Podcasts about Kenneth Arrow

Edward Mehrez is Co-Founder at Arrow Markets, a hybrid options protocol built on the Avalanche Blockchain   Why you should listen Arrow Markets is a hybrid options protocol built on the Avalanche Blockchain. In the traditional options market, options must be sold by a writer who receives the premium from the buyer and is responsible for paying the buyer if the option is exercised in the money. As an options protocol on Avalanche, Arrow Markets gives users the ability to buy options without the need to be matched by a middle-man. Arrow will facilitate the creation and settlement of options on popular underlying assets such as AVAX, ETH, and BTC. The name Arrow Markets is a nod to Nobel laureate economist Kenneth Arrow, who showed that options contracts form a basis for prices and payoffs of financial assets. Options make it possible to construct a wide variety of derivatives and structured products, by forming specific portfolios. Arrow Markets brings a new paradigm to options trading on Avalanche, combining centralized efficiency and on-chain transparency. The RFQ (Request for Quote) enables traders to request quotes from multiple market makers with a single click, providing a simpler, faster, and more secure trading experience. Supporting links Bitget Bitget VIP Link with BONUS 1000 USDT Bitget Academy Bitget Research Bitget Wallet Arrow Markets Andy on Twitter  Brave New Coin on Twitter Brave New Coin   If you enjoyed the show please subscribe to the Crypto Conversation and give us a 5-star rating and a positive review in whatever podcast app you are using.  

Prof. Subi Rangan from INSEAD business school talks about the evolution of capitalism from an output to outcome economy. Prof Subi Rangan was invited to Luxembourg to make the keynote address to celebrate INSEAD Luxembourg Alumni's 50th anniversary on Thursday 21 March, entitled “Expansion - Evolution - Engagement”. Philippe Osch, President of INSEAD Alumni Association in Luxembourg, hosted Subi ahead of their anniversary evening celebrations. Subi Rangan is Professor of Strategy and Management at INSEAD Business School in Fontainebleau Paris, and the Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Court Endowed Chair in Societal Progress. His educational background includes an MBA from the MIT Sloan School of Management and a PhD in political economy from Harvard. Subi's research focusses on the evolution of capitalism; how all economic actors and enterprises can integrate for better performance and progress; and he is developing a curriculum to deepen competence and character of business students and executives. In 2013 Prof. Rangan initiated the Society for Progress, a fellowship of eminent philosophers, social scientists and business leaders ( www.societyforprogress.org) He also directs INSEAD's top executive seminar AVIRA: Awareness, Vision, Imagination, Role and Action. In this conversation, we begin with a short history of capitalism. Below are some of the thoughts of Prof. Rangan discussed in this conversation. Subi speaks about the ‘iterations of capitalism': to maximise wealth for oneself, for a company and for all. From subsistence economy to bartering; how the Protestant reformation allowed the pursuit of wealth; to the work of philosopher Adam Smith to enhance welfare for all, resulting in a better standard of living for all. This paradigm required a division of labour to increase productivity and drive specialisation. We were no longer self-sufficient. Institutional theory then grew with the notion of private property rights to incentivise people to create value and the patent industry. Communism did not have this incentive alignment - and therefore failed. This burgeoning innovation and the dedication of people meant that money was made through the sale of the surplus - profits. At the end of the 19th century we have, for the first time, formal economics with people like Pareto. Who should allocate resources? Then we move to Kenneth Arrow, the mind behind modern economics, on a spontaneous, decentralised system, which can work to produce more welfare more than command and control methods. This was so far an Anglo-Saxon idea. But in the 70s and 80s we had the Asian tigers - government having a less marked hand allowing the market to flourish. This gave rise, in the 1980s, to deregulation and liberalisation. The modern economy is self regulating, self-correcting and decentralised. If this doesn't work by the invisible hand of markets, then the visible hard of regulation or government comes in. It has worked on a global scale, if the goal of the economy was to produce wealth. Absolute poverty has been reduced. However, what are the goals of the economy today? What is there beyond wealth? “More than income we are now looking at impact; more than performance we look for progress. There are new dreams for humanity. This is goal innovation.” Prof Rangan talks about the ‘Chronic dilemma of interdependence' in our interconnected world. Jürgen Habermas, a 20th century German Philosopher talks about communicative rationality. In deciding what is good, we need to talk with one another. If we are born equal then we must practice communicative rationality. Subi calls it ‘consultative morality'. Language is the way in which we can regulate interdependence, and we certainly need it to be non-violent. Adam Smith had the same idea in the theory of moral dependence. Output to outcome economy We are moving from an output centred economy to an outcome centred economy. And here, who has the power? Prof. Rangan suggests the greater the power the greater you need to be engaged with your scope of expertise. We've had regulation of power now we need to educate power. Subi believes that education should be literacy, numeracy and decency; moral and social philosophy. Consumers, investors and employees now also assess companies. He believes we need a changing definition of success - to be rich and respected. Prof. Rangan also mentions a conversation he had with a Nigerian recently who spoke about redefining what a millionaire is - not someone who has a millionaire dollars but someone who has transformed the lives of a million people. MBA - Master of Better Alternatives Subi is wonderful at breaking down ideas into bullet points and alliterative headings in order to remember things. His talk for the INSEAD Alumni of Luxembourg Anniversary was entitled ‘Expansion - Evolution - Engagement - Education'. Through this, his main themes were: (1) Wealth and wellbeing (2) Evolution in the way we allocate resources and interact with one another (3) People and planet (4) we all need to Engage at the individual level in our choices based on information and our moral identity; interest beyond self-interest (5) Educate I hope you enjoy the wisdom of Subi and the mix of economics and social philosophy in this conversation. Please do get in touch with your own views and experiences.

Episode: 1921 Arrow's Paradox and third party candidates.  Today, guest scientist Andrew Boyd votes.

(0:00) Intro.(2:21) About this podcast's sponsor: The American College of Governance Counsel.(3:08) Start of interview.(3:50) On  collapse of SVB & other banks. Lessons for board members. *Reference to video from Stanford Rock Center(12:00) On the state of private markets and unicorns. Downturn and shutdowns in VC-backed startups. *Per Pitchbook: “Approx 3,200 private VC-backed U.S. companies have gone out of business this year. Combined, those companies raised north of $27B.”(15:32) On the growth of AI. "The pixie dust."(18:25) On OpenAI's board fiasco and the company's controversial structure."The fundamental problem is with the idea that you can achieve what OpenAI wanted to achieve in terms of guardrails. That's the fundamental point. The second problem is the structure. The structure was all wrong. And the third problem was the people. These were the wrong people to be serving on these boards with the wrong structure, or seeking an objective that can't be obtained." *reference to public choice theory, impossibility theorem by Ken Arrow.*Reference to innovations in corporate governance structures of AI companies (OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI).(26:07) On geopolitics of AI: China not bound by same guardrails.(28:56) On the crypto industry and its regulatory challenges. The case of Ripple vs SEC.(33:11) Fraud in private markets (ie Elizabeth Holmes, SBF, Trevor Milton and other high profile convictions).(34:18)  ESG/DEI backlash and the politicization of corporation governance. "This is situation where less is more."(38:27)  Biggest winner in business in 2023.(40:32)  Biggest loser in business in 2023.(42:46) Biggest business surprise of 2023.(45:43)  Best and worst corporate governance trend from 2023.(47:24) The biggest corporate governance trend to watch out for in 2024.Joseph A. Grundfest is the William A. Franke Professor of Law and Business Emeritus at Stanford Law School and Senior Faculty of the Rock Center for Corporate Governance. He is a former Commissioner of the SEC and co-founded Financial Engines with Professor William F. Sharpe, the 1990 Nobel Prize winner in Economics. He formerly served as a director of KKR and Oracle. You can follow Evan on social media at:Twitter: @evanepsteinLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/epsteinevan/ Substack: https://evanepstein.substack.com/__You can join as a Patron of the Boardroom Governance Podcast at:Patreon: patreon.com/BoardroomGovernancePod__Music/Soundtrack (found via Free Music Archive): Seeing The Future by Dexter Britain is licensed under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License

Hello Interactors,Cued by shifting hues comes a call for the leaves to fall. Which means Interplace, like the weather, turns to the tumultuous territory of economics. Economics, like fall weather, is not all that predictable — both systems morph in response to layers of interconnected webs of complex systems that adapt, respond, and influence social, environmental, and political interactions.I recently heard Sean Carroll, an influential theoretical physicist known for his work in quantum mechanics, interview Samuel Bowles, an influential economist specializing in economic inequality. They covered an array of topics including the history and future of economics, and physics, in response to growing attention to complexity science.They harkened back to the industrial age and a time when physicists, mathematicians, philosophers, and newly emerging economists were collaborating — building theories, models, steam engines, looms, and calculation machines. It was a complicated time, rich with invention, but also relatively simple by today's standards.Hearing this history in the context of the current U.S. United Auto Workers strike made me wonder if perhaps Biden's fascination with ‘building back better' America's industrial past is rooted in a nostalgic yearning for a simpler past.This labor action arouses a sense of nationalism and nostalgia for the 'good old days' that Trump ignited but Biden just may have usurped. But the industrial sector, however romanticized, now represents a small fraction of jobs in America.Humans have a penchant for simplifying complex narratives, yearning for an era where gears of industry moved in predictable cycles much like the changing seasons. But these two scientists highlight how the economy in which we exist has advanced in complexity and is ripe for evolution.Now let's go.FROM CLASSIC TO COMPLEX: THE ECONOMIC SHIFTIn the interview, Bowles talks of the history of economic thought, beginning with Adam Smith, an intellectual pillar of the Industrial Revolution and an acclaimed father of economics. Adam Smith's notion of the 'invisible hand,' lauded for its portrayal of self-regulating markets, is heavily scrutinized today.This famous metaphor has long been the cornerstone of classical economics and conservative politics, purporting that individual self-interest inadvertently contributes to the overall good of society in ‘invisible' ways. Bowles explains how Smith could observe, amidst the new factory economy in Scotland — complete with newly built cotton mills and shirt factories — how the shirt buyer and seller both acted according to their self-interest. And then, almost as if by magic, an efficient allocation of resources emerged and along with it a social contract.In simple transactions, like buying a shirt, Bowles illustrates how Smith's model functions well. The seller sets a price based on the costs of production and a desire for profit; the buyer accepts this price based on their valuation of the shirt. The transaction is smooth, the contract 'complete,' and market forces work to adjust supply, demand, and pricing in a seemingly natural order.He offers another historical example that perpetuated the illusion of simple economic models of physics in economics. One of the early influential neoclassical economists, Irving Fisher, built a physical hydraulic model in the early 1900s as part of his dissertation. He used interconnected tanks and pipes to simulate supply and demand. It provided a visceral example of a 'complete contract' where the variables are manageable and the outcomes somewhat foreseeable.Reflecting on this, Bowles offers,“Now, there are all kinds of models like that in economics in which the metaphor really is transportation, things moving from here to there.”However, this 'invisible hand' stumbles when confronted with the complex market forces of the labor required to manufacture a good like a shirt. Bowles believes it wasn't until 1972, when the Nobel prize winner in economics, Kenneth Arrow, complicate the image of the ‘invisible hand' as it relates to the labor market.His work, particularly his Impossibility Theorem, mathematically demonstrated the challenges inherent in collective decision-making and the limits of market efficiency. Whereas the transaction of buying a shirt can be fully described and agreed upon by both parties, making it a 'complete contract,' labor contracts often can't offer this level of specificity and predictability.Contracts in labor markets become fuzzy. They're incomplete abstractions that only offer one guarantee — that an employee be present on the job. Their performance is harder to guarantee. Without constant observation of performance, the employer has no guarantees a worker is working hard or hardly working.But the employer, capable of paying more than the minimum wage to ensure good performance, holds sway over the employee's behavior. So, if an employee wants to keep their job, they'd better work as hard as possible — until, sometimes, it becomes impossibly hard.Labor unions, like the United Auto Workers, exist to even this power imbalance by bargaining for fair wages and working conditions. How do they bargain? By choosing to not do the one thing their contract requires – be present on the job. This forces a negotiation, a conversation.And this is where Bowles, and other economists, are looking to take the field of economics, stating,“…in recent years, some economists, myself included, have been more attracted to the idea that economic interactions are more like a conversation. So, we should really be thinking about linguistics. That is, I'm having a conversation with you, and in saying what I'm saying now, I'm anticipating your response. And very often I'm having a conversation with somebody with some intention that I would like this person to agree to go to see a film with me, or to agree to work on a paper, and so on. But I'm anticipating what that person's intention is too, of course, in endless regress.”COMPLEXITY OF COOPERATION: GAME THEORY AND THE REAL WORLDFinding common ground, coming to agreement, typically requires both parties to have to give something up — to compromise. Economists often lean on a branch of mathematics to model these interactions called Game Theory. Game Theory offers methods to analyze scenarios where the outcome for each participant depends on the choices of all involved.One experiment used to explore game theory is called the Prisoner's Dilemma. In this scenario, two prisoners must decide whether to cooperate and remain silent upon interrogation or betray each other to the authorities. Although cooperation would yield a better outcome for both, the rational choice for each individual, given the uncertainty of the other's action, is to betray, often leading to a suboptimal result for all involved.Bowles has spent a good chunk of his career using this dilemma in experiments worldwide to explore issues of trust, collaboration, and the challenges that emerge when incentives may not align with collective well-being. He's gone so far as to explore whether the human species is genetically predisposed to selfishness or altruism. His conclusions are published in the book "A Cooperative Species: Human Reciprocity and Its Evolution."Bowles concludes in the interview that there is“strong experimental evidence that we are generous in many circumstances. We have models and data which suggests that there might even be a genetic predisposition. And of course, we know there are many cultural reasons why we'd be taught to be that way.”Of course, every critic of altruism will bring up free-loaders — people who contribute relatively little but aren't shy about taking their fair share. In Bowles experiments, he's found “free-riders” are routinely punished even at the expense of self-interest.In a multi-round public goods game resembling an expanded Prisoner's Dilemma, initial contributions to a shared good start off high but dwindle as players notice others free riding. When a punishment mechanism is introduced, like allowing participants to spend some of their earnings to penalize free-riders, contributions to the public good surge back up, eventually rendering punishment unnecessary.This dynamic suggests that human behavior in such systems is nuanced: while people are initially willing to cooperate, they adapt to avoid being exploited. Moreover, when given the chance, they actively invest to punish free riders, even at a personal cost.Bearing this in mind, Bowles believes “if you're thinking of a new economic paradigm, you have to come down on that somehow.” Bowles believes there's enough evidence today to say it's wrong to believe humans are purely rational, intelligent actors who act in their own self interest. In his words, “You can't say we're selfish and really smart.”Instead, he says “The bumper sticker for my paradigm is ‘People are a lot dumber and nicer than economists think.'”I like Samuel Bowles use of a linguistics lens to explore economic systems. It's a compelling touchpoint where natural and social sciences converge around interactions. The nuances of real world economics, he suggests, can be explored but not defined by sterile, mathematical models. We need methodologies that unravel those nested webs of complexities influenced by cultural narratives, historical and political context, and social relationships. These dynamics are exemplified in the ongoing negotiations between the United Auto Workers and their employers and politicians — talks that encapsulate more than mere contractual details but a convoluted and ever-changing web of expectations, intentions, and power dynamics.As society evolves, Bowles advocates for a commensurate evolution in our economic models, one that can accommodate these rich human interactions. It signifies a shift from seeking objective certainties to acknowledging the inherently uncertain, dynamic, and complex landscape of the intricate systems that define our world. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit interplace.io

