English economist
POPULARITY
49 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
11 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
5 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
7 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
8 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
3 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
6 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
4 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
8 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
3 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
6 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
2 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
6 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
5 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
4 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
6 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
4 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
3 episodes with John Maynard Keynes
Der DAX erholt sich nach zwei schwachen Tagen deutlich und schließt mit +1,8 % bei 24.205 Punkten. Auch der TecDAX springt mit +2,9 % an. Entspannung bringt die Energieseite: Öl beruhigt sich, der Gaspreis fällt sogar um 12 %. Das lindert Inflationssorgen und die Angst vor neuen Lieferkettenproblemen rund um die Straße von Hormus. Brenntag wird DAX-Schlusslicht mit -4,3 % nach Dividendenkürzung auf 1,90 Euro je Aktie, nach 2,10 Euro. Adidas verliert -4 % trotz Rekordumsatz 2025 von 24,8 Mrd. € und Ausblick auf mehr Umsatz und EBIT 2026 von rund 2,3 Mrd. €. Continental erwartet 2026 Umsatz 17,3 bis 18,9 Mrd. € und hebt die Dividende auf 2,70 Euro. Bayer meldet 2025 einen Verlust von 3,62 Mrd. € bei Sonderaufwendungen von gut 6 Mrd. € und steht mit -6 % unter Druck. In den USA sorgt Moderna mit einem Vergleich über bis zu 2,25 Mrd. USD für Kursfantasie, Intel baut den Verwaltungsrat um. Gold steht um 17:30 Uhr bei 5.142,92 USD, Brent bei 81,22 USD und WTI bei 73,94 USD. Zum Schluss eine Börsenweisheit von John Maynard Keynes: "Der Markt kann länger irrational bleiben, als Sie liquide bleiben."
Kyle discusses the investing evolution of John Maynard Keynes and the timeless lessons modern investors can draw from his successes and failures. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:50 - Why John Maynard Keynes is such a fascinating case study in evolving as an investor 00:08:28 - A key resource that helped him think of assets from a bottom-up approach 00:10:59 - Why Keynes's experiences of going broke multiple times helped shape him into a long-term thinker 00:17:13 - How he thought about speculation and investing, and used that to beat the market 00:28:16 - How he improved his temperament, overcame overconfidence, and adopted a long-term mindset 00:36:21 - His thoughts on diversification and reducing risk 00:41:30 - Why he believed that markets were social systems, and the errors that exposed investors to 00:50:25 - What he thought about short-term volatility 01:01:16 - Why Keynes used adaptability as such a powerful tool 01:03:50 - Six impactful takeaways Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive TIP Mastermind Community to engage in meaningful stock investing discussions with Stig, Clay, Kyle, and the other community members. Learn how to join us in Omaha for the Berkshire meeting here. Read Keynes and the Market. Read Concentrated Investing. Follow Kyle on X and LinkedIn. Related books mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our Premium Feed. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses in just a few minutes each week through our newsletter, The Intrinsic Value Newsletter. Check out our We Study Billionaires Starter Packs. Follow our official social media accounts: X | LinkedIn | Facebook. Browse through all our episodes here. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: TIP Finance Tool. Enjoy exclusive perks from our favorite Apps and Services. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the best business podcasts. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our sponsors: HardBlock Human Rights Foundation Simple Mining Unchained Masterworks Netsuite Vanta Shopify Fundrise References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm
La economía estudia la asignación de unos recursos escasos y en la resolución de este problema ético, la filosofía es de mayor utilidad que las matemáticas. María Blanco quiere saber cómo se ha estudiado la economía a lo largo de los siglos. Esta ciencia se matematizó en la segunda mitad del siglo XX por culpa de Paul Samuelson, quien representaría mediante complejas ecuaciones las funciones de la oferta y la demanda. No siempre fue este el método de estudio, los primeros economistas se asemejaban más a los filósofos. Antes de escribir La riqueza de las naciones, Adam Smith había publicado La teoría de los sentimientos morales, un tratado sobre la moral. Por suerte, todo río regresa a su cauce. La economía del siglo XXI será filosófica, no matemática.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:Thenomba. La escuela que te hará encontrar tu propósito.Thenomba es la escuela que te prepara para encontrar un propósito, no un trabajo.Me han hecho embajador del máster y puedo ofrecerte un descuento especial en el precio. Si quieres matricularte, utiliza el código KAPITAL20 para llevarte una rebaja del 20%. 42 oyentes de este podcast ya utilizaron el código en la exitosa edición de diciembre. Si te preguntas si esto encaja contigo, te recomiendo simplemente escuchar los episodios de hace unas semanas con Higinio Marín y Ricardo Piñero. Higinio y Ricardo son dos de los profesores del máster y esas dos entrevistas reflejan la vocación humanista de su programa. Si resuenan en tu cabeza algunas de las ideas de esas conversaciones, entonces Thenomba es para ti.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:0:32 Un empresario paga costes antes de conocer beneficios.8:18 Valor contraintuitivo de Mercadona.14:23 Compañía de las Indias Orientales.21:04 Todos somos empresarios.32:24 Economistas con vidas de película.39:55 Batalla de gallos entre Keynes y Hayek.46:46 Innecesaria matematización de la economía.49:50 Las movidas de Veblen.54:02 Académicos multidisciplinares.1:06:20 ¿Es un historiador optimista sobre el futuro?1:15:54 Escuela de Salamanca.1:24:04 Solo los judíos podían prestar con interés.1:29:43 Tigres, leones, todos quieren ser los campeones.1:38:26 Es más fácil contar pobres que contar ricos.Apuntes:La riqueza de las naciones. Adam Smith.La teoría de los sentimientos morales. Adam Smith.Risk, uncertainty and profit. Frank Knight.The capitalist and the entrepreneur. Peter Klein.Start-up nation. Dan Senor & Saul Singer.Tratado de economia politica. Jean Baptiste Say.La acción humana. Ludwig von Mises.Teoría general de la ocupación, el interés y el dinero. John Maynard Keynes.Principios de economía política y tributación. David Ricardo.Hacia la estación de Finlandia. Edmund Wilson.Teoría de la clase ociosa. Thorstein Veblen.Economical writing. Deirdre McCloskey.Armonías económicas. Frédéric Bastiat.Bastiat as an economist. María Blanco & Carlos Rodríguez Braun.
Dairy futures have been anything but calm. In just three weeks, prices across Class III, Class IV, cheese, butter and nonfat have surged, then whipped back and forth enough to exhaust even full-time market watchers. In this episode of The Milk Check, Ted Jacoby and the T.C. Jacoby & Co. team break down why dairy futures can look irrational, even when the underlying fundamentals haven't changed much. What's driving the chaos (beyond fundamentals) Short squeezes 101: how a crowded short can turn into a domino effect Flow first, narrative second: why the buying often hits before the story shows up Realized vs. implied volatility: what the market did vs. what the options market is pricing in Why nonfat may be the center of the storm: the team debates whether this is a true regime change Why butter and cheese moved too: how spread relationships and algorithmic trading can drag correlated dairy contracts higher Spot market feedback loops: how NDPSR-linked spot markets can amplify futures moves (tail-wagging-the-dog dynamics). What usually happens next: why squeezes rarely park at the top Plus: stick around for a director's cut featuring the unedited, behind-the-scenes debate the team usually leaves on the cutting room floor. Got questions? We'd love to hear them. Submit below, and we might answer it on the show. Ask The Milk Check Ted Jacoby III: [00:00:00] It has been wild and crazy every day for the last three weeks. Welcome to the Milk Check from T.C. Jacoby and Company, your complete guide to dairy markets, from the milking parlor to the supermarket shelf. I’m Ted Jacoby. Let’s dive in. We’ve got a special treat for you this week. We’re gonna drop the director’s cut of this podcast where we include some of the conversations that usually get edited out: how we debate internally about some of these market dynamics. So, stay tuned after the end of the podcast and listen to the off-takes. My name is Ted Jacoby, CEO of T.C. Jacoby & Co., and joining me today is Jacob Menge, our Vice President of Risk Management and Trading Strategy, Josh White, our Vice President of Dairy Ingredients, and Joe Maixner, our Director of Sales. We are in week three of a very high level of volatility in the dairy markets. We’ve had a very interesting last few weeks. It’s February 9th, and since January 15th, our Class III March futures are up 18%. Our [00:01:00] March cheese futures are up over 15%. Butter futures are up over 26%. nonfat futures up 37% and Class IV milk futures up 36%. These markets have not gone up in a straight line. There’s been a massive amount of volatility, a lot of green, a lot of red, and then a lot of green, and then a lot of red again, enough to make all of us who talk these markets on a daily and an hourly basis to be flat out exhausted. The question becomes, what’s causing this level of volatility? We are gonna talk a little bit about market psychology. Why can markets do what they’ve done in the last three weeks, and why our actual fundamental market analysis hasn’t really changed that much. To quote the famous British economist, John Maynard Keynes, “Markets can remain irrational far longer than you and I can remain solvent.” And I’ll tell you that the last three weeks reminded me repeatedly of that phrase. It serves as a warning against over leveraging or trying to fight the tape, trading against trends, suggesting that just because you are right about a trend’s [00:02:00] long-term direction, it’s useless if you run out of capital. Ted Jacoby III: And I have a feeling that based on what we’ve been experiencing lately, there’s probably a few people out there that exactly that happened to. It has been wild and crazy every day for the last three weeks. Jake, why do markets do this? Jacob Menge: You threw out your little soundbite anecdotes. We will pull out some more of ’em during those podcasts, I’m sure, because those are all written by people that have been burned by short squeezes like we’re seeing, right? One that sticks out to me is: volatility is the tax you pay for liquidity and leverage, and that’s what futures markets are, right? They are a way for people to express their opinion on price action. Obviously, even a hedger is in some way expressing an opinion using futures or options. They’re highly liquid. You don’t even have to pay full price for ’em because you only gotta put up that margin upfront. And again, volatility is usually the tax that you pay for that. When you have this easy leverage, and everybody can get on one side of the boat you can’t have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t [00:03:00] have tight spreads, you can’t have the leverage and smooth prices all at the same time. And that can result in things like short squeezes. We were primed for one. You’re right, we had low volatility. We had a lot of people that were short the market because that was the prevailing narrative. As a result, all it took was one little spark to set some pretty dry kindling ablaze. That’s exactly what we saw, especially on the nonfat side. I’ll pull out my second anecdote. I’ve always heard: squeezes are flow events first, narrative events second. That’s exactly what was going on with nonfat. Meaning we get this massive bullish order flow coming in. The market goes up 30%+ in a few week period, and it’s only after that happens that all of a sudden we start having these conversations of, well, what was everybody missing in nonfat? I think the market probably was missing something on the nonfat side. But at the end of the day when you have volatility near lows, volume that was [00:04:00] fairly average, it makes sense that really the only way to go is gonna be up. If there’s any kind of news. And the news this time turns out there’s a whole lot less nonfat out there than people probably expected. And away we go. And it turns into this snowball where there’s the first people to see that and start wanting to buy, and the second they start wanting to buy, turns out there’s not a whole lot of sellers there, because everybody that wanted to sell already had sold. You get that first nice air pocket jump higher. That really is that first domino where if you’re a market maker, say, and you need to hedge your book, you’re trying to run a delta neutral trading book as a market maker, you might say, “Okay, well hey, I need to go get some long delta myself.” And you might go try to buy some options, to buy calls, to offset that. And then all of a sudden the market maker that is selling the calls want more for the calls than they wanted just a day ago. Ted Jacoby III: A day ago? Try an hour ago. Jacob Menge: Yeah, an hour ago. Truly. And so [00:05:00] that would be what we call implied volatility. Right. And I think that’s one important distinction here is we have volatility, what we call realized volatility, which is what the market actually did, like how crazy the market is, and then implied volatility, basically what the market is charging for options usually and implying what the market thinks the volatility will be in the future. And that’s where it gets really fun because even though we didn’t have a lot of realized volatility, if the market thinks it’s gonna become volatile and starts charging more for these options, it can almost be a self-fulfilling prophecy, right? Because now you have to pay more to buy that insurance policy, and you can see how that snowball really can grow fairly fast. We have one other really fun part in dairy markets that I can’t help but mention, and that is that we also have spot markets. Those spot markets indirectly are linked to the futures prices because of our National Dairy Products Sales Report (NDPSR) system. And so we [00:06:00] can really wind up with the tail wagging the dog in our futures markets and in our spot markets where, say the spot markets were driving the ship on the way down. People had a lot of products, they’re selling them. Well, all of a sudden, if we start getting a little bit of a squeeze in our futures markets, now if you have product, you don’t wanna sell it on the exchange, you wanna just hold onto it and capture the carry in the futures curve. And so you’re not gonna sell. And so any bidder on the spot auction has to bid it higher. And guess what? Now the futures see the spot auction being bid up and they say, “Well, well, we are right to be panicking. We need to go higher.” And that’s just pouring gasoline on the fire. We’ve already got a raging inferno at this point, but that adds the final pour of gasoline. Ted Jacoby III: You remind me of one of my learning moments 20 some odd, almost 30 years ago, when I was watching these markets, as the futures markets were just becoming relevant to the dairy industry. And it was the realization that futures markets and spot markets are [00:07:00] two different markets with a different set of drivers of supply and demand. On the spot market, supply is, let’s talk about butter, is the supply of 80% bulk butter. Demand is the demand for that 80% bulk butter. The futures butter markets, it may settle to that NDPSR price of the bulk butter market, but the reality is the supply is the number of people who are willing to sell those futures, and the demand is the number of people that are willing to buy those futures. And so you can have people coming into the market that really don’t care at all about how much block butter are out there because they’re actually trying to hedge cream cheese or a chocolate shake or something completely different that has butter in it, but they need to own those futures, and that futures market can move quite a bit and has nothing