometimes you wanna host a party in the dining room, depending on what You’re doing and what part of your life and the time of day and how you’re feeling, you might want different spaces. And so what would that look like in the web browser if there was no Chrome whatsoever? What if there was nothing? It was just a pure web page. What if you had 28 web pages tossed onto a table and you could move them around and see them spatially? What if there was a view to, you know, manipulate 13 at a time and take bulk actions and move things around and export them and I’m kind of making this up as I go along. I’m not suggesting that our final product or current product has all these things, but that’s an example of starting at the top level principle, how we end up going down, down, down to prototype that might be, what would FIMA look like if it was a web browser, for example. But what about a use? I think you are tackling an equally broad and large surface area. So how are you? in recent days prioritizing what you work on. 00:36:51 - Speaker 2: It’s hard. My experience has always been if you’re working in a company you’re on a product that has a lot of possibility, it’s very fertile territory, and the biggest problem you have is in fact being pulled so many directions because there’s so many great things you could make, or as I think there’s a quote somewhere that’s great startups die of indigestion, not starvation. We definitely feel that in MS, there’s so many directions we want to go from new kinds of content type, video and tweets and lots of other things we have on our list, but there’s a whole other track that has to do with kind of collaboration and sharing, whole other track that maybe has to do with kind of programmability, whole other track that has to do with much more powerful kind of spatial manipulation and non-spatial manipulation, and it’s all really good and all potentially really valuable and You know, that’s even combined with the small things that users are asking for, at least once you, you know, are to the stage that we’ve been at for a little while now, if you have a pretty solid user base and they’re using it for real things in their daily life and there’s a steady stream of bug reports and small feature requests and things like that. So it’s tough to find the right thing and keep your focus, but you really do, especially with a small team, you know, we’re 5 people and don’t really plan to expand beyond that foreseeable future. It’s so critical. To come together, consider all the options, but then pick a thing and say, we’re gonna do this for a little while because we think this is a really compelling space. We like to kind of time box that. We’re gonna spend 2 months going really deep on one theme, see how far we can get on that, and then step back and, and see what we’ve learned. 00:38:20 - Speaker 1: Yeah, and it’s worth noting for us at least, as much as it’s fun to talk about these heady directions and observations, and it’s earnest and genuine. At the same time, if my team was here, they would point out that some of our favorite features and honestly favorite themes of directions have come from very quote unquote uninspiring simple couple hour feature development that actually turned out to feel a lot better than we thought. I’ll give you one tangible example. We multitask a lot in our browser, as I’m sure everyone on this podcast does, and we prototype the ability to click a tab and drag it and drop it on another tab and automatically create a split screen mode that you can move the dividing bar left and right and kind of adjust the view of the split screen. Drag and drop for split screen, not inspiring, no one’s gonna come work for us because of that. And it was fucking fantastic, and one of our most used features, cause guess what? What do people do today or some people do? They open a second window, they resize both windows and do this dance where you pull that corner up and that corner up and so it may not be part of a connection to architecture or anything that gets us really excited, but turns out it’s damn useful and the fact that it was that useful, even if it was that small, suggested a kind of direction to keep exploring. So I think it, it would be honest, most honest to also mention that it doesn’t always come top down from themes. Actually, I found more successfully it comes from tiny little features and extrapolating, like, why did that feel as good as it did? What does it suggest and you go that way? 00:39:57 - Speaker 2: Yeah, well, I think the bottom up extraction of the pattern and that there is a bigger theme there that points to an underlying need that maybe you could double down on. It’s not, hey, we just made a small random thing and it happened to work, maybe sometimes that’s it, but probably someone on the team followed a hunch or did something according to what they saw from user behavior. It worked out way better than expected, and then you can stop and reflect on why. Why did this work so well? Why is a side by side of two tabs? Why is that? Key to how people use the web and what can we learn from that and maybe there is a bigger theme we can work up to from there. 