Why did the Middle East fall behind Europe despite being in a similar state in 1000 AD? How do modern authoritarians benefit from our tendency to falsify our preferences? Timur Kuran joins Amit Varma in episode 349 of The Seen and the Unseen to share his learnings from history -- and what they teach us about today. (FOR FULL LINKED SHOW NOTES, GO TO SEENUNSEEN.IN.) Also check out: 1. Timur Kuran on Twitter, Wikipedia, Google Scholar and Duke University. 2. Private Truths, Public Lies -- Timur Kuran. 3. The Long Divergence -- Timur Kuran. 4. Freedoms Delayed -- Timur Kuran. 5. You Will Know Them By Their Unpopular Views -- Bryan Caplan. 6. The Hindu Equilibrium -- Deepak Lal. 7. From Cairo to Delhi With Max Rodenbeck — Episode 281 of The Seen and the Unseen. 8. The Life and Times of Nilanjana Roy -- Episode 284 of The Seen and the Unseen. 9. James M Buchanan, Albert O Hirschman, Mancur Olson, Thomas Schelling and Kenneth Arrow. 10. The Logic of Collective Action -- Mancur Olson. 11. Micromotives and Macrobehavior -- Thomas Schelling. 12. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty -- Albert O Hirschman. 13. A Theory of Justice — John Rawls. 14. Anarchy, State and Utopia — Robert Nozick. 15. A Trump wave is on the way (2016) -- Glenn Reynolds. 16. It's Cascading Trump, It's Cascading Modi!  (2016) -- Amit Varma. 17. Instapundit -- Glenn Reynolds's blog. 18. Marginal Revolution. 19. Bari Weiss on Twitter, Substack and her own website. 20. VS Naipaul on Amazon. 21. Solomon Asch's experiments. 22. Irreversible Damage --  Abigail Shrier. 23. Luxury Beliefs. 24. Fixing Indian Education — Episode 185 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 25. Education in India — Episode 77 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Amit Chandra). 26. Fund Schooling, Not Schools (2007) — Amit Varma. 27. The Beautiful Tree — James Tooley. 28. The Incredible Curiosities of Mukulika Banerjee — Episode 276 of The Seen and the Unseen. 29. The Pathan Unarmed — Mukulika Banerjee. 30. The Mystery of Capital — Hernando De Soto. 31. Belling the Cat. 32. Oppenheimer -- Christopher Nolan. 33. Censored -- Margaret E Roberts.. 34. The Art of Not Being Governed -- James C Scott. 35. Domination & the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts -- James C Scott. Amit Varma and Ajay Shah have launched a new video podcast. Check out Everything is Everything on YouTube. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: ‘Marketplace of Ideas' by Simahina.

Il matematico Piergiorgio Odifreddi, il primo degli ospiti collegati con Perfidia, non sfugge alla richiesta di offrire alla platea del talk una “perfidia” che decide di indirizzare al governo Meloni: «La perfidia peggiore credo che gliel' abbiano fatta gli elettori mandandola a governare, perché in queste situazioni politiche, interne ed estere, non è un piacere. E poi soprattutto il sogno di governare è sempre il sogno degli ingenui: perché poi uno scopre, quando arriva lì, che deve fare quello che facevano anche gli altri e nello stesso modo». Prendendo spunto dal libro “La democrazia non esiste”, Odifreddi argomenta che al di là del fatto che potrebbe sembrare una provocazione, in realtà quello è l'enunciato di un teorema dimostrato nel 1951 da Kenneth Arrow, premio Nobel per l'economia, che ha fatto «un esercizio di filosofia applicata alla matematica e viceversa. Noi abbiamo troppe aspettative dalla democrazia. Bisogna lasciarne cadere qualcuna e lì è nata la teoria delle scelte sociali». Insomma la democrazia «è più una parola che un fatto»: «Meloni ha la maggioranza nei due rami del parlamento, ma è stata votata solo dal 25% degli elettori. Significa, ed aveva ragione Burke, che in realtà la democrazia è la dittatura di una maggioranza, ma qui è diventata ormai una dittatura tout cure della minoranza». L'astensionismo registrato nelle ultime tornate elettorali per Bruni «è il problema reale, ma è legato anche di mancanza di una capacità propositiva degli italiani». Per Gallo invece «la democrazia ancora esiste», la maggior parte degli elettori va a votare perché pensa di poter cambiare le cose, ma sui processi e sulle scelte incombe il potere economico finanziario. Rispetto alle opposizioni, invece, Odifreddi fa capire come la pensa con un semplice: «Ma c'è ancora il Pd?». ***************************** Perfidia Il programma settimanale di attualità e approfondimento politico con ospiti regionali e nazionali, a cura di Antonella Grippo. 16/12/2022 --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/vito-rodolfo-albano7/message

Her pioneering work has helped us understand how caste and gender remain huge problems in India. But her past goes beyond numbers, into a rich history of aajobas and aajis and theatre and song. Ashwini Deshpande joins Amit Varma in episode 298 of The Seen and the Unseen to discuss how she used her economist's gaze to understand our social problems -- and how films and music also played their part. (For full linked show notes, go to SeenUnseen.in.) Also check out: 1. Ashwini Deshpande on Twitter, Ashoka, Google Scholar, Amazon and her own website. 2. The Grammar of Caste -- Ashwini Deshpande. 3. Why are Indian Women not employed? -- Ashwini Deshpande's talk for Manthan. 4. What Women Do: Is it even "work"? -- A seminar by Ashwini Deshpande at Ashoka. 5.  The New Grammar of Caste -- Ashwini Deshpande's talk at JNU. 6. Gender and Caste Discrimination and Affirmative Action in India -- Ashwini Deshpande speaks to Shruti Rajagopalan on the Ideas of India podcast. 7. Caste, Capitalism and Chandra Bhan Prasad -- Episode 296 of The Seen and the Unseen. 8. Select episodes of The Seen and the Unseen that discussed gender with Shrayana Bhattacharya, Paromita Vohra, Kavita Krishnan, Urvashi Butalia, Namita Bhandare, Manjima Bhattacharjya, Mahima Vashisht and Alice Evans. 9. Amit Varma's tweet with Ashwini Deshpande's viral and potentially award-winning vocal performance. 10. Archaeology and the Public Purpose -- Nayanjot Lahiri. 11. Rahimatpur: Town along the Kamandalu -- GP Deshpande. 12. Satyashodhak (out-of-print book) (YouTube) -- GP Deshpande. 13. Uddhwasta Dharmashala (Marathi) (English)-- GP Deshpande. 14. Thelma and Louise -- Ridley Scott. 15. Jyoti Subhash, Amruta Subhash, Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Ebrahim Alkazi, Rohini Hattangadi, Jayadev Hattangadi, Manohar Singh, Sai Paranjpye, Arun Joglekar, Shriram Lagoo and Amol Palekar. 16. Ghashiram Kotwal -- Vijay Tendulkar. 17. Jai Santoshi Maa -- Vijay Sharma. 18. English Vinglish -- Gauri Shinde. 19. Satyajit Ray and Manmohan Desai. 20. Qurbani -- Feroz Khan. 21. Dance Dance For the Halva Waala -- Episode 294 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Jai Arjun Singh and Subrat Mohanty). 22. Dance Dance — Babbar Subhash. 23. Aagaya Aagaya Halwa Wala — Song from Dance Dance. 24. Ek Aur Ek Gyarah -- David Dhawan. 25. Baba Sehgal and ML Sondhi. 26. The Man Who Resides in Music -- PL Deshpande on Malikarjun Mansur, translated by Ashwini Deshpande. 27. Narendra Shenoy and Mr Narendra Shenoy -- Episode 250 of The Seen and the Unseen. 28. Chhoti Si Baat -- Basu Chatterjee. 29. Raj Kumar's famous dialogue from Waqt. 30. Ashwini Bhide Deshpande and Manik Bhide. 31. Yuval Noah Harari on Amazon. 32. The Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. 33. Womaning in India With Mahima Vashisht -- Episode 293 of The Seen and the Unseen. 34. Kaushik Basu and Amazon, Twitter, Wikipedia and his own website. 35. Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? -- Marianne Bertrand & Sendhil Mullainathan. 36. Race At Work: Realities of Race and Criminal Record in the NYC Job Market -- Devah Pager and Bruce Western. 37. Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do -- Devah Pager and Lincoln Quillian. 38. The Economics of Discrimination -- Gary Becker. 39. How Gary Becker Saw the Scourge of Discrimination -- Kevin Murphy. 40. The Theory of Discrimination -- Kenneth Arrow. 41. What Has Economics to Say About Racial Discrimination? -- Kenneth Arrow. 42. Who gains from the new Maternity Benefit Act Amendment? — Devika Kher. 43. Here's What's Wrong With the Maternity Benefits Act — Suman Joshi. 44. Who is the Identifiable Victim?: Caste Interacts with Sympathy in India -- Ashwini Deshpande and Dean Spears. 45. Identifiable victim effect. 46. Affirmative Action Around the World: An Empirical Study -- Thomas Sowell. 47. Dominant or Backward? Political Economy of the Demand for Quotas by Jats, Patels and Marathas -- Ashwini Deshpande and Rajesh Ramachandran. 48. (In)Visibility, Care and Cultural Barriers: The Size and Shape of Women's Work in India -- Ashwini Deshpande and Naila Kabeer. 49. Norms that matter -- Ashwini Deshpande and Naila Kabeer. 50. The gendered effects of droughts -- Farzana Afridi, Kanika Mahajan and Nikita Sangwan. 51. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Gendered Division of Paid and Unpaid Work -- Ashwini Deshpande. 52. Women's Work in India: Evidence from changes in time use between 1998 and 2019 -- Nicholas Li. 53. Dropping Out, Being Pushed Out or Can't Get in? Decoding Declining Labour Force Participation of Indian Women -- Ashwini Deshpande and Jitendra Singh. 54. Women at Work -- Episode 132 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Namita Bhandare). 55. The Loneliness of the Indian Woman -- Episode 259 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shrayana Bhattacharya). 56. The Refreshing Audacity of Vinay Singhal -- Episode 291 of The Seen and the Unseen. 57. Metrics of Empowerment — Episode 88 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Devika Kher, Nidhi Gupta & Hamsini Hariharan). 58. We Should Celebrate Rising Divorce Rates (2008) — Amit Varma. 59. Elite Imitation in Public Policy -- Episode 180 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Shruti Rajagopalan and Alex Tabarrok). 60. Fixing Indian Education — Episode 185 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 61. Understanding Indian Healthcare — Episode 225 of The Seen and the Unseen (w Karthik Muralidharan). 62. Karthik Muralidharan Examines the Indian State -- Episode 290 of The Seen and the Unseen. 63. Ret Samadhi -- Geetanjali Shree. 64. Main Zindagi Ka Saath Nibhata Chala Gaya -- Mohammed Rafi song from Hum Dono. 65. Court — Chaitanya Tamhane. 66. The Disciple — Chaitanya Tamhane. 67. Line of Duty, Downton Abbey, Bridgerton, Shetland, The Good Wife, The Good Fight and Giri/Haji. 68. The Good Doctor -- Damon Galgut. 69. Gangubai Kathiawadi -- Sanjay Leela Bhansali. Check out Amit's online course, The Art of Clear Writing. And subscribe to The India Uncut Newsletter. It's free! Episode art: 'Patriarchy' by Simahina.