to do with the actual supply and demand of the market it’s based on. Jacob Menge: Anecdote number three. I always have heard squeezes feel irrational because risk systems are mechanical. And I think that is true here, right? You have stops in place. A lot of [00:08:00] companies will have risk management policies that say, “Hey if VAR gets to a certain point, you have to get out of your position.” Or on the opposite side, you have to hedge your product if something has happened, or you have to hedge your buy price if the market hits a certain threshold. And so, that can really send the market in the short run to some areas that feel irrational, but again, it’s because the systems behind it are mechanical sometimes and not even human. Obviously, the human factor makes things even spicier. But once your mechanical stops have all been hit, and the party is coming to an end very, very rarely — I’m struggling to think of one short squeeze I’ve ever seen — that actually goes to the top and then just starts trading sideways. It is almost always an overshoot and a retracement back down to some level. And that is really where our different volatilities really matter because on that collapse back to reality, and reality can [00:09:00] be very different than where we started, just to be clear, if nonfat started at a $1.20, and we go way up to a $1.60, and then settle at a $1.40, we’re still 20¢ higher than where we started. So, don’t get me wrong, right? Short squeezes, there’s usually some fundamentals behind it, but it’s that blow off top that we might say feels super, super irrational. And again, we’ll have kind of this realized volatility going higher as we are going up and going down. But the more interesting thing in my opinion is that as we’re doing that retracement off of this super high blow off top, implied volatility tends to drift lower. That’s actually an important concept to really understand because as implied volatility is moving lower with the market moving lower, it gives the market breathing room, and that is the point where we can really find equilibrium and come out at maybe the price we should have been three months ago, but [00:10:00] shouldn’t have been last week during that crazy short covering rally. Josh White: Hey guys, what should we make of the fact that our least volatile product over the past, I mean, what decade, 20 years, is the most volatile right now? Or is it is nonfat technically the most volatile product? That’s it. Ted Jacoby III: It is. Josh White: Yep, Ted Jacoby III: it is. Josh White: What should we make of that? I mean, that to me should be the definition of a market cycle change, right? Do we believe that? Joe Maixner: If the market with historically the lowest amount of volatility now has the highest amount of volatility, does that mean that there is a structural change in the way that the market is operating? Jacob Menge: Yes. This might mean regime change for the nonfat market. But we’ve also had these other short squeezes in butter, in Class III. We’re still in a volatile period, but those could just be because we have algorithms keeping Class III and Class IV in check. We’re pondering the question: is there this regime change in nonfat from a low volatility commodity to a high volatility commodity? It’s probably too early to tell. My [00:11:00] guess would be yes, we’re not gonna go back to this boring state nonfat had been in, because it’s just a very evolving market with what we’re seeing on the protein beverage side, you name it: the market’s doing a really good job of taking a boring commodity and finding these new, exciting uses for it. And, and so it kind of passes the sniff test. What probably doesn’t pass the sniff test is what we’re seeing on the other commodities right now: butter and just the Class III products, frankly, I should say cheese in general. What we’re seeing right now with those is they’re following along with the nonfat rally. This really seems to me like nonfat is in the driver’s seat. And I think there’s pretty logical explanations for why we’re seeing cheese and butter do what they’re doing along with nonfat. We’ve got algorithms that trade spreads within our market, right? We do have a crushable commodity. We can take Class III, Class IV, and break it down into its components. As a result, [00:12:00] there’s some opinions on, say the Class III, Class IV spread. And so if we get this massive rally in nonfat, well then any algorithm that’s trading the Class IV crush is probably dragging butter along with it. And now we’ve got Class IV rallying, and there’s probably other algorithms and other people with opinions in the market on what that Class III, Class IV spread should be. And so, even if the absolute price is seeming outta whack there’s enough people with opinions on maybe spreads or calendar spreads or what have you, that are causing the reactions that we’re seeing. Ted Jacoby III: This is the scenario that I can imagine. Everybody has been short, pretty much all of the dairy markets for about six months now. Maybe it took other people longer than it took us to realize that there was gonna be too much milk out there all over the world. But by the time we got to the second week in January, I think everybody who wanted to be short this market already was. Then people started to realize that maybe they weren’t entirely right about the nonfat market. Kind of makes sense if you think [00:13:00] about what we’ve been talking about over the last six months, which is: too much butterfat, too much cheese, but protein’s still really in good demand. Guess what? Nonfat is 34% protein. So, all of a sudden people realized, shoot, maybe the nonfat market has a different dynamic to it and it might need to go up so they start buying it. Well, that causes the Class IV market to go up. And if you have insurance companies that are part of the DLP program that are short this Class IV market, then all of a sudden it’s going the other direction on ’em and they need to go figure out how to get some length in the Class IV market. But shoot, they can’t find any liquidity in the Class IV market. So, instead they’re gonna buy nonfat and they’re gonna buy butter. Now think about it. Now they’re gonna go buy butter. Everybody that wanted to be sure at the butter market is already sure at the butter market. There aren’t any sellers left in the butter market because everybody already did their selling. And so now they’re buying butter, driving the butter market up. And then the last few people who sold the butter market, those who were late to the party, all of a sudden are noticing their margin accounts go negative. Now they’ve gotta throw in the [00:14:00] cash. Maybe they don’t have the financial resources to fund a margin call. And so now they have to buy their futures back, and all of a sudden it becomes this domino, forcing more and more people, for one reason or another, to have to buy back their positions. The next thing you know, you’re up 26%, even though the reality is supply and demand to butterfat, not just in the U.S., but frankly, probably in the world, hasn’t changed one bit in the last three weeks, and that’s why we’re up 26% right now. Jacob Menge: Crowded trades don’t break because they’re wrong. They break because they’re crowded. Ted Jacoby III: I like that. I haven’t heard that one before. I like that . So what happens next? You talk about markets being in strong hands and weak hands. Moments like this force everybody who is a weak hand out of the market, and so the only people left with a position in the market are the ones in strong hands. Does the market go back, and I’m thinking butter, not necessarily nonfat. I think we were all in agreement that the nonfat market has probably had somewhat of a dynamic change. I don’t know if it’s a 36% change, but it’s had [00:15:00] somewhat of a change. But now the butter market, which really probably hasn’t had the same amount of change, the supply and demand for butterfat probably is the same thing it was four weeks ago. And I don’t think you’re gonna find many people out there who are arguing that butter needs to be at $2, like the current March futures say it should be. So what happens in the butter market next? Does it go back to where it was? How do these short squeezes usually play out? Jacob Menge: As an economist, I will say the markets are a perfect system and they will find the exact right price where buyers and sellers meet and everybody is happy. The reality is, short squeezes are really good for hitting the reset button and finding a new equilibrium. And sometimes that is right back to where they started. Sometimes that is closer to the top of the squeeze than the bottom. I think we’re still in that reset period. I don’t think we know where equilibrium is on all of our commodities. It’s gonna still take some time, right? [00:16:00] Because let’s just run with the theory of cheese is gonna go back to where we kinda started all this thing in the $1.40s on the futures. It’s gonna take time for sellers to step back in the market and chew through all this new buy-side liquidity. This buy-side liquidity can come from risk management plans that are in place. And so it just takes time to find that equilibrium. But that is in theory what the market’s going through. Ted Jacoby III: I wanted to have this kind of a conversation because the reality is this was one of those where there’s a lot of people out there right now, they’ve got about half the hair they used to have. Jacob Menge: I don’t think we made them feel any better. Ted Jacoby III: Unfortunately. I know. Stay tuned for the deleted scenes from this podcast. And now the director’s cut. Josh White: Protein’s demand has absolutely changed. Ted Jacoby III: All along we were saying protein demand was strong. To me, this is more about butter than it is about nonfat. Why in the world [00:17:00] is butter up 30¢? Jacob Menge: I think we need to gut check every single model we have in any spreadsheet anywhere. Josh White: A hundred percent. Jacob Menge: Because it’s a new era. Ted Jacoby III: I would argue though that, I mean, we can talk all day long about whether or not our market analysis is right or wrong, but the reality is this was everybody’s market analysis. Josh White: That’s the point we’re making. Ted Jacoby III: I think the irony is, I think the short squeeze had absolutely nothing to do with underestimating how much protein was going to fluid. I think it started for a completely different reason, but once it started moving, we all started looking harder at our analysis. And said, “Man, maybe we’re missing something,” and then actually found it. Josh White: That’s the part that I’m struggling with is I’m actually thinking butter’s easier to rationalize in my mind than nonfat. I think nonfat is a bigger story right now than anything else because butter, what’s the elasticity of demand? And there’s a shift in it because we’re exporting again. Yeah, it’s making it hard for us to measure, but we definitely have been cheaper. And so for it [00:18:00] to be buoying around for price discovery, to try to find that new equilibrium with seasonality, with different products and all that, to me that’s actually easier for me to understand. Like it drops from a price that was significantly higher. Upper twos even pushing three and exceeding three for a short amount of time all the way down to a $1.50. If we don’t think there would be some demand response to that globally and that we would have some retracement or volatility for the opposite reasons that nonfat is probably going too high and gonna have to retrace lower. That to me, like I don’t think we should be super shocked that butter’s doing that. You know what I mean? Like trying to find its equilibrium. To me that’s easier to explain. Ted Jacoby III: Completely agree with everything you’re saying, but I would say this. What we’re arguing about butter is, it’s a vagueness of knowing the balance where the equilibrium price is. We’re just bouncing around trying to find it. I think that’s different from what happened in nonfat. I think with nonfat, the market, the physical market itself, literally [00:19:00] couldn’t get what it wanted. Joe, did we ever have a moment when we couldn’t get the butter we wanted? Before the run started, could you get all the butter you wanted? Joe Maixner: Not off exchange. Josh White: Not 80% fresh salted product. It was being hoarded, right? Joe Maixner: There’s multiple facets to this, right? Like yes, you cannot get any 80% fresh salt right now. But we’re also struggling on getting any old crop, 80% salt off of exchange right now because the old crop situation is much different than it was back when old crop was an actual market mover. Five years ago, all the old crop butter was only at a 12 month shelf life on domestic salted. Everyone’s gone to a 18 or 24 month shelf life. So the product’s still good off exchange for a lot longer than it used to be. So nobody’s out there needing to technically dump it at this point in time if you don’t have a sale for it, because you could still use it off exchange. For a brief period, yes, the salted market got tight, but it’s also because we had the carry in [00:20:00] the market that we had, right? We had the 20¢, 30¢ carry in the market. So, whether you had new crop, old crop, whatever, why would you sell it at a $1.35 in January when you could sell it for a $1.75 a $1.80 in March at that time? Now, we’ve come down, you know, now we’re at a $1.83 in March right now, but at one point we were at $2.00 on March futures with this rally. It’s simple economics. You can carry the products for 3¢ a month and you can make 14¢ to 25¢ depending on the month you wanna sell it in or you let it go for way too cheap. Ted Jacoby III: I hear you. But to me, that’s wholesaler math, that’s trader math. At the end user level, at the people who consume butter, has there been a fundamental shift in how much butter is being consumed? Joe Maixner: No, I don’t think so. Ted Jacoby III: Whereas I think when we’re talking about nonfat and especially the protein in nonfat, I think there has been. It actually manifested itself as a lower amount of supply in nonfat. But I think what’s happened is we were [00:21:00] taking that protein away from the nonfat dryer and using it somewhere else. Whereas with butter, I don’t think that’s happened. Joe Maixner: No, but at the same time, I think that there’s similarities between butter and nonfat, whereas people came into this year structurally short. They didn’t contract because they anticipated the supply to be there. Ted Jacoby III: And then everybody showed up, that’s essentially being short the market. Joe Maixner: Yeah. Ted Jacoby III: When I talk about how everybody who wanted to be short this market was already short this market, so there were no more sellers left to sell. So when somebody wanted to start buying, there was nobody to sell. Joe Maixner: I mean, ultimately you’re just explaining the classic short squeeze. Ted Jacoby III: Right? To me though, that is what we’re dealing with. That’s what we’ve been dealing with right now. That’s what the short squeeze is. It wasn’t just everybody was short this market. Then they were ready to start buying ’cause the market was low enough. Then they found there wasn’t anybody left to buy from ’cause everybody had already sold everything they wanted to sell. And that caused the short squeeze, without any real rationality of there being a fundamental change in demand or supply. It was all at the wholesale [00:22:00] level. Whereas with nonfat, I would argue that the market came to a realization that we were pulling protein away from the dryer to sell it into liquid UF, causing a fundamental shift in the actual supply and demand balance, whereas I don’t necessarily think that happened with butter. With butter, I think it was just the noise in the middle of people making choices about being long or short of market. I don’t, am I making any sense? Joe Maixner: I think you’re getting to the point where you’re talking in circles, if I’m being honest. Ted Jacoby III: To me there’s a difference between talking tactics and talking trading strategy and talking about a fundamental supply demand analysis. Josh White: I think it’ll make a compelling podcast for those that are wondering what’s going on. I genuinely mean that. Ted Jacoby III: We might actually want to have the 15 minute version of talking about what happened in market psychology. Then have an appendix to it capturing the discussion as to what is the real difference between what’s going on in butter and nonfat. Josh White: Or how do [00:23:00] these guys communicate when the makeup’s off? Joe Maixner: I think we leave, I think we leave it all in.
