Podcasts about keynes

Cuando Alemania ganó el Mundial de 2014, el gasto de sus aficionados subió un 75% al día siguiente de cada victoria. Con ese dato, cualquiera firmaría que el fútbol es un motor económico. Pero hay otro dato que lo desmonta todo y que apenas se cita: dos horas. Exactamente lo que duró, medido por investigadores, el subidón de felicidad de los alemanes tras cada triunfo. España acaba de ganar su segunda estrella y, como en cada Mundial, ya suenan las promesas de siempre: que si el consumo, que si medio punto de PIB. En 2006 el Gobierno italiano llegó a poner esa cifra sobre la mesa tras la victoria de su selección, en pleno ajuste presupuestario con Bruselas. Un estudio publicado en 2024 en el Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics comprobó la promesa con datos de la OCDE, y el resultado incomoda: los campeones del mundo tienden a crecer menos al año siguiente de la victoria, y con frecuencia menos que el país al que derrotaron en la final. Hay más. Un trabajo clásico del Journal of Finance analizó las bolsas de 39 países y encontró que caer eliminado hunde el mercado un 0,5% al día siguiente, pero ganar no lo mueve prácticamente nada. El fútbol opera sobre el ánimo, no sobre el bolsillo. Lo que Keynes llamaba espíritus animales. España ya vivió esto: levantó la copa en 2010 con el paro rozando el 20% y dos años después pedía el rescate bancario a Bruselas. Entonces, si el consumo es gasto adelantado, el PIB ni se inmuta y la alegría dura una sobremesa, ¿qué es exactamente lo que gana un país cuando gana un Mundial? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president could still fire commissioners, as the Court now permits, but if those firings broke quorum, the agency would be unable to proceed until replacements were confirmed. The guardrail would