Episode: 2225 Jean-Charles Borda: More than just a name on an orifice meter.  Today, let's meet Jean-Charles Borda.

It is a matter of time before machines outstrip humans in most capabilities. How can we possibly stop a more intelligent entity from taking control? Stuart Russell joins Vasant Dhar in episode 20 of Brave New World to explain why, despite the dangers, he remains optimistic about artificial intelligence and how to control it. Useful resources: 1. Human Compatible -- Stuart Russell. 2. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach -- Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig. 3. Erewhon, or Over The Range -- Samuel Butler. 4. The Theory of Political Economy -- W Stanley Jevons. 5.  Decision and Organization -- Edited by CB McGuire and Roy Radner, with a contribution from Kenneth Arrow. 6. Welfare Economics of Variable Tastes -- John C Harsanyi. 7. Economic Possibilities for Our Grandchildren -- John Maynard Keynes.

Episode: 2591 Instant runoff voting and the Academy Awards.  Today, what’s best?

First Bob explains his contest involving Adventures in Pacifism–winner gets 100 smackers. Then he explains the incredibly powerful, and surprisingly Austrian, result by which Kenneth Arrow showed it was impossible to coherently aggregate individual preferences into a social ranking. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The blog post explaining the rules for the contest, Adventures in Pacifism: Louie CK EditionBob's link for those interested in joining Liberty Classroom. (If you use this link, the site will remember who sent you if you end up joining.)Bob's mises.org's article explaining Arrow's Theorem in the context of the 2020 electionThe Bob Murphy Show ep. 7, explaining Godel's Incompleteness Theorems For more information, see BobMurphyShow.com. The Bob Murphy Show is also available on iTunes, Stitcher, Spotify, and via RSS.

Above all everyone wants voting to be fair. What does fair mean and how can we measure it? Kenneth Arrow posited a simple set of conditions that one would certainly desire in a voting system. For example, unanimity - if everyone picks candidate A, then A should win! Yet surprisingly, under a few basic assumptions, this theorem demonstrates that no voting system exists which can satisfy all the criteria. This episode is a discussion about the structure of the proof and some of it’s implications.

First Bob explains his contest involving Adventures in Pacifism--winner gets 100 smackers. Then he explains the incredibly powerful, and surprisingly Austrian, result by which Kenneth Arrow showed it was impossible to coherently aggregate individual preferences into a social ranking. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The blog post explaining the rules for the contest, https://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2020/11/adventures-in-pacifism-louie-ck-edition.html (Adventures in Pacifism: Louie CK Edition.) http://libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=351 (Bob's link) for those interested in joining Liberty Classroom. (If you use this link, the site will remember who sent you if you end up joining.) Bob's mises.org's https://mises.org/wire/arrows-impossibility-theorem-exposes-big-problem-democracy (article explaining Arrow's Theorem) in the context of the 2020 election. The https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/episodes/ep-7-godel-made-easy/ (Bob Murphy Show ep. 7), explaining Godel's Incompleteness Theorems. http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute (Help support) the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by http://podsworth.com/ (Podsworth Media).

Listen to Dr. Charles Plott, William D. Hacker Professor of Economics and Political Science at the California Institute of Technology, and the late Dr. Kenneth Arrow, Professor of Economics at Stanford University, and 1972 Nobel Prize winner in Economic Sciences discuss Theory and Experiments with Markets. It was recorded in 2000.

Teaser: Making decisions, especially where there are competing priorities, is complex and sometimes impossible. Arrow describes two ways in which decisions can be made in democratic capitalist countries, markets and politics. Understanding these options are critical to anyone in a position to influence resource use in healthcare...

If COVID-19 has made anything obvious to everyone, it might be how the very small can force the transformation of the very large. Disrupt the right place in a network and exponential changes ripple outward: a virus causes a disease that leads to economic shocks and other social impacts that, in turn, re-open urban spaces to nonhuman animals and change the course of evolution.Adapting to these changes will require a different kind of understanding: one of nonlinear dynamics, feedback loops, extended selves, and the tiered and interwoven ecological and economic systems of our planet. By studying the processes and structures that this change exposes, we’re offered a new way of seeing individuality-in-context…and, perhaps, new mechanisms for aligning individual and public good, the human and the wild.Welcome to COMPLEXITY, the official podcast of the Santa Fe Institute. I’m your host, Michael Garfield, and each week we’ll bring you with us for far-ranging conversations with our worldwide network of rigorous researchers developing new frameworks to explain the deepest mysteries of the universe.In Transmission, SFI’s new essay series on COVID-19, our community of scientists shares a myriad of complex systems insights on this unprecedented situation. This special supplementary mini-series with SFI President David Krakauer finds the links between these articles—on everything from evolutionary theory to economics, epistemology to epidemiology—to trace the patterns of a deeper order that, until this year, was largely hidden in plain sight.If you value our research and communication efforts, please consider making a one-time or recurring monthly donation at santafe.edu/podcastgive … and/or consider rating and reviewing us at Apple Podcasts. Thank you for listening!Further Reading:Chris Kempes and Geoffrey West on understanding cities to respond to pandemicsEric Maskin on mechanism design for the marketPamela Yeh and Ian MacGregor-Fors on studying wildlife in empty citiesSidney Redner on exponential growth processesDavid Wolpert on SARS-CoV-2 and Landauer's boundWhat is an individual? Information Theory may provide an answerVisit our website for more information or to support our science and communication efforts.Join our Facebook discussion group to meet like minds and talk about each episode.Podcast Theme Music by Mitch Mignano.Follow us on social media:Twitter • YouTube • Facebook • Instagram • LinkedInMentioned in this episode:David Wolpert, Alan Turing, Rolf Landauer, Timothy Morton, Buckminster Fuller, Sidney Redner, Chris Kempes, Geoffrey West, Bill Gates, Ann Pendleton-Jullian, Luis Bettencourt, Cris Moore, Eric Maskin, Wendy Carlin, Sam Bowles, Kenneth Arrow, John Von Neumann, Eric Morgenstern, John Nash, Pamela Yeh, Ian MacGregor-Fors, Alan Weisman, Doug Erwin

In this video, I take a look at what ‘trust' is philosophically. When trust is in low supply in our societies, it's a sign of a deeper issue. That's why any social progress involves, in some way, an increase in trust. Trust is a difficult concept to define, but it is, ultimately, an optimism in people; which is why any positive social change should revolve around trust in some way. So much of our modern society relies on trust. We trust the food we buy is safe, the medicines we take aren't poisonous, that drivers and pilots won't crash us, that electricians won't poorly wire our houses… Many studies have shown that trust influences economic growth and societal prosperity. The economist Kenneth Arrow wrote that ‘virtually every commercial transaction has within itself an element of trust' Trust that a person can do the best job, shares your goals, won't scam you, trust is required to setup businesses, to deal with people and work in groups. Trust sometimes involves letting others make a decision for you. Believing that someone has your best interests at heart. Admitting that they're better placed to understand a situation or to help with a goal. How might pandemics of the past, present, and future, be shaped by, and have an effect on, social trust? Then & Now is FAN-FUNDED! Support me on Patreon and pledge as little as $1 per video: http://patreon.com/user?u=3517018

I was pleased to speak with Will Thomas on the Acquisition Talk podcast. He is a senior science policy analyst at the American Institute of Physics, and is a historian of science and technology. His book is Rational Action: The Sciences of Policy in Britain and America, 1940-1960. There is a ton of interesting facts and useful analysis in the history of how the military learned how to learn, with clear application for today's debates on innovation. During the discussion we touch on a wide-range of issues, including the origins of operations research, whether a market in defense can actually exist, the separation of R&D from production -- and whether software considerations have changed the logic, the uses of technology readiness levels, similarities and differences between healthcare and defense, and the experience of Donald Trump's uncle, John, who was head of the British Branch of MIT's radiation lab during WWII. The talk features an analysis of the debate in RAND between systems analysts like ES Quade and luminary economists like Kenneth Arrow and Armen Alchian, who favored a sequential decision-making in R&D due to the prevalence of uncertainty. I tried to pick apart some distinctions between Arrow and Alchian, characterizing the former as more of an optimizer using an allocation paradigm and the latter as more evolutionary using an exchange paradigm. Will responds that I was over-interpreting Arrow, and that the goal of both was to support policies of government support to exploratory development without locking in technical configurations prematurely. I'd like to thank Will for joining me on the Acquisition Talk podcast. Be sure to check out his website which includes links to his book Rational Action and nearly a dozen fascinating articles. Here is his paper on Donald Trump's uncle, "A profile of John Trump, Donald’s oft-mentioned scientist uncle." His Twitter handle is @GWilliamThomas and he occasionally blogs at EtherWave. Will also recommends reading David Edgerton, among others, on the history of science and technology. This podcast was produced by Eric Lofgren. Soundtrack by urmymuse: "reflections of u". You can follow us on Twitter @AcqTalk and find more information at AcquisitionTalk.com.

ep. 43 (http://bobmurphyshow.com/43) . There, Bob reviewed the development of concepts like “efficiency” and “market failure,” so that now he and Michel (in the current episode) could understand the pioneering 1963 article from Kenneth Arrow on health care economics. Specifically, Arrow outlines reasons that (in his mind) a free market in health care and health insurance won’t work very well. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: Michel Accad’s website, his podcast (https://accadandkoka.com/) . Michel’s twitter handle is  @michelaccad (https://twitter.com/michelaccad) . Kenneth Arrow’s pioneering article (https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf) on health care economics. How you can contribute (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute) to the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (https://www.podsworth.com/) .