Last episode, we talked about the brewing conflict between what currently passes for mainstream conservatism and the schizophrenic reactionary Groyper politics of Nick Fuentes. Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired We wrapped things up with the idea that conservatism has never really bothered to conserve anything. Aside from a few exceptions, most of the time they keep themselves busy fighting culture wars about immigration, civil rights, women's rights, Christianity, and demonizing organized labor. What they keep trying to “conserve” is whatever the status quo power dynamic was when their grandad was a kid. After the Civil War, they wanted slavery back. Women's suffrage, desegregation—they wanted to get rid of all those things. This isn't the first fight inside conservatism. As part of its periodic reinvention of itself, conservatives have gone back to the political well and dredged up the same slogans more than once. We tied this malleable idea of conservatism in with the evolution of the field of unashamed ideological political economists into what we now think of as the pseudoscience of Economics. At least the political economists were up front about whatever ideological bent they had. If you were a socialist, you'd start with your convictions about socialism being the absolute best way of running society on offer, and they work to come up with an economic theory or plan that made it seem possible. It was honest. By the time the 1800s were wrapping up, that wasn't good enough. Economists wanted to be taken more seriously, so they started dressing the whole thing up like they were doing physics or pure math. They could talk about whatever economic system as if they were describing the laws of nature. That didn't get rid of the ideology, though. It just buried it under metric tons of academic jargon and complicated formulas. After all, what's the difference between modeling a tsunami and a stock market crash? The answer is that the tsunami wasn't caused by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. That all brings us around to FDR's New Deal and the era of John Maynard Keynes and what Matt Christman has called his "Keynesian machine for dispensing treats". As many contradictions as Keynes gathered into his economic model, it remains the only proven way to maintain capitalism. To set the tone, David Talbot has a quote in his book The Devil's Chessboard about Bertie Pell, a friend of FDR's who Talbot described as a “full-on traitor to his class”. “I am almost the last capitalist who is willing to be saved by you,” Pell wrote Roosevelt in 1936 in a letter beseeching the president to draft him for the New Deal cause. The following year, Pell wrote again, praising FDR's accomplishments: “Your administration has made possible the continuance of American institutions for at least fifty years. You have done for the government what St. Francis did for the Catholic Church. You have brought it back to the people.” It turns out Pell was eerily correct. Those institutions managed to last just a little longer than 50 years. They are about gone now, though. Our long promised merch is here!! Fly your crypto-leftist flag with our personal love letter to Juan José Arévalo, philosopher and socialist president of Guatemala, and the airline he nationalized. wetwired.printful.me/ Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired Music:Airglow - Spliff and Wesson (CC-BY)
Since our species first emerged on the planet some 300,000 years ago, the overriding problem for most humans has been the struggle for food and shelter. But in 1930, the British economist John Maynard Keynes foresaw that economic growth (despite the Great Depression) would mean that in a century, the vast majority of people in developed societies would enjoy mass plenty and only a small number of unfortunates would still struggle with material deprivation. This would mean that “for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem — how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” But Keynes worried that transitioning to this new problem would present huge difficulties for humanity: “there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without dread.”Brink Lindsey, senior vice president at the Niskanen Center, has written a visionary new book addressing Keynes' conundrum. In The Permanent Problem: The Uncertain Transition from Mass Plenty to Mass Flourishing, Lindsey ponders the paradox that people in developed countries live in conditions of unparalleled wealth, health, and technological progress — and yet most people feel disappointment rather than gratitude at the results. We enjoy an abundance of material goods, yet most people are missing out on the sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging that define human flourishing.In this podcast discussion, Lindsey describes the “triple crisis of capitalism” that has brought material prosperity but also social disintegration, sputtering dynamism, and dysfunctional politics. But he also sees encouraging signs that point toward how mass flourishing might be accomplished in developments that include new technological breakthroughs and the growing Abundance movement. Ultimately he hopes for a future in which people will have closer relationships with each other as well as the natural world, and in which humanity's drive to explore and understand will reach into the larger universe. “Our destiny is up to us,” he concludes, “and therefore we should make the most of that chance. We ought to aim high.”
Dalam lanskap politik ekonomi Indonesia kontemporer, muncul fenomena menarik yang layak dicermati: bagaimana Presiden Prabowo Subianto dan Menteri Keuangan Purbaya Yudhi Sadewa menggunakan pendekatan psikologis dalam menggerakkan roda ekonomi. Target pertumbuhan ekonomi 8 persen yang dicanangkan bukan sekadar angka ambisius di atas kertas, melainkan instrumen strategis untuk membentuk persepsi dan kepercayaan pasar. Ini adalah penerapan konsep “animal spirits” yang dipopulerkan ekonom legendaris John Maynard Keynes, di mana optimisme dan kepercayaan menjadi katalis pertumbuhan ekonomi—bahkan terkadang melampaui perhitungan rasional semata.
In Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalization (Yale UP, 2023), distinguished economic historian Harold James offers a fresh perspective on the past two centuries of globalization and the pivotal moments that shaped it. James analyzes seven major economic crises that occurred over this period, including the late 1840s, the simultaneous stock market shocks of 1873, the First World War years, the Great Depression era, the 1970s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, and most recently the Covid-19 crisis. Through his insightful analysis, he illustrates how some of these crises contributed to increased cross-border integration of labor, goods, and capital markets, while others resulted in significant deglobalization. James classifies the crises into two categories: those caused by shortages and those driven by demand. He explains how shortages have led to greater globalization as markets expanded and producers innovated to increase supply, as evidenced by events such as the First World War and the oil shocks of the 1970s. In contrast, demand-driven crises, such as those that caused the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, have typically led to international trade contraction and decreased globalization, often accompanied by widespread skepticism of governments. To support his findings, James examines the writings of key observers who shaped our understanding of each crisis, including Karl Marx in 1848, Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the 1870s, German Treasury Secretary Karl Helfferich in the First World War, John Maynard Keynes in the Great Depression, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in the 1970s, Ben Bernanke in 2008, and Larry Summers and Raj Chetty in 2020. Overall, James' work provides an insightful and thought-provoking analysis of the relationship between economic crises and globalization over the past two centuries, and sheds light on the potential trajectory of future economic developments. Javier Mejia is an economist at Stanford University who specializes in the intersection of social networks and economic history. His research interests also include entrepreneurship and political economy, with a particular focus on Latin America and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Los Andes University. Mejia has previously been a Postdoctoral Associate and Lecturer at New York University-Abu Dhabi and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Bordeaux. He is also a frequent contributor to various news outlets, currently serving as an op-ed columnist for Forbes Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs
In Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalization (Yale UP, 2023), distinguished economic historian Harold James offers a fresh perspective on the past two centuries of globalization and the pivotal moments that shaped it. James analyzes seven major economic crises that occurred over this period, including the late 1840s, the simultaneous stock market shocks of 1873, the First World War years, the Great Depression era, the 1970s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, and most recently the Covid-19 crisis. Through his insightful analysis, he illustrates how some of these crises contributed to increased cross-border integration of labor, goods, and capital markets, while others resulted in significant deglobalization. James classifies the crises into two categories: those caused by shortages and those driven by demand. He explains how shortages have led to greater globalization as markets expanded and producers innovated to increase supply, as evidenced by events such as the First World War and the oil shocks of the 1970s. In contrast, demand-driven crises, such as those that caused the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, have typically led to international trade contraction and decreased globalization, often accompanied by widespread skepticism of governments. To support his findings, James examines the writings of key observers who shaped our understanding of each crisis, including Karl Marx in 1848, Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the 1870s, German Treasury Secretary Karl Helfferich in the First World War, John Maynard Keynes in the Great Depression, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in the 1970s, Ben Bernanke in 2008, and Larry Summers and Raj Chetty in 2020. Overall, James' work provides an insightful and thought-provoking analysis of the relationship between economic crises and globalization over the past two centuries, and sheds light on the potential trajectory of future economic developments. Javier Mejia is an economist at Stanford University who specializes in the intersection of social networks and economic history. His research interests also include entrepreneurship and political economy, with a particular focus on Latin America and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Los Andes University. Mejia has previously been a Postdoctoral Associate and Lecturer at New York University-Abu Dhabi and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Bordeaux. He is also a frequent contributor to various news outlets, currently serving as an op-ed columnist for Forbes Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network
In Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalization (Yale UP, 2023), distinguished economic historian Harold James offers a fresh perspective on the past two centuries of globalization and the pivotal moments that shaped it. James analyzes seven major economic crises that occurred over this period, including the late 1840s, the simultaneous stock market shocks of 1873, the First World War years, the Great Depression era, the 1970s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, and most recently the Covid-19 crisis. Through his insightful analysis, he illustrates how some of these crises contributed to increased cross-border integration of labor, goods, and capital markets, while others resulted in significant deglobalization. James classifies the crises into two categories: those caused by shortages and those driven by demand. He explains how shortages have led to greater globalization as markets expanded and producers innovated to increase supply, as evidenced by events such as the First World War and the oil shocks of the 1970s. In contrast, demand-driven crises, such as those that caused the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, have typically led to international trade contraction and decreased globalization, often accompanied by widespread skepticism of governments. To support his findings, James examines the writings of key observers who shaped our understanding of each crisis, including Karl Marx in 1848, Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the 1870s, German Treasury Secretary Karl Helfferich in the First World War, John Maynard Keynes in the Great Depression, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in the 1970s, Ben Bernanke in 2008, and Larry Summers and Raj Chetty in 2020. Overall, James' work provides an insightful and thought-provoking analysis of the relationship between economic crises and globalization over the past two centuries, and sheds light on the potential trajectory of future economic developments. Javier Mejia is an economist at Stanford University who specializes in the intersection of social networks and economic history. His research interests also include entrepreneurship and political economy, with a particular focus on Latin America and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Los Andes University. Mejia has previously been a Postdoctoral Associate and Lecturer at New York University-Abu Dhabi and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Bordeaux. He is also a frequent contributor to various news outlets, currently serving as an op-ed columnist for Forbes Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/economics
In Seven Crashes: The Economic Crises That Shaped Globalization (Yale UP, 2023), distinguished economic historian Harold James offers a fresh perspective on the past two centuries of globalization and the pivotal moments that shaped it. James analyzes seven major economic crises that occurred over this period, including the late 1840s, the simultaneous stock market shocks of 1873, the First World War years, the Great Depression era, the 1970s, the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, and most recently the Covid-19 crisis. Through his insightful analysis, he illustrates how some of these crises contributed to increased cross-border integration of labor, goods, and capital markets, while others resulted in significant deglobalization. James classifies the crises into two categories: those caused by shortages and those driven by demand. He explains how shortages have led to greater globalization as markets expanded and producers innovated to increase supply, as evidenced by events such as the First World War and the oil shocks of the 1970s. In contrast, demand-driven crises, such as those that caused the Great Depression and the Global Financial Crisis of 2007-2008, have typically led to international trade contraction and decreased globalization, often accompanied by widespread skepticism of governments. To support his findings, James examines the writings of key observers who shaped our understanding of each crisis, including Karl Marx in 1848, Stanley Jevons, Léon Walras, and Carl Menger in the 1870s, German Treasury Secretary Karl Helfferich in the First World War, John Maynard Keynes in the Great Depression, Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek in the 1970s, Ben Bernanke in 2008, and Larry Summers and Raj Chetty in 2020. Overall, James' work provides an insightful and thought-provoking analysis of the relationship between economic crises and globalization over the past two centuries, and sheds light on the potential trajectory of future economic developments. Javier Mejia is an economist at Stanford University who specializes in the intersection of social networks and economic history. His research interests also include entrepreneurship and political economy, with a particular focus on Latin America and the Middle East. He holds a Ph.D. in Economics from Los Andes University. Mejia has previously been a Postdoctoral Associate and Lecturer at New York University-Abu Dhabi and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Bordeaux. He is also a frequent contributor to various news outlets, currently serving as an op-ed columnist for Forbes Magazine. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/finance
The great John Maynard Keynes explained it a century ago. In his 1930 essay, "Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," Keynes predicted that the future would be defined by economic abundance rather than scarcity. But such a cornucopian future, Keynes warned, would create societies teetering perpetually on the brink of a nervous breakdown. Keynes' vision has been updated by Niskanen Center SVP Brink Lindsey in his new book, The Permanent Problem. Today's societies, the Thailand-based Lindsey observes, are all on the verge of nervous breakdowns triggered by economic prosperity rather than poverty. So the challenge today, he notes with his own Keynesian flourish, is transforming this mass plenty into mass human flourishing. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe
Post-Keynesian economics, building on John Maynard Keynes's work, emphasizes uncertainty, financial instability, and income distribution, offering a heterodox alternative to neoclassical and new Keynesian economics.Developed by Joan Robinson, Hyman Minsky, Paul Davidson, and others in the mid-20th century, it emerged from dissatisfaction with mainstream equilibrium models. It extends Keynes's focus on demand-driven economies, rejecting assumptions of automatic market clearing.