00:40:30 - Speaker 3: It’s funny that you mentioned fluid multitasking. This is something that we’ve studied a lot in ink and Switch and Muse because our user research has shown that’s very important for the creative process. It is an overwhelmingly common thing that you do. You have a few documents open, you want to read them and put them at the same time. But notably, it’s still an unsolved problem on iOS. You basically can’t really do good multitasking on the platform, even on the big i. Ads. You can sort of get these sort of split screens, but they’re not fluid and they’re really hard to bring in, and they kind of go away when you’re changing them and they come back. That’s also interesting because it, uh, it’s, it’s very much dictated by the platform. So on the web, or web-based platforms, it’s quite straightforward to add a horizontal split and to fluidly move it. It’s kind of built into the engine, whereas an iOS, as it is kind of a platform thing, and if you want to do it in a way that would incorporate multiple apps you need, basically the platform’s help. So it’s a different beasts. 00:41:16 - Speaker 1: Operating systems rearing in their head. Yeah. One thing I’d love to get your guys' advice on, uh, since I have you here, is we had an experience recently where we prototyped direction that we were super excited about, didn’t work, clearly didn’t work. There’s some things about it that we liked, but all in all, considered it uh let’s move on. Couple months later came back and had this inkling that maybe some things had changed in our product that might suggest this feature would work again. Tried it again, and I think specifically took it to a much higher fidelity than we had previously, and all of a sudden, I think it’s the coolest thing we’ve built so far, not to tease too much, but the larger question is, as a team that experiments widely and quickly and iteratively and is not afraid to take the research process, which means tossing stuff out. Any tips for how do you know when it didn’t work because it’s not gonna work, and it didn’t work because you didn’t take it far enough to master the fine details that as we know from our favorite software products truly matter. It’s just this experience, which was an accident, and again, I don’t think we did well. Makes me wonder what else we’ve missed just because we didn’t take the extra week to do that extra design polish or animation or rev on a slightly different iteration that we were so close, but we gave up because we took the wrong conclusion. I know these are very broad questions and so, you know, maybe there’s a specific example that comes to mind, but I think that’s the risk of being a team that doesn’t take to high fidelity and to user ready production code with every iteration is that some really great ideas need that in order to work. 00:42:56 - Speaker 2: Also a really tough one. I think it is largely an act of judgment or even taste, probably something you develop with experience over time, but yeah, I’ve been in that exact position many, many times and Yeah, maybe people point to that. I can think of high profile examples on that. This is more the product level than the prototyping level, but maybe it’s a larger scale version of the same thing. Why is it that Slack was this breakout success when we already had hip chat and campfire, and most people would just say Slack was just nicer, it was just better executed. They just took it a bit further and Really put that extra polish on it. And you could point to some features or whatever, but it just had this higher degree of craftspersonship, maybe more love put into it, more attention to the user experience. It turned out group chat is this incredibly useful and central thing for many and most teams. Yeah, Slack just kind of broke through that boundary. Another one for me that’s like that is back when I was first living in San Francisco and realized pretty quickly that a car, private car ownership was not the way to get around, but public transit was weak and whatever else, and I eventually realized taxis are a pretty good way to go when you need to get across town, but it was really hard to call one and I thought, why doesn’t someone have an app to do this? Why can’t I just press a button and summon a car to my house and I can use the GPS on my phone to know where I am. And then I was delighted when I came across someone actually in the Ruby community who was building this exact thing. I think it was called Taxi Magic, and they hooked into the dispatch system and they would summon a taxi for you. And they even had a little map that tracked where it was. And I used it for a good while because I really wanted this product to exist, and I really believed in it and they did pretty well, but ultimately it was just kind of not a great experience and the taxi would get lost and it would take a long time or the address wouldn’t be right. And so I tried to stick with it. Then Uber comes along and they just nailed the experience completely, partially because they weren’t using the dispatch system. And that was for me and clearly lots of other people, this revelatory moment of like, wow, it turns out calling a ride from your phone is really, really great, but they didn’t execute far enough or they didn’t take it far enough to find that out. 00:45:03 - Speaker 1: One example for me that I’ve been thinking about recently is I had this moment with superhuman. I’m not sure what listeners think about superhuman, but I have found it to be a better email experience for me, putting aside the cost. I work in email in an unfortunate amount, so I probably am more attuned to the little details and bells and whistles, but I was just floored by how fast I felt, how productive I felt using it, and my colleague turned to me and enumerated how every feature I was describing has been in Gmail for like a decade or something. And somehow superhuman tied it together in a way, I don’t know if this was marketing, if this was design polish, if it was interaction design, if it was, I mean, who knows, but I think it’s another great example I’ve been thinking about of it’s