(https://www.bobmurphyshow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/michel-accad.png) Michel Accad practices cardiology and general internal medicine in San Francisco, and holds a part-time clinical faculty appointment at the University of California San Francisco. This episode reproduces a discussion Bob had on Michel’s podcast, where they discussed the development of “welfare economics” in mainstream theory, in preparation for their subsequent discussion (which will be Bob Murphy Show ep. 45) of Kenneth Arrow’s famous paper critiquing free-market health care delivery. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: Michel Accad’s website, his podcast (https://accadandkoka.com/) . Michel’s twitter handle is  @michelaccad (https://twitter.com/michelaccad) . Rothbard’s famous article (https://mises.org/library/toward-reconstruction-utility-and-welfare-economics-1) on welfare economics. How you can contribute (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute) to the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media (https://www.podsworth.com/) .

https://accadandkoka.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Bob-Murphy_2017-1-e1560975045893.jpg ()Robert P. Murphy, PhD It is commonly believed that healthcare is a sector plagued by “market failure.” A heavy dose of government intervention is therefore necessary to optimize the needs of society. A paper most commonly cited in support of that view is one published in 1963 by Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of economic theory in the 20th century, and titled “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.” But how does economic theory arrive at the concept of market failure and how do economists conceive of health care when they apply their theoretical models to medical practice? To help sort this out, we have as our guest Robert P. Murphy, economist, teacher, and author of many books.  Dr. Murphy obtained his PhD from NYU and is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute.  He is co-host, with Tom Woods, of the popular podcast Contra Krugman and he is also host of The Bob Murphy Show, “a podcast promoting free markets, free minds, and grateful souls.” The episode in in 2 parts.  In the first part, we reviewed the theoretical framework that forms the background to Arrow’s paper.  In this second part, we delve into the paper itself, discuss how economists conceive (or misconceive) of medical care, and what the implications have been for the US healthcare system as a whole. GUEST: Robert P. Murphy: https://bobmurphyshow.com (Website) and https://twitter.com/BobMurphyEcon (Twitter) LINKS: Kenneth Arrow. “https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf (Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care)” (1963, in American Review of Economics) Bob Murphy. https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Cooperation-Enterprise-Human-Action/dp/1598132180/ (Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action) (2015) Bob Murphy and Doug McGuff. https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Prescription-Surviving-Sick-Sinkhole/dp/1939563097 (Primal Prescription: )https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Prescription-Surviving-Sick-Sinkhole/dp/1939563097 (Surviving the “Sick Care” Sinkhole) (2015) Bob Murphy. https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Capitalism/dp/1596985046/ (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism) (2007) RELATED EPISODE: https://accadandkoka.com/episode82/ (Ep. 82. The Economics of Health Care: Market Failure or Faulty Models?) (Pt. 1 with gust Bob Murphy) SUPPORT THE SHOW: http://https//patreon.com/accadandkoka (Patreon.com/accadandkoka) Support this podcast

https://accadandkoka.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Bob-Murphy_2017-1-e1560975045893.jpg ()Robert P. Murphy, PhD It is commonly believed that healthcare is a sector plagued by “market failure.” A heavy dose of government intervention is therefore necessary to optimize the needs of society. A paper most commonly cited in support of that view is one published in 1963 by Nobel Prize winner Kenneth Arrow, one of the giants of economic theory in the 20th century, and titled “Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care.” But how does economic theory arrive at the concept of market failure and how do economists conceive of health care when they apply their theoretical models to medical practice? To help sort this out, we have as our guest Robert P. Murphy, economist, teacher, and author of many books.  Dr. Murphy obtained his PhD from NYU and is Senior Fellow at the Mises Institute.  He is co-host, with Tom Woods, of the popular podcast Contra Krugman and he is also host of The Bob Murphy Show, “a podcast promoting free markets, free minds, and grateful souls.” The episode in in 2 parts.  In this first part, we review the theoretical framework that forms the background to Arrow’s paper.  In the upcoming second part, we will delve into the paper itself, discuss how economists conceive (or misconceive) of medical care and what the implications have been for the US healthcare system as a whole. GUEST: Robert P. Murphy: https://bobmurphyshow.com (Website) and https://twitter.com/BobMurphyEcon (Twitter) LINKS: Kenneth Arrow. “https://web.stanford.edu/~jay/health_class/Readings/Lecture01/arrow.pdf (Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care)” (1963, in American Review of Economics) Bob Murphy. https://www.amazon.com/Choice-Cooperation-Enterprise-Human-Action/dp/1598132180/ (Choice: Cooperation, Enterprise, and Human Action) (2015) Bob Murphy and Doug McGuff. https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Prescription-Surviving-Sick-Sinkhole/dp/1939563097 (Primal Prescription: )https://www.amazon.com/Primal-Prescription-Surviving-Sick-Sinkhole/dp/1939563097 (Surviving the “Sick Care” Sinkhole) (2015) Bob Murphy. https://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Capitalism/dp/1596985046/ (The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism) (2007) Support this podcast

Democracia é tida como a vontade da maioria. Porém, o termo faz referência ao governo dos cidadãos, dos moradores das cidades, daqueles que têm participação política. Nossa democracia é representativa e, para tanto, usamos do voto como ferramenta de demonstrar nossas vontades. Porém, o voto possui algumas determinações matemáticas que colocam em xeque a possibilidade de ele de fato representar o que queremos enquanto povo, enquanto cidadãos. Neste episódio, Estrela, Letícia, Bryan e Pablo conversam sobre os paradoxos da democracia e começam com a discussão se o voto útil, ou estratégico - a principal ferramenta tanto das campanhas dos candidatos quanto dos eleitores - representa nossa democracia. Duração: 65 minutos Referências O Teorema da Impossibilidade de Arrow explicado com sorvetes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849u239O5yo Nerdologia: Eleições democráticas são impossíveis  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLr2kX_ldzE Nerdologia:  Como meu voto pode valer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHeblFzspQ Nerdologia: História do voto no Brasil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7nQEKHn8E O paradoxo de Condorcet e a crise da democracia representativa http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-40141997000200017 Voto estratégico punitivo: transferência de votos nas eleições presidenciais de 2006 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-33002010000100008 Voto estratégico e coordenação eleitoral testando a Lei de Duverger no Brasil http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-69092015000300077&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt As críticas de Amartya Sen à teoria da escolha social de Kenneth Arrow http://www.scielo.br/pdf/neco/v27n1/1980-5381-neco-27-01-00065.pdf CGP Grey: Voto no Reino Animal - Diferentes sistemas eleitorais (em inglês) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c Pistolando #07 - Votos brancos, nulos e outras tretas eleitorais - http://pistolando.com/2018/09/pistolando-007-votos-brancos-nulos-e-outras-tretas-eleitorais/

Democracia é tida como a vontade da maioria. Porém, o termo faz referência ao governo dos cidadãos, dos moradores das cidades, daqueles que têm participação política. Nossa democracia é representativa e, para tanto, usamos do voto como ferramenta de demonstrar nossas vontades. Porém, o voto possui algumas determinações matemáticas que colocam em xeque a possibilidade de ele de fato representar o que queremos enquanto povo, enquanto cidadãos. Neste episódio, Estrela, Letícia, Bryan e Pablo conversam sobre os paradoxos da democracia e começam com a discussão se o voto útil, ou estratégico - a principal ferramenta tanto das campanhas dos candidatos quanto dos eleitores - representa nossa democracia. Duração: 65 minutos Referências O Teorema da Impossibilidade de Arrow explicado com sorvetes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=849u239O5yo Nerdologia: Eleições democráticas são impossíveis  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLr2kX_ldzE Nerdologia:  Como meu voto pode valer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENHeblFzspQ Nerdologia: História do voto no Brasil https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC7nQEKHn8E O paradoxo de Condorcet e a crise da democracia representativa http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-40141997000200017 Voto estratégico punitivo: transferência de votos nas eleições presidenciais de 2006 http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0101-33002010000100008 Voto estratégico e coordenação eleitoral testando a Lei de Duverger no Brasil http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0102-69092015000300077&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt As críticas de Amartya Sen à teoria da escolha social de Kenneth Arrow http://www.scielo.br/pdf/neco/v27n1/1980-5381-neco-27-01-00065.pdf CGP Grey: Voto no Reino Animal - Diferentes sistemas eleitorais (em inglês) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&list=PLNCHVwtpeBY4mybPkHEnRxSOb7FQ2vF9c Pistolando #07 - Votos brancos, nulos e outras tretas eleitorais - http://pistolando.com/2018/09/pistolando-007-votos-brancos-nulos-e-outras-tretas-eleitorais/

Pedro Pita Barros é Professor de Economia e actualmente Vice-reitor da Universidade Nova de Lisboa e é um dos maiores especialistas mundiais em economia da saúde. É, de resto, um dos investigadores portugueses em economia mais reputados - e o mais reputado a exercer atividade em Portugal -, segundo um ranking da Universidade do Minho. Conversámos, então, sobre vários assuntos da saúde, como: as taxas moderadoras, a relação médico-doente, os gastos em medicamentos, o excesso de médicos, a inovação tecnológica, entre outros, na lógica da Economia da Sáude. Por exemplo: o que tem o sector da saúde que ver com mecânicos de automóveis ou o mercado de carros em segunda mão? Só ouvindo! Uma nota para relembrar que agora já podem tornar-se apoiantes deste projecto, através do Patreon (no site www.patreon.com/quarentaecincograus) - aproveito, aliás, para agradecer a quem já apoiou!  Ligações: Pedro Pita Barros - Pela Sua Saúde: https://ffms.pt/blog/artigo/190/5-leituras-13-por-pedro-pita-barros-pensar-os-servicos-de-saude-com-uma-lente-economica Blog do convidado: https://momentoseconomicos.wordpress.com/ Ranking de Investigação em Economia em Portugal: http://cefup-nipe-rank.eeg.uminho.pt/ OMS - Revisão do Sistema de Saúde em Portugal: http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/337471/HiT-Portugal.pdf George Akerlof e o Mercado dos Limões https://www.economist.com/node/813705 https://www.economist.com/news/economics-brief/21702428-george-akerlofs-1970-paper-market-lemons-foundation-stone-information Rand Health Insurance Experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAND_Health_Insurance_Experiment Atul Gawande e os cuidados de saúde aos idosos https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jul/12/atul-gawande-being-mortal-older-sicker-autonomy-interview Livro recomendado: Atul Gawande - Being Mortal: https://www.wook.pt/livro/ser-mortal-atul-gawande/16219829 Artigo recomendado Kenneth Arrow lançou as bases da disciplina Economia da Saúde: http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/2/PHCBP.pdf Biografia detalhada: Pedro Pita Barros é Professor Catedrático da Faculdade de Economia da Universidade Nova de Lisboa (Nova SBE) e Research Fellow do CEPR (London). Foi Vogal do Conselho de Administração da Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (2005-2006). É actualmente editor principal da revista International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics. Integra o corpo editorial das revistas Journal of Health Economics, Health Economics, Health Care Management Science e Portuguese Economic Journal. As suas áreas de interesse de investigação são a economia da saúde, regulação económica e política de concorrência. Mais informações podem ser obtidas em http://ppbarros.fe.unl.pt