Nachdem wir in Folge 333 über den ersten Teil des Aufsatzes „Beyond Capitalism“ von Aaron Benanav diskutiert haben, geht es nun um den zweiten Teil, der eine Umsetzung der Synthese aus Karl Marx und John Maynard Keynes skizziert.Entstehen soll eine neue Wirtschaftsordnung. Der Wirtschaftshistoriker schlägt nicht die Abschaffung des Geldes, sondern ein duales Währungssystem vor, in dem es Punkte und Credits gibt. Während die Verbraucher mit Credits ihre Bedürfnisse stillen können, erhalten die Unternehmen, die von Investitionsgremien überwacht und gegründet werden, Punkte, mit denen sie Investitionen tätigen können.Diese beiden weitgehend entkoppelten Kreisläufe dienen dazu, die Profitlogik des Marktes auszuhebeln. Fortan entscheidet der Demos darüber, was zu welchem Zweck produziert wird. Zwar gibt es noch einen freien privaten Konsum, aber die Produktionsmittel sind vergesellschaftet.In der neuen Folge diskutieren Ole Nymoen und Wolfgang M. Schmitt über das ambitionierte Konzept.Literatur:Aaron Benanav: Beyond Capitalism 2, in: The New Left Review, online verfügbar unter: https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii154/articles/aaron-benanav-beyond-capitalism-2Unsere Zusatzinhalte könnt ihr bei Apple Podcasts, Steady und Patreon hören. Vielen Dank!Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/wohlstand-f%C3%BCr-alle/id1476402723Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/oleundwolfgangSteady: https://steadyhq.com/de/oleundwolfgang/about
#realconversations #macroeconomist #economics#politicalthinker #Netherlands #China #investment #AI #globalizationCONVERSATIONS WITH CALVIN WE THE SPECIES hosted by CalvinSchwartzMeet EDOUARD PRISSE (Live from the Netherlands); “I don't dopolitics or religion; My fifteen years as a journalist, broadcaster, andpodcaster. My choice. I focus on the elements of individual journeys withpeople across the globe. The title of my podcast is Conversations with CalvinWe the SPECIES. We are one inhabiting the earth. Preaching now concluded. WhenEdouard Prisse and his book ‘Sleeping with the Enemy: What the White HouseStill Misses on China' came into my field of vision, I gave it thought. We livein a complicated world of an interconnected global economy. We see it every dayon a purchasing line. Edouard brings discussion and thought. Yes, thinking isfun. He is fascinating, worldly, brilliant, and easy to understand. Economicswas one of my favorite courses at Rutgers. And he likes the economist who wrotemy 60's textbook. I like this question I asked. “Why do you think nationssometimes misunderstand the long-term consequences of economic decisions?"And this is a diverse interview. We talked about the movie ‘2001: A SpaceOdyssey.' Therefore, an all-purpose, provocative interview. A special element.Edouard is older than me. These days, no one is older than me. Merry HappyHealthy Holidays,” Calvinhttps://www.youtube.com/c/ConversationswithCalvinWetheSpecIEs687 Interviews/Videos 9200 SUBSCRIBERSGLOBAL Reach. Earth Life. Amazing People. PLEASE SUBSCRIBE **EDOUARD PRISSE; Macroeconomist; Political Thinker; Author,“Sleeping with the Enemy'; Software; LIVE from The NetherlandsYouTube:LINKS: LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edouardprisse/BIO: I am anindependent European political observer. My background is MA Dutch law, MbaInsead Business School, you know the one that was set up in France with thehelp of Harvard Business School in 1960; studied John Maynard Keynes,specialized legally in different forms of power structures in nations, have abasis in Maths and Physics, and experience as a business consultant and inbetween as a legal adviser. I have been married twice and have five wonderfulchildren who warm the heart. I deeply love classical music, having concerts atmy home, and I try to play the piano.With over four decades of professional experience, I havehoned my expertise in software localization, international business strategy,and policy consulting. As the founder and CEO of WordHouse Localization, I ledthe company to become a pioneering force in the software and IT localizationsector, serving global clients like Microsoft and IBM. My commitment tofostering innovation and bridging global markets aligns with my passion foradvancing cross-border collaboration and economic growth, particularly inChina. At WordHouse Localization until December 2008, I spearheadedinitiatives that expanded our capabilities, including launching a subsidiary inBeijing to address untapped opportunities in the Chinese software market. Mycollaborative leadership style and focus on negotiation and policy writingenabled the team to establish market-leading solutions for clients. Today, myfocus lies on advising startups and writing about China's evolving economiclandscape.**WE ARE ALSO ON AUDIOAUDIO “Conversations with Calvin; WE the SpecIEs”ANCHOR https://lnkd.in/g4jcUPqSPOTIFY https://lnkd.in/ghuMFeCAPPLE PODCASTSBREAKER https://lnkd.in/g62StzJGOOGLE PODCASTS https://lnkd.in/gpd3XfMPOCKET CASTS https://pca.st/bmjmzaitRADIO PUBLIC https://lnkd.in/gxueFZw
La teoría clásica del Premio Nobel Gary Becker nos enseñó que el criminal es un agente perfectamente racional que sopesa ganancias y costos antes de actuar. Pero, ¿es esto realista? ¿El asaltante de la esquina está haciendo un cálculo económico perfecto?En este episodio, dinamitamos la teoría de la Elección Racional para introducir un concepto olvidado: Los Espíritus Animales de John Maynard Keynes. Analizamos cómo la emoción, el optimismo, la aversión a la pérdida y el exceso de confianza (alimentado por rachas de éxito) son los verdaderos impulsores detrás del delito en contextos de incertidumbre.Descubre cómo hemos formalizado esta variante en la ecuación de Becker y por qué la economía debe abrirse a la psicología para entender el crimen. (Al final, compartimos un artículo de profundización sobre el tema).Ebook recomendado: Aprenda de la mafia: Para alcanzar el éxito en su empresa (legal).
Ludwig Wittgenstein var omgiven av många av sin tids främsta tänkare, men en av de allra främsta är okänd för allmänheten Frank Ramsey. Helena Granström reflekterar över deras komplicerade vänskap. Lyssna på alla avsnitt i Sveriges Radio Play. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna. Ursprungligen sänd 2021-03-17.Det är i efterhand inte alltid så lätt att säga exakt hur eller när en vänskap tar sin början, men i det här fallet är det ingen tvekan: Den börjar med ett märkvärdigt och svårgenomträngligt bokmanuskript, författat mer eller mindre nerifrån en av första världskrigets skyttegravar. I denna skrift menar sig författaren, den då knappt trettioårige österrikaren Ludwig Wittgenstein, ge en fullständig redogörelse för relationen mellan språk och verklighet. Texten pekar också mot filosofins begränsningar, och etablerar en distinktion mellan det som kan uttryckas klart och det som enbart kan gestaltas eller visas: ”Om det man inte kan tala måste man tiga.”1921 publiceras det som senare ska bli ”Tractatus logico-philosophicus” för första gången i en tysk tidskrift, och när den ett år senare utkommer på engelska är det tack vare ansträngningarna av Frank Ramsey, en 18-årig universitetsstudent som redan vid denna ålder utmärkt sig i såväl tyska som matematik, logik och filosofi.Och det är alltså här som relationen mellan de båda männen kan sägas få sin inledning: i och med Ramseys översättning av denna närmast oöversättliga lilla traktat, för vilken bokens förläggare väljer att ta åt sig hela äran. Det uteblivna erkännandet tycks emellertid inte bekomma Ramsey. Vad han i första hand tar med sig från arbetet med Wittgensteins Tractatus är filosofiska impulser som han sedan ska komma att ta spjärn emot under hela återstoden av sitt alltför korta liv. Det är emellertid inte ett förhållande präglat av okritisk beundran från Ramseys sida; snarare är det fråga om ett ömsesidigt utbyte mellan de två. Mellan Tractatus briljante men kryptiske och djupt obstinate författare, och det lågmälda och godmodiga underbarnet, som före sin död i sjukdom vid 26 års ålder även hann lämna betydelsefulla bidrag inom logik, matematik och ekonomi.Men, till en början har relationen mellan det kärva österrikiska geniet och hans begåvade brittiske översättare ändå tveklösa drag av kärlekshistoria. När Ramsey i september 1923 för första gången besöker Wittgenstein i den lilla österrikiska bergsby där filosofen, som skänkt bort hela sin del av familjens enorma förmögenhet, tjänar sitt uppehälle som grundskollärare, har rapporterna hem en närmast nyförälskad ton. ”När han förklarar sin filosofi är han upphetsad och gör stela gester”, rapporterar Ramsey, ”men han förlöser spänningen med ett charmerande skratt. Han har blå ögon. … Han är fantastisk.” Vilket inte utesluter att deras gemensamma genomgång av Tractatus var krävande: ”Det är förfärligt när han frågar 'Är det klart?' och jag säger ”nej” och han säger 'För helskotta, det är helt vedervärdigt att behöva gå igenom allt det där igen'. … Han glömmer ofta bort innebörden av saker han skrivit fem minuter tidigare, och drar sig till minnes den igen först senare.”Det är en påfrestning i relationen som för Ramseys del bara kommer att växa sig starkare, så att han under ett besök året därpå i sina brev hem konstaterar att den stora filosofen inte är bra för hans arbete: ”Pekar man på en frågeställning vill han inte höra ens eget svar på den, utan börjar bara genast försöka komma på ett själv. Och det är så enormt hårt jobb för honom, som att knuffa någonting alldeles för tungt uppför ett berg. ”Ännu ett år senare inträder en kris i förhållandet mellan de båda, till stora delar föranledd av Wittgensteins oförsonliga attityd gentemot sin omgivning. När de sammanstrålar hemma hos ekonomen John Maynard Keynes, ett par veckor efter Keynes bröllop och några dagar före Ramseys eget, oroar sig Ramsey för hur han ska underhålla sin krävande vän, eftersom denne bara vill befatta sig med de mest seriösa diskussioner, men dessa å andra sidan tenderar att leda till så våldsamma meningsskiljaktigheter att de blir helt omöjliga. Det mest positiva Ramsey har att rapportera i sina brev är Wittgensteins vana att framföra komplexa operastycken med bara munnen till hjälp: ”Han visslar fantastiskt”.Att Wittgenstein efter mötet hemma hos Keynes plötsligt bryter kontakten med Ramsey har åtminstone delvis att göra med att deras meningar går isär angående psykoanalysens fader Sigmund Freud, som Wittgenstein menade var moraliskt förkastlig: ”Moraliskt sett är Freud ett svin eller något liknande, men det ligger mycket i vad han säger. Förresten är det samma sak med mig. Det ligger mycket i vad jag säger.”.Wittgenstein var, vilket Ramsey alltså fick erfara, en man med ett oerhört strängt moraliskt system som han lät omfatta såväl andra som sig själv; en man förmögen att producera aforismer av typen ”den som inte är beredd att göra sig själv illa kan inte tänka ordentligt”.Vilket möjligen kan läsas som ett avfärdande av den jämförelsevis sorglösa Ramsey; icke desto mindre hittar de två tillbaka till varandra när Wittgenstein efter upprepade övertalningsförsök återvänder till Cambridge 1929. Den förälskade spänningen mellan dem tycks intakt, liksom svårigheterna: Deras samtal är, skriver Wittgenstein, ”som något slags energikrävande sport och genomförs med gott humör. Det är något erotiskt och chevalereskt över dem.” Ramsey å sin sida rapporterar hur Wittgenstein driver honom till vansinne genom att komma in i arbetsrummet och inte säga någonting utom ”jag är så hopplös” – för att därefter starta ett uppslitande filosofiskt gräl, som inte sällan slutar med att båda männen faller i gråt.Ramsey kom allteftersom tiden gick att vända sig mot Tractatus filosofiska system i allt högre grad; han kritiserade Wittgenstein bland annat i frågan om språklig mening, matematiska utsagors innebörd, och sinneserfarenhetens plats i filosofins teoribyggen. Något som tycks ha provocerat Wittgenstein: efter Ramseys död i gulsot år 1930 skriver han att han fann dennes sinne frånstötande och fult, och att hans kritik inte var av den kreativa, stimulerande typen, utan den hämmande.Inte förrän långt senare, i sin skrift Filosofiska undersökningar, ska Wittgenstein vidgå sin yngre kollegas inflytande. Där skriver han att han kommit att inse de misstag han gjorde i Tractatus, och att denna insikt – ”i en utsträckning som [han] knappast själv kan bedöma” – stammar från den kritik som riktades mot dem av Frank Ramsey, som dryftade dem med honom i otaliga samtal under de två sista åren av sitt liv.Och kanske kan man säga att Ramsey därmed gavs erkännande för ett av vänskapens viktigaste element, nämligen integritet, som han förmådde uppvisa också i relation till ett arrogant geni som bestraffade i princip allt som inte var beundran från omgivningen med vrede och fördömanden. Ramsey förblev fast i sin vänskap, men också fast i sin intellektuella övertygelse – ett sätt att beskriva det är att han tog Wittgensteins egen filosofi och vände den emot honom genom att sträva efter att på en gång göra den mer mänsklig, och mer konsekvent. ”Det vi inte kan tala om kan vi faktiskt inte tala om”, påminde han sin vän och fortsatte ”och vi kan inte vissla det heller.”Helena Granströmförfattare med bakgrund inom fysik och matematikLitteraturCheryl Misak, "Frank Ramsey. A Sheer Excess of Powers" (Oxford University Press, 2020)F.P. Ramsey, "Critical Notice: Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus", Mind, vol 32, nr 128 (1923)Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus". Översättning av Sten Andersson (Norstedts, 2014)Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Filosofiska undersökningar". Översättning Anders Wedberg (Thales, 1992)Ray Monk, "Ludwig Wittgenstein. The Duty of Genius" (Vintage, 1991)
In questa puntata parliamo di disuguaglianze — un tema che attraversa la storia dell'economia come una linea di tensione permanente.Le disuguaglianze sono spesso viste come un male da estirpare, ma in realtà rappresentano anche un motore: spingono all'innovazione, all'ambizione, al rischio. Sono parte di quella dinamica vitale che John Maynard Keynes chiamava gli “animal spirits”, l'energia che muove individui e mercati.Eppure, quando le distanze diventano troppo grandi, la spinta si trasforma in frattura. L'economia si polarizza, la fiducia si erode e la società si indebolisce. È qui che entra in gioco la politica economica, con i suoi correttivi fiscali, per riequilibrare il sistema senza soffocarlo.Parleremo di questo sottile equilibrio: tra merito e redistribuzione, tra iniziativa individuale e coesione collettiva. Perché un'economia sana non è quella in cui tutti partono uguali, ma quella in cui tutti hanno la possibilità di correre.Lascia un like, condividi e commenta; fai sapere che ci sei.Per comprendere l'economia, bisogna comprendere la natura umana.Puoi trovarci su tutte le piattaforme di podcast, inclusa la tua preferita.web: http://pianoInclinato.altervista.orgNewsletter: https://alienogentile.substack.com/