This week's video transcript summary is here. You can click on any bulleted section to see the actual transcript. Thanks to Granola for its software.There was an issue with this only going to paid subscribers, so sending it again. Apologies to those who get it twice. I appreciate being paid so feel free to upgrade if you enjoy TWTW.EditorialIntelligence: Who Owns it?This week the word “AI” feels too small.AI is a technology. Intelligence is its product. And if intelligence is the product, the question is no longer just: Which model is best? Who has the cheapest tokens? Who owns the weights? Who controls the data center? Those are important questions, but they are lower in the stack.The bigger question is simpler and more political:Who owns intelligence?That sounds abstract until you make it concrete. Intelligence is becoming something companies can capture, package, serve, meter, route, improve, and sell.It can write code, answer questions, design molecules, automate offices, run agents, draft legal work, advise scientists, serve consumers, and reshape workflows. It is not merely software. It is a general-purpose capability. And all humans could benefit from more of it.General-purpose capabilities have a habit of becoming public questions. But the default answer, that public good is best delivered by government, is the wrong answer in this context.The Product Is IntelligenceWe should stop talking about AI as a feature and start talking about intelligence as the universal thing that is delivered as an input to the world.Water is an input. Electricity is an input. Literacy is an input. Connectivity is an input. Once a society depends on them, access stops being optional. Nobody needs government to build every well, power plant, school, or network. But everybody understands that a civilization cannot be organized around less than universal and reliable access to foundational inputs.Intelligence is reaching that level of importance now that we all know it is real.Government should not own it, operate it, or develop it. Quite the opposite. Companies are the right actors to build fast, compete hard, improve models, serve customers, and discover the real use cases. Self-interest is a useful framing here. Markets are good at finding demand, reducing costs, and turning invention into services people actually use.Companies are the right operators, developers, and owners. But that does not settle the real question of who owns the benefits. That is an economic question.If intelligence becomes metered infrastructure, what happens to the value it creates?The Ownership StackThis week's articles keep circling the same issue from different directions but in the nature of ‘circling' never quite nail it.Jamin Ball's “Own Your Weights” starts with the enterprise version of the question. Owning a model file is not enough. The durable asset is the loop: the data flywheel, the evaluations, the reinforcement system, the workflow learning, and the operating context that lets capability compound.Benedict Evans' “Ways to Think About Token Pricing” adds the market layer. Tokens may become essential, abundant, and cheap, like mobile data. But being essential does not guarantee that the token layer captures the value. The money may move up the stack to whoever owns the workflow, the customer, the distribution, or the application.Alex Karp's fight with the labs, reported in “Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI”, is the same argument in sharper enterprise language. Companies are afraid that model providers will not just sell intelligence, but learn from customer workflows and then move into the markets where those workflows create value. The “All-in” group are echoing Karp's view.And “What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?” names the new contested terrain. The loop is where intelligence meets the world. Whoever owns the loop owns the learning. Whoever owns the learning owns the compounding asset.That is why “who owns intelligence?” is not a slogan. It is the question under the model layer, the application layer, the enterprise layer, and the economic layer.Because intelligence is the product, the tools creating it are fragmented and competitive. So there is no logic in trying to discuss this at the level of a single company or set of tools and models.The Old Promise Was That Commerce Would Tame PowerThe essays this week give the historical backdrop.Deirdre McCloskey, in “What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution”, argues that modern growth came not simply from capital accumulation, but from a change in permission: ordinary people were allowed to innovate, trade, build, and be honored for it.That matters because intelligence could be another expansion of permission. It could make more people capable of building, learning, creating, coding, researching, translating, selling, and coordinating. It could lower the cost of competence.But only if access is broad.Paul Krugman's “AI in an Age of Oligarchy” warns that the same technology lands differently in different political economies. A new general-purpose technology entering a broad, open, upwardly mobile society is one thing. The same technology entering a concentrated economy, with extreme wealth and weak counterweights, is another.Tim O'Reilly's Economist essay, “Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate”, makes the governance point more directly. The old liberal hope was that commerce would tame arbitrary power. Markets, boards, courts, shareholders, disclosure, and competition would discipline the prince.But what if the prince uses markets to escape discipline?Henry Farrell's “political economy of billionaire derangement” pushes the same point. Founder culture, monopoly ambition, peer rivalry, weak correction mechanisms, and vast private control can amplify appetites rather than restrain them.The danger with intelligence is not that companies build it. They should. Companies build it, meter it, use public tolerance and public infrastructure to scale it, learn from everyone who uses it. All of those things are inevitable and healthy. Market forces will sort out winners from losers. The real danger is that the winners treat all of the surplus produced as purely private.Metered Intelligence Creates SurplusIf metering is not the problem, what is?The problem is pretending that metered intelligence creates value only for the metering entity. Metering water is only tolerated as a public good. If the public were blackmailed by a private water company with the threat of no water we would all rebel.Once we understand that the product of AI is intelligence we can see that every time intelligence is used, there is the immediate transaction: the user pays, the provider serves.But there is also system value. Usage creates signals. Workflows reveal patterns. Prompts, corrections, failures, preferences, integrations, edge cases, and business processes all help define where intelligence is useful and how it should improve. Intelligence breeds intelligence.Even when customer data is contractually protected, the market learns. The platform learns where demand is. The product team learns which workflows matter. The ecosystem learns which jobs are vulnerable, which tasks are automatable, and which parts of the economy can be reorganized around machine intelligence.So the surplus is not born in a vacuum.It rests on public science, public education, public data exhaust, public law, public infrastructure, public energy systems, public tolerance for data centers, and billions of human interactions. It is served by companies, but it is not made only by companies.This is why “Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches” belongs at the center of this week's issue. The detail can be debated. The principle is harder to dismiss. If intelligence becomes a new foundational resource, then some part of the wealth it creates should flow back to the people whose society makes it possible. Intelligence did not suddenly appear. AI is built on the entire history of human intelligence. It benefits from it and at the same time evolves it.Not Nationalization. A Human Wealth Fund.If intelligence belongs to everybody, some conclude that government ownership of intelligence is the right outcome.Governments are not well suited to build, operate, or improve intelligence. They will move too slowly, regulate too early, politicize the wrong things, and confuse economic participation with operational control.Andrew McAfee's “Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter” is useful here. His objection is not that the technology is unimportant. It is that steering too hard before we understand the shape of the change can become its own failure mode. Marc Andreessen's satire of AI regulation is less policy than temperament, but it captures a real Silicon Valley fear: that regulation can become permission, capture, and incumbency before it becomes wisdom.That fear should be taken seriously.But it does not answer the economic question. It answers only the operational one.How can the economic benefits of intelligence be distributed? The better answer is a sovereign human wealth fund.Call it a sovereign wealth fund if you must, but the phrase is too national. Intelligence will not respect borders. The leading companies are global. The models, chips, data centers, agents, platforms, and workflows will be transnational from the beginning. If the value created by intelligence is global, then the mechanism for sharing some of that value should begin with the companies global enough to capture it. The nice thing about xAI, OpenAI, and Anthropic is that they are supranational.These companies own and operate intelligence. Let them compete. Let them profit. Let them keep the incentives that make the system improve. But if intelligence is the new water, the wealth it creates cannot belong only to the companies that meter it. And they, themselves, have the power to fix it, even more than governments.Access will become a Human Right; Ownership Is the Economic DesignThis is where human rights come in. There is no right to access an AI model, yet. But there will soon be a need to change that.Not as a claim that every person is entitled to every frontier model at every moment for free. That is not serious. Capacity has costs. Models have costs. Inference has costs. Data centers have costs. Although those costs will decline over time, possibly quite quickly as self-learning models address costs.The claim is more basic: in a world where intelligence becomes a primary input into education, work, health, science, citizenship, creativity, and economic agency, baseline access to intelligence starts to look like a civic requirement.That could mean public access layers. It could mean education credits. It could mean open models. It could mean AI dividends. It could mean public-interest compute. It could mean taxes on rents. It could mean a company-initiated human wealth fund that returns some of the upside to society without handing the operating system to the state. The latter could couple wealth growth with universal distribution of ownership.The exact mechanism matters. But the distinction matters more.Government should not own intelligence. It should be universally available. And people should have a claim on the wealth intelligence creates.The Frontier Is Also PhysicalThe abstraction is not weightless.“The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning”, “New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium”, Reuters on pollution from Musk's xAI power project, and DataGravity's “Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?” all say the same thing from the ground up.Intelligence uses land. It uses power. It uses water. It uses chips. It uses grid capacity. It uses neighborhoods. It uses public patience.That makes the value question unavoidable. A society can accept the buildout if the buildout is legible as shared progress. It will resist it if the costs are local, the profits are private, and the benefits feel enclosed.Who Owns the “Loop”?The week ends where it began.“Anthropic and Blackstone” are betting that implementation is the next trillion-dollar business. “Vint Cerf” is working on identity for agents on the open internet. “GPT-Red” points toward systems that improve their own robustness. “Kimi K3” adds another open frontier model to the global mix.The model race continues. The deployment race is accelerating. The governance race is behind.My view is this:The central product of this era is intelligence. Companies have figured out how to capture it, package it, serve it, and meter it. That is good. It should stay in the hands of builders who have the incentive to make it better.But intelligence is too foundational to become just another private toll booth. A significant part of it will turn out to be free to users.As intelligence becomes a general-purpose resource, then access to it becomes a human-capability question, and the surplus from it becomes an economic-justice question. Not because government should run it. Because government should not run it. The operating layer belongs with companies. The wealth question belongs with everyone. But companies are best placed to turn that into a process of distribution.The question is not whether companies should build intelligence. They should.The question is whether humanity gets a stake in the wealth created by the thing that may soon become its most important shared input.Contents* Essays* Deirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial Revolution* AI in an Age of Oligarchy* Elon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hate* Murky Mirror: Truth and Consequences* The political economy of billionaire derangement* Is there any “oligarchy” to fight?* AI* Nearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. Threats* Why I Didn't Sign the AI Open Letter* Own Your Weights* Ways to Think About Token Pricing* Alex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AI* The AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft Office* What Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?* The Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just Beginning* 6 months to live for open models* Americans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' Riches* Who Gets to Define the Frontier?* GPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for Robustness* Anthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just models* Vint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internet* xai-org/grok-build, now open source* The Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?* Orphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligence* The Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data Center* Why AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”* Kimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier Intelligence* Venture Capital* Three Years In* Venture Has Rarely Looked More Bifurcated* The Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active Now* Are Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?* Regulation* Exclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College Campuses* The Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.* India's crackdown on a new WhatsApp feature risks setting a global precedent* Let's build a children's public internet* Computer cops* Google is better at playing the AI regulations game* Infrastructure* Who Captures Value in AI Infrastructure?* New York becomes the first state to enact a data center moratorium* Pollution from Musk's unpermitted xAI power project hits hardest in Black communities* Interview of the Week* The End of the End of Geography* Startup of the Week* Radical AI's Joseph Krause: The Scientist Building The “Waymo” Lab For New Materials* Post of the Week* Marc Andreessen on AI RegulationEssaysDeirdre McCloskey on What Really Caused the Industrial RevolutionYascha Mounk and Deirdre McCloskey | Persuasion | July 11, 2026Yascha Mounk interviews Deirdre McCloskey about her argument that the modern world's economic liftoff came less from capital accumulation than from a change in ideas. McCloskey says both left and right versions of the conventional story rely too heavily on investment: the left stresses exploitation and surplus value, while the right stresses virtuous saving by capitalists. Her objection is historical and economic. Human beings had always invested, from irrigation works and Roman roads to seed grain, and simple accumulation quickly runs into diminishing returns.McCloskey's alternative is that northwestern Europe, first Holland, then Britain and Scotland, and then the North American colonies, developed a liberal ideology that changed who was allowed to innovate and be honored for it. The conversation links that shift to the erosion of inherited hierarchy, the spread of dignity for ordinary commercial life, and a moral vocabulary in which liberalism is not merely procedural but connected to virtues and values. The point is not that machines, coal, trade, and institutions did not matter, but that they do not explain the scale and timing of modern enrichment without a cultural permission structure for innovation.The interview also turns to the contemporary defense of liberalism. Mounk frames the series around the worry that liberalism is often treated as too thin to command allegiance, while its opponents speak more directly to moral passions. McCloskey's case is that liberal societies became rich because they dignified experimentation and ordinary enterprise, and that liberals need to recover the moral language behind that claim.Read moreAI in an Age of OligarchyPaul Krugman | Paul Krugman | July 12, 2026Paul Krugman frames AI as a major technological shock arriving inside an already unequal political economy. The post says AI's economic and social effects may take years to understand, but argues that the setting matters now: America has much greater wealth concentration and political inequality than it did in the 1950s and 1960s, when progressive taxation, stronger regulation, and more active antitrust might have contained some of the destructive effects of a new technology.Krugman's opening claim is that the same technology would likely have different consequences in a more level society. In today's United States, he writes, extreme wealth is both a cause and effect of policies that favor a small elite, including low effective taxes on capital and high incomes, weak enforcement of worker protections and antitrust, and cuts to programs that benefit ordinary Americans.The article is explicitly more about oligarchy than AI. Krugman says the paid sections document the rise of the “.0002%,” the economics and politics of extreme wealth, how oligarchy will shape AI's impact, and possible policy paths. His caveat is that AI itself may still produce a pushback against oligarchy, but absent that, he expects the pre-existing concentration of wealth and power to magnify AI's downsides.Read moreElon Musk is building a form of capitalism that Adam Smith would hateAuthor: Tim O'Reilly Published: July 12, 2026Tim O'Reilly argues that Elon Musk is using the legal forms of shareholder capitalism to escape the restraints that shareholder capitalism was supposed to impose. The article begins with SpaceX's public-market structure: ordinary public investors get little meaningful governance power, Musk keeps roughly 85 percent of the votes through super-voting shares, buyers waive jury trials and class actions, the company qualifies as controlled, and removal of Musk depends on the share class he controls. In O'Reilly's framing, that is not ordinary founder control; it is a design for being answerable to no one, possibly beyond Musk's own lifetime.The killer detail is the article's turn through Albert Hirschman, Montesquieu, James Steuart, Adam Smith, and Keynes. Older defenses of commerce held that markets would tame princely passions because the self-interest of merchants was safer than arbitrary rule. O'Reilly says Musk reverses that hope. The market discipline that was supposed to cage the prince has become the lever by which the prince raises capital, removes feedback loops, and carries private power into politics, government, Mars, robots, AI, or whatever ambition comes next.The pull is the link to AI governance. O'Reilly says corporations are already a kind of artificial intelligence: narrow-input systems that act at a scale no individual human can match. Their partial controls include independent boards, shareholder votes, courts, disclosure, regulators, public pressure, and activism. If the leaders building frontier AI strip those alignment mechanisms out of their own companies, the governance of the company becomes a preview of the governance of the machine.Read more: The EconomistMurky Mirror: Truth and ConsequencesAuthor: Esther Dyson Published: July 14, 2026Esther Dyson argues that today's institutional crisis is better viewed through the 14th century than through recent political history. Using Barbara Tuchman's A Distant Mirror as her frame, she compares a world of famine, plague, church schism, feudal predation, and purposeless war with a present in which institutions again feel brittle, incentives are badly aligned, and power is shifting into forms that are hard to govern.The killer detail is the historical analogy between land, corporations, and AI. Dyson moves from nobles who controlled serfs and territory, to the East India Company as a quasi-sovereign business, to today's AI systems and data centers as a possible new sector that crosses and weakens both nation-states and companies. The question is whether AI becomes a new kind of private land, owned by a new nobility, or an open prairie that many people can cultivate.The pull is human attention. Dyson says the central question is not what AI will do to people, but how people will react to it: whether they can value love, kindness, embodied attention, and artisanal human presence in a world of seductive artificial offerings.Read more: SourceThe political economy of billionaire derangementAuthor: Henry Farrell Published: July 15, 2026Henry Farrell argues that the visible political radicalization of some Silicon Valley billionaires is not a random personality quirk, but a product of the political economy that made them. Starting from Tyler Cowen's dismissal of “billionaire derangement syndrome” and Tim O'Reilly's warning that Elon Musk is using shareholder capitalism to escape shareholder restraint, Farrell flips the phrase: the question is why billionaires themselves can become deranged.The killer detail is Farrell's use of Peter Thiel as both theorist and example. Thiel's Stanford lectures described startups as monarchies and founders as figures vested with unusual power, while Silicon Valley culture rewarded eccentricity, monopoly ambition, and founder exceptionalism. Farrell says those ideas combined with dense founder-investor networks, peer rivalry, and weak correction mechanisms to amplify rather than discipline princely appetites.The pull is the ideological problem for classical liberals who once saw tech wealth as an ally of markets and freedom. Farrell says commerce did not tame the passions; in parts of Silicon Valley, the passions have begun to devour markets, institutions, and the liberal story that justified them.Read more: SourceIs there any “oligarchy” to fight?Matthew Yglesias | Slow Boring | July 16, 2026Matthew Yglesias argues that “oligarchy” is a rhetorically powerful but analytically loose way to describe American politics. The post begins from Bernie Sanders' “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, Amy Klobuchar's warning about a MAGA “broligarchy,” and the long afterlife of the Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page paper that was widely summarized as showing that only the rich matter in policy outcomes. Yglesias says the evidence supports a weaker claim: affluent people and business leaders have unusual access and influence, but that is not the same as rule by a small cabal.His main distinction is between inequality and oligarchy. The Gilens-Page measure treated the top 10 percent of households as “the wealthy,” and later critics found that rich and middle-class preferences usually align; in the cases where they differ, the rich win about 53 percent of the time. Yglesias also says business executives get special access partly because their decisions are materially important to communities, jobs, investment, and local tax bases, not only because of campaign donations.The post preserves Jerusalem Demsas' counterpoint from their podcast discussion: privileged donor and business access can still violate democratic equality even if the oligarchy label overstates the structure of power. Yglesias' narrower claim is that Democrats should be precise about what problem they are trying to solve, because donor influence can also push the party left on climate and cultural issues in ways that alienate many voters.Read more: Slow BoringAINearly 200 Economists and Tech Leaders Warn of A.I. ThreatsAuthor: Ben Casselman Published: July 13, 2026Ben Casselman reports on “We Must Act Now,” a statement warning that artificial intelligence could transform the economy faster than any previous technology and that policymakers need to move faster to understand and respond. The statement says AI may become radically more powerful over the next 10 years, bringing risks such as large-scale job displacement as well as opportunities such as higher living standards. Nearly 200 people signed, including 15 Nobel laureates, the chief economists of OpenAI and Anthropic, Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark, former Google CEO Eric Schmidt, and venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.The killer detail is who joined the warning. Casselman notes that the signatories include economists who have historically been skeptical of Silicon Valley's most dramatic AI job-loss forecasts, including Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson, the MIT professors who won the 2024 Nobel in economics. Erik Brynjolfsson, who helped organize the statement, says there has been a notable change in the profession and that economists and policymakers are not ready for the “tsunami” he sees coming.The pull is the measurement problem. The statement does not offer a specific policy menu, but calls for economists, policymakers, and industry leaders to understand the economics of transformative AI and steer it toward complementing humans. Brynjolfsson says one high priority is better data on AI's spread and impact, because current measures tell conflicting stories about job losses and which workers are most exposed.Read more: The New York TimesWhy I Didn't Sign the AI Open LetterAuthor: Andrew McAfee Published: July 13, 2026Andrew McAfee explains why he did not sign “We Must Act Now,” the AI economy statement organized in part by his longtime collaborator Erik Brynjolfsson. McAfee agrees with the letter's starting point that AI is likely to become radically more powerful over the next decade and that it is a general-purpose technology. His objection is not to urgency or to studying AI's economic effects, but to the framing of risk, displacement, and institutional steering as the first move.The killer detail is McAfee's line edit. He says the original letter comes close, then “bounces off the crossbar” by calling for incentives, guardrails, and institutions to steer AI before we know enough about its actual impacts. He points to mixed current evidence: labor-market canaries, but also rising software job postings, low unemployment for younger workers, rising real median income, and claims that AI-adopting companies are adding workers faster than low-adopting peers. His worry is that the letter leans toward upstream governance and dirigisme when the evidence may call for capability building instead.The pull is his replacement statement. McAfee keeps the three-paragraph structure but changes the emphasis: AI is likely to become radically more powerful; like earlier world-changing technologies it will raise living standards while also bringing harms and shocks; and economists, policymakers, and technology leaders should build the capabilities to respond quickly and effectively. It is a concise version of the permissionless-innovation case inside the AI policy debate.Read more: The Geek WayOwn Your WeightsAuthor: Jamin Ball Published: July 10, 2026Jamin Ball argues that the enterprise AI debate about whether companies should “own their weights” or rent models from frontier labs is asking too narrow a question. A model weight file gives a company control over a point-in-time artifact, but not durable control over the capability stack. In his framing, the weight file is a melting ice cube: it does not get worse in absolute terms, but it falls behind as frontier systems improve and enterprise needs change.The killer detail is what Ball says companies really need to own: the data flywheel, reinforcement learning infrastructure, and evaluation harness that produce and improve the model. Simply deploying an open-weights model and declaring sovereignty leaves the enterprise with yesterday's capability and no way to compound workflow-specific learning.The pull is that enterprise AI control may be less about model ownership than operating ownership. The defensible layer is the system that turns company data, edge cases, business definitions, and evaluations into continuously improving performance.Read more: Clouded JudgementWays to Think About Token PricingAuthor: Benedict Evans Published: July 9, 2026Benedict Evans argues that today's AI token prices are a temporary signal from a supply-constrained market, not a reliable guide to long-term value capture. The open question is whether foundation models keep durable pricing power or become commodity infrastructure as data-center capacity, inference efficiency, and model competition all shift. His current read is that the visible market dynamics point toward commoditization unless something materially changes.The killer detail is the mobile data analogy. Evans says cellular networks became a trillion-dollar industry with hundreds of billions in capex after data usage exploded, but carrier stocks went nowhere because value moved up the stack. Tokens may behave similarly: an opaque unit tied to marginal cost, sold through bundles, essential to everything, yet not necessarily where profits accrue.The pull is uncertainty, not prediction. Evans lists paths to model dominance, including network effects, less competition, regulation, export controls, or a lab pulling ahead on execution, but says each requires a new fact not yet visible. Without that change, the model layer looks more like infrastructure beneath the products that capture value.Read more: SourceAlex Karp Is Saying What Every Angry CEO Is Thinking About AIAuthor: Tim Higgins Published: July 11, 2026Tim Higgins reports that Palantir CEO Alex Karp has turned corporate frustration with AI labs into a public argument about enterprise control. Palantir released a white paper, “Institutional Sovereignty in the Age of AI,” laying out steps companies and governments can take to protect themselves from OpenAI, Anthropic, and other foundation-model providers. The article links that paper to Karp's CNBC appearance, where he said “something has gone completely wrong” in the relationship between AI labs and customers and argued that enterprises are paying for tokens that create little value.The killer detail is the value-capture question. Higgins writes that Karp's critique has resonated because AI labs may gain power and insight from customer data, workflows, and decision-making, even when enterprise policies say customer data are not used for training. David Sacks amplified the concern by arguing that Anthropic is moving from the model layer into vertical applications such as science, security, legal, and coding, raising the fear that model providers will watch where value is being created and then move into those markets directly.The pull is that Karp is not alone, even if his style is unusually combative. Higgins notes that Satya Nadella has also warned that companies need to retain the learnings created when they use AI models, while Mark Zuckerberg has framed Meta's new model release partly around lower-cost frontier intelligence. The article presents Karp's campaign as one sign that established technology companies and large enterprises are trying to define where they fit when AI labs become central infrastructure, application competitors, and potential IPO giants at the same time.Read more: The Wall Street JournalThe AI Agents Are Coming for Microsoft OfficeAlex Wilhelm | Cautious Optimism | July 11, 2026Alex Wilhelm argues that one of the week's quieter AI questions is whether the productivity market that Microsoft successfully moved into subscription software is now being attacked by agentic tools. The piece begins with the infrastructure backdrop: SK Hynix raised $26.5 billion in a U.S. listing while building U.S. HBM and advanced-packaging capacity, and memory, chip, and foundry companies are now priced for sustained AI demand.Wilhelm then says the AI conversation has shifted quickly from raw capability to cost per task. He cites new model releases and vendor language emphasizing cheaper agentic and coding models, faster performance, and lower dollars per task. That matters because lower costs make it more plausible for AI systems to take on routine knowledge work at scale rather than remain a premium coding assistant market.The core of the article is Microsoft Office. Wilhelm notes that Microsoft turned Office from a one-time purchase into Microsoft 365, a large recurring revenue business with tens of millions of subscribers and a major productivity segment. Now, he says, late-stage unicorns and AI labs are pushing into the same territory: Anthropic's Cowork was reportedly used mostly outside software development, OpenAI merged ChatGPT and Codex into a tool for creating sheets, slides, docs, web apps, and long-running work, and other companies are building agentic coworkers that connect business data to documents, workflows, schedules, alerts, and apps.The article's caveat is that Microsoft has survived major platform shifts before. The argument is not that Office disappears quickly, but that the definition of office software is broadening from documents and spreadsheets into AI systems that can create, monitor, and act across workplace data.Read moreWhat Is Loop Engineering, and Who Owns It?Author: Nilesh Barla Published: July 11, 2026Nilesh Barla argues that “loop engineering” is becoming a distinct discipline because production AI agents now fail less at single prompts than at runtime: when to stop, what state to preserve, and how to recover after a bad step. Prompt engineering shapes one model call, and context engineering shapes what the model sees, but loop engineering shapes what a sequence of calls actually does.The killer detail is the three-primitives frame. Barla says a real agent loop needs halt conditions, state carryover, and recovery paths, then maps teams across five maturity levels. At the lowest level, an agent is just a model call in a for-loop with a step cap and raw history; by the higher levels, the system has structured state, explicit planning, replay, evaluation, and self-repair.The pull is organizational. If agents are becoming production systems rather than demos, someone has to own the runtime itself. The loop engineer is the role Barla gives to the person responsible for making long-running agent work dependable.Read more: Adaline LabsThe Fight Against AI Data Centers Is Just BeginningEmma Roth | The Verge | July 12, 2026Emma Roth argues that community resistance to data centers has moved from an early warning sign into a national political fight as AI facilities grow larger, more power-hungry, and more visible to nearby residents. The article starts with Apple's failed 2015 plan for a $1 billion data center in Athenry, Ireland, where a small group of residents challenged the project over noise, light pollution, flooding, traffic, and wildlife effects until Apple abandoned it in 2018.The current data-center buildout is presented as much larger and more contentious. Roth writes that residents now cite rising energy costs, water quality, noise, light pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions, while the U.S. Energy Information Administration expects commercial energy demand to surpass residential demand this year because of AI data centers and Goldman Sachs expects data-center power demand to double by 2027.The central evidence comes from Data Center Watch, which says protesters blocked or delayed at least 75 U.S. projects worth $130 billion from January to March, with active opposition groups more than doubling from 396 at the end of 2025 to 833 by the end of the first quarter of 2026. Roth also cites QTS abandoning a $12 billion Wisconsin campus, Delaware City regulators blocking a 580-acre project under the Coastal Zone Act, opposition stopping a QTS project in Prince William County, and pressure that pushed Kevin O'Leary to downsize the proposed 40,000-acre Project Stratos in Utah.The policy section describes a split between federal acceleration and local resistance. President Trump has treated data centers as part of the AI race with China and fast-tracked construction, while some Republican candidates are distancing themselves from that position ahead of midterms. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have proposed a moratorium until price and environmental protections exist, bipartisan lawmakers are backing ratepayer-protection measures, and states including Florida, Idaho, and Washington have passed rules on cost shifting, water use, and tax breaks. Roth's caveat is that the policy patchwork is still incomplete, leaving many communities to fight project by project.Read more6 months to live for open modelsAuthor: Nathan Lambert Published: July 12, 2026Nathan Lambert argues that open-weight AI models are facing their most serious policy test so far because U.S. officials are beginning to discuss concrete controls rather than abstract safety concerns. He says reported White House conversations about a new executive order may initially target Chinese-origin models and government use, but could create a broader review habit for frontier open models. His forecast is that a model above the capability range of GPT-5.5, Claude Opus 4.8, or GLM-5.2 could trigger a ban or indefinite delay within six months.The post separates two policy fights that are becoming intertwined: distillation and frontier capability. Lambert says the distillation campaign against Chinese models has become a form of regulatory capture because Anthropic and other closed-model companies would gain economically if Chinese open models were banned. He does not dismiss IP protection, but argues that if a closed model's capabilities are dangerous enough to justify restricting open models, the lab also has to explain why those capabilities are exposed through a queryable API. He cites unauthorized access to Anthropic's Mythos private beta as evidence that APIs are not automatically secure.The broader claim is that a unilateral U.S. ban would hurt positive actors more than bad actors if comparable open models remain available elsewhere. Lambert says the only durable ceiling would require global agreement, which does not exist, and that open models can improve safety by allowing broad inspection, adaptation, and understanding. His proposed near-term off-ramps are a strong U.S. open model release from companies such as Microsoft, Meta, or Reflection, and a broader coalition of open-source beneficiaries lobbying for safe rollout rather than prohibition.Read more: SourceAmericans Deserve a Dividend From AI Companies' RichesAuthor: Scott Stanford Published: July 14, 2026Scott Stanford argues that proposals to give the government a stake in AI companies miss the point unless ordinary citizens directly receive and control the upside. Sam Altman has discussed giving up equity in OpenAI, Washington already owns a stake in Intel, Nvidia is sharing China chip revenue, and Bernie Sanders wants large AI labs to contribute half their stock to a sovereign wealth fund. Stanford says those ideas all park value with the state, not with people.The killer detail is New Carlisle, Indiana, where AWS's Project Rainier is turning cornfields into one of the world's largest AI superclusters. The project is planned to run up to a million chips, draw more than two gigawatts of power, and represents an investment that has grown from $11 billion to $13.8 billion. Stanford uses that local transformation to argue that AI's public bargain should be visible at the household level.The pull is design. A citizen AI dividend would have to specify who earns a stake, how they hold it, and when they see cash. Without that mechanism, the AI wealth debate remains a fight over government balance sheets rather than public ownership.Read more: SourceWho Gets to Define the Frontier?Author: Mark Daley Published: July 14, 2026Mark Daley argues that Demis Hassabis is right to call for a serious institution to verify frontier AI systems, but that the power to test models is also the power to govern them. Hassabis's proposed Frontier AI Standards Body would get privileged pre-release access to advanced models, testing compute, held-out evaluations, support from national labs and security agencies, third-party auditors, and eventually authority to block models from the American market or coordinate a slowdown.The killer detail is Daley's constitutional objection. He says the proposal sometimes looks like a scientific lab, a standards body, an industry regulator, a licensing authority, and an emergency security council at once. Combining those roles because each requires technical expertise would be like putting the central bank, auditor-general, and Supreme Court in one building and calling it efficient.The pull is standard-setting. Daley's concern is not that verification is unnecessary, but that whoever writes the tests, decides what passes, adjudicates disputes, and grants market access may end up defining the frontier itself.Read more: SourceGPT-Red: Unlocking Self-Improvement for RobustnessOpenAI | OpenAI | July 15, 2026OpenAI describes GPT-Red as an internal automated red-teaming model trained to find prompt-injection vulnerabilities at a scale human red teams cannot match. The post says AI systems increasingly encounter third-party data through browsers, connected apps, local files, and tools, creating opportunities for malicious instructions hidden in emails, webpages, tool responses, or code repositories. Human red-teaming remains part of OpenAI's safety process, but the company says it is time-intensive and cannot generate enough diverse adversarial examples for model training.The system is trained through self-play reinforcement learning, with GPT-Red rewarded for eliciting valid failures and defender models rewarded for resisting attacks while still completing their tasks. OpenAI says the training environments specify threat models across settings such as local files, webpage banners, email bodies, and tool outputs. The model is kept separate from deployed production models because it is intentionally trained with malicious capabilities.OpenAI reports that GPT-Red generalized beyond its training set, including an internal replication of the indirect prompt-injection arena from Dziemian et al. (2025), where it found successful attacks in 84% of scenarios compared with 13% for human red-teamers. The post also says GPT-Red transferred attacks from simulation to a live autonomous vending-machine agent, causing price changes and order cancellations, and outperformed a prompted GPT-5.5 baseline against a Codex CLI agent on held-out data-exfiltration tasks.The article's main robustness claim is that OpenAI has used GPT-Red and predecessor models in training since GPT-5.3, with later GPT releases becoming more resistant to prompt injections. It says GPT-5.6 Sol has six times fewer failures on OpenAI's hardest direct prompt-injection benchmark than the best production model from four months earlier, that a “Fake Chain-of-Thought” attack class fell from more than 95% success against GPT-5.1 to below 10% against GPT-5.6 Sol, and that GPT-5.6 Sol fails on only 0.05% of GPT-Red's direct prompt injections. OpenAI says general capabilities and targeted over-refusal evaluations were not harmed, and says a preprint with more details will follow.Read moreAnthropic, Blackstone bet the next trillion-dollar AI business is implementation, not just modelsRebecca Bellan | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Rebecca Bellan reports that Ode with Anthropic is the $1.5 billion AI implementation company launched by Anthropic with Blackstone, Hellman & Friedman, Goldman Sachs, and other backers. The article says the venture reflects a growing belief among frontier AI labs that enterprise adoption requires more than better models: customers need engineers who can embed inside businesses and turn AI into working systems.Ode was originally conceived by Blackstone after it used both large consulting firms and smaller AI services boutiques across its portfolio companies. TechCrunch reports that Fractional AI, an AI engineering services startup, stood out and was acquired by the joint venture shortly after the venture was announced. Fractional now forms the foundation of Ode, which has 100 engineers and works closely with Anthropic's applied AI team to identify where the technology can affect specific businesses.Ode CEO Chris Taylor tells TechCrunch that the company could someday become a trillion-dollar business if it scales without losing quality. He says an ideal customer is one whose CEO treats the AI project as a top one or two priority, whether it is a major product feature or the reworking of a core business process. Ode will operate under a “Claude-first” principle, using Anthropic technology whenever possible, but the article says it can use rival AI products when needed.The article's central implementation argument comes from Ode chief technologist Eddie Siegel, who says model selection matters but is not where most of the engineering effort goes. He compares it to the choice of programming language in software: one ingredient in a system that still has to be engineered. Bellan writes that Ode's challenge is hiring and training enough elite generalist engineers, many of them former founders, while competing with OpenAI's The Deployment Company and consulting giants that have built their own forward-deployed engineering teams.Read moreVint Cerf is working on a plan to unleash AI agents on the open internetTim Fernholz | TechCrunch | July 15, 2026Tim Fernholz reports that Vint Cerf, after leaving Google, is advising Innovation Labs on an open architecture for identifying AI agents online. Innovation Labs is a subsidiary of Identity Digital, a DNS registry company, and its proposal is to use domain-name infrastructure as part of a system for agent identity, accountability, and auditability. The premise is that agents will need a way to identify themselves if they move beyond proprietary systems and begin interacting across the open internet.The concrete proposal is DNSid, a registry that links an AI agent to an existing internet domain and uses cryptographic proofs to log its registration over time. Innovation Labs says it is trialing the standard with unnamed hyperscalers and identity companies. Cerf frames the problem around authority and accountability: what authority an agent has, where that authority came from, who is accountable for the agent's behavior, how its identity is established, and why anyone should trust it.The article's caveat is that standards are still emerging and agents are more active than static domains. Cerf says the period may be both fascinating and exasperating because the functionality is powerful and interoperability is unresolved. He compares the adoption problem to TCP/IP: competing systems may not work together until users push for functional interoperation. He also says an agentic economy is not inevitable, but that people will try to build it because delegating work to agents will be easier.Read more: TechCrunchxai-org/grok-build, now open sourceAuthor: Simon Willison Published: July 15, 2026Simon Willison argues that xAI's decision to open-source Grok Build is best understood as a trust repair move after a severe privacy failure. The CLI had triggered backlash when users realized that running it in a directory could upload the entire directory to xAI's Google Cloud buckets, including one user's reported SSH keys, password manager database, documents, photos, and videos. xAI disabled the feature, said previously retained coding data would be deleted, and released the code under Apache 2.0.The killer detail is what the codebase reveals. Willison counts 844,530 lines of Rust, only about 3% of which appears vendored, and finds remnants of the upload system still present but disabled: gcs.rs contains Google Cloud upload code, while upload_session_state() now returns a hard-coded session_state_upload_unavailable error. He also notes copied or ported tool implementations from Codex and OpenCode, prompt files, and a terminal Mermaid renderer.The pull is that terminal coding agents are becoming large, intricate software systems in their own right. The privacy failure mattered because these tools operate inside the directories where developers keep their most sensitive work; the open-source release matters because trust now depends on inspecting what an agent can see, send, and do.Read more: SourceThe Pulse: What can we learn from Bun's rapid Rust rewrite with AI?Author: Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric Published: July 16, 2026Gergely Orosz and Ivan Klaric argue that Bun's AI-assisted rewrite from Zig to Rust is a practical sign of how software engineering changes when models can take on large, bounded migrations with clear feedback loops. The piece does not treat the rewrite as magic: Jarred Sumner first spent hours turning design judgment into a detailed porting guide, then used adversarial review, parallel agents, compiler errors, and tests to force the work toward correctness.The killer detail is the scale. Bun had 535,496 lines of Zig, 1,448 files, and 22 million monthly downloads, making a conventional rewrite a year-long freeze the team could not justify. Using Fable, Sumner split the work across 64 agents, produced about 6,500 commits, and got the migration done in 11 days at an estimated API cost of $165,000.The pull is economic, not theatrical. If a one- or two-year migration can become an 11-day project, AI coding is not just faster autocomplete; it changes which technical debts are worth paying down.Read more: SourceOrphan risks at the frontier of artificial intelligenceAuthor: Andrew Maynard Published: July 16, 2026Andrew Maynard argues that frontier AI safety frameworks are creating “orphan risks”: harms that companies can see, but do not formally own because they are hard to quantify, do not fit catastrophic-risk thresholds, or fall outside audit-friendly compliance machinery. His target is not existing frontier safety work, but the narrowing effect that happens when private companies decide which risks count as governable.The killer detail is Maynard's contrast between measurable model dangers and threats to value. He points to Meta's three-day Galactica collapse, OpenAI's 2023 board crisis, safety-team departures, and wellbeing litigation as examples of risks that damaged trust, culture, legitimacy, or users without fitting cleanly into conventional model-risk categories. The proposed fix is an orphan-risk register: a public record of risks a company considered and chose not to manage, with reasons.The pull is accountability. Frontier developers' internal scoping choices have become a de facto layer of public governance, so the question is no longer only which risks they manage, but which risks they quietly leave outside the frame.Read more: SourceThe Lab of the Future Should Feel Like a Data CenterLatent.Space with Andy Beam and Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli | Latent.Space | July 16, 2026Latent.Space interviews Lila Sciences CTO Andy Beam and chief science officer for physical sciences Rafa Gomez-Bombarelli about the company's attempt to build an AI-run science factory. The post describes Lila's thesis as treating the lab itself as an “infinite token generator”: if internet data drove the first era of AI scaling, experimentally verified scientific data may be the next scarce training source. Lila is trying to produce that data with robotics, lab instruments, orchestration software, and AI models wired into the wet lab.The central analogy is the lab as data center. Instruments are nodes on a graph, a magnetically levitating transport layer moves materials between them, and experiment scheduling looks like a compute queue. Beam says Lila is not simply an automation company, because the point is not just throughput; it is flexibility, generalization, and experiment capture. The post says Lila has built more than 10 trillion experimentally validated “scientific reasoning tokens,” not internet text or biological sequences.The interview ranges across biology, chemistry, drug discovery, materials science, and the limits of automation. It notes that Lila rebuilt one gas-sorption measurement to run roughly 2,500 times faster, claims its general models can transfer priors from small-molecule chemistry to metal-organic frameworks for carbon capture, and describes model-suggested platinum-group-free electrocatalysts that moved from looking boring or wrong to becoming strong performers. The caveats are physical: experiments have runtimes, biology cannot always be accelerated, chains of thought can be unreliable narrators, and reward hacking becomes more dangerous when a model controls a real lab.Read more: Latent.SpaceWhy AMI Labs' Alexandre LeBrun won't call his AI “AGI” or “superintelligence”Kate Park | TechCrunch | July 16, 2026Kate Park interviews AMI Labs CEO Alexandre LeBrun about why Yann LeCun's world-model startup avoids the language of “AGI” and “superintelligence.” LeBrun says the terms are not useful because they lack stable definitions: “We never used the word AGI. And I just noticed that nobody is using it anymore; they switched to superintelligence.” His argument is that the practical frontier is not a label, but whether AI systems can understand and predict real-world states.The article explains the world-model thesis by contrasting language prediction with physical-state prediction. A large language model predicts the next word; a world model predicts the next state, such as what happens when a glass tips over. LeBrun says LLMs remain complementary and efficient for language, but the physical world is where current AI is weak. Robotics is the clearest case: hardware has advanced quickly, but robots are still brittle outside controlled routines because they lack context and situational understanding.AMI is still pre-product, but TechCrunch reports that LeBrun was in Seoul looking for industrial partners, researchers, and global companies. He says world models cannot be built entirely inside a lab because they need access to real environments. That is why South Korea appeals to AMI: robotics, semiconductors, manufacturing, and fast adoption create the kind of hardware-heavy context that software-only AI has barely touched.Read more: TechCrunchKimi K3 Tech Blog: Open Frontier IntelligenceKimi | Kimi | July 16, 2026Kimi introduces Kimi K3 as an open 3T-class frontier model aimed at coding, knowledge work, reasoning, multimodality, and long-context agentic use. The source describes the model as a 2.8T-parameter system built on Kimi Delta Attention and Attention Residuals, with native multimodality and a 1M-token context window. It says Moonshot AI plans to release model weights by July 27.The post presents K3 through benchmark and use-case sections rather than as a general product announcement. It reports results across coding, productivity, agentic, and multimodal evaluations, including DeepSWE, Terminal-Bench 2.1, Program Bench, SWE Marathon, FrontierSWE, PostTrain Bench, OfficeQA Pro, SpreadsheetBench 2, MCP Atlas, AutomationBench, BrowseComp, GDPval-AA v2, AA-Briefcase, MMMU-Pro, MathVision, BabyVision, OmniDocBench, and PerceptionBench. The source says all reported K3 results use maximum reasoning effort with temperature and top-p set to 1.0, and that different benchmark comparisons use KimiCode, Claude Code, or Codex harnesses depending on the test.Kimi's caveats are unusually concrete. The limitations section says K3 was trained in preserved thinking-history mode, so quality may become unstable if an agent harness does not pass historical thinking content correctly or if an ongoing session switches to K3 midstream. It also says K3's emphasis on long-horizon tasks can make it excessively proactive when it encounters minor issues or ambiguous intent, and recommends imposing explicit behavioral constraints for applications that require strict boundaries. The post adds that K3 remains behind Claude Fable 5 and GPT 5.6 Sol in user experience despite being competitive overall.Read moreVenture CapitalThree Years InAuthor: Tomasz Tunguz Published: July 10, 2026Tomasz Tunguz marks Theory Ventures' third anniversary by arguing that AI's central market effect is time compression. In his telling, model release cycles, company revenue milestones, enterprise adoption, and venture categories have all accelerated. Seed, Series A, and Series B still exist as financing labels, but they no longer cleanly describe company maturity when some seed rounds are larger than IPOs and the best AI companies can mature much earlier than prior software companies.The killer detail is the shift from models to inference. Tunguz argues that inference has become the dominant AI market because workloads and buyer preferences are fragmenting: video, batch, local, agentic, and real-time tasks each create different infrastructure needs. He compares this to databases splitting into OLTP, OLAP, vector, and streaming categories, with AI pushing the same specialization into inference infrastructure.The pull is that Theory sees the AI-native venture firm as part of the same pattern. The firm says it has analyzed twice as many investment opportunities with three investors working alongside a nine-person intelligence organization, using agents and research systems to map markets, source companies, and support diligence. The piece is both a market map and a statement about how venture itself is being rebuilt by the technology it funds.Read more: LinkedInVenture Has Rarely Looked More BifurcatedAuthor: Beezer Clarkson Published: July 14, 2026Beezer Clarkson points to PitchBook's Q2 report as evidence that the U.S. venture market has split into two very different realities. AI now accounts for more than 60 percent of all U.S. venture deal value, meaning the headline market can look active and well-funded even while much of the non-AI market is dealing with a much colder liquidity and fundraising environment.The thread uses that split as the setup for Clarkson's latest Origins episode with Alec Litowitz, founder of Magnetar and QStar Capital and one of Citadel's original founding partners. Clarkson says markets like this are periods of genuine uncertainty, not merely ordinary risk, which is why Litowitz's Adaptability Quotient framework is relevant.The embedded clip makes the liquidity point concrete. Litowitz says DPI is “the resolution of uncertainty” because it converts an uncertain investment into actual cash returned to LPs. In his framing, a realized dollar is a real mark, while TVPI remains uncertain until it is realized.The killer detail is the distinction between pricing risk and resolving uncertainty. Litowitz's perspective matters because QStar is a SpaceX investor and Clarkson says the conversation happened just before one of venture's most consequential IPOs. The episode's stated questions are why venture remains a way to gain exposure to innovation, how AI is changing what is investable, why liquidity is ultimately a function of time, and why uncertainty requires a different decision framework from risk.Read more: XThe Best Angel Investors in the US: Who Backs the Most Unicorns, and Who's Active NowAuthor: Ilya Strebulaev Published: July 10, 2026Ilya Strebulaev ranks angels, angel groups, accelerators, and incubators by lifetime U.S. unicorn investments, counting checks written before a company reached unicorn status. The top of the combined list is dominated by organizations: Y Combinator leads with 113 unicorn investments, followed by Plug and Play at 52 and 500 Global at 41. Sand Hill Angels is the highest-ranked angel group at 31.The killer detail is how quickly the list changes below the biggest accelerators. Strebulaev says 271 of the 304 investors in the Top 200 are individuals, or 89%. In the top 100, individuals are 91%. That makes the market underneath the large accelerator counts look much more personal: mostly operators and individual angels writing early checks from their own networks.The pull is the ranking's own caveat. Strebulaev writes that every lifetime leaderboard has a blind spot because many of the unicorns behind those totals were founded a decade or more ago, and some angels have since moved into formal funds, slowed down, or stopped investing. His post therefore separates lifetime performance from recent cohorts, including companies founded in 2015 or later and 2020 or later. For founders or allocators making current decisions, that distinction matters: a career record and a current record are not the same measure.Read more: Ilya StrebulaevAre Prediction Markets Doomed to Fail?Author: Contrary Published: July 16, 2026Contrary argues that prediction markets' current boom depends on whether platforms can prove they are more than regulated gambling with exchange-style branding. Kalshi and Polymarket have reached mass cultural, investor, and regulatory attention, but the article says the underlying idea is old: academic markets, corporate forecasting tools, Intrade, PredictIt, and other predecessors all struggled with the same linked problems of liquidity, legality, and user appeal.The killer detail is the comparison with sportsbooks. Prediction markets present themselves as peer-to-peer, transparent, and non-house-based, but sports contracts reportedly account for more than 90 percent of Kalshi trading, and the article says the platforms keep a much thinner slice of volume than sportsbooks. A market can therefore show sports-betting-scale handle while generating far less revenue.The pull is that the product's hardest problem may be distribution of wins. If a small group of sharp traders captures most profits while casual users lose interest, prediction markets may become valuable data feeds and professional tools before they become durable consumer networks.Read more: SourceRegulationExclusive: The Next Frontier of the Deportation Wars: College CampusesAuthor: Adrian Carrasquillo Published: July 11, 2026Adrian Carrasquillo reports that college campuses are becoming a new front in the fight over immigration enforcement because automatic license plate readers can turn ordinary campus security infrastructure into searchable location data. His thesis is that Flock Safety's camera network, even without direct ICE or DHS contracts, can feed deportation enforcement through local police partnerships and data-sharing practices.The killer detail is the campaign target. The Emergency Campaign to Support Higher Education, working with Schools Drop ICE, is focusing on 75 colleges and universities publicly identified as having Flock contracts. Flock says it has no ICE or DHS contracts, but activists argue the risk comes through local agencies that coordinate with federal authorities and run searches on their behalf.The pull is broader than immigration. Carrasquillo notes that license plate readers have already been abused by officers for stalking, and that Flock's AI search features can identify more than plates, including bumper stickers. A campus safety tool can become a political surveillance system when the data layer is searchable.Read more: The BulwarkThe Supreme Court Broke Independent Agencies. Here's a Way to Slow the Damage.Author: Todd Phillips Published: July 12, 2026Todd Phillips argues that the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter damaged independent agencies by ending for-cause removal protections, but did not leave Congress powerless. The ruling weakens the old model in which commissioners at bodies such as the FTC, NLRB, CPSC, SEC, and CFTC could be insulated from dismissal over policy disagreements. Phillips says the next fight is whether presidents can turn nominally bipartisan commissions into one-party instruments.The killer detail is the procedural fix: quorum rules. Phillips proposes that Congress require bipartisan slates of commissioners to be seated before independent agencies can act. A president

