Podcasts about ifp

Hostia: Martin Šuster (ekonóm z Rady pre rozpočtovú zodpovednosť) a Branislav Žúdel (riaditeľ Odboru makroekonomických analýz a prognóz IFP). | Prognózy tempa budúceho rastu HDP postupne chladnú. Kým v septembri ešte ministerstvo financií avizovalo 1,3 %, v aktuálnej prognóze je to už len jedno percento. Odhad Rady pre rozpočtový zodpovednosť klesol z októbrových 1,3% dokonca pod percento. Ktoré faktory v danom období zhoršili výhľad vývoja ekonomiky? Je predpoklad ďalšieho spomaľovania? Napriek doterajšej snahe konsolidovať verejné financie nepominulo riziko rastu deficitu a bez ďalších opatrení by v budúcom roku opäť presiahlo päťpercentnú hranicu – varuje RRZ. Ukázali sa zavedené konsolidačné opatrenia ako účinné? Ktorým smerom pokračovať – premiér hovorí o potrebe prorastových opatrení, aké by to mohli byť? | Tempo rastu ekonomiky klesá. | Moderuje: Soňa Mačor Otajovičová; | Diskusiu Z prvej ruky pripravuje Slovenský rozhlas, Rádio Slovensko, SRo1. Vysielame každý pracovný deň o 12:30 v Rádiu Slovensko.

Jane Dutton speaks Secretary to the National Council of ProvincesAdvocate Modibedi Eric Phindela about parliament's readiness for SONA. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to COSATU Parliament Coordinator, Matthew Parks about COSATU's expectations for SONA. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to Minister in Presidency, Khumbudzo Ntshavheni about ANC's and government's expectations for SONA. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Catch Up on the latest leading news stories around the country with Jane Dutton on Midday Report every weekday from 12h00 - 13h00. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to Africa Check Researcher, Keegan Leech about Ramaphosa’s 2025 SONA promises and how he fared? The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to UDM Leader, Bantu Holomisa about their expectations for SONA. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to IFP Chief Whip, Nhlanhla Hadebe. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to EFF National Spokesperson, Thembi Msane about EFF's expectations for SONA The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to EWN Reporter, Carlo Peterson about the police minister briefing the media on the state readiness for SONA . The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Jane Dutton speaks to EWN Reporter, Alpha Ramushwana about what South African citizens are hoping to here from President during his State of Nation Address The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Todos los medios hablan de ella.Parece que ha venido para quedarse y no encontramos la manera de combatirla.InflaciónEn este episodio del podcast de IFP, Dimitri y Esteban hablan de la inflación.Eso que parece que afecta a todo y que, poco a poco, va haciendo que nuestro dinero valga menos.Nos desespera, nos preocupa, nos quema…“Tenemos que hacer algo con nuestro dinero”. Eso leemos por todos sitios.Pero ¿por qué?¿Qué podemos y debemos hacer?¿Y qué no deberíamos ni plantearnos?Pues estas y otras muchas preguntas Dimitri las responde en este episodio:Para que sepas qué deberías hacer en función de tu situación.Para que dejes ya de sufrir por la inflación.Y para que puedas hacer el mejor uso del dinero que ya tienes y del que todavía te queda por ganar.TIMING DEL PROGRAMA00:00 - Presentación y avance de contenidos03:14 - Bienvenida a Dimitri Uralov, fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales04:34 - Cómo nos afecta realmente la inflación y qué hacer para remediarlo06:55 - A qué se refiere Dimitri con que la inflación ha venido para quedarse07:43 - Qué puedes hacer en función de tu situación para combatir la inflación08:40 - Cómo usar tu patrimonio para hacer frente a la inflación10:02 - Algunas estrategias para saber cuándo toca hacer algo o no12:12 - ¿A qué es mejor dedicar tu tiempo y tu dinero?14:42 - Si tienes 150.000 euros, sólo hay una manera de superar la inflación17:12 - Qué hacer hasta que sepas qué hacer con tu dinero21:28 - ¿A ti también te quema tener tu dinero parado en el banco?26:20 - Lo que Dimitri aconseja para no perder la cabeza y elegir bien tus acciones28:50 - Un REGALO para tomar mejores decisiones con tu dinero30:34 - En qué deberías enfocarte para que la inflación no te afecte32:50 - Últimas observaciones de Dimitri36:12 – Buzón de sugerencias y despedida¿Quieres conocer más recursos relacionados con el tema que hemos tratado hoy?En la web del episodio vas a encontrar toda la información que buscas. Descarga tu REGALO con las preguntas que nos tenemos que hacer para tomar mejores decisiones económicas:https://www.institutofinanzaspersonales.com/podcast/episodio-205/Envía tus preguntas para Dimitri Uralov rellenando este formulario:https://institutofinanzaspersonales.typeform.com/to/vPPzGPiNContactoEscríbenos a podcast@institutofinanzaspersonales.comVisita nuestra web: www.institutofinanzaspersonales.comMúsicas utilizadas:Scott_Holmes_StorybookScott Holmes_Our_Big Adventure

Clement Manyathela is hanging out with IFP President and Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, Velenkosini Hlabisa as they reflect on his life journey, from being a teacher to the president of Inkatha Freedom Party and serving in the Government of National Unity as a minister. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Democratic Alliance in KwaZulu-Natal is pushing back against calls to rename the province "KwaZulu". The proposal by King Misuzulu kaZwelithini has IFP support, but critics say it could divide communities and erase history. DA provincial leader Francois Rodgers told our Senior producer Ronald Phiri that there are far more pressing issues, like service delivery, economic recovery, unemployment and infrastructure challenges than renaming the province

The IFP in the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature says it fully supports and applauds the call by His Majesty King Misuzulu kaZwelithini to rename the KwaZulu-Natal Province to KwaZulu. In addition, the party says His Majesty’s call should further empower the Provincial Government, particularly the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture, to urgently review and correct indigenous place names that have been incorrectly written or distorted over time. Blessed Gwala, IFP National Chairperson

When I got this episode on the calendar a month ago, my vision was, “Let's get three of the smartest, most thoughtful liberals I can find on the topic of economic statecraft, and we'll do a full assessment of the first year of Trump's second term.” The idea was to take each of the domains — tariffs and the trade war, export controls, industrial policy — and do two things: get an accurate picture of what's actually happened, and hear how Biden admin insiders and Democratic thinkers see them. Where are there continuities between administrations? Where have their expectations been overturned? And what lessons are they incorporating into their own worldviews?Then, in a totally novel example of economic statecraft, we grabbed Maduro and seized Venezuelan oil; we had to discuss that too.As a result, we're doing a lot in this episode, and we leave some important questions out: the legal challenges to the current tariff regime, for example. But I think readers will come away from this episode with a clear view of the old and new tools of US policy in the realm of economic statecraft.Our guestsDaleep Singh is an economist who served in two separate periods in the Biden Administration as Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics.Peter Harrell served as Senior Director for International Economics at the White House, jointly appointed to the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.My colleague, Arnab Datta is Director of Policy Implementation at IFP. He's also the Managing Director of Policy Implementation at Employ America.We cover a lot of ground in this episode. Here's our table of contents:We discuss* What is economic statecraft?* Venezuela* China and tariffs* Trade deals* Industrial policy* Lessons learnedThe full transcript for this conversation is at www.statecraft.pub This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Avec quelques heures retards, voici l'épisode récap des actus de la semaine.Mercosur, IA, manifestations en Iran, un programme chargé. A la présentation, Daniel mène la danse.Nos journalistes, Elsa L, Corentin, Daphnée, Elsa S, Pénélope et Lauriane font le tour d'horizon de la semaine.Arthur présente l'IFP de l'intérieur. Régie/montage : Guisane

Political parties in KwaZulu-Natal's Government of Provincial Unity say the withdrawal of the National Freedom Party will not collapse their coalition. The provincial's coalition government was formed after the 2024 general elections, consisting of the IFP, DA, ANC and the NFP. The NFP announced its withdrawal from coalition government and further instructed its sole representative, Mbali Shinga, to resign as the KZN Member of the Executive Council. This after Shinga defied party orders during the December vote of no confidence against Premier Thami Ntuli. The vote of no confidence was brought forth by the uMkhonto weSizwe Party. For a look at what the NFP's exit means for the province's political landscape, Bongiwe Zwane spoke to IFP leader, Velenkosini Hlabisa

The National Freedom Party has reaffirmed its decision to withdraw from the KwaZulu-Natal's Government of Provincial Unity. Speaking at a media briefing in Durban. Party leader Irvan Barnes said the decision was due to administrative challenges and political agreements that were not honoured by coalition partners. The provincial's coalition government was formed after the 2024 general elections. It consisted of the IFP, DA, ANC and the NFP. Celumusa Zulu reports..