Episode Synopsis:Did the ideas of John Maynard Keynes die along with him, or are the notions of macroeconomics and global finance persistent enough to maintain a stranglehold on society, long after their visionary author was put to rest?We talk about this and much more, including:What are some of the cognitive limitations in forming beliefs?Who was John Maynard Keynes and how does his idea of macroeconomics rule the world from the grave?What are some of the devastating consequences of adopting the ideals espoused by Keynesian Economics?How have Central Banking and government economic intervention harmed our economy?How did the Illuminati birth the ideas of modern day globalism?Original Air DateOctober 29h, 2025Show HostsJason Spears & Christopher DeanOur PatreonConsider joining our Patreon Squad and becoming a Tier Operator to help support the show and get access to exclusive content like:Links and ResourcesStudio NotesA monthly Zoom call with Jason and Christopher And More…ORP ApparelMerch StoreConnect With UsLetsTalk@ORPpodcast.comFacebookInstagram
There is no denying that capitalism has played a leading role in warming the planet. As the Industrial Revolution ushered in previously unseen levels of prosperity for some people, human beings' negative impact on the natural world exploded at a ferocious rate. While it's helpful for modern-day economists to look back at the faults and failures of capitalism as a way to explain the multitude of problems facing humanity in the 21st century, it's even more interesting to understand the critiques that economists of the 19th and 20th century had about capitalism and what they were experiencing in real time that led them to these incredibly-prescient conclusions. John Cassidy joins the show this week to discuss his new book "Capitalism and Its Critics: A History: From the Industrial Revolution to AI". John has written about economics and politics for The New Yorker for over 30 years. He's also the author of "How Markets Fail" and "Dot.Con: How America Lost Its Mind and Its Money in the Internet Era." John's new book covers 250 years of economic critiques of capitalism from well known economists like Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and Joan Robinson, as well as some lesser-know, yet incredibly important critics like Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Rosa Luxemburg, JC Kumarappa, and many more. The Climate Pod is going to be live in Chicago! Join us for our Chicago Climate Bash, the hottest comedy show on the planet! On Sunday, October 26th at 5 pm CT at The Lincoln Lodge, we're featuring an amazing lineup of great comedians and expert guests. There will be standup, panels, music, and more. This show is a live recording of The Climate Pod. Featuring Chad The Bird, Lucia Whalen, and Kat Abughazaleh! Get your tickets now: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/chicago-climate-bash-tickets-1758346845749?aff=oddtdtcreator Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to our newsletter/podcast, The Climate Weekly, to help support this show. Your contributions will make the continuation of this show possible. Our music is "Gotta Get Up" by The Passion Hifi, check out his music at thepassionhifi.com. Rate, review and subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, Spotify, and more! Subscribe to our YouTube channel.
From the Dark to the Light Do you celebrate life or death? We talk about figures like Charlie Kirk, Martin Luther King Jr., and JFK. Their lives were taken by another human being. Why do we want to kill someone for words they say or beliefs they hold? F.A. Hayek and John Maynard Keynes had vastly different beliefs and yet had a great friendship. They talked about their different beliefs and had friendly debates. Charlie Kirk was encouraging people with different beliefs to talk to each other and said that when people stop talking, that's when problems begin. We discuss the kid that shot him and what he is facing now. Bad things can happen, and how you choose to think about that situation can not only determine your results but can make a difference in how happy you are. The Golden Rule tells us to treat others the way we want to be treated. If we could all follow that, this world would be a better place. Turning Point USA Sponsors: American Gold Exchange Our dealer for precious metals & the exclusive dealer of Real Power Family silver rounds (which we finally got in!!!). Get your first, or next bullion order from American Gold Exchange like we do. Tell them the Real Power Family sent you! Click on this link to get a FREE Starters Guide. Or Click Here to order our new Real Power Family silver rounds. 1 Troy Oz 99.99% Fine Silver Abolish Property Taxes in Ohio: www.AxOHTax.com Get more information about abolishing all property taxes in Ohio. Our Links: www.RealPowerFamily.com Info@ClearSkyTrainer.com 833-Be-Do-Have (833-233-6428)
In an extended version of the programme that was broadcast, Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the influential book John Maynard Keynes wrote in 1919 after he resigned in protest from his role at the Paris Peace Conference. There the victors of World War One were deciding the fate of the defeated, especially Germany and Austria-Hungary, and Keynes wanted the world to know his view that the economic consequences would be disastrous for all. Soon Germany used his book to support their claim that the Treaty was grossly unfair, a sentiment that fed into British appeasement in the 1930s and has since prompted debate over whether Keynes had only warned of disaster or somehow contributed to it. With Margaret MacMillan Emeritus Professor of International History at the University of Oxford Michael Cox Emeritus Professor of International Relations at the London School of Economics and Founding Director of LSE IDEAS And Patricia Clavin Professor of Modern History at the University of Oxford Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: Manfred F. Boemeke, Gerald D. Feldman and Elisabeth Glaser (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles: A Reassessment after 75 Years (Cambridge University Press, 1998) Zachary D. Carter, The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy and the Life of John Maynard Keynes (Random House, 2020) Peter Clarke, Keynes: The Twentieth Century's Most Influential Economist (Bloomsbury, 2009) Patricia Clavin et al (eds.), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace after 100 Years: Polemics and Policy (Cambridge University Press, 2023) Patricia Clavin, ‘Britain and the Making of Global Order after 1919: The Ben Pimlott Memorial Lecture' (Twentieth Century British History, Vol. 31:3, 2020) Richard Davenport-Hines, Universal Man; The Seven Lives of John Maynard Keynes (William Collins, 2015) R. F. Harrod, John Maynard Keynes (first published 1951; Pelican, 1972) Jens Holscher and Matthias Klaes (eds), Keynes's Economic Consequences of the Peace: A Reappraisal (Pickering & Chatto, 2014) John Maynard Keynes (with an introduction by Michael Cox), The Economic Consequences of the Peace (Palgrave Macmillan, 2019) Margaret MacMillan, Peacemakers: Six Months that Changed the World (John Murray Publishers, 2001) Etienne Mantoux, The Carthaginian Peace or the Economic Consequences of Mr. Keynes (Oxford University Press, 1946) D. E. Moggridge, Maynard Keynes: An Economist's Biography (Routledge, 1992) Alan Sharp, Versailles 1919: A Centennial Perspective (Haus Publishing Ltd, 2018) Robert Skidelsky, John Maynard Keynes, 1883-1946 (Pan Macmillan, 2004) Jürgen Tampke, A Perfidious Distortion of History: The Versailles Peace Treaty and the Success of the Nazis (Scribe UK, 2017) Adam Tooze, The Deluge: The Great War, America and the Remaking of the Global Order, 1916-1931 (Penguin Books, 2015) Spanning history, religion, culture, science and philosophy, In Our Time from BBC Radio 4 is essential listening for the intellectually curious. In each episode, host Melvyn Bragg and expert guests explore the characters, events and discoveries that have shaped our world.
An der University of Notre Dame hat Rüdiger Bachmann die Vorlesung “Intermediate Macroeconomic Theory” gehalten und wir haben insgesamt 21 Sendungen aufgezeichnet, um diese Vorlesung – so gut es ohne die dazugehörende Folienpräsentation geht – hörbar abzubilden.
The Secret History of Gold comes out this week. Here for your viewing pleasure is a fim about gold based on the first chapter.“Gold will be slave or master”HoraceIn 2021, a metal detectorist with the eyebrow-raising name of Ole Ginnerup Schytz dug up a hoard of Viking gold in a field in Denmark. The gold was just as it was when it was buried 1,500 years before, if a little dirtier. The same goes for the jewellery unearthed at the Varna Necropolis in Bulgaria in 1972. The beads, bracelets, rings and necklaces are as good as when they were buried 6,700 years ago.In the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, there is a golden tooth bridge — a gold wire used to bind teeth and dental implants — made over 4,000 years ago. It could go in your mouth today.No other substance is as long-lasting as gold — not diamonds, not tungsten carbide, not boron nitride. Gold does not corrode; it does not tarnish or decay; it does not break down over time. This sets it apart from every other substance. Iron rusts, wood rots, silver tarnishes. Gold never changes. Left alone, it stays itself. And it never loses its shine — how about that?Despite its permanence, you can shape this enormously ductile metal into pretty much anything. An ounce of gold can be stretched into a wire 50 miles long or plate a copper wire 1,000 miles long. It can be beaten into a leaf just one atom thick. Yet there is one thing you cannot do and that is destroy it. Life may be temporary, but gold is permanent. It really is forever.This means that all the gold that has ever been mined, estimated to be 216,000 tonnes, still exists somewhere. Put together it would fit into a cube with 22-metre sides. Visualise a square building seven storeys high — and that would be all the gold ever.With some effort, you can dissolve gold in certain chemical solutions, alloy it with other metals, or even vaporise it. But the gold will always be there. It is theoretically possible to destroy gold through nuclear reactions and other such extreme methods, but in practical terms, gold is indestructible. It is the closest thing we have on earth to immortality.Perhaps that is why almost every ancient culture we know of associated gold with the eternal. The Egyptians believed the flesh of gods was made of gold, and that it gave you safe passage into the afterlife. In Greek myth, the Golden Apples of the Hesperides, which Hercules was sent to retrieve, conferred immortality on whoever ate them. The South Americans saw gold as the link between humanity and the cosmos. They were not far wrong.Gold was present in the dust that formed the solar system. It sits in the earth's crust today, just as it did when our planet was formed some 4.6 billion years ago. That little bit of gold you may be wearing on your finger or around your neck is actually older than the earth itself. In fact, it is older than the solar system. To touch gold is as close as you will ever come to touching eternity.And yet the world's most famous investor is not impressed.‘It gets dug out of the ground in Africa, or some place,' said Warren Buffett. ‘Then we melt it down, dig another hole, bury it again and pay people to stand around guarding it. It has no utility. Anyone watching from Mars would be scratching their head.'He's right. Gold does nothing. It does not even pay a yield. It just sits there inert. We use other metals to construct things, cut things or conduct things, but gold's industrial uses are minimal. It is a good conductor of electricity, but copper and silver are better and cheaper. It has some use in dentistry, medical applications and nanotechnology. It is finding more and more use in outer space — back whence it came — where it is used to coat spacecraft, astronauts' visors and heat shields. But, in the grand scheme of things, these uses are paltry.Gold's only purpose is to store and display prosperity. It is dense and tangible wealth: pure money.Though you may not realise it, we still use gold as money today. Not so much as a medium to exchange value but store it.In 1970, about 27 per cent of all the gold in the world was in the form of gold coinage and central bank or government reserves. Today, even with the gold standard long since dead, the percentage is about the same.The most powerful nation on earth, the United States, keeps 70 per cent of its foreign exchange holdings in gold. Its great rival, China, is both the world's largest producer and the world's largest importer. It has built up reserves that, as we shall discover, are likely as great as the USA's. If you buying gold or silver coins to protect yourself in these “interesting times” - and I urge you to - as always I recommend The Pure Gold Company. Pricing is competitive, quality of service is high. They deliver to the UK, the US, Canada and Europe or you can store your gold with them. More here.Ordinary people and institutions the world over use gold to store wealth. Across myriad cultures gold is gifted at landmark life events — births and weddings — because of its intrinsic value.In fact, gold's purchasing power has increased over the millennia, as human beings have grown more productive. The same ounce of gold said by economic historians to have bought King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon 350 loaves of bread could buy you more than 1,000 loaves today. The same gold dinar (roughly 1/7 oz) that, in the time of the Koran in the seventh century, bought you a lamb would buy you three lambs today. Those same four or five aurei (1 oz) which bought you a fine linen tunic in ancient Rome would buy you considerably more clothing today.In 1972, 0.07 ounces of gold would buy you a barrel of oil. Here we are in 2024 and a barrel of oil costs 0.02 ounces of gold — it's significantly cheaper than it was fifty years ago.House prices, too, if you measure them in gold, have stayed constant. It is only when they are measured in fiat currency that they have appreciated so relentlessly (and destructively).In other words, an ounce of gold buys you as much, and sometimes more, food, clothing, energy and shelter as it did ten years ago, a hundred years ago or even thousands of years ago. As gold lasts, so does its purchasing power. You cannot say the same about modern national currencies.Rare and expensive to mine, the supply of gold is constrained. This is in stark contrast to modern money — electronic, debt-based fiat money to give it its full name — the supply of which multiplies every year as governments spend and borrowing balloons.As if by Natural Law, gold supply has increased at the same rate as the global population — roughly 2 per cent per annum. The population of the