Rhonda Galbally and Bruce Bonyhady were both instrumental in the creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Alan Porritt and Julian Smith (AAP)This is the first program in a new podcast series, Change Agents. It will focus on examples of ordinary people who have brought about profound social, political and cultural change, celebrating their success and explaining how they did it. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the biggest social reform in Australia this century. By 2022 it will help half a million people access comprehensive disability support at a cost of around A$25 billion. On this program, two of the NDIS’ founders explain how they developed something so radical and comprehensive and then won support for the idea. Bruce Bonyhady is the chairman and Rhonda Galbally is a board member of the National Disability Insurance Agency, the body that implements the NDIS. You can read the transcript below. Andrew Dodd: Hello, I’m Andrew Dodd and this is Change Agents, a series about change and the people who make it happen. Today, the birth of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is Australia’s biggest social reform this century. By 2022 it’s estimated half a million people will be using it to access better disability support. By then, it’ll cost around $25 billion a year, funded in part by an increase in the Medicare levy. Today we’ll meet two of its founders: Bruce Bonyhady is the chairman, and Rhonda Galbally is a board member, of the NDIA, the agency that runs the NDIS. They told a forum at Swinburne University that the idea has been around for a long time, as far back as the Whitlam years. Bruce Bonyhady: Whitlam, following the introduction of Medicare, wanted to have a national compensation scheme. A similar scheme was introduced in New Zealand, but covering just people with disabilities who acquired that disability through an accident – so, it was a narrower scheme than what we have now. But the idea that you could take the thinking that applies to workers’ compensation or motor vehicle compensation schemes and apply that to disability more generally dates back to then, and in fact is part of a movement that started in the 1890s when the first compulsory workers’ compensation schemes were developed – in fact in Germany. AD: Am I right in saying it was on the books at the time the Whitlam government was dismissed, and that the Fraser government decided not to carry through with it? BB: Yes, it was due to be debated in parliament on November 11, 1975, and then Fraser decided not to carry on the reform. AD: So obviously then there wasn’t the bipartisanship that characterised what happened with the NDIS later. BB: No, there was no bipartisanship around that, and in fact there was no bipartisanship at that stage around universal health insurance either. AD: I’ve read that it was scuttled in part because the insurers saw that it was against their interests to support something that would undermine their business models. So, they were opposed to it. BB: I don’t know that detail. I think the point about the NDIS, though, is that it provides insurance where there was no insurance before. There is no private insurer who will insure someone who was born with a disability, or acquires a disability through a progressive medical condition, and will insure catastrophic risk. This is a classic case of market failure – there was no insurance available. And it’s a classic issue to which insurance applies – because the whole population is at risk. The consequences of major disability on those directly affected and their families is enormous. And so if we all pay a small amount, then we can insure us all – and it is the most efficient and effective way, as a society, to support people with disabilities. And in fact, if you go back to the work of Kenneth Arrow in the 1960s, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on insurance, he, in his work, where he demonstrated that universal health insurance is the most efficient way for communities to support the risk of adverse health outcomes, he also had a category for what he called “failure to recover” – in other words, permanent disability. So, already in the 1960s the academic work had been done to demonstrate the veracity of this scheme. Rhonda Galbally: But, what was missing then was that the disability rights movement hadn’t started in Australia. And there was no mobilisation or interest. In America, it started – really, for the world – with the Vietnam veterans coming back and just not putting up with being put in institutions. They said “no way” and started the independent living movement. Ours would’ve started just in tiny little seeds towards the end of the 70s. And then in the early 80s they had a small voice, but they were responsible for the deinstitutionalisation movement. But then, by the time it came around for the NDIS, that mobilisation possibility was just as important as the idea – because if the idea had been there, which Bruce designed, without the possibility of the mobilisation then we’d be back to where we were with the Whitlam era. So I think that’s a very important part of the question of: “how come?” AD: One of the people who deserves a lot of credit in bringing about the NDIS is the former deputy prime minister, Brian Howe. It’s said that back in 2005 he went back to the Woodhouse report – this report that had been commissioned by the Whitlam government – pulled it off the shelf, had a look at it, and started thinking about an insurance scheme that could address some of these issues. How fundamental was he to this? BB: He was certainly fundamental to my involvement. In 2005 I was just starting to be interested in disability reform. I was very conscious that there was chronic underfunding; that many people were not getting the support they needed – either not enough support or were missing out entirely. I was on a board with Brian at the time, and I said to him I wanted to talk to him about disability reform. And what he said to me was “you have to stop thinking about disability policy as welfare, and start thinking about it as risk and insurance and investment”. It was one of those lightbulb moments. So, it became a catalyst for me to start to explore how insurance could be applied to people with disability more generally. I very quickly came across the work of John Walsh, who had developed a whole scheme for anyone who was catastrophically injured – not just those who were catastrophically injured in motor-vehicle or workplace accidents. I said to John “could we do this for all of disability?”, and he said “of course, we just need the data”. Both Brian and then John were incredibly important to how we got to where we are today. AD: You were, at that stage, chair of Yooralla. And you came into this sector because of a personal family connection to these issues. BB: Yeah. I’ve got two adult sons, both of whom have cerebral palsy. Prior to them being born – my older son is now in his 30s – I knew nothing about disability, so I became involved on the boards of disability organisations. Initially my focus was on those organisations and their governance. In 2005 I started to think more broadly. The trigger for that was going to an early intervention centre that Yooralla was running near Dandenong and sitting down with the mother of a disabled boy. She said to me: “Why can’t my son get the early intervention services he needs?”. And I went into this long explanation about how we were doing the best we could with the funding we had, and then I went away appalled by the answer. Here I was, with all of my connections and education, and I was defending the status quo. That was really the trigger for me to go and see Brian. I thought it was shocking, so that was how it started. AD: Let’s go forward from 2005 to the election of the Rudd government. The parliamentary secretary for disability services, Bill Shorten, was appointed in 2007. He became very important to what ensued. RG: Well I think Bill was really the important catalyst in a way. And I think he really was very striking from the very first time I met him in that he didn’t characterise disability as a sad tragedy or misery. He characterised it as an outrage, a real abrogation of human rights, and it was sort of like a non-welfare approach to it, and also a waste: he characterised it as wasteful of people’s potential. There was a charitable view of disability. People were very happy to talk at length about raising money for poor disadvantaged people, but nobody was talking about it being an absolute outrage. That was Bill, and behind Bill was Jenny Macklin, who was very seasoned, and he had a view of especially mobilisation. The sector was in complete disarray. And because it had been a charitable sad story, the media was characterised by burden. There were very important programs which probably helped the case but were really fragmenting, because you’d come out of it feeling like cutting your throat as a person with a disability because there you were, you’d ruined everyone’s lives and the families were in tragedy and so people with disabilities organisations didn’t get on at all with carers’ organisations, and both were united – probably quite rightly – in being highly critical of the services that hadn’t changed in about the last 50 years. AD: I think I read something you wrote that said that these sectors were effectively at war with each other. RG: They were at war. And they were at war in every country in the world. I can remember reading a Guardian article by the head of the Disability Rights Commission in the UK, and she said we will not make progress in this country until the carers organisations get together with the people with disabilities organisations and build an alliance. AD: I want to find out more about how you did that and we’ll get to that in a second, but I want to go to the 2020 Summit now, because that also is very important to this. I’ve heard snippets of this story but I want you to tell the full story, Bruce, about how you got this issue on the agenda of the 2020 Summit. I don’t think you were even a delegate, were you? BB: No, I wasn’t a delegate. RG: There’s a club for them, for non-delegates. AD: Are you in that club? BB: I got together with Helen Sykes, who is the chairman of the James Macready Bryan Foundation, and one of my closest long-time friends, John Nairn, who was a director of that foundation. None of us were invited to the 2020 Summit so we got the list of delegates and we wrote to everyone and contacted everyone on that list that we knew. We knew that no-one was going to take our idea to the summit as their top idea, so we knew we were going to be at best their second idea at the summit. So we figured that going into the Summit we were somewhere worse than position 1001, but somehow it emerged as one of the half-dozen big ideas of the summit. And – on reflection – it was undoubtedly the big idea of the 2020 Summit. AD: How many of them put it as their second idea, do you know? BB: I don’t know. Certainly a number of people I know well pushed it. AD: How did you get people to say “OK, I will put your idea down as my second idea” at this big summit? BB: I think it was a compelling case. Everyone knows someone with a disability, or they’ve got a relative with a disability, and they know how broken that old system was. Here was an idea which made reform affordable, and people responded. And I think we had some luck. I think some of these things are: you work hard and you put all your effort in and you get some lucky breaks, so we obviously got some lucky breaks for that to happen. AD: So it emerges as a big idea and – as you say – probably the big idea of the 2020 Summit. And then you were asked by Bill Shorten to look at the feasibility of the scheme and actually shore it all up with the right numbers behind it. BB: Well we’d already started on that process. So a group of us, chaired by Ian Silk, worked for 18 months on this report. When you’re asked to recommend reform to governments you’ve got a choice – you can have a long shopping list of ideas, or you can essentially say “we’ve got one idea”, and that’s what we did. We said: “We’ve got one idea and we think it’s a big idea and we think it requires further examination by government”. AD: And I think this is about the time that Bill Shorten says to you and to the various groups: “come together and start working as a team”, and you led this group that became the alliance. RG: There was internal-to-government and then there was external-to-government, and I facilitated the external-to-government coming together of the three and in fact it was very moving. I think about it now in terms of the maturity of being able to think about what it was like from somebody else’s point of view. I can remember the first time we came together with carers and I was thinking about it from my mother’s point of view – how it had been for her and her life when I was disabled as a tiny baby. It was that expression and then them seeing it from the person’s point of view, instead of just from the family’s point of view, that made it quite a profound connection. Internally to government, because the carers’ networks had been so powerful through the 1990s, there was a view that there should be a separate carers’ council. But because we’d mobilised and come together on the outside, it just didn’t make sense. So that was a persuasion job with Bill and Jenny, because the bureaucrats were pretty convinced that they should be separate. I remember [the bureaucrats] saying “but carers look after old people” and I thought “well you’re not a carer of someone old until they’re disabled, actually, otherwise you’re just a son or a daughter – you don’t play that carer role until they’re disabled too”, so the topic is still disability. So they then agreed to it being set up in joint services and carers, and then Bill insisted on putting business and unions on. I was very opposed and I said “Oh no, it should just be consumers” and he was proven to be right; they were tremendously valuable – they opened it out, they took it back to their networks, to the business council, to the AICD, to all sorts of places that had never heard of these issues, and the ACTU. It was really valuable, that move to broaden that group out. BB: I think the other thing that we need to give Rhonda credit for is the alliance was her brainchild. This alliance outside government – it’s a world-first. This is the first time anywhere in the world that, the sector having split, as part of the disability rights movement, as a sign of its maturity came together to prosecute the case for big reform. You only get big reform when you’ve got unity and a single voice and a single point of advocacy to government and the community. AD: You were saying earlier that some were pushing to include education in the campaign and other aspects of disability reform that were required, and it was about narrowing it down to one achievable – admittedly ambitious – but one achievable goal. RG: Yes, and the trouble also was a matter of us – Bruce and I – thinking that the NDIS should be the focus, but also we decided to only work on something we could agree on. Education is still reasonably controversial in that some of the carers felt special education was good, and the people with disabilities organisations didn’t agree with that, so we put it off the agenda instead of having another war about content. On the NDIS, everyone agreed. BB: The NDIS was and is a unifying idea because it says the support you will receive is based on your need. It’s no longer based on where you acquired your disability, when you acquired your disability, how you acquired your disability, or what your type of disability is: whether you’ve got autism or cerebral palsy or spina bifida. It says need is the determinant, and that the support you receive is commensurate with that need. So, we were able to work through that – because even within that there was still a lot of debate in terms of language and other issues that we had to get right before we could agree that this was the single issue that we were going to pursue above all others. AD: Can I ask you about the mobilisation, because at one stage – in fact you still have these kind of numbers – 150,000 people reachable by email who then have the flow-on effect of contacting others. The alliance didn’t have a lot of money but it had this incredibly powerful tool at its disposal: the people involved. RG: They were very hot, and still are very, very hot contacts … AD: What do you mean by hot? RG: I mean they’ll take action. I mean they’re not just a contact list where half of them are old and you haven’t cleaned it. I mean this is a hot where people have kept up-to-date, where they’re vitally interested. AD: How have you harnessed this resource? RG: It was absolutely instrumental in getting the scheme. Wouldn’t you agree Bruce? BB: Yeah. RG: Very, very important. And it’s watching – it’s a marvellous check and balance, and it’s watching and anything that would not make the scheme happen in the way that everybody thinks that we’ve signed up for, it’s there, and it’s never before been in my experience, in my life, that I‘ve ever seen disability be a really political issue, a hot political issue. It was in America, but that was the Vietnam veterans that did that and they made the American Disability Act that’s a really powerful act. But in Australia it’s never been but now it is, and I think it’s not going to go away – I think it’s just there, and it’s a really important instrument for all of us. AD: Is it true that 120 House of Representatives MPs were visited by people with disabilities and carers in the lead-up to key decisions being made? BB: I don’t know whether it was 120 but it was certainly of that order. People went to see their MPs, they wrote to them just prior to major COAG meetings; thousands of emails were sent to the prime minister and the premiers … RG: Disability teas, do you remember those? BB: Yes. This was a very active group. It’s worth remembering that at about the time the NDIS campaign – the Every Australian Counts campaign – was running, the miners were also running a campaign against a mining tax. They had millions and millions of dollars. What the NDIS campaign had were people. This was an old-fashioned – in many ways an old-fashioned grassroots campaign – mobilised through social media very, very effectively. RG: I was chairing a hospital at the time and hadn’t mentioned it to my hospital – to the board or the staff – that they might have had any interest – I should’ve – but they came to me and said they were having a disability tea. And so they were everywhere, they were in hospitals, in local governments, in NGOs, in businesses – a lot of businesses had disability teas. There were state co-ordinators that were part of the Every Australian Counts campaign – they did a lot of that work. There was Kirstin, there was John, and then there were the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, and Carers Australia – a very powerful and important organisation. They’d get it out to their members and they’d all have disability teas so it wasn’t just that 150,000 very warm email contacts of citizens of Australia. They weren’t organisational, it was also all the organisations. BB: And then there were all the people who just told their stories, without any sense of self-pity. They just explained what life was like as a person with a disability, or someone caring for a disability – frankly and openly – and those stories resonated with the Australian public, and the statistics also supported those stories. When we found that in the OECD area, Australia ranked last in terms of people with disability living at or below the poverty line, people said: “In the midst of this great mining boom, we’ve got this?”