KwaZulu-Natal Premier and provincial IFP chairperson Thami Ntuli says he has not received any formal communication regarding the National Freedom Party's decision to withdraw from the Government of Provincial Unity. His comments comes after the National Freedom Party released a statement citing that it has resolved to pull out from the KwaZulu-Natal Government of Provincial Unity with immediate effect. To dissect the unfolding political situation in KwaZulu-Natal, Sakina Kamwendo spoke to political science lecturer at the University of KwaZulu-Natal Zakhele Ndlovu.

Cerrar este 2025 sin pensar y celebrar lo que nos ha enseñado y hemos aprendido con él, no va demasiado con IFP.Por eso, este episodio se lo queremos dedicar a este año que cerramos.Un año con sus luces y con sus sombras.Pero también con grandes e importantes lecciones de vida y de dinero.Y para sacarle todo el provecho, hemos invitado al podcast al fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales, Dimitri Uralov.Sin duda, un episodio polémico y con grandes lecciones de lo que mejor sabemos hacer y de lo que nos encanta enseñar al mundo:Educación financiera pura y dura.Las 5 lecciones más importantes que puedes aprender de este 2025 para tu dinero.Dale al play y disfruta de nuestro último episodio del año.Feliz Año de parte de todo el equipo de IFP :).¡Nos vemos en 2026!TIMING DEL PROGRAMA00:00 - Presentación y avance de contenidos01:46 - Bienvenida a Dimitri Uralov, fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales02:10 - Las lecciones más importantes de 2025 para tu dinero04:51 - 1. Todo puede pasar, protégete para ello08:41 - 2. No puedes esperar nada de nadie14:02 - 3. La única manera de mejorar económicamente cada año16:50 - 4. Por qué no es tan importante cuánto ganes20:47 - 5. Olvídate, el sistema no va a cambiar27:38 - 6. Por qué es importante que desarrolles tu propio criterio35:08 - Cuándo debes usar la IA y cuándo, la cabeza37:21 - ¿Quieres más lecciones?38:29 – Buzón de sugerencias y despedida¿Quieres quieres recibir el vídeo de Dimitri Uralov sobre sus reflexiones sobre el dinero de este año 2025?. Lo puedes hacer desde este mismo enlace:?https://www.institutofinanzaspersonales.com/podcast/episodio-201/Envía tus preguntas para Dimitri Uralov rellenando este formulario:https://institutofinanzaspersonales.typeform.com/to/vPPzGPiNContacto Escríbenos a podcast@institutofinanzaspersonales.comVisita nuestra web: www.institutofinanzaspersonales.comMúsicas utilizadas:Scott_Holmes_StorybookScott Holmes_Our_Big Adventure

Depuis plus de trente ans, les sanctions économiques sont devenues l'un des principaux instruments de la politique étrangère des grandes puissances occidentales. Gel des avoirs, embargos commerciaux, exclusion du système financier international, sanctions secondaires : la panoplie s'est élargie, sophistiquée, durcie. La Russie depuis l'invasion de l'Ukraine, l'Iran depuis plus de quatre décennies, l'Irak dans les années 1990, Cuba depuis la guerre froide, mais aussi aujourd'hui plusieurs pays du Sahel… tous ont été, à des degrés divers, soumis à ce que certains appellent une « guerre économique ». Mais une question demeure : ces sanctions fonctionnent-elles réellement ? Changent-elles les comportements des États ciblés ? Ou produisent-elles surtout des effets pervers — appauvrissement des populations, consolidation des régimes, reconfiguration silencieuse des alliances internationales ? Car à mesure que les sanctions s'accumulent, les États visés s'adaptent, cherchent des alternatives afin d'éviter la réponse frontale : troc, contournement financier, commerce parallèle, monnaies locales, crypto-actifs, finance islamique, rapprochements Sud-Sud, dédollarisation progressive... Va-t-on vers un processus de fractionnement des systèmes de paiement à l'échelle internationale ? Assiste-t-on à une fragmentation du système économique mondial ?  Invités   Julia Tomasso, chercheuse à l'Iris et spécialiste de l'Iran Camille Boulenguer, économiste et chercheuse à l'Iris, spécialisée dans l'étude de la criminalité financière et des circuits financiers illicites Emmanuel Hache, adjoint scientifique à IFP Énergies nouvelles et directeur de recherche à l'IRIS. «Géopolitique des matières premières» éditions Eyrolles, 2025. Édition en partenariat avec la Revue Internationale et Stratégique «Vivre sous sanctions économiques. Impacts contournements, Réalignements». Direction de Julia Tomasso et Camille Boulenguer. 

Para muchas personas, jugar a la lotería es una auténtica tradición.Sin embargo, para otras… otras se hacen verdaderas ilusiones y sueñan esperanzadas con haber comprado el número premiado.Y aquí es donde aparece el problema…Porque todos hemos escuchado las bonitas historias de las personas premiadas, y quizá también alguna un poco más trágica sobre la ruina de alguna persona tras ganar la lotería.Pero lo que nadie ha contado nunca es qué significa propiamente jugar o apostar tu dinero en este sorteo y qué peligros o problemas conlleva cuando se hace por la necesidad o esperanza real de arreglar nuestra vida.Sin duda, es un tema muy apropiado para estas fechas.Y lo cierto es que, aunque hayas comprado algunos cupones, este episodio te gustará y te hará pensar.De una manera u otra, sentíamos que nuestro episodio #200 en el podcast de IFP debíamos celebrarlo por todo lo alto y con el mayor premio que podemos garantizarte desde IFP si nos escuchas.Un día más de educación financiera y el mejor regalo posible en la descripción de este vídeo.Te esperamos el fin de semana que viene para cerrar el año juntos ;)TIMING DEL PROGRAMA00:00 - Presentación y avance de contenidos03:35 - Bienvenida a Dimitri Uralov, fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales05:27 - Los peligros de jugar a la lotería07:31 - ¿Forma parte de tu estrategia financiera para ganar más dinero?08:40 - El funcionamiento real de la lotería11:23 - Los 2 problemas principales de jugar a la lotería14:41 - ¿Para qué juega la gente a este gran sorteo?18:04 - Algunos titulares escalofriantes sobre los ganadores de la lotería19:09 - Tienes un elefante en la habitación. ¿Lo sabías?22:59 - El efecto multiplicador del dinero. Vigila tus hábitos24:28 - La razón por la que mucha gente lleva el premio en secreto28:22 - ¿Por qué los deportistas/artistas también se arruinan?31:56 - Últimos consejos de Dimitri sobre la lotería (te toque o no)35:46 – Buzón de sugerencias y despedida¿Quieres conocer más recursos relacionados con el tema que hemos tratado hoy?En la web del episodio vas a encontrar toda la información que buscas. Además, también en este enlace, tenemos un regalo especial para ti:https://www.institutofinanzaspersonales.com/podcast/episodio-200/Envía tus preguntas para Dimitri Uralov rellenando este formulario:https://institutofinanzaspersonales.typeform.com/to/vPPzGPiNContactoEscríbenos a podcast@institutofinanzaspersonales.comVisita nuestra web: www.institutofinanzaspersonales.comMúsicas utilizadas:Scott_Holmes_StorybookScott Holmes_Our_Big Adventure

Rachel Elizabeth Seed is a Brooklyn and Los Angeles-based nonfiction storyteller working in film, photography, and writing.In 2025, she won the Truer Than Fiction Spirit Award for her debut feature film, A Photographic Memory, which is also a New York Times Critics Pick.Rachel's work has received support from the Sundance Institute, Chicken + Egg Films, the Jewish Film Institute, the California Film Institute, Jewish Story Partners, NYFA, Field of Vision, the Jerome Foundation, NYSCA, the Maine Media Workshops, the Roy W. Dean grant, the National Arts Club, IFP, and many others. Formerly a photo editor at New York Magazine, her photography has been exhibited worldwide, including at the International Center of Photography, and she was a cameraperson on several award-winning feature documentaries. Rachel's writing has been published by No Film School, the Sundance Institute, and Talkhouse and she is Executive Director / Co-founder of the Brooklyn Documentary Club, a NYC-based filmmaker collective with 250+ members.In episode 271, Rachel discusses, among other things:A summary of her mum's characternature vs. nurtureHer mum's Images of Man interviews for ICP/ScholasticWhat inspired her to make a filmHow her own story became interwined with her mum'sDiscovering a family archive of super 8 footageHow she recreated the interviews using actorsThe importance of working with good editorsThe challenge of funding and financingKey advice for anyone wanting to make a personal documentaryThe fine balance between collaboration and having the courage of your convitions as directorWriting for narration as opposed to for readingSharing her personal stories as the film evolved over a ten year period - How to balance life and art‘Selling the film' and what that means in practiceThe Brooklyn Documentary ClubMoving to L.A.Projects she has in developmentWebsite | Instagram Become a A Small Voice podcast member here to access exclusive additional subscriber-only content and the full archive of 200+ previous episodes for £5 per month.Subscribe to my weekly newsletter here for everything A Small Voice related and much more besides.Follow me on Instagram here.Build Yourself a Squarespace Website video course here.