François Ruffin est député et journaliste, auteur de plusieurs documentaires et candidat à notre prochaine élection présidentielle.Je me méfie de moi-même quant il s'agit de faire des interviews politiques car je ne crois pas du tout que si tu parles à une personne pendant 2h tu fini par savoir ce qu'elle a dans le ventre.Alors j'ai proposé à François une discussion à bâton rompu, sur des tonnes de sujets à débuter par l'écologie comme la plus grande insécurité qu'on refuse de nommer, du logement comme premier problème de pouvoir d'achat en France, de la mondialisation que les Français n'ont jamais vraiment choisie, de l'intelligence artificielle qui menace autant les cadres que les ouvriers, et de la manière dont le Rassemblement National a construit sa progression en trois étages.J'ai questionné François Ruffin sur ses propres angles morts, sur ce que "faire ensemble" veut dire pour lui, et sur ce qu'il changerait dans l'école, la police et la fiscalité s'il en avait le pouvoir.Je crois que comme il le dit lui même c'est une discussion qu'on en entend rarement avec un politique : sans petite phrase, sans recherche de buzz, avec une vraie tentative de dire ce qu'il pense dans ses tripes.Citations marquantes"L'économie et l'argent, ce sont des imaginaires. Il n'y a pas d'argent, il n'y a pas d'économie." (00:10:01)"Si la planète était une banque, ça fait longtemps qu'on l'aurait sauvée." (01:21:58)"On a des PDG à stock-options ou propriétaires multimilliardaires qui viennent se cacher derrière la vertu du petit entrepreneur." (00:45:41)"Je crois qu'on existe par les autres et qu'on se sauve par les autres." (01:04:00)"La démocratie, ce n'est pas du consensus. C'est du conflit, mais organisé, verbalisé, institutionnalisé." (01:41:54)Idées centrales L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité (00:07:06) Pour Ruffin, l'écologie n'est pas un sujet parmi d'autres mais l'insécurité la plus grave qu'on refuse de traiter comme telle, parce qu'on préfère l'éviter psychologiquement plutôt que de regarder en face une "chronique d'une mort annoncée".Le logement, angle mort du pouvoir d'achat (00:27:53) La part du logement dans le budget des ménages est passée de 10 % à 30 % en vingt ans, avec des loyers en hausse de 80 % pendant que les salaires réels progressaient de 20 %. Ruffin en fait un sujet aussi central que les retraites, et un facteur direct de la chute de la natalité.Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble (01:05:47) Ruffin distingue une société qui cohabite (statique, côte à côte) d'une société qui avance vers un horizon commun. Sans projet partagé, il pense qu'un peuple s'épuise dans les jalousies et les boucs émissaires, comme un couple sans projet commun.Un État colonisé de l'intérieur (00:49:07) Plutôt que de parler de lobbying, Ruffin décrit un État où les intérêts privés (pharmaceutiques en particulier) ont pénétré la décision publique de l'intérieur, citant les réunions du lobby des grands labos tenues dans les salons de l'Élysée.L'IA, un double choc pour les classes moyennes (01:28:10) Contrairement aux vagues précédentes, l'IA touche des métiers qualifiés qui se croyaient protégés par leur diplôme, en cumulant robotisation et délocalisation des postes de bureau, de comptabilité ou de design.Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages (01:49:45) Ruffin décrit le RN comme construit en couches successives : Jean-Marie Le Pen et le racisme affiché, Marine Le Pen et le discours social, Jordan Bardella et le ralliement aux milieux économiques, avec une tension naissante entre ces deux derniers étages.Questions posées dans l'interviewPourquoi l'écologie n'est-elle jamais présentée comme la insécurité qu'elle est réellement ?Comment un responsable politique peut-il agir au niveau national dans un monde mondialisé ?Le logement est-il devenu le vrai sujet du pouvoir d'achat en France ?Comment expliquer que les Français n'aient jamais vraiment choisi la mondialisation ?Faut-il taxer davantage les ultra-riches sans braquer les petits patrons ?Comment redonner une finalité claire à l'école et à la police ?L'intelligence artificielle peut-elle faire s'effondrer le capitalisme lui-même ?Pourquoi les partis politiques n'arrivent-ils plus à débattre entre eux, même à gauche ?Quels sont les angles morts de la gauche, et les vôtres ?Comment le Rassemblement National a-t-il construit sa progression électorale ?Références citéesLivres et écritsLe Progrès. Le Nôtre, François Ruffin (00:56:55)Ecotopia, Ernest Callenbach (01:24:03)Résonance, Hartmut Rosa (01:26:39)La Grande Transformation, Karl Polanyi (01:29:38)"The Antisocial Century", The Atlantic (01:04:19)Travaux de Ha-Joon Chang, économiste sud-coréen (00:20:10)Rapport d'Olivier Lluansi sur la réindustrialisation (00:47:12)Article de Grégory Pouy pour la Fondation Jean-Jaurès sur l'impact des podcasts en politique (00:04:21 et 01:45:19)Personnes citéesAmbroise Croizat (00:13:44)Jean Monnet (01:10:35)Franklin D. Roosevelt (01:09:07)Christophe Castaner (00:22:58)Gérald Darmanin (00:42:52)Bernie Sanders (01:12:27)Kamala Harris (01:12:23)Michel Maffesoli (00:36:42 et 01:15:04)Sarah Saldmann (01:46:12)Annie Ernaux (01:47:42)Antoine Foucher (00:22:12)Yann LeCun et Fidji Simo (01:35:43)Jean Pisani-Ferry (01:23:09)Keynes (01:21:36)Institutions et conceptsSAFER (00:30:26)RIC, référendum d'initiative citoyenne (00:37:24)CROUS (00:31:34)Medef, CGPME, U2P (00:45:20)Classement Challenges des grandes fortunes (00:40:44)Livret A et taux de centralisation (00:56:53)Timestamps clés00:04 : Pourquoi cette conversation avec un politique sort de l'ordinaire06:13 : Générique, entrée en matière sur la canicule07:06 : L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité10:01 : L'économie et l'argent, de purs imaginaires12:27 : D'où vient l'engagement politique de Ruffin13:44 : Ambroise Croizat et la naissance de la Sécurité sociale17:14 : Comment agir au niveau national contre les multinationales20:10 : Le modèle sud-coréen : importer moins plutôt qu'exporter plus22:58 : La mondialisation, un choix des dirigeants, pas des Français25:48 : Protéger certains produits sans fermer le pays27:53 : Le logement, premier poste du pouvoir d'achat33:21 : Les années 80 et la grande déréglementation37:24 : Le RIC et les états généraux comme réponse démocratique40:38 : Sortir des boucs émissaires et de la jalousie sociale45:22 : Distinguer les petits patrons des multinationales49:07 : Un État colonisé de l'intérieur par les intérêts privés53:00 : Où trouve-t-on l'argent pour l'armée58:38 : Remettre la cuisine, le jardinage et la réparation à l'école1:01:02 : La théorie de la société sans friction1:05:47 : Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble1:09:07 : L'horizon commun : une économie de guerre climatique1:12:23 : Les angles morts de Kamala Harris et de la gauche1:15:18 : Insécurité, immigration, violence : ce qu'en pense Ruffin1:21:36 : Sortir de la compétitivité comme seul horizon1:26:48 : L'IA peut-elle faire tomber le capitalisme1:28:10 : Le double choc de l'IA : robotisation et délocalisation1:35:43 : Pourquoi l'Europe n'a ni réseau social ni IA souveraine1:41:54 : La démocratie comme conflit organisé, pas comme consensus1:44:06 : Le rôle des journalistes politiques dans la course au buzz1:46:12 : Ce que l'expérience de terrain change vraiment1:49:45 : Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages1:53:53 : Pourquoi la radicalité se mesure au programme, pas au ton1:56:50 : Ouvrir et fermer la porte, la conclusion de François RuffinHébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

François Ruffin est député et journaliste, auteur de plusieurs documentaires et candidat à notre prochaine élection présidentielle.Je me méfie de moi-même quant il s'agit de faire des interviews politiques car je ne crois pas du tout que si tu parles à une personne pendant 2h tu fini par savoir ce qu'elle a dans le ventre.Alors j'ai proposé à François une discussion à bâton rompu, sur des tonnes de sujets à débuter par l'écologie comme la plus grande insécurité qu'on refuse de nommer, du logement comme premier problème de pouvoir d'achat en France, de la mondialisation que les Français n'ont jamais vraiment choisie, de l'intelligence artificielle qui menace autant les cadres que les ouvriers, et de la manière dont le Rassemblement National a construit sa progression en trois étages.J'ai questionné François Ruffin sur ses propres angles morts, sur ce que "faire ensemble" veut dire pour lui, et sur ce qu'il changerait dans l'école, la police et la fiscalité s'il en avait le pouvoir.Je crois que comme il le dit lui même c'est une discussion qu'on en entend rarement avec un politique : sans petite phrase, sans recherche de buzz, avec une vraie tentative de dire ce qu'il pense dans ses tripes.Citations marquantes"L'économie et l'argent, ce sont des imaginaires. Il n'y a pas d'argent, il n'y a pas d'économie." (00:10:01)"Si la planète était une banque, ça fait longtemps qu'on l'aurait sauvée." (01:21:58)"On a des PDG à stock-options ou propriétaires multimilliardaires qui viennent se cacher derrière la vertu du petit entrepreneur." (00:45:41)"Je crois qu'on existe par les autres et qu'on se sauve par les autres." (01:04:00)"La démocratie, ce n'est pas du consensus. C'est du conflit, mais organisé, verbalisé, institutionnalisé." (01:41:54)Idées centrales L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité (00:07:06) Pour Ruffin, l'écologie n'est pas un sujet parmi d'autres mais l'insécurité la plus grave qu'on refuse de traiter comme telle, parce qu'on préfère l'éviter psychologiquement plutôt que de regarder en face une "chronique d'une mort annoncée".Le logement, angle mort du pouvoir d'achat (00:27:53) La part du logement dans le budget des ménages est passée de 10 % à 30 % en vingt ans, avec des loyers en hausse de 80 % pendant que les salaires réels progressaient de 20 %. Ruffin en fait un sujet aussi central que les retraites, et un facteur direct de la chute de la natalité.Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble (01:05:47) Ruffin distingue une société qui cohabite (statique, côte à côte) d'une société qui avance vers un horizon commun. Sans projet partagé, il pense qu'un peuple s'épuise dans les jalousies et les boucs émissaires, comme un couple sans projet commun.Un État colonisé de l'intérieur (00:49:07) Plutôt que de parler de lobbying, Ruffin décrit un État où les intérêts privés (pharmaceutiques en particulier) ont pénétré la décision publique de l'intérieur, citant les réunions du lobby des grands labos tenues dans les salons de l'Élysée.L'IA, un double choc pour les classes moyennes (01:28:10) Contrairement aux vagues précédentes, l'IA touche des métiers qualifiés qui se croyaient protégés par leur diplôme, en cumulant robotisation et délocalisation des postes de bureau, de comptabilité ou de design.Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages (01:49:45) Ruffin décrit le RN comme construit en couches successives : Jean-Marie Le Pen et le racisme affiché, Marine Le Pen et le discours social, Jordan Bardella et le ralliement aux milieux économiques, avec une tension naissante entre ces deux derniers étages.Questions posées dans l'interviewPourquoi l'écologie n'est-elle jamais présentée comme la insécurité qu'elle est réellement ?Comment un responsable politique peut-il agir au niveau national dans un monde mondialisé ?Le logement est-il devenu le vrai sujet du pouvoir d'achat en France ?Comment expliquer que les Français n'aient jamais vraiment choisi la mondialisation ?Faut-il taxer davantage les ultra-riches sans braquer les petits patrons ?Comment redonner une finalité claire à l'école et à la police ?L'intelligence artificielle peut-elle faire s'effondrer le capitalisme lui-même ?Pourquoi les partis politiques n'arrivent-ils plus à débattre entre eux, même à gauche ?Quels sont les angles morts de la gauche, et les vôtres ?Comment le Rassemblement National a-t-il construit sa progression électorale ?Références citéesLivres et écritsLe Progrès. Le Nôtre, François Ruffin (00:56:55)Ecotopia, Ernest Callenbach (01:24:03)Résonance, Hartmut Rosa (01:26:39)La Grande Transformation, Karl Polanyi (01:29:38)"The Antisocial Century", The Atlantic (01:04:19)Travaux de Ha-Joon Chang, économiste sud-coréen (00:20:10)Rapport d'Olivier Lluansi sur la réindustrialisation (00:47:12)Article de Grégory Pouy pour la Fondation Jean-Jaurès sur l'impact des podcasts en politique (00:04:21 et 01:45:19)Personnes citéesAmbroise Croizat (00:13:44)Jean Monnet (01:10:35)Franklin D. Roosevelt (01:09:07)Christophe Castaner (00:22:58)Gérald Darmanin (00:42:52)Bernie Sanders (01:12:27)Kamala Harris (01:12:23)Michel Maffesoli (00:36:42 et 01:15:04)Sarah Saldmann (01:46:12)Annie Ernaux (01:47:42)Antoine Foucher (00:22:12)Yann LeCun et Fidji Simo (01:35:43)Jean Pisani-Ferry (01:23:09)Keynes (01:21:36)Institutions et conceptsSAFER (00:30:26)RIC, référendum d'initiative citoyenne (00:37:24)CROUS (00:31:34)Medef, CGPME, U2P (00:45:20)Classement Challenges des grandes fortunes (00:40:44)Livret A et taux de centralisation (00:56:53)Timestamps clés00:04 : Pourquoi cette conversation avec un politique sort de l'ordinaire06:13 : Générique, entrée en matière sur la canicule07:06 : L'écologie comme la plus grosse insécurité10:01 : L'économie et l'argent, de purs imaginaires12:27 : D'où vient l'engagement politique de Ruffin13:44 : Ambroise Croizat et la naissance de la Sécurité sociale17:14 : Comment agir au niveau national contre les multinationales20:10 : Le modèle sud-coréen : importer moins plutôt qu'exporter plus22:58 : La mondialisation, un choix des dirigeants, pas des Français25:48 : Protéger certains produits sans fermer le pays27:53 : Le logement, premier poste du pouvoir d'achat33:21 : Les années 80 et la grande déréglementation37:24 : Le RIC et les états généraux comme réponse démocratique40:38 : Sortir des boucs émissaires et de la jalousie sociale45:22 : Distinguer les petits patrons des multinationales49:07 : Un État colonisé de l'intérieur par les intérêts privés53:00 : Où trouve-t-on l'argent pour l'armée58:38 : Remettre la cuisine, le jardinage et la réparation à l'école1:01:02 : La théorie de la société sans friction1:05:47 : Faire ensemble plutôt que vivre ensemble1:09:07 : L'horizon commun : une économie de guerre climatique1:12:23 : Les angles morts de Kamala Harris et de la gauche1:15:18 : Insécurité, immigration, violence : ce qu'en pense Ruffin1:21:36 : Sortir de la compétitivité comme seul horizon1:26:48 : L'IA peut-elle faire tomber le capitalisme1:28:10 : Le double choc de l'IA : robotisation et délocalisation1:35:43 : Pourquoi l'Europe n'a ni réseau social ni IA souveraine1:41:54 : La démocratie comme conflit organisé, pas comme consensus1:44:06 : Le rôle des journalistes politiques dans la course au buzz1:46:12 : Ce que l'expérience de terrain change vraiment1:49:45 : Le Rassemblement National, une fusée à trois étages1:53:53 : Pourquoi la radicalité se mesure au programme, pas au ton1:56:50 : Ouvrir et fermer la porte, la conclusion de François Ruffin Suggestion d'autres épisodes à écouter : #401 Les politiques sont-ils deconnectés du réél? Avec Boris Vallaud (Partie 1) (https://audmns.com/ZOPVNPw) #376 Quelles stratégies pour reconstruire une France autonome et résiliente? Avec Arnaud Montebourg - Partie 1 (https://audmns.com/UxFQjUM) [Solo] La vraie violence est celle dont on ne parle pas (https://audmns.com/COyPqqx)Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

The Economic Consequences of the Peace, published in 1919 by John Maynard Keynes, critiques the harsh terms imposed on Germany by the Versailles Treaty following World War I. Keynes, who attended the Versailles Conference as a British Treasury delegate, argued for a more lenient approach, highlighting the potential for long-term instability and resentment stemming from punitive measures. His insights helped shape global opinion against the treaty and influenced public sentiment in Britain towards appeasement. The book remains relevant today as it underscores the enduring consequences of economic decisions on international relations and public opinion, illustrating how perceptions of fairness can significantly impact societal stability.

Cada robot industrial instalado en Estados Unidos destruye 5,6 empleos. La cifra procede de un estudio del MIT y la Universidad de Boston, y lleva años alimentando el debate sobre el futuro del trabajo. Pero hay otro dato que casi nadie pone al lado: cuando la banca estadounidense desplegó los cajeros automáticos, el empleo bancario no se hundió. Se duplicó. Ese contraste es el corazón de este episodio. Por un lado, la evidencia de que la automatización sustituye tareas de forma medible y acelerada. Por otro, la historia documentada de una tecnología diseñada para eliminar cajeros que acabó multiplicando las oficinas y transformando el puesto en lugar de borrarlo. Entre ambos extremos se mueve el relato dominante, ese que promete que las habilidades blandas serán el refugio universal con apenas un 9,8% de riesgo de automatización. Un relato que conviene revisar, porque la automatización no compra profesiones enteras: compra tareas, y quien controla la recomposición de esas tareas se queda con el valor. David Ricardo ya advirtió en 1821 que la máquina podía perjudicar a la clase trabajadora sin dejar de enriquecer al país. Keynes puso nombre al paro tecnológico un siglo después. Y Acemoglu sostiene hoy que la dirección de la tecnología no es un destino, es una decisión. De gobiernos, de instituciones, de empresas y de cada trabajador que elige entre mirar el proceso desde la grada o intervenir en él. La pregunta que queda abierta no es si la automatización llegará a tu empleo. Es quién estará decidiendo por ti cuando llegue. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

La pobreza extrema mundial pasó del 36% en 1990 al 10% en 2015, según el Banco Mundial. Ese dato se atribuye a la globalización. Pero cuando el FMI condiciona un rescate a recortar pensiones, o cuando la Unión Europea emite directivas que ningún parlamento nacional ratifica, eso ya no es globalización. Es otra cosa. Y esa otra cosa tiene nombre propio. Dos palabras que comparten raíz, que aparecen en los mismos titulares y que describen fenómenos radicalmente distintos. Una es un proceso histórico que arranca en las rutas comerciales medievales y que en 1913 ya había llevado el comercio internacional a niveles comparables a los de finales del siglo XX. La otra es un proyecto político: la construcción de estructuras de gobernanza supranacionales con autoridad real sobre los estados, que nadie ha votado y que no rinden cuentas a ningún electorado. En este episodio rastreamos el momento exacto en que ambos caminos se separaron: julio de 1944, Bretton Woods, 730 delegados de 44 países y un pulso entre Keynes y White cuyas consecuencias seguimos pagando. Analizamos el trilema de Dani Rodrik, según el cual no puedes tener a la vez hiperglobalización, soberanía nacional y democracia. Y desmontamos la mecánica por la que confundir ambos términos blinda de toda crítica a los organismos con más poder del planeta. El mundo está conectado y lo seguirá estando. La pregunta incómoda es otra: cuando una decisión tomada en Washington, Bruselas o Davos afecta a tu pensión, tu empleo o tus datos, ¿a quién puedes votar para cambiarla? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Mark Thornton opens this episode of Minor Issues by tracing how politics shifted from the classical ideal of justice and community order into a Machiavellian struggle for power, privilege, and control. He argues that modern politics is dominated by entrenched elites, special interests, propaganda networks, and a two-party system designed to keep ordinary voters alienated and powerless.On Side B, Mark joins Adrian Day and Rich Checkan for a wide-ranging discussion of inflation, debt, financial repression, gold, commodities, artificial intelligence, the Austrian business cycle, and the rise of socialist sentiment among younger Americans. Mark explains why learning Austrian economics is essential for understanding markets, government failure, and the crises ahead.2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/issuesfree20% off listener offer on the insulated Minor Issues tumbler and three of Mark's books: https://mises.org/MinorIssuesTumbler. Use coupon code Thornton.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