. So, the sense of, not just shame, but that it can’t be allowed to continue, just spread out from people with disabilities to the community as a whole and culminated in that moment when the government put forward the proposition that the Medicare levy should be increased to fund the NDIS, and 85% of the Australian population said: “we’re happy”. Never before has a tax increase been approved overnight. AD: You referred to John Walsh before, and I don’t want to skip over that because this guy deserves enormous credit. This is somebody who worked at Pricewaterhousecoopers; he was an actuary. He had an accident at the age of 20 when he was playing rugby and became a quadriplegic, and focused as a result on this special skill he had as a number-cruncher and you guys used him throughout the process to shore up the numbers to convince the politicians and the departments that this thing was achievable. BB: This scheme would not have been achieved without John. RG: I agree. BB: His analytical capability, his enormous intellect to apply the actuarial principles to disability as a whole, to get the data, to do the analysis. He was a member of the disability investment group, he was then the other commissioner with Patricia Scott on the Productivity Commission, he’s now on the board of the NDIA and chairs our sustainability committee. His contribution is giant. He worked not just in Australia but in New Zealand so he understood the accident compensation scheme there, he’d worked on most of Australia’s workers compensation and transport accident schemes. His significance is enormous. AD: He came with you both, I understand, to dinner at The Lodge, with Jenny Macklin and Bill Shorten. Have I got that right? How did that dinner go and what happened? BB: We were at a point where this scheme needed true bipartisanship at the tops of all parties … AD: I should say when this happened Julia Gillard was the prime minister … BB: She was the prime minister. The Productivity Commission report had been presented and a number of us got the opportunity to have dinner with her and put the case for why the NDIS should be a priority for her government. Because, at the end of the day, big reforms need prime ministerial approval. AD: Did she need much convincing? BB: I don’t think so. I think she got it. But I think it was very important in the sense of hearing from people who had been deeply involved with the development of the idea. The dinner was not conclusive; we didn’t know what the outcome was. We really put our case. It was actually quite short; the business part of it probably only took about 45 minutes for the key points to be made, and then it went to more general chit-chat. But all of the key points were made. We then waited. Soon thereafter she said: “we’re going to get this thing done”. RG: It was a very quick response after the commissioner’s report. It was about the quickest ever. BB: Yeah, but it was that moment where she said “we’re going to get it done”. And from that point on, the machinery of the Commonwealth government swung fully into action behind the scheme. AD: What does that look like, when it all swings behind you and everyone’s onside and wanting to make it happen quickly? BB: It gets momentum. AD: That word momentum keeps cropping up from this point on … BB: Well I think when you have the prime minister’s department, the Treasury, the Finance Department, the Department of Family and Housing and Community Services, all behind an idea, and they’re the key departments, then it happens. AD: The Medicare levy increased from 1.5 to 2%. How did you manage that? BB: Craig Wallace was very significant in that. He’s the chairman of People With Disability Australia, and so he has always been very influential in disability circles and he wrote an opinion piece on it, and I think that was at a time when the government was thinking through how were they going to fund it. So I think that was certainly influential. I think it’s important to remember that what the Productivity Commission said was that this scheme should be funded out of general revenue, and part of the reason they argued that was because they said this is one of the first things that government should do, it’s like defence. If taxes aren’t going to go up then there are other things at the margin that government should cease doing in order to ensure that this scheme is funded. Their view was this was core government business. RG: I’m just trying to think, though, who did come up with the Medicare levy? I think it is a really interesting question. It might have come out of Jenny Macklin’s office … AD: Well, I remember reading that Jenny Macklin at one stage went to the Expenditure Review Committee [ERC] and, I don’t know how she got away with this, but just coolly asked for A$14 billion over five years to make this happen. She said afterwards it was the biggest thing she ever asked for from the ERC – as you’d kind of hope that that would be the biggest thing she ever asked for – but this is a massive amount of money. RG: But she had a very good case. You make it sound quite casual, whereas she’s a very carefully prepared. She’s a top policy person herself, so she would have had all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed. AD: So it gathers this momentum, and I remember the announcement that it would be tied to Medicare and there was a little bit of opposition, there was some discussion about it. But what characterised it was how little opposition there was and how quickly the actual opposition, then the Coalition, fell in behind it. BB: I think it’s not fair to say “at that point the opposition fell in behind it”. I think that the opposition, particularly Tony Abbott and senator Mitch Fifield, understood this scheme and its significance from very, very early on, so the bipartisanship began much earlier. And I think what they grasped was that it was not just a social policy reform, but it was an economic reform, and it was about equity, and about opportunity. And this is about equality of opportunity for people with disabilities, and it was about equity for them and their families. And so there was a basis for that emerging bipartisanship. And one of the things that we knew already at the time of the disability investment group was that this reform was probably going to take seven years in terms of introducing it, that it was going to be a long period of time, therefore it was going to go across multiple governments and so had to win the support of all parties and all governments, both federal and state. AD: Rhonda, when did you know that you’d won the support of Tony Abbott? RD: There was a systematic program of approaching and talking, and I met with Mitch Fifield quite often and he had supported it – he’d been very clear. But I bumped into Tony Abbott in the street in Sydney, and I said to him: “Mr Abbott, I’m hearing you’re supporting the NDIS and I’m so pleased”. And he said: “Well normally I’m Mr No, but on this occasion I’m Mr Yes”. And so I had a Press Club appearance about two weeks later and I quoted it. He then picked it up and quoted it everywhere. So it became his phrase! I’ve met millions of politicians over a long, long life – because I’m quite elderly by now – and a lot you don’t get past the goalposts because there isn’t that groundswell. Medicare had a groundswell, which was pretty good for its day when you think about it; this was about 50 times bigger than the Medicare groundswell. And I don’t think a politician in Australia could deny it. AD: Rhonda Galbally, a board member of the National Disability Insurance Agency, and before her, Bruce Bonyhady, the chairman of that same organisation. Change Agents is a collaboration between The Conversation and the Swinburne Leadership Institute, and Swinburne University’s Department of Media and Communication. You can subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, or listen on Soundcloud. Production today: Heather Jarvis, Sam Wilson and Jonathan Lang. I’m Andrew Dodd, and I hope you can join me next time for Change Agents. Change Agents is a collaboration between The Conversation and the Swinburne Business School and Swinburne University’s Department of Media and Communication. It is presented by Andrew Dodd and produced by Samuel Wilson and Andrew Dodd, with production by Heather Jarvis. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Rhonda Galbally and Bruce Bonyhady were both instrumental in the creation of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Alan Porritt and Julian Smith (AAP)This is the first program in a new podcast series, Change Agents. It will focus on examples of ordinary people who have brought about profound social, political and cultural change, celebrating their success and explaining how they did it. The National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) is the biggest social reform in Australia this century. By 2022 it will help half a million people access comprehensive disability support at a cost of around A$25 billion. On this program, two of the NDIS’ founders explain how they developed something so radical and comprehensive and then won support for the idea. Bruce Bonyhady is the chairman and Rhonda Galbally is a board member of the National Disability Insurance Agency, the body that implements the NDIS. You can read the transcript below. Andrew Dodd: Hello, I’m Andrew Dodd and this is Change Agents, a series about change and the people who make it happen. Today, the birth of the National Disability Insurance Scheme. The National Disability Insurance Scheme is Australia’s biggest social reform this century. By 2022 it’s estimated half a million people will be using it to access better disability support. By then, it’ll cost around $25 billion a year, funded in part by an increase in the Medicare levy. Today we’ll meet two of its founders: Bruce Bonyhady is the chairman, and Rhonda Galbally is a board member, of the NDIA, the agency that runs the NDIS. They told a forum at Swinburne University that the idea has been around for a long time, as far back as the Whitlam years. Bruce Bonyhady: Whitlam, following the introduction of Medicare, wanted to have a national compensation scheme. A similar scheme was introduced in New Zealand, but covering just people with disabilities who acquired that disability through an accident – so, it was a narrower scheme than what we have now. But the idea that you could take the thinking that applies to workers’ compensation or motor vehicle compensation schemes and apply that to disability more generally dates back to then, and in fact is part of a movement that started in the 1890s when the first compulsory workers’ compensation schemes were developed – in fact in Germany. AD: Am I right in saying it was on the books at the time the Whitlam government was dismissed, and that the Fraser government decided not to carry through with it? BB: Yes, it was due to be debated in parliament on November 11, 1975, and then Fraser decided not to carry on the reform. AD: So obviously then there wasn’t the bipartisanship that characterised what happened with the NDIS later. BB: No, there was no bipartisanship around that, and in fact there was no bipartisanship at that stage around universal health insurance either. AD: I’ve read that it was scuttled in part because the insurers saw that it was against their interests to support something that would undermine their business models. So, they were opposed to it. BB: I don’t know that detail. I think the point about the NDIS, though, is that it provides insurance where there was no insurance before. There is no private insurer who will insure someone who was born with a disability, or acquires a disability through a progressive medical condition, and will insure catastrophic risk. This is a classic case of market failure – there was no insurance available. And it’s a classic issue to which insurance applies – because the whole population is at risk. The consequences of major disability on those directly affected and their families is enormous. And so if we all pay a small amount, then we can insure us all – and it is the most efficient and effective way, as a society, to support people with disabilities. And in fact, if you go back to the work of Kenneth Arrow in the 1960s, who won a Nobel Prize for his work on insurance, he, in his work, where he demonstrated that universal health insurance is the most efficient way for communities to support the risk of adverse health outcomes, he also had a category for what he called “failure to recover” – in other words, permanent disability. So, already in the 1960s the academic work had been done to demonstrate the veracity of this scheme. Rhonda Galbally: But, what was missing then was that the disability rights movement hadn’t started in Australia. And there was no mobilisation or interest. In America, it started – really, for the world – with the Vietnam veterans coming back and just not putting up with being put in institutions. They said “no way” and started the independent living movement. Ours would’ve started just in tiny little seeds towards the end of the 70s. And then in the early 80s they had a small voice, but they were responsible for the deinstitutionalisation movement. But then, by the time it came around for the NDIS, that mobilisation possibility was just as important as the idea – because if the idea had been there, which Bruce designed, without the possibility of the mobilisation then we’d be back to where we were with the Whitlam era. So I think that’s a very important part of the question of: “how come?” AD: One of the people who deserves a lot of credit in bringing about the NDIS is the former deputy prime minister, Brian Howe. It’s said that back in 2005 he went back to the Woodhouse report – this report that had been commissioned by the Whitlam government – pulled it off the shelf, had a look at it, and started thinking about an insurance scheme that could address some of these issues. How fundamental was he to this? BB: He was certainly fundamental to my involvement. In 2005 I was just starting to be interested in disability reform. I was very conscious that there was chronic underfunding; that many people were not getting the support they needed – either not enough support or were missing out entirely. I was on a board with Brian at the time, and I said to him I wanted to talk to him about disability reform. And what he said to me was “you have to stop thinking about disability policy as welfare, and start thinking about it as risk and insurance and investment”. It was one of those lightbulb moments. So, it became a catalyst for me to start to explore how insurance could be applied to people with disability more generally. I very quickly came across the work of John Walsh, who had developed a whole scheme for anyone who was catastrophically injured – not just those who were catastrophically injured in motor-vehicle or workplace accidents. I said to John “could we do this for all of disability?”, and he said “of course, we just need the data”. Both Brian and then John were incredibly important to how we got to where we are today. AD: You were, at that stage, chair of Yooralla. And you came into this sector because of a personal family connection to these issues. BB: Yeah. I’ve got two adult sons, both of whom have cerebral palsy. Prior to them being born – my older son is now in his 30s – I knew nothing about disability, so I became involved on the boards of disability organisations. Initially my focus was on those organisations and their governance. In 2005 I started to think more broadly. The trigger for that was going to an early intervention centre that Yooralla was running near Dandenong and sitting down with the mother of a disabled boy. She said to me: “Why can’t my son get the early intervention services he needs?”