Aubrey Masango speaks to Hlumelo Xaba, Political Analyst, about the disruption in the KwaZulu-Natal Legislature today. They unpack the implications for political stability, public trust, and the increasingly charged political discourse as South Africa approaches the local government elections in 2026. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Bra Aubrey, KwaZulu Natal, Hlumelo Xaba, MKP, EFF, IFP, ANC, Premier Thami Ntuli, KwaZulu-Natal Legislature, GNU The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

CHIPS, the Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors Act, is another. It spurred a massive investment boom in semiconductors on American soil, led by the CHIPS Program Office (CPO) at the Department of Commerce. The CPO had to decide how to allocate $39 billion in manufacturing incentives—and then negotiate the details with some of the world's biggest companies.Today, I'm lucky to have on three of the founding members of the CHIPS Program Office team:* Mike Schmidt, the inaugural Director,* Todd Fisher, the Chief Investment Officer, and* Sara Meyers, Chief of Staff and Chief Operating Officer.Mike, Todd, and Sara have a clear sense of what went right for them, what went wrong, and what they'd do differently the next time. In a new project for IFP called Factory Settings, they describe what they learned.The full transcript for this conversation is at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

 If you're a scientist, and you apply for federal research funding, you'll ask for a specific dollar amount. Let's say you're asking for a million-dollar grant. Your grant covers the direct costs, things like the salaries of the researchers that you're paying. If you get that grant, your university might get an extra $500,000. That money is called “indirect costs,” but think of it as overhead: that money goes to lab space, to shared equipment, and so on.This is the system we've used to fund American research infrastructure for more than 60 years. But earlier this year, the Trump administration proposed capping these payments at just 15% of direct costs, way lower than current indirect cost rates. There are legal questions about whether the admin can do that. But if it does, it would force universities to fundamentally rethink how they do science.The indirect costs system is pretty opaque from the outside. Is the admin right to try and slash these indirect costs? Where does all that money go? And if we want to change how we fund research overhead, what are the alternatives? How do you design a research system to incentivize the research you actually wanna see in the world?I'm joined today by Pierre Azoulay from MIT Sloan and Dan Gross from Duke's Fuqua School of Business. Together with Bhaven Sampat at Johns Hopkins, they conducted the first comprehensive empirical study of how indirect costs actually work. Earlier this year, I worked with them to write up that study as a more accessible policy brief for IFP. They've assembled data on over 350 research institutions, and they found some striking results. While negotiated rates often exceed 50-60%, universities actually receive much less, due to built-in caps and exclusions.Moreover, the institutions that would be hit hardest by proposed cuts are those whose research most often leads to new drugs and commercial breakthroughs.Thanks to Katerina Barton, Harry Fletcher-Wood, and Inder Lohla for their help with this episode, and to Beez for her help on the charts.Let's say I'm a researcher at a university and I apply for a federal grant. I'm looking at cancer cells in mice. It will cost me $1 million to do that research — to pay grad students, to buy mice and test tubes. I apply for a grant from the National Institutes of Health, or NIH. Where do indirect costs come in?Dan Gross: Research generally incurs two categories of costs, much as business operations do.* Direct or variable costs are typically project-specific; they include salaries and consumable supplies.* Indirect or fixed costs are not as easily assigned to any particular project. [They include] things like lab space, data and computing resources, biosecurity, keeping the lights on and the buildings cooled and heated — even complying with the regulatory requirements the federal government imposes on researchers. They are the overhead costs of doing research.Pierre Azoulay: You will use those grad students, mice, and test tubes, the direct costs. But you're also using the lab space. You may be using a shared facility where the mice are kept and fed. Pieces of large equipment are shared by many other people to conduct experiments. So those are fixed costs from the standpoint of your research project.Dan: Indirect Cost Recovery (ICR) is how the federal government has been paying for the fixed cost of research for the past 60 years. This has been done by paying universities institution-specific fixed percentages on top of the direct cost of the research. That's the indirect cost rate. That rate is negotiated by institutions, typically every two to four years, supported by several hundred pages of documentation around its incurred costs over the recent funding cycle.The idea is to compensate federally funded researchers for the investments, infrastructure, and overhead expenses related to the research they perform for the government. Without that funding, universities would have to pay those costs out of pocket and, frankly, many would not be interested or able to do the science the government is funding them to do.Imagine I'm doing my mouse cancer science at MIT, Pierre's parent institution. Some time in the last four years, MIT had this negotiation with the National Institutes of Health to figure out what the MIT reimbursable rate is. But as a researcher, I don't have to worry about what indirect costs are reimbursable. I'm all mouse research, all day.Dan: These rates are as much of a mystery to the researchers as it is to the public. When I was junior faculty, I applied for an external grant from the National Science Foundation (NSF) — you can look up awards folks have won in the award search portal. It doesn't break down indirect and direct cost shares of each grant. You see the total and say, “Wow, this person got $300,000.” Then you go to write your own grant and realize you can only budget about 60% of what you thought, because the rest goes to overhead. It comes as a bit of a shock the first time you apply for grant funding.What goes into the overhead rates? Most researchers and institutions don't have clear visibility into that. The process is so complicated that it's hard even for those who are experts to keep track of all the pieces.Pierre: As an individual researcher applying for a project, you think about the direct costs of your research projects. You're not thinking about the indirect rate. When the research administration of your institution sends the application, it's going to apply the right rates.So I've got this $1 million experiment I want to run on mouse cancer. If I get the grant, the total is $1.5 million. The university takes that .5 million for the indirect costs: the building, the massive microscope we bought last year, and a tiny bit for the janitor. Then I get my $1 million. Is that right?Dan: Duke University has a 61% indirect cost rate. If I propose a grant to the NSF for $100,000 of direct costs — it might be for data, OpenAI API credits, research staff salaries — I would need to budget an extra $61,000 on top for ICR, bringing the total grant to $161,000.My impression is that most federal support for research happens through project-specific grants. It's not these massive institutional block grants. Is that right?Pierre: By and large, there aren't infrastructure grants in the science funding system. There are other things, such as center grants that fund groups of investigators. Sometimes those can get pretty large — the NIH grant for a major cancer center like Dana-Farber could be tens of millions of dollars per year.Dan: In the past, US science funding agencies did provide more funding for infrastructure and the instrumentation that you need to perform research through block grants. In the 1960s, the NSF and the Department of Defense were kicking up major programs to establish new data collection efforts — observatories, radio astronomy, or the Deep Sea Drilling project the NSF ran, collecting core samples from the ocean floor around the world. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — back then the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) — was investing in nuclear test detection to monitor adherence to nuclear test ban treaties. Some of these were satellite observation methods for atmospheric testing. Some were seismic measurement methods for underground testing. ARPA supported the installation of a network of seismic monitors around the world. Those monitors are responsible for validating tectonic plate theory. Over the next decade, their readings mapped the tectonic plates of the earth. That large-scale investment in research infrastructure is not as common in the US research policy enterprise today.That's fascinating. I learned last year how modern that validation of tectonic plate theory was. Until well into my grandparents' lifetime, we didn't know if tectonic plates existed.Dan: Santi, when were you born?1997.Dan: So I'm a good decade older than you — I was born in 1985. When we were learning tectonic plate theory in the 1990s, it seemed like something everybody had always known. It turns out that it had only been known for maybe 25 years.So there's this idea of federal funding for science as these massive pieces of infrastructure, like the Hubble Telescope. But although projects like that do happen, the median dollar the Feds spend on science today is for an individual grant, not installing seismic monitors all over the globe.Dan: You applied for a grant to fund a specific project, whose contours you've outlined in advance, and we provided the funding to execute that project.Pierre: You want to do some observations at the observatory in Chile, and you are going to need to buy a plane ticket — not first class, not business class, very much economy.Let's move to current events. In February of this year, the NIH announced it was capping indirect cost reimbursement at 15% on all grants.What's the administration's argument here?Pierre: The argument is there are cases where foundations only charge 15% overhead rate on grants — and universities acquiesce to such low rates — and the federal government is entitled to some sort of “most-favored nation” clause where no one pays less in overhead than they pay. That's the argument in this half-a-page notice. It's not much more elaborate than that.The idea is, the Gates Foundation says, “We will give you a grant to do health research and we're only going to pay 15% indirect costs.” Some universities say, “Thank you. We'll do that.” So clearly the universities don't need the extra indirect cost reimbursement?Pierre: I think so.Dan: Whether you can extrapolate from that to federal research funding is a different question, let alone if federal research was funding less research and including even less overhead. Would foundations make up some of the difference, or even continue funding as much research, if the resources provided by the federal government were lower? Those are open questions. Foundations complement federal funding, as opposed to substitute for it, and may be less interested in funding research if it's less productive.What are some reasons that argument might be misguided?Pierre: First, universities don't always say, “Yes” [to a researcher wishing to accept a grant]. At MIT, getting a grant means getting special authorization from the provost. That special authorization is not always forthcoming. The provost has a special fund, presumably funded out of the endowment, that under certain conditions they will dip into to make up for the missing overhead.So you've got some research that, for whatever reason, the federal government won't fund, and the Gates Foundation is only willing to fund it at this low rate, and the university has budgeted a little bit extra for those grants that it still wants.Pierre: That's my understanding. I know that if you're going to get a grant, you're going to have to sit in many meetings and cajole any number of administrators, and you don't always get your way.Second, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison [between federal and foundation grants] because there are ways to budget an item as a direct cost in a foundation grant that the government would consider an indirect cost. So you might budget some fractional access to a facility…Like the mouse microscope I have to use?Pierre: Yes, or some sort of Cryo-EM machine. You end up getting more overhead through the back door.The more fundamental way in which that approach is misguided is that the government wants its infrastructure — that it has contributed to through [past] indirect costs — to be leveraged by other funders. It's already there, it's been paid for, it's sitting idle, and we can get more bang for our buck if we get those additional funders to piggyback on that investment.Dan: That [other funders] might not be interested in funding otherwise.Why wouldn't they be interested in funding it otherwise? What shouldn't the federal government say, “We're going to pay less. If it's important research, somebody else will pay for it.”Dan: We're talking about an economies-of-scale problem. These are fixed costs. The more they're utilized, the more the costs get spread over individual research projects.For the past several decades, the federal government has funded an order of magnitude more university research than private firms or foundations. If you look at NSF survey data, 55% of university R&D is federally funded; 6% is funded by foundations. That is an order of magnitude difference. The federal government has the scale to support and extract value for whatever its goals are for American science.We haven't even started to get into the administrative costs of research. That is part of the public and political discomfort with indirect-cost recovery. The idea that this is money that's going to fund university bloat.I should lay my cards on the table here for readers. There are a ton of problems with the American scientific enterprise as it currently exists. But when you look at studies from a wide range of folks, it's obvious that R&D in American universities is hugely valuable. Federal R&D dollars more than pay for themselves. I want to leave room for all critiques of the scientific ecosystem, of the universities, of individual research ideas. But at this 30,000-foot level, federal R&D dollars are well spent.Dan: The evidence may suggest that, but that's not where the political and public dialogue around science policy is. Again, I'm going to bring in a long arc here. In the 1950s and 1960s, it was, “We're in a race with the Soviet Union. If we want to win this race, we're going to have to take some risky bets.” And the US did. It was more flexible with its investments in university and industrial science, especially related to defense aims. But over time, with the waning of these political pressures and with new budgetary pressures, the tenor shifted from, “Let's take chances” to “Let's make science and other parts of government more accountable.” The undercurrent of Indirect Cost Recovery policy debates has more of this accountability framing.This comes up in this comparison to foundation rates: “Is the government overpaying?” Clearly universities are willing to accept less from foundations. It comes up in this perception that ICR is funding administrative growth that may not be productive or socially efficient. Accountability seems to be a priority in the current day.Where are we right now [August 2025] on that 15% cap on indirect costs?Dan: Recent changes first kicked off on February 7th, when NIH posted its supplemental guidance, that introduced a policy that the direct cost rates that it paid on its grants would be 15% to institutions of higher education. That policy was then adopted by the NSF, the DOD, and the Department of Energy. All of these have gotten held up in court by litigation from universities. Things are stuck in legal limbo. Congress has presented its point of view that, “At least for now, I'd like to keep things as they are.” But this has been an object of controversy long before the current administration even took office in January. I don't think it's going away.Pierre: If I had to guess, the proposal as it first took shape is not what is going to end up being adopted. But the idea that overhead rates are an object of controversy — are too high, and need to be reformed — is going to stay relevant.Dan: Partly that's because it's a complicated issue. Partly there's not a real benchmark of what an appropriate Indirect Cost Recovery policy should be. Any way you try to fund the cost of research, you're going to run into trade-offs. Those are complicated.ICR does draw criticism. People think it's bloated or lacks transparency. We would agree some of these critiques are well-founded. Yet it's also important to remember that ICR pays for facilities and administration. It doesn't just fund administrative costs, which is what people usually associate it with. The share of ICR that goes to administrative costs is legally capped at 26% of direct costs. That cap has been in place since 1991. Many universities have been at that cap for many years — you can see this in public records. So the idea that indirect costs are going up over time, and that that's because of bloat at US universities, has to be incorrect, because the administrative rate has been capped for three decades.Many of those costs are incurred in service of complying with regulations that govern research, including the cost of administering ICR to begin with. Compiling great proposals every two to four years and a new round of negotiations — all