not just about building the correct features, it’s tying them together in a way and with a level of polish that I don’t know, has that special quality to it. And so it’s one thing to think about a production email client that you’re charging $30 a month for, but how do you know which need that extra level of polish in order to kind of break through and which things like there’s some features we’ve built where it’s, this is just so damn broken that it could be ugly, and People would flock to it. And I think those are some of our most favorite beloved products were ones where you see V1, you’re like, that was the first version of Acme Co. but it turned out itself such an acute need that we didn’t need that last mile. But I think superhuman relative to Gmail is an example of where, like, wow, Gmail had it. I guess they’re doing fine. We shouldn’t feel too bad for Gmail, but at least at a personal level was a snooze is not new, it turns out. 00:46:45 - Speaker 2: Another piece of your anecdote about building something, not working, setting it down and coming back later, and then finding it does work. That’s something I’ve experienced a lot in my career. 00:46:57 - Speaker 3: Adam, isn’t this one of your Hiroku rules? 00:46:59 - Speaker 2: Uh, could be. I have to look it up. Yeah, certainly we talked there about throwing things away and that sort of thing, but timings, timings. That’s what it is. 00:47:09 - Speaker 1: Speaking of timing matters, yeah, I’ve been really curious at a personal level, and I think this applies to you, Mark. How the both of you ended up trying to innovate on interfaces when previously working on a company like Hiroku or I believe Mark, you were at Stripe previously among other jobs. Not that those products did not have great interfaces, but I assume the podcast about why Hiroku worked or Stripe worked would probably be a different number of topics than the ones we’re discussing today. So I find it really fascinating and interesting that both of you have gravitated towards Muse and the interface challenges you’re working on. Curious to hear what, if anything changed, if I’m thinking about it the wrong way, if, you know, how did you two get here from where you were before? 00:47:52 - Speaker 3: Well, there is more in common than you might think. So those are all basically tools, and there’s a lot of generalized tool thinking that goes into all three of those companies, I think, as well as obviously, you know, building software companies. But yeah, then in terms of timing for me, I mean, a lot of it was, I had fully experienced the world of enterprise, and there’s a lot of great stuff there. And obviously it was how I started my career. To be really honest, I just wasn’t thrilled about looking at Gmail and Google Docs for the rest of my professional career. I just couldn’t see myself being really excited. About it. And at the same time, Adam and team were working on ink and Switch, where they had kind of the other piece of that puzzle. They saw this opportunity for developing software that’s about enabling people’s creative potential. And that really resonated with where I was at the time. And then of course, I loved working with Adam before at Hooku and I definitely want to do it again. 00:48:39 - Speaker 2: Yeah, I feel like there is a pretty strong connection to, yeah, work you did at Stripe around say APIs as well as at Hiroku. Speaking for myself, I certainly have gotten from a lot of folks that it feels like a non sequitur to go from cloud developer tools to call a productivity iPad app. And there is obviously some big jumps to make there. There was a lot of education I had to give myself. In order to learn about building apps on a mobile platform by comparison to the web stack that I spent a lot of my life on. But to me, there is a really a through line and a connection, which is it is about tools and enable people’s creativity and productivity, and that just gives me a thrill. And I would say at Hiroku, a huge part of that was the interface. We had to build a lot of infrastructure. Make the interface that we wanted, but I knew that I wanted this idea of servers and configuration files as being the main way that I get my software in front of my users and needing to go fucks with those every single time I want to ship a change to them didn’t feel like the right interface anymore. So I think of Haruku as primarily a whole other interface, and that of course also led us down this path of command line tool. And this kind of term developer experience, which I don’t know if we invented that, but I think we had a lot to do with popularizing it, which is the idea of, OK, just because you’re building an API or a command line, those things are very technical tools and very technical interfaces, but you can still bring the user experience design ethos that I think at the time, now we’re talking 15 years. Back was kind of on the rise with maybe more consumer products, but then you can take that same thing and say, well, developers are people too. They like nice experiences. They like tools that are easy to understand and use that serve their needs well, and they like different kinds of experiences, text-based experiences and keyboard-based experiences, and they’re comfortable learning technical things that maybe a lot of more non-engineer users would not be comfortable learning, but You can bring those same principles to bear there. So I think of Haruku very much as an innovating on interfaces and the tools for Creative people company, and then Inkot Switch was a research lab that worked on those things as well, and now Muse is, it happens to be on this other platform and have this other kind of business model, maybe even a different kind of target user, but fundamentally there is that through line that ties it all together. 