world has slightly more than doubled since 1850. So has gold supply. The correlation has held for centuries, except for one fifty-year period during the gold rushes of the late nineteenth century, when gold supply per capita increased.Gold has the added attraction of being beautiful. It shines and glistens and sparkles. It captivates and allures. The word ‘gold' derives from the Sanskrit ‘jval', meaning ‘to shine'. That's why we use it as jewellery — to show off our wealth and success, as well as to store it. Indeed, in nomadic prehistory, and still in parts of the world today, carrying your wealth on your person as jewellery was the safest way to keep it.The universe has given us this captivatingly beautiful, dense, inert, malleable, scarce, useless and permanent substance whose only use is to be money. To quote historian Peter Bernstein, ‘nothing is as useless and useful all at the same time'.But after thousands of years of gold being official money, in the early twentieth century there was a seismic shift. Neither the British, German nor French government had enough gold to pay for the First World War. They abandoned gold backing to print the money they needed. In the inter-war years, nations briefly attempted a return to gold standards, but they failed. The two prevailing monetary theories clashed: gold-backed versus state-issued currency. Gold standard advocates, such as Montagu Norman, Governor of the Bank of England, considered gold to be one of the key pillars of a free society along with property rights and habeas corpus. ‘We have gold because we cannot trust governments,' said President Herbert Hoover in 1933. This was a sentiment echoed by one of the founders of the London School of Economics, George Bernard Shaw — to whom I am grateful for demonstrating that it is possible to have a career as both a comedian and a financial writer. ‘You have to choose (as a voter),' he said, ‘between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability of the honesty and intelligence of the members of the Government… I advise you, as long as the Capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold.'On the other hand, many, such as economist John Maynard Keynes, advocated the idea of fiat currency to give government greater control over the economy and the ability to manipulate the money supply. Keynes put fixation with gold in the Freudian realms of sex and religion. The gold standard, he famously said after the First World War — and rightly, as it turned out — was ‘already a barbarous relic'. Freud himself related fascination with gold to the erotic fantasies and interests of early childhood.Needless to say, Keynes and fiat money prevailed. By the end of the 1930s, most of Europe had left the gold standard. The US followed, but not completely until 1971, in order to meet the ballooning costs of its welfare system and its war in Vietnam.But compare both gold's universality (everyone everywhere knows gold has value) and its purchasing power to national currencies and you have to wonder why we don't use it officially today. There is a very good reason: power.Sticking to the discipline of the gold standard means governments can't just create money or run deficits to the same extent. Instead, they have to rein in their spending, which they are not prepared to do, especially in the twenty-first century, when they make so many promises to win elections. Balanced books, let alone independent money, have become an impossibility. If you seek an answer as to why the state has grown so large in the West, look no further than our system of money. When one body in a society has the power to create money at no cost to itself, it is inevitable that that body will grow disproportionately large. So it is in the twenty-first century, where state spending in many social democracies is now not far off 50 per cent of GDP, sometimes higher.Many arguments about gold will quickly slide into a political argument about the role of government. It is a deeply political metal. Those who favour gold tend to favour small government, free markets and individual responsibility. I count myself in that camp. Those who dismiss it tend to favour large government and state planning.I have argued many times that money is the blood of a society. It must be healthy. So much starts with money: values, morals, behaviour, ambitions, manners, even family size. Money must be sound and true. At the moment it is neither. Gold, however, is both. ‘Because gold is honest money it is disliked by dishonest men,' said former Republican Congressman Ron Paul. As Dorothy is advised in The Wizard of Oz (which was, as we shall discover, part allegory), maybe the time has come to once again ‘follow the yellow brick road'.On the other hand, maybe the twilight of gold has arrived, as Niall Ferguson argued in his history of debt and money, The Cash Nexus. Gold's future, he said, is ‘mainly as jewellery' or ‘in parts of the world with primitive or unstable monetary and financial systems'. Gold may have been money for 5,000 years, or even 10,000 years, but so was the horse a means of transport, and then along came the motor car.A history of gold is inevitably a history of money, but it is also a history of greed, obsession and ambition. Gold is beautiful. Gold is compelling. It is wealth in its purest, most distilled form. ‘Gold is a child of Zeus,' runs the ancient Greek lyric. ‘Neither moth nor rust devoureth it; but the mind of man is devoured by this supreme possession.' Perhaps that's why Thomas Edison said gold was ‘an invention of Satan'. Wealth, and all the emotions that come with it, can do strange things to people.Gold has led people to do the most brilliant, the most brave, the most inventive, the most innovative and the most terrible things. ‘More men have been knocked off balance by gold than by love,' runs the saying, usually attributed to Benjamin Disraeli. Where gold is concerned, emotion, not logic, prevails. Even in today's markets it is a speculative asset whose price is driven by greed and fear, not by fundamental production numbers.Its gleam has drawn man across oceans, across continents and into the unknown. It lured Jason and the Argonauts, Alexander the Great, numerous Caesars, da Gama, Cortés, Pizarro and Raleigh. Brilliant new civilisations have emerged as a result of the quest for gold, yet so have slavery, war, deceit, death and devastation. Describing the gold mines of ancient Egypt, the historian Diodorus Siculus wrote, ‘there is absolutely no consideration nor relaxation for sick or maimed, for aged man or weak woman. All are forced to labour at their tasks until they die, worn out by misery amid their toil.' His description could apply to many an illegal mine in Africa today.The English critic John Ruskin told a story of a man who boarded a ship with all his money: a bag of gold coins. Several days into the voyage a terrible storm blew up. ‘Abandon ship!' came the cry. The man strapped his bag around his waist and jumped overboard, only to sink to the bottom of the sea. ‘Now,' asked Ruskin, ‘as he was sinking — had he the gold? Or had the gold him?'As the Chinese proverb goes, ‘The miser does not own the gold; the gold owns the miser.'Gold may be a dead metal. Inert, unchanging and lifeless. But its hold over humanity never relents. It has adorned us since before the dawn of civilisation and, as money, underpinned economies ever since. Desire for it has driven mankind forwards, the prime impulse for quest and conquest, for exploration and discovery. From its origins in the hearts of dying stars to its quiet presence today beneath the machinery of modern finance, gold has seen it all. How many secrets does this silent witness keep? This book tells the story of gold. It unveils the schemes, intrigues and forces that have shaped our world in the relentless pursuit of this ancient asset, which, even in this digital age, still wields immense power.That was Chapter One of The Secret History of Gold The Secret History of Gold is available to pre-order at Amazon, Waterstones and all good bookshops. I hear the audiobook, read by me, is excellent. The book comes out on August 28.Hurry! Amazon is currently offering 20% off.Until next time,Dominic This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theflyingfrisby.com/subscribe
https://a16z.com/the-techno-optimist-manifesto/ " Techno-optimism is the belief that rapid technological progress is the main driver of human prosperity and should be pursued as a moral imperative. It argues that: Growth = Good: Innovation creates abundance, longer lives, and better living standards. Barriers = Bad: Regulation, caution, and pessimism slow down progress and should be resisted. Technology as Solution: Challenges like poverty, disease, and climate change are best solved by accelerating science and technology rather than restricting them. In short: Techno-optimism sees faster innovation as the surest path to human flourishing — and treats resistance to technological progress as harmful. " Here's a structured overview of the major schools of economic thought, mapped across time, followed by an estimate of which views dominate public and policy thinking today.
A century ago, economist John Maynard Keynes confidently predicted that by 2030, we would only be working 15 hours a week. Yet, here we are—working harder than ever! While technology has dramatically boosted productivity, our work hours remain largely unchanged, and the prevalence of “bullshit jobs” is alarming. It's time to consider whether a four-day workweek could finally break this exhausting cycle or if we are stuck in our ways. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Send us a textEric covers the economy and the system's design of Ukraine's Drone squadron. What does economy balancing look like in the face of war? Phil can't stop gushing about Heroes of History, but there's one economy design piece holding it up. The crew descends into a John Maynard Keynes debate as a 4* or 5* character. Chris covers the economic impact of the UK's new obligation for internet providers, potentially transforming UGC as we know it.https://ericguan.substack.com/p/ukraine-gamified-drone-warfare
On this week's MACRODOSE, James continues our economics history series with a look at the life and legacy of one of the most famous economists of the 20th century - John Maynard Keynes.For exclusive content - including our new chat show, The Curve, and Macrodose's monthly newsletter, The Fix - visit: https://www.patreon.com/macrodose. Got a question or comment? Reach out to us at macrodose@planetbproductions.co.uk.To learn more about the work we do at Planet B Productions, head to planetbproductions.co.uk.
The US Government is buying back its own bonds. Scott Bessent is following in the footsteps of John Maynard Keynes. Senator Josh Hawley is pushing for raising the minimum wage. But while the government redistributes the wealth (largely from the middle class to the lower class), wealth disparity is increasing because Federal Reserve policies will always favor the rich. The shell game is impossible for the average person to follow. But suffice it to say, some animals turn out to be more equal than others. But why not just trust God, and run the economy by biblical principles and honest money? This program includes: 1. The World View in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus (Death toll in Texas flash floods climbs to 79; Trump's Big Beautiful Bill defunded Planned Parenthood; Pakistani Christian girl, kidnapped for two years, escapes) 2. Generations with Kevin Swanson
Este es el último episodio de la temporada. Toca terminar el libro. El podcast de Kapital no regresa hasta otoño pero Kapital Social, la comunidad privada con acceso a los artículos de Substack, sigue activo. Hay también programadas dos nuevas ediciones de El Proyecto K. Utilizando palabras del gran Javier González Recuenco, uno de mis episodios favoritos del presente curso: gracias por tu apoyo a este proyecto con alma.“Ser ahorrador no es ningún objetivo en sí mismo, es una defensa frente a las adversidades de la vida. El ahorro es protección para los días futuros. Empezar a ahorrar es como dejar de fumar. Cuesta ponerse a ello pero después os despertaréis por la mañana y respiraréis mejor, dejaréis de toser y estaréis tranquilos en aviones y cines, lo cual, traducido en ser ahorrador, significará despertaros tranquilamente sabiendo que tenéis el dinero trabajando para vosotros, que tenéis suficiente dinero para todo y que una buena parte de vuestros gastos diarios están sufragados por los rendimientos de vuestros ahorros, por vuestros ingresos pasivos. Se trata de vivir como si hoy fuera el último día de vuestra vida, pero sin olvidar que lo más probable es que no lo sea y la vida continúe sin más. La idea de ahorrar no es otra que considerar el dinero como una herramienta para ser libres e independientes”. Así empieza El arte de hacer dinero de Teodor, un tratado para nunca más temer al dinero.Kapital es posible gracias a sus colaboradores:Indexa Capital. Gestión pasiva en fondos indexados.No es fácil encontrar un lugar seguro para tu dinero. En un mercado lleno de productos tramposos, me gusta colaborar o poner el micro a los pocos gestores, pasivos o activos, con una propuesta honesta. La fortaleza de Indexa Capital, que entraría dentro de la gestión pasiva, es una cartera de bajo coste y diversificada. Dos de sus fundadores, Unai y François, han pasado por el podcast. Si te interesa, aquí tienes mi enlace de registro para ahorrarte la comisión sobre los primeros 15.000 euros. Son tiempos inciertos en los mercados y esto significa que debes buscar opciones serias para tu dinero. Indexa Capital es sin duda una de ellas.Patrocina Kapital. Toda la información en este link.Índice:1:30 ¿Necesito un presupuesto familiar?11:06 Álvaro Conesa nos señala el camino.24:44 Analfabetos financieros en LinkedIn.37:41 Intentar ganar dinero es más divertido que buscar partidas en las que recortar.52:31 Vete unos días de mochilero con la chica que acabas de conocer.56:39 Morir con 8 millones como Ronald Read.1:08:11 Kiyosaki no existe.1:26:02 Que puedas pagarlo no significa que puedas permitírtelo.1:38:12 Alejar los bancos de nuestras vidas.1:48:03 El fondo soberano noruego.2:00:44 Capitalizar a los hijos.2:06:01 Orígenes criptojudíos.2:18:56 Una frase genial (¡una más!) de Taleb: “Eres rico si y solo si el dinero que rechazas es más agradable que el dinero que aceptas”.Apuntes:El arte de hacer dinero. Teodor de Mas.Fer diners. Teodor de Mas.Be better. Tim Denning.School is not enough. Simon Sarris.La vía rápida del millonario. M.J. DeMarco.Padre rico, padre pobre. Robert Kiyosaki.Perfect days. Wim Wenders.Un paseo aleatorio por Wall Street. Burton Malkiel.El cisne negro. Nassim Nicholas Taleb.El banquero anarquista. Fernando Pessoa.Las posibilidades económicas de nuestros nietos. John Maynard Keynes.Morir con cero. Bill Perkins.España, capital París. Germà Bel.