of that takes resources. Those are among the things that indirect cost funding reimburses.Even then, universities appear to under-recover their true indirect costs of federally-sponsored research. We have examples from specific universities which have reported detailed numbers. That under-recovery means less incentive to invest in infrastructure, less capacity for innovation, fewer clinical trials. So there's a case to be made that indirect cost funding is too low.Pierre: The bottom line is we don't know if there is under- or over-recovery of indirect costs. There's an incentive for university administrators to claim there's under-recovery. So I take that with a huge grain of salt.Dan: It's ambiguous what a best policy would look like, but this is all to say that, first, public understanding of this complex issue is sometimes a bit murky. Second, a path forward has to embrace the trade-offs that any particular approach to ICR presents.From reading your paper, I got a much better sense that a ton of the administrative bloat of the modern university is responding to federal regulations on research. The average researcher reports spending almost half of their time on paperwork. Some of that is a consequence of the research or grant process; some is regulatory compliance.The other thing, which I want to hear more on, is that research tools seem to be becoming more expensive and complex. So the microscope I'm using today is an order of magnitude more expensive than the microscope I was using in 1950. And you've got to recoup those costs somehow.Pierre: Everything costs more than it used to. Research is subject to Baumol's cost disease. There are areas where there's been productivity gains — software has had an impact.The stakes are high because, if we get this wrong, we're telling researchers that they should bias the type of research they're going to pursue and training that they're going to undergo, with an eye to what is cheaper. If we reduce the overhead rate, we should expect research that has less fixed cost and more variable costs to gain in favor — and research that is more scale-intensive to lose favor. There's no reason for a benevolent social planner to find that a good development. The government should be neutral with respect to the cost structure of research activities. We don't know in advance what's going to be more productive.Wouldn't a critic respond, “We're going to fund a little bit of indirect costs, but we're not going to subsidize stuff that takes huge amounts of overhead. If universities want to build that fancy new telescope because it's valuable, they'll do it.” Why is that wrong when it comes to science funding?Pierre: There's a grain of truth to it.Dan: With what resources though? Who's incentivized to invest in this infrastructure? There's not a paid market for science. Universities can generate some licensing fees from patents that result from science. But those are meager revenue streams, realistically. There are reasons to believe that commercial firms are under-incentivized to invest in basic scientific research. Prior to 1940, the scientific enterprise was dramatically smaller because there wasn't funding the way that there is today. The exigencies of war drew the federal government into funding research in order to win. Then it was productive enough that folks decided we should keep doing it. History and economic logic tells us that you're not going to see as much science — especially in these fixed-cost heavy endeavors — when those resources aren't provided by the public.Pierre: My one possible answer to the question is, “The endowment is going to pay for it.” MIT has an endowment, but many other universities do not. What does that mean for them? The administration also wants to tax the heck out of the endowment.This is a good opportunity to look at the empirical work you guys did in this great paper. As far as I can tell, this was one of the first real looks at what indirect costs rates look like in real life. What did you guys find?Dan: Two decades ago, Pierre and Bhaven began collecting information on universities' historical indirect cost rates. This is a resource that was quietly sitting on the shelf waiting for its day. That day came this past February. Bhaven and Pierre collected information on negotiated ICR rates for the past 60 years. During this project, we also collected the most recent versions of those agreements from university websites to bring the numbers up to the current day.We pulled together data for around 350 universities and other research institutions. Together, they account for around 85% of all NIH research funding over the last 20 years.We looked at their:* Negotiated indirect cost rates, from institutional indirect cost agreements with the government, and their;* Effective rates [how much they actually get when you look at grant payments], using NIH grant funding data.Negotiated cost rates have gone up. That has led to concerns that the overhead cost of research is going up — these claims that it's funding administrative bloat. But our most important finding is that there's a large gap between the sticker rates — the negotiated ICR rates that are visible to the public, and get floated on Twitter as examples of university exorbitance — and the rates that universities are paid in practice, at least on NIH grants; we think it's likely the case for NSF and other agency grants too.An institution's effective ICR funding rates are much, much lower than their negotiated rates and they haven't changed much for 40 years. If you look at NIH's annual budget, the share of grant funding that goes to indirect costs has been roughly constant at 27-28% for a long time. That implies an effective rate of around 40% over direct costs. Even though many institutions have negotiated rates of 50-70%, they usually receive 30-50%.The difference between those negotiated rates and the effective rates seems to be due to limits and exceptions built into NIH grant rules. Those rules exclude some grants, such as training grants, from full indirect cost funding. They also exclude some direct costs from the figure used to calculate ICR rates. The implication is that institutions receive ICR payments based on a smaller portion of their incurred direct costs than typically assumed. As the negotiated direct cost falls, you see a university being paid a higher indirect cost rate off a smaller — modified — direct cost base, to recover the same amount of overhead.Is it that the federal government is saying for more parts of the grant, “We're not going to reimburse that as an indirect cost.”?Dan: This is where we shift a little bit from assessment to speculation. What's excluded from total direct costs? One thing is researcher salaries above a certain level.What is that level? Can you give me a dollar amount?Dan: It's a $225,700 annual salary. There aren't enough people being paid that on these grants for that to explain the difference, especially when you consider that research salaries are being paid to postdocs and grad students.You're looking around the scientists in your institution and thinking, “That's not where the money is”?Dan: It's not, even if you consider Principal Investigators. If you consider postdocs and grad students, it certainly isn't.Dan: My best hunch is that research projects have become more capital-intensive, and only a certain level of expenditure on equipment can be included in the modified total direct cost base. I don't have smoking gun evidence, it's my intuition.In the paper, there's this fascinating chart where you show the institutions that would get hit hardest by a 15% cap tend to be those that do the most valuable medical research. Explain that on this framework. Is it that doing high-quality medical research is capital-intensive?Pierre: We look at all the private-sector patents that build on NIH research. The more a university stands to lose under the administration policy, the more it has contributed over the past 25 years — in research the private sector found relevant in terms of pharmaceutical patents.This is counterintuitive if your whole model of funding for science is, “Let's cut subsidies for the stuff the private sector doesn't care about — all this big equipment.” When you cut those subsidies, what suffers most is the stuff that the private sector likes.Pierre: To me it makes perfect sense. This is the stuff that the private sector would not be willing to invest in on its own. But that research, having come into being, is now a very valuable input into activities that profit-minded investors find interesting and worth taking a risk on.This is the argument for the government to fund basic research?Pierre: That argument has been made at the macro-level forever, but the bibliometric revolution of the past 15 years allows you to look at this at the nano-level. Recently I've been able to look at the history of Ozempic. The main patent cites zero publicly-funded research, but it cites a bunch of patents, including patents taken up by academics. Those cite the foundational research performed by Joel Habener and his team at Massachusetts General Hospital in the early 1980s that elucidated the role of GLP-1 as a potential target. This grant was first awarded to Habener in 1979, was renewed every four or five years, and finally died in 2008, when he moved on to other things. Those chains are complex, but we can now validate the macro picture at this more granular level.Dan: I do want to add one qualification which also suggests some directions for the future. There are things we still can't see — despite Pierre's zeal. Our projections of the consequence of a 15% rate cap are still pretty coarse. We don't know what research might not take place. We don't know what indirect cost categories are exposed, or how universities would reallocate. All those things are going to be difficult to project without a proper experiment.One thing that I would've loved to have more visibility into is, “What is the structure of indirect costs at universities across the country? What share of paid indirect costs are going to administrative expenses? What direct cost categories are being excluded?” We would need a more transparency into the system to know the answers.Does that information have to be proprietary? It's part of negotiations with the federal government about how much the taxpayer will pay for overhead on these grants. Which piece is so special that it can't be shared?Pierre: You are talking to the wrong people here because we're meta-scientists, so our answer is none of it should be private.Dan: But now you have to ask the university lawyers.What would the case from the universities be? “We can't tell the public what we spend subsidy on”?Pierre: My sense is that there are institutions of academia that strike most lay people as completely bizarre.Hard to explain without context?Pierre: People haven't thought about it. They will find it so bizarre that they will typically jump from the odd aspect to, “That must be corruption.” University administrators are hugely attuned to that. So the natural defensive approach is to shroud it in secrecy. This way we don't see how the sausage is made.Dan: Transparency can be a blessing and a curse. More information supports more considered decision-making. It also opens the door to misrepresentation by critics who have their own agendas. Pierre's right: there are some practices that to the public might look unusual — or might be familiar, but one might say, “How is that useful expense?” Even a simple thing like having an administrator who manages a faculty's calendar might seem excessive. Many people manage their own calendars. At the same time, when you think about how someone's time is best used, given their expertise, and heavy investment in specialized human capital, are emails, calendaring, and note-taking the right things for scientists [to be doing]? Scientists spend a large chunk of their time now administering grants. Does it make sense to outsource that and preserve the scientist's time for more science?When you put forward data that shows some share of federal research funding is going to fund administrative costs, at first glance it might look wasteful, yet it might still be productive. But I would be able to make a more considered judgment on a path forward if I had access to more facts, including what indirect costs look like under the hood.One last question: in a world where you guys have the ear of the Senate, political leadership at the NIH, and maybe the universities, what would you be pushing for on indirect costs?Pierre: I've come to think that this indirect cost rate is a second-best institution: terrible and yet superior to many of the alternatives. My favorite alternative would be one where there would be a flat rate applied to direct costs. That would be the average effective rate currently observed — on the order of 40%.You're swapping out this complicated system to — in the end — reimburse universities the same 40%.Pierre: We know there are fixed costs. Those fixed costs need to be paid. We could have an elaborate bureaucratic apparatus to try to get it exactly right, but it's mission impossible. So why don't we give up on that and set a rate that's unlikely to lead to large errors in under- or over-recovery. I'm not particularly attached to 40%. But the 15% that was contemplated seems absurdly low.Dan: In the work we've done, we do lay out different approaches. The 15% rate wouldn't fully cut out the negotiation process: to receive that, you have to document your overhead costs and demonstrate that they reached that level. In any case, it's simplifying. It forces more cost-sharing and maybe more judicious investments by universities. But it's also so low that it's likely to make a significant amount of high-value, life-improving research economically unattractive.The current system is complicated and burdensome. It might encourage investment in less productive things, particularly because universities can get it paid back through future ICR. At the same time, it provides pretty good incentives to take on expensive, high-value research on behalf of the public.I would land on one of two alternatives. One of those is close to what Pierre said, with fixed rates, but varied by institution types: one for universities, one for medical schools, one for independent research institutions — because we do see some variation in their cost structures. We might set those rates around their historical average effective rates, since those haven't changed for quite a long time. If you set different rates for different categories of institution, the more finely you slice the pie, the closer you end up to the current system. So that's why I said maybe, at a very high level, four categories.The other I could imagine is to shift more of these costs “above the line” — to adapt the system to enable more of these indirect costs to be budgeted as direct costs in grants. This isn't always easy, but presumably some things we currently call indirect costs could be accounted for in a direct cost manner. Foundations do it a bit more than the federal government does, so that could be another path forward.There's no silver bullet. Our goal was to try to bring some understanding to this long-running policy debate over how to fund the indirect cost of research and what appropriate rates should be. It's been a recurring question for several decades and now is in the hot seat again. Hopefully through this work, we've been able to help push that dialogue along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Nadie más que tú puede decidir lo que debe hacer con su dinero.Nadie mejor que tú para saber en qué etapa se encuentra con su dinero.Y por eso en IFP, y más concretamente en este episodio, nunca vamos a recomendarte hacer cosas con tu dinero sin conocer la situación en la que te encuentras.Eso te toca a ti determinarlo.Y, para ayudarte con esta difícil tarea, en este episodio vamos a decirte cuáles son las 5 etapas por las que pasa toda persona con su dinero.Cada fase va asociada a una serie de acciones que debes realizar. Pero nadie más que tú puede identificar en qué etapa se encuentra su economía.¿Quieres saberlo?Dale al play y toma nota.Tus apuntes serán una auténtica masterclass de vida (y de dinero).TIMING DEL PROGRAMA00:00 - Presentación y avance de contenidos02:56 - Bienvenida a Dimitri Uralov, fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales04:27 - ¿Por qué 5 etapas pasa (o debería pasar) nuestra relación con el dinero?08:44 - Cómo influye nuestra mentalidad en nuestra economía14:46 - Por qué deberías vigilar muy de cerca lo que piensas sobre ti16:52 - ¿Sabrías decir cuánto estás aportando al mundo con lo que haces?19:50 - ¿Y si el dinero que tenemos fuera un reflejo de lo que pensamos de él?25:45 - Cuando lo que crees sobre el dinero no determina tu éxito27:06 - 4 factores que condicionan tu economía35:50 - ¿Estás siendo eficiente? Lo que marca la diferencia en tu economía37:11 - 3 preguntas clave para saber si estás gestionando bien tu dinero41:44 - El poder de tus creencias en esta etapa de tu relación con el dinero45:38 - ¿Sabes cómo ganar más dinero con tu dinero?49:42 - El único billete para salir del mercado y dedicarte a tu patrimonio55:35 - ¿Quieres profundizar en estas 5 etapas del dinero?57:01 – Buzón de sugerencias y despedida¿Quieres conocer más recursos relacionados con el tema que hemos tratado hoy?En la web del episodio vas a encontrar toda la información que buscas:https://www.institutofinanzaspersonales.com/podcast/episodio-197/Envía tus preguntas para Dimitri Uralov rellenando este formulario:https://institutofinanzaspersonales.typeform.com/to/vPPzGPiNContactoEscríbenos a: podcast@institutofinanzaspersonales.comVisita nuestra web: www.institutofinanzaspersonales.comRevisa el vídeo de Dimitri Uralov sobre las 5 Etapas del dinero:https://youtu.be/icbW5abqRo4?si=FcLpj9YkSc-PQIUUMúsicas utilizadas:Scott_Holmes_StorybookScott Holmes_Our_Big Adventure