. And I went into this long explanation about how we were doing the best we could with the funding we had, and then I went away appalled by the answer. Here I was, with all of my connections and education, and I was defending the status quo. That was really the trigger for me to go and see Brian. I thought it was shocking, so that was how it started. AD: Let’s go forward from 2005 to the election of the Rudd government. The parliamentary secretary for disability services, Bill Shorten, was appointed in 2007. He became very important to what ensued. RG: Well I think Bill was really the important catalyst in a way. And I think he really was very striking from the very first time I met him in that he didn’t characterise disability as a sad tragedy or misery. He characterised it as an outrage, a real abrogation of human rights, and it was sort of like a non-welfare approach to it, and also a waste: he characterised it as wasteful of people’s potential. There was a charitable view of disability. People were very happy to talk at length about raising money for poor disadvantaged people, but nobody was talking about it being an absolute outrage. That was Bill, and behind Bill was Jenny Macklin, who was very seasoned, and he had a view of especially mobilisation. The sector was in complete disarray. And because it had been a charitable sad story, the media was characterised by burden. There were very important programs which probably helped the case but were really fragmenting, because you’d come out of it feeling like cutting your throat as a person with a disability because there you were, you’d ruined everyone’s lives and the families were in tragedy and so people with disabilities organisations didn’t get on at all with carers’ organisations, and both were united – probably quite rightly – in being highly critical of the services that hadn’t changed in about the last 50 years. AD: I think I read something you wrote that said that these sectors were effectively at war with each other. RG: They were at war. And they were at war in every country in the world. I can remember reading a Guardian article by the head of the Disability Rights Commission in the UK, and she said we will not make progress in this country until the carers organisations get together with the people with disabilities organisations and build an alliance. AD: I want to find out more about how you did that and we’ll get to that in a second, but I want to go to the 2020 Summit now, because that also is very important to this. I’ve heard snippets of this story but I want you to tell the full story, Bruce, about how you got this issue on the agenda of the 2020 Summit. I don’t think you were even a delegate, were you? BB: No, I wasn’t a delegate. RG: There’s a club for them, for non-delegates. AD: Are you in that club? BB: I got together with Helen Sykes, who is the chairman of the James Macready Bryan Foundation, and one of my closest long-time friends, John Nairn, who was a director of that foundation. None of us were invited to the 2020 Summit so we got the list of delegates and we wrote to everyone and contacted everyone on that list that we knew. We knew that no-one was going to take our idea to the summit as their top idea, so we knew we were going to be at best their second idea at the summit. So we figured that going into the Summit we were somewhere worse than position 1001, but somehow it emerged as one of the half-dozen big ideas of the summit. And – on reflection – it was undoubtedly the big idea of the 2020 Summit. AD: How many of them put it as their second idea, do you know? BB: I don’t know. Certainly a number of people I know well pushed it. AD: How did you get people to say “OK, I will put your idea down as my second idea” at this big summit? BB: I think it was a compelling case. Everyone knows someone with a disability, or they’ve got a relative with a disability, and they know how broken that old system was. Here was an idea which made reform affordable, and people responded. And I think we had some luck. I think some of these things are: you work hard and you put all your effort in and you get some lucky breaks, so we obviously got some lucky breaks for that to happen. AD: So it emerges as a big idea and – as you say – probably the big idea of the 2020 Summit. And then you were asked by Bill Shorten to look at the feasibility of the scheme and actually shore it all up with the right numbers behind it. BB: Well we’d already started on that process. So a group of us, chaired by Ian Silk, worked for 18 months on this report. When you’re asked to recommend reform to governments you’ve got a choice – you can have a long shopping list of ideas, or you can essentially say “we’ve got one idea”, and that’s what we did. We said: “We’ve got one idea and we think it’s a big idea and we think it requires further examination by government”. AD: And I think this is about the time that Bill Shorten says to you and to the various groups: “come together and start working as a team”, and you led this group that became the alliance. RG: There was internal-to-government and then there was external-to-government, and I facilitated the external-to-government coming together of the three and in fact it was very moving. I think about it now in terms of the maturity of being able to think about what it was like from somebody else’s point of view. I can remember the first time we came together with carers and I was thinking about it from my mother’s point of view – how it had been for her and her life when I was disabled as a tiny baby. It was that expression and then them seeing it from the person’s point of view, instead of just from the family’s point of view, that made it quite a profound connection. Internally to government, because the carers’ networks had been so powerful through the 1990s, there was a view that there should be a separate carers’ council. But because we’d mobilised and come together on the outside, it just didn’t make sense. So that was a persuasion job with Bill and Jenny, because the bureaucrats were pretty convinced that they should be separate. I remember [the bureaucrats] saying “but carers look after old people” and I thought “well you’re not a carer of someone old until they’re disabled, actually, otherwise you’re just a son or a daughter – you don’t play that carer role until they’re disabled too”, so the topic is still disability. So they then agreed to it being set up in joint services and carers, and then Bill insisted on putting business and unions on. I was very opposed and I said “Oh no, it should just be consumers” and he was proven to be right; they were tremendously valuable – they opened it out, they took it back to their networks, to the business council, to the AICD, to all sorts of places that had never heard of these issues, and the ACTU. It was really valuable, that move to broaden that group out. BB: I think the other thing that we need to give Rhonda credit for is the alliance was her brainchild. This alliance outside government – it’s a world-first. This is the first time anywhere in the world that, the sector having split, as part of the disability rights movement, as a sign of its maturity came together to prosecute the case for big reform. You only get big reform when you’ve got unity and a single voice and a single point of advocacy to government and the community. AD: You were saying earlier that some were pushing to include education in the campaign and other aspects of disability reform that were required, and it was about narrowing it down to one achievable – admittedly ambitious – but one achievable goal. RG: Yes, and the trouble also was a matter of us – Bruce and I – thinking that the NDIS should be the focus, but also we decided to only work on something we could agree on. Education is still reasonably controversial in that some of the carers felt special education was good, and the people with disabilities organisations didn’t agree with that, so we put it off the agenda instead of having another war about content. On the NDIS, everyone agreed. BB: The NDIS was and is a unifying idea because it says the support you will receive is based on your need. It’s no longer based on where you acquired your disability, when you acquired your disability, how you acquired your disability, or what your type of disability is: whether you’ve got autism or cerebral palsy or spina bifida. It says need is the determinant, and that the support you receive is commensurate with that need. So, we were able to work through that – because even within that there was still a lot of debate in terms of language and other issues that we had to get right before we could agree that this was the single issue that we were going to pursue above all others. AD: Can I ask you about the mobilisation, because at one stage – in fact you still have these kind of numbers – 150,000 people reachable by email who then have the flow-on effect of contacting others. The alliance didn’t have a lot of money but it had this incredibly powerful tool at its disposal: the people involved. RG: They were very hot, and still are very, very hot contacts … AD: What do you mean by hot? RG: I mean they’ll take action. I mean they’re not just a contact list where half of them are old and you haven’t cleaned it. I mean this is a hot where people have kept up-to-date, where they’re vitally interested. AD: How have you harnessed this resource? RG: It was absolutely instrumental in getting the scheme. Wouldn’t you agree Bruce? BB: Yeah. RG: Very, very important. And it’s watching – it’s a marvellous check and balance, and it’s watching and anything that would not make the scheme happen in the way that everybody thinks that we’ve signed up for, it’s there, and it’s never before been in my experience, in my life, that I‘ve ever seen disability be a really political issue, a hot political issue. It was in America, but that was the Vietnam veterans that did that and they made the American Disability Act that’s a really powerful act. But in Australia it’s never been but now it is, and I think it’s not going to go away – I think it’s just there, and it’s a really important instrument for all of us. AD: Is it true that 120 House of Representatives MPs were visited by people with disabilities and carers in the lead-up to key decisions being made? BB: I don’t know whether it was 120 but it was certainly of that order. People went to see their MPs, they wrote to them just prior to major COAG meetings; thousands of emails were sent to the prime minister and the premiers … RG: Disability teas, do you remember those? BB: Yes. This was a very active group. It’s worth remembering that at about the time the NDIS campaign – the Every Australian Counts campaign – was running, the miners were also running a campaign against a mining tax. They had millions and millions of dollars. What the NDIS campaign had were people. This was an old-fashioned – in many ways an old-fashioned grassroots campaign – mobilised through social media very, very effectively. RG: I was chairing a hospital at the time and hadn’t mentioned it to my hospital – to the board or the staff – that they might have had any interest – I should’ve – but they came to me and said they were having a disability tea. And so they were everywhere, they were in hospitals, in local governments, in NGOs, in businesses – a lot of businesses had disability teas. There were state co-ordinators that were part of the Every Australian Counts campaign – they did a lot of that work. There was Kirstin, there was John, and then there were the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations, and Carers Australia – a very powerful and important organisation. They’d get it out to their members and they’d all have disability teas so it wasn’t just that 150,000 very warm email contacts of citizens of Australia. They weren’t organisational, it was also all the organisations. BB: And then there were all the people who just told their stories, without any sense of self-pity. They just explained what life was like as a person with a disability, or someone caring for a disability – frankly and openly – and those stories resonated with the Australian public, and the statistics also supported those stories. When we found that in the OECD area, Australia ranked last in terms of people with disability living at or below the poverty line, people said: “In the midst of this great mining boom, we’ve got this?”. So, the sense of, not just shame, but that it can’t be allowed to continue, just spread out from people with disabilities to the community as a whole and culminated in that moment when the government put forward the proposition that the Medicare levy should be increased to fund the NDIS, and 85% of the Australian population said: “we’re happy”. Never before has a tax increase been approved overnight. AD: You referred to John Walsh before, and I don’t want to skip over that because this guy deserves enormous credit. This is somebody who worked at Pricewaterhousecoopers; he was an actuary. He had an accident at the age of 20 when he was playing rugby and became a quadriplegic, and focused as a result on this special skill he had as a number-cruncher and you guys used him throughout the process to shore up the numbers to convince the politicians and the departments that this thing was achievable. BB: This scheme would not have been achieved without John. RG: I agree. BB: His analytical capability, his enormous intellect to apply the actuarial principles to disability as a whole, to get the data, to do the analysis. He was a member of the disability investment group, he was then the other commissioner with Patricia Scott on the Productivity Commission, he’s now on the board of the NDIA and chairs our sustainability committee. His contribution is giant. He worked not just in Australia but in New Zealand so he understood the accident compensation scheme there, he’d worked on most of Australia’s workers compensation and transport accident schemes. His significance is enormous. AD: He came with you both, I understand, to dinner at The Lodge, with Jenny Macklin and Bill Shorten. Have I got that right? How did that dinner go and what happened? BB: We were at a point where this scheme needed true bipartisanship at the tops of all parties … AD: I should say when this happened Julia Gillard was the prime minister … BB: She was the prime minister. The Productivity Commission report had been presented and a number of us got the opportunity to have dinner with her and put the case for why the NDIS should be a priority for her government. Because, at the end of the day, big reforms need prime ministerial approval. AD: Did she need much convincing? BB: I don’t think so. I think she got it. But I think it was very important in the sense of hearing from people who had been deeply involved with the development of the idea. The dinner was not conclusive; we didn’t know what the outcome was. We really put our case. It was actually quite short; the business part of it probably only took about 45 minutes for the key points to be made, and then it went to more general chit-chat. But all of the key points were made. We then waited. Soon thereafter she said: “we’re going to get this thing done”. RG: It was a very quick response after the commissioner’s report. It was about the quickest ever. BB: Yeah, but it was that moment where she said “we’re going to get it done”. And from that point on, the machinery of the Commonwealth government swung fully into action behind the scheme. AD: What does that look like, when it all swings behind you and everyone’s onside and wanting to make it happen quickly? BB: It gets momentum. AD: That word momentum keeps cropping up from this point on … BB: Well I think when you have the prime minister’s department, the Treasury, the Finance Department, the Department of Family and Housing and Community Services, all behind an idea, and they’re the key departments, then it happens. AD: The Medicare levy increased from 1.5 to 2%. How did you manage that? BB: Craig Wallace was very significant in that. He’s the chairman of People With Disability Australia, and so he has always been very influential in disability circles and he wrote an opinion piece on it, and I think that was at a time when the government was thinking through how were they going to fund it. So I think that was certainly influential. I think it’s important to remember that what the Productivity Commission said was that this scheme should be funded out of general revenue, and part of the reason they argued that was because they said this is one of the first things that government should do, it’s like defence. If taxes aren’t going to go up then there are other things at the margin that government should cease doing in order to ensure that this scheme is funded. Their view was this was core government business. RG: I’m just trying to think, though, who did come up with the Medicare levy? I think it is a really interesting question. It might have come out of Jenny Macklin’s office … AD: Well, I remember reading that Jenny Macklin at one stage went to the Expenditure Review Committee [ERC] and, I don’t know how she got away with this, but just coolly asked for A$14 billion over five years to make this happen. She said afterwards it was the biggest thing she ever asked for from the ERC – as you’d kind of hope that that would be the biggest thing she ever asked for – but this is a massive amount of money. RG: But she had a very good case. You make it sound quite casual, whereas she’s a very carefully prepared. She’s a top policy person herself, so she would have had all the i’s dotted and the t’s crossed. AD: So it gathers this momentum, and I remember the announcement that it would be tied to Medicare and there was a little bit of opposition, there was some discussion about it. But what characterised it was how little opposition there was and how quickly the actual opposition, then the Coalition, fell in behind it. BB: I think it’s not fair to say “at that point the opposition fell in behind it”. I think that the opposition, particularly Tony Abbott and senator Mitch Fifield, understood this scheme and its significance from very, very early on, so the bipartisanship began much earlier. And I think what they grasped was that it was not just a social policy reform, but it was an economic reform, and it was about equity, and about opportunity. And this is about equality of opportunity for people with disabilities, and it was about equity for them and their families. And so there was a basis for that emerging bipartisanship. And one of the things that we knew already at the time of the disability investment group was that this reform was probably going to take seven years in terms of introducing it, that it was going to be a long period of time, therefore it was going to go across multiple governments and so had to win the support of all parties and all governments, both federal and state. AD: Rhonda, when did you know that you’d won the support of Tony Abbott? RD: There was a systematic program of approaching and talking, and I met with Mitch Fifield quite often and he had supported it – he’d been very clear. But I bumped into Tony Abbott in the street in Sydney, and I said to him: “Mr Abbott, I’m hearing you’re supporting the NDIS and I’m so pleased”. And he said: “Well normally I’m Mr No, but on this occasion I’m Mr Yes”. And so I had a Press Club appearance about two weeks later and I quoted it. He then picked it up and quoted it everywhere. So it became his phrase! I’ve met millions of politicians over a long, long life – because I’m quite elderly by now – and a lot you don’t get past the goalposts because there isn’t that groundswell. Medicare had a groundswell, which was pretty good for its day when you think about it; this was about 50 times bigger than the Medicare groundswell. And I don’t think a politician in Australia could deny it. AD: Rhonda Galbally, a board member of the National Disability Insurance Agency, and before her, Bruce Bonyhady, the chairman of that same organisation. Change Agents is a collaboration between The Conversation and the Swinburne Leadership Institute, and Swinburne University’s Department of Media and Communication. You can subscribe to this podcast on iTunes, or listen on Soundcloud. Production today: Heather Jarvis, Sam Wilson and Jonathan Lang. I’m Andrew Dodd, and I hope you can join me next time for Change Agents. Change Agents is a collaboration between The Conversation and the Swinburne Business School and Swinburne University’s Department of Media and Communication. It is presented by Andrew Dodd and produced by Samuel Wilson and Andrew Dodd, with production by Heather Jarvis. The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