The Fed Chair's job isn't to stabilize the economy. It's to use prestige, technical jargon, and mind-numbing dullness to cover for the central bank's expropriation of the American people. And Alan Greenspan excelled at that.Read the article here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/greenspan-was-perfect-fed-chair-not-compliment2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/gabfreebookBe sure to follow the Guns and Butter podcast at https://Mises.org/GB

Javier Milei, en el acto por el Día de la Bandera en Rosario, reivindicó la figura de Manuel Belgrano como precursor del liberalismo económico. "Por mandato familiar fue abogado, pero sus pasiones fueron la economía y la difusión de ideas absolutamente novedosas para la época, como las de Adam Smith", afirmó. Y agregó: "Comprendió que la riqueza no provenía de los privilegios otorgados por el poder, sino del trabajo, la producción, el intercambio y la iniciativa de las personas. Por eso puede ser considerado el primer intelectual liberal económico argentino." Victoria Villarruel, tras el acto en Rosario, fue contundente al referirse a las muestras de apoyo a Manuel Adorni durante la ceremonia. "Es un acto patrio, no era un acto para apoyar a Adorni", señaló, y remarcó: "No hay nadie más peleado con los valores de Belgrano que Adorni". Y concluyó: "Lo de Adorni está totalmente de más".Axel Kicillof participó de la jura a la bandera en San Jorge y defendió la soberanía nacional y la educación pública. "Sabemos que hay un ataque muy fuerte contra la educación pública. Hay una disputa, hay una discusión sobre la soberanía nacional", afirmó. Y agregó: "Venimos a decirle a quien esté confundido o no lo sepa, que esa bandera es la nuestra, que es nuestra soberanía. Y que le hemos prometido lealtad solo y exclusivamente a esa, a la celeste y blanca".En una entrevista de archivo de julio de 2018 en A24 con Luis Novaresio, Milei cuestionó duramente a varios economistas liberales, entre ellos Adrián Ravier. "Yo no es que más o menos estudié Keynes, yo estudié Keynes en serio, no como los chantas de Carlos Rodríguez y los Cachanosky o los Ravier que hablan de Keynes y no lo leyeron", disparó. Y agregó: "Todas las citas que hacen además son citas de liberales sobre Keynes porque no lo leyeron".Adrián Ravier, en un archivo del 6 de mayo en LN+ con Paulino Rodrigues, habló de su vínculo con Milei y su llegada al gobierno. "Tengo una amistad con Javier Milei que viene de antes que sea un economista famoso y mucho antes de que tenga una inmersión en la política", afirmó. Y explicó: "Soy un economista liberal de toda la vida, hace treinta años que estudio ideas liberales. Quise dar una mano en La Pampa, un poco con la propia presión de los que han sido alumnos míos en universidades y me pedían que me metiera y un poco por esta invitación del presidente también". Abelardo De la Espriella celebró su resultado en las elecciones colombianas con un discurso cargado de emotividad. "Ha triunfado la dignidad nacional, ha triunfado la república y ha triunfado la esperanza", proclamó. Y agregó: "La de hoy es una noche maravillosa en la que brilló la democracia y Colombia demostró una vez más su grandeza. Esta es la noche que marca el inicio de una nueva historia para la nación. La noche en la que empieza una nueva era. Un cambio de orden. ¡La patria! ¡Milagro!".Donald Trump, en The Axios Show, afirmó que es necesario mantener "cuerdo" a Benjamín Netanyahu y que Israel habría sido aniquilado sin su intervención. "Si no fuera por Donald Trump, Israel habría sido aniquilado", sostuvo. Y cuando el periodista le preguntó por su relación con Netanyahu, respondió: "Es buena, pero tenemos que mantenerlo un poco, eh, cuerdo". Ante la consulta sobre si podría evitar un ataque israelí al Líbano, fue categórico: "Sí, lo haré. Me tienen mucho respeto y hacen lo que les digo".Netanyahu salió al cruce de las versiones que circulan sobre su relación con Trump y defendió la autonomía de ambos líderes. "En Estados Unidos dicen que el presidente Trump hace todo lo que le pido. Y en Israel dicen que yo hago todo lo que él quiere. Pues bien, ninguna de las dos afirmaciones es cierta", afirmó.

Mark Thornton examines Kevin Warsh's first Fed meeting and argues that despite the tough rhetoric, nothing fundamental has changed. The Federal Reserve still exists to keep government borrowing cheap, protect banks and Wall Street, and manage appearances while real inflation erodes household purchasing power.Mark explains why real interest rates are already low or negative, how Fed liquidity continues to fuel asset bubbles, and why AI, data centers, government debt, and stock-market leverage all point to late-stage business-cycle danger. On Side B, Thornton joins Murray Sabrin to discuss the economy, the Skyscraper Curse, gold, commodities, and the practical habits that help people navigate a rigged monetary system.2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/issuesfreeRegister for our upcoming Mises Circle, Why Is the Healthcare System Broken?, June 27 in Windham, New Hampshire: https://mises.org/events/why-healthcare-system-broken-mises-circle-new-hampshire20% off listener offer on the insulated Minor Issues tumbler and three of Mark's books: https://mises.org/MinorIssuesTumbler. Use coupon code Thornton.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

En este episodio de Mundo Futuro exploramos tres cambios profundos que están rediseñando nuestra relación con el cuerpo, el trabajo y la inteligencia artificial. Primero hablamos de la revolución silenciosa de los péptidos: una nueva frontera de la biotecnología que va mucho más allá del boom de Ozempic y GLP-1. Medicina personalizada, metabolismo, envejecimiento, sueño, pelo, piel y rendimiento físico empiezan a entrar en una lógica casi modular, como si el cuerpo pudiera optimizarse pieza por pieza. Después entramos a una pregunta incómoda: si la inteligencia artificial prometía liberarnos tiempo, ¿por qué parece que estamos trabajando más? A partir de la vieja predicción de Keynes sobre una semana laboral de 15 horas, hablamos de productividad, ocio escondido, jornadas extendidas y la paradoja de una tecnología que puede hacernos más eficientes sin necesariamente hacernos más libres. También analizamos el costo real de la inteligencia artificial dentro de las empresas: tokens, agentes, presupuestos fuera de control y la nueva presión para medir si la IA realmente está generando ahorro o simplemente trasladando el gasto a una nueva factura de cómputo. Mundo Futuro: no predecimos el futuro, solo lo exploramos. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Elon Musk becoming the world's first trillionaire has triggered a familiar round of progressive outrage. But the imprecise focus on wealth distribution obscures the real issue: how much of modern wealth is acquired through politics rather than production.Read the article here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/musk-trillionaire-panic-distraction2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/gabfreebookBe sure to follow the Guns and Butter podcast at https://Mises.org/GB

“Between 1980 and 2019, the billionaires gained $25 trillion. By today it's probably $35 trillion. The question is who will pay for reform? You go where the money is.” — Mordecai Kurz Keynes observed that in the long run, we are all dead. The nonagenarian Stanford economist Mordecai Kurz agrees. Which is why he has no patience for the tech utopians' promise of abundance for all of us in the long run. And his new book, Private Power and Democracy's Decline: How to Make Capitalism Support Democracy, is amongst the most urgent cases yet made for a fundamental reform of American capitalism. Kurz compares our billionaire-infested times with the Gilded Age of the late 19th century, which eventually ended with sharp progressive reform. We are now in a second Gilded Age, he argues. Between 1980 and 2019, the top billionaires gained $25 trillion. By today, he estimates it's $35 trillion. Meanwhile, workers without college education gained essentially nothing in income between 1980 and 2010. The result is both Trumpism and the world's first trillionaire. Kurz lays out a three-fronted reform strategy. First, reduce market power through patent and antitrust reform. Second, redistribute the gains from technology through a 65% top marginal income tax rate and a 45% corporate rate. Third, guarantee the livelihood of every worker displaced by policy-supported technological change with retraining, full wage support, tuition, healthcare, and even relocation. Wouldn't the billionaires simply leave? The spirited Kurz, who has taught economics at Stanford for sixty years, isn't worried. “Others will come instead of them,” he says. And in response to Sam Altman's argument that AI will free humanity from labour, Mordecai Kurz retorts with Keynes's remark about death in the long run. And this particular long run, he says, could be many millennia. Five Takeaways •       The Second Gilded Age: Same Dynamic, Different Technology: Kurz's central historical argument: the first Gilded Age — 1864 to 1914 — produced extreme inequality, rising economic monopolists who became centres of political power, and democratic decline. It ended with progressive reform. The second Gilded Age, beginning in 1980, follows the same logic: technology used as a weapon of market power, market power converting into political power, political power undermining democratic institutions. The difference is scale and speed. Between 1980 and 2019, the top billionaires accumulated $25 trillion. By 2026, Kurz estimates $35 trillion. The reform that ended the first Gilded Age took fifty years. He is not sure we have that long. •       The Three-Pronged Reform: Market Power, Distribution, Livelihoods: Kurz's proposed reform has three components. First: reduce market power through patent reform, antitrust reform, and reform of acquisition law — the legal structures that allow technology firms to entrench monopoly positions. Second: redistribute the gains from technology through a 65% top marginal income tax rate, a compulsory minimum 15% tax on incomes above $400,000, and a 45% corporate tax rate. Third: guarantee the livelihood of every worker displaced by policy-supported technological change — retraining, full wage support, tuition for children, healthcare, and relocation assistance. •       The 1980 Mistake: Where It All Went Wrong: Kurz is precise about the origin of the problem: 1980. The turn to unregulated free-market capitalism under Reagan, combined with the information technology revolution, created what he calls a techno-winner-takes-all economy. Workers without college education gained essentially nothing in income between 1980 and 2010. Millions lost their jobs to automation and import competition and received no government support. Kurz's diagnosis of Trumpism: it fed on the despair of those abandoned workers. This is not a cultural or demographic explanation. It is a structural economic one. •       Would the Billionaires Leave? Let Them: Andrew raises the obvious objection: if you tax them at 65%, won't the Elon Musks and Larry Pages and Sam Altmans simply leave? Kurz's response is blunt: he doesn't think they would, because the system called America — its universities, infrastructure, market, human capital, and institutional environment — is what made their billions possible. Their billions are not the product of their individual genius alone. But if they do leave, he says, others will come instead. He adds that he would prefer coordinated taxation across all Western advanced economies, not the US alone. •       In the Long Run, We Are All Dead: The Keynesian Punchline on Tech Utopianism: Andrew asks about Elon Musk's claim that money will eventually disappear and technology will free humanity from labour — the Keynesian/Marxist long-run abundance argument. Kurz paraphrases Keynes' most famous line: “In the long run, we are all dead.” And then he adds: the long run could be a very long time. He is ninety years old, has taught at Stanford since 1961, and from his office window he can see the $1 billion mansions in the hills above Palo Alto and the workers below who cannot afford to live there. He is, he says, not prepared to wait for Musk's utopia. About the Guest Mordecai Kurz is the Joan Kenney Professor of Economics Emeritus at Stanford University, where he has taught since 1961. He is the author of Private Power and Democracy's Decline: How to Make Capitalism Support Democracy (MIT Press, May 19, 2026) and The Market Power of Technology: Understanding the Second Gilded Age (Columbia University Press, 2023). He was born in Tel Aviv and received his doctorate from MIT. References: •       Private Power and Democracy's Decline: How to Make Capitalism Support Democracy by Mordecai Kurz (MIT Press, May 19, 2026). •       The Market Power of Technology: Understanding the Second Gilded Age by Mordecai Kurz (Columbia University Press, 2023) — the preceding volume, referenced throughout. •       Thomas Piketty — blurbed the book: “A great book, a must-read.” Also referenced in the conversation. •       Dani Rodrik and Gabriel Zucman — referenced as fellow economists in Kurz's camp. •       Marc Andreessen — referenced for his counter-argument that high taxation destroys innovation. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 3,000 episodes s...

Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns and Aaron Hurst of the Chamber of Connection meet for a conversation about how communities are built, why trust is breaking down, and what cities can do to rebuild social connection.They explore small-town roots, life transitions, relocation, purpose, urban planning, pluralism, and why connection may be the central challenge facing modern America.Matt Zeigler introduces two people who have spent their careers thinking about place, purpose, and belonging from very different starting points.Chuck comes from deep roots in Brainerd, Minnesota and the Strong Towns movement, while Aaron brings the perspective of a lifelong mover, social entrepreneur, and founder focused on rebuilding connection in cities.Topics covered:Why small-town life creates deep community ties and unavoidable social consequencesHow moving frequently can create relationship cliffs and force people to rebuild connectionWhy travel, relocation, and life transitions can change identity and worldviewChuck Marohn's life-changing experience getting lost in Southern ItalyAaron Hurst's path from Silicon Valley startups to social entrepreneurshipHow Strong Towns grew from a blog about broken development patterns into a national movementWhy the decline of trust and connection may be America's biggest social problemHow the Chamber of Connection is designing cities around social connection and life transitionsWhy diversity can strengthen society while also creating real trust challengesHow onboarding, neuroscience, and cognitive science can help people become open to changeWhy group decision-making often breaks down even when individuals agreeHow bottom-up connection can become a force multiplier for communitiesTimestamps:00:00 Why Aaron Hurst and Chuck Marohn needed to meet02:47 The Just Press Record format and guest introductions05:01 Aaron Hurst's unusual childhood, movement, and early ideas about belonging06:05 Chuck Marohn's deep roots in Brainerd, Minnesota09:24 The tradeoff between rootedness, travel, and family drama14:02 Aaron's 12 moves and the relationship cliffs of relocation16:00 Chuck's first major trip outside Brainerd and joining the National Guard20:03 What traveling near war taught Aaron about media and reality22:30 Chuck's failed Italy exchange and the trip that changed his life24:00 Having a midlife crisis at 24 and changing careers27:32 Aaron's move from Chicago nonprofits to Silicon Valley startups32:21 The origin story of Strong Towns34:00 Why the development pattern was making cities broke36:46 Aaron Hurst's path from Taproot Foundation to the Purpose Economy38:00 Why declining connection and trust may be America's core issue39:00 The idea behind the Chamber of Connection40:32 Why life transitions are the key moments for rebuilding social connection42:00 Building connection councils in cities across the country43:04 Religion, shared belief, and the foundations of trust45:16 Why diversity creates both strength and trust problems46:12 How to build trust between people who would not normally talk48:11 Why life transitions can create connection across difference48:49 How transition rewires the brain and opens people to change50:12 Why onboarding is a magic moment in companies and cities52:37 Keynes' beauty contest and the group decision-making problem54:47 The transtheoretical model of change and helping people act55:44 Aaron invites Chuck to the Connected Cities Summit56:56 Why Matt thought Chuck and Aaron should meet58:05 Connection as a force multiplier58:17 Where to find Aaron Hurst and the Chamber of Connection58:30 Where to find Chuck Marohn and Strong Towns

On this episode of Minor Issues, Mark Thornton opens with a review of John Mearsheimer's Why Do Politicians Lie?, focusing on strategic deception in international affairs, especially in the Middle East, Israel, Vietnam, Iraq, and America's own constitutional history. Mark argues that political lies are not merely moral failures; they are tools for empire, war, and state expansion.On Side B, Thornton joins What The Finance to explain how runaway spending, Fed liquidity, and Austrian business cycle theory reveal the deeper mechanics behind today's markets. He discusses the AI and data-center bubble, the Fed's role in sustaining malinvestment, the pressure on working families, and why gold, silver, and commodities are benefiting from a long era of monetary inflation and political dysfunction.2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/issuesfreeRegister for our upcoming Mises Circle, Why Is the Healthcare System Broken?, June 27 in Windham, New Hampshire: https://mises.org/events/why-healthcare-system-broken-mises-circle-new-hampshire20% off listener offer on the insulated Minor Issues tumbler and three of Mark's books: https://mises.org/MinorIssuesTumbler. Use coupon code Thornton.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

Hayek's Warning We Ignored: Government Planning Doesn't Fix Economies Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/WxW7JRc414Y?si=KYnuRHH_Fst8VMHU John Stossel  and misesmedia 401,851 views Mar 24, 2026 Politicians say they can “fix” the economy. But economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pointed out how government “fixes" lead to bigger problems. _ _ _ _ _ _ To make sure you receive weekly video from Stossel TV, sign up here: https://www.johnstossel.com/#subscrib... _ _ _ _ _ _ Hayek and Mises predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. They warned that centrally planned economies fail. But today, socialism is popular again. New York and Seattle have elected socialist mayors. Many politicians still believe that government can manage the economy—an idea popularized by economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was revered. Politicians love his arguments. But Hayek and Mises warned that government intervention leads to inflation, instability, and boom-bust cycles. They were right. Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute ‪@misesmedia explains why we should read Hayek and Mises today.   Fear the Boom and Bust: Keynes vs. Hayek - The Original Economics Rap Battle! Watch this video at- https://youtu.be/d0nERTFo-Sk?si=ro3Ri4lyv4l8yqir Radical Discourse 8,838,188 views Jan 23, 2010 Subscribe to our channel:    / econstories   If you enjoyed this video, you should watch this one next:    • EconPop - The Economics of RoboCop   Produced by Emergent Order. Visit us at http://www.emergentorder.com. Econstories.tv is a place to learn about the economic way of thinking through the eyes of creative director John Papola and creative economist Russ Roberts. Explore more at http://EconStories.tv In Fear the Boom and Bust, John Maynard Keynes and F. A. Hayek, two of the great economists of the 20th century, come back to life to attend an economics conference on the economic crisis. Before the conference begins, and at the insistence of Lord Keynes, they go out for a night on the town and sing about why there's a "boom and bust" cycle in modern economies and good reason to fear it. DOWNLOAD THE SONG in the highest quality possible here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/fea... Plus, to see and hear more from the stars of Fear the Boom and Bust, Billy Scafuri and Adam Lustick, visit their site: http://www.billyandadam.com Music was produced by Jack Bradley at Blackboard3 Music and Sound Design. It was composed and performed by Richard Royston Jacobs.

Mark Thornton replays his Rothbard University lecture on government spending and taxation, using Rothbard's framework of binary intervention to overturn the standard civics-story that taxes are “the cost” of government and spending is “the benefit.” Mark argues both are economically destructive and distortionary, and that treating them as neutral is a category mistake. Drawing on John C. Calhoun's class analysis, he distinguishes net taxpayers from net tax-consumers, explaining how political finance systematically transfers wealth, reshapes production, and undermines saving, family formation, and long-run growth. The lecture closes with a vivid “wagon” analogy: as more people move from pulling to riding, the whole economy slows and eventually stalls.2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/issuesfreeRegister for our upcoming Mises Circle, Why Is the Healthcare System Broken?, June 27 in Windham, New Hampshire: https://mises.org/events/why-healthcare-system-broken-mises-circle-new-hampshire20% off listener offer on the insulated Minor Issues tumbler and three of Mark's books: https://mises.org/MinorIssuesTumbler. Use coupon code Thornton.Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

La IA dejó de ser un debate ético. Es una jugada de poder geopolítico. Mientras Europa redacta reglamentos, EEUU construye la infraestructura, los chips, los modelos y los estándares. Y quien construye primero, escribe las reglas que el resto firmamos sin haber estado en la sala. En este episodio hago una lectura inversa de lo que casi nadie interpretó bien: viajamos a Bretton Woods, al duelo entre Keynes y Harry Dexter White, al «privilegio exorbitante» del dólar… y terminamos donde más incomoda: el espejo europeo.

Trump is trapped in a genuinely difficult situation as he tries to reach a deal with Iran. But it is a crisis of his own making. Also, the establishment figures now condemning him should not be allowed to pretend they had nothing to do with it.Read the article here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/trumps-iran-predicament-his-own-fault2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/gabfreebookBe sure to follow the Guns and Butter podcast at https://Mises.org/GB

Although it's true that many government-driven price hikes in recent years aren't “inflation” in the strict sense, the pain they cause is just as real. Warsh's push to narrow what the Fed counts as inflation—so it can justify even more inflation—is alarming.Read the article here: https://mises.org/mises-wire/warshs-concerning-interest-redefining-inflation2026 is the Year of Rothbard—Murray's 100th birthday—and we're celebrating by giving away free copies of Keynes the Man through June 30. Grab yours today at https://mises.org/gabfreebookBe sure to follow the Guns and Butter podcast at https://Mises.org/GB

Politicians say they can “fix” the economy.But economists Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises pointed out how government “fixes" lead to bigger problems.Hayek and Mises predicted the fall of the Soviet Union. They warned that centrally planned economies fail.But today, socialism is popular again. New York and Seattle have elected socialist mayors.Many politicians still believe that government can manage the economy—an idea popularized by economist John Maynard Keynes.Keynes was revered. Politicians love his arguments.But Hayek and Mises warned that government intervention leads to inflation, instability, and boom-bust cycles.They were right.In this podcast, Ryan McMaken of the Mises Institute explains why we should read Hayek and Mises today.