Ce jeudi 13 novembre, Michel Fayad, professeur de géopolitique à l'Institut du pétrole et des énergies nouvelles, était l'invité d'Annalisa Cappellini dans Le monde qui bouge - L'Interview, de l'émission Good Morning Business, présentée par Laure Closier. Ils sont revenus sur la stabilité de l'Irak après plusieurs décennies de guerres et de repressions. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Se trata de uno de los libros más importantes de la educación financiera.Y quizá una de sus mayores lecciones a destacar es la de aportar valor masivo a la sociedad como principal manera de hacer dinero.En este episodio del podcast de IFP, Esteban y Dimitri hablan largo y tendido sobre La Vía Rápida del Millonario, de M. J. De Marco.¿Tienes la vida que todo el mundo te ha dicho que debes tener?¿En qué se equivoca la educación financiera a la hora de hablar de riqueza?¿Conoces la única manera que existe para hacerte millonario/a?Si te faltan algunas de estas respuestas, en este episodio tienes las que M. J. De Marco da a cada una de estas preguntas.La aceraLa vía lentaLa vía rápidaConoce y disfruta de las 3 vías del dinero de M. J. De Marco.Te leemos en comentarios TIMING DEL PROGRAMA00:00 - Presentación y avance de contenidos02:36 - Bienvenida a Dimitri Uralov, fundador del Instituto de Finanzas Personales04:06 - Algunas razones por las que leer La Vía Rápida del Millonario09:40 - Las 3 vías posibles para hacerse rico en la vida11:16 - ¿Tienes la vida que todo el mundo te ha dicho que debes tener?12:40 - En qué se equivoca la educación financiera según M. J. De Marco15:31 - La importancia del valor masivo y la escalabilidad para hacerse millonario17:48 - ¿Qué diferencia a la gente que pasa por IFP de la gente de ahí fuera?18:30 - Cómo puedes identificar en qué vía estás viviendo tu vida22:55 - Cómo se genera la verdadera riqueza para M. J. De Marco25:25 - Algunas diferencias entre M. J. De Marco y Kiyosaki28:37 - Cómo podemos pasar de la primera o segunda vía a la tercera37:50 - Qué significa para M. J. De Marco ser millonario40:29 - Por qué este libro no puede hacer a todo el mundo millonario46:33 - Qué 3 aprendizajes se pueden extraer de M. J. De Marco44:42 – Buzón de sugerencias y despedida¿Quieres conocer más recursos relacionados con el tema que hemos tratado hoy?En la web del episodio vas a encontrar toda la información que buscas:https://www.institutofinanzaspersonales.com/podcast/episodio-193/Envía tus preguntas para Dimitri Uralov rellenando este formulario:https://institutofinanzaspersonales.typeform.com/to/vPPzGPiNEscríbenos a: podcast@institutofinanzaspersonales.comVisita nuestra web: www.institutofinanzaspersonales.comDescubre el libro:La vía rápida del millonario – M. J. DeMarcoMúsicas utilizadas:Scott_Holmes_StorybookScott Holmes_Our_Big Adventure