00:51:03 - Speaker 3: Yeah, and back to timing. I didn’t understand this when I first started working with Adam and team at the lab, but it was definitely a big influence in deciding to go off and do Muse. Muse is really riding a particular technology curve. So if you look at what has happened and especially consumer and gaming, which drives a lot of the individual level of technology that we see today, you could basically plot the size, density, refresh rate, and responsiveness of touch screens over time. And if you Kind of draw those dots out a few years, you see something like, we should have a kind of small desk size touch screen that exists, and it’s quite good. And in that world, what is the software that powers it? And it definitely wasn’t a big phone. It wasn’t a desktop transliterated onto that thing. And I wasn’t convinced it was the iPad is currently existed then several years ago. I felt like you needed something quite different, and we saw a particular timing opportunity with Muse to go and try to build that. 00:51:59 - Speaker 1: I think there’s also something interesting about, I love the way you talk about both of your stories is actually there being a through line, and they’re not so different as portrayed. And I also think there’s something interesting about the merging of worlds and perspectives. It’s one thing we’ve thought a lot about because if you had told me I was going to work on a desktop web browser in 2020, 5 years ago, I would have laughed at you. And actually, quite frankly, the origin story was the browser company was supposed to be a web browser for work specifically and an enterpriseas tool, and I actually gave the idea to my now co-founder and former co-founder Hirsch, and I said, I think it’s really boring, but I think it’s a great idea. You should go work on it. I’ll fund you. And that was the original intention. And then as I started collaborating with him from that original relationship, I realized that the web browser was one of the only pieces of software that is in the middle of the Venn diagram of tools and apps that my mom uses, my little niece uses, I use. The web browser is. Almost the most consumer tool out there. And I hadn’t really thought about it that way before. And, you know, we’ve hired people from Instagram and Snapchat and take a very consumer lens. So I think what you would say, our desktop web browser, we probably rely on more for work and getting things done than fun time on a Sunday these days. So anyways, I just think there’s something interesting in both of your stories and how you arrived at Muse and what you did before, as well as kind of how we think about the browser company, which maybe some of the more interesting interfaces we’ll find out, arrived from multidisciplinary teams that bring the intersection of different experiences that others may see as not compatible or different, but actually there’s an interesting through line, as you said, Mark, that ties them together in some way. 00:53:42 - Speaker 2: Josh, do you feel like there’s a theme or a narrative arc in your career, you know, going from social media space to government to now reinventing the browser? 00:53:54 - Speaker 1: It’s definitely the sociology major in me. I was a pretty poor student, so I wouldn’t say I’m a good sociology major, but I’m a people person. I literally was sitting back 90 seconds ago thinking, man, the internet is so fucking cool that I met you guys through the internet, reached out cold. We’re now having a podcast, having a topic about something that I would love to geek out more, but I don’t feel like I have an outlet to do it. And so what drew me to technology is like this podcast is happening right now and how cool is that? And I think I am driven by people and what we do and what we do together, and That’s what drew me to, you know, I also did urban studies and urban planning in college. I just like the meeting places of people and the ways in which we come together, and I think the internet’s one example of that. Public policy and our government’s one example of that, and the civic Commons, a web browser is one of those things, and so I think that’s the through line for me personally. I mean, I’ll tell you a quick story about the way I even got into technology. I was interning for my senator. I did random internships. Definitely never thought about technology. And then a professor from Harvard came to guest lecturer named Robert Putnam, and he wrote a book called Bowling Alone. And Bowling Alone is about social capital, and the decline of social capital and these kind of meeting points in the real world where you bump into your neighbors and fellow citizens, and what that is doing for society. And I was just floored by it. And I went up to him after and I said, Hey, Professor Put. I’m Josh. What should I do with my life? And he sort of said, I don’t know you and I have no idea, but if you liked my book in this lecture, there’s this entrepreneur in New York who started a company after he read my book and he was inspired too, so you could go work for him. And that company was Meetup and that entrepreneur was Scott Heiferman, and I went to intern at Meet Up, and the first day at Meetupp, I went to an all hands, and Scott got up on stage and gave this impassioned lecture about the internet was bringing us together and we were turning away from banks with Kickstarter and it was bringing us together and we were turning away from universities and it was a little idealistic, and