Il pianeta è finito. Le risorse sono limitate. L'energia non si crea dal nulla. Tutto vero. Ma da qui possiamo davvero concludere che anche la crescita economica debba essere finita? Oppure stiamo confondendo due cose diverse: la crescita materiale, cioè consumare sempre più risorse, e la crescita del valore, cioè produrre meglio, innovare, usare meno input per ottenere più benessere? E soprattutto: è vero che l'economia rifiuta l'idea di un mondo finito? O, al contrario, nasce proprio dal problema della scarsità? ### ❤️ *Sostieni il progetto*

In this episode, journalist Hannah Lucinda Smith speaks with economists Soumaya Keynes and Chad Bown about our new era of global trade wars. Drawing on their new book How to Win a Trade War, Keynes and Bown shed light on the historical roots of our modern trade infrastructure and how tariffs, export controls and supply chain battles are drastically reshaping the global economy. The conversation examines the increasingly fraught economic relationship between the US and China, the growing use of economic coercion, and what the future holds for the world stage as countries increasingly treat trade as a strategic weapon rather than a cooperative system. Soumaya Keynes is an economist and journalist. She is the co-author of How to Win a Trade War and host of the podcast The Economics Show. Chad Bown is an economist specialising in international trade and economic policy. He served as chief economist at the U.S. Department of State in the Biden administration from January 2024 to January 2025. He is the co-author of How to Win a Trade War. Hannah Lucinda Smith is a journalist and foreign correspondent reporting on global politics and international affairs. --- If you'd like to become a Member and get access to all our full conversations, plus all of our Members-only content, just visit intelligencesquared.com/membership to find out more. For £4.99 per month you'll also receive: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared episodes, wherever you get your podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series - 15% discount on livestreams and in-person tickets for all Intelligence Squared events  ...  Or Subscribe on Apple for £4.99: - Full-length and ad-free Intelligence Squared podcasts - Bonus Intelligence Squared podcasts, curated feeds and members exclusive series … Already a subscriber? Thank you for supporting our mission to foster honest debate and compelling conversations! Visit intelligencesquared.com to explore all your benefits including ad-free podcasts, exclusive bonus content and early access. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

“The rules-based system just hasn't worked. China's system is so opaque that you can't see the subsidies. And when you've got China not interested in new rules and the US not interested in a referee, you've got two of the world's biggest actors who aren't on board.” — Soumaya Keynes It would have been nice to get John Maynard Keynes on the show to get his critique of Trump's trade war. But in the long run, we're all dead — even old Maynard. So instead, we found his great-great-niece, Soumaya Keynes — Financial Times columnist and co-author of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy. Having already appeared on Jon Stewart this week, Soumaya has a bit of Keynesian star quality about her. But she's also a first-rate economist. Her thesis is that the old rules-based trading system that her great-great-uncle helped design after World War II is gone. And it ain't coming back. China's subsidies are so opaque that rules can't be written to constrain them, let alone enforced. The US is no longer willing to submit to a referee. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. So — now what? Keynes says we must think like a trade warrior. Donald Trump should leverage the tools available — but use them strategically. Trump's error in his second term was not being tough on China while being too tough on everyone else, especially allies like Canada and Mexico. Soumaya Keynes' most contemporary idea might be her most Keynesian one. John Maynard Keynes proposed penalties for countries running large trade surpluses as well as those running deficits — recognising that global imbalances are a two-sided problem. That idea didn't make it into the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement. Eighty years later, in equally anxious economic times, his optimistic great-great-niece is reviving it. Five Takeaways •       Can Trade Wars Be Won? Yes, Sometimes: The conventional wisdom: no one wins a trade war. Keynes and Bown agree — in theory. In practice, countries in a weaker position cave. History has examples: France in the late nineteenth century told its trading partners they were renegotiating treaties, and the smaller partners complied. Trump's tariffs in his first term produced concessions. The problem is not that trade wars can't be won. It's that the smaller power's only defence — coordinating with other smaller powers — is extremely hard to sustain. There's always an incentive to cut a deal first. •       China Is the Doper on the Sports Field: Keynes's sharpest analogy: the global trading system is like a sports game that needs rules to ensure a level playing field. China's subsidies — cheap credit, corporate handouts, opaque support for state-linked companies — are the equivalent of performance-enhancing drugs. The problem is that unlike doping in sport, China's subsidies are invisible. You can write a rule saying China won't give these handouts. But you can't verify compliance. And without enforcement, rules are meaningless. The WTO has not solved this. Nothing has solved this. •       Trump Was Right About China, Wrong About Everything Else: Keynes is careful here. She credits Robert Lighthizer in Trump's first term with identifying China as the real problem and building a focused strategy. In the second term, Trump put tariffs on everyone simultaneously — which dissipated leverage, alienated the coalition of allies needed to pressure Beijing, and mixed up the problem of China's subsidies with grievances against Canada, Mexico, and the EU. If you were genuinely tough on China, you wouldn't have put tariffs on everyone. You would have been more targeted. •       The Rules-Based System Is Gone and Isn't Coming Back: Why can't we return to the system Keynes's great-great-uncle helped build? Two reasons. China's subsidies are too opaque to write enforceable rules against. And the US has lost confidence in any international referee — a long and complex story, but the result is that America won't submit to neutral adjudication. Without the two biggest players, no rules-based system is meaningful. Yearning for the old approach is not an option. A new strategy is needed — and that's what the book is about. •       AI and the Next Trade War: Services: AI is central to the US-China conflict already — chip restrictions, military advantage, economic supremacy. But Keynes's less-noticed observation: AI could fundamentally reshape international services trade. The UK, for example, is a massive services exporter — finance, legal, consulting, accounting. If AI eliminates demand for those services, the UK faces a new current account crisis, new trade tensions, a new wave of economic conflict. Nobody knows how this plays out. Which is why, she suggests, the tools in the book will remain relevant for longer than the current tariff cycle. About the Guests Soumaya Keynes is an economics columnist at the Financial Times and host of The Economics Show with Soumaya Keynes. Before joining the FT she spent eight years at The Economist. She co-founded the Trade Talks podcast with Chad Bown during Trump's first term. Chad P. Bown is the Reginald Jones Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics and former Chief Economist at the US State Department under President Biden. Together they are the authors of How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). References: •       How to Win a Trade War: An Optimistic Guide to an Anxious Global Economy by Soumaya Keynes and Chad P. Bown (Simon & Schuster, May 26, 2026). •       Soumaya Keynes on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, May 19, 2026 — referenced in the interview. •       Episode 2892: Jason Pack on the Iran war — the companion episode on America's strategic distractions from the China problem. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than the Anglo-American writer and filmmaker Andrew Keen. In Keen On America, Andrew brings his pointed Transatlantic wit to making sense of the United States — hosting daily interviews about the history and future of this now venerable Republic. With nearly 2,900 episodes since the show launched on TechCrunch in 2010, Keen On America is the most prolific intellectual interview show in the history of podcasting. WebsiteSubstackYouT...

Javier Milei et sa tronçonneuse veulent faire de l'Argentine le pays le plus libre du monde.Si vous pensez désastre, vous êtes keynésien. Si vous pensez thérapie de choc, vous êtes monétariste.Si vous pensez qu'il ne va pas assez loin, vous êtes libertarien.***

“The current crisis was far from inevitable. Politicians made consistently bad choices. In doing so, they fostered a crisis of confidence in political institutions, empowered anti-system candidates, and produced a new Cold War as dangerous as the last.” — Ian Shapiro The fall of the Berlin Wall in November 1989 was a moment of extraordinary euphoria. Fukuyama even described it as the end of history. But what seems to have really fallen in November '89 was the vitality of democracy. Almost forty years later, we have Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and, perhaps most worrying of all, Keir Starmer. Callous and inept politicians are breaking our democratic world. Our job is to put it back together. That's the thesis of a new book by Ian Shapiro — Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale. In After the Fall, Shapiro argues that it's politicians who have created today's crisis of democracy. His pivotal moment is 2008 rather than 1989. The global financial crisis was the inflection point — the moment at which the corruption of the neoliberal order became self-evident, when elites bailed out the banks and we see the birth of left and right wing illiberal populism. The roots go back before 2008. Clinton's greatest failure, Shapiro argues, was not NAFTA or welfare reform. It was Russia. Yeltsin wanted to join NATO. Even Putin, in his early years in power, acknowledged that Russia considered itself European. George Kennan, Brent Scowcroft and Richard Nixon warned that expanding NATO eastward would create a new enemy. Clinton ignored them all. So history repeated itself in the form of Versailles rather than the Marshall Plan. So how to raise ourselves up after this fall? What road to take? Maps, Shapiro suggests, aren't always helpful. The New Deal had no GPS algorithm. FDR invented it on the fly. What democratic governments need now, he insists, is massive investment in physical, technological, and labor market infrastructure. Charismatic leaders matter. But the ideas matter more. We need politicians who take risks. Otherwise we'll be saddled with Keir Starmer and our current crisis of extraordinary dysphoria. Five Takeaways •       2008, Not 1989, Was the Inflection Point: The fall of the Wall in 1989 produced euphoria. The real break came nineteen years later. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the neoliberal model, undermined the supremacy of the US-led world system, and — crucially — left behind a large population that would subsequently be mobilizable by political entrepreneurs. Elites bailed out the banks and returned to business as usual. They didn't realize that business as usual was over. From 2008 you can draw a straight line to 2016, to Brexit, to Trump, to every anti-system surge that followed. •       We Repeated the Mistake of Versailles: After World War II, the Marshall Plan invested in the defeated powers — Germany, Japan — and folded them into the new security and economic architecture. After World War I, Versailles punished Germany, and Keynes predicted the results. After the Cold War, the victorious West chose Versailles over Marshall. Yeltsin wanted to join NATO and the EU. Even early Putin said Russia considered itself European. Kennan, Scowcroft, Nixon all warned that expanding NATO eastward would create a new enemy. Clinton ignored them. We created the enemy we warned ourselves about. •       Politicians Broke the World — Not Capitalism, Not Culture: Shapiro's subtitle is precise. The crisis of democracy was not caused by inevitable economic forces or cultural shifts. It was caused by specific bad decisions by specific politicians at specific moments of choice. Clinton on NATO expansion. Bush on the Iraq War and the refusal to build a genuine rules-based international order after 9/11. Obama on the financial crisis response. These were decisions, not fates. They could have been made differently. Which means the current situation is not irreversible — and that future decisions can be made better. •       Starmer as Exhibit A: Having Power Without Ideas: Shapiro's prescription for what democratic governments need: a policy agenda. His cautionary tale: Keir Starmer. Starmer came into office with a massive parliamentary majority — he could have passed legislation that attracted 50 or 60 backbench no votes and still won. He had nothing to pass. Tiny step left, tiny step right, reverse, repeat. His comparison: Trump's main policies came out of Project 2025 — put together not by Trump himself but by people who created the ramp he ran on. Without a ramp, even a charismatic leader stumbles. Without ideas, power is squandered. •       The New Deal Had No Blueprint: FDR Made It Up: The lesson for what comes next. The New Deal — the last great democratic reconstruction — was not designed in advance. Roosevelt made it up as he went along, trying things, abandoning what didn't work, building a coalition of extraordinarily unlikely bedfellows. What democratic governments need now, Shapiro argues, is massive infrastructure investment: physical infrastructure, tech infrastructure, labor market infrastructure. The CHIPS Act model. Incentivize business to retrain the workforce for the tech revolution and the green transition. Chancellor Merz in Germany has just borrowed half a trillion euros for this. Without it, there will be another Trump. And another. And another. About the Guest Ian Shapiro is Sterling Professor of Political Science and Global Affairs at Yale University and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is the author of After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy — How Politicians Broke Our World (Basic Books, May 5, 2026), Uncommon Sense, The Wolf at the Door (with Michael Graetz), and many other books. He lives in New Haven, Connecticut. References: •       After the Fall: From the End of History to the Crisis of Democracy — How Politicians Broke Our World by Ian Shapiro (Basic Books, May 5, 2026). •       Episode 2881: Adrian Wooldridge on The Revolutionary Center — the companion episode on the crisis of liberalism that Shapiro's book diagnoses. •       Episode 2895: Glyn Morgan on The Rise and Fall of American Europe — the international dimension of Shapiro's argument about the post-Cold War missed opportunities. •       Episode 2880: Gal Beckerman on How to Be a Dissident — on the tradition of resistance that Shapiro's “roads not taken” argument implicitly invokes. About Keen On America Nobody asks more awkward questions than th...

On this episode of CFO at Home, Vince·s guest is Dr. Mark Teague, author of A Working Man·s Guide, a value-driven roadmap aimed at helping working-class families thrive in careers, relationships, and finances. Mark shares his background from Texas Panhandle farm life to a doctorate in agricultural economics and a 30-year banking and finance career. From there, the conversation shifts to a discussion of Mark·s ·bedrock principles·, and how a moral foundation and faith relate to financial outcomes, especially through marriage. For more, visit aworkingmansguide.com 02:02 Why Mark Wrote A Working Man's Guide 02:29 Farm Roots to Corporate 04:36 Cutting Through Noise 06:38 Endorsement and Preamble 09:22 Bedrock Principles Begin 09:48 Life Is Problems 11:28 Responsibility and Money 13:33 Working Class Defined 15:32 Wealth and Property Rights 19:06 Keynes and Socialism 22:07 Your Foundation North Star 24:31 Morals Marriage and Wealth 27:26 Faith Stats and Cohorts 29:41 Values Over Divorce 30:29 Marriage Money Math 31:41 Divorce And Bankruptcy Key Links A Working Man's Guide Mark Teague (@DrMarkLTeague) • Facebook, Connect with friends Mark Teague (@drmarklteague) • Instagram photos and videos Contact the Host - vince@thecfoathome.com Want to be a guest on CFO at Home? Send Vince a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/1628643039567x840793309030672500  

Dans cet épisode solo, je reviens sur une position que j'ai longtemps défendue, celle de tempérer face au catastrophisme ambiant sur l'IA, et j'explique pourquoi les preuves qui s'accumulent depuis quelques mois m'obligent à regarder les choses autrement. Pas pour rejoindre la panique, mais parce qu'une position qui ne s'interroge jamais devient une posture, pas une analyse.Dans cet épisode, nous parlons de la contradiction structurelle au cœur du capitalisme numérique : l'IA générative détruit les emplois cognitifs de niveau intermédiaire, précisément ceux qui constituent la base de consommation sur laquelle repose l'économie. J'ai questionné les travaux de Nick Dyer-Witheford, Karen Hao, Emad Mostaque et Anis Rahman sur ce que ça signifie concrètement, au-delà des chiffres de Goldman Sachs et des fuites internes d'Anthropic. Et parce que je déteste laisser les gens dans un état d'impuissance intellectuelle pire qu'avant la lecture, je finis sur des exemples concrets, locaux, qui montrent qu'une autre IA est possible même si les rapports de forces sont pour l'instant très déséquilibrés. Le tout pour vous redonner envie du futur bien sur :)CITATIONS MARQUANTES"Il y a un mot pour décrire un système qui détruit méthodiquement sa propre base de clients. Ce mot n'est pas 'innovation' mais 'suicide'.""C'est la boîte qui construit les outils qui sonne elle-même l'alarme sur leur impact. Ce n'est pas un philosophe marxiste.""Ils ont entraîné leurs propres remplaçants." (sur les travailleurs d'annotation de Nairobi, Manille, Lahore)"Regarde qui te chuchote à l'oreille chaque jour, et demande-toi de qui c'est l'intérêt." (Emad Mostaque)"Une position qui ne s'interroge jamais elle-même, c'est une posture, pas une analyse."IDÉES CENTRALES 1. Le contrat de Ford est rompu, par design Henry Ford payait ses ouvriers pour qu'ils puissent acheter ses voitures : le capital paie le travail, le travail consomme, la production nourrit le capital. L'IA générative rompt ce cercle en rendant le capital structurellement indépendant du travail humain. Ce n'est pas un bug du système, c'est une conséquence logique de sa propre optimisation poussée à l'extrême. C'est important parce que cela remet en cause le mécanisme de stabilisation automatique sur lequel les démocraties libérales se sont appuyées depuis Keynes.2. L'IA s'attaque précisément aux emplois qui étaient censés être la solution Contrairement aux révolutions industrielles précédentes qui frappaient d'abord les peu qualifiés, l'IA générative cible le travail cognitif intermédiaire : analyse, rédaction, code, diagnostic, comptabilité, marketing. Ces emplois constituaient la colonne vertébrale des classes moyennes éduquées. Ce sont eux qui avaient fait les études recommandées pour s'adapter. Si eux ne peuvent pas, qui peut ?3. La disruption du mécanisme de relance économique Quand les banques centrales baissent les taux pour relancer l'emploi, les entreprises recrutent désormais des agents IA, pas des travailleurs humains. Le lien entre capital et emploi se rompt pour la première fois depuis deux siècles. Et contrairement à toutes les crises précédentes, l'IA ne devient pas moins intelligente après une récession.4. La broligarchy et la capture réglementaire Les "Magnificent Seven" contrôlent 90,2% des modèles d'IA notables mondiaux. En 2024, les entreprises privées ont investi 109 milliards de dollars dans l'IA, contre 5,3 milliards d'investissement public. Sam Altman se pose en défenseur de la régulation en public et fait du lobby pour l'affaiblir en coulisses. L'administration Trump a inclus un moratoire de dix ans sur toute régulation étatique de l'IA. C'est une capture de la démocratie, pas seulement une concentration de marché.5. L'IA coloniale et la souveraineté cognitive L'IA ne transmet pas seulement des informations, elle transmet les valeurs et le cadre moral de ceux qui l'ont construite. Quand 90% des modèles viennent de Silicon Valley, la question de la souveraineté cognitive devient aussi urgente que la souveraineté économique. Et le "colonialisme par l'IA" s'exerce aussi dans le sud global, où des travailleurs ont littéralement entraîné les outils qui ont ensuite concurrencé leur propre travail.6. L'IA-vélo contre l'IA-fusée Karen Hao propose une distinction utile : l'IA-fusée, paradigme dominant à des centaines de milliards de paramètres visant l'AGI, et l'IA-vélo, des outils à échelle humaine pour des besoins spécifiques. Les architectures techniques sont les mêmes. Ce qui diffère, c'est le principe directeur. Des exemples comme Te Hiku Media en Nouvelle-Zélande, Chattanooga dans le Tennessee ou le modèle S1 développé pour 70 dollars prouvent que le choix existe.7. La destruction créatrice a un problème de rythme L'argument de Schumpeter tient sur le fond : chaque vague technologique crée plus qu'elle ne détruit. Mais il bute sur le rythme. La machine à vapeur s'est étalée sur des décennies. L'IA générative frappe en années. Si le pouvoir d'achat des classes moyennes disparaît avant que de nouveaux emplois émergent, qui consomme les produits que les entreprises continuent de produire ?QUESTIONS DE L'ÉPISODEEst-ce que ma position rassurante sur l'IA reflétait une lecture lucide, ou était-elle aussi une façon d'éviter une conclusion que je n'avais pas envie de regarder en face ?Le capitalisme peut-il fonctionner sans consommateurs, et les consommateurs peuvent-ils exister sans travailleurs ?Qu'est-ce qui différencie fondamentalement l'IA générative des révolutions industrielles précédentes en termes d'impact sur l'emploi ?Pourquoi l'argument de la "destruction créatrice" de Schumpeter bute-t-il cette fois sur quelque chose de structurellement différent ?Comment fonctionne concrètement la capture réglementaire par les grandes entreprises tech, et qu'est-ce que l'exemple de Sam Altman révèle sur ce phénomène ?Qu'est-ce que le sort des travailleurs d'annotation du sud global dit de la nature systémique de l'IA capitaliste ?Pourquoi le mécanisme de relance économique des banques centrales risque-t-il de ne plus fonctionner dans un monde d'IA générative ?Qu'est-ce que la distinction entre "IA-fusée" et "IA-vélo" change concrètement à la façon dont on peut construire et déployer ces technologies ?Comment des initiatives locales comme Te Hiku Media ou Chattanooga incarnent-elles une alternative crédible au paradigme dominant ?Quelle est votre part personnelle dans cette reconfiguration, en tant qu'individu, professionnel, citoyen ?RÉFÉRENCES CITÉESLivres et rapportsInhuman Power : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Capitalism de Nick Dyer-Witheford (2019, + Cybernetic Circulation Complex, 2026, Verso). Thèse centrale : l'IA comme instrument par lequel le capital se rend indépendant du travail humain. Référence tout au long du texte.The Last Economy d'Emad Mostaque (août 2025, disponible gratuitement). Fondateur de Stability AI, ex-gérant de fonds. Concept de "transition de phase" et des "mille jours". Utilisé sur la chute des coûts de l'IA et la fin du mécanisme de relance keynésien.Empire of AI : Dreams and Nightmares in Sam Altman's OpenAI de Karen Hao (2025). Journaliste, ex-MIT Technology Review. Travailleurs d'annotation, double discours sur l'AGI, distinction IA-fusée vs IA-vélo.Is Another AI Possible ? d'Anis Rahman (rapport, Annenberg School / Media Inequality & Change Center, Université de Washington, disponible gratuitement). Concentration des modèles, investissements publics vs privés, initiatives alternatives.AI Snake Oil de Narayanan et Kapoor (Princeton University Press). Cité comme référence pour "démêler le réel du fantasme dans le discours tech".Personnes et institutions citéesHenry Ford : intuition du salaire comme condition de la consommation (1914, 5 dollars/jour).Karl Marx : concept de "sujet automatique" dans les Grundrisse (vers 1850).Joseph Schumpeter : concept de "destruction créatrice".Andrew Ng (ex-Baidu, ex-Google Brain, Stanford) : formule "l'IA est la nouvelle électricité".Dario Amodei (Anthropic) : projection de 10 à 20% de chômage dans certaines catégories professionnelles sur 5 ans.Goldman Sachs : estimation de 300 millions d'emplois à plein temps à risque.FMI : 89% des emplois de services externalisés aux Philippines à haut risque d'automatisation.PwC : l'IA ajoutera 15 700 milliards de dollars au PIB mondial, 70% ira aux États-Unis et à la Chine.Amy Webb et Sam Jordan (Future Today Institute) : concept de "crédit de contribution".Les Magnificent Seven : Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, Nvidia, Tesla (90,2% des modèles d'IA notables).Initiatives et exemplesTe Hiku Media (radio Maori, Nouvelle-Zélande) : développement souverain d'outils IA en langue Maori, principe "kia tangata whenua".Chattanooga, Tennessee : réseau haut débit municipal, 900 communautés américaines ayant suivi.Modèle S1 (Stanford / Université de Washington) : modèle de raisonnement comparable à OpenAI pour 70 dollars de frais cloud.xAI d'Elon Musk à Memphis, Tennessee : data center dans quartier majoritairement noir, dégradation de qualité de l'air signalée.TIMESTAMPS CLÉS Note : il s'agit d'une newsletter sans timestamps réels. Les repères ci-dessous sont structurés par section éditoriale et peuvent servir de chapitres si l'épisode est enregistré.00:00 Introduction : pourquoi j'ai changé de position sur l'IA Pendant dix ans j'ai tempéré le catastrophisme. Quelque chose a changé. Des gens autour de moi perdent des contrats qu'ils avaient depuis dix ans. Je reviens sur ma posture et j'explique ce qui m'a forcé à regarder les choses autrement.06:00 La contradiction centrale : le capitalisme peut-il se passer de consommateurs ? L'intuition de Ford et pourquoi elle s'effondre. Pas de travail, pas de salaires, pas de consommation, pas de capitalisme. La vraie question n'est peut-être pas "l'IA va-t-elle tuer des emplois ?" mais "l'IA va-t-elle tuer le système qui l'a créée ?"12:00 Ce que les chiffres disent vraiment Goldman Sachs, Dario Amodei, les fuites internes d'Anthropic. Un "white-collar bloodbath" annoncé par la boîte qui construit les outils. La nature de cette vague est différente des précédentes : elle frappe d'abord les cols blancs qualifiés.20:00 Nick Dyer-Witheford et le capital qui se libère du travail "Inhuman Power" et la thèse centrale : l'IA comme instrument par lequel le capital pourrait se rendre structurellement indépendant du travail humain. Marx avait formulé ça comme une crainte théorique. On s'en approche.28:00 La fin du mécanisme keynésien de relance Quand les banques centrales baissent les taux, les entreprises recrutent des agents IA, pas des humains. Ce mécanisme qui a fonctionné pendant deux siècles risque de ne plus fonctionner du tout. Personne ne le formule clairement dans le débat public.36:00 Le sud global et l'extraction coloniale Les Philippines, le Bangladesh, les travailleurs d'annotation de Nairobi et Manille. Ils ont entraîné leurs propres remplaçants. Karen Hao et la dimension coloniale de ce modèle économique.44:00 La broligarchy et la capture réglementaire 109 milliards d'investissement privé contre 5,3 milliards publics. Sam Altman défenseur de la régulation en public, lobbyiste pour l'affaiblir en coulisses. Le moratoire de dix ans de l'administration Trump. Ce n'est pas qu'une question de marché.52:00 L'argument de Schumpeter est réel, mais il a un problème de rythme La destruction créatrice a toujours fonctionné. Mais sur des décennies, pas des années. Si le pouvoir d'achat s'effondre avant que de nouveaux emplois émergent, qui consomme la production ?60:00 L'IA-vélo contre l'IA-fusée : une autre IA est possible Te Hiku Media, Chattanooga, le modèle S1 à 70 dollars. La distinction de Karen Hao entre l'IA construite pour la performance commerciale et l'IA construite à échelle humaine pour des usages définis. Ce sont les mêmes architectures techniques.70:00 Ce que vous pouvez faire maintenant : individu, collectif, citoyen Trois niveaux d'action concrets. Parce que je déteste les textes qui laissent dans l'impuissance. Les décisions se prennent maintenant, pas dans dix ans.Hébergé par Audiomeans. Visitez audiomeans.fr/politique-de-confidentialite pour plus d'informations.