Today we're talking about housing. The ROAD to Housing Act passed the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee 24-0 in late July. Last week — despite the shutdown — it cleared the Senate. It's a package of 27 pieces of legislation to boost housing supply, improve affordability, reduce regulatory roadblocks, and reduce homelessness.When you zoom out a bit, what's happened here is pretty surprising. The chair of the committee, Republican Tim Scott, and the Ranking Member, Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat, co-sponsored the bill. The bill is the committee's first bipartisan housing markup in over a decade. Passing through committee unanimously doesn't happen often for serious bills of this sort. I wanted to understand how this bill happened, and came to have a serious shot at passing. And I also wanted to get a better sense of what's actually in the bill, and why it matters for housing. If you're like me, most of the debates you hear about housing policy focus on zoning, which is a local issue — very little federal say. So what are all these pieces of legislation? Do they matter?Joining me is an unorthodox trio:* Will Poff-Webster was legislative counsel for Senator Brian Schatz, a Democrat from Hawaii. He's our inside guy today: he worked on the bill within the Senate. And today, he covers housing policy here at IFP.* Alex Armlovich is Senior Housing Policy Analyst at the Niskanen Center. He has been working on housing issues for a long time, and his fingerprints are on parts of this bill package. He's my advocate from the outside.* Brian Potter is Senior Infrastructure Fellow at IFP and author of Construction Physics, which I very much enjoy editing. If I can make one newsletter recommendation to you besides Statecraft, it's Construction Physics. He has a background in private-sector home building. And has written about several of the proposals in this package.Table of contents:* What's the federal role in housing policy?* What's in the bill?* Regulatory reform* Technical assistance plus incentives* Funding and financing reform* A brief sidebar on manufactured home chassis* Will the bill matter?* How did the bill happen, politically speaking?* The policy wonk success storyThank you to Harry Fletcher-Wood and Katerina Barton for their judicious transcript and audio edits.For the full transcript of this conversation, go to www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