For a long time, Republicans and many Democrats espoused some version of free-trade economics that would have been familiar to Adam Smith. But Donald Trump breaks radically with that tradition, embracing a form of protectionism that resulted in his extremely broad and chaotic tariff proposals, which tanked markets and deepened the fear of a global recession. John Cassidy writes The New Yorker's The Financial Page column, and he's been covering economics for the magazine since 1995. His new book, “Capitalism and Its Critics: A History,” takes a long view of these debates, and breaks down some of the arguments that have shaped the U.S.'s current economic reality. “Capitalism itself has put its worst face forward in the last twenty or thirty years through the growth of huge monopolies which seem completely beyond any public control or accountability,” Cassidy tells David Remnick. “And young people—they look at capitalism and the economy through the prism of environmentalism now in a way that they didn't in our generation.”
Send us a textHi and welcome back to the Day Trading For Beginners podcast! I'm Tyler Stokes from StokesTrades.com, and today I'm digging into why markets wear you down and breaking down support zones for new traders. I recorded this on Monday, March 24, 2025—a green day after a rough month. In my last episode, I talked about liquidity grabs, predicting March might end with a rebound. Before that, I covered market structure and high-timeframe support. Now, as we head into April, I'm tying it all together—did March's dip hold as a base? By the time you hear this, we'll know if the market bounced back. Either way, I'm here to explain why these ups and downs test your patience and how understanding support zones can keep you sane.Download the 6 Month Blueprint: https://stokestrades.com/blueprintTradingView Charting Software: Start a free trial hereTraderSync Trading Journal: Visit the official website hereResources Mentioned:Our Community on Skool: Come join us hereWhat I CoveredWhy Markets Exhaust You: How constant testing of support zones messes with your head.Support Zones 101: What they are and why they're key for beginners.Famous Quotes: Wisdom from Warren Buffett and John Maynard Keynes to guide you.Capitulation Explained: What it looks like when traders give up—and why it might signal a bottom.Real Example: My own Tesla capitulation moment in 2023 and what I learned.Key TakeawaysMarkets wear you down by repeatedly testing support zones—think of them as invisible floors (e.g., $45 for a stock) where buyers step in, but the price keeps dipping back to test it. It's like a ball bouncing over and over, asking, “Will this hold?”I love Warren Buffett's line: “The stock market is a device for transferring money from the impatient to the patient.” If you panic-sell at $45 fearing a drop to $40, patient traders win when it rebounds to $48 or higher.Then there's John Maynard Keynes' warning: “The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent.” If $45 breaks and drops to $35 for months, you might run out of cash or nerve—especially on margin.Capitulation is when everyone panics and sells (e.g., a break from $45 to $40, then $30). It's scary, but often marks a bottom—like Tesla's $101 low in January 2023 after a 65% drop, only to rebound to $173 by month-end. I sold some shares there and learned the hard way!Right now, March 24th feels like a test. If support holds and we're green into April, it's a win for patience over panic—maybe even a liquidity grab bottom from last episode.Why It MattersTrading's a mental game as much as a numbers game. Markets test support to shake out the impatient—market makers love this, scooping up cheap shares while we fret. For beginners, knowing this helps you stay calm, spot patterns, and avoid selling low or betting too big. Experience matters—my Tesla flop taught me Website and Other Social Accounts:https://stokestrades.com/https://www.youtube.com/@StokesTradesJoin Our Free Community on SKOOL:https://www.skool.com/day-trading-for-beginners
Give to help Chris make Truce Milton Friedman may be the most famous American economist. His research and theories have profoundly shaped the modern American economy. But few of us can clearly articulate what he taught and what it means for our times. Friedman's career was defined by the aftermath of the Great Depression. He worked in the government administering the New Deal, but never really agreed with it. He joined the faculty at the University of Chicago and built a department around him that taught a version of free-market economics known as monetarism. Essentially, monetarism is the idea that inflation is a product of how much money is in circulation. Friedman did not like the Federal Reserve or the gold standard, instead, advocating for a standard 4% increase in the money supply every year that would not be shifted. By setting a rule, he hoped to do away with an entire governmental department. Friedman and his co-authors ventured into areas that other economists thought, perhaps, unwise. They used economics to explain things like marriage and school choice. He was also a proponent of school vouchers. Stanford professor Jennifer Burns joins Chris today to explore the many facets of Milton Friedman. This is the first of two parts. Sources: Milton Friedman: The Last Conservative by Jennifer Burns The Years of Lyndon Johnson: The Part to Power by Robert Caro https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/laissez-faire “Keynesian Economics Theory: Definition and How It's Used” Investopedia article https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2014/article/one-hundred-years-of-price-change-the-consumer-price-index-and-the-american-inflation-experience.htm Reaganland by Rick Perlstein Capitalism and Freedom by Milton Friedman Milton Friedman: A Concise Guide to the Ideas and Influence of the Free-Market Economist by Eamonn Butler Friedman on the Donahue show in 1979 Discussion Questions: Had you heard of Friedman before this episode? If so, what did you know about him? What does "laissez-faire" mean in economic terms? Does it line up with the Bible in any direct way? Why do you think so many conservative Christians lean toward laissez-faire? How bad was the Great Depression? If you had worked for the government during the Depression, what would you have advocated? Why are some people against the New Deal? What did the New Deal mean to starving people during the Depression? How does a fear of communism play into anti-New Deal sentiment? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Nick Cohen discusses Labour with Polly ToynbeeNick Cohen talks to the distinguished author and Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee about Labour's tough love strategy - targeting the welfare state and benefits to fill the black hole left by the Tories and Brexit."Not a very Labour thing to do" - And Keynes would not approve!Polly agreed with Former shadow chancellor Ed Balls' recent observation on the government's plan to cut disability benefits, describing the strategy on his own podcast as "not a very Labour thing to do."Polly - the proud owner of a portrait of the great economist John Maynard Keynes - says, "You know, you don't keep digging. You invest into a crisis and pay back when growth is restored. but she [Chancellor Rachel Reeves] seems to abandon that ..." Polly adds, "there's always this fear, and particularly for Labour, because Labour is less trusted by the markets and the business world; they're more inclined to suspect them of profligacy..."Polly says that Labour could raise an immediate £40 billion by simply imposing a 1 per cent wealth tax on the people worth in excess of £10 millionPolly and Nick also discuss the impact of the proposed welfare cuts on Labour's electoral base, and how Sir Keir Starmer should navigate the UK's foreign policy, particularly its relationship with Europe and an increasingly erratic and disturbing United States.Read all about itPolly Toynbee @pollytoynbee is a Guardian columnist, formerly BBC social affairs editor. Her recent book An Uneasy inheritance, my family and other radicals was published in 2023 by W.F.Howes Ltd. She's also the co-author, along with David Walker, of The only way is up: The way forward for British politics, again published by W.F. Howes Ltd in 2024.Nick Cohen's @NickCohen4 latest Substack column Writing from London on politics and culture from the UK and beyond. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Ugens Radio Information handler om Trump-regeringens udvisninger, om Netanyahus motiver for at genoptage angrebene i Gaza og om en ny kunstudstilling om skønhed som modstand mod krig og undertrykkelse --- 8. marts blev den tidligere studerende og pro-palæstinensiske Mahmoud Khalil hentet uden for sin dør i New York af agenter fra de amerikanske immigrationsmyndigheder og sat i detentionscenter med henblik på udvisning. Det på trods af, at han har Green Card, altså opholds- og arbejdstilladelse i USA, og på trods af, at der ingen kriminelle anklager er blevet rejst imod ham. Rune Lykkeberg udlægger sagen og dens perspektiver for ytringsfriheden i Trumps USA. Khalil var sidste år et af ansigterne på de omfattende studenterprotester mod Israels fremfærd i Gaza. Og kritik af Israels krigsforbrydelser er der ikke blevet mindre brug for, efter at landet tidligt tirsdag morgen brød våbenhvilen med massive luftangreb og siden med operationer på landjorden i Gaza. Men hvad får Benjamin Netanyahu til at genoptage den – også i Israel – upopulære offensiv? Anton Geist udlægger den aktuelle situation. Men det skal også handle om skønheden i verden. På Nivågaards Malerisamling kan man nemlig lige nu se en udstilling med og om den engelske Bloomsbury-gruppe. Gruppen, der bl.a. talte medlemmer som forfatter E.M. Forster og Virginia Woolf, hendes søster, maleren Vanessa Bell, og økonomen John Maynard Keynes, var et kunstnerisk og intellektuelt kraftcenter i England i begyndelsen af 1900-tallet, som eksperimenterende søgte efter intet mindre, end at gøre hele livet til kunst. Vores kunstanmelder Maria Kjær Themsen havde lyst til at flytte ind i den aktuelle udstilling, men valgte heldigvis i stedet at komme ind og fortælle om den i vores studie. Og så hæng på til slut, for her fortæller Lærke Cramon om den 25-årige Salma, som for tiden ugentligt skrive breve i Moderne Tider fra Damaskus. Om drømme og håb og hverdagen i Syrien efter Assad-regimets fald. Læs eller lyt til alle hendes breve HER.
While we like to think our financial decisions are based on logic, the truth is, they are largely driven by emotion. So when John Maynard Keynes looked for methods to measure economic fluctuations, animal spirits were a key ingredient. Karthik Sastry is a macroeconomist and assistant professor at Princeton University. In this podcast, he says personal instincts and primal urges are known to cause cycles of boom and bust, and one way to gauge those emotions is through economic narratives. Sastry is coauthor with Joel Flynn of How Animal Spirits Affect the Economy published in Finance and Development magazine. Transcript: https://bit.ly/43HkuoB Read the article at IMF.org/fandd
This is the second episode in a miniseries on heterodox economists—people who embrace completely different approaches to economics than the standard thinkers. Adam and Cameron describe the life and work of Joan Robinson, who worked with John Maynard Keynes on his hugely influential macroeconomics book The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money—but came to regard Keynesianism as a failed revolution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In this week's episode rerun, host Daniel Raimi talks with Kim Stanley Robinson, acclaimed author of many books, most recently “The Ministry for the Future.” Robinson's books vividly illustrate some of the most devastating potential consequences of climate change, but that's not all they do—the books also offer innovation and optimism, imagining the ways in which we can prevent some of the worst impacts of climate change and adapt to the impacts that are unavoidable. Robinson discusses his recent visit to COP26 and his views on climate economics, modern monetary theory, space opera, and more. We're rebroadcasting this episode from the Resources Radio archive while the podcast team is on a break through the rest of December. We'll be back with new episodes in the new year; in the meantime, enjoy this throwback and poke around the archive at Resources.org for more topics you might be interested in. References and recommendations: “The Ministry for the Future” by Kim Stanley Robinson; https://www.hachettebookgroup.com/titles/kim-stanley-robinson/the-ministry-for-the-future/9780316300162/ “The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes” by Zachary D. Carter; https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/563378/the-price-of-peace-by-zachary-d-carter/ “Improving Discounting in the Social Cost of Carbon” by Brian Prest, William Pizer, and Richard Newell; https://www.resources.org/archives/improving-discounting-in-the-social-cost-of-carbon/ “Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist” by Kate Raworth; https://www.chelseagreen.com/product/doughnut-economics-paperback/ The concept of “carbon currency” by Delton Chen; https://globalcarbonreward.org/carbon-currency/ “Hypothesis for a Risk Cost of Carbon: Revising the Externalities and Ethics of Climate Change” by Delton B. Chen, Joel van der Beek, and Jonathan Cloud; https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-03152-7_8 “Breaking Boundaries: The Science of Our Planet” by David Attenborough and Johan Rockström; https://www.netflix.com/title/81336476
American federal debt is growing faster than the GDP now. This year, the debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 121 percent. . . about fifth worst in the world. Interest payments on the federal debt have topped 36 percent of total tax receipts. And all of this has its roots in the Keynesian philosophies of the early 1920's and 30's. The present-orientedness, existentialism, and the ideology of Jean-Paul Sartre and John Maynard Keynes are what ran the 20th century and helped produce what we have today. So how much character would it require to reverse the worldview that has soaked our respective nations over the last 50-60 years? How much long-term vision would it take to turn the nation around? Probably a little more than what Elon Musk and Scott Bessett can offer. We review President Trump's pick for Secretary of the Treasury and revisit the history of modern economics on this edition of the program. This program includes: 1. The Worldview in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus (Kamala's bizarre video to supporters; TV channel fined for stating that abortion is leading death cause; Hal Lindsey, author of "The Late Great Planet Earth," died at 95) 2. Generations with Kevin Swanson
American federal debt is growing faster than the GDP now. This year, the debt-to-GDP ratio stands at 121 percent . . . about fifth worst in the world. Interest payments on the federal debt have topped 36 percent of total tax receipts. And all of this has its roots in the Keynesian philosophies of the early 1920's and 30's. The present-orientedness, existentialism, and the ideology of Jean-Paul Sartre and John Maynard Keynes are what ran the 20th century and helped produce what we have today. So how much character would it require to reverse the worldview that has soaked our respective nations over the last 50-60 years? How much long-term vision would it take to turn the nation around? Probably a little more than what Elon Musk and Scott Bessett can offer. We review President Trump's pick for Secretary of the Treasury and revisit the history of modern economics on this edition of the program. This program includes:1. The Worldview in 5 Minutes with Adam McManus (Kamala's bizarre video to supporters; TV channel fined for stating that abortion is leading death cause; Hal Lindsey, author of "The Late Great Planet Earth," died at 95)2. Generations with Kevin Swanson
John Maynard Keynes is the best-known economist from the 20th Century, that not being a good thing. At least he was more famous for his success in promoting his views than for his lack of success as an investor. His failures were an extension of his lack of economic understanding.Original article: Keynes Was Not Much Better at Investing than He Was at Understanding Economics
You've heard the Republican ticket's pro-worker rhetoric. It often contradicts their own actions and party ideology, but is representative of an emerging faction within the right wing. Joining us to explore this new conservative ideology are Oren Cass, Chief Economist at American Compass, and Zachary Carter, author of "The Price of Peace: Money, Democracy, and the Life of John Maynard Keynes." Together, we delve into key policy battlegrounds, from labor rights and immigration to domestic manufacturing and trade. Plus, the group considers a Post-Trump Republican Party. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more: > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic Video Editor & Engineer – Sam Reid Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher & Associate Producer – Gillian Spear Music by Hansdle Hsu — This podcast is brought to you by: ZipRecruiter Try it for free at this exclusive web address: ziprecruiter.com/ZipWeekly Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Sixty percent of the jobs that Americans do today didn't exist in 1940. What happens as our labor becomes more technical and less physical? And what kinds of jobs will exist in the future? SOURCES:David Autor, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Paula Barmaimon, manager of coverage and audience analytics at The New York Times.Ellen Griesedieck, artist and president of the American Mural Project.Adina Lichtman, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Avi Popack, co-host of the Our Friends Are Smart party.Huck Scarry, author and illustrator.James Suzman, anthropologist and author.Ben Varon, rabbi and chaplain at NYU Langone Hospital—Brooklyn . RESOURCES:"New Frontiers: The Origins and Content of New Work, 1940–2018," by David Autor, Caroline Chin, Anna Salomons, and Bryan Seegmiller (The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2024).Work: A Deep History, from the Stone Age to the Age of Robots, by James Suzman (2020).Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do, by Studs Terkel (1974).What Do People Do All Day?, by Richard Scarry (1968)."Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren," by John Maynard Keynes (1930).American Mural Project. EXTRAS:"Will the Democrats 'Make America Great Again'?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."How to Stop Worrying and Love the Robot Apocalypse," by Freakonomics Radio (2021)."Did China Eat America's Jobs?" by Freakonomics Radio (2017).People I (Mostly) Admire.