Liberalism is under its greatest threat since the 1930s. The question is whether its defenders have the nerve to admit why – and the ideas to fight back.Adrian Wooldridge, Bloomberg columnist and author of "Centrists of the World Unite!", joins CapX editor Marc Sidwell for an unsentimental diagnosis of liberalism's crisis — and an unexpectedly combative case for its recovery. The liberal tradition that defeated totalitarianism and built the modern world is not, he argues, exhausted. It has been betrayed: hollowed out by a self-satisfied establishment on one side and captured by identitarian collectivism on the other, while the intellectual energy of the age flows freely to the post-liberal right.But the book's argument is ultimately one of recovery. Liberalism has reinvented itself before — in the 1890s, a dying Gladstonian creed gave way to a new liberalism that produced Keynes, Beveridge and a generation that rebuilt the post-war world. The genius is latent. The question, as Wooldridge puts it, is whether today's liberals can sound something other than a faltering trumpet.Stay informed with CapX's unmissable daily briefings from the heart of Westminster. Go to capx.co to subscribe. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Before J. M. Keynes and Stephanie Kelton, there was John Law. The promise of free money never seems to die.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/irresistible-promise-john-law

For our April 2026 episode of Magus we're plunging elbow-deep into the Enlightenment to talk about the magical life of Sir Isaac Newton!Arriving on this planet during the first few months of the English Civil War, Newton was abandoned by his mother, raised by his dead father's parents, and was a vengeful, mischievous child.After a fist-fight in a churchyard during his early teens Newton turned things around, becoming the top student at his local Grammar School, earning a scholarship to Trinity College Cambridge. The standard view of Newton's life was then that, while refusing to complete his training to become a priest, he also made some of the most important discoveries in all of physics. What people speak less of is his occult life, which remained hidden until the 1930s.For Newton laboured for 27 years seeking the Philosopher's Stone, translating the works of Hermes Trismegistus, reading myths and legends and alchemical formulae, and doing terrible things to his own health.A tale of secretive obsessions, heretical beliefs, and monk-like solitude, as Keynes said of him, "He was not the first of the Age of Reason by the Last of the Magicians."We really hope you enjoy! Speak with you again on Thursday for a double-bill of fairy tales and chats about them with "Soria Moria Castle" and "The Death of Koschei the Deathless."Three Ravens is an English Myth and Folklore podcast hosted by award-winning writers Martin Vaux and Eleanor Conlon.Released on Mondays, each weekly episode focuses on one of England's 39 historic counties, exploring the history, folklore and traditions of the area, from ghosts and mermaids to mythical monsters, half-forgotten heroes, bloody legends, and much, much more. Then, and most importantly, the pair take turns to tell a new version of an ancient story from that county - all before discussing what that tale might mean, where it might have come from, and the truths it reveals about England's hidden past...Bonus Episodes are released on Thursdays plus Local Legends episodes on Saturdays - interviews with acclaimed authors, folklorists, podcasters and historians with unique perspectives on that week's county.With a range of exclusive content on Patreon, too, including audio ghost tours, the Three Ravens Newsletter, and monthly Three Ravens Film Club episodes about folk horror films from across the decades, why not join us around the campfire and listen in?REGISTER FOR THE TALES OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND TOURVisit our website Join our Patreon Social media channels and sponsors Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

One of the legacies of Keynesian thought is the belief that war is “good for the economy.” While war may help enable employment, nonetheless, its overall legacy is destructive, and even the jobs war “creates” are economically undesirable.Original article: https://mises.org/mises-wire/myth-wont-die-war-good-economy

Send us Fan MailSpreadsheet from AdamGarys Economics YT ChannelAI is going to make someone wildly richer. The only open question is whether it makes the rest of us safer and freer or more replaceable and more financially fragile. We take a hard look at the “productivity miracle” story and ask what happens when the gains from automation and generative AI keep flowing to the top while millions live one emergency away from losing housing, health care, and stability. We connect that to an old prediction from Keynes: if productivity keeps climbing, ordinary people should be able to live like today's high earners and work far fewer hours. Yet we're still grinding through full-time weeks, and the precariat keeps growing. For us, that's the heart of the problem: not envy, not abstract wealth inequality, but poverty as economic precarity. When the floor is missing, everything gets expensive: crime, stress, bad health outcomes, and desperate decisions that harm everyone. Then we get practical. We walk through the “tax wealth not work” approach popularised by Gary's Economics and break down what it could look like in real policy: a progressive wealth tax, removing the Social Security cap, taxing capital gains like income, closing loopholes like carried interest, and even charging luxury assets such as private jets and yachts like we already do with cars and property. We also tackle the usual pushback about rich people leaving and the “unrealised gains” argument. If you're thinking about AI governance, wealth taxes, universal healthcare, Social Security reform, and how to build a post-scarcity or post-precarity society, this conversation is for you. Subscribe, share this with a friend who argues about AI or taxes, and leave a review with your take: what's the first policy you'd pass to end precarity? Support the showHelp these new solutions spread by ...Subscribing wherever you listen to podcastsLeaving a 5-star review Sharing your favorite solution with your friends and network (this makes a BIG difference)Comments? Feedback? Questions? Solutions? Message us! We will do a mailbag episode.Email: solutionsfromthemultiverse@gmail.comAdam: @ajbraus - braus@hey.comScot: @scotmaupinadambraus.com (Link to Adam's projects and books)The Perfect Show (Scot's solo podcast)Thanks to Jonah Burns for the SFM music.

For today's episode, host Josh Sidman sat down with Guido Preparata to discuss Silvio Gesell's monetary economics, the nature and origin of interest, and the controversial relationship between Gesell and John Maynard Keynes.Guido Preparata is an Italian-American economist who currently resides in Umbria, Italy. He did his PhD in Political Economy at the University of Southern California and also has a masters in Criminology from Cambridge University. He taught political economy at the University of Washington and was a Fulbright Scholar studying Middle Eastern international relations at the University of Amman in Jordan. Among his diverse professional interests is the economic perspective of Silvio Gesell, which he has been writing about since the 1990s. He wrote a paper in 2002 arguing that some of Keynes's most important insights on money were inspired by, if not plagiarized from, Silvio Gesell.To check out more of our content, including our research and policy tools, visit our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.hgsss.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠ 