This episode was originally recorded on September 4th at the Abundance Conference in DC."Zach Liscow, my guest today, is a professor of law at Yale Law School. In 2022-2023, he was the Chief Economist at the Office of Management and Budget. He's also now my colleague at IFP, as a non-resident senior fellow.I have a bit of a problem today, which is that while Zach may not be a national household name, he might as well be in this audience. As most of you are aware, Zach has worked on many interesting economic topics, but especially on infrastructure costs: why it costs so much to build in the US, what the inputs are, and cross-cutting comparisons.The challenge for me today as an interviewer is that, in part because of Zach's work, everyone here now knows that infrastructure in the US costs a huge amount to build. I recently reviewed some submissions for a project on transit at IFP, and every other submission referenced the fact that the cost per mile to build a subway in New York is something like eight times more than the equivalent project in Paris.These stylized facts are now embedded in our discourse. And my problem is that this makes it a little hard to figure out how to have a conversation that isn't just all of us nodding in agreement. I'm going to try to tackle that problem, but I just want to lay my cards on the table. This is my fear, and we'll try to avoid it."The full transcript for this conversation and many others is at www.statecraft.pub. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub

Uncle Sam is taking a bite out of companies left and right. Today, we're going to focus on MP Materials — the Trump administration's answer to China's restrictions on rare earth material exports to America. To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed Daleep Singh, former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics, now with PGIN; Arnab Datta, currently at Employ America and IFP; and Peter Harrell, former Biden official and host of the excellent new Security Economics podcast. Today, our conversation covers: Why critical mineral markets are broken, How China achieved rare earth dominance, The history of rare earth mining and refinement in the US, What the MP Materials deal does, and whether it can succeed, The key ingredients for successful industrial policy, with case studies including a Strategic Resilience Reserve, a US sovereign wealth fund, and support for Intel. Outro music: Ornaments Of Gold - Siouxsie And The Banshees (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Uncle Sam is taking a bite out of companies left and right. Today, we're going to focus on MP Materials — the Trump administration's answer to China's restrictions on rare earth material exports to America. To discuss, ChinaTalk interviewed Daleep Singh, former Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economics, now with PGIN; Arnab Datta, currently at Employ America and IFP; and Peter Harrell, former Biden official and host of the excellent new Security Economics podcast. Today, our conversation covers: Why critical mineral markets are broken, How China achieved rare earth dominance, The history of rare earth mining and refinement in the US, What the MP Materials deal does, and whether it can succeed, The key ingredients for successful industrial policy, with case studies including a Strategic Resilience Reserve, a US sovereign wealth fund, and support for Intel. Outro music: Ornaments Of Gold - Siouxsie And The Banshees (YouTube Link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Catch Up on the latest leading news stories around the country with Mandy Wiener on Midday Report every weekday from 12h00 - 13h00. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

It's a full house on this week's PicklePod. We're joined by the breakout stars from the Orange County Cup, Rafa Lenhard, Yufei Long, and Jamie Wei. We cover their journey to the pro ranks and the controversial call that is testing Lenhard's resolve. Plus, there is big news in international pickleball as World Pickleball Federation Founder, Seymour Rifkind, breaks down a recent merger between the WPF and IFP to help move pickleball one step closer to the Olympics. Next up, Superpower Co-Founder Max Marchione explains a new approach to personalized medicine that is helping Zane and Thomas hone in on peak performance. Find out how it works and how you can take control of your health with Superpower. Finally, Erik Tice dives deep on all the headlines from the weekend, including Federico Staksrud's departure from adidas, TMZ covering the other Zane's paddle smash, and the eye for an eye nature of pro pickleball. Dial in your recovery, energy, and focus with Superpower. Get started at https://superpower.com/start/dink Try the ball that everyone has been talking about and save 15% with code THE DINK

For episode 527, Brandon Zemp is joined by Peter Goodwin CEO & founder of idea-L, an AI and Web3 platform equipping entrepreneurs with the resources to transform any business idea into a reality.Using AI-powered technology, the platform allows entrepreneurs to assess the viability of an idea early in the ideation process, enabling them to make data-driven decisions on if, and how to move forward before investing significant time, capital, and resources.⏳ Timestamps: 0:00 | Introduction1:04 | Who is Peter Goodwin?2:40 | UAE hub for AI3:47 | What is idea-L?8:18 | Why Entrepreneurs struggle12:15 | What is the process behind idea-L?17:12 | IRP, IFP & DeVC Fund20:52 | Criteria to apply24:48 | Capital funding caps27:17 | VC ecosystem today33:26 | idea-L roadmap 

Un siècle minier s'ouvre et la question qui se pose est de savoir où trouver tous les métaux dont nous allons avoir besoin. Que ce soit pour la transition énergétique ou la transition numérique. La production mondiale actuelle est largement insuffisante. Selon la CNUCED, Conférence des Nations unies pour le commerce et le développement, la somme des projets miniers prévus d'ici à 2030 est au minimum dix fois moins élevée que les besoins. De plus, alors qu'une ruée sur les métaux s'amorce, le monde réalise l'emprise établie de la Chine, qui exploite des mines sur son sol et à l'étranger, importe et raffine les minerais en métal avant de fabriquer une multitude d'équipements. Selon l'Institut de Géologie des États-Unis, la Chine contrôlerait une trentaine sur la cinquantaine de métaux critiques. Et un tiers environ des réserves mondiales pour l'ensemble des métaux serait concentré en Afrique. La question des approvisionnements en métaux est au cœur des enjeux de souveraineté industrielle et les politiques des grandes puissances se multiplient pour trouver davantage de ressources minérales afin d'alimenter la transition bas-carbone d'une part, de l'autre la transition numérique. L'intérêt pour les fonds marins n'est pas récent mais il prend un sens nouveau avec la compétition entre États à laquelle on peut s'attendre à l'horizon 2050 pour sécuriser les ressources. De nombreux pays se tiennent ainsi prêts à conquérir cette nouvelle frontière pour satisfaire leur appétit. Entre impératifs de transition énergétique, préservation de la biodiversité et enjeux géopolitiques, que révèle ce nouveau front d'exploitation planétaire ? Et jusqu'où sommes-nous prêts à aller dans notre quête de ressources ? Faut-il ouvrir la boite de Pandore ? La question se pose alors que le sommet international sur les océans se tient ce mois-ci à Nice, dans le sud de la France.Invités : Emmanuel Hache, adjoint scientifique et économiste-prospectiviste à IFP Énergies nouvelles, directeur de recherche à l'IRIS et chercheur associé à Economix Romane Lucq, analyste en stratégie internationale, spécialisée sur les enjeux maritimes. Chargée de mission à l'IRIS Emilie Normand, analyste en économie des matières premières stratégiques.

702, The Clement Manyathela Show, Tshidi Madia, Open line, Parliament, IFP, Petros Sithole, Buyafuthi Hostel, Katlehong. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ian Fleming began serializing its new Felix Leiter novel on Tuesday. The IFP website has the first chapter as a free sample.