Adam and Cameron taped this episode in front of a live audience at the Caveat Theater in New York City. They talk about the life and ideas of economist John Maynard Keynes. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Welcome to the Not Old Better Show, Smithsonian Associates Edition. I'm Paul Vogelzang, and today, we're diving into the minds of history's greatest economists with our special guest, Smithsonian Associate, Dr. Robbie Mochrie.Dr. Mochrie is not just an esteemed economist with over 30 years of teaching experience, but also an insightful author whose latest book, How to Think Like an Economist, explores the timeless wisdom of economic giants like Aristotle, Adam Smith, John Maynard Keynes, and Esther Duflo. In a world where the economy affects every aspect of our lives—from the way governments navigated the pandemic to the pressing need to tackle climate change—Dr. Mochrie shows us that understanding economics is indispensable.But we have Dr. Mochrie today, and we'll explore how these thinkers shaped the world and how their ideas continue to influence policies that can make or break our future. We'll also discuss Dr. Mochrie's favorite economist and delve into the revolutionary ideas that could help us address some of the most significant challenges of our time.It's a conversation that will challenge what you think you know about economics, offering new perspectives on how we can all contribute to a better, more sustainable world. So, stay tuned as we uncover the power of economic thought with Dr. Robbie Mochrie, right here on the Not Old Better Show, Smithsonian Associates Interview Series on radio and podcast.You can find out more about about Dr. Mochrie, including his upcoming Smithsonian Associatespresentation titled, How To Think Like an Economistin our show notes today. My thanks to the Smithsonian team for all they do to support the show. My thanks to Executive Producer Sam Heningerfor his audio direction and my thanks to you, our wonderful audience here on radio and podcast. Be well, be safe and let's Talk About Better™ The Not Old Better Show, Smithsonian Associates interview series on radio and podcast. Thanks, everybody and we'll see you next week.Hosted by Ausha. See ausha.co/privacy-policy for more information.
Take the 2024 Planet Money Summer School Quiz here to earn your personalized diploma!Find all the episodes from this season of Summer School here. And past seasons here. And follow along on TikTok here for video Summer School. We are assembled here on the lawn of Planet Money University for the greatest graduation in history – because it features the greatest economic minds in history. We'll hear from Adam Smith, Karl Marx, John Maynard Keynes, and some surprising guests as they teach us a little bit more economics, and offer a lot of life advice. But first, we have to wrap up our (somewhat) complete economic history of the world. We'll catch up on the last fifty years or so of human achievement and ask ourselves, has economics made life better for us all? This series is hosted by Robert Smith and produced by Audrey Dilling. Our project manager is Devin Mellor. This episode was edited by Planet Money Executive Producer Alex Goldmark and fact-checked by Sofia Shchukina. Help support Planet Money and hear our bonus episodes by subscribing to Planet Money+ in Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org/planetmoney.Always free at these links: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, the NPR app or anywhere you get podcasts.Find more Planet Money: Facebook / Instagram / TikTok / Our weekly Newsletter.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
HARRIS/WALZ CAMPAIGN ADVANCING PRICE CONTROLS: WHAT ALWAYS GOES WRONG? 3/4: Samuelson Friedman: The Battle Over the Free Market. by Nicholas Wapshott . https://www.amazon.com/Samuelson-Friedman-Battle-Over-Market-ebook/dp/B08589Z7M9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Nicholas+Wapshott+%2B+samuelson&qid=1627690920&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 From the author of Keynes Hayek, the next great duel in the history of economics. In 1966 two columnists joined Newsweek magazine. Their assignment: debate the world of business and economics. Paul Samuelson was a towering figure in Keynesian economics, which supported the management of the economy along lines prescribed by John Maynard Keynes's General Theory. Milton Friedman, little known at that time outside of conservative academic circles, championed “monetarism” and insisted the Federal Reserve maintain tight control over the amount of money circulating in the economy. In Samuelson Friedman, the author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott brings narrative verve and puckish charm to the story of these two giants of modern economics, their braided lives and colossal intellectual battles. Samuelson, a forbidding technical genius, grew up a child of relative privilege and went on to revolutionize macroeconomics. He wrote the best-selling economics textbook of all time, famously remarking "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treatises—if I can write its economics textbooks." His friend and adversary for decades, Milton Friedman, studied the Great Depression and with Anna Schwartz wrote the seminal books The Great Contraction and A Monetary History of the United States. Like Friedrich Hayek before him, Friedman found fortune writing a treatise, Capitalism and Freedom, that yoked free markets and libertarian politics in a potent argument that remains a lodestar for economic conservatives today. In Wapshott's nimble hands, Samuelson and Friedman's decades-long argument over how—or whether—to manage the economy becomes a window onto one of the longest periods of economic turmoil in the United States. As the soaring economy of the 1950s gave way to decades stalked by declining prosperity and "stagflation," it was a time when the theory and practice of economics became the preoccupation of politicians and the focus of national debate. It is an argument that continues today. SEPTEMBER 16, 1920 WALL STREET BOMBING
HARRIS/WALZ CAMPAIGN ADVANCING PRICE CONTROLS: WHAT ALWAYS GOES WRONG? 1/4: Samuelson Friedman: The Battle Over the Free Market. by Nicholas Wapshott . https://www.amazon.com/Samuelson-Friedman-Battle-Over-Market-ebook/dp/B08589Z7M9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Nicholas+Wapshott+%2B+samuelson&qid=1627690920&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 From the author of Keynes Hayek, the next great duel in the history of economics. In 1966 two columnists joined Newsweek magazine. Their assignment: debate the world of business and economics. Paul Samuelson was a towering figure in Keynesian economics, which supported the management of the economy along lines prescribed by John Maynard Keynes's General Theory. Milton Friedman, little known at that time outside of conservative academic circles, championed “monetarism” and insisted the Federal Reserve maintain tight control over the amount of money circulating in the economy. In Samuelson Friedman, the author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott brings narrative verve and puckish charm to the story of these two giants of modern economics, their braided lives and colossal intellectual battles. Samuelson, a forbidding technical genius, grew up a child of relative privilege and went on to revolutionize macroeconomics. He wrote the best-selling economics textbook of all time, famously remarking "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treatises—if I can write its economics textbooks." His friend and adversary for decades, Milton Friedman, studied the Great Depression and with Anna Schwartz wrote the seminal books The Great Contraction and A Monetary History of the United States. Like Friedrich Hayek before him, Friedman found fortune writing a treatise, Capitalism and Freedom, that yoked free markets and libertarian politics in a potent argument that remains a lodestar for economic conservatives today. In Wapshott's nimble hands, Samuelson and Friedman's decades-long argument over how—or whether—to manage the economy becomes a window onto one of the longest periods of economic turmoil in the United States. As the soaring economy of the 1950s gave way to decades stalked by declining prosperity and "stagflation," it was a time when the theory and practice of economics became the preoccupation of politicians and the focus of national debate. It is an argument that continues today. SEPTEMBER 16, 1920 WALL STREET BOMBING
HARRIS/WALZ CAMPAIGN ADVANCING PRICE CONTROLS: WHAT ALWAYS GOES WRONG? 2/4: Samuelson Friedman: The Battle Over the Free Market. by Nicholas Wapshott . https://www.amazon.com/Samuelson-Friedman-Battle-Over-Market-ebook/dp/B08589Z7M9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Nicholas+Wapshott+%2B+samuelson&qid=1627690920&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 From the author of Keynes Hayek, the next great duel in the history of economics. In 1966 two columnists joined Newsweek magazine. Their assignment: debate the world of business and economics. Paul Samuelson was a towering figure in Keynesian economics, which supported the management of the economy along lines prescribed by John Maynard Keynes's General Theory. Milton Friedman, little known at that time outside of conservative academic circles, championed “monetarism” and insisted the Federal Reserve maintain tight control over the amount of money circulating in the economy. In Samuelson Friedman, the author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott brings narrative verve and puckish charm to the story of these two giants of modern economics, their braided lives and colossal intellectual battles. Samuelson, a forbidding technical genius, grew up a child of relative privilege and went on to revolutionize macroeconomics. He wrote the best-selling economics textbook of all time, famously remarking "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treatises—if I can write its economics textbooks." His friend and adversary for decades, Milton Friedman, studied the Great Depression and with Anna Schwartz wrote the seminal books The Great Contraction and A Monetary History of the United States. Like Friedrich Hayek before him, Friedman found fortune writing a treatise, Capitalism and Freedom, that yoked free markets and libertarian politics in a potent argument that remains a lodestar for economic conservatives today. In Wapshott's nimble hands, Samuelson and Friedman's decades-long argument over how—or whether—to manage the economy becomes a window onto one of the longest periods of economic turmoil in the United States. As the soaring economy of the 1950s gave way to decades stalked by declining prosperity and "stagflation," it was a time when the theory and practice of economics became the preoccupation of politicians and the focus of national debate. It is an argument that continues today. SEPTEMBER 16, 1920 WALL STREET BOMBING
HARRIS/WALZ CAMPAIGN ADVANCING PRICE CONTROLS: WHAT ALWAYS GOES WRONG? 4/4: Samuelson Friedman: The Battle Over the Free Market. by Nicholas Wapshott . https://www.amazon.com/Samuelson-Friedman-Battle-Over-Market-ebook/dp/B08589Z7M9/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=Nicholas+Wapshott+%2B+samuelson&qid=1627690920&s=digital-text&sr=1-1 From the author of Keynes Hayek, the next great duel in the history of economics. In 1966 two columnists joined Newsweek magazine. Their assignment: debate the world of business and economics. Paul Samuelson was a towering figure in Keynesian economics, which supported the management of the economy along lines prescribed by John Maynard Keynes's General Theory. Milton Friedman, little known at that time outside of conservative academic circles, championed “monetarism” and insisted the Federal Reserve maintain tight control over the amount of money circulating in the economy. In Samuelson Friedman, the author and journalist Nicholas Wapshott brings narrative verve and puckish charm to the story of these two giants of modern economics, their braided lives and colossal intellectual battles. Samuelson, a forbidding technical genius, grew up a child of relative privilege and went on to revolutionize macroeconomics. He wrote the best-selling economics textbook of all time, famously remarking "I don't care who writes a nation's laws—or crafts its advanced treatises—if I can write its economics textbooks." His friend and adversary for decades, Milton Friedman, studied the Great Depression and with Anna Schwartz wrote the seminal books The Great Contraction and A Monetary History of the United States. Like Friedrich Hayek before him, Friedman found fortune writing a treatise, Capitalism and Freedom, that yoked free markets and libertarian politics in a potent argument that remains a lodestar for economic conservatives today. In Wapshott's nimble hands, Samuelson and Friedman's decades-long argument over how—or whether—to manage the economy becomes a window onto one of the longest periods of economic turmoil in the United States. As the soaring economy of the 1950s gave way to decades stalked by declining prosperity and "stagflation," it was a time when the theory and practice of economics became the preoccupation of politicians and the focus of national debate. It is an argument that continues today. SEPTEMBER 16, 1920 WALL STREET BOMBING
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