Jesús Huerta de Soto traces the Austrian school's intellectual roots from the Spanish scholastics to Rothbard, making the case that anarcho-capitalism is the natural endpoint of the classical liberal tradition.The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Yousif Almoayyed.The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian school, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition.Full Text version of the Lecture (Submitted by Prof. Huerta de Soto):Thank you very much to the Mises Institute and Joe Salerno for his kind introduction as well as for inviting me to deliver this “Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture” to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of Murray N. Rothbard's birthday. It is the second time I visit the Mises Institute to deliver this most important lecture: The first one was almost thirty years ago, back in April 1997, when I delivered a lecture on “The Scholastic Roots of the Austrian School”. In this second opportunity I am very happy to have been able to accept Joe's invitation and to come with a very well represented retinue of ten of my colleagues and doctoral students. All of them are teaching as professors or making their research at our more than twenty-year-old Doctoral and Master Programs in Austrian Economics at King Juan Carlos University back in Madrid, and which is the only one officially approved and with full validity inside the whole European Union. You have already had the opportunity to hear from each one of them a detailed description of the so-called “Madrid Austrian Research Hub” and of all the activities we are developing every year, including the 54 Doctoral Theses on Austrian Economics that have been read up to now in our program. And here you have also copies of the English version of our main books published by Routledge, Edward Elgar, and by the Macmillan Austrian Series edited by my Madrid Colleagues, the German professor Philipp Bagus and the Canadian professor Dave Howden. And you will have the unique opportunity to buy these books that, as you know, have a hefty price of almost 100 pounds each one, at the almost “stolen property” and symbolic price of 5 dollars per copy, thanks to the most generous help of the Spanish Jesús Huerta de Soto Foundation that is helping to finance our participation in this important event.And now what I will do in the next forty minutes is to try to summarize not only my main contributions, but also “The Libertarian Vision of the Scientific and Moral Truth” as we see it from our Austrian School Hub in Madrid. And I will do it by focusing on a series of fundamental points.Precisely, the youngest of all sciences, Economics is the one that has provided Humanity with the most important scientific contributionThe first one is that Economics, being the last science to arrive, or as Mises said, "the youngest of all sciences," has nevertheless achieved the milestone of providing Humanity with the most important scientific contribution. For the first time, and thanks to Economic Science, human beings have discovered and understood that voluntary social cooperation, free from all institutional and systematic external coercion, generates a spontaneous order that cannot be designed nor organized by anyone, and that peacefully and without limits drives the prosperity and expansion of Humankind.This transcendental message of Economic Science, on the one hand, resolves the impossible antithesis of attempting to apply, within the realm of interactions carried out by human beings endowed with free will, the manipulative approach of external entities that human beings have no choice but to use, supported by technology and the natural sciences, in order to dominate the subject of the material world. And on the other hand, this is a radically revolutionary message: for the first time, it has been scientifically demonstrated that states, in any of their forms, are neither necessary nor viable; that Society, understood as a process of voluntary human interactions, does not need anyone to govern it, because it regulates and organizes itself spontaneously; and that the attempt to coordinate Society on the basis of social engineering and state coercive commands is impossible, doomed to failure, and gives rise to all kinds of distortions, social conflicts and violence, that continually hinder and block human progress.Economic science is generalized into a complete Theory of Liberty that makes it possible to reinterpret History and promote the expansion of civilizationThe second point is that Economics has been generalized into a whole Theory of Liberty, understood as the most essential attribute and requirement of human nature. Liberty means that all human actions are carried out voluntarily, based on the principle of non-aggression, and free of external coercion or violence imposed and organized from above by the always minority group of human beings who, under whatever title, exercise any kind of political power.Moreover, Economics dismantles and turns upside down the erroneous and biased account of Thomas Hobbes and his followers. Neither was the "state of nature" a terrifying situation, nor did a supposed "social contract" ever exist or was it necessary to create and maintain a State that would impose order and guarantee peace. What happened was precisely the opposite: natural evolution consisted, above all, in the spontaneous discovery of the great advantages provided by voluntary exchanges and peaceful trade. Systematic and generalized violence, war, and terror arose only with the appearance of States, as coercive institutions composed of the most antisocial and violent human beings, who wanted (and still want) to live at the expense of plundering those citizens who earn their living by working and trading peacefully with each other (Oppenheimer, 1926).Thus, Economics, demonstrates that what Étienne de La Boétie named "voluntary servitude", is an anti-human aberration to which human beings have been subjected for centuries. And that it is not necessary to continue with the resigned habit of obeying the State; nor do governments enjoy an aura of prestige (but are literally "stripped" of any attribute of intellectual or moral superiority); nor is the caste—or “praetorian guard”—of intellectuals, “experts”, and acolytes that surround states and rulers to be regarded as untouchable; nor should we allow ourselves to be seduced and deceived by subsidies or perks, whether supposed or real, with which they seek to purchase the will and secure the loyalty of exploited human beings, so that they will consent, voluntarily and permanently, to their exploitation and servitude (De la Boétie, 1975).Economics is the Science developed by the Austrian School of Economics, which should in fact be known as the Spanish School, as it has its origins in the thinking of our scholastics of the Spanish Golden AgeThe third point is that Economic Science has reached its highest level of development thanks to the Austrian School of Economics. As you know, our school is based on the realism of its analytical assumptions, in the dynamic approach based on the entrepreneurial, creative, and coordinating capacity of every human being, and in the study of the spontaneous and self-regulated order of the social process of voluntary human interactions (Huerta de Soto, 2008). The institutional and multidisciplinary approach of the Austrian School is also very relevant. As a result of the spontaneous social process important institutions emerge which, in turn, make it possible and drive it forward: Law and property rights rooted in human nature and discovered and developed spontaneously outside the state; the family, a basic and essential institution, on which the expansion of Humanity is made possible and consolidated; moral principles, which act as a true "automatic pilot" for liberty and which human beings internalize and transmit from generation to generation, thanks to the family and other community or religious institutions; economic institutions, and in particular, money, which also evolves spontaneously outside the State, and which can and should be considered the social institution par excellence, since by overcoming the problems of barter, it enables the exponential multiplication of voluntary exchanges and human interactions, within which the rest of the social, linguistic, moral, legal, economic, and religious institutions are discovered, shaped, and perfected.Our fourth point is that the first theorists of the spontaneous order emerged in the field of law, led by the great jurists of classical Rome. They were the first ones to understand the organic and evolutionary nature of the social process, and so they became, without being aware of it, the first economists. Their tradition was kept alive throughout the Middle Ages thanks to the Catholic Church and, through thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Antoninus of Florence, and Saint Bernardino of Siena, eventually came to influence the Spanish scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries gathered around the University of Salamanca. As Rothbard demonstrated (Rothbard, 1976) these thinkers of the Spanish Golden Age should be considered the most immediate precedent of the Austrian School of Economics, which, precisely for this reason, should be called the Spanish School of Economics. And in fact, these Spanish scholastics were already able to articulate the following ten essential principles which constitute the theoretical foundation of the Austrian School:Firstly, the subjective theory of value developed by the Bishop of Segovia, Diego de Covarrubias, who as early as 1555 clearly explained that, although the objective nature of wheat is the same in Spain as in America, its price was higher in America because there human beings subjectively valued it much more highly; from this follows the correct relationship between prices and costs set out by Luis Sarabia de la Calle, in the sense that it is market prices that determine costs and not the other way around, as equilibrium theorists mistakenly believe; the Scholastics also realized that equilibrium models and prices lack realism and theoretical meaning because they presuppose a degree of knowledge “so complex that only God, and in no case human beings, could ever acquire it” (in latin “pretium iustum mathematicum licet soli Deo notum”), as already explained by the Jesuit cardinals Juan de Salas in 1617 and Juan de Lugo in 1643, more than three hundred years earlier than Hayek could conclude that “a science which assumes knowledge that can never be acquired is not a Science”; also the dynamic concept of competition is fundamental, understood as a process of rivalry among sellers based on the dynamic conception of market processes developed by Jerónimo Castillo de Bobadilla and Luis de Molina in 1589 and 1597, and that has nothing to do with the static model of "perfect competition" of equilibrium theorists; and also the important contributions of the Spanish Scholastics related with capital theory, business cycles, and the effects of fiduciary media generated by banks; so, particular emphasis should be placed on the rediscovery of the principle of time preference by Martín de Azpilcueta, following what Lessines had already stated in 1285; as well as on the fact that bankers commit mortal sin when they operate with fractional reserves, creating bank deposits as a form of virtual money (or chirographis pecuniarium, as Luis de Molina said in latin) that only exists in their accounting books and distorts the structure of relative prices, creating bubbles and deep economic crises that ultimately "bring everything crashing down," as Saravia de la Calle and Tomás de Mercado so vividly explained in the 16th Century; and in short, the Scholastic's idea that it is impossible to organize society through coercive commands due to lack of the information that would be required to give them coordinating content; as well as the discovery that inflation is a hidden and very harmful tax that arises from an act of tyranny, since it is neither known nor accepted by citizens, which would even justify the assassination of the King according to the theory of tyrannicide, a contribution originally made by the Castilian Comuneros eventually defeated by the tyrant King Charles V in 1521, and developed by Father Juan de Mariana almost a century later [in 1610].This entire line of proto-Austrian scholastic thought also spread throughout the Americas, especially in the newly founded universities of San Marcos in Lima and Mexico City in 1551 where brilliant disciples of these Scholastics, who had studied at the University of Salamanca itself, came to occupy prominent academic positions. Thus, for example, we should mention the cases of Bartolomé Frías de Albornoz in Mexico, and above all the great Juan de Matienzo, who became judge and president of the Royal Audiencia of Charcas and Lima from 1560 onwards (Popescu, 1997).Finally, the doctrine of our scholastics did spread even to North America two centuries later through the books of Juan de Mariana, who greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the United States.However, the southern part of the continent ultimately proved unable to neutralize the wave of growing statism and centralization that first came with the arrivals of the Habsburgs in Spain, and which was intensified even further after the arrival of the Bourbons with Philip V at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Martínez Marina, 1820). How different and much more prosperous and libertarian might the historical evolution of Spain and Latin America have been, had the statist centralism of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons not prevailed, and had the far more libertarian, local, and decentralized traditional representative institutions of the kingdoms of Castile instead remained predominant—institutions that were dismantled, together with Europe's first libertarian revolution, beginning with the defeat of the Castilian Comuneros at Villalar on April 23, 1521 (Leonard Liggio, 2025).The most important and far-reaching contributions of economic scienceLet us now turn, in greater detail, to the most important contributions of Economics, as developed by the Austrian School.First, human cooperation takes place spontaneously, without the need for anyone to organize it coercively from outside. This is so because human beings are endowed with an entrepreneurial and creative capacity that continually drives them to discover the multiple opportunities for profit that arise in their environment. Each of these opportunities embodies a previous discoordination in human behavior that remains latent until it is discovered and overcome by the corresponding entrepreneurial act. This entrepreneurial act always arises from a creative tension and interpretation of events of the outside world that is essentially subjective and, therefore, cannot be reproduced by any artificial intelligence algorithm; in other words, the same objective events can be interpreted in multiple ways, even contradictory ones, without it being possible to postulate which is correct until the corresponding entrepreneurial process is completed in the form of a subjective profit. In any case, every entrepreneurial act involves, firstly, the creation of information that did not exist before (regarding the profit opportunity that arose from the previous discoordination that had gone unnoticed); secondly, the transmission of that knowledge (directly to the parties involved in the entrepreneurial act and indirectly through a series of institutions and signals such as market prices); and third and finally, the coordination of the previous maladjustments takes place when the parties involved learn motu proprio, that is, voluntarily and for their own benefit, to discipline their behavior according to the needs of others (for example, when they discover that they achieve their ends more effectively by specializing and trading peacefully the mutual results of their efforts). The discovery of the essence of this pure entrepreneurial act, with its elements of creation and transmission of information and the spontaneous coordination of the previous maladjustments continually generated by human coexistence, constitutes the most important contribution that Economic Science has provided to Humanity, and explains why the spontaneous process of voluntary social cooperation that drives the multiplication of human beings and the expansion of civilization does not require any statist system of institutional coercion.Another essential contribution of Economics is the concept of Dynamic Efficiency, understood as the process of unlimited expansion of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination that arises only within a specific institutional framework of moral and legal norms. This framework is the one grounded on the ethical principle according to which every human being has a natural right to appropriate the results of his entrepreneurial creativity; that is, a property right over what one has created and which did not previously exist, which is the most obvious and important human right. For this reason, (dynamic) Efficiency and Morality and Justice (properly understood) cannot be separated one from the other; or, as we might say, they are two sides of the same coin in the sense that only Justice and Morality induce and generate efficiency; and at the same time, what is dynamically efficient in economic terms cannot be neither unjust nor immoral. All of which, on the other hand, demonstrates the integrated order that exists in the social universe, and highlights the three levels of research (theoretical, ethical, and historical) that complement and reinforce with each other and are essential in our search for truth (Huerta de Soto, 2000).Finally, another key contribution of Economic Science is to have demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, or better, the impossibility of statism, in the sense that it is impossible for the State to achieve and coordinate what it promises for the following four reasons:First, because of the enormous volume of information required for such coordination, which the State cannot acquire because it is dispersed in the minds of the eight billion human beings who participate and interact in the social process every day. Second, given the tacit and inarticulate character of this information (and therefore its inability to be transmitted in an objective manner). Third, because the information that is generated is not "given," nor is it static, but instead changes continuously as a result of human creativity, making it impossible to transmit today information that will only be created tomorrow, and which is precisely the information that the organs of State intervention and the so-called “experts” would need today in order to direct society to achieve their objectives tomorrow. And fourth, and above all, because the coercive nature of State commands blocks the entrepreneurial activity of creating the very information which the State organization itself would need in order to give its commands a coordinating content. In sum, the State is always and everywhere violence and coercion; coercion blocks the entrepreneurial act of creation, discovery, and adjustment of discoordinated human behavior, while at the same time preventing the creation of the information and the emergence of free market prices that make economic calculation and social coordination possible. For this reason, statism is not only unnecessary but is also scientifically impossible.The impact of these essential contributions of Economics on the course of social evolution has so far been very limitedAll of these scientific contributions have so far achieved only a very partial, imperfect, and limited impact on the inertia of a social and political reality that has for centuries been characterized by the coercive power of States and rulers, and by the more or less resigned servitude of the citizens. And despite the very limited nature of this impact to date, which at best has materialized in a series of naïve and "liberal" revolutions aimed, with as much arrogance as lack of success, toward the impossible objective of trying to separate and limit the powers of states and rulers through political constitutions and "liberal democracies" (Rothbard, 2009); Humanity has been propelled as never before in those places and historical moments where it has managed, despite everything, to at least partially free itself from the State and open up some of the new channels of liberty shown by the teachings of Economics. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, which was but the first chapter of the never-completed "Revolution of Liberty" inspired by Economics. And although what has been achieved in terms of prosperity and standard of living by the now eight billion human beings seems relatively significant—and indeed it is—we cannot even conceive of the standard of living and population size that could be achieved if Humanity were able to take full advantage of and fully implement the teachings of Economic Science.We can be few and poor in a context of servitude and submission to the State, or many and wealthy in a context of liberty (Hayek, 1988, p. 133). The globe is practically empty of human beings (the Earth's current population would fit into an area equivalent to that of the state of Alaska, with a population density equal to that of Brussels). And we cannot even imagine the prosperity that could be achieved in a free market daily driven by eighty billion, or even eight hundred billion, human beings. Economics explains and demonstrates that the increasing prosperity of an ever-growing population of human beings never results from deliberate and coercive State plans, nor from the egalitarian income redistribution, nor from increases in public spending, nor from subsidies, debt, or inflation, but only arises from the free market of the capitalist system. This consists of the process of voluntary exchanges among all human beings who, endowed with an innate entrepreneurial and creative capacity, are able to detect and assess, through the system of free prices, the relative urgency and necessity of each good and service, overcoming the relative scarcity of each and satisfying, every day and in the best humanly possible way, the desires and needs of billions of consumers. Entrepreneurs who succeed in this never-ending process of profit-seeking accumulate significant resources, which, in turn, are saved and invested in capital goods and new technologies that make human beings increasingly productive, boosting their wages and standards of living; a virtuous process of continuously expanding prosperity and population growth that, if not coerced or hindered by the State, has no limits.Therefore, it is crucially important for the future of Humanity that it be able to take full and maximum advantage of the lessons and essential message in pursuit of human liberty that Economics provides. But this will only be possible if we are able to unmask and carefully analyze the powerful forces of the pseudoscientific and counterrevolutionary reaction that has been mobilized to prevent the advance of the theory of liberty derived from Economic Science. Despite their diverse origins, they all converge on the same objective: to attempt to justify and preserve State coercion at all costs under the appearance of scientific legitimacy. They are driven by the "fatal conceit" (Hayek, 1988) of many visionaries, thinkers, and supposed "experts" who believe themselves to be clever enough to correct the spontaneous market order, of course, using the violence and coercive power of the State. Together with a privileged caste of rulers, bureaucrats and acolytes, they continually manipulate a Humanity that is sadly accustomed to serving the State. For all of them, it is vital that statism be maintained and that the message of liberty provided by Economics never prevail.Next, we will list the main reactionary pseudoscientific currents that have infiltrated Economic Science like a lethal virus and constitute, in Hayek's terminology, "the counter-revolution of science" (Hayek, 1955).Pseudoscientific reactionary currents opposed to Economic Science. The role played as “useful innocents” by many libertarian economists of the counterrevolutionary mainstreamFirst, positivism and scientism as pseudoscience. By "scientism" we must understand the improper application of the methods of the natural sciences to the field of Economic Science. Thus, while the natural sciences study their object of research as something external, measurable, and quantifiable, Economics studies the implications of the voluntary actions of human beings. And given the essentially creative nature of human beings, the supposed empirical "evidence" has, at best, only a superficial, partial, and always historically contingent value. In Bastiat's words, of "what is seen" —or rather, what is believed to have been seen— but not "what is not seen" (Bastiat, 1995); and at worst, it always entails the assumption, that human beings are an object of research that can be manipulated as the matter of the external world studied by the natural sciences. This inevitably introduces the idea that to improve the world, the State and its rulers must use their coercive power to manipulate and change the things they believe they see in their historically contingent "empirical photos." But these "empirical photos" cannot capture the underlying dynamic essence of spontaneous social processes, let alone what is already happening spontaneously to solve and coordinate every problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that from the very first steps of Economic Science promoted by the Austrian School, its most violent opponents were the "socialists of the chair" gathered around the German Historical School, reinforced in France by the empiricists of the school of Saint-Simon, the insane Comte, and Durkheim, who sought to create a new and alternative pseudoscience of society. And their unhealthy positivist and ultra-empirical influence has persisted to the present day, first through American Institutionalism and later through the massive compilation of empirical data, for example, in the work of Wesley C. Mitchell or Henry Schultz, the latter, as shown by Professor Salerno, having gone on to exert a decisive influence on his assistant Milton Friedman and, through him, even on the Chicago School itself (Salerno, 2023).Secondly, the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics is characterized by its claim that only its own approach constitutes true “science,” that is, the approach based on the principles of equilibrium, maximization, and constancy. Moreover, in addition to the lack of realism of its assumptions, it adds the reductionism of a mathematical language that has developed in response to the needs and demands of the natural sciences, but which is alien to Economic Science because it does not allow for the subjective concept of time or entrepreneurial creativity. Neoclassical economists develop their pseudoscience based not on real human beings of flesh and blood, but on "ideal types" that are like "robotic penguins" who, even in their most sophisticated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are limited to moving and reacting to events and State coercion as if they were characters of a sort of economic video game ("videogame economics"). Yet neoclassical pseudoscience, despite its apparent and ever-increasing sophistication, is not capable of accounting for the immense complexity of the real world and rebels against the idea of spontaneous market order in two ways that are equally harmful to human liberty: on the one hand, by promoting the coercive "social engineering" of central banks, States, and governments to use "fine tuning" to force reality toward to the mathematical optimum of their models; and, on the other hand, by labeling as "market failures" everything they believe they observe in reality that does not coincide, in their empirical studies, with their ghostly models of “perfect” equilibrium and adjustment (Milei, 2023); failures that, according to them, refute the "benefits" of the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty, and justify their elimination as soon as possible by a coercive State authority. Note also how neoclassical pseudoscience needs, and feeds upon, the empirical work of the previous pseudoscience, positivism, in order to justify its conclusions against human liberty and in favor of State coercion, so that positivists and neoclassicists join hands and end up reinforcing each other in their reactionary agenda.Third, Keynesianism and macroeconomics as pseudoscience. The very “macro” approach already entails, inevitably, an obvious bias in favor of justifying State intervention, aggression, and coercion against the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1974 (Hayek, 1978), macroeconomists ignore everything they cannot measure, specifically truly relevant economic processes and theories. At the same time, they believe that certain aggregate concepts—which lack genuine economic meaning—possess a “real” existence, that permits to collect empirical information or evidence that can be manipulated and statistically treated. Once again, macroeconomic pseudoscience goes hand in hand with positivist pseudoscience, and the two reinforce with each other in their counterrevolutionary reaction. Furthermore, Keynesianism is particularly harmful: not only does it flatly deny the coordinating capacity of creative entrepreneurship and the spontaneous market order, but it also builds as an alternative explanation a whole model—of course—of equilibrium with permanent unemployment, to justify the coercive intervention of the State in the lives of human beings in the form of all kinds of fiscal and monetary manipulations. Moreover, the macroeconomic and Keynesian pseudoscience feeds upon, and is reinforced by, the pseudoscientific approach of the Neoclassical School, to the point that, the so-called "neoclassical Keynesian synthesis" became, throughout the twentieth century, the main reactionary movement inside Economics. Keynesians and macroeconomists thus become the champions of that intoxication with statism, manipulation, and political power which constitutes the framework, orchestrated by governments and central banks, to which we have, regrettably, become accustomed and in which we are forced to live. This context repeatedly destabilizes the spontaneous market order, generates serious financial and economic crises and social conflicts, and continually hampers the prosperity and advance of civilization.We have left the quasi-religious mysticism of Marxist pseudoscience for last, because Marxism was scientifically dead even before it was born: in fact, it emerged with—and was theoretically demolished by—the subjectivist revolution led by the Austrian School of Economics. From the beginning, the Austrian School's development of time preference and capital theory revealed the contradictions and grave scientific errors of Marxism, while at the same time exposing its pronounced character as an intellectual fraud (Böhm-Bawerk, 1949). This intellectual fraud was historically illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and of virtually all other communist countries, after many decades of unspeakable human suffering for a large part of the world's population, all of which was perfectly consistent with the theory on the impossibility of statism developed by the Austrian School beginning with the von Mises of 1920 (Mises, 1936), and which was the final nail that forever sealed the coffin of the corpse of Marxist pseudoscience (Huerta de Soto, 2010).Finally, in this context, we must mention the destructive role played by a number of distinguished economists who, although they defend liberty and the market economy, could be described as a kind of "useful innocents" in Mises' terminology (Mises, 1947). This is so because, even though they officially oppose rampant statism and defend liberty, by accepting—even if only partially—some of the postulates of the reactionary pseudoscientific currents we have described, they ultimately end up, often without intending to and much to their regret, providing additional impetus to the statist reaction within our discipline; for example, when they insist on advising States with proposals aimed at making them more efficient and at helping them do somewhat better things that they should not be doing at all. By way of illustration, we should include in this category of “useful innocents”, for example, thinkers as the Karl Popper of The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 1966, p. 366), who came to admire the “scientific capacity” and even the “humanism” of Karl Marx, and who proposed a statist strategy of “piecemeal social engineering”; or George Stigler, when he claimed that only empirical evidence could determine which economic system, socialism or capitalism, might function (Stigler, 1975, pp. 1-13); and, more generally, the members of the Chicago School, led by Gary Becker and Milton Friedman. Becker when defending that only economics developed within the strict limits of equilibrium, constancy, and maximization, typical of the neoclassical pseudoscience, constitutes true "economic science." And even more serious could be considered the case of Milton Friedman, whose very sincere love of liberty and intense and popular media support for free markets stand in sharp contrast to his pseudoscientific approach based on the aggregate method of economics of Keynesian origin, on positivist empiricism, and on the full acceptance of the unrealism of assumptions. Only in this way it can be explained Friedman's litany of scientific errors which, much to his regret, have invariably ended up reinforcing statist interventionism, to the point that Hayek himself was forced to conclude that after Keynes's The General Theory, the book that has done the greatest harm to Economic Science has been Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics (Hayek, 1994, pp. 145).The failure of democracy and classical liberalism: the triumph of statismAs we see, many classical liberals and advocates of liberal democracy have also acted as "useful innocents." The fatal error of classical liberals lies in the failure to realize that their program is theoretically impossible, because it incorporates within itself the seeds of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it considers necessary and accepts the existence of a State (even if it is "minimal") understood as the monopolistic agency of institutional coercion. Therefore, the great error of classical liberals is very basic: they believe in a program of political action and economic doctrine that aims to limit the power of the State, while at the same time accepting it and even considering state's existence necessary. However Economic Science has already shown that the State is unnecessary, that statism (even in its minimal form) is theoretically impossible, and that, given human nature, once the State exists, it is impossible to limit its power. On the other hand, liberal democracy is a concept as naïve as it is impossible. Mises already warned us that democracy could only function if all its participants accepted the classical liberal principles, which is impossible because democracy itself encourages and amplifies vote-buying and the partisan use of power. So, the inevitable conclusion is that "liberal democracy" is a contradiction in terms as absurd as speaking (following Anthony de Jasay) of a “square circle,” of “hot snow,” or of a “virgin prostitute” (A. de Jasay, 1990). And even Hayek considered democracy unworkable if it is understood as the exercise of absolute power by majorities (Kratos in classical Greek). It should therefore come as no surprise that democracy once and again tends to be a perverse system based on lying and buying votes with money stolen through taxation.The fact is that the State attracts like a magnet the worst passions and vices of human nature, for instance, when individuals try to obtain rents produced by others using the State's coercive power. Moreover, the combined effect of the privileged groups, the phenomena of governmental myopia and vote-buying, the megalomaniacal character of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies generate a dangerous, unstable and explosive cocktail, continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, are always used by the political caste to justify further doses of intervention and statism that, instead of solving problems, further aggravate them. Statism therefore corrupts the entire social body and at the same time blocks the spontaneous and free market solutions of social and economic problems.In fact, the State has become the "idol" that almost everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time. We are educated to believe that all problems can and must be detected and solved by the State. Our destiny depends on the State, and the politicians who control it are expected to guarantee everything our well-being may require. Human beings remain immature and rebel against their own creative nature, which makes their future always uncertain. They demand a crystal ball that assures them not only knowing what will happen, but also that any problems that arise will be solved for them. This "infantilization" of the masses is encouraged by politicians, as it justifies their own existence and ensures their popularity, position of dominance, and capacity to control. In addition, a whole legion of intellectuals, so-called "experts," and social engineers join in this arrogant intoxication of power. Not even the Church and the most respectable religious denominations have been able to realize that statolatry today constitutes the principal threat to the free, moral, and responsible human being; that the State is a false idol of immense power, worshipped by all, and that does not allow Humanity to be free from its control or have moral or religious loyalties beyond those the state can dominate. Furthermore, it is kept hidden from the public that the state is the true source of social conflicts and evils, and "scapegoats" (such as "capitalism" or private property) are blamed for the problems, and they become the goal of the most serious condemnations, even from moral and religious leaders, almost none of whom have realized the deception or dared to denounce that statolatry is the main threat in the present century to religion, morality, and, therefore, to human civilization.Perhaps the main exception within the Church is included in the brilliant biography of Jesus of Nazareth written by Benedict XVI. That the State and political power constitute the institutional incarnation of the Antichrist should be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of history who reads the former Pope's considerations on the most serious temptation that the Evil One can present to us (and I quote Ratzinger literally): "The tempter is not so crude as to propose to us directly the worship of the devil. He merely proposes that we opt for the rational solution, that we prefer a planned and organized world in which God may have a place as a private spiritual matter, but must not be allowed to interfere in our essential purposes. Soloviev attributes to the Antichrist a book entitled The Open Road to World Peace and Prosperity; it becomes the new Bible, and its core message is the worship of well-being and rational planning," by the state (Ratzinger, 2007). And so, we should not be surprised that, for example, the great author of The Lord of the Rings, J. R. Tolkien, whose Catholic anarchism I fully share, went so far as to say that he would arrest anyone for simply daring to pronounce the word "State." Because the State is, always and everywhere, a reality of violence and systematic coercion against the most intimate essence of the human being, which is his capacity to act freely, creatively, and spontaneously; and so, it is unavoidable to conclude that the State is essentially immoral and that statism constitutes the principal threat to humankind.A theological digression: the dismantling of statism as a logical necessity inseparable from the work of GodAnd almost without realizing it, we can go ahead with a theological digression on how dismantling the State is a logical and moral necessity inseparable from the work of God. I fully understand that referring to God in this conference may come as a shock to many of those present, but I would ask that even those who do not believe in God, at least for dialectical purposes, make an effort of imagination and, for the next few minutes, imagine that God does indeed exist.And what do we mean by God? We must understand God to be a Supreme Being, Creator out of love for all things. And the most important creature that God has created is precisely the human being: in His image and likeness. And if there is a point of connection between God and man, it is precisely in the creative entrepreneurial ability: the capacity to discover, to see, and to create new things, goals and actions. But now I am going to go one step further and attempt to demonstrate that God is not only the Supreme, loving Creator of all things, but that—moreover—God is libertarian.And what does it mean to say that God is libertarian? It means that God, the Lord of all the Universe, has absolute power over it, and yet He chooses not to use force, but always leaves his creatures free. To the point that He gives human beings the freedom to rebel against Him; even though, again and again, God forgives human beings and allows them to rise up and begin anew.God always lets the universe He has created, flow in a spontaneous manner ("laissez faire, laissez passer, le monde va de lui même" could be the motto of our libertarian God). And this despite the fact that human beings tempt God again and again and demand that He manifest His absolute power, that He give us clear and indisputable signs of His existence and supreme power in order for us to believe in Him. But of course, God does not accept our challenge. Why? Because love and liberty are inseparable, and a forced conversion, for example by an evident cataclysm, would be completely contrary to that liberty with which God has created human beings out of love.Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not of this world; Jesus himself says this to a fearful Roman state official, who was also in charge of judging him: "My kingdom is not of this world." Does this mean that there are two types of kingdoms? The kingdoms of this world or States, which would be legitimate at their own level (remember "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"), and the Kingdom of God, of ("render unto God the things that are God's"). That is the standard interpretation that has prevailed until now, but I think is completely wrong. The Kingdom of God—which is the exact opposite of the kingdoms or States of this world—never makes systematic use of violence and coercion: it is a Kingdom that has already come to us and, moreover, has been given to us freely, in an act of immense mercy and love (Deus caritas est). And just as the hateful institution of slavery came to an end, the Kingdom of God will also dismantle the kingdoms of this world, the states of this world, or as St. Paul said, of every principality, power, and glory (Ephesians 1:21-23), because God is libertarian and man is made in the image and likeness of God.Ludwig von Mises, in his book Interventionism, introduced the term "destructionism" to refer to the economic and social effects of statism. If Evil (represented by statist destructionism in Mises' terminology) were to prevail, the human race and civilization would have disappeared long ago. The fact that, despite everything and the immense power of seduction of statism over humankind, the process of social cooperation continues to unfold and even prosper in certain historical periods and geographical areas, is a clear manifestation that God does not abandon the world nor leave libertarians alone in their struggle against the Evil; and that Good, represented by liberty, the principle of non-aggression, the spontaneous order of the market, entrepreneurial creativity and coordination, and above all, moral principles, always with God's help, prevails and is capable of overcoming Evil, represented by the fatal conceit of the statist ideal and the destruction that it produces.And now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human natureAnd now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human nature. The most important intellectual and moral event that is taking place nowadays is the full fusion between Christianity and anarcho-capitalism. Because anarcho-capitalism is the only possible system of social cooperation that is truly compatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is the purest representation of the spontaneous market order in which all services, including law, justice, and public order, are provided through a voluntary process of social cooperation. In this system, no area is closed to the drive of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination; efficiency and justice in the resolution of problems are simultaneously enhanced, while the conflicts, inefficiencies, and discoordinations generated by the State are eradicated at their root.The progressive abolition of States and their gradual replacement by a dynamic network of private agencies different legal systems, and providing all kinds of prevention and defense services, constitutes the most important social transformation that will take place in the twenty first century. Without forgetting that exactly what prevents us from knowing with precision what the future without the state will look like, the creative nature of entrepreneurship, is what gives us the peace of mind of knowing that any problem will tend to be resolved and overcome, once the entrepreneurial effort and creativity of Humanity are devoted to its solution (Kirzner, 1985).Therefore, the revolution against the “Old Régime” carried out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the old classical liberals, today finds its natural continuation in the anarcho-capitalist revolution of the twenty-first century. The message of anarcho-capitalism is clearly revolutionary. Revolutionary in terms of its goal: the dismantling of the State and its replacement by a competitive market process consisting of a network of private agencies, associations, and organizations. And revolutionary in terms of its means, especially in the scientific, economic-social, and political fields:a) First, Scientific revolution, in the field of Economic Science, which becomes the general theory of spontaneous market order extended to all social areas. And by contrast and opposition, the theory and analysis of the effects of social discoordination generated by statism in any sphere in which it operates, as well as the study of the transition process from the State towards liberty.b) Second, an Economic and social revolution, as we cannot even imagine today the immense human achievements and discoveries that could be made in an entrepreneurial environment totally free from statism. Today, and despite continuous governmental harassment, an unknown civilization is already developing, with a degree of complexity that is beyond the reach and control of the state, and which will achieve unlimited expansion once it manages to completely rid itself of statism. And when human beings become more and more aware of the perverse nature of the State that restricts them, and of the immense possibilities that are frustrated each day when the State blocks the driving force of their entrepreneurial creativity, the social demand to reform and dismantle the State will multiply creating a future that is largely unknown to us but that will elevate human civilization to heights that we cannot even imagine today.c) And finally, a political revolution in which, although day-to-day political struggle is important, it should not be the top priority. It is true that the least interventionist alternatives must always be supported, in clear alliance with the efforts of classical liberals in their long term impossible democratic limitation of the State (including reforms such as those proposed by Hayek in the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty). But the anarcho-capitalist does not stop at this task, for he knows that he can and must do much more. He knows that the ultimate goal is the total dismantling of the State, and this goal leads all his imagination and political action in everyday life. And here we cannot fail to mention the unprecedented impact of our disciple and follower of our Master Program in Austrian Economics in Madrid, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, who has done more than anyone else before to disseminate the principles of the Austrian School and the anarcho-capitalist ideal. Principles that he never ceases to quote and explain and defend once and again in all his public appearances, from the United Nations to the Davos Forum; and in all his meetings with other Heads of State, universities, and parliaments, to whom he even gives copies of the most important Austrian works by Mises, Hayek and even myself, as he did, for example, with the two popes, Francis and Leo XIV, with the French President Macron, the Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and even with Elon Musk. For us, it is a great honor that Milei has, to a large extent, emerged from the Austrian School of Madrid and that he continually keeps drawing inspiration from us. This is, without a doubt, much more important than incremental political steps in the right direction—which should of course be welcomed—and that should never fall into a political pragmatism that could betray the ultimate goal of achieving the end of the State (Huerta de Soto, 2010).And all this with tireless enthusiasm in the search for scientific and moral truth, an attitude that, inspired by the immortal work of Miguel de Cervantes, we could describe as follows: "It matters not whether they be giants or windmills, when the plume of our helm is stirred by the winds of tenacity and faith." And always creating a future that, although it may seem distant today, may at any moment witness giant steps that will surprise even the most optimistic among us. History has entered into an accelerated process of change which, although it will never stop, will open a whole new chapter when humankind finally succeeds in ridding itself definitively of the State, reducing it to no more than a dark historical relic of tragic memory.Thank you very much.REFERENCESBASTIAT, Frédéric: Selected Essays on Political Economy, Foundation for Economic Education, New York 1995.DE LA BOÉTIE, Étienne: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Free Life Editions, Nueva York 1975.BÖHM-BAWERK, Eugen von: Karl Marx and the Close of His System, Augustus M. Kelley, Nueva York 1949."The Exploitation Theory," Capital and Interest, Vol. I: History and Critique of Interest Theories, Libertarian Press, South Holland 1959.HAYEK, Friedrich A. von: The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press, New York, 1955.Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue (eds. Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994.Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. III: The Political Order of a Free People, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1979.The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988."The Pretence of Knowledge," in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1978.HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús: Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2010."A Hayekian Strategy to Implement Free Market Reforms," in Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, Routledge, Oxfordshire, 2010.Proyecto Docente, Chapter I: "Ciencia y Economía," Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid 2000.The Austrian School: Market Order and Creative Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2008.DE JASAY, Anthony: Market Socialism: A Scrutiny, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Occasional Paper no. 84, 1990.KIRZNER, Israel: "The Perils of Regulation: A Market Process Approach" in Discovery and the Capitalist Process, University of Chicago Press, 1985.LIGGIO, Leonard: "The Hispanic tradition of Liberty," published in Procesos de Mercado: Revista Europea de Economía Política, vol. XXII, nº 1, Summer 2025, pp. 403-420.MARTÍNEZ MARINA, Francisco: Teoría de las cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los reinos de León y Castilla, Collado, 1820.MILEI, Javier: Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap, in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume II (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.MISES, Ludwig von: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Jonathan Cape, London 1936.Planned Chaos, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson 1947.OPPENHEIMER, Franz: The State, Vanguard Press, Nueva York 1926.POPESCU, Oreste: Studies in the History of Latin American Economic Thought, Routledge, London 1997.POPPER, Karl: The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1966.RATZINGER, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. Translated by Adrian J. Walker. Doubleday, New York, 2007.ROTHBARD, Murray N.: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (editor Edwin G. Dolan), Sheed and Ward, Kansas City 1976, pp. 52–74.Anatomy of the State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn 2009.SALERNO, Joseph. "Milton Friedman's Views on Method and Money Reconsidered in Light of the Housing Bubble", in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume I, (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.STIGLER, George: The Citizen and the State, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-13.

O Brasil vive um "curto-circuito" de memória e identidade, e as instituições religiosas não estão imunes a esse fenômeno. Neste episódio crucial do Módulo 3 da série "A ORDEM", mergulhamos em um diagnóstico sóbrio e urgente da estrutura da Igreja. Utilizamos ferramentas de análise metapolítica e econômica — de Adam Smith a John Maynard Keynes e Friedrich Hayek — para entender como uma organização, criada para ser um organismo vivo, pode acabar se tornando uma máquina estéril de manutenção. Neste episódio, discutimos: 1. O Mecanismo vs. O Organismo: Quando a estabilidade administrativa substitui a vitalidade da missão. 2. A "Mente Capturada" na Igreja: Como as 11 feridas da cultura brasileira afetam a percepção da nossa identidade profética . 3. Keynes vs. Hayek na Eclesiologia: O perigo do planejamento centralizado e a necessidade de recuperar a "ordem espontânea" da Igreja Primitiva. 4. O Custo Humano: Como a rotatividade pastoral e o clericalismo ferem o pastoreio encarnacional. 5. Reforma, não Revolução: Uma proposta de transição estratégica baseada em novas métricas de discipulado e na descentralização responsável. Este episódio é uma defesa da organização adventista em sua essência mais pura. Entendemos que a estrutura é um instrumento dado por Deus, e é justamente por zelar por ela que propomos uma 'reforma de recalibração'. O foco não é a revolução, mas o retorno aos princípios de movimento e sacerdócio universal que marcaram nossos pioneiros. É uma proposta para que a instituição seja a plataforma de lançamento de uma geração verdadeiramente profética. Tese do Prof. Dr. Marcelo Dias - https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2865&context=dissertations Links Instagram http://instagram.com/alexpalmeira7 Podcast Catalisadores http://open.spotify.com/show/6zJyD0vW8MnyRKPYZtk3B5?si=065e95b72bca4b13 X http://x.com/alexpalmeira9 Facebook http://facebook.com/profile.php?id=100069360678042

Kyle discusses the investing evolution of John Maynard Keynes and the timeless lessons modern investors can draw from his successes and failures. IN THIS EPISODE YOU'LL LEARN: 00:00:00 - Intro 00:03:50 - Why John Maynard Keynes is such a fascinating case study in evolving as an investor 00:08:28 - A key resource that helped him think of assets from a bottom-up approach 00:10:59 - Why Keynes's experiences of going broke multiple times helped shape him into a long-term thinker 00:17:13 - How he thought about speculation and investing, and used that to beat the market 00:28:16 - How he improved his temperament, overcame overconfidence, and adopted a long-term mindset 00:36:21 - His thoughts on diversification and reducing risk 00:41:30 - Why he believed that markets were social systems, and the errors that exposed investors to 00:50:25 - What he thought about short-term volatility 01:01:16 - Why Keynes used adaptability as such a powerful tool 01:03:50 - Six impactful takeaways Disclaimer: Slight discrepancies in the timestamps may occur due to podcast platform differences. BOOKS AND RESOURCES Join the exclusive ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Mastermind Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to engage in meaningful stock investing discussions with Stig, Clay, Kyle, and the other community members. Learn how to join us in Omaha for the Berkshire meeting ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Read ⁠Keynes and the Market⁠. Read ⁠Concentrated Investing⁠. Follow Kyle on ⁠X⁠ and ⁠LinkedIn⁠. Related ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠books⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ mentioned in the podcast. Ad-free episodes on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Premium Feed⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. NEW TO THE SHOW? Get smarter about valuing businesses in just a few minutes each week through our newsletter, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Intrinsic Value Newsletter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Check out our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠We Study Billionaires Starter Packs⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Follow our official social media accounts: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Browse through all our episodes ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠here⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Try our tool for picking stock winners and managing our portfolios: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TIP Finance Tool⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Enjoy exclusive perks from our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠favorite Apps and Services⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn how to better start, manage, and grow your business with the ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠best business podcasts⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. SPONSORS Support our free podcast by supporting our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠sponsors⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠: ⁠HardBlock⁠ ⁠Human Rights Foundation⁠ ⁠Simple Mining⁠ ⁠Unchained⁠ ⁠Masterworks⁠ ⁠Netsuite⁠ ⁠Vanta⁠ ⁠Shopify⁠ ⁠Fundrise⁠ References to any third-party products, services, or advertisers do not constitute endorsements, and The Investor's Podcast Network is not responsible for any claims made by them. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://theinvestorspodcastnetwork.supportingcast.fm