The second Trump administration has spurred a wave of domestic industrial investment and a recognition that making things in America matters. But what does that look like from the factory floor?Chris Power, founder and CEO of Hadrian, joins Oren to discuss how his company is helping lead reindustrialization efforts here in the United States. He explains the revolutionary technologies Hadrian uses to compete at scale with foreign firms and highlights just how different the manufacturing jobs of today are compared to what many think of as “factory work.” Finally, he and Oren talk through ways policymakers can support the domestic industrial startups we need to return America to its place as the world's leading technological and industrial power.Further reading:The Techno-Industrial Policy Playbook, published this week by American Compass, FAI, IFP, and NAIANot By Tariff Alone by Chris Griswold What An Enduring Industrial Policy Requires by Charles Yang Tear Down this Paper Wall by Christopher Koopman and Josh T. Smith 

Africa Melane is joined by veteran politician and author Tony Leon to unpack revelations from his new memoir Being There: Backstories from the Political Front. Leon, South Africa’s longest-serving leader of the official opposition and former ambassador, offers a candid, insider account of the high-stakes negotiations that led to the formation of the Government of National Unity (GNU). Follow us on:CapeTalk on Facebook: www.facebook.com/CapeTalkCapeTalk on TikTok: www.tiktok.com/@capetalkCapeTalk on Instagram: www.instagram.com/capetalkzaCapeTalk on YouTube: www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567CapeTalk on X: www.x.com/CapeTalkSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Maytham is joined by Daily Maverick Associate Editor Ferial Haffajee to unpack her latest article on South Africa’s coalition government . Together, they explore three potential scenarios for the country’s Government of National Unity (GNU) – from an uneasy ANC – DA alliance straining under mutual distrust, to a rebooted coalition without the DA that brings in newcomers like ActionSA and Build One South Africa (BOSA), and even a populist partnership with the EFF in the mix.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

John Maytham speaks Ferial Haffajee, senior journalist at Daily Maverick and one of South Africa’s most respected political voices, to unpack the GNU in the current South African political climate.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Herman Mashaba, President of ActionSA, joins John Maytham to discuss the party’s controversial role in helping advance South Africa’s 2025 budget process. This comes after ActionSA’s Alan Beesley introduced a recommendation backed by the ANC and IFP to find alternative revenue sources within 30 days, effectively side-lining the proposed VAT hike. While ActionSA claims it spared South Africans a cost of living blow, critics like the DA accuse it of enabling unchecked ANC spending. Mashaba unpacks the reasoning behind the move, clarifies the party’s stance on the GNU, and explains why he believes ActionSA acted in the public’s best interest.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Despite leading the world in AI innovation, there's no guarantee that America will rise to meet the challenge of AI infrastructure. Specifically, the key technological barrier for data center construction within the next 5 years is new power capacity. To discuss policy solutions, ChinaTalk interviewed Ben Della Rocca, who helped write the AI infrastructure executive order and formerly served as director for technology and national security on Biden's NSC, as well as Arnab Datta, director at IFP and managing director at Employ America, and Tim Fist, a director at IFP. Arnab and Tim just published a fantastic three-part series exploring the policy changes needed to ensure that AGI is invented in the USA and deployed through American data centers. In today's interview, we discuss… The need for new power generation driven by ballooning demand for compute, The impact of the January 2025 executive order on AI infrastructure, Which energy technologies can (and can't) power gigawatt-scale AI training facilities (and why Jordan is all-in on GEOTHERMAL), Challenges for financing moonshot green power ideas and the role of government action, The failure of the market to prioritize AI lab security, and what can be done to fend off threats from adversaries and non-state actors. Outtro music: Ghost Crew - 蝴蝶武士 (Butterfly Warriors) (Youtube link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Despite leading the world in AI innovation, there's no guarantee that America will rise to meet the challenge of AI infrastructure. Specifically, the key technological barrier for data center construction within the next 5 years is new power capacity. To discuss policy solutions, ChinaTalk interviewed Ben Della Rocca, who helped write the AI infrastructure executive order and formerly served as director for technology and national security on Biden's NSC, as well as Arnab Datta, director at IFP and managing director at Employ America, and Tim Fist, a director at IFP. Arnab and Tim just published a fantastic three-part series exploring the policy changes needed to ensure that AGI is invented in the USA and deployed through American data centers. In today's interview, we discuss… The need for new power generation driven by ballooning demand for compute, The impact of the January 2025 executive order on AI infrastructure, Which energy technologies can (and can't) power gigawatt-scale AI training facilities (and why Jordan is all-in on GEOTHERMAL), Challenges for financing moonshot green power ideas and the role of government action, The failure of the market to prioritize AI lab security, and what can be done to fend off threats from adversaries and non-state actors. Outtro music: Ghost Crew - 蝴蝶武士 (Butterfly Warriors) (Youtube link) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Le Groenland a rendez-vous avec sa population, le 11 mars 2025, dans le cadre d'élections générales anticipées afin de remanier le Parlement du pays, à un moment où les relations avec le Danemark, l'Europe et Washington se trouvent à un point critique. La nation inuite est sous haute surveillance depuis que le président américain Donald Trump a renouvelé ses revendications sur l'île arctique, refusant d'exclure le recours à la force militaire pour s'en emparer. Pays semi-autonome dépendant du Danemark politiquement et financièrement, le Groenland reçoit de Copenhague une subvention globale de 500 millions d'euros par an. La question de l'indépendance totale est un sujet de débat. Des sondages récents ont montré que si la grande majorité des Groenlandais sont favorables à l'indépendance, peu d'entre eux sont prêts à compromettre leur niveau de vie pour y parvenir. Quatre fois plus grande que la France, l'île arctique est un enjeu géopolitique pour les États-Unis. Et fait l'objet de convoitises également de la part de la Chine et de la Russie. Avec plus de deux millions de kilomètres carrés, situé au nord-est du Canada dont il est séparé par 26 kms de détroit de Davis, le Groenland et ses 56.000 habitants sont positionnés géographiquement en Amérique du Nord, mais font partie de la sphère économique et juridique de l'Europe en raison de leur appartenance au Danemark, État membre de l'Union européenne. Regard sur ce territoire trop méconnu des grandes nations européennes.Invités :  Damien Degeorges, consultant basé à Reykjavik en Islande et docteur en Sciences Politiques, spécialiste du Groenland. Auteur de « Terres rares : enjeu géopolitique du XXIè siècle », Éd. L'Harmattan Florian Vidal, chercheur à l'Université de Tromso, l'Université de l'Arctique de Norvège Emmanuel Hache, adjoint scientifique et économiste-prospectiviste à IFP Énergies nouvelles, directeur de recherche à l'IRIS et chercheur associé à Economix. 

Tim Fist, Director of Emerging Technology Policy at the Institute for Future Progress, and Arnab Datta, Director of Infrastructure Policy at IFP and Managing Director of Policy Implementation at Employ America, join Kevin Frazier, a Contributing Editor at Lawfare and adjunct professor at Delaware Law, to dive into the weeds of their thorough report on building America's AI infrastructure. The duo extensively studied the gulf between the stated goals of America's AI leaders and the practical hurdles to realizing those ambitious aims.Check out the entire report series here: Compute in AmericaTo receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/lawfare-institute.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Les experts et journalistes de RFI répondent à vos questions sur l'opposant ougandais Kizza Besigye, les tensions entre Zelensky et Trump sur les terres rares ukrainiennes et la reprise des recherches sur la disparition du vol MH370. Turquie : le PKK annonce une trêve après 40 ans de lutte armée En réponse à l'appel du chef historique kurde, le PKK a annoncé un cessez-le-feu avec la Turquie, mais sans parler de désarmement ou de dissolution. L'appel d'Abdullah Öcalan peut-il finir par être entendu ? Peut-il voir sa peine être allégée ? Est-ce le signe d'un apaisement entre les kurdes et la Turquie après plusieurs années de conflit ?Avec Anne Andlauer, correspondante de RFI à Ankara.  Ouganda : l'opposant Kizza Besigye jugé par une cour civile À la suite de pressions nationales et internationales, l'opposant ougandais, d'abord jugé devant un tribunal militaire, a finalement comparu devant un tribunal civil. Son transfert devant la cour civile augmente-t-il ses chances de libération ? Qu'est-ce que cela change dans le cours de son procès ?Avec Christina Okello, journaliste au service Afrique de RFI. Guerre en Ukraine : pas d'accord signé sur les terres rares ukrainiennes À la suite d'un échange tendu entre les présidents Zelensky et Trump, aucun accord n'a été conclu concernant les minerais ukrainiens. Pourquoi les deux partis n'arrivent-ils pas à se mettre d'accord à ce sujet ? Pourquoi les États-Unis souhaitent-ils absolument accéder aux terres rares ukrainiennes ?Avec Emmanuel Hache, adjoint scientifique à IFP Énergies nouvelles et directeur de recherche à l'IRIS.  Malaysia Airlines : pourquoi les recherches reprennent onze ans après sa disparition ? Onze ans après la disparition du vol MH370, des recherches ont repris dans l'océan Indien pour retrouver des potentiels débris du Boeing 777 de Malaysia Airlines. Pourquoi reprendre les recherches tant d'années après le drame ? Comment vont-elles s'organiser ? Avec Gilles Diharce, contrôleur aérien et auteur du livre Le mystère du vol MH370 (éditions JPO).