In this week's episode of The Axe and Politics, Kayla, Ruairí, and Lucas discuss the presidential election and Stanford news. Also, the McCoy Center for Ethics in Society presents (seek to 13:00) a conversation with Thomas Piketty and Kenneth Arrow on inequality, moderated by Debra Satz. The Axe and Politics podcast is still a work in progress. Thanks for joining us, and please consider supporting more of The Stanford Political Journal's work at stanfordpolitics.com.

Kenneth Arrow addresses the ethical implications created by differences in information among firms and other stakeholders. For example, retailers have knowledge about their products that consumers lack; financial officers have knowledge about the firm that shareholders do not have. What moral obligations does this impose on the firms and their managers? Can law be a substitute for such obligations?

Kenneth Arrow addresses the ethical implications created by differences in information among firms and other stakeholders. For example, retailers have knowledge about their products that consumers lack; financial officers have knowledge about the firm that shareholders do not have. What moral obligations does this impose on the firms and their managers? Can law be a substitute for such obligations?

Kenneth Arrow addresses the ethical implications created by differences in information among firms and other stakeholders. For example, retailers have knowledge about their products that consumers lack; financial officers have knowledge about the firm that shareholders do not have. What moral obligations does this impose on the firms and their managers? Can law be a substitute for such obligations?

My guest today is Darren Kottle, the Chief Investment Officer of Caddo Capital Management LLC, and sub-advisor to an alternative/hedged strategy at Catalyst Funds. The topic is hedge fund. In this episode of Trend Following Radio we discuss: Kottle's early experiences in the market, starting off in a discount stock brokerage His experiences working with a Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow at Stanford The sources of trend following profit George Soros' concept of reflexivity The importance and believing in your system to the core Thoughts on investment banks The pivot point for Kottle to fully embrace a trend following system What the Turtle story did for him when he first heard it Uncertainty vs. being wrong The percentage of people that truly understand that "it's all reflected in the price" Jump in! --- I'm MICHAEL COVEL, the host of TREND FOLLOWING RADIO, and I'm proud to have delivered 10+ million podcast listens since 2012. Investments, economics, psychology, politics, decision-making, human behavior, entrepreneurship and trend following are all passionately explored and debated on my show. To start? I'd like to give you a great piece of advice you can use in your life and trading journey… cut your losses! You will find much more about that philosophy here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/trend/ You can watch a free video here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/video/ Can't get enough of this episode? You can choose from my thousand plus episodes here: https://www.trendfollowing.com/podcast My social media platforms: Twitter: @covel Facebook: @trendfollowing LinkedIn: @covel Instagram: @mikecovel Hope you enjoy my never-ending podcast conversation!

Michael Covel talks to Darren Kottle. Kottle is the CEO of Caddo Capital Management a trend following firm. He talks about his roots, growing up in Shreveport, Louisiana. Shreveport was an oil town and Kottle talks about the experiences growing up in an entrepreneurial town. Covel and Kottle also discuss Kottle's early experiences in the market, starting off in a discount stock brokerage; his experiences working with a Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow at Stanford; the sources of trend following profit; George Soros' concept of reflexivity; the importance and believing in your system to the core; thoughts on investment banks; the pivot point for Kottle to fully embrace a trend following system; what the Turtle story did for him when he first heard it; uncertainty vs. being wrong; and the percentage of people that truly understand that "it's all reflected in the price". Special free DVD offer: www.trendfollowing.com/win.

Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow and Dr. Timothy Bresnahan, co-Editors of the Annual Review of Economics, discuss economic issues related to healthcare and the environment, as well the bright future of young scholars and important new directions in the field of economics.

Kenneth Arrow won the Nobel Prize for his contributions to economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory. (April 15, 2009)

In his seminal Social Choice and Individual Values, Kenneth Arrow stated that his theory applies to voting. Many voting theorists have been convinced that, on account of Arrow’s theorem, all voting methods must be seriously flawed. Arrow’s theory is strictly ordinal, the cardinal aggregation of preferences being explicitly rejected. In this paper I point out that all voting methods are cardinal and therefore outside the reach of Arrow’s result. Parallel to Arrow’s ordinal approach, there evolved a consistent cardinal theory of collective choice. This theory, most prominently associated with the work of Harsanyi, continued the older utilitarian tradition in a more formal style. The purpose of this paper is to show that various derivations of utilitarian SWFs can also be used to derive utilitarian voting (UV). By this I mean a voting rule that allows the voter to score each alternative in accordance with a given scale. UV-k indicates a scale with k distinct values. The general theory leaves k to be determined on pragmatic grounds. A (1,0) scale gives approval voting. I prefer the scale (1,0,-1) and refer to the resulting voting rule as evaluative voting. A conclusion of the paper is that the defects of conventional voting methods result not from Arrow’s theorem, but rather from restrictions imposed on voters’ expression of their preferences. The analysis is extended to strategic voting, utilizing a novel set of assumptions regarding voter behavior.