Alex Howlett, an independent scholar affiliated with The Greshm Institute, discusses Universal Basic Income (UBI). Beginning with Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), an offshoot of post-Keynesianism, he addresses its key principles: notably Keynes' belief that the Great Depression was caused by a deficiency in aggregate demand, leading to sustained involuntary unemployment that the market could not self-correct. Howlett deflates Keynesian theory that assumes that economic policy aims for full employment, asking, “To what extent actually does it make sense for people to be workers?” while explaining that labour is not the most effective or efficient way to get money to people. Howlett sees UBI as solving this problem of distributing money to people while dispensing with the need to ensure that everyone has a job, dispelling the notion that only if every single person is working can an economy run at full capacity. Assessing some of the major criticisms of UBI—from fiscal feasibility, economic incentives, and social justice—he responds to the fears of inflation, worries that borrowing will lead to reckless fiscal policy and a loss of central bank independence, or that UBI would dismantle already established welfare programmes. Responding to counter-arguments to UBI, such as the claim that the economy will not have the labour pool it requires or that people won't be working as much, Howlett turns these arguments on their head demonstrating how the demand for labour is artificially inflated as a way of getting people jobs, noting the historical overstimulation of the financial sector to encourage firms to borrow so they hire workers. Howlett contends that with UBI, the economy does not have to play into the push and pull of labour supply and demand, stating, “You hear this fear that people aren't going to work as much at the same time that you hear this fear that there aren't going to be enough jobs available, right? It's like, well, wait a minute…. Isn't it good if those things kind of go together?” Get full access to Savage Minds at savageminds.substack.com/subscribe

Patricia and Christian talk to economist and author Dr Phil Armstrong about the least useful pieces of economic commentary from the last 12 months.   In this episode: "Sure, the government *can* create money… (but it shouldn't)" "It's okay for the government to 'borrow'… if it's investing" "The national debt is a time bomb!" "Government 'borrowing' is okay… when interest rates are low"   More to follow in part 2   Full conversation here: https://www.patreon.com/posts/150931987?pr=true   Please help sustain this podcast!  Patrons get early access to all episodes and patron-only episodes: https://www.patreon.com/MMTpodcast   ******************************** STOP PRESS!!  JOIN PATRICIA AND MMT CO-FOUNDER PROFESSOR BILL MITCHELL AT THE LAUNCH OF A NEW DEDICATED MODERN MONETARY THEORY THINK TANK - MMTUK POLICY RESEARCH GROUP!  7pm on Wednesday 25 February at Friends Meeting House, London Click here to register as an attendee: https://actionnetwork.org/events/mmtuk-launch-event/ MMTUK will be publishing its Job Guarantee policy on 25th February - read a short intro here: https://mmtuk.org/job-guarantee  ********************************   Relevant to this episode: Join Patricia and Phil (and many more) at Scotland's Festival of Economics (Edinburgh and online) 19th - 21st March 2026: https://www.scoteconfest.org/#learnmore Join the new MMT UK discord server to connect with others looking to promote MMT and ecological economics in the UK!: https://discord.gg/S3UbxFe4FR "The self-financing state: An institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom" (Berkeley et al, 2022): https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/sites/bartlett/files/the_self-financing_state_an_institutional_analysis_of_government_expenditure_revenue_collection_and_debt_issuance_operations_in_the_united_kingdom.pdf For more on the (Liz) Trussageddon, listen to Episode 147 - Dirk Ehnts: Do Markets Control Our Politics?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-147-dirk-72906421 "How to Fight Back Against the False Idea that the Government is at the Mercy of Financial Markets" by Sheridan Kates: https://thealternative.org.uk/dailyalternative/2025/3/10/scotonomics-monetary-autonomy "There is no need to issue public debt" by Bill Mitchell: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=31715 Episode 148 - Pavlina Tcherneva: Why The Job Guarantee Is Core To Modern Monetary Theory: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-148-why-73211346 Quick read: Pavlina Tcherneva's Job Guarantee FAQ page: https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/job-guarantee-faq/ Episode 30 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 1) :https://www.patreon.com/posts/29621245 Episode 31 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 2):  https://www.patreon.com/posts/29829500 "Federal Debt and Modern Money" by Steven Hail & David Joy: https://www.global-isp.org/wp-content/uploads/PN-121.pdf "Is exchange rate depreciation inflationary?" by Bill Mitchell: https://billmitchell.org/blog/?p=32922     Podcast Description In this compelling first part of their annual Fauxbel Prize discussion, Patricia Pino and Christian Reilly are joined by economist Dr Phil Armstrong to dissect the most deceptive economic talking points of 2026. What emerges is a masterclass in identifying the subtle linguistic tricks that maintain public misunderstanding about how government finance actually works. The conversation begins with Christian's astute observation about the phrase 'the government *can* create money' - a seemingly innocent statement that actually perpetuates dangerous misconceptions. As the panel explores, there's a world of difference between saying the government 'can' create money versus acknowledging that it 'does' create money with every pound it spends. This distinction matters because it allows economists and pundits to maintain outdated frameworks whilst appearing to acknowledge MMT insights. Dr Armstrong brings his characteristic clarity to explaining the consolidated view of government and central bank operations, illustrating why all government spending necessarily involves money creation. Using vivid analogies - from goldfish that must swim in water to the government's unique relationship with the Bank of England - he demonstrates why currency-issuing governments are fundamentally different from currency users like households or businesses. The discussion then tackles the politically damaging notion that governments should only 'borrow to invest'. Patricia explains why this framing misunderstands the true function of deficits whilst inadvertently supporting neoliberal arguments for privatisation. The panel reveals how this seemingly progressive talking point actually reinforces the household analogy and hands ammunition to fiscal conservatives. In his analysis of the 'public debt time bomb' narrative, Phil turns conventional wisdom on its head by pointing out that if foreign debt holdings were truly a source of power, then Britain - as the second-largest holder of US Treasury securities - would presumably have a decisive degree of control over America's economic destiny. Throughout, the conversation illuminates core MMT principles: the operational reality of government spending, the true nature of government bonds as private sector savings, and why exchange rate concerns, whilst legitimate, shouldn't drive us back to defunct fiscal rules. The panel's analysis reveals how even well-intentioned progressive economists can inadvertently perpetuate harmful misconceptions about monetary sovereignty.   =========== Key Topics with Timestamps [02:15] Introduction to the Fauxbel Prize concept[05:30] "Government can create money" vs "does create money"[12:45] The consolidated view of government and central bank[18:20] Why all government spending is money creation[25:10] "Borrowing to invest" - the progressive own goal[35:45] Historical context: Keynes and bifurcating budgets[42:30] The "Tap" system vs bond auctions[48:15] "Public debt = time bomb" narrative analysis[55:40] Exchange rate concerns and industrial policy   ========= Guest Bio Dr Phil Armstrong - Economist and author of "Can Heterodox Economics Make a Difference?". Researcher with expertise in monetary operations and MMT analysis. Key Takeaways Language matters: The difference between "can" and "does" in describing government money creation shapes public understanding All government spending creates new money: Currency-issuing governments cannot spend previously collected money - every expenditure creates new money The "government borrowing to Invest" narrative is counterproductive: This framing reinforces household analogies and supports privatisation arguments A government "debt" clock is a national SAVINGS clock: Government debt represents private sector savings, not a burden Exchange rate policy needs strategy: Arbitrary fiscal rules won't address structural economic vulnerabilities   ===============   All our episodes in chronological order: https://www.patreon.com/posts/43111643   All our patron-only episodes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/57542767   Scotland's Festival of Economics (Edinburgh and online)  19th - 21st March 2026: https://www.scoteconfest.org/#learnmore   JOIN PATRICIA'S MMT ACTIVIST NETWORK (MMT UK): https://actionnetwork.org/forms/activist-registration-form   Join the MMT UK Discord server to connect with others looking to promote MMT and ecological economics in the UK!: https://discord.gg/S3UbxFe4FR   MMT: THE MOVIE! "Finding The Money", a documentary by Maren Poitras featuring Stephanie Kelton is now available worldwide to rent or buy: https://findingthemoney.vhx.tv/products/finding-the-money Updates on worldwide screenings of "Finding The Money" can be found here: https://findingmoneyfilm.com/where-to-watch/ To arrange a screening of "Finding The Money", apply here: https://findingmoneyfilm.com/host-a-screening/   STUDY THE ECONOMICS OF SUSTAINABILITY! Details of Modern Money Lab's online graduate, postgraduate and standalone courses in economics are here: https://modernmoneylab.org.au/     For an intro to MMT: Our first three episodes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41742417 Episode 126 - Dirk Ehnts: How Banks Create Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/62603318   Quick MMT reads: Warren's Mosler's MMT white paper: http://moslereconomics.com/mmt-white-paper/ Steven Hail's quick MMT explainer: https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-modern-monetary-theory-72095 Quick explanation of government debt and deficit: "Some Numbers Are Big. Let Me Help You Get Over It": https://christreilly.com/2020/02/17/some-numbers-are-big-let-me-help-you-get-over-it/     For a short, non-technical, free ebook explaining MMT, download Warren Mosler's "7 Deadly Innocent Frauds Of Economic Policy" here: http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf     Episodes on monetary operations:  Episode 20 - Warren Mosler: The MMT Money Story (part 1): https://www.patreon.com/posts/28004824 Episode 126 - Dirk Ehnts: How Banks Create Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/62603318 Episode 13 - Steven Hail: Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Banking, But Were Afraid To Ask: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41790887 Episode 43 - Sam Levey: Understanding Endogenous Money: https://www.patreon.com/posts/35073683  Episode 84 - Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 1): https://www.patreon.com/posts/46352183 Episode 86 - Andrew Berkeley, Richard Tye & Neil Wilson: An Accounting Model Of The UK Exchequer (Part 2): https://www.patreon.com/posts/46865929    For more on Quantitative Easing: Episode 59 - Warren Mosler: What Do Central Banks Do?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/39070023 Episode 143 - Paul Sheard: What Is Quantitative Easing?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/71589989?pr=true    Episodes on inflation: Episode 7: Steven Hail: Inflation, Price Shocks and Other Misunderstandings: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41780508 Episode 65 - Phil Armstrong: Understanding Inflation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/40672678 Episode 104 - John T Harvey: Inflation, Stagflation & Healing The Nation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/52207835 Episode 123 - Warren Mosler: Understanding The Price Level And Inflation: https://www.patreon.com/posts/59856379 Episode 128 - L. Randall Wray & Yeva Nersisyan: What's Causing Accelerating Inflation? Pandemic Or Policy Response?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/63776558   Our Job Guarantee episodes:  Episode 4 - Fadhel Kaboub: What is the Job Guarantee?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/41742701 Episode 47 - Pavlina Tcherneva: Building Resilience - The Case For A Job Guarantee: https://www.patreon.com/posts/36034543 Episode 148 - Pavlina Tcherneva: Why The Job Guarantee Is Core To Modern Monetary Theory: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-148-why-73211346 Quick read: Pavlina Tcherneva's Job Guarantee FAQ page: https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/job-guarantee-faq/   More on government bonds (and "vigilantes"): Episode 30 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 1):https://www.patreon.com/posts/29621245 Episode 31 - Steven Hail: Understanding Government Bonds (Part 2): https://www.patreon.com/posts/29829500 Episode 143 - Paul Sheard: What Is Quantitative Easing?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/71589989?pr=true Episode 147 - Dirk Ehnts: Do Markets Control Our Politics?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/episode-147-dirk-72906421 Episode 144 - Warren Mosler: The Natural Rate Of Interest Is Zero: https://www.patreon.com/posts/71966513 Episode 145 - John T Harvey: What Determines Currency Prices?: https://www.patreon.com/posts/72283811?pr=true   More on bank runs banking regulation:  Episode 162 - Warren Mosler: Anatomy Of A Bank Run: https://www.patreon.com/posts/80157783?pr=true Episode 163 - L. Randall Wray: Breaking Banks - The Fed's Magical Monetarist Thinking Strikes Again: https://www.patreon.com/posts/80479169?pr=true Episode 165 - Robert Hockett: Sparking An Industrial Renewal By Building Banks Better: https://www.patreon.com/posts/81084983?pr=true MMT founder Warren Mosler's Proposals for the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the FDIC, and the Banking System: https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2010/02/warren-moslers-proposals-for-treasury.html     MMT Events And Courses: More information about Professor Bill Mitchell's MMTed project (free public online courses in MMT) here: http://www.mmted.org/ Details of Modern Money Lab's online graduate and postgraduate courses in MMT and real-world economics are here: https://modernmoneylab.org.au/     Order the Gower Initiative's "Modern Monetary Theory - Key Insights, Leading Thinkers": https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/modern-monetary-theory-9781802208085.html   MMT Academic Resources compiled by The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies: https://www.zotero.org/groups/2251544/mmt_academic_resources_-_compiled_by_the_gower_initiative_for_modern_money_studies   MMT scholarship compiled by New Economic Perspectives: http://neweconomicperspectives.org/mmt-scholarship     A list of MMT-informed campaigns and organisations worldwide: https://www.patreon.com/posts/47900757     We are working towards full transcripts, but in the meantime, closed captions for all episodes are available on our YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEp_nGVTuMfBun2wiG-c0Ew/videos     Show notes: https://www.patreon.com/posts/151023856

Last episode, we talked about the brewing conflict between what currently passes for mainstream conservatism and the schizophrenic reactionary Groyper politics of Nick Fuentes. Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired We wrapped things up with the idea that conservatism has never really bothered to conserve anything. Aside from a few exceptions, most of the time they keep themselves busy fighting culture wars about immigration, civil rights, women's rights, Christianity, and demonizing organized labor. What they keep trying to “conserve” is whatever the status quo power dynamic was when their grandad was a kid.  After the Civil War, they wanted slavery back. Women's suffrage, desegregation—they wanted to get rid of all those things. This isn't the first fight inside conservatism. As part of its periodic reinvention of itself, conservatives have gone back to the political well and dredged up the same slogans more than once. We tied this malleable idea of conservatism in with the evolution of the field of unashamed ideological political economists into what we now think of as the pseudoscience of Economics. At least the political economists were up front about whatever ideological bent they had. If you were a socialist, you'd start with your convictions about socialism being the absolute best way of running society on offer, and they work to come up with an economic theory or plan that made it seem possible. It was honest. By the time the 1800s were wrapping up, that wasn't good enough. Economists wanted to be taken more seriously, so they started dressing the whole thing up like they were doing physics or pure math. They could talk about whatever economic system as if they were describing the laws of nature. That didn't get rid of the ideology, though. It just buried it under metric tons of academic jargon and complicated formulas. After all, what's the difference between modeling a tsunami and a stock market crash? The answer is that the tsunami wasn't caused by Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. That all brings us around to FDR's New Deal and the era of John Maynard Keynes and what Matt Christman has called his "Keynesian machine for dispensing treats". As many contradictions as Keynes gathered into his economic model, it remains the only proven way to maintain capitalism. To set the tone, David Talbot has a quote in his book The Devil's Chessboard about Bertie Pell, a friend of FDR's who Talbot described as a “full-on traitor to his class”. “I am almost the last capitalist who is willing to be saved by you,” Pell wrote Roosevelt in 1936 in a letter beseeching the president to draft him for the New Deal cause. The following year, Pell wrote again, praising FDR's accomplishments: “Your administration has made possible the continuance of American institutions for at least fifty years. You have done for the government what St. Francis did for the Catholic Church. You have brought it back to the people.” It turns out Pell was eerily correct. Those institutions managed to last just a little longer than 50 years. They are about gone now, though. Our long promised merch is here!! Fly your crypto-leftist flag with our personal love letter to Juan José Arévalo, philosopher and socialist president of Guatemala, and the airline he nationalized. wetwired.printful.me/ Subscribe on Patreon to support making this show, get premium only episodes, and listen to our entire back catalog. patreon.com/wetwired Music:Airglow - Spliff and Wesson (CC-BY)

Thanks for your support! We couldn't do this without you. For more content, early access and the chance to put questions to future guests, join our community on Substack HERE: https://open.substack.com/pub/winstonmarshallIn this episode of The Winston Marshall Show, I sit down with historian and peer Lord Andrew Roberts for a sweeping conversation on Britain after 1945, the defeat of Churchill, and the post-war settlement that shaped the modern world.We begin with why Winston Churchill lost the 1945 general election, despite winning the war, and how promises of state provision, nationalisation, and the Beveridge Report reshaped British politics. Lord Roberts explains how wartime socialism, propaganda, and unrealistic expectations laid the foundations for decades of economic stagnation.The discussion explores Britain's post-war decline, austerity, debt, and the illusion of prosperity created by Lend-Lease, Marshall Plan aid, and Keynesian economics. We examine why Germany and Japan rebuilt faster than Britain, how trade unions and high taxation crippled growth, and why successive governments chose to manage decline rather than confront it.We also discuss immigration, the welfare state, deindustrialisation, and how the failures of the 1945 settlement echo through Brexit, Trump, globalisation, and the collapse of the rules-based international order. Lord Roberts reflects on NATO, the United Nations, American power, and why the West now faces a historic turning point.A wide-ranging and authoritative conversation about history, power, leadership, and whether Britain can rediscover the courage to reverse its long decline.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------WATCH EXTENDED CONVERSATION HERE: https://open.substack.com/pub/winstonmarshall/p/why-winston-churchill-lost-the-1945?r=18lfab&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 00:00 Introduction 02:23 Why did Churchill lose the 1945 Election05:00 Appeasement, Blame & the Conservative Collapse06:34 The Beveridge Report & the Dream of a New Jerusalem10:51 War Socialism, Lend-Lease & National Delusion12:36 Bankruptcy, Austerity & Britain's Financial Reality14:28 Why Germany & Japan Recovered Faster17:24 Keynes, American Loans & Avoiding Collapse22:23 The Marshall Plan & Stopping European Communism24:09 Learning the Wrong Lessons from Victory28:04 Trade Unions, Inflation & the Road to the 1970s33:24 Immigration After the War & Changing Britain39:35 Corelli Barnett & Britain's Long Economic Decline54:43 The Revolt Against the 1945 Settlement1:07:43 Leadership, Thatcher & Britain's Future Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Since our species first emerged on the planet some 300,000 years ago, the overriding problem for most humans has been the struggle for food and shelter. But in 1930, the British economist John Maynard Keynes foresaw that economic growth (despite the Great Depression) would mean that in a century, the vast majority of people in developed societies would enjoy mass plenty and only a small number of unfortunates would still struggle with material deprivation. This would mean that “for the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem — how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.” But Keynes worried that transitioning to this new problem would present huge difficulties for humanity: “there is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age of leisure and abundance without dread.”Brink Lindsey, senior vice president at the Niskanen Center, has written a visionary new book addressing Keynes' conundrum. In The Permanent Problem: The Uncertain Transition from Mass Plenty to Mass Flourishing, Lindsey ponders the paradox that people in developed countries live in conditions of unparalleled wealth, health, and technological progress — and yet most people feel disappointment rather than gratitude at the results. We enjoy an abundance of material goods, yet most people are missing out on the sense of meaning, purpose, and belonging that define human flourishing.In this podcast discussion, Lindsey describes the “triple crisis of capitalism” that has brought material prosperity but also social disintegration, sputtering dynamism, and dysfunctional politics. But he also sees encouraging signs that point toward how mass flourishing might be accomplished in developments that include new technological breakthroughs and the growing Abundance movement. Ultimately he hopes for a future in which people will have closer relationships with each other as well as the natural world, and in which humanity's drive to explore and understand will reach into the larger universe. “Our destiny is up to us,” he concludes, “and therefore we should make the most of that chance. We ought to aim high.”

The inevitable never happens. It is the unexpected always. -- J.M. Keynes 1938   Almost everyone plays with predicting the future. Persons who speak with presumed authority and say that some outlandish thing is inevitable often get a lot of media attention. The more media attention, the more people come to think that the outlandish thing really is inevitable. In warfare, I have lived through the inevitability of guerilla warfare as the model for all future warfare; the inevitable demise armored warfare, the transformation of maneuver warfare; counter-insurgency warfare as the inevitable future war form; and more recently, that drones will so dominate the battlefield, that all previous forms of warfighting will be obsolete. In my opinion, inevitability has a rather bad track record. From time to time in these podcasts, I will revisit some of these predictions and see which of these were inevitable and which were overcome by reality.   The information in these podcasts is solely my own opinion and do not represent the position of the U.S. Department of Defense, or any other organization I am or have ever been associated with.   Certified 100% natural intelligence. No artificial intelligence was used in making this podcast.   References: Pournelle, J., The Mercenary, (1977, republished 1986, ISBN 9780671655945) Recompiled with other works of the series and published as: Pournelle, J. and Stirling, M., The Prince (2002) (ISBN 0-7434-3556-7) Heinlein, R., Starship Troopers, (1959) ISBN 978-0450044496 Music: Kiilstofte, P. Mercenaries, Machinamasound (Licensed)

In the latest episode of The Break–Down, host Adrienne Buller is joined by renowned economist Ann Pettifor to discuss her new book, The Global Casino: How Wall Street Gambles with People and Planet.We've all heard the refrain. Whenever a politician proposes a policy that might genuinely improve people's lives — free and fast buses, affordable housing, large-scale renewable energy — the response is immediate: we can't afford it. Media pundits and technocrats fixate on national debt, balanced budgets and the need not to “spook” the ever-mysterious bond vigilantes.This obsession doesn't just dominate public debate — it paralyses action on the very challenges we urgently need to confront, from transforming our energy system to properly funding care for the most vulnerable.As this episode makes clear, it's also profoundly misleading.The Global Casino traces the extraordinary power of Wall Street, revisits Keynes's legacy, and asks a fundamental question: what is money, really? For Ann Pettifor, money is an extraordinary human invention — one that could be used to reshape our world for the better, rather than to enrich a powerful few.In today's episode, she explains how — and why it matters now more than ever.

This week, Bob talks with macroeconomist Roger Farmer—who places himself “between Keynes and Hayek”—about how twentieth-century macroeconomics evolved. They discuss how overlapping generations and search theory change the story on unemployment and asset prices, and where Professor Farmer thinks both neoclassicals and MMT advocates go wrong. Farmer contrasts the old “rocking horse” vision of the economy with his preferred “windy boat” metaphor, where the economy can drift for long periods, and variables like unemployment behave more like random walks than quick returns to a single steady state.Related:Professor Farmer's Article, "How New Keynesian Economics Betrays Keynes": Mises.org/HAP532aThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Hayek for the 21st Century. Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

George Selgin has spent over four decades thinking about money, banking, and economic history, and Tyler has known him for nearly all of it. Selgin's new book False Dawn: The New Deal and the Promise of Recovery, 1933–1947 examines what the New Deal actually accomplished—and failed to accomplish—in confronting the Great Depression.  Tyler and George discuss the surprising lack of fiscal and monetary stimulus in the New Deal, whether revaluing gold was really the best path to economic reflation, how much Glass-Steagall and other individual parts of the New Deal mattered, Keynes' "very sound" advice to Roosevelt, why Hayek's analysis fell short, whether America would've done better with a more concentrated banking sector, how well the quantity theory of money holds up, his vision for a "night watchman" Fed, how many countries should dollarize, whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay interest, his stake in a fractional-reserve Andalusian donkey ownership scheme, why his Spanish vocabulary is particularly strong on plumbing, his ambivalence about the eurozone, what really got America out of the Great Depression, and more. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video on the new dedicated Conversations with Tyler channel. Recorded September 26th, 2025. Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Follow George on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo Credit: Richie Downs